Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Numerical List Of

TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL

NUMERICAL LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS LIKELY TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING OF THE

Western Area Planning Committee at 5.30pm on Wednesday, 21 August 2002

(WAP/02/08/01)

APPL. NO. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION DECISION PAGE NO.

TW/01/02267 Removal/Variation of Condition 3 of TW/97/00682 – The tennis 1-9 courts shall only be used in connection with the use of Holmewood House as a school – Holmewood House School, Barrow Lane, Langton Green, SPELDHURST

TW/01/02266 Removal/Variation of Condition 12 of TW/97/00680 –The 10-16 development shall only be used for school purposes in connection with Holmewood House School – Holmewood House School, Barrow Lane, Langton Green, SPELDHURST

TW/01/01741 Alterations to existing buildings to provide an additional 5 flats, 17-24 relocation of existing managers accommodation, provision of additional landscaping together with the variation of an existing Section 106 Agreement related to planning consent reference TW/87/1159 – Latters and Wenhams Farm, Hartlake Road, CAPEL

TW/01/01750 Alterations to existing buildings to provide an additional 5 flats, 25-27 relocation of existing managers accommodation, provision of additional landscaping together with the variation of an existing Section 106 Agreement related to planning consent reference TW/87/1159 – Latters and Wenhams Farm, Hartlake Road, CAPEL

TW/01/02401 Erection of a building to provide health and fitness club within 28-35 Use Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure) use together with car parking, landscaping and access to Dowding Way - Land off Dowding Way, TUNBRIDGE WELLS

TW/02/00614 OUTLINE – (Means of access, siting and landscape not 36-39 reserved) – Industrial unit – Unit 5, High Brooms Industrial Estate, Chapman Way, SOUTHBOROUGH

TW/02/01479 Removal of Condition 4 of TW/01/01403 – 40-42 39, 41 & 41a Commercial Road, PADDOCK WOOD

TW/02/01007 Change of use from agricultural to storage - 43-47 Castle Hill Stables, Pembury Road, CAPEL

TW/02/01121 Detached 5 bed house with double garage on part of the site - 48-52 1 Woodbury Park Gardens, TUNBRIDGE WELLS TW/02/00986 Conversion of existing residential care home into 21 no. 1 bed 53-59 and 2 bed flats, ancillary offices and replacement pitched roof rear extensions – 51-53 London Road, TUNBRIDGE WELLS

TW/02/01310 Demolition of an unlisted building in a Conservation Area, 60-63 erection of new buildings and associated landscape works – Dunorlan Park, Pembury Road, TUNBRIDGE WELLS

TW/02/01319 CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT – Demolition of Board 64-65 Kiosk – Dunorlan Park, Pembury Road, TUNBRIDGE WELLS

TW/02/00762 Extension and Alterations – 66-68 Orchard Farm, 29 Romford Road, PEMBURY

TW/02/01263 First floor extension to front of property - 69-71 22 First Street, Langton Green, SPELDHURST

TW02/01156 Replacement garage and office with accommodation over – 72-76 2 Wood Cottages, Victoria Road, SOUTHBOROUGH

TW02/02536 Demolition of existing dwelling and garage and erection of new 77-81 dwelling and garage with associated works – Brambleshaw, Bullingstone Lane, SPELDHURST - W1 -

WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL SERVICES

21 AUGUST 2002

PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

HOLMEWOOD HOUSE SCHOOL TW/01/02267 Holmewood House Removal/variation of (C/O Kember Loudon Williams School Condition 3 of TW/97/00682 – Ridgers Barn Barrow Lane The tennis courts shall only Eridge Langton Green be used in connection with Tunbridge Wells SPELDHURST the use of Holmewood House Kent ) SP as a school

12/10/01 55130/38590 12/10/01

Category - Planning D Highways D

DESCRIPTION

Holmewood House School occupies a site to the west of Tunbridge Wells, at Langton Green. The site lies to the south of Langton Road, the main road connecting Langton Green with Tunbridge Wells town. The site is located within the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area and the southern and western part of the site, south of the tennis courts, is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The school sits in spacious grounds. The main core of the use is based around Holmewood House itself, a Grade 2 listed building. The complex contains various other buildings. A group of these is clustered to the north west of the main building and includes some older buildings, part of the established group, and now converted to changing rooms and other ancillary school facilities. This group also includes a modern sports hall and a swimming pool recently updated to a covered facility. In this part of the site, adjacent to the playing field, is another area of tennis courts. There is a group of ‘temporary’ prefabricated classrooms to the west of the main building. The school’s modern theatre lies to the west of this group. The most recent facilities added to the school are subject to conditions relating to the use – the covered swimming pool, the new tennis courts (the subject of this application) and the theatre.

Knowle Court School sits further to the west, forming the pre-preparatory element of the school.

The school has two means of vehicular access, one onto Barrow Lane and one onto Hither Chantlers/Holmewood Ridge. Both these accesses then feed onto Langton Road, the A264. An informal one- way system for vehicles is operated within the school grounds, with entrance via Barrow Lane and exit via Hither Chantlers.

The current proposal relates to the use of the four open tennis courts to the south east of the main building, constructed pursuant to a planning application granted in 1997. The closest vehicular access is the main drive in front of the mansion. There is pedestrian access via an existing path to the courts themselves. The courts are located near the eastern boundary of the site, a minimum of 3 metres from the site boundary, which abuts the end of rear gardens of houses in Hither Chantlers. - W2 -

The application seeks to remove condition (3) of that planning consent which states, ‘The tennis courts shall only be used in connection with the use of Holmewood House as a school.’

The reason for this was ‘To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control development in the interests of the amenities of the locality.’

It was drawn to the Authority’s attention last year that these courts appeared to be being used other than in accordance with this condition. The applicant was asked to address the apparent contravention and has responded by the submission of this application.

In support of the application, the applicant has submitted statements, key points of which are

- Two of the courts are built to club standards and two to County standards. The use of the courts by the school will remain the priority. However, the school would wish to remove the condition to enable the courts to be used for community recreational purposes.

- The spirit of PPG17 : Sport and recreation, and Sport England land use policy supports this dual use of school sports facilities.

- Kent Structure Plan and Local Plan policies also support this where there is sufficient capacity

- This is an appropriate outdoor recreation use within the green belt

- The existing condition is unreasonable. If it is not agreed to remove it, it should be varied to ‘The tennis courts shall only be used in connection with the use of Holmewood House School as a school, except for organised club use outside school hours.’

- Following initial consideration of the application and the receipt of representations in response to consultations, there has been considerable discussion with highways in relation to the traffic generated by the use of these courts, other than in connection with the school. In particular, the use of Hither Chantlers, and the junction of Holmewood Ridge with Langton Road at ‘peak times’ has been highlighted as a serious problem for residents of Hither Chantlers.

In the light of the above, the applicant has provided further information regarding traffic movements and flows. Details supplied include

- On an average school day there are between 850 and 900 movements (one movement is a journey to and from the school). These include parents dropping off and picking up the pupils, employees, deliveries and visitors to the school.

- The school has introduced a series of measures to reduce the number of private car trips. The school operates mini buses which transport 80 pupils a day, and has a car share system.

- The school operates a one way system through the school grounds.

- The school does not wish to exacerbate traffic movements at peak times. Therefore, use of the tennis courts by non-pupils would be outside peak times. And would be operated strictly through an organised club. There would be no access to the general public. Peak hours are considered to be approximately 7am – 9am and 3pm – 5pm.

- The school would undertake to ensure that all users of the courts would enter and leave by Hither Chantlers. Users would park n front of the main building.

- The maximum number of players would be 16 at any time. - a traffic management plan by the school addressing the traffic issues in a proper context, would be accepted as the subject of a planning condition. - W3 -

RECENT RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/ 96/01868 – Two storey music/theatre block - approved, 20/1/97

TW/97/00680 – Removal of existing open-air swimming pool, new covered pool, relocation of existing rifle range – approved 6/10/97

TW/97/00682 - New external tennis courts – approved25/7/97TW/00/01997 – Two-storey junior school building – approved 16/3/01.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV1 – Countryside protected for its own sake

- Policy ENV3 - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

- Policy ENV4 – Special Landscape Area

- Policy ENV19 – Listed buildings

- Policy MGB3 – Development in Green Belt

- Policy T17 – Vehicle parking standards

- Policy RS1 – Development in countryside

- Policy RS5 – Development in rural Kent – criteria

- Policy SR2 – Sports and formal recreation

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan

- Policy MGB1 – Development in Green Belt

- Policy EN1 – General development criteria

- Policy EN23 – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area

- Policy TP1 – Road hierarchy

- Policy VP1 – County parking standards

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review - Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy MGB1 – Development in Green Belt

- Policy EN1 – General development criteria

- Policy EN23 – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area

- Policy TP4 – Road hierarchy

- Policy TP5 – County parking standards - W4 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Highways Manager

24/05/02 - I consider that a temporary consent would be the best solution. I am not convinced on the basis of what I have seen that a full consent should be granted because there are traffic-related issues which could not easily be controlled by condition. However, there is not a clear highway reason to object to object to some non-school use. It is the difficulty in limiting that use which gives me cause for concern.

I would recommend that the facility should not be used for any form of competition because that could give rise to concentrated levels of traffic and consequent increase in risk at the A264 junctions.

If a temporary consent were given, a condition should require the applicant to undertake traffic surveys prior to the commencement of the use and once again once it is fully operational. Automatic traffic counters could be located on the exit road for a full week at a time.

2. Speldhurst Parish Council

22/11/01 - On a number of occasions, this Council has raised the important issue of the traffic flow to and from this School. It is not just the volume of traffic involved, it is also the safety problems caused at the junctions at Barrow Lane and Hither Chantlers on the A264. In addition, the residents in Hither Chantlers suffer considerably not only by the volume of traffic generated but also by the ill discipline of many of the drivers. No action whatsoever has happened, not even a discussion has taken place. The absence seemingly of any interest by anyone in the TWBC is disappointing. Thus any application which may generate further traffic is unwelcome. Additionally, the clauses imposed in 1997 were reasonable at that time and indeed still necessary, in order to protect the amenity interests of the residents locally and the village generally. It is recognised that there is pressure for sports facilities to be shared and this Council is supportive of that policy all things being equal. If these clauses are removed, the School benefits and prospers at the expense of the local community – a very unequal situation.

Recommend refusal to both the above applications.

3. Langton Green Rural Society

24/11/01 - There has been in recent years a steady flow of applications from the school without any obvious strategy regarding new building or rebuilding. As a result, a Six-Year Plan was produced last year at the request, I believe, of the Borough Council. Subsequently, there was a discussion between the school and a number of what one might call ‘interested parties’ such as the Parish Council, the Residents Association and the Rural Society. In the main, there were only two areas of real concern – increased traffic flow and the proposed extension to the staff car park.

Neither item was resolved and the concern of the residents was exacerbated by a reluctance to answer a question referring to the new gymnasium and fitness centre. The Bursar did, by letter, respond with the statement that “the new facilities would allow the school to deploy permanent fitness equipment for use by pupils, staff, and parents.” This line has been the basis of requests for the pool, tennis courts, and the rifle range in the past; now the school is asking to extend the use of virtually all its facilities, to the general public.

Our principal concern in these proposals is the increase in road traffic that will surely arise on a road network which is not suitable and where problems of overuse already exist. To be fair, the school has devised a one-way system of dropping-off/picking-up pupils but with 580 pupils (almost exclusively day boys), there is clearly a substantial traffic problem which the introduction of out of school hours clubs will only make worse for the residents and drivers on the A264.

This increase in traffic is inevitable and to say otherwise is to deny the obvious. In its Applications, the school refers to a local bus service; it is true that one exists, but the dropping points are nearly a mile from the school. More importantly, however, the last bus from the centre of Tunbridge Wells to Langton Green is 6.10 pm and in the reverse direction 5.55 pm. The school’s assertion, therefore, that club members could use the bus to avoid an increase in traffic levels is without foundation. - W5 -

There is additional information which is not available from the school; it would be of value to know the number of members that the school envisages for each of these clubs and what it means exactly by the term ‘out of school hours’. If so, then clearly the residents would have to face a further nuisance which does not presently exist – is there no end?

The previous agreements by the Borough to developments at the school have clearly had the intention of restricting the use of facilities to the pupils etc. “in the interest of road safety” or “to enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate … in the interests of the amenities of the locality.” These constraints have not deterred the school from continuing to extend its commercialisation of the facilities; for example, the school will currently tell you that a Family Membership for the tennis courts if £100 for parents and £125 for others.

Furthermore, the school has made a number of efforts to advertise its tennis facilities – leaflets at the Spa Leisure Club and a website which has since been closed at the request of the residents. The current position, however, is complicated when we find in the Tunbridge Wells library a pamphlet – Tennis in Tunbridge Wells (proposed by the Borough and the LTA) – listing Holmewood Tennis Club, its address and telephone number..

Residents are often told by the school that they would have been aware of the school’s presence when they bought their houses. Quite true, but they were not aware of the extensive developments that were being proposed until they were revealed in the Six Year Plan. Nor were they aware that in getting approval to this Plan, the school had already decided, for revenue reasons, to open up their facilities to the general public.

As a Society, we represent all our members in the local community and try at all times to take a balanced and fair approach when considering Planning Applications. We do not have some kind of vendetta towards the school but the creeping commercialisation of recent years which has clearly resulted in increased traffic flows, the arrogance of the school, and the breakdown of trust between the residents and the school about its future intentions, is of great concern to us. We are strongly of the view, therefore, that both Applications should be rejected because of traffic and amenity considerations.

4. Hither Chantlers Residents Association

Letters of 3/12/01 and 5/12/01, accompanied by petition of 38 signatures supporting the letters –

Concern relating to continuing growth of school. Main problem relates to access – restricted by narrow roads and junctions with A264. Results in congestion, delay and disturbance for residents of Hither Chantlers

- Appears to be policy of growth by stealth. Site in green belt, and AONB.

- Contend that hiring out is necessary to finance additional facilities provided. – Commercial enterprise rather than educational establishment.

- Recent permissions have included that proposals be restricted to school use – recognition by planning department of location of school and its growth.

- Proposal would add to the sum of traffic to and from the school

- Reference to applicant’s statement – Sport England’s policy includes caveats about making use of school sites for dual use. Local plan states dual use acceptable ‘where this would not have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjoining occupiers or the attractiveness of the built up areas or the countryside’. Additional traffic would be material.

- School has ignored condition 3. Tennis facilities advertised.

- Additional pressure put on the road by hiring out all weather pitch, squash courts and sports hall to outside bodies. – akin to 7 days a week leisure centre rather than school

- School appears to be maximising income from assets as part of policy for current/future development - May be pressure for additional changing facilities, floodlighting and car parking - Do not object to living next to a school, but not a sports/leisure centre. - W6 -

5. Sport England, 27/11/01

Sport England promotes wider use of existing and new sports facilities to serve more than one group of users. Encourage users to consider opportunities for joint provision and dual use of facilities in appropriate locations.

Facilities at school are potentially important for wider community. Direct benefits to young people. Schools generally well located in terms of access by foot or public transport – should not add significantly to trips by cars.

Support the application.

6. Private – 9 letters of objection

- Traffic congestion – 9 letters

- Noise – 2 letters

- Concern at scale of commercial venture – 5 letters

- Continued expansion harmful to residential amenities – 2 letters

- Precedent for other establishments – 1 letter

- Existing outside uses at school increases traffic already – 5 letters

- Not in the spirit of Sport England’s aims – 2 letters

- Retrospective – 5 letters

- Subsequent pressure for additional facilities e.g. floodlights – 1 letter

- Good reason for existing condition - should be retained - 3 letters.

APPRAISAL

The key issues in relation to this proposal are

- whether the proposal represents appropriate development in this location in the green belt

- Whether the development would be acceptable in its effect on the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area

- The impact on highway safety

- The impact on residential amenities.

Context

Before considering each of these issues, it is important to start by considering the context of the application. The school site as a whole is well established and the majority of the older buildings and structures on the site have no conditions requiring them to be used by ‘Holmewood House School ‘ only. Thus, it is open to the school to hire out the facilities and rooms not so restricted so long as the use is for ‘education’, that is, within Class D1. This right also extends to the older tennis courts to the north of the main school building. The tennis club training courses being offered on these courts would not therefore appear to be in contravention of any planning controls. It should also be noted that the Local Plan, Local Plan Review and PPG17: Sport and Recreation, make reference to the desirability of making dual use of school facilities, where constraints allow.

- W7 -

Development in the Green Belt

Structure Plan Policy MGB3 states a presumption against inappropriate new development in the green belt. In addition, any development approved should maintain the open character of the area. The policy allows for ‘essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation which preserve the openness of the green belt and do not conflict with the purposes of on including land in it. Local Plan Policy MGB1 reiterates this aim and makes particular reference to the ‘open recreation functions’ of the green belt.

I consider that the most relevant purpose of the green belt in this particular context is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The proposed use of the courts other than by school users would not, in my view, compromise this purpose.

Area of Outstanding Beauty and Special Landscape Area

I consider that the development would not compromise the natural beauty or special character of the landscape. The important open areas around the school complex are retained by the proposal.

Highway issues

This aspect has caused considerable concern for local residents and has been the subject of detailed discussions with the highways manager. The existing use of the site does have a detrimental impact on residential amenities, resulting in traffic congestion and increased waiting times at junctions at certain times of the day. However, the main school is well established on this site and the total number of pupils has been limited by previous permissions given. The school has introduced measures to try to compensate for its increased number of day pupils in recent years, so as to minimise the impact on traffic congestion.

I do not consider that the existing use of the tennis courts in connection with the school gives rise to any significant additional traffic. The use of the four ‘new’ courts by non-school users would, inevitably increase the traffic levels. I therefore have concerns that, in spite of the assurances by the applicant, the levels of visitors to the site as a result of the additional use, would be difficult to control, measure and monitor. Any increase would be likely to cause some additional hazards to traffic and additional inconvenience and delays at the junction with Langton Road, particularly at certain times of the day.

The Highways Manager suggests that a temporary consent could be granted. This would allow time for the use to be monitored over another full season, comparing the impact in traffic terms of using or not using the 4 new courts as part of the facilities on offer.

Impact on residential amenities

The use of the courts by non-school users has the potential to increase noise disturbance to residents in Hither Chantlers. This is likely to be more noticeable in the evening, and more so when there are higher numbers of people in attendance. The applicant states that there would be a maximum of 16 people using the courts. However, this does not take account of any spectators, tutors or ‘change – over’ times. It would be possible to limit hours of use by condition.

Conclusion

This application has given rise to considerable concerns from consultees, particularly with regard to traffic and consequent amenity issues. A number of consultees refer to the incremental intensification of activity at the school. On the other hand the applicants consider that the use could be carried on, subject to conditions, without harm to amenity. A further factor is the encouragement of the principle of dual use in the Local Plan and in PPG7. While the use would be outside the peak times for school-related traffic, I have some concern that the times at which traffic causes problems would be extended into the evening period and into weekends. On balance, and having regard to the views of the Highways Manager, I consider that a trial period of two years would be appropriate. During this period the applicants should be required to undertake traffic monitoring, in accordance with a scheme of monitoring to be approved. - W8 -

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS

(1) Limited period – use T002 < 30th September 2004> Reason: In order that the local planning authority may review the impact of the use on residential amenities and highway safety.

(2) The tennis courts shall only be used in connection with the use of Holmewood House School as a school, except for organised club use outside school hours. Reason: In order to restrict the use in the interests of residential amenities and highway safety.

(3) No organised club use shall take place other than between the hours of 1700 and 2000 hours, Mondays to Saturdays and 0900 and 1800 hours on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to restrict the use in the interests of residential amenities and highway safety.

(3) Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted a scheme of traffic monitoring shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme so approved shall be implemented throughout the period of this permission. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the use on traffic conditions and residential amenities.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing no. 1T and letters dated 10 October 2001 and 22 March 2002.

Reference: RCC/DAH

- W10 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

HOLMEWOOD HOUSE SCHOOL TW/01/02266 Holmewood House Removal/variation of (C/O Kember Loudon Williams School Condition 12 of TW/97/00680 – Ridgers Barn Barrow Lane The development shall only be Eridge Langton Green used for school purposes in Tunbridge Wells SPELDHURST connection with Holmewood Kent ) SP House School

12/10/01 55130/38590 12/10/01

Category - Planning D Highways D

DESCRIPTION

The school sits in spacious grounds. The main core of the use is based around Holmewood House itself, a Grade 2 listed building. The complex contains various other buildings. A group of these is clustered to the north west of the main building and includes some older buildings, part of the established group, and now converted to changing rooms and other ancillary school facilities. This group also includes a modern sports hall and a swimming pool recently updated to a covered facility. In this part of the site, adjacent to the playing field, is another area of tennis courts. There is a group of ‘temporary’ prefabricated classrooms to the west of the main building. The school’s modern theatre lies to the west of this group. The most recent facilities added to the school are subject to conditions relating to the use – the covered swimming pool (the subject of this application), the new tennis courts and the theatre.

Knowle Court School sits further to the west, forming the pre-preparatory element of the school.

The current proposal relates to the use of the covered swimming pool, constructed pursuant to a planning application granted in 1997. The closest vehicular access is the drive from Barrow Lane.

The application seeks to remove condition (2) of that planning consent which states, ‘The development shall only be used for school purposes in connection with Holmewood House School.’

The reason for this was ‘In the interests of highway safety and because a permission for general use would be contrary to Green Belt policies contained in the Structure Plan and Local Plan for the area.’ - W11 -

In support of the application, the applicant has submitted statements, key points of which are

- The use of the swimming pool by the school will remain the priority. However, the school would wish to remove the condition to enable the wider use of the pool for community recreational purposes, through its operation by an organised swimming club outside school hours.

- The spirit of PPG17 : Sport and recreation, and Sport England land use policy supports this dual use of school sports facilities.

- Kent Structure Plan and Local Plan policies also support this where there is sufficient capacity.

- This is an appropriate use within the green belt, using an existing building.

- The use of the facility by the wider community would take place outside peak travel times at the school.

- The existing condition is unreasonable. If it is not agreed to remove it, it should be varied to ‘The development shall only be used for school purposes in connection with the use of Holmewood House School as a school, with the exception of organised club use of the pool outside of school hours.’

- Following initial consideration of the application and the receipt of representations in response to consultations, there has been considerable discussion with highways in relation to the traffic generated by the proposal. In particular, the use of Hither Chantlers, and the junction of Holmewood Ridge with Langton Road at ‘peak times’ has been highlighted as a serious problem for residents of Hither Chantlers.

In the light of the above, the applicant has provided further information regarding traffic movements and flows. Details supplied include

- The school has introduced a series of measures to reduce the number of private car trips. The school operates mini buses, which transport 80 pupils a day, and has a car share system.

- The school operates a one way system through the school grounds.

- The school does not wish to exacerbate traffic movements at peak times. Therefore, use of the swimming pool by non-pupils would be outside peak times, and would be operated strictly through organised clubs There would be no access to the general public. Peak hours are considered to be approximately 7am – 9am and 3pm – 5pm.

- The school would undertake to ensure that all users of the swimming pool would enter and leave by the Hither Chantlers access.

- The maximum number of swimmers would be 20, with 2 lifeguards. This would equate to 22 additional cars, just over 2% of the daily vehicular flow. In addition, there could be a limited number of spectators.

As a result of further discussion/negotiation, the applicant has submitted additional comments and information concerning the proposals. The points made above are reiterated and the applicant states that a temporary permission for 2 years would be acceptable. Galas would be restricted to a maximum of three per year. It is considered by the applicant that Sunday use should not be precluded taking into account the historic use of the school on a Sunday. This use has reduced in recent years, mainly due to the decrease in the number of boarders. In the applicant’s view, the use of the swimming pool by others on a Sunday would not impact unacceptably on residential amenities. - W12 -

RECENT RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/ 96/01868 – Two storey music/theatre block - Approved, 20/1/97.

TW/97/00680 – Removal of existing open-air swimming pool, new covered pool, relocation of existing rifle range – Approved 6/10/97

TW/97/00682 - New external tennis courts – Approved, 25/7/97

TW/00/01997 – Two-storey junior school building – Approved 16/3/01.

TW/01/02267 – Removal of condition 3 or TW97/00652 – use of tennis courts restricted to use by the school – See this agenda.

POLICIES

4. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV1 – Countryside protected for its own sake

- Policy ENV3 - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

- Policy ENV4 – Special Landscape Area

- Policy ENV19 – Listed buildings

- Policy MGB3 – Development in Green Belt

- Policy T17 – Vehicle parking standards

- Policy RS1 – Development in countryside

- Policy RS5 – Development in rural Kent – criteria

- Policy SR2 – Sports and formal recreation

5. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan

- Policy MGB1 – Development in Green Belt

- Policy EN1 – General development criteria

- Policy EN23 – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area

- Policy TP1 – Road hierarchy

- Policy VP1 – County parking standards

6. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review - Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy MGB1 – Development in Green Belt

- Policy EN1 – General development criteria

- Policy EN23 – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area

- Policy TP4 – Road hierarchy

- Policy TP5 – County parking standards - W13 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

7. Highways Manager

24 May 2002 - I consider that a temporary consent would be the best solution. I am not convinced on the basis of what I have seen that a full consent should be granted because there are traffic-related issues, which could not easily be controlled by condition. However, there is not a clear highway reason to object to object to some non-school use. It is the difficulty in limiting that use which gives me cause for concern.

8. Speldhurst Parish Council

22/11/01 – See comments for TW/01/02267, this agenda.

9. Langton Green Rural Society

, 24/11/01 - See comments for TW/01/02267, this agenda.

10. Hither Chantlers Residents Association, letters of 3/12/91 and 5/12/01 accompanied by petition of 38 signatures supporting the letters

See comments for TW/01/02267, this agenda.

11. Sport England

27/11/01 - See comments for TW/01/02267, this agenda.

6. Private – 9 letters of objection.

See comments for TW/01/02267, this agenda.

APPRAISAL

The key issues in relation to this proposal are

- whether the proposal represents appropriate development in this location in the green belt

- Whether the development would be acceptable in its effect on the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area

- The impact on highway safety

- The impact on residential amenities.

Context

- W14 -

Development in the Green Belt

Structure Plan Policy MGB3 states a presumption against inappropriate new development in the green belt. In addition, any development approved should maintain the open character of the area.

I consider that the most relevant purpose of the green belt in this particular context is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The swimming pool building already exists on site so there would be no contravention of this policy given that its primary use is, and would continue to be, in connection with the school use of the site.

Area of Outstanding Beauty and Special Landscape Area

I consider that the development would not compromise the natural beauty or special character of the landscape. As above, the proposal involves the use of an existing building. I do not consider that the additional traffic would be likely, in itself, to harm the natural beauty or special character of the area.

Highway issues

This aspect has caused considerable concern for local residents and has been the subject of detailed discussions with the Highways Manager. The existing use of the site does have a detrimental impact on residential amenities, resulting in traffic congestion and increased waiting times at junctions at certain times of the day. However, the main school is well established on this site and the total number of pupils has been limited by previous permissions given. The school has introduced measures to try to compensate for its increased number of day pupils in recent years, so as to minimise the impact on traffic congestion.

I do not consider that the use of the swimming pool in connection with the school gives rise to any significant additional traffic. The use of this by non-school users would however, inevitably increase the traffic levels. The nature of the use would be difficult to control. The impact on traffic generation from a small group receiving tuition, would be likely to be significantly different to one involving a larger number of swimmers, such as a tournament, with attendant spectators. The applicant has stated that such events would be restricted to a maximum of three per year. In addition, the way the tuition would be timed-tabled could increase the capacity for the number of pupils in any session. Thus this too could result in significant traffic. I have concerns that, in spite of the assurances by the applicant, the levels of visitors to the site as a result of the additional use, would be very difficult to control, measure and monitor. Any increase would be likely to cause some additional hazards to traffic and additional inconvenience and delays at the junction with Langton Road, particularly at certain times of the day.

Impact on residential amenities

I consider that the use of the swimming pool should not, in itself, give rise to additional harm to residential amenities. However, the traffic generated could cause noise and other disturbance, as well as inconvenience to residents as road users.

Conclusion

This application has given rise to considerable concerns from consultees, particularly with regard to traffic and consequent amenity issues. A number of consultees refer to the incremental intensification of activity at the school. On the other hand, the applicants consider that the use could be carried on, subject to conditions, without harm to amenity. A further factor is the encouragement of the principle of dual use in the Local Plan and in PPG17. While the use would be outside the peak times for school-related traffic I have some concern that the times at which traffic causes problems would be extended into the evening period and into weekends. On balance, and having regard to the views o the Highways Manager, I consider that a trial period of two years would be appropriate. During this period the applicants should be required to undertake traffic monitoring, in accordance with a scheme of monitoring to be approved. - W15 -

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS

1. Limited period – use T002 < 30th June 2004> Reason: In order that the local planning authority may review the impact of the use on the residential amenities and highway safety.

2. The swimming pool shall only be used for school purposes in connection with Holmewood House School with the exception of organised club use outside school hours. Reason: In order to restrict the use in the interests of residential amenities and highway safety.

3. No organised club use shall take place other than between the hours of 1700 and 2200 hours, Mondays to Saturdays and 0900 and 1800 hours on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: in order to restrict the use in the interests of residential amenities and highway safety.

4. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted a scheme of traffic monitoring shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme so approved shall be implemented throughout the period of this permission. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the use on traffic conditions and residential amenities.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing no. IPA and letters dated 10 October 2001, 22 March 2002 and 16 July 2002.

Reference: RCC/DAH

- W17 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

Mr and Mrs J Exall TW/01/01741 Latters and Wenhams Alterations to existing (MKA Chartered Architects, Farm buildings to provide an Rosewood House, Hartlake Road additional 5 holiday flats, High Street, CAPEL relocation of existing Hadlow, CA managers accommodation, Tonbridge, provision of additional Kent, TN11 0EF) landscaping together with the variation of an existing Section 106 Legal Agreement related to planning consent reference TW/87/1159 07/08/01 07/08/01

Category - Planning D Highways D ______DEPARTURE APPLICATION

This application proposes extensive works to buildings located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. It is considered to be a departure because works of the nature proposed fall outside the range of developments which can be considered as appropriate within the Metropolitan Green Belt and countryside generally. If the Committee are minded to grant permission, it will not be necessary to refer the application to the Planning Board for determination, nor will it require reference to the Secretary of State for Transport.

DESCRIPTION

The application site lies outside the Limits to Built development in an area designated as Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is located along the western stretch of Hartlake Road to the north of Tudeley. The site is used as a self catering holiday complex, comprising Latter’s Oast, an adjacent Atcost Barn, Wenham’s Oast and a Wagon Lodge. The site also includes an open-air swimming pool, tennis court and a children’s play area. The site is adjoined by two residential properties to the east, whilst the surrounding land is open countryside.

The proposal seeks planning approval for a number of elements. Firstly, it proposes the use of an existing manager’s accommodation in Latter’s Oast as a unit of holiday accommodation. In addition, the proposal seeks consent for the conversion of the Atcost Barn at the rear of Latter’s Oast to provide 4 new holiday units and a games room. The scheme also proposes use of Wenham’s Oast as replacement manager’s accommodation. Ancillary works in connection with this element are proposed to provide a separate access and parking area to this building and the wagon shed, south of Wenham’s Oast, which would be used for storage and garaging. Soft landscaping is proposed to help soften the appearance of the development, whilst parking provision would be as it is at present, in the court yard area north of Latter’s Oast and south of the Atcost barn.

The application also proposes a variation of the Section 106 Legal Agreement connected to planning approval TW/87/1159 for the conversion of the first floor level of Latter’s Oast to two holiday units with managers flat. The agreement restricted the use of the managers flat to that shown. The Legal Agreement would need to be varied in order that it may be used as the tourism unit now proposed.

Since the application was submitted in August 2001 amended plans have been received. These relate to the Atcost Barn where previously proposed ground floor sleeping accommodation has been relocated to first floor level. External design changes to the appearance of the Atcost Barn have also taken place. The proposal originally included the development of a unit of holiday accommodation in Latter’s Oast for use by disabled people. This element has been deleted from the scheme. The design of the conversion of Wenham’s Oast has also changed. My report concentrates on the plans as amended, taking into consideration a structural engineers report submitted on the 2 July 2002. - W18 -

The site has been subject to an extensive planning history. It benefits from an extant permission granted under planning reference TW/84/1356 (PART A) for the conversion of disused farm buildings to provide 5 self-catering units, with new vehicular access and leisure facilities. This application included the use of the Atcost Barn, which forms part of this current proposal, as a squash and badminton court. This element of the approval has not been carried out.

This application is a duplicate to the application submitted under planning reference TW/01/01750.

This application would have been determined under delegated powers but for the contrary view of the Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

There is an extensive planning history on this site. Applications of most relevance are as follows:

Enforcement Notice served 9/12/94. The notice alleged the partial re building of the twin roundels of Wenham’s Oast and barn for residential use. The steps required by the notice were: remove both roundel roofs; remove all brickwork not consistent with the external elevations as shown on the extract from the plan number 872SK23 submitted with the planning application TW/93/1432; block up all door and window openings created in the external elevations of the original Oast structure not consistent with the external elevations as shown on the said extract plan number 872SK23 and remove all materials not required for, but arising from, the demolition and building works carried out in compliance with this notice so as to leave the site in a clean and tidy condition.

The notice took effect on 16 January 1995. A compliance time of six months was given. The Council’s Legal Section has advised that enforcement lists from this time suggest that compliance with the Notice was achieved.

TW/94/1277 – variation of condition 5 of TW/93/1432 (restricting period of time when holiday accommodation is to be re-occupied by same person or persons) – approved.

TW/93/1432 – retrospective: conversion to form one self contained unit of self catering tourism accommodation and exercise, laundry, drying rooms – approved.

TW/91/0593 – retrospective: new works and conversion to dwelling – refused. Appeal dismissed.

TW/87/1159 – conversion of Oast to 2 holiday units – approved.

TW/84/1356 (PART A) – conversion of barn, Latters Oasthouse, existing cow sheds and pen to provide 5 self catering holiday units with leisure facilities and new vehicular access – approved.

TW/84/1356 (PART B) – Conversion of Wenhams Oast to form 4 self contained holiday units – refused 07/01/85 on Green Belt and Rural Policy grounds.

TW/83/0923 – conversion of Oast house to dwelling and outbuilding to garden store – refused. POLICIES - W19 -

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

Policy S2 – Kent’s environment

Policy ENV1 – Countryside protected for its own sake

Policy ENV2 – Kent’s landscape and wildlife habitats

Policy NR5 – Development in flood risk areas

Policy MGB3 – Uses appropriate within the Green Belt

Policy TO1 – Proposals for tourism facilities

Policy T17 – Vehicle parking standards

Policy RS1 – Development in the open countryside

Policy RS4 – Small scale business development in rural Kent

Policy RS5 – Development at hamlets and in the countryside

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

Policy MGB1 – Metropolitan Green Belt

Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy EN1 – Development control criteria

Policy E6 – Conversion to economic development outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy H15 – Conversion of redundant buildings outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy TP1 – Vehicle access

Policy VP1 – Vehicle parking standards

Policy T1 – New tourist accommodation

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy 2001

Policy MGB1 – Metropolitan Green Belt

Policy LBD1 – Development outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy EN1 – Development control criteria

Policy EN18 – Development in flood risk areas

Policy EN25 – Development control criteria for all development proposals outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy ED5 – Conversion of rural buildings to economic development uses outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy H14 – Conversion of rural buildings to residential use outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy T4 – Tourism accommodation outside the Limits to Built Development

Policy TP4 – Access to road network Policy TP5 – Vehicle parking standards - W20 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Highways Manager

No objections in principle to the development. Further details on the access and visibility splays should be sought, although this is unlikely to be a major issue.

The highways manager has advised that this request could be dealt with as a planning condition, should approval be given for the scheme.

2. Environmental Health Manager

No objections.

3. Marketing and Tourism Development Manager

This complex appears to be well run and demand for self-catering accommodation continues to increase. The site has a very high occupancy rate of 90%, a rate at which, they must be turning business away. Given that the tourism industry has been suffering, support is given to this proposal.

4. Capel Parish Council

4/10/01 Recommend approval of the barn but the Oast should only be available for family use.

02/08/02 – Comments remain unchanged from those submitted previously, and considers the proposed development will improve the site.

Environment Agency

02/10/01 - Raises an objection to the development because the proposal would introduce ground and floor sleeping accommodation into a known flood risk area. This could place additional people at unnecessary risk and increase the burden on the emergency services in times of flood.

The amended plans received on the 19/6/02 have relocated the sleeping accommodation within the Atcost Barn from ground floor level to the first floor level. Comments received from the Environment Agency on the 24/7/02 raise no objections to the amended scheme subject to 2 conditions.

5. Southern Water

12/9/01 No objections.

6. South East England Tourist Board

07/09/01 - A letter of support has been received. Of particular importance this notes that the foot and mouth situation has made the need for additional high quality facilities in the countryside even more of a priority; self catering accommodation is particularly appropriate for redundant rural buildings and that a recent study has identified a need for additional rural self catering units in Kent. In summary, the proposal will be a significant asset for the area.

7. English Nature

10/12/01 - Since evidence of bats was found, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) must be contacted about licensing implications before works can commence.

8. Private

5/7/02 One letter of support has been received from an adjoining property. The grounds of support are that the existing holiday units bring in a lot of tourists to the area and as such provide a benefit to the local economy; Wenhams Oast has been a feature of the landscape for over 200 years and its restoration should be welcomed; the careful conversion of the Atcost Barn would provide a visual improvement and be more in keeping than it currently is.

- W21 -

APPRAISAL

Key issues to consider are:

(1) Whether the principle of the development is acceptable;

(2) Impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt;

(3) Impact on the countryside generally;

(4) Impact on residential amenities;

(5) Flood issues;

(6) Highway matters.

Principle of the development

In assessing whether the principle of the development is acceptable, the proposal has been considered in terms of the various elements proposed.

The first element relates to the use of the existing manager’s accommodation in Latter’s Oast as a unit of holiday accommodation. Policy TO1 of the Adopted Structure Plan and Policies T1 and T4 of the Adopted Borough Local Plan and the Borough Local Plan Review respectively, support this element of the planning application subject to criteria relating to impact on the countryside; road improvements; and provided that buildings would not require substantial re-construction. It is my opinion that this element of the scheme would be acceptable in principle. There are no significant external changes to proposed Latter’s Oast which would either detract from the character or appearance of the surrounding landscape or the Oast itself or which would cause any concerns in terms of highway matters.

This view is supported by the policies relating to appropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt and rural policies relating to economic development in rural Kent.

The application proposes the conversion of the Atcost barn to provide 4 new holiday units and a games room. Relevant tourism and economic policies do allow for such development subject to criteria. In terms of the economic policies this is provided that they require a rural location; involve the change of use or conversion of a listed building, a building whose loss would be detrimental to the character of the countryside, or an existing building in keeping with its surroundings; or where it extends an existing employment use. Proposals are also required to satisfy certain criteria including that there should be no adverse impact on the surrounding countryside; existing buildings should be capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction and that proposals should not have a significant adverse effect on the appearance of the building.

The Atcost barn is a modern utilitarian farm building, which is not felt to be in keeping with its surroundings as it stands. The proposed conversion of this barn would involve re-cladding of the roof and walls and the addition of windows and balconies. It is felt that the resultant form and scale would result in a building, which would much more visually intrusive than the existing barn. It is also felt that whilst the building is structurally sound, as identified by the structural report submitted, major alteration would need to take place to provide the habitable accommodation proposed. It appears that some kind of secondary framework would be needed on which to provide the weather boarding on the external face.

Because of the above concerns I consider that this element of the proposal, in its current form, would be contrary to Policy T1 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy T4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Draft Deposit, May 2001. - W22 -

Works are proposed to Wenham’s Oast to convert this into replacement manager’s accommodation following the conversion of the existing manager’s accommodation into the new tourism unit. Ancillary works relating to this element of the scheme include a grass crete road leading from the existing car parking area across to the Oast and wagon store where a parking area for the Oast would be provided. The wagon shed would be used for storage and garaging. Policy H15 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy H14 its Review state that the change of use of a listed building, a building whose loss would be detrimental to the character of the countryside, or a building in keeping with its surroundings will only be permitted where certain criteria are met. These are: buildings would be capable of conversion without extensive alteration, rebuilding or extension; the conversion can be achieved without detrimental effect on the building’s fabric and character; and the creation of a residential curtilage and of access and parking or garaging facilities could be achieved without harm to the character of the countryside. Subject to the criteria being fulfilled therefore, there would be no objection to the principle of this element of the scheme.

However, with regards to Wenham’s Oast and its parking area, this part of the site has a very rural feel to it, set well away from the main holiday complex to the east of this area. Very little of this Oast exists and it is felt that a substantial amount of work would be needed to use it for the proposed use. At the time of a site visit in September 2001, the roundel roofs were missing and the stowage was little more than a brick wall 1 storey high to 2 sides, the remaining sides completely open. It is considered that the works needed to this building would be new build rather than conversion. As such it is not felt that this element of the scheme would fulfil the criteria identified in Policies H15 and H14 of the Adopted Local Plan and the Local Plan Review respectively.

Metropolitan Green Belt

Planning policy and national guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 on Green Belts identifies that within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is by its very nature, harmful to the open character of the Green Belt, which is its most important attribute. PPG2 states that new buildings are inappropriate unless for a number of identified uses.

PPG2 states that the re-use of a building is not inappropriate since the building already exists. It does however identify that proposals for re-use should not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt; that buildings should be of a permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction. In addition, the form, bulk and general design of buildings should be in keeping with their surroundings. PPG2 also identifies that there should be strict control over any associated land uses such as car parking.

Having considered the proposal against the above policies and guidance it is my opinion that whist the proposal relates primarily to re-use of existing buildings on the site – the Atcost barn, Wenham’s Oast and the conversion of part of Latter’s barn to form the additional unit of accommodation, the extent of alteration to the Atcost barn and Wenham’s Oast is such that in my view this would not be appropriate development in the Green Belt. The extent of the work to be carried out leads me to feel that the proposal would have a greater impact on the character of the site and its position in the landscape than exists at the current time. The Oast appears to be in a near derelict state and the works proposed to it are tantamount to new development, inappropriate in this location.

Whilst additional soft landscaping is proposed around the boundaries of the site, the proposed car parking area for the manager’s accommodation would be sited within the open part of the site and no landscaping has been proposed to screen the parking further. Whilst I feel the access road may well be acceptable as it would be constructed from grass-crete and would therefore blend in with the existing greenery, I feel that the proposed parking area for the Oast would be sited such that it would be harmful to the open character of the Green Belt.

In these respects therefore I consider the proposal to be in conflict with Green Belt policy - W23 -

Impact on the countryside

I consider that the change of use of the existing manager’s accommodation to a tourism unit, would have very little impact on the character and visual amenities of the surrounding landscape. Neither would the use of the wagon shed as storage and garaging. Both these elements would accord with planning policy and national guidance in terms of impact on the landscape.

I do however, have concerns relating to the proposed development of the Atcost Barn and Wenham’s Oast. The works described previously along with the concerns I have identified over impact on the Green Belt, lead me to believe that these elements would also be detrimental to the character and visual qualities of the countryside in which the site lies. These elements are not considered to accord with policy which aims to protect the countryside for its own sake.

Residential amenity

The siting of the elements proposed relative to the adjoining residential properties, is such that local residential amenity is not considered to be adversely affected by the proposal. In addition, the Environmental Health Manager has raised no objections in this regard.

Flood Issues

Policy EN18 of the Local Plan Review relates to development in flood risk areas. It identifies that development proposals will only be permitted providing practicable and effective flood protection and mitigation measures would be included as part of the development proposals to prevent increased risk of flooding elsewhere.

The Environment Agency originally raised an objection to the proposal because the conversion of the Atcost barn element into tourism units would introduce ground floor sleeping accommodation into a known flood risk area.

The scheme has since been amended so that the sleeping accommodation is now located at first floor level. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the scheme as amended subject to conditions. As such it is considered that, with regard to flood issues, the amended proposal is in accordance with planning policy.

Highway matters

The comments received from the Highways Manager identify that in principle there is not a highway objection to the scheme. The parking provision and access arrangements to the site would remain largely as existing, and whilst the details are not sufficiently shown on the submitted plans, the highways engineer does consider that these matters, on site, are adequate. The new access area to Wenham’s Oast and the wagon shed is also acceptable in principle, from a highway safety point of view. Given the comments of the Highway Manager, I consider that subject to conditions requesting details of visibility splays, that the scheme would not be detrimental to highway safety, especially as the scheme relates to an existing site and is not a completely new development.

Conclusion

The nature of the alteration works necessary to convert Wenham’s Oast and the Atcost Barn are such that in my opinion, they are substantially much more than mere conversion works. I consider these works to be new development within the Green Belt. The proposal is not considered to be ‘appropriate’ development in this location and as such the proposal is considered contrary to national guidance and relevant planning policies relating to the Metropolitan Green Belt and rural landscape generally. - W24 -

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:-

(1) The proposal is considered to result in substantial alteration to the Atcost Barn, resulting in a form of development which by virtue of its scale and form, would be out of keeping with its surroundings and which would be ‘inappropriate’ development within a Green Belt location. ‘Inappropriate’ development is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would also adversely affect the character and visual amenities of the surrounding countryside generally. If permitted, this would be contrary to Policies S2, ENV1, MGB3, RS1, RS4 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan Adopted 1996, Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1 and T1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1, EN25, TP4 and H14 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Deposit Copy May 2001 and to national guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note Numbers 2 (Green Belts) and PPG7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development). (2) The works proposed to Wenham’s Oast in order to convert it into the manager’s dwelling, are considered substantial and are considered to result in re-construction of the building. This would be ‘inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt harmful to its openness. The extent of the work and associated works, such as the car parking, would be intrusive and harmful to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding countryside generally. If permitted this would be contrary to Policies S2, ENV1, MGB3, RS1 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan Adopted 1996, Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1 and H15 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1, EN25 and H14 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Deposit Draft, May 2001 and to national guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note Numbers 2 (Green Belts) and PPG7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development).

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Photographs and supporting statement received 07/08/01, Bat survey submitted 26/10/01 and drawing numbers 01/1072/02A, 01/1072/03B and 01/1072/05B received 19/6/02, letter and structural report received 2 July 2002.

______

Reference EM/DAH - W25 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

Mr and Mrs J Exall (MKA TW/01/01750 Latters and Wenhams Alterations to existing buildings Chartered Architects Farm, to provide an additional 5 Rosewood House Hartlake Road holiday flats, relocation of High Street CAPEL existing managers Hadlow CA accommodation, provision of Tonbridge additional landscaping together Kent, TN11 0EF) with the variation of an existing Section 106 Legal Agreement related to planning consent reference TW/87/1159

07/08/01 07/08/01

Category - Planning D Highways D ______

DEPARTURE APPLICATION

DESCRIPTION

This application is a duplicate to the application submitted under planning reference TW/01/01741.

This application would have been determined under delegated powers but for the contrary view of the Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

See report on TW/01/01741.

POLICIES

See report on TW/01/01741 . CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

See report on TW/01/01741.

APPRAISAL

See report on TW/01/01741.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:-

(2) The works proposed to Wenham’s Oast in order to convert it into the manager’s dwelling, are considered substantial and are considered to result in re-construction of the building. This would be ‘inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt harmful to its openness. The extent of the work and associated works, such as the car parking, would be intrusive and harmful to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding countryside generally. If permitted this would be contrary to Policies S2, ENV1, MGB3, RS1 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan Adopted 1996, Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1 and H15 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1, EN25 and H14 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Deposit Draft, May 2001 and to national guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note Numbers 2 (Green Belts) and PPG7 (The Countryside: Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development).

PLANS

- W28

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

Fitness First PLC & Fraser TW/01/02401 Land Off Dowding Erection of a building to Wood Properties Ltd Way provide health and fitness ( Colliers CRE TUNBRIDGE WELLS club within use Class D2 Milner House SH (Assembly and Leisure) use 14 Manchester Square together with car parking, London landscaping and access to W1U 3PP) Dowding Way

26/10/01 26/10/01

Category - Planning D Highways D ______

This proposal represents a significant development by virtue of its scale and potential conflict with Development Plan Policy and National Planning Guidance. Should the Committee be minded to recommend approval of the application it will need to be referred to the Planning Board for determination.

DESCRIPTION

The site lies within the Limits to Built Development within Tunbridge Wells. It is a designated Economic Development Site in the Adopted Borough Local Plan 1996 and the Local Plan Review, Deposit Draft May 2001. It lies along the Western edge of the North Farm Industrial estate and north of a recent Castelli Diaries development. To the north of the site the land is currently undeveloped but there is a planning approval for development of this land as a motor show room. This approval has been partially implemented through the development of the Toyota/Lexus showroom at the northern end of the site. Other industrial uses adjoin the site to the east. The west (rear) of the site is adjoined by the railway line. Beyond this there are further industrial uses and residential uses close by.

The proposal is for the development of this 0.5 hectare site as a health and fitness club. Ancillary parking and landscaping is proposed along with the creation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Dowding Way. The proposed building would provide 1,707 square metres of floorspace. The applicant has identified that the development would create employment for a total of 30 people (both full and part time). It is proposed that the health and fitness club would open 6.30 a.m. until 11.30 p.m. Mondays to Sundays, including Bank Holidays.

The building would be located adjacent to the western boundary of the site. It would measure approximately 36.4 metres wide by 31 metres deep. It would consist of two floor levels and be 8 metres high at its highest point. The car parking would provide 127 spaces. These would be located to the front and northern side of the building. The proposed new access would be sited along the front (eastern) stretch of the site leading directly onto Dowding Way. Soft landscaping is proposed within the car parking area and around the frontage, sides and part of the rear of the site.

RELEVANT HISTORY

There is the following planning history applicable to this site:

TW/94/1486 Outline: Mixed development for business (B1 & B8) and non-food retail warehousing, access roads and car parking – withdrawn

TW/89/00971 – Culverting of streams & landfill to raise ground level prior to development – approved

TW/85/1216 – Change of use to industrial development, overnight lorry park, additional car parking and access from Longfield Road – not proceeded with. TW/80/00244 – Use of land for the parking and storage of vehicles – approved.

- W29

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy S1 – Sustainable Development - Policy S2 – Kent’s Environment - Policy S3 – Economic activity and employment in Kent - Policy S9 – Proposals for community facilities - Policy WK2- Development within Tunbridge Wells - Policy ENV15 – Kent’s Built Environment - Policy ENV16 – Best use of urban land - Policy ENV20 – Pollution impacts - Policy T1 – Provision of facilities to assist pedestrians, cyclists, and the use of buses and trains - Policy T17 – Vehicle parking standards - Policy T18 – Development, which generates increases in traffic - Policy T19 – Access onto the primary / secondary road net work - Policy T20 – Transport Infrastructure - Policy SR2 – Development of sports / formal recreation facilities

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 1996

- Policy EN1 – Development control criteria - Policy EN6 – Skyline protection - Policy EN9 – Groundwater resources - Policy E1 – Economic Development - Policy TP1 – Vehicle access - Policy TP26 – Provision for cyclists - Policy VP1 – Vehicle parking standards - Policy R9 – Indoor sports facilities

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy EN1 – Design and other development control criteria - Policy EN12 – Skyline protection - Policy EN15 – Groundwater resources - Policy EN16 – Capacity of sewerage and water supply services - Policy CR1 – Proposals for large scale uses including D2 uses - Policy CR3 – Site allocations within Royal Tunbridge Wells - Policy ED4 – Economic Development - Policy TP1 – Transport Assessment / Green Travel Plan - Policy TP4 – Access to road net work - Policy TP5 – Vehicle parking standards - Policy TP9 – Cycle parking

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. KCC Highways

3 letters have been received. 2 of which are lengthy and very detailed, relating to technical highway issues. The following provides a summary of the points and advice covered by these.

8/1/02- Objection raised because of a lack of information submitted with the application relating to trip rates; car and cycle space provision and traffic impact.

Following a meeting in February 2002 with interested parties, further information relating to these matters was submitted. This included a Traffic Assessment and a Travel Plan.

3/4/02- This representation is a joint response from KCC Highways and the Council’s Transport Planner. Comments made on specific technical issues including linked trips; alternative modes of travel and modal split; parking provision; junction assessments specifically Dowding Way/Longfield Road roundabout, Lamberts Road/Dowding Way traffic signals and the High Brooms railway bridge traffic signals; public transport service routes and pedestrian routes. Letter advised that unless the issues and concerns raised could be resolved, there would remain an objection to the proposed development.

- W30

23/7/02- This letter followed further information submitted on highway issues intended to address the points raised in the previous KCC Highways letter of the 3/4/02. This representation again covers specific technical issues including linked trips; alternative modes of transport and modal split; pedestrian and cycle links; car and cycle parking provision; bus service routes. The letter advises that KCC Highways remain of the opinion that:

• this location is not sustainable as available bus services (even with the SEEBOARD development) and limited cycle facilities do not offer an effective alternative to the car; • the Green Travel Plan offers nothing to encourage non-car modes and dissuade car use and; • the users of this facility are likely to be car drivers.

2. Highways Manager

21/1/02- Refusal of the application recommended. There is conflict with policy in respect of the location of the use. Furthermore, details of proposed visibility splays, both in the vertical and horizontal alignment, have not been supplied for the proposed access onto Dowding Way.

21/5/02- This followed the submission of additional information relating to highway issues following a meeting with interested parties in February 2002. The Highways Manager advised that his position is the same as that of KCC Highways.

3. Highways Traffic Engineer

27/11/01- There is no provision for the secure parking of cycles. As the site is served by cycle facilities, provided as part of the development of Dowding Way, cycle facilities must be provided.

4. Environmental Health Officer

14/1/02- No environmental health objection to the proposal. However, the applicant should be aware that landfilling operations have taken place in the locality, and consideration should be given to an assessment of the potential for landfill gas to migrate to the application site – with a view to appropriate building design.

5. Environment Agency

20/12/01- No objection is raised to the proposed development but a condition is recommended relating to surface water drainage.

6. Health and Safety Executive

6/12/01- The proposed development is outside the consultation distance for the nearby LPG storage at RN Carr Ltd, North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, and HSE have no comments to make on the development in that context.

However, the drawings indicate the presence of a high pressure gas pipeline running along the western edge of the proposed development. You are strongly advised to consult with Transco to ensure the integrity of the pipeline.

7. Transco

11/12/01- No records are kept of the position of gas services to individual customers, but it should be assumed that a service exists to each property from the nearest main. Each individual service should be located by a hand dug trial hole prior to the commencement of the development.

Attention is drawn to the intermediate pressure pipeline, which is in close proximity to the site. Before any works take place near this main, the Pipeline Inspections Department of Transco should be contacted. - W31

8. Railtrack

9/1/02- Railtrack need to be satisfied that its infrastructure will not be adversely affected by the proposal, both during the period of construction and after completion. A copy of Railtrack’s Comments/Conditions Appendix containing suggested conditions was attached to the representation, in order to safeguard the adjoining railway. Part of the site is believed to be former railway land, conveyance conditions will apply. An informative is also requested.

9. Access for the Disabled

18/12/01- The club will be accessible to disabled users but it is not clear that any provision has been made for accessible toilets or appropriate changing facilities.

10. Private

Two letters have been received from adjoining/nearby buildings of the site. One of these letters is in support of the proposal. The grounds of support are as follows:

• the proposed development properly continues the high quality schemes to-date and maintains the high standards already established on the Business Park. The development of the Toyota Lexus Garage and the Castelli Diaries building has established a level of quality, which should be maintained. • the proposal would provide facilities for staff at the adjoining Castelli Diaries building and people from the surrounding area to enjoy. Whilst the Longfield Road and Dowding Way area comprises a mix of uses of retail to industrial units, there are limited facilities available for the staff within the immediate vicinity. Further facilities, which would prevent staff having to travel too far at lunchtime or before/after work would also be welcome.

The remaining letter raised concerns that the piecemeal development of the land on the west side of Dowding Way will result in problems of recessing and overshadowing for those sites at a lower level together with problems with retaining walls and surface water drainage. The erection of buildings at uncoordinated levels would increase the visual impact on the landscape, reducing site values. There are no objections to the proposed Fitness Club but a specific condition should be imposed requiring compliance with a specified site level.

APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are:-

1. The principle / need of the development; 2. The size, scale and appearance of the development and its impact on the character and appearance of the locality; 3. Highway matters including car and cycle parking provision and; 4. Impact on local residential amenity.

Principle need for the development

The site is allocated for economic development. Policy E1 of the Adopted Local Plan and ED4 of the Local Plan Review identify that the site should be developed for uses falling either within Use Class B1, B2 or B8. The proposed use falls within Use Class D2. As such there is a policy objection here. However, Policy R9 of the Adopted Local Plan does allow for the development of indoor sports facilities within areas designated for economic development, provided proposals will not have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjoining occupiers or the character of the area.

Since the adoption of the local plan however, there has been a shift in policy and guidance. Found within Planning Policy Guidance Notes 6 (Town centres and retail development) and 13 (Transport), the aim of policy, is to seek much more sustainable forms of development. As such, Policy R9 of the Adopted Local Plan is considered to be out of date, now significantly qualified by the above National guidance. - W32

Relating to PPG6, in February 1999, the then Planning Minister Richard Caborn, in response to a Parliamentary question, advised that proposals for retail or leisure development which would be located at an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location should demonstrate both the need for the development and that a sequential approach has been applied in selecting the location of the site. This approach is advocated through policy CR1 of the Local Plan Review. Mr Caborn’s statement said that where such proposals complied with the Development Plan, but the Plan was now out of date, need should be shown

The catchment area for the fitness centre would cover High Brooms, Greggs Wood, Sherwood and Ferndale. This area is already served by facilities at St Johns and Knights Park.

It is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a need for the development, which might overcome the policy objection. In respect of the sustainability issue, the advice received from both the Highways consultees indicates that the proposal is not located on what can be considered a sustainable site. Not withstanding the overriding requirement to demonstrate need, in terms of the sequential approach, there are other sites, located within the centre of Tunbridge Wells, which would be appropriate for the proposed development. These include the former ABC cinema site and a site in Grove Hill Road, which, as previously referred to are allocated for mixed use developments, including D2 in the Local Plan Review. The applicant has therefore failed to show that the sequential approach has been satisfied in terms of the tests set out in PPG6 where town centre sites are suitable, viable or available (PPG6, Paragraph 1.12). Equally the applicants have failed to demonstrate flexibility in terms of format, design and scale of development proposed in their assessment of the sequential approach.

Because of the above I feel that the principle of the proposal does not accord with the provisions of either the policies of the Local Plan Review or with National planning guidance.

As such the proposal development is not acceptable in principle.

Size, scale and appearance of the development

The proposed building would offer a large-scale D2 use. In terms of its impact on the locality, the building would be smaller in size and bulk than the adjoining Castelli Diaries building to the south. The building would fill only a relatively small area of the site, with most of the site to the front and northern side being taken up by car parking. Policy ENV16 of the Structure Plan identifies the need to make the best use of urban land. I consider that the size of the building combined with the excessive car parking area, does not make the best use of the site in this instance. If the parking area were reduced in size in line with what would be considered acceptable in terms of highway issues, it would be possible to build a larger building on the site and hence make better use of the land.

In terms of appearance within the streetscene, the proposed building would be 8 metres high at its highest point. The adjoining Castelli Diaries building measures 10.5 metres at its highest point, 7.8 metres to eaves level. The proposed building, when viewed from the north would be seen against the backdrop of the adjoining building and would not be visually intrusive. Likewise from the front, the building would be seen against the embankment to the rear. I consider on balance that the building itself would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the locality. I am however concerned that the amount of parking provided, combined with its slightly elevated position, would appear intrusive in this instance. The parking would be clearly visible from the main vantage points to the north and east. Whilst the Castelli Diaries site has a similar parking layout, there is much more in the way of soft landscape screening provided to soften the appearance of the development.

For this reason I consider the proposal to be contrary to Policy EN1 of the adopted local plan and its review, which identifies that layout, including coverage by buildings and landscaping, should respect the context of the site.

Highway matters

Policy TP1 of the Local Plan review identifies the need for proposals to be accompanied by a Traffic Assessment and a Green Travel Plan for development proposals of over 1,000 square metres. In addition, policy CR1 of the Local Plan Review, states that proposals for large scale D2 developments should provide access by a range of means of transport facilities including walking, cycling and public transport. - W33

The Traffic Assessment and Travel Plan submitted with the application, along with additional information submitted, have been considered with advice from KCC Highways, the Council’s Highway Manager and Transport Planner. The comments received identify strong objections to the proposal on highway matters. It is felt that there are a number of issues, which conflict with planning policy. These include the key issue of sustainability. It is felt that the proposal does not offer the alternative range of transport provision appropriate to this scale of development. Moreover, a lack of visibility splays for the new access onto Dowding Way fails to show that the access would be safe in terms of traffic entering and leaving the site and for vehicles travelling along Dowding Way.

Policy TP26 of the Local Plan identifies the need for secure cycle parking facilities to be provided on site. In this instance there is no such provision and in this respect, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy. It is also contrary to policy TP9 of the Local Plan Review which states that cycle parking standards should be in line with those set out in Kent County Council’s Cycling Strategy. There are no such facilities proposed here although the applicant has confirmed they would be willing to provide cycle parking facilities. These have not however been indicated on the proposed site layout plan. Likewise, with vehicle parking, the 127 parking spaces required is above what would normally be required. This adds to concerns over the sustainability of the development.

As such, I consider that the proposal is not acceptable from either a safety point of view or in terms the principle issue of sustainability. It is therefore contrary to planning policy.

Residential amenity

The application site is located near to residential areas such as Sherwood and High Brooms. Its location along the western stretch of the industrial estate and adjoining the railway line means that there are no residential uses immediately adjoining the site. Because of this I do not consider that the proposal would cause a loss of residential amenity resulting from its appearance or noise/disturbance from within the site itself. I am however, concerned that the highway concerns raised above would have a knock on effect in terms of residential amenity.

Conclusion

The proposed development does not accord with the types of development for which the site has been allocated in both the Adopted Local Plan and the Local Plan Review. The Adopted Local Plan, through Policy R9, does allow for the development of indoor sports facilities in areas designated for economic development where there is no adverse impact on the amenities/character of the area. However, more recent Government guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Notes numbers 6 and 13 now make it clear that such development should be located within town centres where ever possible. These guidance notes advocate the sequential approach to such development in the interests of achieving sustainable development.

The proposal does not demonstrate a need for the development, and does not accord with the sequential test policy. Furthermore there are strong objections to the proposal in terms of transportation sustainability. As such the proposal is not in accordance with planning policy. - W34

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

(1) The proposal is contrary to National Planning Guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 6 (Town Centres and Retail Developments) and subsequent Ministerial Statements as the applicant has failed to demonstrate a need for this out-of-centre proposal. Moreover, the applicant has failed to satisfy the sequential approach. If permitted this proposal would not represent a sustainable form of development and would be contrary to Policy S1 of the Kent Structure Plan Adopted 1996 and Policy CP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review Deposit Copy, May 2001.

(2) The proposal by virtue of the size of the building proposed and the excessive level of car parking provision provided, is not considered to make the best use of the site which is located within the limits to built development in Tunbridge Wells. If permitted this would be contrary to Policy ENV16 of the Kent Structure Plan Adopted 1996, Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Deposit Draft, May 2001.

(3) The proposal fails to make adequate provision for the use of alternative modes of transport including cycling, walking and the use of public transport. If permitted this would be contrary to Planing Policy Guidance Note No. 13 (Transport) and Policies S1, S9 and T1of the Kent Structure Plan Adopted 1996.

(4) The proposal, by virtue of the use, falling within Use Class D2, proposed is contrary to Policy ED4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Deposit Draft, May 2001, which allocates the site for economic development uses including those falling within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8.

(5) The proposal by virtue of the scale, design and layout of the car parking proposed is considered to result in a form of development, which would be visually intrusive within this part of the streetscene. This would be harmful to the visual amenities of the surrounding area. If permitted this would be contrary to Policy ENV15 of the Kent Structure Plan Adopted 1996, Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review, Deposit Draft, May 2001.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Site plan, drawing numbers 4219:10 revision 10, 4288:001, TUN – SK1 and SK2, 874/020 and supporting statement received 26/10/01, report on the Royal Tunbridge Wells Business Park Forecast Models received 7/2/02, Transport Assessment and Green Travel Plan received 28/2/02 and further additional information provided by letter dated 2/2/02 received 1/3/02, fax received 10/5/02, letter received 29/5/02, letter received 6/6/02 and letter received 1/7/02.

Reference: EM/DAH

- W36

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

CIVILS CONTRACTING LIMITED TW/02/00614 Unit 5, High Brooms OUTLINE – (Means of access, Alpha House Industrial Estate siting and landscaping not Badsell Road Chapman Way reserved) - Industrial Unit Five Oak Green SOUTHBOROUGH Tonbridge SO Kent TN12 6QU 12/03/02 03/04/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

The application site is located on the western side of Chapman Way, at the northern end of this part of the industrial estate in the Limits to Built Development. The site is bounded by existing industrial units to the north, east and south and a steep bank along its western boundary. The site is designated as an Economic Development Area in the emerging Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan.

The proposal seeks outline planning permission for the erection of an industrial unit to the rear of Unit 5 Chapman Way and adjacent to Unit 6d Chapman Way (to the immediate south of the site). The site is currently an area of hardstanding/car parking. Details of siting, access and landscaping are to be considered at this stage. The design and external appearance of the building are reserved matters. The proposed total floor area of the unit is 564 square metres (covering ground and a mezzanine floor). The use of the existing vehicular access to the site between Units 4 and 5 Chapman Way is proposed with the provision of 56 car parking spaces to the rear of the existing unit at No. 5. The applicant has confirmed that the unit will be used for general industrial use (under Class B2).

RELEVANT HISTORY

Extensive history relevant to this part of the High Brooms Industrial Estate, but not directly relevant to the site in question.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV15 – Kent’s Built Environment. - Policy ED2 – Economic Development.

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy EN1 – General Development Control Criteria. - Policy E2 – Economic Development Types.

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review - Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy EN1 – General Development Control Criteria. - Policy ED3 – General Industrial Uses (B2 and B8) in Economic Development Areas. - W37

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Highways Manager

No objection raised as the site is located well away from the public highway and therefore it is very unlikely to have any adverse impact on it.

2. Environmental Health Manager

No objection to proposal. However a site contamination survey and measures to prevent noise, nuisance and disturbance to nearby residential properties should be undertaken.

3. Southborough Town Council

16/04/02 – Permission should be granted.

4. Private

No representations received.

APPRAISAL

The main issues to consider in this case are:-

(i) Whether an industrial use would be acceptable in land use terms; (ii) Proposed siting/landscaping; (iii) Potential impact on residential amenity; and (iv) Highways issues/car parking.

Land Use Principle

The site is located in the Limits to Built Development in the Adopted Local Plan and an Economic Development Area in the Local Plan Review, within the High Brooms Industrial Estate. Therefore, no objection is raised in principle to the erection of an additional industrial unit in this location.

Siting/Landscaping

The proposed unit would cover an area of less than 400 square metres and would be located to the rear of No. 5 Chapman Way in the south-western corner of the site. The unit would be located immediately adjacent to Unit 6d and the steep bank running along the western boundary of the site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed unit would not appear unduly prominent in this location.

The application requests that landscaping details be considered at this stage. This is in the form of hard landscaping only, covering the car parking area to the rear of the site. No soft landscaping is proposed. However, there is soft landscaping at the main entrance to the site between Units 4 and 5 Chapman way at present with trees/shrubs located on the steep bank to the rear/west of the proposed unit. The proposed car parking layout/area of hardstanding is considered to be acceptable and it is considered that no additional soft landscaping is required in this location.

Residential Amenity

The site is located at least 70 metres away from residential dwellings at Barnetts Way to the north west of the site, and is located at the foot of a steep bank. Overall, it is considered that the addition of a further industrial unit would not have a materially greater impact on residential amenity than at present. The Environmental Health Manager has requested that a noise insulation scheme be required by condition to ensure that noise levels would not be detrimental to neighbouring uses. - W38

Highways Issues/Car Parking

As mentioned above, the Council’s Highways Manager has raised no objection to the proposal in terms of highway safety implications. The use of the existing access is considered to be acceptable. 56 car parking spaces are clearly show on the submitted layout, which are considered to be satisfactory.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:-

(1) Standard Outline Condition 2 YZ12.

(2) Standard Outline Condition 3 YZ13.

(3) Vehicle Parking and Turning Space V013.

(4) No development shall begin until a scheme to deal with any contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an investigation and assessment to identify the extent of contamination and the measures to be taken to avoid risk to the public and environment when the site is developed. Development shall not commence until the measures approved in the scheme have been implemented. Reason: To prevent harm to health and pollution of the environment.

(5) No development shall begin until a scheme showing how the building will be insulated against the emission of sound shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme before the industrial unit is occupied. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties.

(6) Prior to commencement of the Class B2 use, full details of the measures to be taken for the control of dust, odours and vapours arising from the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the unit is occupied. Any equipment, plant or process provided or undertaken in pursuance of this condition shall be permanently retained in proper working order. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development and in the interests of the amenities of neighbouring properties.

(7) Submission of material samples D001.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Letter dated 2 April 2002 and drawing number 2014.01.

______

Reference: GH/DAH

- W40

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

Dalemarch Ltd TW/02/01479 39, 41 & 41a Removal of condition 4 of (Core Commercial Commercial Road TW/01/01403 Maidstone Road PADDOCK WOOD Paddock Wood PW Kent TN12 6DA) 12/7/02 27/6/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

39, 41 and 41a are currently shop units with offices above in the centre of Paddock Wood. They form half of a pair of units constructed in the early 1960’s to the same design.

Permission was granted in 1999 for the conversion of the offices at first floor level to flats and there have been various permissions in the past for alterations and changes of use at ground floor level.

An earlier proposal for amendment of that 1999 permission to redesign the windows at first floor level and for amendments to the internal layout was reported to Committee and approved under reference TW/01/01403 on 14 November 2001.

Condition 4 of that consent, which is proposed to be removed, states:

The area shown on the approved plan as vehicle parking, shall be paved and drained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority before the use is commenced or the premises occupied and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude its use.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Various applications relating to use of ground floor and shop front.

TW/99/01154 – Change of use from offices to residential at 39 Commercial Road to provide two flats and associated internal and external alterations – approved 8/12/99 TW/01/01403 – Alterations to elevations and internal layouts – approved 14/11/02 POLICIES

1. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy EN1 (General Development Control Criteria) - Policy H10 (Change of use to residential within the Limits to Built Development)

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy May 2001

- Policy EN1 (General Development Control Criteria) - Policy H5 (Residential Development within the Limits to Built Development)

3. Kent County Council Vehicle Parking Standards 1999 - W41 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Highway Manager 13/6/02 – in response to pre-application letter from applicant: I can confirm that I would have no objection to this change of use without the provision of car parking.

2. Paddock Wood Town Council No comments had been received at the time of writing this report.

APPRAISAL

The only consideration in this case is whether these premises can be converted without the provision of car parking.

The site is located close to the services of Paddock Wood, above the Spar supermarket and within easy walking distance of the main line station and bus routes. As such, the site is easily accessible by means other than the car. The parking shown on the earlier approvals is not available for parking for the flats as this is required for circulation and parking relating to the shops below.

The Highways Manager has commented on this application and raised no objection. As such, this application is recommended approval.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Block Plan ______

Reference: AS/DAH

- W43 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

D O’BRIEN TW/02/1007 Castle Hill Stables Change of use from agricultural Castle Hill Stables Pembury Road to storage Pembury Road CAPEL Capel CA Tonbridge Kent TN11 0PU 30/04/02 20/05/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

The proposal is for the use of an existing redundant agricultural building for a storage (B8) use. The agricultural land with which the building is associated is to be put into “set-aside” and the owner is seeking an alternative occupant for the building.

The proposed user is an agent who deals with office and mechanical goods at the end of their hire period. These goods have to be stored prior to sale and the building would be used for this purpose.

Access to the building is directly from the A21 Castle Hill.

The building is a tall steel framed and partly brick-clad barn with a brick addition to the rear. It has previously been separated into 15 stables. but there is no record of any permission being granted for equestrian or horse breeding activity on the site. The building is regarded, both by the applicant and the Local Planning Authority, as an agricultural building. No external alterations are proposed to the building.

RELEVANT HISTORY

The barn was apparently erected under agricultural Permitted Development rights. The only recent history relating to this site is as follows

TW/88/2117 Horse Training Development - Refused

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy S1 - Sustainable Pattern of Development - Policy S2 - Quality of Kent’s Environment - Policy WK2 - Strategic Policy for Tunbridge Wells - Policy ENV1 - Protection of the Countryside - Policy ENV3 - AONB’s and Special Landscape Areas - Policy MGB3 - Metropolitan Green Belt - Policy ED4 - Small Firms - Policy ED5 - Kent Agriculture - Policy T19 – Developmetn accessed from the primary of secondary road network - Policy RS1 - Rural Development - Policy RS5 - Criteria for Rural Development - W44

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 1996

- Policy MGB1 - Metropolitan Green Belt - Policy LBD1- Development Outside the Limits to Built Development - Policy EN1 - Development Control Criteria - Policy EN23 - Landscape Protection - Policy E6 - Conversion to Economic Development Use Outside Limits to Built Development - Policy TP1 - Vehicle Access - Policy VP1 - Vehicle Parking Standards

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy MGB1 - Metropolitan Green Belt - Policy LBD1- Development Outside the Limits to Built Development - Policy EN1 - Development Control Criteria - Policy EN25 - Development Control Criteria for all Development Proposals outside Limits to Built Development - Policy ED5 - Conversion of Rural Buildings to Economic Development Use outside Limits to Built Development - Policy TP4 – Access to the Road Network - Policy TP5 - Vehicle Parking Standards

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Highways Agency

28.06.02 – We have noted that the additional information on B8 usage is not available, e.g. GFA. In the light of this, we have to take a cautious view of the likely trip rate that might be generated by this proposal.

The Highways Agency strongly recommends a condition that the access to the A21 should be improved to normal vehicular standards, with the gate set back to allow heavy vehicles to stop clear of the carriageway, etc.

This is on the grounds that there is very likely to be an adverse impact on trunk road safety and freedom of flow from this proposal, should permission be granted for B8 use without an improved access.

2. Highways Manager

Comments Awaited

3. Capel Parish Council

Capel Parish Council does not object to B8 provided that storage is kept within the building only. However we do have serious concerns about access for large vehicles turning on and off this very congested road.

4. Kent County Council Archaeological Officer

No Comments - W45

APPRAISAL

The main issues in this case relate first to the principle of changing the use of a building in the countryside and secondly to the nature of the access from the A21.

The Principle of the Change of Use

The Development Plan allows for the change of use of rural buildings for commercial purposes. The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt where the re-use of buildings is regarded as appropriate development but only where “…the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings…”(PPG2 – Green Belts). This approach is also taken in Structure Plan Policy RS5 which allows for the re-use of a rural building where it is: “…in keeping with its surroundings, where the change is acceptable on environmental, traffic and other planning grounds…”. Local Plan Policies adopt similar criteria reflecting Government advice in both PPG2 – “Green Belts” and PPG7 – “The Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development”

It is necessary, therefore, to consider whether the form bulk and general design of the building in this case is in keeping with its surroundings.

The building is a tall portal framed structure which has been extended and clad in profiled sheeting and in brick. It’s dimensions are approximately 41 metres x 17 metres. The eaves level is higher than for a conventional stables building, reflecting its original agricultural use. In my opinion, the buiding is tall and bulky whereas the majority of existing buildings in the locality are much smaller and most are of a traditional brick-built construction. The nearest equivalent to this building is approximately 200 metres to the south but it is both lower and has a considerably smaller footprint.

The site is situated in full view of the A21 (a busy trunk road) and immediately adjacent to a public footpath. It is at a elevated location within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Kent Special Landscape Area. There are far reaching views from the site towards Tunbridge Wells. In view of the sensitivity of the location and the proportions and bulk of the building I consider it not to be in keeping with its surroundings. Consequently, its re-use for storage and distribution purposes would be contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan.

Highways Access

This is an important issue on a major trunk road where large vehicles accessing and leaving the site would potentially cause danger to other road users and disrupt the flow of traffic. The Highways Agency and the Parish Council have therefore raised this as an issue. Nevertheless, the Highways Agency views were based on inadequate information on the nature of the likely use. Further information has since been obtained from the applicant suggesting that the proposed use would be very low-key in terms of vehicle movements. Further views from the Highways Agency and the Highways Manager will be sought to establish whether this objection to the proposals would still stand given that the access already serves an agricultural unit.

No improvements to the access are currently proposed.

In the absence of further views and given the Highways Agency’s strong recommendation, my recommendation is framed on the basis that the objection still stands. - W46

RECOMMENDATION - SUBJECT TO THE FURTHER VIEWS OF THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY AND THE HIGHWAY MANAGER, REFUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: -

(1) The proposal involves the re-use of a building that is not in keeping with its surroundings and it is, therefore, contrary to Kent Structure Plan Policy RS5, Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Policy E6, Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001 Policy ED5 and Government Advice in PPG2 and PPG7.

(2) The proposed change of use would give rise to an adverse impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on the A21 Castle Hill arising from the use of large vehicles. This would be contrary to Kent Structure Plan Policies RS5 and TP19, Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Policy TP1 and Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001 Policy TP4.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above:

02/502.01 and 02/502.02.

______

Reference: MB/DAH

- W48 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

Brazier New Homes TW/02/01121 1 Woodbury Park Detached 5 Bed house with (c/o Prime Folio Ltd Gardens double garage on part of the site 24 Ashford Rd TUNBRIDGE WELLS Maidstone CU Kent ME14 5BH) 14/05/02

14/05/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

The application site is located to the north of Tunbridge Wells town centre occupying a corner site to the north of Park Rd. The plot forms part of the extensive rear gardens to 1 Woodbury Park Gardens which is a semi- detached house accessed via a private road running to the east of the site. The area is characterised by large houses set in substantial grounds.

The area of the site is 0.06ha and has tall Scots pine trees along the boundary to Park Rd. These trees are the subject of Tree Preservation Order Number 10/2002. The site is mainly level with the exception of the southern boundary, which slopes upwards to the higher level of the highway in Park Rd. The area is laid to lawn with a 1.8m high close board fence along the western boundary and a stone wall along the eastern boundary with well- established tree groups to the boundaries. There is a flat roof garage along the western boundary, which is accessed via an existing vehicle access point from Park Rd.

The application is for one detached five bedroom house and attached garage and has been submitted following a previous application for two detached houses which, following negotiation was withdrawn by the applicant. The proposal has been the subject of three amendments concerning siting and design.

The application has been brought to Committee at the request of a Member.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/86/0659 - Outline application for a detached dwelling and garages - Deemed Refused - 2.12.86

TW/01/02257 – Two detached houses – Application Withdrawn - W49 -

POLICY

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV15 - Built Environment - Policy H1 – Housing Provision - Policy H3 – Housing Development in Existing Urban Areas - Policy T17 - Parking

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria - Policy H9 - Residential Development within Limits to Built Development - Policy VP1 - Parking Standards

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy) May 2001

- Policy EN1 Development Control Criteria - Policy H5 – Residential Development within Limits to Built Development - Policy TP5 – Vehicle Parking Standards

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society

No objections to the proposal subject to external materials being considered.

2. Private Representations

Nine letters of objection have been received from local residents (including a joint representation from 7 residents) on the grounds of:

- closeness to western boundary - too large for the plot - overshadowing and loss of privacy - impact on trees and streetscape - traffic impact - over intensification for the area - pressure on parking facilities - loss of amenity - design not in keeping with area - adverse affect on character of the area - reduction in size and amenity of garden to No 1 Woodbury Park Gardens

APPRAISAL

The main issues for consideration are:

1. The Principle of development

2. Design and siting

3. Impact on the streetscene 4. Impact on Residential Amenity 5. Parking and Highway implications 6. Impact on protected trees - W50 -

Matters of Principle

The application site lies within the Limits to Built Development within a predominantly residential area as identified under Policy H9 of the adopted Local Plan 1996 and Policy H5 of the emerging Tunbridge Wells Local Plan review (Deposit Copy) May 2001. Accordingly the principle of residential development is acceptable in Development Plan terms.

Design and Siting

According to Local Plan policy, minor development such as infilling or redevelopment should not constitute unacceptable tandem or back land development and, in terms of amenity and design, the proposal must not cause significant harm to the character or amenities of the area. The siting of the proposed dwelling is such that the resulting rear garden area would be over 10m in length with a reduction to 7.8m in length when measured from the rearmost elevation. The resulting rear garden area to Number 1 Woodbury Park Gardens would be 10m in length, which is considered to be in acceptable.

Given the size of the application site it is considered that a detached property would be in keeping with the general character of the area, which comprises large detached and semi-detached properties.

There is an established access point from the south western corner of the site servicing the existing, garage and it is, therefore, considered appropriate in design and siting terms that garage/parking facilities should utilise this existing facility, especially being mindful of the constraints placed on the site by the nearby protected trees.

The design of the house takes account of the levels of the site with the utility and garden room being constructed below the garage. The house would be set at an angle positioned 1.4m at its nearest point to the western boundary with Number 12A Park Rd and 3.2m from the boundary with Woodbury Park Gardens. It is proposed that the garage element of the scheme would be sited near to the existing access and garage (to be demolished), with the main bulk of the dwelling confined within the site to minimise impact on adjoining residents.

Streetscene

Although the proposed dwelling is of substantial proportions it is considered that the proportion of the site coverage is compatible with that of the surrounding area. Given the proposed siting of the dwelling within the plot and the fact that boundaries to the site are strongly defined, with Park Rd being at a higher level than the site and the (protected) Scots pines along the boundary screening much of the dwelling, it is considered that there would be no harm caused to the character of the streetscene.

Residential Amenity

Mindful that the site is a corner plot and the distance from the eastern boundary to the nearest dwelling (the other side of Woodbury Park Gardens) is some 14m, with the strongly defined boundary treatment, it is considered that there would be little significant harm to residential amenity through overlooking and loss of privacy. Similarly, the adjoining property, Number 12A Park Rd has no windows to its flank elevation and although the garage to the proposed dwelling would be close to the side boundary, there are no windows to either the proposed garage elevation or that portion of the side elevation of the main dwelling nearest to the boundary. The height of the garage is also significantly less than the overall height of the proposed building. The nearest window to the rear would be a side bedroom window at first floor level some 13m distant from the rear side boundary fence; accordingly it is considered that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy detrimental to the amenity of residents at Number 12A Park Rd. - W51 -

Parking and Highway Implications

Given that there is an established access, which is to be utilised as part of the proposal, it is considered that there will be no significant highway implications. The proposed parking facilities contained within the curtilage of the site amounts to provision for the garaging of two cars and off road facilities for at least three further vehicles. This level of provision exceeds the requirements of the adopted Vehicle Parking Standards.

Implications for Protected Trees

The application is accompanied by an extensive Arboricultural Implication and Tree Protection Survey. This contains an assessment of the development proposal with respect to its implications upon existing trees and gives guidance as to the implementation of protective procedures and a Tree Protection Method Statement. It is considered that as long as the measures recommended within the report are adhered to, the proposed development can be constructed with the retention of the protected trees around the site with other requirements controllable by way of planning conditions.

Taking all the above considerations into account, it is considered that the proposal respects the aforementioned Development Plan policies and accordingly should be approved subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) Standard detailed YZ01.

(2) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buldings are occupied and shall thereafter be maintained for the duration of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

(3) Samples of materials D001.

(4) Shrubs/trees to be protected during construction L008 .

(5) Exisitng trees to be retained L003.

(6) Drainage details to be submitted J001.

(7) Landscape scheme to be approved L006.

(8) Landscape scheme to be implemented L001.

(9) The area shown on the permitted drawings for vehicle parking and garaging shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

(10) Restriction on permitted development R001 .

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 01-13-02-D, 01-13-03C, 01-13-04-C

______

Reference: JAR/DAH

- W53 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

ST PANCRAST & HUMANIST TW/02/00986 51-53 London Road Conversion of existing HOUSING ASSOCIATION Tunbridge Wells residential care home into 21 no. (Archadia Chartered Architects CU 1 bed and 2 bed flats, ancillary Marchamont House offices and replacement pitched 116 High Street roof rear extensions Egham Surrey TW20 9HB) 03/05/02 14/05/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

The application site is located on the eastern side of London Road in the Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area. The building in question is a 4-storey former residential care home. It stands vacant at present. There are 8 off street car parking spaces to the front of the site with 2 access points onto London Road.

The site is located in a mixed use area, immediately adjoining the Vale Royal Hotel to the north, residential properties to the north and commercial buildings to the east.

The application seeks full planning permission for conversion of the building to 15, 1 bedroom flats, a 1 bed studio flat and 5, 2 bedroom flats. The proposal also includes demolition of 3, 4 storey projections to be replaced with 4 storey projections with pitched roofs to the rear, as well as 2 dormer windows on the front elevation which have been reduced in size and re-designed following negotiation. There is also and office and meeting room, proposed at lower ground floor level.

The applicants are the St Pancrast and Humanist Housing Association. It is proposed that 12 of the units would be for housing supported by the Association. The applicant has indicated that the remaining 9 units would be let for general needs housing to people put forward from the Council’s Housing Register.

The existing 8 car parking spaces are proposed to be retained to serve the new flats. The existing access ramp to the front would also be retained for disabled access.

HISTORY

TW/02/00984 - Conservation Area for consent for demolition of rear projections in connection with application TW/02/00956 – Approved

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV15 – Kent’s Built Environment - Policy ENV17 – Development in Conservation Area - Policy H3 – Housing with Urban Areas - Policy S9 – Community facilities

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adapted 1996

- Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria - Policy EN5 – Development in Conservation Areas - Policy H9 – Housing within the Limits to Built Development - Policy R2 – Recreation Open Space - Policy VP1 – County Planning Standards - W54 -

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy) May 2001

- Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria - Policy EN5 – Development in Conservation Areas - Policy H5 – Housing within the Limits to Built Development - Policy R2 – Recreation open space - Policy TP6 – Tunbridge Wells Central Access Zone - Policy CS4 – Education Contributions - Policy TP9 – Cycle Storage

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Highway Manager

I can confirm no objection is raised to this proposal, although I note the relative low level of parking provision.

In this central location, and bearing in mind the existing use with its potential for traffic/parking need, I am satisfied that there is no sustainable reasons to refuse the proposal on the basis of parking inadequacies.

2. Kent County Council Education Directorate (Monchel Property Services)

The development as proposed would create a demand for both primary and secondary school places. At present these additional places cannot be accommodated within existing local schools. Therefore a contribution should be sought by way of a Section 106 legal agreement towards the provision of additional school places.

3. English Heritage

Original Submission

No objection in principle to the proposal but the front dormers are out of scale and detract from the building.

Amended plans

No comments yet received.

4. Tunbridge Wells Civic Society

Original Submission

We have no objection to the proposed change of use of this building, but we do consider the new dormer windows on the road elevation, to be filled with glass blocks in the apex, to be a most inappropriate new feature.

We urge you to try to persuade the applicant to find a more suitable design for the dormer windows.

Amended Plans

No comments yet received.

5. Private

No representations received. - W55 -

APPRAISAL

The key issues to consider in this case are:-

(a) The principle of change of use of the building to residential flats;

(b) Dwelling mix;

(d) The impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

(e) Residential Amenity;

(f) Car parking;

(g) Recreation open space;

(h) Education contribution.

Change of Use

The existing building is vacant at present but was in former use as a residential care home. The site is located in a mixed use are which includes a significant proportion of residential properties. The change of use is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Dwelling Mix

Policy H7 of the Adopted Local Plan seeks an element of small dwellings (up to 80 sq. metres) in residential schemes. This policy is strengthened in Policy H2 of the Local Plan Review, which calls for mixed dwelling sizes with an element of small units (up to 60sq. metres) and a significant element of intermediate units (60-80sq metres). The guideline is that 25% should be small and 50% intermediate. This policy is intended to meet the anticipated increase in the number of small households and also to deliver the objective of PPG3, which is to make full and effective use of urban sites.

The proposed scheme would provide a mixture of 16 small units (less than 60sq metres), 4 intermediate units (60-80sq metres) and 1 unit above 100sq metres. The proposal would therefore provide a large proportion of small dwellings, in line with the aims of Policy H7 of the Adapted Local Plan and with government objectives.

Affordable Housing

It is proposed that 12 of the units would be let by the applicants as a Housing Association. The applicant has agreed that the remaining 9 will be put forward for general needs housing for people put forward from the Council’s Housing Register. This is a voluntary undertaking on the part of the Applicant.

As the proposed number of units is 21, below the affordable housing provision threshold of 25, there is no planning requirement to secure the provision of affordable housing units by way of a Section 106 legal agreement. - W56 -

Impact on the Conservation Area

With regard to the front of the building, the appearance would remain the same as at present apart from the construction of 2 dormer windows in the roof.

The design and scale of the proposed dormers have been amended. They have been reduced in size and would be more traditional in terms of design with 3 light sashes to reflect the design of the windows on the ground floor.

The area around the existing car parking spaces to the front is already soft landscaped. It is requested that soft plant screening be implemented around the existing ramped access to soften its visual impact.

The proposal also includes the demolition of 3, 4 storey, flat roofed rear projections and replacement with slightly larger projections (between 2.5 metres deep and 6 metres wide) with pitched roofs to accommodate rooms such as bathrooms and kitchens. These additions are considered to be generally in keeping with the scale and design of the main building. The rear of the property is not visible from public vantage points in the Conservation Area.

Overall, it is considered that the proposed front and rear additions to the building would not detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Residential Amenity

The building is angled away from the adjoining hotel and adjoining properties. It is considered that the proposed rear additions would have no greater material impact on residential amenity than the existing authorised use of the building.

Car Parking

The site is located in the Central Access Zone where a maximum of one space per dwelling is required. In addition, the site is located in the Conservation Area, where the provision of any additional car parking may be harmful to its character and appearance.

The application proposes 8 car parking spaces for the 21 units. In the light of the above and the site’s central location within easy access of public transport facilities, the provision of 8 spaces is considered to be acceptable.

Details of cycle storage on the site in order to ensure the development is accessible by a range of modes of transport, should be secured by way of a condition.

Recreation Open Space

In accordance with Policy R2 of the Local Plan, given that the proposal would generate a total of 47 bedspaces, the provision of youth/adult recreation open space is required. A commuted sum is required towards the off-site provision of these facilities. Accordingly, the applicant has agreed to secure this commuted payment by way of a Section 106 legal agreement.

The site does not attract any requirement for children’s playspace provision under the Council’s current Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Education Contribution

As identified above by Kent County Council the proposal would attract a demand for additional school places which cannot be provided in existing schools and that a contribution should be made to provide these places under Policy S6 of the Kent Structure Plan and Policy CS4 of the Local Plan Review. Accordingly, the applicant has confirmed they will secure a commuted payment towards educational facilities by way of a Section 106 agreement.

- W57 -

RECOMMENDATION – THE APPLICANT BE INFORMED THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE MINDED (I) TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH (III) UNLESS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF BEING INVITED TO DO SO THE FREEHOLD OWNER ENTERS INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT TO COVER THE MATTERS SET OUT BELOW UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991, IN A FORM TO BE PREPARED BY THE BOROUGH SECRETARY AND SOLICITOR IN WHICH CASE HE SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO CONCLUDE SUCH AN AGREEMENT:-

(1) To contribute a sum of money towards the provision of additional school places.

(2) To contribute a sum of money towards youth/adult recreation open space.

(3) To pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs for the preparation and completion of the Agreement.

(II) IN THE EVENT OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT BEING MADE, THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDIING CONTROL SERVICES SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:-

(1) Standard detailed YZ01.

(2) Submission of materials D001.

(3) Prior to the commencement of the hereby permitted development, detailed drawings of the new dormers at a scale of 1:10 of elevational and sections at a scale of 1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance upon completion of development in the Conservation Area.

(4) Prior to commencement of the hereby permitted development, details of the proposed provision of refuse storage and screening shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those details. Reason: To facilitate the collection of refuse and in the interests of visual amenity.

(5) No plant, ventilation, new lift machinery housing or equipment shall be sited externally on the building without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the character and appearance of the building and the Area.

(6) The area shown for vehicle parking and turning space shall be retained for the occupiers and visitors of the premises, and no permanent development permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out in the area of land or in such a position to preclude its use. Reason: To ensure satisfactory off-street car parking provision in the interests of highway safety.

(7) Prior to the occupation of any unit details to show the storage of cycles (minimum of 4 spaces) on the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with approved details and the storage accommodation shall be kept available for cycle parking/storage thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that development is accessible by a range of modes of transport.

(8) Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of a soft landscaping scheme to screen the existing access ramp shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the location, type, size and number of plants to be used. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in the Conservation Area.

(9) Landscape scheme to be implemented L001.

- W58 -

(III) IF THE APPLICANT SHALL FAIL TO ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT, THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL SERVICES SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:-

(1) The proposals would fail to comply with Kent Structure Plan 1996 Policy S9 and Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001, Policy CS4 in respect of education provision to serve the proposed development.

(2) The proposed development would fail to comply with Policy R2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policy R2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001.

PLANS

The following plans are subject to the recommendation above:- Drawing numbers SP144/02D, 03D, 04C, 06A, 07C, 09A, 10c and P11C; 1854101, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08A, 09A, 10A and 11 and letters dated 1 May 2002 and 26 July 2002. ______

Reference: GH/LP

- W60 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

LEISURE SERVICES TW/02/01310 Dunorlan Park Demolition of an unlisted (Philip Masters Pembury Road building in a conservation area, 54 Hawkhurst Way TUNBRIDGE WELLS erection of new buildings and Bexhill PK associated landscape works. East Sussex TN39 3SN)

06/06/02 60000/39600 15/05/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

The application site includes all of the present day Dunorlan Park including the rough grassland/meadow area bounded by Halls Hole Road and Bayhall Road.

This planning application is for the demolition of an unlisted building within a conservation area, the erection of two buildings within Dunorlan Park and associated landscape works within Dunorlan Park. It is related to the submission of a Stage 2 bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for grant aid for the restoration of Dunorlan Park. Some of the work required for this restoration does not require planning permission, but the whole of the package of information submitted to the HLF has been provided to give a full context for the proposals.

This application follows the principles established in the Restoration Management Plan prepared by the Borough Council as part of the Stage 1 HLF bid.

Supporting documents submitted with the application include an Ecological Survey, a Tree Survey and an Outline 10-Year Management Plan.

The essential features of the application are:

• improved access; • making best use of the lake; • restoring the Victorian buildings and water features; • restoring the exotic Victorian landscape.

The present car parks would be replaced by properly surfaced ones accessible through improved entrances: in particular Halls Hole Road car park would be moved about 100 yards to the west, accessed through a completely new vehicular entrance, removing the conflict with pedestrians and the very awkward bend. Both car parks would have increased capacity (Halls Hole Road – 46 spaces and Pembury Road – 40 spaces and turning area).

The path from Pembury Road car park down to the lake would be realigned to reach a new boathouse about 50 yards east of the old one and properly surfaced paths would link this new path with the eastern part of the park. All of the present tarmac paths would be renewed. A new path would be constructed at the foot of the terrace linking to the one at the top allowing easy disabled access to this area. Less formal paths would give a circuit of the lake and provide links to Bayhall Road. A specification for a high level of use is proposed.

At the lake, the stone edging would be reinstated around much of the edge both to restore the original effect and to safeguard against erosion. The boathouse would be demolished to be replaced by one of modern design set against the backdrop of the trees on the northern edge of the lake. The existing hard edge to the lake adjacent to the boathouse is shown to be reinstated as grassland. The very worn picnic area adjacent to the Halls Hole Road car park is proposed to be re-designed. In the northern part of the park the café would remain but would have greatly improved seating areas and access. It is to be refurbished internally and externally and designed to be a focal point for interpretation. In order to provide adequate facilities for the management of the boating, which is a popular feature of the park, a new boatstore is proposed near to the Halls Hole Road car park replacing the present offsite one which will shortly be lost to use. - W61 –

The Cascade, Fountain Avenue and Grecian Temple would be fully restored to give a working cascade and fountain at most times of the year. The Pulhamite rockery and other stonework would be retained and conserved. It is also proposed to restore the original gates to Dunorlan House, which would complement the enhanced entrance to the park on Pembury Road.

A surprising amount of the original planting of the 1850s/60s still survives, and this would be retained as the framework for new planting in the Gardenesque style, in order to ensure that the original character is restored as faithfully as possible.

Approximately half of the application site is within the Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area. The entire site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the Kent Special Landscape Area. The park is designated Grade II on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens by English Heritage.

RELEVANT HISTORY

SW/1/49/35 – Erection of public conveniences – Approved 06/04/49 SW/1/59/359 – Extension to tea chalet – Refused, 29/08/60 SW/1/65/366 – Erection of new tea café and shelter in place of existing tea chalet – Approved, 27/10/65 SW/1/66/4 – Paddling pool – Approved, 31/12/66 TW/79/0809 – Change of use from agriculture to recreation purposes – Approved TW/81/0966 – Regulation 4 – Vehicular access – Approved. TW/94/0845 – Regulation 3 (TWBC) Change fof use from grazing land to public car park and construct new pedestrian entrance – Approved, 23/03/95 TW/00/02270 – Refurbishment of public convenience and extension to provide disabled facilities – Approved, 19/12/00

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy MGB3 – Metropolitan Green Belt - Policy ENV1 – Protection of the countyside - Policy ENV2 – Landscape and wildlife - Policy ENV3 – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Areas - Policy ENV17 – Conservation Areas - Policy WK2 – Strategy for Tunbridge Wells - Policy T17 – Parking - Policy RS1 – Rural development - Policy RS5 – Criteria for rural development

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy MGB1 - Metropolitan Green Belt. - Policy LBD1 - Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 - Development Control Criteria. - Policy EN4 - Demolition in Conservation Areas. - Policy EN5 - Development within, or affecting the character of, a Conservation Area. - Policy EN12 - Historic Parks and Gardens. - Policy EN23 - Landscape Protection. - Policy TP1 - Vehicle Access. - Policy VP2 - Parking for Disabled People. - Policy R12 - Minor developments associated with informal outdoor recreation outside the Limits to Built Development.

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review - Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy MGB1 -Metropolitan Green Belt. - Policy LBD1 - Development outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy EN1 - Development Control Criteria. - Policy EN4 - Demolition in Conservation Areas. - Policy EN5 - Development within, or affecting the character of, a Conservation Area. - Policy EN11 - Historic Parks and Gardens. - Policy EN25 - Development Control Criteria for all development proposals outside the Limits to Built Development. - Policy TP4 - Access to the road network. - W62 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

2. Highway Manager Comments awaited.

3. Garden History Society

Do not wish to comment.

4. Transco Draw attention to the existence of a gas main alongside Bayhall Road within the bounds of the park.

APPRAISAL

Many of the detailed aspects of this project do not constitute “development” and of those that do a large proportion may be regarded as “permitted development” for which no formal planning application is required. The elements requiring planning permission include the alterations to the parking areas, the reconfigured vehicular accesses, the new boat house and boat store and the alterations to the café building. Other elements of the landscaping works may also require planning permission and are included for completeness.

The main considerations may be discussed under the following headings.

Metropolitan Green Belt.

Small ancillary buildings associated with the recreational use of open land are generally regarded as “appropriate development” in the Green Belt and the current proposals are considered to be fully in accordance with Green Belt policies.

Impact on the landscape and the Conservation Area and the Historic Park and Garden.

Care has been taken, in the development of the proposals, to ensure that the restoration works faithfully reflect the original design concept for Dunorlan Park. The proposals are in the long-term interest of protecting and enhancing this asset. The new built elements are designed so as to be in keeping with the setting and, in the case of the boat store, to be as discrete as possible. The parking area and new access to Halls Hole Road would have some visual impact on views from outside the site. This impact would include the loss of an oak tree but the best trees would be avoided. New tree planting and improved management would mitigate this loss. Further detail of the new planting is not yet available but can be conditioned. Overall, I consider that the proposals would both conserve and, ultimately, greatly enhance the Park and its landscape setting.

Highways Considerations.

The proposals would improve the provision for vehicular parking and access to various parts of the park from these parking areas, particularly for the disabled. The vehicular accesses from both Pembury Road and Halls Hole Road are also to be considerably improved. Although I await confirmation from the Highways M

• Widening the Pembury Road gateway, removing and re-siting the existing piers and setting back the gates by approximately two metres.

• Stopping up the existing access from Hall Hole Road.

• Creating a new and safer access to the west.

Overall I consider that the proposals would be fully compliant with planning policies and represent a substantial and beneficial investment in this important asset. I therefore recommend approval of the application. - W63 -

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE, SUBJECT TO THE VIEWS OF THE HIGHWAYS MANAGER AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

(7) Standard Detailed YZ01

(8) Samples of Materials D001

(9) No development shall take place until full details of new planting around the Halls Hole Road car park have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

(10) Landscape Scheme to be Implemented L001

(11) The existing Halls Hole Road access shall be permanently stopped up to vehicular traffic as soon as reasonably practicable after the new access is brought into use. Reason: For the interests of highway safety.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 04 – 068 / 3-1 / 1; / 2; / 3; / 4; / 5; / 6; / 7; / 8; / 9; / 10; / 11; / 12; / 13; / 14; / 15; / 16; / 17; / 18; / 19; / 20A; / 21A; / 22; / 23; / 24; / 25; / 26A; / 27 04-068 / 3-2 / 1 & 2 ______

Reference: MJB/NC - W64 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

LEISURE SERVICES, TW/02/01319 Dunloran Park, CONSERVATION AREA (Philip Masters, Pembury Road, CONSENT Hawkhurst Way, TUNBRIDGE WELLS, Demolition of Boat Bexhill, PK Kiosk. East Sussex. TN39 3SN)

05/06/02 60000/39600 15/05/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

This application is associated with the planning application for the restoration of Dunloran Park –Ref. TW/02/01319. It proposes the demolition of the existing boathouse which is within the Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area.

RELEVANT HISTORY

See Report on TW/02/01310

POLICIES

1. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy EN4 – Demolition in Conservation Areas.

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review - Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy EN4 – Demolition in Conservation Areas.

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

None.

APPRAISAL

The building is a non-descript utilitian structure which contributes nothing positive to the character of the Conservation Area. Its removal would enhance views of the lake from the North. I therefore recommend approval of the application.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: 1:1250 location plan; site photographs. ______

Reference: MJB/DLB

- W66 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

Mr J Gardiner TW/02/00762 Orchard Farm Extension and alterations (Seal Architectural Design 29 Romford Road Harbourne Lodge PEMBURY Harbourne Lane PE High Halden Ashford Kent TN26 3JF) 28/3/02 28/3/02

Category - Planning D Highways ______DESCRIPTION

The application is outside the Limits to Built Development of Pembury and within the Metropolitan Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area. The house is a single storey bungalow surrounded by large, mainly open grounds, set to the rear of properties in Romford Road and Beagles Wood Road.

The land associated with this house is mainly laid to grazing or paddock, with a lawned area around the house. The paddock was an orchard at some point in the past and there are some fruit trees remaining, along with small stable and storage buildings.

There is a separate planning application on this agenda for a detached garage and stables within the grounds of this house.

This application would have been dealt with under officer delegated powers but for the contrary recommendation of Pembury Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/77/0120 – detached garage for 3 cars – approved 14/3/77 TW/02/00808 – proposed double garage with attached stables – not determined POLICIES

4. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy MGB3 – Metropolitan Green Belt - Policy RS5 – Extensions in the Countryside

5. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy MGB1 – Metropolitan Green Belt - Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria - Policy EN23 – Landscape Protection - Policy H13 – Extensions Outside the Limits to Built Development

6. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy 2001

- Policy MGB1 – Metropolitan Green Belt - Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria - Policy EN25 – Development Control Criteria for all Development Proposals Outside Limits to Built Development - Policy H12 – Extensions to Dwellings Outside the Limits to Built Development - W67 –

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Pembury Parish Council

15 May 2002 – OBJECT

The plans are inadequate for an application that appears to be proposing substantial alterations to the property.

There is no clear description of what is proposed and the drawings merely give an indication of various proposals for development without any specific clarification. Bearing in mind the sensitive location of the proposals on the North East perimeter of Pembury clearly more detailed information is required before the appropriateness of the application can be determined.

APPRAISAL

The key considerations in this case are: • Whether this development is appropriate within the Metropolitan Green Belt and outside the Limits to Built Development; • Whether the proposals will have any effect on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area.

The distance between this property and neighbouring properties will ensure that there will be no adverse effect on them.

Metropolitan Green Belt

Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 states that limited extensions to existing dwellings are not inappropriate development within Green Belts provided that they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling.

The proposals are for extensions amounting to approximately 25% of the size of the existing house. I consider that this is within what can be defined as a limited extension and would fall within what is defined as a modest extension under policies H13 of the Adopted Local Plan and H12 of the Deposit Local Plan Review.

As such, I do not consider that there will be any adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt and outside the Limits to Built Development.

Effect on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area

The proposed extensions are well designed in relation to the existing house and in keeping with the surroundings and will be viewed against the existing house and the built development at higher level on Romford Road and Beagles Wood Road.

Accordingly, my recommendation is one of approval.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS:

(1) Standard Detailed YZ01.

(2) Materials to match existing D002.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Site plan and drawings dated March 2002 ______

Reference: AS/DAH

- W69 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

MR & MRS C WELLER TW/02/01263 22 First Street First floor extension to front of (c/o T Pucknell Architectural Langton Green property Services SPELDHURST 31 Eridge Gardens SP Crowborough East Sussex TN6 2TB) 30/05/02 30/05/02

Category - Planning D Highways D

DESCRIPTION

The site is in a residential area within the Limits to Built Development. The area is fairly compact with terraced dwellings to the west and east of the highway. Properties are of mixed design with small front gardens and no off road parking.

The application site is one of a group of modern 1960s style staggered-terraced dwellings set approximately 6m from the highway and built of part red/yellow brick which forms an integral part of the overall design of the terrace. The roofs are of mono-pitch design giving the front elevation a somewhat bland appearance.

The application site is a mid terrace dwelling with a single storey pitched roof front extension. The adjoining property is set some 3m forward of the original front elevation front elevation although this protrusion is now only evident at first floor level due to a ground floor extension at Number 22.

The proposal comprises a first floor extension over the existing ground floor extension with a front elevation to replicate the remainder of the terrace, along with the extension of the mono –pitch roof. The result would be the formation of a two storey ‘stagger’ as found along the rest of this terrace group.

This application would have been dealt with under delegated powers but for the contrary recommendation of Speldhurst Parish Council

RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/90/0714 – Single storey front extension Approved 20.6.90

POLICY

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV15 – Kent’s Built Environment

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 1996

- Policy EN1 - Development Control Criteria

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy May 2001

- Policy EN1 – Design and Other Development Control Criteria - W70 -

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Speldhurst Parish Council

Recommend Refusal as it would create a slab front to the terrace and detract from the overall streetscene.

APPRAISAL

In terms of impact on the streetscene, the existing single storey extension forms a slightly incongruous detail along the terrace façade. The proposed first floor extension is such that it would replicate the original architecture and, once completed, would simply look like a continuation of the staggered terrace. It is considered, therefore, that the proposed design would not form an obtrusive feature within the overall streetscene and would be in keeping with the original architecture of the building. The use of yellow brick, as used on the first floor front elevations, would be of paramount importance in order that this effect could be achieved.

With regard to residential amenity, some overshadowing of the adjacent bathroom window to Number 24 may occur during the afternoon. However, it is considered that the amount of overshadowing would not be so much as to cause significant harm to the residents of that property.

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

(1) Standard detailed YZ01.

(2) Samples of materials to be submitted D001.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: CW 502/1 ______

Reference: JAR/DAH

- W72 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

Mr and Mrs C McCooey (Chris Anderson Architects Ltd TW/02/01156 2 Wood Cottage Replacement Garage and office 137 London Road Victoria Rd with accommodation over Southborough SOUTHBOROUGH Tunbridge Wells SO Kent TN4 0ND) 16/05/02 16/05/02

Category - Planning D Highways D ______

DESCRIPTION

The application site is located to the south side of Victoria Rd within the Southborough Common Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Special Landscape Area, Metropolitan Green Belt and grounds of a Grade II listed building. This is a wooded location with Wood Cottages sited at the end of a private access drive with garden area to the front. The cottages are at a much lower level than the highway. Fronting the existing garage is a small parking area and to the north of Victoria Rd are Southbank House and Laurel Cottage, both being detached properties.

This application would have been dealt with under delegated powers but for the contrary recommendation of Southborough Town Council

This application seeks to obtain planning permission for a replacement garage and office with accommodation over and is similar to previous schemes refused under references TW/01/02251 and TW/01/02227 in as much as the proposal comprises the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a larger replacement garage, with first floor accommodation over. The height of the rear (southern) elevation is the same as the previous schemes although the amount of glazing to the elevation has been reduced. This scheme also omits a side dormer and external balcony and repositions the staircase from the side elevation to the rear.

The proposed replacement garage and living accommodation would be substantially larger than the existing garage, rising to an overall height of approximately 7.2m when measured from ground level to ridge over the rear (south) elevation. It would comprise one bedroom at first floor level with shower room and studio with double garage below and an office to the rear. The front elevation would be of brick with the remaining elevations being timber feather edged boarding.

RELEVANT HISTORY

TW/86/1841 – Extensions and Alterations

TW/87/0028 – Listed Building Consent Extensions and Alterations

TW/89/1406 – Listed Building Consent Extensions and Alterations

TW/89/1405 – Extensions and Alterations

TW/01/02227 – Replacement garage and garden room with guest accommodation over – Refused 22.2.02

TW/01/02251 – Listed Building Consent for demolition of existing garage and garden room and replacement garage/garden room and guest accommodation – Refused 22.2.02

TW/02/01155 – Listed Building Consent for demolition of garage - Current - W73 -

POLICY

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy ENV1- Countryside - Policy ENV3- Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Policy ENV4- Special Landscape Area - Policy ENV17- Conservation Area - Policy ENV19- Setting of a Listed Building - Policy MGB3-Uses Appropriate Within The Greenbelt - Policy RS1-Rural Settlement - Policy RS5 -Extensions in The Countryside

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy MGB1- Metropolitan Greenbelt - Polcy LBD1- Limits to Built Development - Policy EN1- Development Control Criteria - Policy EN3- Alterations/Extensions to Listed Buildings - Policy EN5- Development in Conservation Areas - Policy EN23- Development in Special Landscape Area

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy MGB1 –Metropolitan Greenbelt - Policy LBD1 – Limits to Built Development - Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria - Policy EN3 – Alterations to Buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest - Policy EN5 – Development within or affecting the character of a Conservation Area - Policy EN25 – Development Control criteria for all development proposals outside Limits to Built Development

4. Conservation Area Appraisal

Southborough Common Conservation Area

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Highways Manager

Previously commented: No objections because this is a replacement garage although it would be better from a highways point of view if set back to achieve 5.5m between edge of carriageway and garage doors

2. Southborough Town Council

Permission Should Be Granted

3. The Southborough Society

Comments that: the proposal does not fulfil any of the usual criteria for approval in this type of location, has no special circumstances sufficiently meritorious to depart from Green Belt policy and would not, on balance, be an improvement to the conservation area nor enhance the setting of the Listed Building because of its size. - W74 -

APPRAISAL

The main issues for consideration are as follows:

(a) Impact on the Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Special Landscape Area and Conservation Area (b) Impact on the Listed Building and its setting (c) Siting, size and design of the proposal (d) The acceptability of the proposal in terms of highway implications

Impact on the Greenbelt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Special Landscape Area and Conservation Area

The application site lies outside the Limits to the Built Development and within the Metropolitan Green Belt where the presumption is against inappropriate development and development not in accordance with rural and countryside polices contained within the Local Plan and Kent Structure Plan. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 also advises that approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for purposes other than agriculture, forestry etc and other uses appropriate to a rural area. It is considered that this proposal does not fall into one of these categories as the size, bulk and use of the replacement garage with office and accommodation over is substantially different to that which is existing.

It is accepted that, when viewed from Victoria Rd, the front of the building maintains the overall look of a garage. However, the external staircase would be clearly visible when viewed from Wood Cottages and is not considered to be a feature in accordance with the historic or architectural character of the listed building. Mindful of the increased size of the building, the impact on the surrounding area would be considerable and it could not be said to preserve or enhance the character of the Special Landscape Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Conservation Area. Furthermore, Policy EN23 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (Adopted) 1996 states that the design, layout and landscaping of development should minimise impact on the natural beauty and landscape quality of the surrounding area. It is considered, therefore, that the proposal conflicts with the provisions of this and the provisions of the other above-mentioned policies.

Impact on the Setting of a Listed Building

The Conservation Officer has raised objections to the proposal, with which I concur, in that this is a very similar scheme to the earlier application with the building being a large and bulky structure, which would adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building and rural character of the surrounding. Policy EN5 states that development within a Conservation Area should preserve or enhance the buildings related spaces and vegetation that combine to form the character of the area as a whole. The proposal clearly conflicts with this provision.

The garage and living accommodation represents a substantial increase in size and bulk, being over two levels and of increased width, height and depth. Given that the land slopes to the south, the visual impact of the building on the setting of the Listed Building would be considerable.

Siting Size and Design

The existing garage, although in a minor state of disrepair, is limited in size and sits comfortably within its woodland setting amongst well established trees. The proposed replacement garage, office and accommodation however, would necessitate the removal of a large tree and other minor clearance and it is considered that the scale of the new building would detract from the wooded nature of the area in general, given its size and proposed use. - W75 -

Highway Implications

The Highways Manager has previously raised no objections for a replacement garage subject its’ re-siting. However, it is not simply the replacement of the garage that requires careful consideration. The accommodation at second floor level and the overall internal layout could very easily be used as self contained residential accommodation in the long term. Although this could be controlled by way of a planning conditions, the scale of the accommodation and degree of separation from the main property does lend itself to possible future independent occupation. Residential accommodation, whether ‘guest’ or permanent could result in further vehicle attraction with associated parking implications.

Conclusion

It is considered that the size and nature of the proposal would not be compatible with the character of the area and could lead to an increase in traffic generation, albeit on a limited scale. It should be noted that the road is fairly narrow and the existing parking area small. Any further increase in the size of the parking area to provide open-air parking would further impact on the special character of the area.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

(1) The proposed replacement garage, office and accommodation is considered inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Greenbelt and would harm the character and natural beauty of the Special Landscape Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policies ENV1, ENV3, ENV4, ENV17, ENV19, MGB3, RS1, RS5 of The Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1, EN3, EN5, EN23 and MGB1 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (Adopted) 1996 and Policies MGB1, LBD1, EN1, EN5, EN25 and MGB1 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy), May 2001

(2) The proposed development would result in significant harm to the character, appearance and setting of the Listed Building. It would therefore be contrary to Policy ENV19 of The Kent Structure Plan 1996, EN3 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (Adopted) 1996 and Policy EN3 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy) 2001.

(3) The scale, mass and use of the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and would, therefore, be contrary to Policy EN 5 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 1996 and Policy EN 5 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy) May 2001

(4) The scale, layout and design of the development would not respect the context of the site, contrary to Policy EN1 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (Adopted) 1996 and Policy EN1 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy) May 2001

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing Number: 855-02, 855-03

Reference: JAR/DAH

- W77 -

APPLICANTS’ NAME T.P. REF. LOCATION BRIEF PARTICULARS AGENTS’ NAME - AGENTS’ OR APPLICANTS’ ADDRESS DATE VALID NAT. GRID REF. DATE OF APPLICATION

MILLWOOD DESIGNER HOMES TW/01/02536 Brambleshaw Demolition of existing dwelling LIMITED Bullingstone Lane and garage and erection of new (Kember Loudon Williams SPELDHURST dwelling and garage with Ridgers Barn SP associated works Eridge Tunbridge Wells Kent ) 20/11/01 20/11/01

Category - Planning D Highways ______

DESCRIPTION

The application site is located on the eastern side of Bullingstone Lane outside the Limits to Built Development between the villages of Speldhurst to the north and Langton Green to the south, within the Metropolitan Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area. The existing house on the site is a bungalow served by an access drive on Bullingstone Lane. There are several outbuildings within the curtilage of the property. There is a steep wooded bank along the northern boundary to the rear of the existing bungalow.

The proposal seeks full planning permission for a replacement dwelling. The proposal would overlap the footprint of the existing dwelling, but would be located 7 metres further away from the steep bank along the north boundary.

The proposal has been amended since the submission of the original application, including a reduction of 1.7 metres in the ridge height as well as a reduction in the pitch of the roof and the omission of a front and rear gable. The proposed dwelling would be two storeys with 5 bedrooms. The erection of a replacement garage is also proposed which would accommodate 3 cars.

This application would have been determined under delegated powers if it were not for the contrary views of the Parish Council.

RELEVANT HISTORY

Building Regulations BR/8980 (1959) – Dining room extension – Approved.

POLICIES

1. Kent Structure Plan 1996

- Policy MGB3 – New development in Green Belt - Policy ENV1 – Countryside protected for its own sake - Policy ENV3 – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Policy ENV4 – Special Landscape Area - Policy RS1 – New development in the countryside - Policy RS5 – Development in rural Kent criteria

2. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996

- Policy MGB1 – Presumption against new development - Policy EN1 – Development control criteria - Policy EN23 – Development in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area - Policy H12 – Replacement dwelling - Policy VP1 – County parking standards

- W78 -

3. Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review – Deposit Copy, May 2001

- Policy MGB1 – Presumption against new development - Policy EN1 – Development control criteria - Policy EN25 – Development in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area - Policy H11 – Replacement dwelling - Policy TP5 – County parking standards

CONSULTATIONS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

Original Application

1. Speldhurst Parish Council

17/12/01 – It is noted that the property proposed is much larger than the current building. However, we support the application. Recommend approval.

2. Private

2 letters received, one raising objection and the following concerns:

- no objection to principle of re-development. However the size of the proposed house is considered to be a massive increase in comparison to the existing bungalow; - the new house would not be in keeping with the ‘cottagey’ character of existing dwellings along Bullingstone Lane; - the dwelling would not be completely hidden by vegetation; - no details of materials given; and - the application would set a precedent for similar development in the area.

Amended Application

1. Speldhurst Parish Council

16/07/02 – Recommend approval.

2. Private

2 letters received, one of objection raising the following concerns:

- the reductions made are only marginal; and - the comments made previously (as set out above) still apply.

APPRAISAL

The key issues in this case are:-

(1) Whether the proposed replacement dwelling meets Policy H12 of the Adopted Local Plan and Policy H11 of the Local Plan Review;

(2) Whether the proposal would amount to acceptable development in the Green Belt;

(3) Whether the development would be acceptable in terms of its effect on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area. - W79 -

Replacement Dwelling Policy

I consider that the existing bungalow has a lawful residential use.

Criterion 1 of Policy H12/H11 requires that the proposed new dwelling should be sited on or as close as reasonably practicable to the location of the existing dwelling. The proposed new dwelling would be located approximately 7 metres further south than the existing. There is evidence of subsidence and land slippage along the bank to the immediate rear of the existing bungalow. The proposed dwelling would overlap the footprint of the existing bungalow, and given the problems with the steep bank to the rear, no objection is raised in principle to the re-siting of the dwelling and the nearby detached garage.

With regard to Criterion 2 of the above policies, the proposed new dwelling should be no more obtrusive in the landscape than the dwelling which is to be replaced. The proposal seeks to replace a bungalow with a two storey dwelling. The ridge of the new dwelling would be at least 1.6 metres higher than the existing bungalow with a bulkier roof and large chimney. The eaves line of the new dwelling would be 2.2m higher than the existing. The proposed dwelling would be more obtrusive in the landscape than the existing dwelling and more visible when viewed along the access drive from Bullingstone Lane..

Green Belt Policy

Under Green Belt policy criteria and the guidance set out in PPG2 – Green Belts 1995, the replacement of existing dwellings need not be inappropriate development, providing the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces.

The appropriate comparative dimensions of the existing and proposed buildings are as follows:-

House Garage

Existing Footprint (m2) 228.20 23.30

Existing Volume (m3) 805.58 61.80

Volume of ‘Original Dwelling’ 795.58

(Dining Room Extension Deducted –m3)

Proposed Footprint (m2) 196.10 60.5

Existing Volume (m3) 1131.01 205.31 - W80 -

The proposed dwelling would be approximately 40% larger in volume than the existing bungalow. The proposed garage would be at least 3 times larger than the existing detached garage. Given the increase in volume and the increase in height and bulk of the dwelling as a two storey replacement, the new dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing, contrary to the provisions of Green Belt policy and guidance.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

In view of its location and the significant increase in the size and bulk of the dwelling, the proposal would be harmful to the character, appearance and landscape setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

(1) The proposed replacement dwelling and garage by virtue of their scale, height and mass would result in inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt, contrary to Policy MGB3 and ENV1 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies MGB1 and EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policies EN1 and MGB1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy) May 2001.

(2) The proposed replacement dwelling and garage by virtue of their scale, height and mass would be more visually obtrusive in the landscape than the existing dwelling, harmful to the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Special Landscape Area, contrary to Policies ENV1, ENV3, ENV4 and RS5 of the Kent Structure Plan 1996, Policies EN1, EN23 and H12 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Adopted 1996 and Policies EN1, EN25 and H11 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Review (Deposit Copy) May 2001.

PLANS

The following plans are the subject of the recommendation above: Drawing Nos. P41/1/01 and P41/L/01 and letter dated 18 June 2002. ______

Reference: GH/DAH