Planning Committee - Wednesday 6 December 2023, 6:30pm - Start video at 0:05:38 - Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Webcasting
Agenda
Slides
Transcript
Map
Resources
Forums
Speakers
Feedback
Votes
Speaking:
Agenda item :
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
-
Seat 3
Slide 1
Agenda item :
1 Chair's Introduction
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
2 Apologies
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
3 Declarations of Interest
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
5 Site Inspections
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 8 November 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/01122/FULL 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01123/LBC 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Share this agenda point
-
Seat 3
Agenda item :
8 Appeal decisions for noting dated 26 October 2023 to 27 November 2023
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
9 Urgent Business
Share this agenda point
Agenda item :
10 Date of Next Meeting
Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.
Seat 3 - 0:00:00
good evening welcomed to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday, the 6th of December 2023.I am Councillor Bland Chair of this Committee.
before we get on to the agenda items, please give your full attention to the following announcements from o'clock, Mrs Murray, thank you.
thank you, Chair and good evening everybody in the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace officers will escort you via the most direct available route, and no one is to use the lift.
we will make our way to the fire assembly point, which is by the entrance to the Town Hall Yard car park, on Manston Way, and once outside a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left, no one has to re-enter the building until advised that it is safe to do so this is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live online, a recording will also be available for playback on the Council's website shortly afterwards.
can I remind everyone to use the microphones when speaking the red light indicates that the microphone is on and any comments that are not recorded for the webcast will not be included in the minutes of the meeting, you should all be aware that any third party is able to record or film Council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered, the Council will not accept liability for any third party recordings.
it is very important that the outcomes of the meeting are clear at the end of each substantive item a vote will be taken by a show of hands, Members should raise their hands to indicate their vote and keep their hands up until the count has been announced, Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken. Members of the public who have registered to speak at the meeting will be asked to come to the microphone at the appropriate time they will have three minutes to address the Committee after which they may return to the original seat.
any members of the public who have registered to speak but are unable to join the meeting will have their statements read out on their behalf, thank you, Chair.
1 Chair's Introduction
thank you for the benefit of the report, according we are going to take a road call, visited Moran.
thank you, Chair, expected Members here this evening, Councillor Johnson.
present Councillor Page.
present Councillor Moon present, Councillor Neville.
present Councillor O'Connell, present Councillor Osborne, prison Councillor Pattison, present Councillor Pope Britain.
Councillor Fitzsimons, Vice Chair.
Councillor Blanche, Project.
thank you and expected officers here this evening, Carlos home present, Kirsty Minnie and present no Smith present Mark Stevenson.
present, thank you for the benefit of the recording we have Councillor LB with us this evening, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, thank you Chair.
thank you.
I would like to remind everyone that this was a formal meeting of the Planning Committee.
and there should be no disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour.
which encouraged clapping or interruptions.
by members of the public at this evening's meeting.
if such conduct does occur, I will call for it to cease.
show behaviour, which I consider unacceptable continue, I will consider suspending the meeting.
if the behaviour resumes when business recommences, those responsible will be excluded and asked to leave the Council Chamber.
members of the committee should be familiar with the process, but for the benefit of any member of the public who may be watching, I would like to explain a couple of things.
committee members come from wards across the borough and, although they may have local knowledge when they make planning decisions, they must consider each application in the context of the whole borough area.
committee members have had their agendas for over a week and have had the opportunity to study these and to clarify any issues with planning officers, so, although members of the public might wonder why some matters are not discussed in more detail at the meeting.
it may well be that Members have already asked those questions and obtained satisfactory answers.
when we come to the substantive items on the agenda this evening, the officer will first set out their report.
I will then ask any speakers to address the Committee.
before we move into members' discussion.
at the end of the debate, I will try and summarise the Committee's view, and members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured.
before a vote is taken
2 Apologies
item 2 on the agenda apologies for absence visit, Baron, do we have any apologies for absence, yes, Chair, we have apologies from Councillors, Pritchard, Alan and White, this evening.
thank you.
3 Declarations of Interest
ITEM 3 declarations of interest.
members of the Committee should declare at this point if they had put any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interest.
or if they have fettered their discretion and need to withdraw from the meeting while a particular application is heard, does any member have such a declaration?
Councillor O'Connell,
thank you Chair.
whilst I have cooled in both applications to the Committee, I can confirm that I have not yet made up my mind and will only do so once I have had all the considerations, discussion and debate, thank you.
thank you, Councillor O'Connell, no amble declarations.
4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6)
declarations of lobbying members of the Committee should declare at this point if they being lobbied on either of the applications in today's agenda.
the clock will out ask each Member in turn the stage on which application they have been lobbied, if any, and by whether it is by objectors or supporters or both Mrs. Moran, thank you, Chair Councillor Johnson.
5 Calverley Park for and against.
one is that on both applications, yes, yes, yes, Councillor Page.
I have been lobbied against on 7 8 N 70.
Councillor Main.
I have been lobbied on agenda A and B 5 Calverley Park for a one against.
thank you, Councillor, Neville.
I have been lobbied on Item 7 8 and 7 B for and against.
thank you, Councillor O'Connell.
I have been lobbied on 7 8 and 7 B for and against.
thank you, Councillor Osborne, 7 8 and suddenly for and against.
thank you, Councillor Patterson 7 9 7 before against.
thank you, Councillor Pope, the same I have been lobbied for and against on 7 8 and 7 be Councillor Fitzsimmons for and against on 7 A and B.
yeah and Councillor Band Paul, and against all item 7 A and item 7, be thank you, thank you Chair.
5 Site Inspections
item 5 on the agenda site inspections.
members had the opportunity to visit the site of application 7 A and 7 B at 5.00 Calverley Park Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent.
6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 8 November 2023
item 6 to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday, the 8th of November 2023.
members were asked to confirm the minutes of the previous meeting are a true record of the proceedings.
I remind Members that the only match-up of the discussion is the accuracy, do members have any other comments?
thank you, the motion is to agree the minutes are we agreed?
the motion is therefore carried.
7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached)
item 7.
report of the Head of Planning Services.
these reports are those of the Head of Planning Services, a presentation will be provided by the Case Officer for the applications, but for those members of the public listening, I would like to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendations of the report
are those of the Head of Planning Services, not of individual case officers, I would like to remind members of the public that are registered to speak, that they should not use personal, disrespectful or offensive language when making their presentation.
the older a business this evening will be as the agenda item A and I can be.
7 a) Application for Consideration - 23/01122/FULL 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
first item 7, A 23 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 Calverley Park Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Page 18 of the main agenda, page 2 of the supplementary pack
Ms Minnie, would you please make your presentation?
thank you Chair.
so this application is in regard to 5 Calverley Park in Tunbridge Wells and
this just shows you a a site plan of the property, and it's outlined in red 5 cavity Park is a two storey, semi, detached building that lies on the
occupied.
I bring it closer.
that better.
I would have thought it's hard to guess.
but then.
that better, yeah.
but OK, it's yeah, it's a two storey semi, detached dwelling that lies on the southern side of Calverley Park, overlooking Cobley grounds, it's a great two star listed building and it lies within an area sub known as Decimus Burton New Town.
along with a number of other listed buildings in the area.
to the west is number 1 Cobley Park, and that lies on a corner position to the east, is the attached semi of number 6 Caballé Park and to the north is number 2 Cobley Park, that's accessed from Calverley Road.
this gives you an idea.
can't hear.
capitalism.
try that does that is that better.
now, yes, okay.
OK, so that's better, isn't right, so this is slightly shine the planning constraints for the property the top left.
shows that the area is completely in a conservation area, this covers most of Tunbridge Wells, but the actual character areas the Cobley Park area.
the slide to the right shows the listed buildings in the area.
so you have the number 5 that's outlined in red and all the other properties that are outlined are also listed buildings, it's not that clear but the majority of the advocates of properties in Calverley Park, and I think my
okay, there we go, all of these properties in Calverley Park are actually Grade II star listed buildings, along with Calverley Park Crescent here, as well, might remember on our site visit, we actually walked the length of Calverley Park here and back to the property.
it's the property is also in an arcadian area, and this just shows the extent of the arcadian area and this this area so.
SEWC is designated as a sort of low density, buildings and landscaping is the dominant feature or one of the dominant features in the area.
the bottom right corner shows the extent of the historic park and garden as well, so that takes in Calverley grounds, as well as the properties in Calverley Park here as well.
so the next slide shows an aerial view of
number 5 Calverley Park and the surrounding area, so again you can see that there are a more open area of Cobley grounds and Kevin Park runs along here and you can see the trees and the vegetation and landscaping, but it's quite prominent in the area.
so these are just some photos of the site, this is taken immediately outside the property, looking up at the at the driveway.
as you can see from the the photo, it's.
took into OK, sorry, so this shows the
the property, so this is a fact, are taken from immediately immediately in front of the property, looking up at the driveway it shows that the problem with the properties is constructed of stone with slate roofs roof, and that is the predominant building material in the area and the Decimus Burton villas.
this is a fight I just fed her up the driveway, so you can see number 1 Cobley Park on the left-hand side.
on the rugby at the left-hand side of the picture.
and with the existing detached garage.
fairly centrally in the picture and on the right-hand side is number 5, and you can just see the poached entrance to number 5, here is not entirely clear, but just behind this hedge in front of the two storey element of number 1, there is a conservatory in that location.
again, it is further up the driveway, but this is just showing number one on the left, with the single storey, rear, rear or side extension that runs along the boundary of this property, and it just shows you in relation to the existing detached garage within this property.
so just coming to the rear of the house.
this shows both number 5 and number 6 at the rear, so you can see that they they are fairly symmetrical, they both have two storey, rear projections that are part of the original design and they have single storey elements at the rear as well.
this property has a flat, roofed single storey element here that runs along the boundary with number number 6, this is likely to have been part of the Soviet original part of the dwelling as built, but a conservatory has also been added at the rear and then to the right this is an enclosed courtyard area it's worth pointing out as well that there is a tree here the sweet chestnut that is actually protected by a tree preservation order as well.
this is just another shot, but this shows more the the existing rear of the property and the garage to the to the right-hand side here, it's a, it's a new scent addition, so it's likely to have been a sort of 20th century garage addition.
you can also see here the
number 1 Calverley Park, just in the in the background and the single storey extension, and there's you can just see their windows here on this elevation as well, just towards the the end of the picture.
it's just a photo just to give an idea of how visible the property is from the wider area, and Calverley Park this has taken from the the road that takes you from Calverley Road down to the entrance to Calverley grounds and across number 1 Cobley Park, so you can see the single storey extension here and then behind there is number 5 so you can just see the roof of the extension just above that single storey element.
and again, these are just pictures of.
outside along Caballé Parks and immediately outside of the property, just to give an idea of how visible particularly the side area of the property is the the driveway and the the single garage, so this is just the top one is taken just outside of number 1 and the button one closer to the the actual entrance, so looking up the driveway,
and then the following to describe her long Cobley Park, so so this is more outside the garden, the front garden of number 5 and.
the bottom of his favourite long, some more outside the front garden of number number 6.
so there's a few drawings to show in these, these are the existing drawings.
just to give you an idea of the layout of the property at the moment, you can see the the original house has quite quite thick stone walls, this element at the back is the single storey flat roofed.
so addition, that was the runs along the boundary with number 6 and then attached to that is the conservatory here and the enclosed courtyard area here, and then you have the detached garage and shed to the left of the house with the driveway in front.
this is the existing first floor, so again you can see the the the flat roof here and the conservatory.
to the rear.
this is just a similar sort of ground-floor plan, but this sort of indicates the location of the tree, the sweet chestnut, in the rear garden, so it's located on the boundary with number 6 and according to the plans, it's around about three, three and a half metres from the wall of the existing wall.
of the single storey element of the rear,
extension and conservatory.
so this is just the front elevation as it is existing, so you've got the the main house, the main.
two storey element of the house here, you can see the porch to the side of it and then again the detached garage which is shaded out because it is set some way back from the front elevation of the dwelling.
these are side elevations is to hear, but the bottom one shows the true elevation of the house itself, so you can see the extent of the existing so poached element to the side which extends right to the rear of the house and then you can see the single storey,
extensions and conservatory to the rear, the top elevation shows the it is the same side elevation but with the the garage in position, and you can see that the garage is set quite a way back from the front elevation and towards the rear garden.
this is the rear elevation of the property as it is existing, so this just gives an idea of that it shows the two storey rear projection here that comes out and and also the single storey element that's attached to this, with the flat roof and then the conservatory.
glazed roof here in the middle.
so we then come on to the plans that are proposed, so the proposal is for a rear, two storey extension, as well as a side and two storey extension, the proposal intends to remove the existing conservatory at the back here and the enclosed courtyard and replace this with a two storey extension that would be,
similar in form and Heighton and size as the existing two storey projection here, but would come out around five and a half metres from the existing wall, the side extension would predominantly be attached to this rear extension, it's just this corner here of the the porch here I think it's roundabout a metre but it attaches to the porch and then that will extend to the side roundabout 7 metres.
this is the proposed first floor service gives you an idea of the extent of the two storey element, so it is, it is set back or set.
in from the side boundary here, so that the existing flat roofed element remains as existing the
this this remain, this is a two storey element, and then the side side extension would provide accommodation above some additional habitable accommodation and garaging below.
again, this just shows the rear extension in relation to the the tree, so it just gives an indication that it's not intended that the the extension would extend any further rear within the existing conservatory and enclosed.
courtyard area or wall, but it will extend further to to the left here to the west.
then this is the front elevation of the property, so this shows the side extension, as proposed, it just noticed that it is set down from the the main roof and eaves height of the of the existing dwelling, so it does that subservient appearance.
it is set way back from the front elevation so that the porch is still visible from the front elevation as well.
this is the side elevation as proposed, so again you can see that the side extension is set more than 11 metres back from the front elevation of the of the house, and it only attaches to a small section of the of the porch is also set down, as you can see from the eaves of the
the purpose of the dwelling, the rear extension, it starts at about this area here, but it is the same, a continuation of the existing roof and will just extending over five and a half metres reward.
and this is the rear elevation, so it shows that this.
single storey element here on the side wall will remain it, the rear extension at the back will just be a continuation of the existing rear projection, and then the sidle element would extend off of this mainly.
and would be lower and set down from the the main two storey element at the back.
so we have been supplied with a fighter montage, it just gives you an idea of possibly possibly what it would look like from Calverley Park, looking up from the driveway, as you can see, it is proposed to use materials that ought to match the existing dwelling site is going to be constructed in stone and with a slate roof as well.
and just to let you know about some updates following.
the agenda being published, we have received some revised plans, these were just to address some inconsistencies between the elevations and the floor plans there was.
the floor plan showed that a window is going to be blocked up and a new window added to the porch, but the elevations didn't show this, so
we've had the we've had those revised just so there's they match and a more accurate.
but it is worth noting that those particular alterations don't form part of his application, they are, they're actually alterations that have already been granted planning, permission and listed building consent earlier in the year.
we've also received one additional objection letter since the agenda was published.
and this has.
it is.
they've raised concerns regarding mainly the side extension and that it would be setting a precedent as well.
another other issues that have already been brought up as part of the the application.
so the recommendation is to grant planning permission for this proposal as set out in the agenda, and there are that would be subject to a number of conditions that are also listed.
as part of the the the officer report.
and thank you very much that that's my presentation, thank you, thank you.
we have six speakers on this item.
when I call your name, please comfortable microphone ensure Jack debated when you speak, you have three minutes to make your statement.
and our first speaker this evening in objection to the application, is Ms Deborah Reece, a local resident, and has statement will be read by Mr Chris Weller.
you may think we have good cause to be nimbus, because this is really in our backyard, the thought of a 20 foot high stock stonewall towering over our conservatory to steal our sunlight is truly grim.
no thought was given by the applicant to its impact on neighbours para 10 58 of your report confirms that we will suffer loss of light but concludes it doesn't matter because the windows affected our bathrooms wrong, it's our conservatory, that's called Saffer, where we eat.
it's full of windows, the loss of our lives would have been quite obvious if someone had thought to view it from our side of the fence, rather than some music, from a plan that it wouldn't affect us, but no one did it will affect us greatly.
number 5 is the first house in the park to be bought by a developer, if this project goes ahead, there will be more, you will set a precedent, word, will go round the two stylish things are no longer valued here, in fact you'll make a mockery of them.
a dream come true for developers
do you have a great responsibility today?
in his plan, Persian design 5 and 6 as a symmetrical pair, but to look as one single Villa, it's listed as a single Villa that symmetry remains intact.
this scheme will, at a stroke, destroy that and change the listed Villa forever, quite contrary to burton's plan you've seen the pictures the impact is enormous, the applicant calls this proportionately modest, what do you think the scared is such that the first floor nearly doubles in size and the huge garage blocks stuck on the side stretches from the boundary modest no way?
all experts, including the applicants, agree the scheme harms the building.
whether that harm be greater or small is irrelevant, because any harm requires by law a clear, convincing justification and must give public benefit.
the scheme gives none because it can't there is none, there is no reason why this House needs to be made bigger, it's a more than adequate family house and quite far, but as it is yes, there is certainly benefit here but it is private benefit to the developer, not the public, the heritage bodies in their wisdom advise you to refuse this application.
why would you not take their advice?
may be easier for you to go along with the proposal.
but perhaps more wisely.
you will attach more weight to the view of the independent professionals as to where all conclude that this application should be refused to Weller time 3 minutes, I'm afraid I actually then show self-righteous gentleman haters, thank you.
that's quite enough of that.
a second speaker this evening, in objection to the application is Dr Philip white-ball, a local resident.
thank you Chair.
when considering applications, the government's National Planning Policy Framework requires, in paragraph 199, great weight to be given to a heritage asset conservation, and it makes the point that the more important the asset, such as Grade II, star, listing in this case, the greater that weight should be paragraph 201 goes on to say that where a development can cause substantial harm to a designated heritage asset local planning authorities should refuse consent.
unless substantial public benefits would outweigh that harm in the present case, the symmetry of the paired Villa numbers 5 and 6 would be greatly harmed by the bulky addition of a large new wing on one side, moreover, the original garden elevation of number 5 would be obscured and the original roof configuration spoiled, causing serious harm to the integrity, setting and character of this regency Grade II star listed building by the distinguished architect Decimus Burton.
in my professional judgment.
as a former chief architect at English Heritage, that harm would be clearly substantial and consent to thus should be refused.
as there would be no public benefit to outweigh it, but a public disbenefit to the appearance and character of the designated conservation area, however, even if it were to be judged that the acknowledged harm that I think everybody recognises would be less than substantial.
paragraph 202 makes it clear that harm needs to be judged against public benefits, which in this case would be negative.
I'd been inside number 5 at the invitation of a previous occupant.
and it is clearly a highly desirable residence as matters stand.
harm is obviously something to be avoided wherever possible.
and the logic, therefore, which seemed to be for consent, both planning consent and listed building consent to be refused in line with National Planning Policy Framework thank you Chair.
thank you, Dr Whinmoor.
our first speaker,
o
our third speaker this evening, in objection to the application, is Mr Paul Abbas on behalf of the Decimus Burton Society.
thank you, Mr. Chairman, the Decimus Burton Society objects to these applications because they will cause significant harm to 5 Cobley Park, which is designed by one of Britain's foremost 19th century architects, among the earliest of the Calverley Park sequence, dating from 18 28, and as Georgian one of only two examples of dizziness burton's paired villas in Calverley Park.
and part of a largely complete 19th century designed landscape, setting the Decimus Burton societies, carefully reviewed the applications, including supplementary information provided by chart plan and Cotswold archaeology the Society concludes the proposals will cause harm and strongly recommends that the applications are refused.
the Calverley, part sequence of Testaments, Burton Villas is an exceptional heritage asset, a special architectural interest, and is a seminal nationally important set piece of Georgian town planning. 5 and 6 are Grade II star listed buildings less than 6% of the nation's listed buildings have this recognition and are set within the Grade II listed Calverley Park. They are carefully conceived nice, symmetrical pair, giving the impression of a single Regency mansion and survive substantially intact. The existing garages are separate and subservient, thus limiting their impact. The proposed addition to number 5 is a substantial increase to the whole rear of number 5 plus a two storey attached garage to the side and front elevations the scale and impact of these additions. Do not respect the council policy. Ian 4, to preserve or enhance the environment. They will damage the special architectural character and consistent scale and massing of the buildings within the park identified by the Council in its conservation assessment
therefore, the proposals harm elements that contribute to special interest and are not in accordance with Section 66 of the Planning listed building and conservation areas Act 1990 this is not a proportionate modest degree of change, nor is the historic and architectural interest of the building preserved the proposed additions at number 5 are unacceptably bulky destroy the symmetry of the pair and with the reconfiguration of the roof have a seriously adverse effect on the integrity of the grade II listed building.
N P P F requires the great weight is given to the conservation of a heritage asset and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be, despite proposing such significant additions to this Grade II, listed building no case has been made for setting aside the requirement for the Council to give great weight to the conservation of the listed building.
beyond suggesting that they cause little harm, which the society disputes the service.
yeah,
your time is up, thank you, I'm afraid, thank you very much.
both speak of this evening in objection to the application is Dr David Wright.
on behalf of the Decimus Burton Society.
thank you, Chairman.
I beg your pardon, that was my admirer.
well with that amendment.
Dr right, would you give us your views?
my apologies until there is appropriation.
the Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society regards this application as one of the most important it has to respond to in decades.
the Planning Committee has to decide whether or not to give permission for harm to be done to a highly visible Grade II, star listed Decimus Burton, building in a sensitive location.
the applicant wants to impose a substantial two storey attached garage and accommodation extension and significantly extend the rear of the property at 2.00 storey level. The two storey wing will be near the height of the host building and don't dominated by double garage doors. The symmetry of the building unchanged for nearly 200 years would be destroyed. The applicant claims that this alteration is proportionately modest and any harm only lies in the effect on the original structure. This is not, so please look at the pictures you've been provided with and decided decide for yourselves. The integrity of the original building, and the symmetry of the pair would be seriously and irreversibly harmed. Decimus burton's original composition of the park through the scale and massing of the houses would also be harmed
entirely compromised, this is not and cannot be described as proportionately modest, the original building and its setting would be mutilated.
national guidance requires great weight to be given to preserving an asset of such importance whatever the level of harm NPP f Policy paragraph 200 says any harm to, or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.
it is not the case that major change is required to secure a viable future for number 5.
there are no public benefits to offset the harm of this proposal, the Council's conservation statement any proposals were built in the park should be considered very critically if indeed any buildings should be accepted at all paragraph 8 3 1
the Planning Department requested an opinion from two statutory bodies, the Georgian Group and historic buildings, and places both of those recommend refusal of this application, the Decimus Burton Society has also requested review.
the Royal Tunbridge Wells, Civic Society concurs with the advice of the external statutory bodies and urges refusal of this application, thank you.
thank you very much.
our fifth speaker this evening, in support of the application, is Barry Kitchener side chart plan, limited agent on behalf of the applicant.
Mr kitchen side was provided a statement which will be read by the clock.
before she does, so, could somebody reach the Speaker's microphone and?
turn it off, otherwise we will lose.
thank you.
thank you.
the other clerks can attend.
dear Councillors, reference to number 5 Calverley Park Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent, represent the two applications this evening I am the planning agent, acting on behalf of the instructed incumbent occupier in this regard, we have engaged with your Authority officers through previous minor applications relating relating to this dwelling, together with our ongoing engagement regarding the two submissions available for determination at the Planning Committee meeting on the 6th of December.
I am contacting each of the Planning Committee members, out of courtesy, simply to advise that, regretfully, I am unable to be in attendance at this committee meeting, given that I am embroiled in a Local Plan engagement in the West Midlands, which has already been in my diary since late May
notwithstanding the planning officer's recommendation to grant on both applications, it is not my style to be discourteous in not attending committee meetings and would have been in attendance had it not been for my ongoing commitment.
I have made my unavailability, known throughout the planning officers when, for all of the right reasons, the applications were previously withdrawn from the 8th of November Committee and potentially the early October meeting where ironically, I would have been in a position to attend the respective project consultants and I have worked tirelessly with your officers to write the pre determination period and have responded positively to commentaries received on several occasions and through several iterations we are indebted to the rep for the recommendations made, but in doing so will be would be pleased to consider any further conditions at that. The Committee and officers were minded to require as a result of any Committee debate, while the officers have referenced a certain amount of the previous planning history of the Park through the report to the Committee
I should like to share with you a more exhaustive review of our research simply for the record.
finally, I am in no doubt as to the exemplary work or quality of workmanship that my client would bring through the procurement of the project, which you might like to consider by way of an informative or even condition with kind regards, Barry pitchside, thank you too.
thank you.
all six speaker tonight is Borough Councillor Justin Rutland.
Councillor for culpable.
Good evening, excuse me, good evening, everyone, I'm here in my capacity as Cabinet Member for economic development, with a responsibility for Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre and the borrower's visitor economy.
one of the joys of our town is its beautiful green spaces and distinctive architectural heritage. Like many of us here tonight, I walk around a good deal and often think how lucky I am to live in such a place, yet our surroundings are not beautiful and distinctive by accident, but rather they have been created and conserved by the efforts of those living and working in the town before us as a Council, it is our duty to ensure that our heritage is protected as far as is practically possible.
5 Calverley Park is protected on several counts. It is situated in a Grade II listed registered park and garden in a conservation area and is itself a listed building Grade II stock, all of which means there is a statutory duty to preserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets under the planning listed buildings and conservation areas Act 1990, when a property has this level of safeguarding changes require particular scrutiny, there is a huge amount of detail in the report. I will focus only on the visual impact in order to put myself in the shoes of residents and visitors. It is my opinion that the proposed extension is overly large and bulky. To begin with, a width of 12.5 metres and end up with one of 19.9 metres is a 60% increase and I have been unable to identify a reasonable justification for such a sizeable extension in the context of this site. I do also wish to bring your attention to point 7.1 0 7 regarding the visibility of the extension to the public. I believe there is a good deal of public access to Calverley Park, despite it being a private park,
access is kindly permitted almost all times and in my experience this route is well used and an important resident amenity when my children were small we used to walk through Calverley Park, twice a day from our home to the nursery in Lansdowne Road we never fail to see other people there, not only is it a picturesque route it has the advantages of being almost traffic free,
and along with being flat, unlike nearby alternatives, it is also a visitor attraction. The Council's own heritage, walking trail through the town, takes visitors as far as 1 Calverley Park and Victoria Lodge, and on Tunbridge Wells Open heritage days, permission is granted for decimate bed and walking tours to visit Calverley Park, to see his landmark residential development. As the photos show, the extension is not set far back and will be clearly visible from the footway and the road it is not fully screened, although, even if it were, that does not mean it would be of an appropriate scale. I feel that even to the casual observer, it will be clear that the symmetry of 5 and 6 are unbalanced and the extension is disproportionate and overly bulky. This evening, I am grateful to the planning committee who will, I am sure, examine the application with the grant, because Councillor Rothwell could do very softly. I am concerned that this harm is substantial and that this application should be refused. Thank you. Thank you
officers, do you wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made above the speakers?
a few. Thank you just to go through the points of knocked down in terms of the the first speaker, Mr Weller, on behalf of Deborah Race, I think he made a point about the application being on behalf of the developer, I think I don't think that that is our understanding, but the merits of the case nevertheless should be considered on the basis of what's before members, rather than necessarily the applicant themselves. So I think that's just an important point to make
in terms of the points made by
Dr Whitbourne and Mr. Eavis about the MPPA, certainly those paragraphs are the paragraphs that made reference to in the report.
officers feel that there is a difference in terms of the level of harm officers, feel there is no harm, so the paragraph 2 0 to the public benefit test is not engaged, whereas speakers have indicated they feel the opposite.
so, just to make that point, in terms of the points that
Mr Avis made about this affecting the front elevation, I'd just like to make it clear, and I think it was clear from the presentation that the extension is well set back from the front elevation, so it's not actually part of the front television but set back, so it may well be perception that is affected.
then, just just to re-emphasise, I think that officers on trying to play down the significance of this building or the area within which is says is set out in the in the report in quite some significant detail, how important the building is and officers have come to are obviously a different conclusion to the speakers so we're not trying to play that down in any way.
the an applicant's agent has submitted a list of planning history to Members, we haven't had the opportunity to check that for accuracy, says Jason make that point that was hf, thank you.
thank you.
sorry, no interventions for.
it's this Carlos Hone is the Head of Planning that's who's speaking.
committee members.
do you have any questions for the officers?
Brighton Viewforth.
thank you Chair.
this is actually about the tree, because did I feel a right, it was only three and a half metres from the current buildings.
I was and the Tree Officer has, he is only comment about possible future encroachment on the roof, but I'm just thinking, Is there any implication of having a two storey extension built instead of the existing buildings, in terms of the foundations will that have any impact on the tree because it seems very close not that I am an expert on trees,
Keith Elliott.
thank you Chair.
but the trees I've seen Sichuan, as is the ground-floor extension, as there's quite detailed planning condition condition 3 that covers the the means in which the the development would come forward if consent was granted and how the the tree would be protected, you can see from the planning history at the start of the report there have been some
previous consents to reduce the crown of the tree, so it has been well managed on site today we saw that it is quite significant chunk to the tree, but the the crown itself has been reduced almost pollarded in a way, yes, it's fairly well-maintained so it would be away from the whether two-storey extension would be built.
I was thinking more of the route and I was thinking.
would would they have to dig down much more for a two storey extension than the existing building, that's there, that's what I was wondering.
yeah, I would most likely need to have decreased deeper foundations as a result of the the increased size of the development.
we're saying that shouldn't impact on adversely on the trees that.
just to be clear.
where there is a condition that covers that that detailing how it would come forward and that the development of these come forward in in accordance with British standards which cover the protection of the tree so that would cover the rates as well.
Councillor Osborne, thank you Chairman.
I just wanted to clarify its the council officer's case, then that the development doesn't cause substantive harm.
it doesn't cause lessons to present it on, it actually causes no harm, and the legal analysis around this development is based upon there being no harm to the listed building.
all our other listed buildings, all the the park, that is that correct and if that is the case.
could I ask whether any external advice has been taken in terms of whether that would be inappropriate application of the law?
and case law.
thank you.
and that that is the contention in the offices and report as set out that there there would be no harm, and as I set out and that therefore the public.
benefit tests wouldn't be engaged, as per the M P P F requirements.
the different strata of historical importance play here, and perhaps I can ask.
Mr Stevenson, to come in to just to describe that position, but yes, it is felt that there is no harm from the proposals.
when we look at harm in the historic environment, we are looking at identifying the significance of a heritage asset or a range of heritage assets in this particular case.
and harm has to be judged against whether or not that significance will be changed in a way that does not allow those assets to be readily I readily identified in terms of the heritage importance, so there isn't.
there isn't a sort of legal point to this, it's policy, the MPPI policies that determine.
I think that the English Heritage guidance, historic England guidance that determines how we look at significance, how we identify significance and how we identify harm to that significance in this particular case, there is a series of layers of significance for this particular site there is the fact that it's part of a large townscape development which was the desperate Burton Newtown there is the fact that it's part of the historic landscape and park.
and it's a part of its significance is because it's by Decimus Burton and the other part of the significance is the architectural merits of the design of the Bill and the range of 24 builders themselves.
termination has been that the significance, albeit
the the significance has not been harmed, albeit the extension is quite large.
overall Birmingham senior lawyer planning.
do you agree with?
May I ask the senior lawyer planning whether she agrees with that analysis that there is no harm having regard to the law and relevant case law?
thank you Chair.
I, that is a professional experts opinion on the heritage asset and any harm that might be identified it, it's not illegal point.
it is a matter of planning judgement.
Councillor Pope.
thank you Chair, and that there are several layers of protection for these buildings.
the
grade 2 star listing of the building itself and the buildings around it, and the Grade II listed Park and Gardens, and one of my questions is the when these buildings were laid out to the spacing of the buildings and the space between the buildings was an important factor in the design, and by building this extension, it closes the gap between numbers 1 and 5, reducing the space.
so I just on these two buildings, they start to get much closer together, but there's probably two parts to this question, but if, if this were to happen with this one,
property,
then it kind of opens the door for it to happen to other properties, and they would potentially.
all get closer to each other because of extensions and the layout and the spacing would be completely changed from the original design is that, or how much should we take that into account in terms of the protections that are in place?
as to how?
thank you Chair.
certainly if, if the developments to go ahead them yesterday, it would close the gap between the existing building and the boundary of the site and the neighbouring property at number 1.
that gap is somewhat already filled by a detached garage, so that's something to bear in mind as well. Other properties would need to get their own consents in each. Each application that would come forward would be considered on its own merits. I think one of the distinctive features there was obvious today at the site as it was the the very different type of properties that were there. I appreciate there was a two sets of semi detached properties, but the the other villas rule very different and with very different spatial relationships as well.
did you have a supplementary question, Councillor Pope?
I guess I'm just trying to understand because the layout was.
very carefully done, and there was space between the buildings, my feeling is that.
the reduction of that space does change the the character of of the buildings that are there, but.
I I can hit that, therefore, should that be a factor in it and how we consider whether it's the there's a damage to the existing design or what level of damage there is to the existing design and layout of the whole?
Mr. Chairman, it is something that you can take into into account any determination the special relationship between those buildings is different for each of the villas as you go around the park.
this one is a particularly wide one, there are others of similar width, there are others much narrower and the buildings are much closer together, but if it is something that you feel would be harmful to infill, that space, and that is and tell me something that will be taken into account and determining whether there is harm or not.
Councillor Booth.
thank you Chair.
my question relates to the two applications on agenda I in agenda be in the respect of the agenda item be is a listed building, stroke application and agenda item, the actual number 5, in reality, to me, it looked like they were both dependent on each other, so if agenda item I is refused.
and B was agreed, then the development probably would not take place, so I just want clarification, that's a technical point, really of how that process works with the two applications, thank you.
thank you Chair.
I understand the point of your question, but we need to deal with them separately, so we are dealing with a joint agenda item 7, A at the moment and 7 B will be dealt with separately.
so that's what members should be deciding now rather than.
looking at the impact on one against the other.
thank you.
can I just come back from that I do take that point and I would not like to think that one would pre-empt the other in any Members decision and I
agree with that.
they're both stand alone and they should be looked at that.
but they are, as you admit, they are similar.
if the outcome was different on each one.
they are related applications, but yes, we need to deal with 7 A on its own first, thank you.
thank you.
Councillor Pat Russell,
thank you Chair, this is a question of him.
when we only sorry.
when we were on the site visit this afternoon, I mean there was, it was pointed out that from the road, given the hedge that we wouldn't really better see very much of the extension from the front from where only one one point.
where it would actually be visible in much of the landscape.
and the question really is is is.
can you have harm if you can't see it?
there was, how much does the harm depend on the visibility or if you are actually kind of building something alongside it, and you have to get up close to it, is that does that reduce the harm?
I have a question.
Good luck with that.
I think that the the purpose of the the site visit was to see the the dwelling itself and the location of the proposed extension in all of its different contexts, so seeing it up-close as part of the
the dwelling and its neighbour, and the gap between the two properties was very important so that you could assess whether or not the the extension was acceptable in terms of its relationship to the original building, but then further away further distance views of it in terms of the relationship between what would be a domestic extension in terms of the impact on the Parks and Gardens and the surrounding parkland area. So I think that the impact will be different depending on where you look at it from, and that was the purpose of walking around. Certainly from the far reaches of Calverley Park, you couldn't see the property and you couldn't see where the extension will be going
Councillor Pope again.
talking about hedges and trees and the visibility of the buildings by people either passing through the park or elsewhere that hedges can be reduced in height, there could be a another 1987 storm, it could take some of the trees down that sit on the haha wall between,
that separate Calverley Park from Calverley grounds.
therefore, how much should we take into account the fact that it's not so easy to see these properties because of the hedges and trees when actually, in reality, they the hedge, could be reduced and the trees could disappear or some of them taken down?
thank you, Chair yeah, that's that's a valid point, I would say that the the proposals are for the extension and there's planning conditions which secure relevant matters for those extensions should consent be granted, but there's there's no conditions which secure,
the trees in the wider area, or that the hedges on other properties, certainly because they're in a conservation area, the trees would need consent for for removal, but certainly that will prevent them from coming down as a result of a storm, for example,
Vice Chairman.
thank you Chair.
significant. So in paragraph 7 1 0 2, there are four, which are it's also repeated later, but there seems to be five bullet points. Their significance is being part of a significant expansion of the town, being part of a body of work of national important, but no nationally important architect being accomplished. Examples of simple village designs in range of styles is at the time and being passed to the significant survival of much of Burton Newtown development. There's four things that so it's been decided. Hasn't it that the first three of those four, three of them you don't think there are any significant
impact.
on those three and the reason that you've now said there's no significance is because you've said three out of four and OK, there is some, it is significant that it's going to affect the simple village design, but do you think you can ignore that because it's just one out of four?
that's not the way it was meant to be interpreted, you, you have four areas of significance so yeah if we take the wider significance first, it's part of the Decimus Burton Newtown now that consists of a significant body of development that stretches across the escarpment from the are.
from the church across to.
properties that are to the east of of Calverley Park, which are all Decimus Burton Buildings, this extension will not impact the contribution that the new town makes to the town.
in terms of impact on that significance, it will have no effect in terms of the second or wider element of significance is the contribution that the parkland and the Bill as it makes to Tunbridge Wells as a whole, it is the first of the Tunbridge Wells parkland developments and following on from that we had Nevill Park we had hung shall park we had
Camden Park, and we had Bishopstone Park, and they were all inspired by Desmond burton's work again in terms of the parkland and the arrangement of villas within that and the contribution that that makes to the future development of the town that significance is not harmed by the extension.
in terms of
being or a body of work by a nationally renowned archetype Decimus Burton, the extension will not harm the fact that it is a part of the body of work by Decimus Burton the filler is essentially intact, despite the fact that it is being extended, the original Villa is still readily discernible to anybody who goes into the building all walks around the building is still readily discernible as an independent design.
although it will show that it has been extended within the 21 st century, so those are three parts of the significance that will not be impacted by an extension, the design of the Villa is the one part of the
identified significance that will be impacted by the extension, but we have to determine whether or not that extension is harmful to that part of the significance, and it's not that we've decided that one of four is acceptable to be harmed, we've decided that there is no harm and therefore the significance is not impacted.
in that particular case, so all four identified areas of the Earth's significance have not, in our opinion, been harmed by the proposal.
thank you Chair, so it is that.
sorry, is that a subjective, your objective view that this will not affect, because?
I'm struggling with, is that, like your view, or is it do you think that you have dealt with it sufficiently to say objectively this is not going to create any harm to the simple design of the Villa.
I'm appointed as the Council's conservation officer, so I am a professional advisor, so it's my professional opinion as to whether or not harm is caused or not caused in this particular case.
the the assessment of impact on setting is guided by a good practice guidance Note 3 from historic England
the him, the the way that we look at significance in decision making is guided by GPs to good practice and advice guidance note to from historic England, and we use the parameters within that guidance, along with the MP pdf, to determine whether harm is caused, so I would say it is an objective point of view based on the information that we have at the time of the application and based on the guidance that we used as partner.
Councillor, thank you Chair, I'm quite intrigued by this issue of harm, particularly by the idea of a double garage, because that is something that would not have existed attached to the Villa, you know at the time it was designed in 828, so given that it is a Grade II star listed Villa,
what would you comment on the idea that there will be a garage attached to it?
it's an interesting question I could probably talk for several hours on this.
all buildings go through change of one form or another during their existence it might be minor internal changes that might be made to internal changes. It might be extensions, it might be additions to the landscape within the settings or external garages, sheds trampolines, whatever it might be, change occurs, and the purpose of conservation is to manage that change in a way that sustains the significance of a heritage asset, whether it be a building, a parkland, a conservation area, a battlefield or whatever, so
the fact that there will be garage doors is just one or a modern addition to an existing building, it is an example of change through time for that particular building and change is not automatically harmful, so the extension has been designed using design principles that were appropriate at the time. It is difficult to design a garage door by those principles, but we have to also bear in mind that there are plenty of courthouses that had openings of a similar size
and in this particular case, if a coach house had been attached to this building, it would have had similar sized openings, whether one should be attached or not is whether or not it causes harm or not in this particular case, so the additions of new development to a heritage asset is to be judged on individual applications at the time that they are judged.
Councillor Les pay.
thank you Chair, I did a little exercise where I superimposed the front elevation of the extension on top of the front elevation of the original house and it's very hard to see the original house behind the extension, so I wondered whether you had actually made a calculation on the size of the on the front elevation of the extension in regard in in comparison with the front of the house because it seems to me it must be around 75 80% I wonder if if you'd if you'd considered that,
not not specifically as a percentage now, but the impact from the scale.
of the development and its location has been considered in detail as part of the report, but not as a specific percentage.
OK, thank you can ask one more quick thing, please, the other question I had was the side of the House as it was originally conceived is also.
it has been designed to be visible and of high quality of its visual aspect, and it's also symmetrical.
what consideration is being given to the extensions effect on the side elevation of the of the original house and I haven't heard or read much of that.
well, I think it's in consideration in the round in terms of the significance of the the original dwelling, it's all been considered at the same time that the side elevation of the property has an original porch within the centre of it, but that has actually been extended itself over over time so there has been some change there already but the in terms of whether or not there is any harm has been considered in the report in full.
OK, thank you.
any other questions of the officers from committee members, if not as I move into debate.
did anybody like to lead off?
Councillor
thank you, Chairman.
I have to say I think it's very helpful that this application has been called in and I think in a way.
demonstrates the reason why we have that process for calling in applications, because I think this, despite the principal conservation officer saying he believes the test was objective. I prefer the view of the senior planning or senior lawyer planning that this really is a sort of subjective test that's being applied here and whilst one can look at the law and the case law, it's essentially a subjective test, an individual having regard to their experience and expertise, which I think is undoubted taking a view on what harm has been caused and, as we've said, the conclusion has been reached across a raft of parameters is that there is no harm now, I think as Councillors obviously we've been elected, we meet often,
people within the town who have elected us and other people. Also, I mean myself, have lived in the town for 35 years and I know none of the other councillors have as well, so I think we were able to bring in a way a different perspective to that subjective test than the council offices, and I think that's helpful for the council officers and I would say, as I say, as someone who has lived in the town for 35 years again, but my children up here that in applying the subjective test, I think I would probably come out with a different answer, I think I would say that this was harmful, I might even say that it was substantially harmful, but as I say that I think that's the conclusion, but I would come to and I think therefore unlikely to base my judgment on on that. Thank you
Ms Smith.
thank you, Chair, I just wanted to clarify that the whole application has to be in accordance with the development plan.
and material considerations, and they all have to be weighed up by the planning officer or the and the report today, as put forward by the Head of Planning Services and weighing up those material considerations, is a planning judgement, and that's how they they come to.
the recommendation, but individual planning considerations such as the professional opinion of the principal conservation officer.
may be objective, so that is being looked at as an objective assessment by an expert, a statutory consultee, so that is bought into the planning.
considerations, but the boot weighing those up is a matter of planning judgement, so I just wanted to clarify that point that the particular issue of the conservation officer is something we consider to be objective, thank you, and certainly are not in any way.
impugning the the objectives of the of the conservation officer, and I say my own subjective view, isn't someone I express, thank you.
so if I could, just if the day Smith what you're saying is that undoubtedly be.
principal conservation officers judgement is based on his professional expertise and experience.
but it is a judgment which we, as a Committee are entitled to argue with or.
indeed contradict what he was heck.
you could give it different weight, but I don't think you could argue with his assessment.
and how he's come to it.
thank you.
Councillor Johnson.
or just 7.
fine that.
all of these houses, or seems to be like part of a set, almost that if you're gonna, go and buy one, your bond part of the Decimus Burton set
this is just how it appears appears to me
so you know if Decimus Burton had wanted to make that building.
that precise, then he would have built at that size.
so I I do feel that it would change a lot of things because we would change that, sir, and then everybody else could possibly change their their house as well, that's just a viewpoint that I just feel that it's an asset, it is not a normal set of houses so it transforms the whole of the whole area.
that's that's all I can say.
Councillor Patterson,
thank you, Mr. Chairman, so I think I mean we haven't this issue of of professional views and then judgments, we are essentially having to weigh the judgment of the Council's conservation officer and I'm sure all of us you on the
cyclists at Southend runs an awful lot about this, Ms Burton and the whole building of a cabaret part from him.
but we have to weigh that against the professional judgement of the Georgian society dismiss Birt Society, historic buildings and places.
all of those.
organisations which have actually said to us that we should either, although the planning ought to be withdrawn or we should refuse it, and so I think we enter a kind of having to make that judgment there and perhaps we also have to make a judgment on the the appearance of the extension and, from my point of view, the appearance of extension, if you get close up to it, I mean I don't think that diagram, does it probably a lot of justice to be honest, but,
to me, it seems it seems not to match the the set further back, but the actual size it is to me, overbearing compared to the existing existing building.
one and a con overlong, really and take Councillor Pope's point earlier on, it does seem to reduce the the arcadian appearance of that part of the or part of the development and I find myself difficult to accept the recommendation at the moment.
if I could intervene, I think we should remind ourselves that, although one of the inputs is from the principal conservation officer.
there are a variety of other inputs, and this recommendation is that of the Head of Planning, bringing together all the various opinions and expertise.
the fact that the conservation officer has obviously made a major contribution.
let's let's not focus on that person, let's focus on the whole recommendation.
and whether it is appropriate in this setting.
thank you Chair, we've seen a number of planning applications come to the Planning Committee with fairly large extensions, often on fairly ordinary houses, and I've struggled with them but.
there wasn't a reason that they could be refused the in this situation we're looking at a Grade II listed building, which makes it a lot harder to completely well to to ignore the fact that it is or, in my opinion, it is a large change to the building that's there it's done in such a way that they are, the original building is not massively changed but it ends up with a large.
I would even say a very large extension.
added on to the building, so I'm I'm definitely in a position where I'm struggling to.
to decide where I
I currently sit on on the decision.
Vice Chair, thank you Chair.
I'm struggling enormously.
I just things were just in discussion, I must say, if this something near and this bulk well, it would be slightly less, was just at the rear of the property.
I think I would find it easier.
and I think there's been substantial additions to raise properties Long.
the Road.
I just struggle with seeing something that destroys the symmetry so much, and it's two storey.
because I seems to me that along the I haven't I didn't see any other two storey side extensions, plenty of garages be quite happy perhaps to approve a double garage, I think it's for me, it's just the bulk.
and to stores.
I will have more to say later.
Councillor Moon, thank you Chair.
well,
to a coin, I haven't struggled, but I was surprised at the number of organisations and societies the to put forward objections historic buildings and places Decimus Burton.
Georgian Society.
I've made comments, Tunbridge Wells, Civic Society as well Royal Tunbridge Wells, Civic Society to be correct.
but the overriding thing that leaps out at me.
when I considered it was the comments put forward of the amount of harm within the development, the extension with the existing building, I'm not an expert, but when I look up the drive and I see that isolated, detached garage.
to me, that doesn't fit that's not cemented, because when you look at that, drawing on the screen now.
it is it's attached to the existing building, now there are arguments about that affects the architectural basis up the original building.
but let's put it bluntly, if we adopted certain views like that, we would never have any extension, any form of improvement, with any listed building or area of conservation across the whole borough.
to be honest, it's not about Calverley in the in the first instance, it's about relation to the application and the amount, the harm that it will impose on that conservation area and the other properties, and if you look at the other properties there have been changes over the years they're not their original.
buildings, so, based on that, when you look at the MRP, the major consideration is the harm to what I have already mentioned, the conservation or, to a point later, a listed aspect of the building.
and I have come to the conclusion, there is no harm in relation to that in relation to the application so.
I did in the first instance found it surprising that all those organisations made objections, but in the end, I accept the recommendation by the officers.
and I support the application. Thank you,
does that councillor Councillor Moon consist in proposing that we accept the officer's recommendation?
if that makes things simple Chair, I do thank you.
I think you did see my hand chair, thank you very much, I I'm not sure I think I need to just clarify that actually what we're seeing in the picture up. There is actually only half of the building we're seeing number 6, not number 5 not numbers 5 and 6 number 6 would be off to the right and would be symmetric, symmetrical or be the mirror image of the current number 5 and the bidder bit of building on the left. There is the extension so it actually breaks the symmetry, so it's not it's not. The symmetry is broken by the extension, not
not increased, and I think the other important factor that we need to be aware of we're not just considering in my if it were not consider just considering an extension to a house, we're considering the extension to a house that is Grade II star listed not Grade II listed,
grade 2 star listed, which is a very small number of a small number of properties, are of of significance, and that that is why people are struggling.
with with this, and I certainly feel having.
owned a Grade II listed property.
I, I basically saw myself as someone who is a temporary keeper of the property, and it was my responsibility to look after it.
and preserve it.
as much as possible, perhaps some level of modernisation in parts, but largely to try and look after that, building for future owners and generations, a Grade II star listed is another category above a building that I was always in and I'm sure there's other people here who
either live in or have lived in.
Grade II and Grade II stylistic properties, and will see themselves only as temporary keepers of those buildings with a responsibility to look after them.
check, and I'll just go back on that, because that was directed to me with the Commonside Bay.
I have considered is a Grade II listed building the opposite have done that I am assuming all Members here have looked at that and I have, and I have considered the symmetrical element and I mentioned about the detached garage within that concept of looking at number 5 so I made my point and the reason I will come back because Councillor Pope has already made a contribution before.
Councillor Les Page,
thank you Chair.
I just wanted to talk about the symmetry that little garage that's on the left of number 5.
is mirrored exactly by little garage on the left of number 6, and it's something that people did in the 30 s, when the upper middle classes got the horseless carriages and I don't want today to seem 0 by the way or the other symmetrical things I've looked on the satellite view and although there have been a lot of little extensions and changes to the other houses, none of them that I can see have affected the front elevation anything like to this extent,
that to me is a big consideration, and the other thing was, I don't want it to seem like have-a-go, if the conservation officer tonight, but having having read through all of the stuff a lot of it revolves around conservation aspects to me and I'm and I'm even though I'm obviously not a professional conservation officer and it's very difficult for me to understand the difference between
an objective
decision and what the conservation officer says himself is a professional opinion.
so as an unprofessional.
there's some of the comments I just wanted to say, I don't really.
I can't re, I don't really fit easily with me, one is.
from the from conservation officer, it's visible to a very limited degree, and the other one is it's just significantly lower status building.
I find it quite hard to accept those I mean match those with what I can see.
but that's that's an un and unprofessional opinion.
Councillor
thank you Chair, I just really wanted to endorse what Councillor Pope was saying, I mean.
in Tunbridge Wells, the the tumultuous Borough Local Development Framework, which says we should be putting particular emphasis on preserving our historic heritage, but anyway it identifies 2,982 listed buildings in Tunbridge Wells, of which only 7% are Grade, 1 or Grade II star listed, so that means that just Calverley Park,
represents 15% of the entire grade 1 Grade II stylistic buildings in the whole of Tunbridge Wells Borough, and I think, as Councillor Rutnam said, it's very much the jewel in the crown of Tunbridge Wells, and therefore this the bar is set very high indeed and we're talking about alterations to these buildings.
Councillor Neville.
thank you Chair, I found this very hard and I've been wrestling with differing opinions and I struggled to work out why they would there is a desire for such a large extension.
to a building and how the space that is moving to wards number 1 Councillor Park is diminished by number 1 Kelvin Park has already got an extension out to the back there.
so I'll I I, I'm hearing what you're saying, Councillor Fitzsimons, about how an extension that was just merely going out the back.
would perhaps be more suitable, so I think I'm generally coming to the conclusion that I support preserving the heritage of Councillor Parker and I wouldn't want to support the officers recommendation.
so what do Margaret saying the last couple of sentences of Ghurkha or I'm I'm I am very, very torn, but I think I am coming to the conclusion that we should preserve the heritage of Calverley Park and I wouldn't want to support the officers' recommendation.
I would not want to support it.
thank you.
Councillor Les Pegg, because it's just a quick remark, really some, I'm not actually a great admirer of dizziness burden, but it was also known as a town planner, I probably won't get out of your life.
he was also known as a town planner, and that was one it was as well known for town planning as he was for architecture, I believe I could design the whole of Fleetwood and then build buildings on it, so for me that harm the potential harm to one house is has got to be seen in the in the context of potential harm for his original coherent vision of houses built at the same time for a certain area of Tunbridge Wells, not for our health.
yes.
at the moment, members, we have at the moment, and often proposal by Councillor Moon, to accept the officer's recommendation.
is there a seconder for that motion?
or is there an alternative motion to reject the officers?
recommendation.
Councillor, the level proposed to reject the officer's recommendation.
thank you.
so can everyone use their microphones when they are speaking, thanks may I second, the proposal from Councillor for council level has proposed that we reject the officers recommendation.
and that is being seconded by Councillor Osborne, we will now receive some legal advice on what grant yes, I was going to ask him what, on what reasons would be the refusal, please?
OK.
the reasons would be.
I, if I can try and frame this correctly, I would say that East is overdevelopment.
and it's not in keeping with the surroundings, and we have a duty to preserve the heritage of the status, two star of the building.
Will we all draw and put that into planning law language?
thank you.
May I cancel, but I think the mppa f paragraph 200 may provide some support for that, which is any harm to or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset from its alteration or destruction or from development within its setting should require clear and convincing justification substantial harm to or loss of Grade II listed buildings or Grade II registered parks or gardens should be exceptional.
Smith is that.
so I think I'll work with the planners to come up with some wording for that, thank you.
Councillor Paterson, can I say, can I suggest that the EU should refuse it, among other things, for it it fails, it fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of a conservation area.
which is a test.
thank you.
if I can just go through a couple of matters before.
sort of preparing some words that might suit Members in terms of a reason for refusal, I think there is a needs to be a distinction and a clarification from members about whether or not the reason for refusal is due to the impact on the building itself, solemnly or the building itself and the wider.
listed parks and gardens and conservation area, I think that's an important clarification from officers perspective and, as set out in a report quite clearly, we feel that the impact on the the listed Park and Gardens and conservation area as a whole is probably a lot harder to defend than the impact on the dwelling itself, but clarification from Members would be helpful, I think that's right I'm in the
if we are to refuse it.
given the other aspects of conservation.
we are limited to the effect on the building itself.
not its setting in its various extensions, but until they are actual harm.
until the building itself by was that.
yes, I think that's the advice from the Head of Planning Services, so I would go with that all are the proposals and second rows.
agreed with.
those reasons have been Councillor Ali, I think we're saying that there has been Sakari and Councillor Pattison that we believe it doesn't meet Tunbridge Wells Local Plan Policy EN 4, but I think I would extend it not, I would say, the building and also the setting, because I think has been said by a number of councillors. The point about this building is one Councillor Page made the point, but it is very much part of the town planning development and therefore, whilst there's an impact negative impact, substantial harmful impact may be on the building itself. I think it also diminishes the setting
I the other buildings that are listed alongside.
while deliberation to getting on Councillor Moon, you have somebody to say thank you Chair.
why why deliberations are going on?
I am slightly concerned that Members have to be honest.
after considering the application beforehand before this meeting, then have to may well formulate a reason that they've got to fit the comments they'd made in relation to their concerns or trying to come to terms with the application.
that to me, maybe undermines the integrity of this committee with application should be seen beforehand, and you take a view at the meeting.
I'm concerned that in relation to this application and its flip side, albeit does that mean that every application on a Grade II listed building?
as some all been compromised,
by refusing this application and recommendation by officers, and I say that not because I made the proposal, but I still support the comments and report made by the officers.
I think in partial partial answer to your state.
Councillor Moon.
its effect on other applications of listed or indeed unlisted buildings.
is it not our concern, we are dealing with one application at a time on its own?
it does not set a precedent.
whether we accept or refuse, this is the one application.
in front of us, but we have to determine.
I would say.
the the the the the undertow of your earlier remarks that somehow the integrity of this committee is.
at risk.
yeah, I utterly reject, it seems to me it will have been sensible and informed debate.
most of us have seen the building itself, we have clearly all read the recommendation in detail, as I think be the questions and the debate.
have been sensible and to the point, so, from the point of view of the committed integrity, I regard this as being.
without reproach.
chair, I accept your comments in relation to that, but I will make the point reference was already made in debate.
that if this application was accepted or granted, then it will be open season in the Calverley Park area, and other properties will be put in applications in order to make that reference at the beginning, but it was already made in our debate and our discussion is my opinion. There is no personal aspect on it at all with my opinion, but I accept what you say. Thank you
I think not to labour the point too much they.
we all have on the Committee have lagged the hard way, but we must consider one application at a time.
and I think there was some suggestions from some of those speakers that open season might be declared on extensions, but that is.
not the case.
thank you, Councillor, about clarifying that Councillor Les Page.
can I just quickly add Councillor Pope mentioned the BBF paragraph 200, and you thought that that might be something involved in the form of words, but can I add paragraph 1 99 as well, because I also came upon that paragraph 200, paragraph 1 99 to his great weight should be given to assets to the conservation of assets.
so that's one 99 in the NP.
Mr Ho, thank you, certainly those those paragraphs are irrelevant, as is paragraph 201 as well, I think it's important that the reason for refusal is very clear in terms of why the application is unacceptable to members, so I think we need still that clarification as to whether or not the harm relates to the listed building itself and listed building setting,
or and or to the harm to the registered park and garden and or to the conservation area, and is that level of harm substantial, or is it less than substantial, so there's a number of different criteria in which this could be formed into a reason for refusal.
I think the sense of the meeting.
is that the focus is on the building itself?
and the damage to it alone, rather than be in a wider scope.
members are free to disagree with that point.
I, the Chair, Councillor Pope.
no, sorry, I was getting, I think I think we would agree that it is the building itself, but probably also, to a lesser extent, the impact on the group of buildings in Calverley Park.
Councillor Les Peg, thanks, I was going to say, in response to the three levels of areas that.
it is this, I feel the harm is significant, not less, I feel it is significant to that particular building and to its immediate.
setting but not the conservation area.
I clarify things, can I think, regarding their year.
if I read out what could be a reason for refusal, and perhaps he could Kafka, if that covers everything so the proposed development would result in.
either less than substantial harm or substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II style listed building the Grade II listed Park and Gardens by reason of the position, form and size of the side extension, and then the public benefits test would not be would not outweigh this and then go into what policies it would contravene.
if so, is that point about whether or not a substantial harm or less than substantial harm, which is quite important from our perspective, though?
although the two paragraphs the mppa flights, different things say it's to clarify, can be refused on either of those levels of harm proposer and second, proposer and seconder.
one form of words to
I was going to say, count, can we say either of those apply I window, I mean it's taken to a certain extent the the points where he made I mean, is it for us to decide whether it's substantial or less than substantial or should we say we believed it's one of either of those?
well, Capcom can waste, no, can we say in the reasonably rejected it is that we came to the conclusion that it was either substantial or less than substantial yeah, I has to be one or the other.
so you have to pick one.
I mean, and in fairness I mean, I have looked through the legislation and I have looked at the case law, I'm not sure really whether it's fair to ask members of the Planning Committee to be able, if you like, on the hoof to decide which of those two designation should apply frankly watching I think so.
sorry, whereas when Carwyn, when Head of Planning read it out, I thought he was reading it out, but we came to the conclusion it was one arrived of those without concluding that it was one in particular.
I think we have to decide, and my advice to the Committee will be that you settle on less than substantial harm as a slightly lower hurdle, substantial harm is a killer.
less than substantial harm.
doesn't mean harmless, it just means not.
disastrous.
and nothing to either ports support the care, and so the suggestion is that less than substantial.
and it is to the individual Villa itself.
rather than any wider setting.
as the decision to.
I accept less than substantial harm, but I think it's to the Villa itself and to due to the setting.
to clarify.
the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II style listed building the Grade II listed Park and Gardens by reason of the position, form and size of the side, extension with public benefits associated with the proposal would not outweigh this harm, it would therefore be contrary to the relevant policies of the Local Plan.
I wish I'd said that.
Vice Chair, so I made that question, so I think that.
the harm is really to the individual building rather than the whole of the park setting, so can we.
I don't know a good fit on three things.
why don't we vote on what the Head of Planning has asked and see whether we get a majority and then then then we can move on?
we put.
you could put it can have to carry on.
yes, sorry, Chair, could I ask Councillor Osborne the proposer yes, with the first low contact level?
I am happy to propose, but if Councillor never liked the obsessed option which was the harm to the building and the wider Gardens, yes, yes, you are and is the second, are happy with that, and then we can vote on that.
and then we can take the
second option, if there is not now, if there's not a majority, will that work?
just to clarify just the wording of the refusal, you're doing, it's not the official officer recommendation.
OK.
members, my advice would be to go for the simpler and narrower of the bases for objection, but it's the building itself.
less than substantial harm, because of its mass bulk, et cetera, et cetera, extending beyond that is starting to get a bit thinner.
but if that is your wish.
we can.
although I want the older proposer and seconder, I think the setting should be included, and certainly when you look at the Inspector's reports.
on previous listed building applications that have gone have been challenged, the inspectors normally paid quite a lot of them.
in respect to the setting, so I think I think we should be taking both the building and the setting, and the wording that was suggested by the Head of Planning was proposed by Councillor Neville and seconded by myself, reject the proposal before the Committee.
proposed by Councillor Neville seconded by Councillor Osborne is to reject the
the officers proposal and deny the application for the reasons.
given.
that is less than substantial harm because of the bulk and mass of the building mass of the side, extension to the setting of the Bill to the building itself and its setting in the wider landscape excuse me, chap, is it not possible to have an alternative no,
that is clearly not, thank you.
I am sorry that re.
we can't fight an option, we can't vote on options members.
it seems that we're gradually making up our minds, but I think we need at this stage to be decisive, settle on a reason for refusal or reasons for refusal and vote on the dam deck yes, I am I so we're voting on the reasons for refusal at the moment which I haven't done before when we have different when we're not but but first of all we need to vote on the officers' recommendation and so that we can either remove that and move on to vote against the officers' recommendation.
begging your pop mom, but the vote to accept the officer's recommendation was never seconded.
so it is not in effect a
thank you for clarifying that.
but cannot just mention this, that doesn't mean it means my comments at all in the debate.
I am getting the very strong feeling that Members are ignoring my views.
by the options and what else has been discussed?
Councillor Lone, we're not ignoring your views or just disagreeing with you.
I take that point quite, but it does look that much that way not like Christmas, but certainly Marwa, I'm saying.
it's happened to us, all members that.
I'm really sorry, but I really need to be. We really need to be clear on one particular point, so what I gather is that members are satisfied with less than substantial harm to the grade 2 star listed building and the setting of that building but its whether or not it also applies to the Grade II listed Park and Gardens. So this is clearly two separate matters. One is the building itself and its setting, and one is the park, so can we get some clarification from Members as to whether it applies to both the proposer and seconder?
my understanding was, it was the building and the setting, not the wider grounds.
I am just I, I haven't.
a formal view on this, but I am wondering what you think, chairman about a consensus with the remaining Councillors as to whether the reason is with how many would prefer to have the harm to the setting of the to the building itself and the wider setting or how many would like just to the building itself would that be inappropriate.
way of dealing with the reason for refusal.
I think we will be looking at the building itself and it and its relationship with the other building, and I just stood, I just was not thinking the whole park.
can I just raise a point shared in the public notice of the agenda, and the opposite submission does not mention anything about options within the ground, so we are making the decision that members of the public were not able to maybe view before this meeting, so how does that maybe come into legal aspects of actually notifying the general public what we debating tonight?
I think it's a meant the Member's decision, based on all the considerations.
there is obviously a slightly different differing opinion or whether it affects.
the wider setting or not, and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of how many members, if, if there is a consensus of
more councillors wanting the wider setting to refuse it on the wider setting, then we can vote on that as well.
sorry, it is a bit confusing, but I think it is a Member's decision,
the proposer and seconder I address you for a moment, because it is it is for you in the first instance, to the to the side.
the Whip for narrow notice will be the grounds for refusal.
that the
they effect on the building itself.
is one basis for refusal.
that I would judge.
it is easier to defend.
then the effect on the wider setting of Calverley Park.
and in terms of
defending our decision.
sorry, I think we have enough to go on if we focus on Mohammed to the building itself.
but Councillor Pattison
but it was not the border city, it was the setting of the building.
which is different from a wider setting, surely it's the building and its setting, so how the building is perceived not, and I think that the proposer said it wasn't going to apply to the Park and Gardens, though that was what we thought it was that's correct.
members.
the proposal before us proposed by Councillor Neville seconded by Councillor Osborne, is to vote to reject the officers.
recommendation to approve, for reasons of less than substantial harm to the setting of the building itself, but by reason of the bulk and size of the site side extension and to the harm less than substantial harm, it would also pose to the wider setting.
I think if we could get Carlos to confirm the wording just for the minute and just to confirm the exact wording.
sorry, Chairman, there seemed to be some added bits in there, so can we just have yeah Carlos confirm the wording and then the proposer to agree?
so my understanding is that this would be the reason for refusal, the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II Star listed building by reason of its position, form and size of the side extension the public benefits associated with this proposal would not outweigh this harm, it would therefore be contrary to saved Policy Ian 1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan policies CP 4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy and,
2010, and Chapter 16 of the MPPA F,
can we just have the proposer and the secondary are greater than
what he said, thank you.
I am happy with the
proposal.
that's nine for refusal check.
one against.
yes, again.
no extensions to the
so it's now 2041, we'll we'll come back at 20.46, we're just gonna take a short break, thank you.
7 b) Application for Consideration - 23/01123/LBC 5 Calverley Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Seat 3 - 2:11:14
application 23 0 1 1 2 3 listed building consent5 Calverley Port Royal Tunbridge Wells kept page 54 of the main agenda.
Page 5 of the supplementary pack
Ms mimic, your presentation plate.
thank you Chair.
so it is gonna be very similar to the last presentation that we.
we we saw, so yes again, this is about 5 Calverley Park that some the
on them, Calverley Park and facing onto Copley grounds, this has just shows the aerial photo in relation to Cavic grounds in the wider Cobley Park area.
and again, these are very similar photos from before, so this is a photo from the entrance to.
the property so that looking up the driveway to the garage and the porch on the right-hand side, and these are sulphites house from the from Calverley Park itself, looking to the property and one from to nearer to Rokeby Park one at the entrance and then the next to are further up the road sort of outside the application property and then the next one.
number 6.
this is a closer view of the house, so you can see the pitched roof garage in the centre of the photo and on the right-hand side is the porch, and you can see that the porch, the central area this port is, it is part of the original building and either side of that are extensions to the porch that have happened over time.
and yet this is just the rear elevation and again you can just see this in relation to number 6 as well, and the symmetry of the two properties in terms of the two storey, rear extensions.
and this one shows with the garage as well, so into the site, and the relationship with the the 20th century garage and the and the property.
this is the existing ground floor.
suppose the only thing to point out is the isn't in terms of the actual listed building itself and the development, the the areas that will be removed would be obviously the garage to the side, but also the conservatory here, the wall here and the enclosed will hear that for the courtyard area.
and this is just the festival plan again, showing that the conservatory that would be removed and and the line of the wall.
I think we all know the, if this is the front elevation, the existing elevation showing the garage only on the left-hand side, this that shaded out because it is far back into the site.
existing property with the the poach to the side,
and these are the just existing side elevations, showing the porch and the extent of the existing building and the single storey elements to the rear.
and again the existing building, showing the the rear elevation.
the with the garage to the right-hand side, the detached garage and the single storey elements to the rear that you can say with the flat roofed area immediately, adjacent to number 6 and then the conservatory extension and the the wall of the courtyard enclosure.
so this is the floor plan, just showing the extended the extensions to the rear.
the
can get it.
just to show you the the elements the at year end required, this will enable the extension, so the actual physical changes that are required to the building.
really only relate to the the.
the replacement of this small window here with a door, so they can access from the existing building to the extension, and this is part of the existing porch, that's there at the moment.
there are other changes in the building here.
the detailed, but these have already been granted planning and listed building consent, so they're not part of this proposal.
and then a first floor, the only changes proposed would be the blocking up of this window, which is the external wall at the moment, and the opening and enlarging of this existing window to form an entrance into the proposed extension, and then a new opening he had just to get into I think it's a non sway to up offering
and I think we were familiar with the front elevation just showing the side extension.
and proposed here,
and the side elevation showing the rear two storey extension, extending from the original building here and the two storey side extension, just set back, so behind the the porch.
and this would be the rear elevation, so, with the two storey extension coming straight over the two storey projection, that's already there, and the side extension extending offer this this proposed two storey extension.
and yeah, and that I think you've seen this as just a fight, a montage of what is likely to appear as from from Cobley Park.
and again, the only revisions or updates for this application are the revised plans that are being provided just to address the inconsistencies between the proposed floor plans and elevations.
so yeah, so the recommendation would be to grant listed building consent, subject to the conditions within the the agenda, so thank you thank you.
thank you, Lord Mayor.
we have all speakers literally on this item when I call your name, please come to the microphone.
and you have three minutes or less to make your statement first in objection to the application, is that the pool ibis, on behalf of the Decimus Burton Society.
thank you, Mr. Chairman, I was originally going to reread the objections that I had from the previous application, but I'm not going to and then say Bowie those instead, I just wanted to make a few observations that I would like you to take into consideration when some of the drawings have been presented to you, it's often being presented in a way that shows the building in I'm gonna say or the proposal in its best possible light there's been a lot of focus on the front elevation.
what we don't see, however, is the actual effect of the 2 storey addition on the rear, which actually obliterates the original building, in that you cannot see the original building, the effect of it is dramatic.
and yet it's not really focused on a great deal, so we will look at the harm to the listed building, there is a considerable harm, you lose the total scale mass of the original building, secondly, when you look at the side elevation and the proposal there,
although the addition is set back from the front of the street, it actually creates quite a substantial imbalance to the original concept of the building, so those are a couple of elements that I would like you to take into consideration, we've had comments put forward to us that by stepping down the height of the roof on the garage block it is subservient to the building well it is slightly, but I think it would go.
I think very few people could possibly disagree that that addition is anything but major and is certainly not subservient to the main concepts of the original design, so that is the first comment, the second comment was with regards to Calverley Park itself, and estimates burton's original concept for it.
and I'd like to put a bit of context in there, because Decimus Burton came to Calverley having worked on Regent's Park, Regent's Park was the model for Calverley.
and Calverley set a precedent for a lot of important Victorian Regency town developments in this country that not only included Tunbridge Wells as the first, but you then had St Leonard's, you then have Fleetwood and a number of others, and as such Tunbridge Wells is not just the jewel in the crown of this town, it's actually incredibly important in the history of town planning in the country and I don't want you to lose sight of that.
in Regent's Park you couldn't alter the village, you couldn't extend them greatly, there was a lot of control over what you were and were not allowed to do so, the argument of buildings changing over the years in additions. Yes, I agree, I'm an architect, I trained as an actor I have 40 years in architecture, abs
all three benefits, I'm afraid, thank you very much, thank you.
our next speaker in objection to the application is Dr David Wright, on behalf of the Tunbridge Wells Civic Society.
grade 2 star listed buildings comprise a tiny percentage of the built environment, both nationally and here in Tunbridge Wells, they are a precious contribution to our national heritage and in Calverley Park.
the town has one of the finest set-piece displays, a grade 2 star listed buildings in the country
the grand arc of 24 villas looks much as it did 200 years ago and bears direct comparison with earlier developments in Bath.
but here a developer wants to destroy the symmetry of a single listed building of considerable beauty.
can you imagine what Bath City Council would have made of such a proposal?
it will probably never have got beyond pre application.
the recommendation to approve is contrary to all the advice sought from the external statutory bodies and amenity groups.
the laws and regulations protecting listed buildings were drafted to be interpreted uniformly and nationally.
how two completely different interpretations could be made from those regulations really is a dissonance, this dissonance, ladies and gentlemen, is the elephant in this room.
the Institute of historic buildings. Conservation has warned councils that it is their duty not simply to request an opinion from statutory bodies, but also to take that opinion seriously. If you do not follow their advice, you have to be able to show at ombudsman, ombudsman, investigation or judicial review. There was strong reason, well documented for not doing so. You have before you very well documented reasons for refusing this application. You now have a golden opportunity to get this right to the credit of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. The Civic Society strongly urges refusal. Please make it clear to all and for the future that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council really knows how to protect its listed buildings from harm. Thank you
thank you, Dr Raj.
our next speaker, objecting to the application, is Mr David Cooper,
a local resident.
pick them up.
sorry about that, our next Speaker.
is Ms Deborah Reece, a local resident from her statement, will be read by Ms Sheila Phillips.
Surrey.
Good evening, thank you.
and even the developer seems to have not expected his application to be approved because he has already recently submitted for another alternative extension, so one thing that I would really like to emphasise to you now is I contacted historic England to ask what effect having a single listing covering the Villa comprising numbers 5 and 6 together means their reply is that they expect any works to consider the impact on the whole property, not just the half making the application, and this hasn't been done. No one has visited number 6, none of the photos, none of the diagrams anything have taken five and six together, so nobody has been able to see how the proposal will destroy. Decimus Burton symmetry across the rear of the Villa
some of what I am saying has already been covered, but having written it, I feel I ought to read it out on behalf of Deborah. So Calverley Park is privately owned, but the public are welcome to walk through the park in it's well used by both townspeople and visitors. The proposed extension to number 5 would be very visible to the people passing by you have already determined tonight that there is form, and the appraisal in your committee report had set out most of the relevant planning framework, but it had admitted paragraph 2 0 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which says, whereas the where there is less than substantial harm, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum, viable use. There is form, there is no public benefit and the only benefit in this as being is accruing for the applicant. I'm not going to repeat all the earlier comments, but I would just like to politely remind you that the Institute of historic buildings conservation, commenting on cases that have been taken to the ombudsman has advised councils that it is their duty not simply to request the opinion of the statutory bodies, but to take that opinion seriously, so therefore, along with everybody else of the speakers, I urge you to refuse this application. Thank you.
thank you.
or both spit gobble sheep, dig objecting to the application as David Cooper a local resident.
thank you.
historic England says, listing marks and celebrates a building's special, architectural and historic interest so that it can be protected for future generations. We've heard that just 5.8% of listed buildings are of such importance to be great to star, but they include all the houses in Calverley Park and Calverley Park Crescent, which looks onto the rear of number 5. These comprise a unique, nationally important ensemble that requires your protection
that the application before you is unprecedented changes to the villas, since they were listed 70 years ago, have been smaller and crucially single storey before they were listed. Some of the villas, not including number 5, underwent substantial changes. Nonetheless, or realistic Grade II star Committee report paragraph 7 80, speculates this means the alterations were not considered to have a significant impact on the overall significance of the villas, but isn't the purpose of each high listing to give a high level of protection to each velour, regardless of what's gone before
the degree of change per proposed here is not modest and the special interest of the Villa is not preserved
you have to reconcile diametrically opposite opinions, the statutory consultees both recommend the application be refused historic buildings and places state they wish to reiterate our concerns that this application would harm the significance and architectural interest of a highly listed heritage asset, the group value of the adjoining buildings and the wider setting of Calverley Park.
the Chief Planning Officer here recommends approving the application.
how do you reconcile that or another way should this opportunistic development outweigh the preservation of a delightful historic Villa set in such an important example of Georgian town planning, before you make your decision, I urge you to carefully consider again the expert opinions of the statutory consultees in the committee report your decision will affect not only the historic importance of number 5 and its immediate neighbours but allowing this application is bound to be relied on for the future development of listed buildings in the borough and buildings in the conservation areas.
I urge you to refuse this application.
thank you,
thank you, Mr. Cooper.
officers do wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by the speakers.
thank you Chair just a few if that's OK.
just some clarifications, Ms Rivers, said that there wasn't any diagrams showing the rear elevation, but this mini showed them onscreen they were there.
in terms of the the approach that the Council is taken and officers have taken, we have taken the opinions of the various consultees and the the various people have written to us very seriously, I would say, and as you can see from the dedicated responses in the report we have given it very much due consideration but would bring members' attention to paragraph 7.0 1 on page 60 of the report, which is the response from historic England which is the main statutory body for historic buildings and they have provided no comment on the application, but that was the the only points I wanted to make Chair.
thank you.
members, do you have any questions of the opposite?
no members shall we then move into debate.
do I have any proposals from members on how we should treat this application?
can I Councillor Patterson, Councillor Paso story?
can I propose a refusal of the application?
on the grounds of the impact on on a the Grade II star listed building or is the the the Smit, the impact on the symmetry of the original design of the pad.
5 and 6, and in the sense that the the proposed extension will actually upset that symmetry, which was the original one of the original reasons why I was raised to establish it.
a seconder for that proposal.
Councillor level, thank you Chair, I would like to second that proposal.
Councillor Paterson, I wonder whether you would like to consider adopting.
the reasons we gave for rejecting the earlier proposal to this application.
and perhaps we got those as well, I just wondered whether, because it's a listed building consent, that we need to make a reference to the actual one reasons why it might be listed, that was that was the reason why I chose the particular words I did but I am happy to adopt the others as well.
Mr head, could you give us some yeah, I'll try, so there was a reason for refusal for the full application which made reference to less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II style, listed building by reason of its form size of the side extension and it sounds like there may well be.
the desire to add that that form size, form and size of the side extension would unduly impact on the symmetry of the pair of buildings.
Councillor Knievel, you Councillor level, are you happy with that?
very happy.
Councillor Paterson, are you happy with that, yes, much better put there, I did?
Councillor Ross ball should surely be referring to 66.1 of the planning listed building and conservation area Act.
within
this refusal that we need to do that.
I am thinking if, if it was to be reviewed by an inspector, then I would have thought that would have been the one of the pieces of legislation that we would have been relying on to overturn within.
K
so, although that's how the refusal will be based, that would come out within the
the Council's evidence in the appeal we wouldn't normally put legislation within a reason for refusal, it would be the policy reference and guidance national guidance, but that would come out as part of the defence, thank you, that's fine, thank you so we pulled far in level control.
members, the proposal is to reject the officer's recommendation.
is proposed by Councillor Patterson, seconded by Councillor Neville.
for reasons given.
let us proceed to vote all those in favour of rejecting the officer's recommendation.
that's nine for refusal.
or all those against.
one against.
yes, again.
the proposal is therefore rejected, thank you very much.
8 Appeal decisions for noting dated 26 October 2023 to 27 November 2023
before I go on to Item 8, I'd like to thank Members for what I thought was a a sensible and mature discussion of.
a very difficult case.
thank you, I think we've come to a good decision.
and I thank you for that.
ITEM 8 appeal decisions for noting.
from 26th of October 27th November, set out on page 82 of the agenda if Members have any questions relating to these appeal decisions taken, Jonathan Bell raised it with the Planning officers outside the meeting.
9 Urgent Business
10 Date of Next Meeting
write item 9 urgent business, I confirm there is no urgent business Item 10, the next meeting is on Wednesday, the 10th of January 2024 a meeting is now closed, thank you all for your attendance, thank you Chair.
- 1 Chairs Introduction, opens in new tab
- 2 Apologies for Absence, opens in new tab
- 3 Declarations of Interest, opens in new tab
- 4 Declarations of Lobbying, opens in new tab
- 6 Site Inspections, opens in new tab
- Minutes , 08/11/2023 Planning Committee, opens in new tab
- 23 01122 FULL 5 Calverley Park, opens in new tab
- 23 01122 FULL - 5 Calverley Park, opens in new tab
- 23 01123 LBC 5 Calverley Park, opens in new tab
- 23 01123 LBC - 5 Calverley Park, opens in new tab
- Appeal Decisions for Noting 26 Oct 23 to 27 Nov 23, opens in new tab
- 10 Urgent Business, opens in new tab
- 11 Date of the Next Meeting, opens in new tab