DOCSLIB.ORG

Mark Cathcart, Planning Officer By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mark Cathcart, Planning Officer By Rother District Council Town Hall London Road TN39 3JX Attn: Planning Committee Members cc: Mark Cathcart, Planning Officer By email only Your ref: RR/2019/1659/P Our ref: (MOO2/1)-MM/AP Email: 7 August 2020 FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON 13 AUGUST 2020 Re: PGL, Former Pestalozzi Site, Sedlescombe; Application No. RR/2019/1659/P Dear Planning Committee Members, We act for a group of 17 local residents opposed to the above application. There are multiple reasons why we consider that permission for this application should be refused. We have today sent a de- tailed legal letter to the Planning Officer setting out a number of these, which is enclosed (Appendix 1). We are writing here to set out a brief summary of these points, which we hope may assist your consideration of the application: The Fallback Position • The Officer’s Report (“OR”) significantly underestimates the additional floor area that the proposed development represents when compared with the existing permission. (para. 7.4.2) At a minimum, the increase would be 1,217 sqm (50% more than what is said in the OR, excluding the permanent concrete-based ‘tented area’, which would add approximately another 1,050 sqm). This is due to the fact that the OR fails to recognize that Swiss Hall would have to be demolished if the other accommodation onsite were constructed, as this was an integral part of the terms of the 2008 Permission.1 The extant permission has also been misrepresented as the new buildings were replacements and there was no increase to the footprint under those plans. • Contrary to what is said in the OR (para 7.4.3), the plans incorporated into the 2008 Decision Notice do set limits on the accommodation to be provided within the buildings already permitted. However, even if the applicant’s case that there are not was accepted, the Committee must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of the applicant constructing the buildings as permitted and then gutting these to add further accommodation space when considering the proper fallback position.2 Major development in the AONB3 • The relevant question for the Committee on this matter is whether the development could have a significant adverse impact on the AONB’s purposes. (OR 7.4.1) The Committee must 1 For more detail, see our letter at Appendix 1, paras. 4-13. 2 Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, [2017] EWCA Civ 1314. For more detail on these points see Ap- pendix 1, paras. 14-18. 3 For more information, see Appendix 1 paras 19-24. consider the change and intensification of use and the built development, taken together, in their local context. It is obvious that there are (at least) potential significant impacts to the beauty, landscape character and tranquility of the AONB (and the AONB unit’s objection supports this). The proposal represents: o A change from (1) a residential facility for up to 60 children who leave to attend school and an associated conference facility centered around a village green and ‘tranquil garden’ to (2) a commercial facility designed to accommodate 541 children engaged in outdoor adventure play with large staffing levels and which essentially provides entertainment/activities during each waking hour the children are on-site. o Increase of at least 1,217 sqm floor area, plus 1,050 sqm tent village, as above o Increasing accommodation available onsite from roughly 280 to 749 o Numerous towering “activity bases” and a watersports pond which will dramatically change the character of the landscape and the use of the site, drawing children away from the previously-designed central spaces towards the periphery (and neigbours). Environmental Impacts • The application infringes advice from Natural England that they would expect the buffer around the ancient woodland to be “significantly larger” than 15 metres. There is new hardstanding within this distance and Accomodation Block 2 is very close to 15 m and certainly not “significantly” farther. Ancient woodland is provided the highest level of protection in the NPPF, requiring wholly exceptional reasons to justify its loss or deterioration. The applicant has also failed to assess operational impacts (noise, coach emissions, etc) on ancient woodland, contrary to Natural England’s guidance.4 • The applicant has failed to assess the cumulative noise impacts from the development, including from the sports pitch, MUGA, and evening activites. But it is clear that far more use would be made of these facilities and PGL makes clear that it provides “fun-packed evening entertainment programmes at all our centres, every day, all year round”. It is therefore wrong of the OR to describe evening activities as “ad hoc” and these must be assessed properly to understand the noise impacts of the development.5 • The Environmental Health team’s reliance on statutory nuisance is simply not good enough from a planning perspective. There is a large gap between a significant adverse impact to neighbouring amenity and something which rises to the level of a statutory nuisance. Reliance on adults present simply ‘controlling’ the noise of children while on an activity break with friends strain credulity (as any parent will know!). • There is an outstanding application for felling 17 trees onsite and works to many others, which the Parish Council has noted seems designed to facilitate certain aspects of the development (such as felling two trees at the site where a passing place for busses is intended). No consideration appears to have been given to the potential cumulative effects of these applications and whether, in combination, they represent EIA development, contrary to the EIA Regulations and Directive. Conclusion In the circumstances, we respectfully ask you to either require that further assessments are undertaken so that you can be properly informed as to the effects of the proposed development, or that you refuse permission. Yours faithfully Richard Buxton Solicitors Environmental, Planning and Public Law 4 For more information, see Appendix 1, paras. 26-33. 5 For more information, see Appendix 1, paras. 34-35. 2 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appropriate Assessment Main Document
    Appropriate Assessment of the Hastings Core Strategy Final March 2010 Prepared for Hastings Borough Council Hastings Borough Council Appropriate Assessment of the Hastings Core Strategy Revision Schedule Appropriate Assessment of the Hastings Core Strategy March 2010 Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 01 15/03/10 Draft for client Dr James Riley Dr Jo Hughes Dr Jo Hughes review Principal Ecologist Technical Director Technical Director (Ecology) (Ecology) Scott Wilson Scott House Alencon Link Basingstoke This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's Hampshire appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson RG21 7PP accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior Tel: 01256 310200 written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context Fax: 01256 310201 of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion. © Scott Wilson Ltd 2008 Hastings Borough Council Appropriate Assessment of the Hastings Core Strategy Table of Contents 1 Introduction .........................................................................................1 1.1 Current legislation............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope and objectives.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Summary
    CLIMATE EMERGENCY PROGRESS CHECKLIST - 10 December 2019 NB. This is work in progress! We have almost certainly missed some actions. Please contact [email protected] with any news or updates. County/Authority Council Status County/Authority Council Status Brighton & Hove BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL DECLARED Dec 2018 KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Motion Passed May 2019 WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL Motion Passed - April 2019 Ashford Borough Council Motion Passed July 2019 Adur Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Canterbury City Council DECLARED July 2019 Arun District Council DECLARED Nov 2019 Dartford Borough Council DECLARED Oct 2019 Chichester City Council DECLARED June 2019 Dover District Council Campaign in progress West Sussex Chichester District Council DECLARED July 2019 Folkestone and Hythe District Council DECLARED July 2019 Crawley Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Gravesham Borough Council DECLARED June 2019 Kent Horsham District Council Motion Passed - June 2019 Maidstone Borough Council DECLARED April 2019 Mid Sussex District Council Motion Passed - June 2019 Medway Council DECLARED April 2019 Worthing Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Sevenoaks District Council Motion Passed - Nov 2019 EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL DECLARED Oct 2019 Swale Borough Council DECLARED June 2019 Eastbourne Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Thanet District Council DECLARED July 2019 Hastings Borough Council DECLARED Dec 2018 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Motion Passed July 2019 East Sussex Lewes District Council DECLARED July 2019 Tunbridge
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Housing Group's Housing, Health and Social Sub Group Meeting
    Kent Housing Group’s Housing, Health and Social Sub Group Meeting Monday 9 March 2020 Held at Council Chamber, Ashford Borough Council, Civic Centre, Tannery Lane, Ashford TN23 1PL Attendance: Hayley Brooks Sevenoaks District Council Brian Horton South East Local Enterprise Partnership (SELEP) Ashley Jackson Thanet District Council Anne Tidmarsh KCC Linda Smith Public Health Jane Miller KCC Mark James Ashford Borough Council Mark Foster Kent, Surrey, Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company Hazel Skinner Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Marie Royle CCC Duncan Wilson West Kent Housing Association Niki Melville Town and Country Housing Rebecca Smith Kent Housing Group Sarah Tickner Kent Housing Group Nigel Bucklow Maidstone Borough Council Apologies: John Littlemore, Maidstone Borough Council Sarah Martin, KCHFT, Linda Hibbs, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Jane Lang, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Helen Charles, Town and Country Chair: Hayley Brooks Points of note and actions agreed: 1. Welcome and introduction 2. Minutes and Matters Arising 2.1 Brian Horton is a member of sub group representing SELEP and this correction ST shall be reflected in the notes. 2.2 Actions from the last meeting are picked up within this meeting’s agenda. 1 3. Update on the Sub Group Action Plan Sarah shared updates on work delivered over the past eight weeks and since our last meeting. Points of note / Call to Action from Members: 3.1 Links have been made with the Private Sector Housing Sub Group and we are in progress to align actions within our action plans because many of our health themes also align with their client group.
    [Show full text]
  • Rother Valley Railway Economic Impacts Report
    Report September 2018 Rother Valley Railway Economic Impacts Report Rother Valley Railway Limited Our ref: 22707603 Report September 2018 Rother Valley Railway Economic Impacts Report Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Rother Valley Railway Limited 28-32 Upper Ground London SE1 9PD +44 20 7910 5000 www.steergroup.com Our ref: 22707603 Steer has prepared this material for Rother Valley Railway Limited. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made. Rother Valley Railway Economic Impacts Report | Report Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i The Rother Valley Railway ‘Missing Link’ ............................................................................ i Local Economic Context ......................................................................................................ii Transport Impacts – Operational Stage.............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • V Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2020] EWHC 1608 (Admin) (23 June 2020)
    Case Name: Miles, R (On the Application Of) v Tonbridge And Malling Borough Council [2020] EWHC 1608 (Admin) (23 June 2020) Full case: Click Here Commentary: This was an unsuccessful claim for judicial review of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a traveller site on the green belt in Kent. The Council had granted permission in 2008 for two caravans on the site for occupation by two named individuals and their dependents for a period of 3 years. In 2015 a further permission was granted with conditions requiring that the residential use of the site cease after 7 years and that the land then be restored to nature. In November 2019, the Council granted a new permission which allowed for 3 caravans on the site with no time limits. The claimant contended that the Council had been wrongly influenced by an immaterial consideration, being that refusal of permission would likely lead to a planning appeal and, if it lost, the Council could be exposed to an unfavourable costs order and reputational damage. The court considered it to be undisputed that the risk of an adverse costs award or reputational harm were not material planning considerations and that it would be illegitimate to allow such factors to influence a planning judgment. However, it held that that there was nothing wrong with officers advising members in relation to such risks, and it was satisfied that these risks were not taken into account as material considerations in the Council’s exercise of planning judgment. The claimant further alleged that the members had been misled by the officers' reports, but the court found that the reports were not misleading when read as a whole and that they in fact properly informed the councillors of planning considerations relevant to the decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Prime Industrial Development Opportunity
    MARLEY TILES LTD | LONDON ROAD | WROTHAM | TN15 7RW FOR SALE MARLEY TILES LTD 8.09 ACRES PRIME INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY 8.09 ACRES SITE in an established employment location 15 CAMBRIDGE A428 11 BEDFORD A1 A11 TOWCESTER M1 A509 M11 A508 A421 A10 10 A505 14 9 M1 A6 A1 MILTON 13 BRACKLEY KEYNES 10 A505 BUCKINGHAM A421 A421 9 10 A4146 A5 M11 LEIGHTON A131 BUZZARD M1 BICESTER A505 STEVENAGE BRAINTREE A120 LUTON 7 8 A120 COLCHESTER 9 A41 10 A602 BISHOP’S STORTFORD AYLESBURY 9 M40 HARPENDEN A1(M ) A418 4 HEMEL M11 MARLEY TILES LTD | LONDON ROAD | WROTHAM | TN15 7RW A41 8 A418 HEMPSTEAD POTTERS 8 CHELMSFORD BAR A413 21 M40 20 A41 23 25 M25 27 A12 M1 A128 A4074 19 ENFIELD HIGH A130 A413 4 A10 WYCOMBE CHINGFORD 28 LOCATION 4 MARLOW M25 1 A127 Prime freehold industrial development opportunity of M40 1 ROMFORD A404 8.09 acres site in Wrotham Heath. 16 1 A406 A406 A40 M25 A4 Site currently identified as an established A4074 SLOUGH 8 LONDON 30 employment location located off Junction 2a of the A4 4b/15 4 3 1 M4 M26 on the A20, with direct access to the M20 and DARTFORD READING Heathrow M4 International A316 1a approximately 8 miles from Junction 5 of the M25. Airport 12 10 A205 2 GRAVESEND 11 1 A20 A2 A23 A4 A322 12 3 M3 CAMBERLEY A3 A21 A33 3 A24 M20 M25 WEYBRIDGE 4 A228 M2 4 10 A249 WOKING EPSOM M26 3 M3 5 5 A331 M25 M25 SEVENOAKSSEVENOAKS MAIDSTONE 7 M20 6 GUILDFORD 6 WROTHAMWROTHAM A287 REDHILL A21 FARNHAM TRAVEL DISTANCES SEVENOAKS 8 miles M25 J3 MAIDSTONE 12 miles M25 (JUNCTION 3) 8 miles WROTHAM MAIDSTONE M25 (JUNCTION 5) 8 miles LON M20 DON CENTRAL LONDON 25 miles RD SEVENOAKS/ FOLKESTONE 40 miles M25 J5 A227 A20 M26 2a 2a A20 A25 MARLEY TILES LTD | LONDON ROAD | WROTHAM | TN15 7RW 8.09 Acres Site DESCRIPTION TENURE AND BASIS OF SALE The site is currently the principal Marley Ltd hold the site Freehold as outlined red on the South East Distribution Depot for aerial.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashford Strategic Housing Market Assessment
    ASHFORD LOCAL PLAN 2030 EXAMINATION LIBRARY SD13 Ashford Borough Council ASHFORD STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT AUGUST 2014 Strategic Housing Market Assessment Addendum: Implications of 2012-based Population Projections & Need for Care Homes Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, Maidstone Borough Council and Ashford Borough Council August 2014 Prepared by GL Hearn Limited 280 High Holborn London, WC1V 7EE T +44 (0)20 7851 4900 F +44 (0)20 7851 4910 glhearn.com Strategic Housing Market Assessment Addendum Implications of 2012-based Population Projections & Need for Care Homes August 2014 GL Hearn Page 2 of 47 J: \Planning\Job Files\J031313 - Tonbridge & Malling SHMA\Reports\SHMA Addendum (Aug-final).docx Strategic Housing Market Assessment Addendum Implications of 2012-based Population Projections & Need for Care Homes August 2014 Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION 7 2. POPULATION PROJECTIONS 11 3. ASSESSING REGISTERED CARE NEEDS 27 4. REVIEWING FUTURE RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME NEED 35 5. SUMMARY 45 List of Figures FIGURE 1: HOUSING MARKET AREAS 7 FIGURE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION 2011 AND 2031 – ASHFORD 16 FIGURE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION 2011 AND 2031 – MAIDSTONE 17 FIGURE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION 2011 AND 2031 – TONBRIDGE & MALLING 18 FIGURE 5: ASHFORD POPULATION CHANGE IN ELDERLY AGE GROUPS (2011-2031) 36 FIGURE 6: MAIDSTONE POPULATION CHANGE IN ELDERLY AGE GROUPS (2011-2031) 36 FIGURE 7: TONBRIDGE AND MALLING POPULATION CHANGE IN ELDERLY AGE GROUPS (2011-2031) 37 FIGURE 8: PROJECTED INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION AGED 75
    [Show full text]
  • Annex a Gibson Building, Gibson Drive Kings Hill, West Malling Kent ME19 4LZ Switchboard 01732 844522 DX TMBC 92865 West Malling Minicom 01732 874958 (Text Only)
    The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Planning Policy Annex A Gibson Building, Gibson Drive Kings Hill, West Malling Kent ME19 4LZ Switchboard 01732 844522 DX TMBC 92865 West Malling Minicom 01732 874958 (text only) Planning, Transport Web Site http://www.tmbc.gov.uk and Leisure Services Email [email protected] Mrs Sue Whiteside Contact Jill Peet LDF Team Direct line 01732 87 6268 Maidstone Borough Council Email jill.peet @tmbc.gov.uk Fax 01732 876317 Your ref Our ref PTLS/P&C/03-02 Date 14 October 2011 Dear Mrs Whiteside Maidstone Core Strategy Consultation Draft (2011) I submit the following comments on behalf of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council as representations to the Maidstone Borough Council Core Strategy Consultation Draft (2011). The Borough Council assumes that the Core Strategy will be adapted to the circumstances that may present themselves as an when the National Planning Policy Framework is finally adopted by Government. Should this lead to revisions to, removal of, or addition of policy then the Borough Council would expect to be reconsulted. With regard to the Strategic Location for Housing (SLH) shown on the Key Diagram to the north-west of Maidstone on our shared borough boundary, Tonbridge & Malling has a number of serious concerns. It is noted that the adopted Local Plan (December 2000) already had an allocation for housing in this general location for 380 units but that that allocation is not retained in the Saved Policies document.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonbridge and Malling Economy Overview
    Tonbridge and Malling Economy Overview Emsi Q1 2018 Data Set, Sept 2018 Economy Overview Tonbridge and Malling Emsi Q1 2018 Data Set September 2018 Emsi Q1 2018 Data Set | www.economicmodeling.com 1 Parameters Regions Code Description 29UP Tonbridge and Malling Timeframe 2011 - 2017 Datarun 2018.1 – Employees Additional data sources and further information Official Labour Market Statistics: www.nomisweb.co.uk FE Data Library: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fe-data-library Tonbridge and Malling Council: www.tmbc.gov.uk Office for National Statistics: https://www.ons.gov.uk/ Commuting patterns in and out of Tonbridge and Malling (2011 Census): https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/WU03UK/chart/1132462217 Emsi Q1 2018 Data Set | www.economicmodeling.com 2 Additional data sources and further information Economy Overview Population (2017) 127.8k Jobs (2017) 59.0k Average Wages (2017) £29.0k Exports (2014) £3.4b Imports (2014) £4.9b Emsi Q1 2018 Data Set | www.economicmodeling.com 3 Population 127.8k 4.9% 2017 Population Population Growth for the Last 5 Years 1.4% of Gov't Office Region Gov't Office Region GroWth 3.8% 2017 % of Age Group Population Population Under 5 years 7,664 6.0% 5 to 9 years 8,383 6.6% 10 to 13 years 6,774 5.3% 14 to 15 years 3,323 2.6% 16 to 18 years 4,926 3.9% 19 to 24 years 6,724 5.3% 25 to 29 years 6,970 5.5% 30 to 34 years 6,895 5.4% 35 to 39 years 7,931 6.2% 40 to 44 years 8,621 6.7% 45 to 49 years 9,817 7.7% 50 to 54 years 9,850 7.7% 55 to 59 years 8,617 6.7% 60 to 64 years 6,936 5.4% 65 to 69 years 6,788
    [Show full text]
  • LAND on the NORTH SIDE of MAIDSTONE ROAD Platt, Kent TN15 8JR
    FREEHOLD FOR SALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAIDSTONE ROAD Platt, Kent TN15 8JR Indicative Aerial Site Plan Key Highlights • Freehold residential development • Approximately 1.71 acres (0.69 hectares) opportunity • Currently land licensed to neighbouring • Pre-application advice sought for the property for recreational purposes (sale to erection of up to ten dwellings be with vacant possession) • Village location to the east of Platt, in the • Unconditional or subject to planning offers borough of Tonbridge and Malling invited SAVILLS SEVENOAKS 74 High Street, Sevenoaks TN13 1JR +44 (0) 1732 789 750 savills.co.uk Location The Property is located to the east of the village of Platt, in the borough of Tonbridge and Malling, Kent. The Property is approximately 7 miles north of Tonbridge, 5.9 miles east of Sevenoaks, 11.4 miles south of Dartford and 8.6 miles north west of Maidstone. Platt is a semi-rural settlement situated either side of the A25, which continues to the north east to Wrotham Heath and the west to Borough Green. The village benefits from a number of amenities, including Platt Church of England Primary School and Platt Memorial Hall to the west. The Blue Anchor public house and Platt Park are situated to the Indicative Location Map south west. An attractive parish church dating back to 1843 overlooks the village centre. A Sainsbury’s Local, bakery and further restaurants/ takeaways are available around 0.9 miles to the west in Borough Green, a rural service centre. A wider variety of retailers, amenities and restaurants are available to the south east in Maidstone (8.8 miles) and to the north in Bluewater Shopping Centre, Greenhithe (10 miles), along with Sevenoaks to the west (5.9 miles).
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transport Panel of 21 March 2006
    TONBRIDGE AND MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL PUBLIC TRANSPORT PANEL Tuesday, 21st March, 2006 Present: Cllr M A C Balfour (Chairman), Cllr R W Dalton, Cllr R A Dorling, Cllr M R Rhodes, Cllr Mrs C M Ridsdill-Smith, Cllr Miss J L Sergison, Cllr Mrs E A Simpson and Cllr D G Still. Councillors Aikman, Mrs Anderson, Thornewell and Worrall were also present pursuant to Council Procedure Rule No 15.21. Mr Kings (Kent Association of Parish Councils), Mr Shields (Tonbridge Line Commuters) and Mr Dan Tall (South Eastern Trains). Apologies were received from Councillors Miss Browne and Chapman and from Norman Kemp of Nu Venture Coaches and James Cook and Kenneth Cobb of Kent County Council. PART 1 - PUBLIC PT DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 06/001 Councillor Worrall declared a personal interest in the item on Community Transport Initiatives as Chairman of Age Concern Malling, the operator of 3 mini-buses in a shared community transport initiative with Snodland. PT MINUTES 06/002 RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Public Transport Panel held on 8 November 2005 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. PT COMMUNITY TRANSPORT INITIATIVES IN KENT AND MEDWAY 06/003 2006 Mr Nigel Whitburn the Kent and Medway Rural Transport Partnership Officer and Kent Community Rail Partnership Officer gave a presentation describing his work for Action with Communities in Rural Kent. He outlined the role of Rural Transport Partnerships and gave examples of Kent schemes funded by small grants from delegated funds. A copy of the presentation would be circulated with the Minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Tonbridge & Malling
    TONBRIDGE & MALLING National Child Measurement Programme: Further Analysis of the Drivers of Excess Weight February 2017 Produced by Val Miller: Public Health Specialist ([email protected]) Wendy Jeffreys: Public Health Specialist ([email protected]) Rachel Kennard: Senior Intelligence Analyst ([email protected]) Zara Cuccu: Public Health Analyst ([email protected]) Correspondence to: Zara Cuccu Version: 01 Last Updated: February 2017 | 1. Background This paper provides a high level summary of the results of in-depth analyses exploring the drivers of excess weight among reception and year six children, a full report has been published. The following analyses of local childhood weight data have also been produced: • Local authority level trend analysis of data up to 2015/16, with comparisons to Kent, the South East and England. • Kent analysis of the inequalities in childhood obesity. The above analyses have established that overweight and obesity prevalence is higher in children resident within areas of deprivation. Further, there is evidence for a widening gap in obesity prevalence between the most and the least deprived groups across Kent during 2008/09 to 2014/15. The following paragraphs summarise the key findings from the full report. Maps have also been presented for the LSOAs in Tonbridge & Malling with the highest levels of excess weight1 across Kent. 1 defined as the upper quartile of excess weight across Kent between 2008/09 to 2014/15 | 2. Ethnicity The association between deprivation and high levels of obesity and excess weight in childhood is well documented. There is also a strong body of evidence indicating that certain ethnic groups are at greater risk of excess weight.
    [Show full text]