Public Document Pack

A G E N D A

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Wednesday 11 October 2017 at 5.00 pm Council Chamber, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS

Members: Councillor Noakes (Chairman), Councillors Heasman (Vice-Chairman), Backhouse, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Dr Hall, Hills, Mackonochie, Munn, Podbury, Scholes, Sloan and Mrs Thomas

Quorum: 5 Members

1 Chairman's Introduction Announcement on procedural matters.

2 Apologies Apologies for absence as reported at the meeting.

3 Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest by Members in items on the agenda.

4 Declarations of Lobbying (in accordance with the Protocol for Members taking part in the Planning Process, Part 5, Section 5.11, Paragraph 6.6) If a Member has been lobbied in connection with any application on the agenda, this should be declared at the start of the meeting, whether by, or in support of, the applicant or objectors.

Members in doubt about such a declaration are advised to contact the Legal Services Manager/Monitoring Officer before the date of the meeting.

5 Site Inspections To note the application sites visited, as recorded at the meeting.

6 To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 20 September 2017 (to follow)

7 Reports of Head of Planning Services (attached) The running order of the applications listed below is subject to change and will be agreed by the Chairman and announced at the meeting. (A) Application for Consideration - 17/00987 - 25-27 Tunnel Road Royal Tunbridge Wells (Pages 1 - 28) (B) Application for Consideration - 17/01399 - Travis Perkins Trading Co Ltd Belgrave Road Royal Tunbridge Wells (Pages 29 - 62) (C) Application for Consideration - 17/02009 - Canon Hoare Memorial St Johns Road Royal Tunbridge Wells (Pages 63 - 68) (D) Application for Consideration - 17/02547 - Car Park,Culverden Square, Royal Tunbridge Wells (Pages 69 - 88) (E) Application for Consideration - 17/02727 - Swaylands Barn Cranbrook Road Benenden (Pages 89 - 96) 8 Date of Next Meeting The next Planning Committee will potentially be an additional special meeting to be held on Tuesday, 24 October 2017, at 5pm.

9 Urgent Business To consider any other items which the Chairman decides are urgent, for the reasons to be stated, in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Cheryl Clark Town Hall Democratic Services Officer ROYAL TUNBRIDGE WELLS [email protected] Kent TN1 1RS

Tel: 01892 554413 (Direct Line)

mod.gov app – go paperless

Easily download, annotate and keep all committee paperwork on your mobile device using the mod.gov app – all for free!.

Visit www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/modgovapp for details.

Notes on Procedure

(1) A list of background papers appears within each report, where appropriate, pursuant to the Local Government Act 1972, section 100D(i).

(2) Items marked * will be the subject of recommendations by Cabinet to full Council; in the case of other items, Cabinet may make the decision, subject to call-in (Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 13).

(3) Members seeking factual information about agenda items are requested to contact the appropriate Service Manager prior to the meeting.

(4) Members of the public and other stakeholders are required to register with the Democratic Services Officer if they wish to speak on an agenda item at a meeting. Public places are limited to a maximum of four objectors and four supporters. The deadline for registering to speak is 4.00 pm the last working day before the meeting. Each speaker will be given a maximum of 3 minutes to address the Committee.

(5) Please note that this meeting may be recorded or filmed by the Council for administrative purposes. Any other third party may also record or film meetings, unless exempt or confidential information is being considered, but are requested as a courtesy to others to give notice of this to the Democratic Services Officer before the meeting. The Council is not liable for any third party recordings.

Further details are available on the website (www.tunbridgewells.gov.uk) or from Democratic Services.

 If you require this information in another format, please contact us on 01892 526121

 Accessibility into and within the Town Hall - In response to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Council has provided the following features to overcome physical barriers to access. There is a wheelchair accessible lift by the main staircase, giving access to the first floor where the committee rooms are situated. There are a few steps leading to the Council Chamber itself but there is a platform chairlift in the foyer.

 Hearing Loop System - The Council Chamber and all the Committee Rooms have been equipped with hearing induction loop systems. The Council Chamber also has a fully equipped audio-visual system.

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 17/00987/FULL APPLICATION PROPOSAL Conversion of an existing warehouse into 1 x 1-bed and 11 x 2-bed apartments ADDRESS 25-27 Tunnel Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1 2BT RECOMMENDATION – GRANT subject to conditions and a Legal Agreement (see section 11 of the report for full recommendation). SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - In the absence of a five year supply of housing, the Development Plan housing supply policies are “out-of-date”. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that where relevant policies are out-of-date that permission for sustainable development should be granted unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted (and all other material considerations are satisfied). - The appeal at Common Road, Sissinghurst, concluded that the Borough fell significantly beneath meeting the five year housing land requirement. The NPPF requires local authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing. - The site is both allocated and considered to be in a sustainable location, close to amenities and public transport. The development would result in the retention of a non-designated heritage asset. The proposal is considered to comprise sustainable development. - The proposal would result in a loss of employment on the site, but this has been previously accepted and accounted for through the adoption of the Site Allocation Local Plan 2016. - The proposal would result in improvements to the public footways and off site highway improvements to serve the surrounding area. - The number of residential units and mix is considered to be acceptable, especially given that the development relates to conversion of an existing building. - Justification has been given as to why the development is not able to provide affordable housing. - Other issues raised have been assessed and there are not any which would warrant refusal of the application or which cannot be satisfactorily controlled by condition. - The proposal would result in a number of developer contributions to address the demand create by additional demand on local services. INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The following are considered to be material to the application: Contributions (to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement/unilateral undertaking):  Adult and Youth Sum 35 x £719 per bedspace £25,165  Children’s Playspace sum 33 x £783.50p per bedspace £25,855.50  Highways contribution to the 21st Century Cycle route: £10,000  Library stock £528.17

Page 1 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Net decrease in numbers of jobs: 14. However, these will be relocated to the former Sparhatts site on Longfield Road. Estimated average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A – see above. The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: £2,023.08 Estimated annual council tax benefit total: £20,023.80 Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 4 years): £12,000 Estimated annual business rates loss for Borough: Committee to be provided with a verbal update. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE Referred by the Head of Planning in view of the viability of the two sites that comprise allocation AL/RTW 11 Land at Good Station Road. WARD St James PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL APPLICANT Ashill Land Ltd N/A AGENT Robinson Escott Planning DECISION DUE DATE PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 22/06/17 26/05/17 13.4.17 & 11.5.17 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): 01/00085/FUL Retrospective - Replacement fencing Granted 20.03.2001 96/00435/FUL Demolition of 6 No cottages and change of use Granted 22.04.1997 from residential to distribution & warehousing and new boundary fencing 81/01251/FUL Alterations Granted 15.01.1982 79/01047/FULL Vehicular access Granted 31.12.1979 Neighbouring Property History Travis Perkins Trading Co Ltd Belgrave Road Tunbridge Wells 17/01399/FULL Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 31 Pending On this No. residential units and associated car Agenda parking and landscaping works

MAIN REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 The application site is located in close proximity to the primary shopping area of Royal Tunbridge Wells, located further south of the site. Fronting onto Tunnel Road, the boundary treatment is an existing palisade fence, with boundary walls to the north, north/west of the site.

1.02 There is a slight rise in levels when accessing the site from the south side and into the car park.

1.03 There is an existing warehouse building on the site, with parking to the frontage, windows exist on all elevations of the building. The warehouse is of brick

Page 2 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

construction with a corrugated asbestos roof material and in use by Travis Perkins as a builders/timber merchant. To the north east and north of the site, buildings that front Upper Grosvenor Road, back onto the site, including 8 Upper Grosvenor Road, the vehicle test centre, 10 Upper Grosvenor Road which is in business use and the Tabernacle Church.

1.04 To the north there are relatively new two storey residential units, with rooms in the roof, and across from these on Tunnel Road, there are two storey residential terraces, with relatively short rear gardens, the dwellings further north have deeper front gardens as the terrace splays away from Tunnel Road. To the south there is the YMCA building with rear patio and to the south west is 1 Meadow Road, acquired by Canterbury Christ Church University with an approval for a change of use to D1 Education. To the immediate east is the other section of the Travis Perkins Builders Merchant with two storey terrace dwellings beyond on Goods Station Road. The character of the area is mixed, with residential but also business use and the shopping centre in the wider area.

1.05 The road network around the site is constrained, Tunnel Road is lined with double yellow lines but there are footpaths either side. Two accesses serve the site at present. The site, in tandem with the site to the east, is a busy builders/timber merchant and a number of vehicle movements were observed at the time of the site visit.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 The application seeks consent for the conversion of the existing warehouse building from its current use to a residential use, to provide 1 x 1 bed unit and 11 x 2 bed apartments. No extensions are proposed as part of the conversion of the building. The conversion would result in the demolition of a modern single storey side and rear addition and would result in new openings on the ground floor to serve the ground floor apartments. The existing roof would be removed and replaced with new insulation and new artificial slate covering. New metal framed windows are proposed. Some existing openings would be bricked up to match the existing. The lift shaft to the front of the site would be rendered, with a light grey render, and to the rear elevation, render would be used, where there is render already existing. The palisade fencing would be removed as part of the scheme.

2.02 Thirteen car parking spaces are proposed within a landscaped courtyard, with bin and recycling storage to the north eastern corner of the site.

2.03 A single gated access is proposed with sliding gates, set back from the site entrance.

3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing Proposed Change (+/-)

Site Area 983.40 sq.m 983.40 sq.m No Change Land use(s) including floor area(s) Builders Residential Residential Merchant Number of jobs 14 this site and None 14 on the site the main site – to be replaced under in Tunbridge reference Wells

Page 3 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

17/01399/FULL Car parking spaces (inc. disabled) 10 13 +3 No. of storeys Three storeys Three storeys No change Max height 13.4m to the 13.4m to the front of the lift front of the lift shaft shaft Max eaves height 9.1m-10.2m 9.1m-10.2m No. of residential units None 12 +12 No. of bed spaces None 35 +35 No. of affordable units None None proposed No change

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

- Ashdown Forest - The site is located within the limits to built development. - Public Access Land Tunbridge Wells Common - Network Rail tunnel – located underground – through the existing hardstand to the front of the warehouse and is located under the south eastern corner of the warehouse building. - Air Quality Management Area – the site is some 46-50m distant from the AQMA which is located to the south west of the application site, and follows along Grosvenor Road. - Policy AL/RTW 11 – Land at Goods Station Road

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Development Plan:

Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010: - CP1 – Delivery of Development - CP3 – Transport Infrastructure - CP4 – Environment - CP5 - Sustainable Design and Construction - CP6 – Housing - CP9 – Development in Royal Tunbridge Wells - - Site Allocation Local Plan 2016 - AL/RTW 11 Land at Good Station Road – allocated for residential development (C3) providing approximately 47 dwellings. Proposals for the redevelopment shall seek to retain the existing Victorian warehouse building and the development shall provide a connection to the sewerage system at the nearest point of adequate capacity, as advised by the service provider.

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006: - EN1 – Development Control Criteria - EN18 Flood Risk - H2 – Small and Intermediate Sized dwellings - H5 – Residential Development within the LBD - TP4 – Access to the Road network

Page 4 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

- TP6 – Central Access Zone (Residential) - TP7 - Central Parking Zone (Commercial) - TP9 Cycle Parking - R2 – Recreation open space in development of more than 10 bedspaces - CS4 – Development contributions to school provision for developments over 10 bedspaces.

Supplementary Planning Documents:

Affordable Housing 2007 Recreation Open Space SPD 2006 Renewable Energy SPD 2007 Renewable Energy SPD update (2016) Local Heritage Asset SPD Contaminated Land SPD (2016)

Other documents Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3 (Residential parking)

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

6.01 Letters were sent to neighbouring occupiers, three site notices were placed on the 13 April 2017, one on Tunnel Road, one on Upper Grosvenor Road to the rear of the site and one to the south west on Meadow Road and an advert placed in the local newspaper on 7 April 2017.

6.02 One letter received neither objecting nor supporting and 3 letters of objection received, the comments can be summarised as follows;  There should be at least one parking space per apartment as well as visitor spaces;  Scheme would reduce traffic in the town centre buying materials;  Overall, the scheme would improve the ambience of the area and the street scene;  The area used to be quiet in the evenings and weekends;  Recent increase in population results in difficulty parking;  Would like to see more parking on the new site, proposed insufficient;  Gardens could be used for extra parking;  Unless all new permits are refused for the new buildings parking will continue to get worse.

6.03 A further consultation was undertaken, with four site notices erected, two on Tunnel Road, one on Meadow Road and one on Upper Grosvenor Road. Letters were also sent to consultees and neighbours on 04.08.17.

7.0 CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency 7.01 (28/03/2017) – No objection raised.

KCC Lead Flood Authority 7.02 (13/04/2017 and 14.08.17) – The application is supported by a Drainage Statement prepared by RSK (March 2017), that details a possible surface water management strategy featuring permeable pavement with attenuation crates to store surface water

Page 5 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

from the driveway and roof areas, with controlled discharge to the public sewer in Tunnel Road. Flows at 2.55l/s.

7.03 Information was requested at the pre-application stage including pre/post impermeable areas and justification for the flow rates clearly stated within the drainage strategy, information on the condition of the connection also recommended – these should be included when submitting details of the detailed design.

7.04 KCC are in general agreement with the surface water management strategy proposed but note that the control of surface water at this site will be entirely managed through the provision of storage below the permeable pavement; therefore it is important that this drainage measure is protected for the lifetime of the development - this is a matter which the LPA should consider carefully. At the detailed design stage, the applicant should also demonstrate that the ongoing maintenance has been fully considered.

7.05 Conditions are recommended in relation to a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site, to be submitted to and approved in writing. Details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the SuDs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

KCC Planning Applications Group 7.06 (30/03/2017) – Waste and Minerals – No objection raised.

KCC Contributions 7.07 (05/04/2017) – Contributions requested – Library Bookstock £528.17, (£48.02 Per Household) along with an informative regarding the need for high speed fibre optic broadband.

7.08 Whilst Kent County Council Education Authority can demonstrate a forecast lack of provision caused by this development which will require school expansions, due to the CIL reg 123 pooling restriction the County Council can now not collect contributions from every development. Informative recommended regarding installation of High Speed Fibre Optic Broadband connection.

KCC Highways

7.09 (28.04.17, 23.06.17, 17.07.17, 08.08.17) – Following initial concerns that the proposals would create a single access point for the southern part of the site and relocate egress closer to the junction where visibility is extremely limited (the RSA stage 1 has also raised concerns and concerns regarding large vehicles making a delivery), amended plans have been received, KCC Highways confirm that the proposed access arrangements are now considered to be acceptable. Additional plans within the applicant’s response demonstrate that intervisibility between a driver emerging from the access and a cyclist at the junction can be achieved with repositioning of the give way lines (DHA T-02 P1) and also that the footway is to be widened across the frontage of the site (Omega 2566-A-1005 Rev O). Cycle network contributions have been requested. Conditions and informatives are recommended to cover off site works, pedestrian and vehicular visibility splays, parking and turning to be provided and maintained, access and parking to be of surfaced in a bound material with adequate drainage within the curtilage of the site, gates to be recessed back as shown on the approved plans. Construction Management Plan (CMP) to be submitted.

Page 6 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Kent Police 7.10 (12.04.17 and 17.08.17) – No objection. No communication from the applicant/agent and there are other issues that need to be discussed/addressed including a formal application for BREEM and Secured by Design if appropriate. A meeting with the applicant would be welcome.

Scottish Gas 7.11 (27.03.17 and 04.08.17) – No objection raised, no comments to make on this application. Applicant must comply with CDM Regulations and HSG47 guidance at the appropriate stage in their construction planning.

Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board 7.12 No comments received

Network Rail South Eastern 7.13 (08.05.17) – No objection raised. The site’s location is in proximity to Network Rail’s operational railway infrastructure (tunnel) and is within the zone of influence, the developer needs to also be aware of shafts and possible hidden shafts within this location. Therefore it is advised the developer contact the Asset Protection Kent team, prior to any works commencing on site to discuss their proposals in relation to the underlying tunnel and to enable approval of any relevant works, more information can be found at Network Rail’s website. Standard comments are also attached (Officer comment – it is recommended that the applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Network Rail to familiarise themselves with the requirements).

Network Rail Southern 7.14 No comments received

Southern Water 7.15 (13.04.17 and 15.08.17) – The Drainage Statement submitted in support of the application states existing connection to public combined system, the drainage arrangement should also be such that there will be no net increase in the flows currently received by the sewer. An informative is recommended drawing attention to the need to make a formal application for connection to the public sewerage system in order to service this development.

7.16 The application also makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS), for which the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exists for the long terms maintainance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system. Thus where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the LPA should specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme, specify a timetable for implementation, provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. This should include adoption arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout the lifetime of the scheme.

7.17 Conditions requested; details of the foul and surface water sewerage disposal shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The design of drainage should ensure that no groundwater or land drainage is to enter public sewers.

TWBC Environmental Health 7.18 (11.04.2017) – No objection in principle, comments can be summarised as follows;

Page 7 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Noise: The site is in a mixed commercial and residential area, it is not clear if any of the existing site will continue in a commercial use. Planning statement refers to a portion of the yard in the applicant’s control but not part of the application. The effects of any remaining and nearby noise sources including road traffic should be assessed.

7.19 Land contamination: The report has been reviewed which determines that the site is suitable for its intended use having identified only slightly elevated sample of lead in WS5. The report concludes that the site will be covered largely by hardstanding and small landscaped areas breaking the pathway to any soil contaminants. It also concludes that due to raised levels of PAH uprated water pipes will be required. EHO is concerned that the risk assessment is based upon a relatively small site investigation of 6 boreholes ranged around the edge of the site. This does not appear to be sufficient to give confidence that the site has been characterised and enough spatial coverage obtained.

7.20 Air quality: The site is not within the air quality management area however, it is a major development and its cumulative impacts should be offset during the design phase.

7.21 It is recommended that no objections be raised subject to conditions being applied to any consent. These are as follows;  A scheme to deal with land contamination, to be submitted to and approved in writing,  A scheme to demonstrate the internal noise levels within the residential units, back gardens and other amenity areas (Officer comment - it is not considered reasonable to cover the small amount of garden/amenity land that is included within the layout of this scheme, due to the urban character and nature of this location),  A calculation of pollutant emissions costs is also recommended – (Officer comment – it is considered that this cannot be justified as there is no adopted policy approach in this regard as yet – however, it is considered that practical contributions can be secured through condition such as car rapid charge points – it is recommended that these are secured through condition in this instance.)  Written submission of a Code of Construction Practice.  Informative recommended highlighting the Mid Kent Environmental Code of Development Practice.

7.22 (01.09.17) – Re-iteration that there is a need to check for asbestos. Confirmation that none of the amended plans affect Environmental Health Issues – previous comments remain valid. In addition to those previously requested, the following conditions are requested; Hours of working – demolition and construction; plant and ducting systems, and informatives relating to noise and vibration transmission.

TWBC Client Services 7.23 No comments received

TWBC Conservation 7.24 (14.09.17) – confirmation no further comments to make following amendments.

7.25 (24.05.17) – Updated comments, the site has been visited again and the existing roof covering is corrugated asbestos – in this case, whilst the use of natural slate would

Page 8 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

be a better quality appearance, realistically the synthetic slate is likely to be a better alternative to the existing.

7.26 (19.05.17) - No objection raised. The site is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset in accordance with the NPPF and paragraphs 039-18a and 041-18a of the NPPG. The building has been assessed as meeting criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the TWBC adopted Local Heritage Asset SPD. It is not considered that the conversion would result in a harmful impact on the character of the building, in accordance with para. 135 of the NPPF, as the removal of later features and new windows which are of an appropriate pattern and appearance in relation to the existing modern interventions would better reflect its original form. The application can therefore be supported from a heritage point of view. It is suggested that the roof covering is amended to use natural slates rather than imitation slates, to ensure that the quality of appearance of the building is maintained. This could form a condition if necessary. Given the high quality appearance of the refurbished building as proposed, utilising aluminium windows and new render, the imitation slates, which are clearly inferior to natural in appearance, would otherwise devalue the design intention.

7.27 Whilst the use was not particularly of local historic interest, despite some alterations the building remains mostly intact and therefore has historic and architectural interest, with its Victorian detailing, such as the dentilwork at the eaves. It provides important clues as to the historic use of the area, a ‘working’ area of town.

7.28 In conclusion, the Conservation Officer can support the application subject to the use of natural slates on the roof and confirm that building is considered a non-designated heritage asset.

TWBC Urban Design Officer

7.29 (21.06.17) No objections raised.

7.30 The existing building is a characterful warehouse on the edge of the town centre. It is located in a historically mixed use are of the town with workshops, transport related activities and residential uses.

7.31 The proposed re-use would represent good conservation and provides historical continuity. By recycling the building it also represents a worthy sustainable approach. If the site were to be redeveloped it is not clear that the development potential would be improved.

7.32 Although there have been some alterations to the building, these are to be assimilated more sensitively by the proposals or restored to previous configurations. Overall the proposal can be supported from an urban design point of view.

7.33 Notwithstanding the above, there are aspects that should be conditioned and the landscaping is not considered appropriate in this industrial context and it is considered that an unfussy treatment is appropriate. Conditions should include the following details; boundary treatment, external lighting, more industrial and not over domestic in character, windows – to be metal framed ideally. Slate material to roofing, and rain water goods.

TWBC Environmental officer 7.34 (17.07.17) – No objection raised.

Page 9 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

7.35 The applicant has prepared a landscape masterplan alongside submission documents that provides for some limited green links. It is recommended that the Landscape and Biodiversity officer is consulted to determine of these proposals are suitable

7.36 In terms of energy conservation the proposal to install photovoltaics to achieve the 10% target detailed within the Renewable Energy SPD are acceptable. The developer has demonstrated that the fabric first approach has been followed through improvements in U values, and passive solar gain etc. Standard conditions for energy and water should be applied, being conditions relating to renewable technologies, water conservation and energy conservation. The application can be supported.

TWBC Landscape and Biodiversity Officer 7.37 (09.08.17 & 18.08.17) – No objection raised.

7.38 The scheme will improve the visual amenity of the area and retain some of the industrial character. It will be important to secure the indicative landscape scheme as shown on drawing Landscape Masterplan’ (1482/001 Rev E by Murdock Wickham) via a suitable landscape condition requiring full hard and soft landscape details and boundary treatments – to be in general conformity with the masterplan.

7.39 There should be a condition for biodiversity enhancements consisting of bird and bat boxes incorporated into the building. This is an ideal site for swifts.

7.40 There is a low potential for bats in such a location and an informative is therefore recommended regarding the possible presence.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS The applicants supporting comments can be summarised as follows;

 The Site Allocation DPD allocates the site for residential development under Policy AL/RTW11. There are other parcels of land under this allocation, however, the supporting text recognises that adjoining sites under allocations may come forward separately as proposed under this application.  Separate applications have been submitted due to the physical separation and the need for a different project team and lead architect for the conversion. In addition vacant possession will occur at different times. Time frame and build programmes are different. This does not represent artificial division of the wider allocation nor does it prejudice the further development of the wider allocation.  The Council have accepted the loss of employment on this site by adopting the Site Allocations DPD. Travis Perkins have another site within Tunbridge Wells, that offers a far more suitable and practical site away from residential properties.  The proposal seeks to convert and restore the existing building on the site, with significant improvements made to the existing car parking and storage areas. Conversion would protect the unique, high quality character of the area and promotes enhancement by encouraging excellence in the quality of materials and finish.  The proposal would respect the locally distinctive sense of place and character and will significantly enhance the appearance and setting of this non-designated heritage asset.  Given the existence of the existing openings, used by Travis Perkins for office and storage for a number of years, and the building’s position within an urban area where surveillance between properties is common, these will not harm

Page 10 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

adjacent occupiers by way of privacy. New ground floor windows have been sensitively positioned to ensure these do not overlook adjacent dwellings.  All ground floor properties would be provided with unique and loft style accommodation.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS - Drainage Statement - Landscape Analysis - Transport Statement - Utilities Statement - Preliminary Risk Assessment and Site Investigation - Design and Access Statement - Heritage Impact Assessment - Planning Statement - Phase 1 Habitats Survey - Statement of Community Involvement - Energy Statement

- ASH1611027 – Topographical Survey - EX-001 – Existing floor Plans - EX-002 – Existing elevations - 1482/001H – Landscape Masterplan - 1482/002 Rev B Landscape Analysis - GA-001F – Proposed Floorplans - GA-002 A – Proposed elevations - GA-003 – Street Scene - GA-004A – Refuse Store - LP-01B –Site Location Plan

10.0 APPRAISAL

Principle of Development

10.01 The site is located within the urban area, in a sustainable location, where the redevelopment of the land is acceptable in principle. The site is allocated within 2016 Site Allocation Location Plan for approximately 47 dwellings, including the land north of the ‘The Glassworks’ on Goods Station Road and the adjacent site, currently being considered under 17/01399/FULL. The site was allocated within the 2016 Site Allocation Local Plan and the loss of employment is therefore considered to have been accepted. The current occupier submitted a planning application for a builders merchants at the former Sparshatts site on Longfield Road. This was granted consent, with works ongoing at that site.

10.02 The policy states that proposals for the redevelopment shall seek to retain the existing Victorian warehouse building, which is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. This application proposes the retention of the Victorian warehouse, as required by the policy and in that respect is compliant.

10.03 The design and layout will be addressed below, however, the scheme proposed would not prevent the remainder of the allocation coming forward on either the site subject to application 17/01399/FULL elsewhere on this Agenda, or the Glassworks site. Paragraph 3.47 of the adopted policy recognises that where two sites adjoin one another, they have been listed together in order to facilitate comprehensive development, although it is recognised that adjoining sites may also come forward separately. In this case, it is considered that this site can come forward without

Page 11 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

prejudice to the adjoining parts of the allocation. Furthermore, the applicant has stated that it is considered necessary to bring this site and the adjacent forward separately due to the specialist nature of converting the Victorian Warehouse. However, the implications for developer contributions and affordable housing are addressed in the paragraphs below. It is not considered that the development would compromise the comprehensive development of the wider allocation.

10.04 It is also necessary to consider the Boroughs’ five year housing land supply. At present the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply compliant with the untested Objectively Assessed Need (OAN), which stands at 648 dwellings per year, as required by para 47 of the NPPF. Officers are also aware of ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’ consultation proposals published on 14/09/17 and that this indicates the figure of 692 dwellings per year would be appropriate for the Borough. However this is a consultation and as such has little weight. It cannot be demonstrated that the Council has a five year supply using either calculation.

10.05 In such situations the NPPF advises that:

“housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”’ (Para 49).

10.06 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where such policies are out-of-date a presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and local planning authorities should grant permission:

“unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

10.07 The issue of sustainability is multi faceted, incorporating a) social, b) economic and c) environmental considerations.

10.08 The site is located within the LBD of Tunbridge Wells, where adopted (but now out of date) Site Allocations Local Plan Policy AL/RTW 11 Land at Goods Station Road allocates the site, and Policy H5 of the 2006 Local Plan makes it clear that infill and redevelopment for residential development would be acceptable, providing that the comprehensive development of the site would not be prejudiced (which is not the case here). New development is encouraged within the LBD and larger towns, to ensure a managed and sustainable delivery of housing.

10.09 In this case the site is considered to be in a highly sustainable position and would accord with the aims of the NPPF to provide for a range of housing and would boost the supply of housing, and would contribute to the social element of sustainable development. The loss of employment use on the site, whilst a negative in terms of the economic arm of sustainable development, has been accepted previously through the allocation of the site for housing and the scheme seeks to accord with the adopted policy by retaining the existing warehouse building, and as above the current occupier has sourced an alternative site within the Borough. The site is Previously Developed Land (PDL), which is encouraged for reuse or redevelopment in the NPPF and this combined with the reuse and long term safeguarding of a non designated heritage asset would be a benefit weighing in favour of the proposal.

Page 12 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Impact on non-designated heritage assets 10.10 The application site is not a Listed Building or located within a Conservation Area, however, it is considered a non-designated Heritage Asset, in accordance with para.135 of the NPPF and 18a039 and 18a041 of the NPPG. The Conservation Officer confirms that the building has been assessed as meeting criteria 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the TWBC adopted Local Heritage Asset SPD.

10.11 Para 135 of the NPPF requires the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application and, as such Para 131 of the NPPF is also relevant and states;

‘In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of:  the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;  the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and  the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.’

10.12 In this instance, the application seeks to retain the existing building and minimal changes are required to the external fabric of the building to convert to residential. These alterations include removal of later additions, insertion of new metal framed windows and doors, re-roofing in synthetic slate and rendering the modern lift shaft.

10.13 The proposal would not result in the “substantial harm” or “total loss” (relative to being a non-designated heritage asset) of a heritage asset, and the proposal would put the building to a viable use that would ensure its long term conservation. The change of use from the office related to the builders merchant to residential would enable improvements to the frontage and setting of the building, with proportionate planting to the front of the site. The Conservation Officer has confirmed that the proposed conversion would not have a harmful impact on the character of the building, in accordance with Para 135, as the removal of later features and new windows which are of an appropriate pattern and appearance in relation to the modern interventions would better reflect its original form. The proposed conversion would not result in harm to the “significance” of this non-designated heritage asset. The Conservation Officer supports the application. Whilst comment was originally made in respect of the proposed roof covering of imitation slates, given the existing corrugated asbestos roof, it is not considered that natural slate could be insisted upon considering the existing roofing materials on this building. In accordance with Para 131, the proposal would better relate to the original form of the building. The landscaping to the front of the building is also an opportunity to improve the setting of the building.

10.14 In view of the above, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Development Plan policy, the Local Heritage Asset SPD and the NPPF in respect of the impact on the non-designated heritage asset. Having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the requirements of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, planning permission should therefore be granted unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The allocation of the site in the SALP indicates that the site is suitable for residential development, and as set out above the proposal is considered to be in general conformity with this policy. The development of the site is therefore considered acceptable in principle. The

Page 13 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

following sections of the report assess whether the proposal accords with other elements of policy in the NPPF and the Development Plan.

Impact on Visual Amenity

10.15 As set out above, the proposal would result in minimal external alterations, changes are considered to be beneficial to the setting of the building, including landscaping and the external alterations. The Urban Design Officer has commented that the re-use of the building would represent good conservation and provides historic continuity, as well as representing a sustainable approach. Whilst there have been some alterations to the building, these would be assimilated more sensitively by the proposals or restored to previous configurations.

10.16 It is also of note that modern additions will be removed. At present, the car parking and storage area provide the setting to the building, the revised layout to the front of the site would provide an enhanced planting/ parking area and result in the removal of the palisade fence that surrounds the site. The amendments to the boundaries would result in in visual improvement to the setting of the building. The visual impact of the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

Residential Amenity

10.17 In terms of residential amenity, there are residential occupiers to the south east of the existing building – being 25 and 27 Belgrave Road and occupiers of the YMCA building. The rhythm of the existing windows would be largely in accordance with existing windows on the building and the relationship would be as existing. Whilst the nature of the use would change from commercial to residential it is not considered that this in itself would result in any significant harm to the amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjacent building. It also has to be noted that the site is located in a close knit urban area, where separation distances can be expected to be reduced.

10.18 On the north eastern elevation, additional windows would be placed in the lift shaft area. The orientation of the windows would face the public parking area and would not result in additional harm to neighbouring amenity. No additional windows would be placed in the north west elevation and the relationship to the neighbouring Tabernacle would be as existing. To the south west, a parking area separates the site from Zurich House, 1 Meadow Road. In 2016 this building was permitted a change of use from Use Class B1 to educational use, D1. There would be no direct overlooking between the university use and the residential use. Whilst the hours of operation for the proposed use for education, which has not started, are not controlled, it is not considered that the residential use of the warehouse building would conflict with the proposed use of Zurich House, or vice versa.

10.19 The main neighbouring occupiers to consider are those to the south east. A single storey flat roof side extension is to be removed from this site elevation, making room for small amenity areas to serve to flats. The window pattern would be as existing at the first and second floor levels. New windows are proposed at ground floor level, however, these would not result in additional overlooking and are therefore considered acceptable.

10.20 It is then necessary to consider the use of the rooms. At present this building serves as a warehouse and shop counter as part of the main Travis Perkins Site on Good Station Road. However, the building could be occupied, with no control on hours, and has been used by Travis Perkins for office and storage.

Page 14 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.21 In addition, the rear of the existing warehouse does not directly align to the rear of the YMCA building, however, there are windows at this end of the neighbouring building. There are also windows to the side projections of 25 and 27 Belgrave Road. The applicant has submitted a photomontage to demonstrate that there would not be any direct line of vision. However, it is considered that there would be increased opportunities for overlooking, and whilst it is acknowledged that this is a tight knit town centre location, it is considered necessary to seek by condition a scheme to ensure that the lower portions of the window frames are obscure glazed, as the windows would serve bedrooms but also living rooms/kitchen where occupants could be in close proximity to the windows for prolonged periods of time.

10.22 The character of the area is mixed, with residential and business uses alongside one another, it is not considered that the use would be harmful to surrounding occupiers and the intensity of the use is considered to be acceptable. In accordance with Policy EN1 it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant harm to the amenities or character of the area in terms of noise, vibration, smell, safety or excessive traffic generation. On balance, the impact on residential is considered to be acceptable, subject to conditions.

Highways

10.23 Whilst there is no objection in principle, early comments from KCC Highways raised concerns with regards to the poor visibility to the right on the proposed egress from the proposed car park access. Comment was made that the arrangements would be poor for all vehicles but would make cyclists and motor cyclists very vulnerable and this was a concern due to the proximity to the 21st Century Cycle Route on Goods Station Road.

10.24 Concern was also raised regarding the footways around the site, and the application site at Goods Station Road. The applicant has provided additional plans demonstrating that intervisibility between a driver emerging from the access and a cyclist at the junction can be achieved with repositioning of the give way lines- (DHA T-02P1 and that the footway is to be widened across the frontage of the site to 1.8m). These alterations have overcome the initial concerns from Kent Highways and they are now able to support the proposal.

10.25 In terms of parking, the proposal would provide 13 parking spaces, 1 space per unit and 1 visitor space, this is considered to be in keeping with the expectations of IGN3. One space was lost through the re-siting of the timber bins and re-cycling store to the northern part of the site. The 13 spaces to the front of the site would serve this development alone and would not provide for parking on the Travis Perkins scheme (17/01399).

10.26 As part of the S106, the applicant has been asked to contribute £10,000 towards the 21st Century Cycle Route – given the close proximity to the site, it is considered reasonable to request this contribution.

10.27 The impact on the highway network is considered to be acceptable and the proposed parking would be to the adopted standard. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of highways and access. Conditions have been requested that include; the need to complete off site works prior to commencement, provision of pedestrian visibility splays, provision of vehicular visibility splays, parking and turning to be retained and access and parking area to be surfaced in a bound material, gates to be recessed back as shown and CPM to be submitted. Subject to the imposition of

Page 15 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

these conditions, it is considered that the applicant has addressed highway matters satisfactorily.

Landscaping

10.28 The character of the site of one of an urban area. The frontage of the site is currently hardstanding with some open storage and the existing warehouse building. The applicant proposes a landscaping scheme to provide trees, shrubs and climbers to the walls. It is considered that these planting areas would provide an overall improvement to the appearance of the site within the street scene. Landscaping details could be conditioned to ensure that appropriate planting is secured that would thrive in such a location. The application is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

Other Matters

Habitats Regulation Assessment 10.29 On the basis of the evidence available at this point in time, the impact of this proposal on the Ashdown Forest as a Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation has been considered. It is considered there will not be a likely significant impact.

Network Rail Tunnel 10.30 The railway tunnel lies beneath the application site, both the building and hardstanding to the front. No objections have been raised by Network Rail, whilst the site is within the zone of influence, and the developer needs to be aware of shafts and possible hidden shafts in the area, the proposal would involve the conversion of the existing building and would not involve excavation work. The applicants attention is drawn to the comments of Network Rail South Eastern in the informatives. It is not considered that that proposal would be detrimental to the working of the tunnel. Furthermore, a condition is required regarding internal noise levels within the flats. This matter is considered to be satisfactorily addressed.

Ecology 10.31 The Landscape and Biodiversity Officer has commented that the site is ideal for swifts. A condition would be required for biodiversity enhancements consisting of bird and bat boxes. It is therefore recommended that such a condition is applied, as set out in Section 11 of this report. There would be low potential for bats in such a location and therefore an informative is recommended regarding the possible presence. The Phase 1 Habitats Survey concludes that the site is of a low nature conservation importance. The survey recommends taking the opportunities to increase biodiversity of the site, including bird and bat boxes. Other measures can include stag beetle buckets and hedgehog boxes that can be discreetly located. These measures can be secured by condition. It is considered that matters regarding ecology have been satisfactorily addressed.

Air Quality, Noise and Contamination. 10.32 Para. 35 of the NPPF states that developments should where practical incorporate facilities for charging plug in and other ultra low emission vehicles, as reflected in the comments of the Environmental Health Team. The site is some distance from the AQM buffer, however, given the proximity to this buffer and the need to ensure sustainable development is achieved, it is recommended that a condition be applied to ensure charging facilities are provided on site and a suitable scheme of mitigation is secured by condition, along with EV Charging and travel plan. Environmental Health have agreed the conditions that would address future air quality and these are

Page 16 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

set out in Section 11 of this report. The applicants’ agent has accepted the imposition of these conditions. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

10.33 In respect of contamination and noise, Environmental Health comment that conditions can be applied. Given the location of the site within the town centre, it would be appropriate to secure conditions regarding internal noise levels.

S106 Contributions and developer contributions 10.34 The applicant has agreed to enter into a S106 for the following contributions;

- Library Stock total £528.17 Towards additional bookstock required to meet the demand from new borrowers - Adult and Youth Sum 35 x £719 per bedspace (£25,165) - Children’s Playspace sum 783.50p per applicable bedspace (£25,855.5) - Highways contribution to the 21st Century Cycle route: £10,000

10.35 Legislation requires the planning obligations (including Legal Agreements) should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:

- Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; - Directly related to the development and; - Fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the development.

10.36 The requirement for developments to provide or contribute towards the services for which they create a need is set out in Core Policy 1 of the CS and requirements relating to various types of contributions, including education, recreation, transport etc. are referred to in various CS and LP Policies.

10.37 KCC has assessed the proposal for contributions towards meeting the additional needs for infrastructure and services generated by the proposed development, as summarised above. As a result, financial contributions are requested for additional library book stock to meet the demand to borrow books which will be generated by people residing in these dwellings. This is considered to meet the relevant tests as listed above and will be included within the recommendation below.

10.38 Contributions are also sought towards Adult and Youth recreation open space and Children’s playspace, to mitigate the demand arising from new residents of the development. The Parks and Sport Team Leader has commented that the contributions could be allocated towards the Calverley Grounds tennis court fencing which is estimated would be £45,000 to replace all the fencing and gates, there is also proposal for the supply and installation of adult gym equipment at Calverley Grounds, estimated at £20,000, to which these contributions could be allocated. There are proposals to refurbish the Showfields toddlers area which is estimated at £120,000. It is considered reasonable to contribute to these projects.

Affordable Housing 10.39 The site is part of a larger allocation, although it is been recognised that the sites may come forward separately. Due to the nature of the conversion, the separation of this site from the site to the east, Site B, is considered to be acceptable given the need to retain the existing warehouse building. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal to demonstrate that the provision of any affordable housing on site (or an off site contribution) would render the scheme unviable. The viability appraisal

Page 17 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

has been independently assessed by the Council’s appointed assessors. The conclusion of this independent assessment is that it is accepted the application site is unlikely to be able to support any affordable housing offer. The assumptions regarding the existing use value are considered to be reasonable. Whilst the independent assessors do not agree with all of the assumptions they are satisfied that significant adjustment would need to be made in numerous areas for the scheme (as submitted) to be considered capable of providing affordable housing. It is therefore considered that, on balance, the lack of contribution to affordable housing is justified in this instance. Furthermore it is not considered that the sites have been split artificially and there are justified reasons for bring the sites forward separately. It should be noted that the contributions identified above have been included within the applicant’s assumptions. The applicant has also agreed to a reduced time limit for implementation, this would ensure that the development is implemented, and the benefits of the scheme realised in a shorter time period, and that the build costs/viability appraisals remain relevant to the consideration of this application.

Drainage 10.40 In terms of drainage, KCC Lead Flood Authority comment that the Drainage Statement details the possible surface water management strategy featuring permeable pavement with attenuation crates to store water from the driveway and roof areas, with a controlled discharge to the public sewer in Tunnel Road. At pre-application stage KCC advised the applicant to clearly state the information regarding pre and post impermeable areas and justification for the flow rates, the condition of the existing connection is also advised. KCC recommend that in undertaking detailed design, that this information is submitted to demonstrate the design principles and appropriateness of the design solution. KCC are in general agreement with the surface water management strategy proposed but note that the control of surface water is to be entirely through the provision of storage below the permeable pavement, therefore it is important of the attenuation of surface water is maintained and managed.

10.41 Site Allocations Local Plan Policy AL/RTW 12 specifically requires that “…the development shall provide a connection to the sewerage system at the nearest point of adequate capacity, as advised by the service provider”. Southern Water comment that the Drainage Statement states existing connection to the public combined system, and that drainage should be such that there will be no net increase in the flows currently received by the sewer. Comment is made that the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements existing for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities and that it is critical that the effectiveness is maintained in perpetuity. Conditions are also recommended regarding seeking details of the foul and surface water disposal. The surface water discharge from the existing site is 5.1 l/s, however for the redevelopment it is proposed to reduce the surface water discharge rate by 50% to 2.55l/s. It is calculated that the storage volume for a 1 in 100 year +40% climate change would require 54 m3, the storage proposed would hold approximately 56m3. Discharge would be restricted by a control device such as a hydrobrake, installed in a manhole at the downstream end of the network. In terms of the foul – the estimated design flow from the converted building, based on 4000 litres per dwelling per day is approximately 0.55l/s, that compares to the predicted flow in order of 0.15l/s from the building at present. Part H of the Building Regulations sets out the preferred hierarchy for surface water disposal, which is firstly to use an adequate soakage or infiltration then, if not possible, discharge into a watercourse. The least favoured option is the sewer. In this case the infiltration rate suggests that disposal of surface water into the ground would be ineffective and there are no watercourses in close proximity of the site. Therefore it is proposed to discharge into the public sewer at a controlled rate.

Page 18 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Evidence of the existing and proposed flow rates, along with details of a proven suitable connection would be sought at the detailed design stage. A verbal update will be provided to Members at committee. The applicant has commented that ongoing maintenance of the drainage measures will be managed by a Residents’ Management Company in perpetuity. The applicant has also confirmed a willingness to accept the conditions suggested. Therefore it is recommended to apply the conditions as set out in Section 11 of this report.

Conclusion

10.42 The site is located within the central area of Tunbridge Wells, the main urban area in the Borough. The site is considered to be highly sustainable and in close proximity to services and public transport. The scheme would contribute to the acute housing need and provide choice and variety. The conversion of the existing warehouse building on the site would result in the continued and long term use of a non-designated heritage asset, which is given considerable weight. In the balance of issues, with the clear need for new housing development, it is not considered that there are any other material considerations that would indicate the application should be refused. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to conditions.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION – GRANT Subject to the following conditions

A. GRANT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT 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 AGREED BY THE HEAD OF LEGAL PARTNERSHIP MID KENT LEGAL SERVICES BY 11th December 2017 (UNLESS A LATER DATE BE AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES ) TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING;

(i) Developer contributions towards: - Library Stock total £528.17 - Adult and Youth Sum £25,165 - Children’s Playspace sum £25,855.5 - Highways contribution to the 21st Century Cycle route: £10,000

(ii) Payment of the Council’s reasonable legal fees for the negotiation and satisfactory completion of the legal agreement.

and subject to the following CONDITIONS;

1/ The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 18 months from the date of this permission.

Reason: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2/ The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

- GA-001F – Proposed Floorplans - GA-002 A – Proposed elevations - GA-004A – Refuse Store - LP-01B –Site Location Plan

Page 19 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Procedure) (Amendment No.3) (England) Order 2009

3/ Prior to the commencement of the development a Code of Construction Practice shall be submitted to and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved Code of Construction Practice and BS5228 Noise Vibration and Control on Construction and Open Sites and the Control of dust from construction sites (BRE DTi Feb 2003).unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The code shall include: - An indicative programme for carrying out the works - Measures to minimise the production of dust on the site(s) - Measures to minimise the noise (including vibration) generated by the construction process to include the careful selection of plant and machinery and use of noise mitigation barrier(s) - Maximum noise levels expected 1 metre from the affected façade of any residential unit adjacent to the site(s) - Design and provision of site hoardings - Management of traffic visiting the site(s) including temporary parking or holding areas - Provision of off road parking for all site operatives - Measures (including wheel wash) to prevent the transfer of mud and extraneous material onto the public highway - Measures to manage the production of waste and to maximise the re-use of materials - Measures to minimise the potential for pollution of groundwater and surface water - The location and design of site office(s) and storage compounds - The location of temporary vehicle access points to the site(s) during the construction works - The arrangements for public consultation and liaison during the construction works

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and in the interests of highway safety. This is pre-commencement to ensure that the site set up is secured at an early stage to ensure highway safety and the amenity of local residents.

4/ Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of any conversion works, written details including source/ manufacturer, of bricks, render, tiles, cladding and all roofing materials to be used externally shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, samples of these shall be made available on site, and the details shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved external materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

5/ Prior to commencement of any conversion works, detailed plans and information regarding the following aspects of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details:

a) Details and drawings relating to fenestration profiles, colour, and materials;

Page 20 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

b) The detailed design of any shared entrance doorways to flats to include materials, lighting, door, colour and canopy design;

c) Details (including section drawings) relating to materials to be used in the construction of all walls, fences or other means of enclosure, and;

d) Details for the storage and screening of refuse;

e) Details of cycle storage;

f) Details of external lighting; and;

g) Details of rainwater goods.

Reason: To ensure the built quality of the development.

6/ Development shall not begin until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to (and approved in writing by) the local planning authority. The detailed drainage scheme shall be based on the principles recommended within the Drainage Statement prepared by RSK (March 2017), and shall demonstrate that the surface water generated by this development (for all rainfall durations and intensities up to and including the climate change adjusted critical 100yr storm) can be accommodated and disposed of without any increase to flood risk on or off-site. If an existing sewer connection is utilised in the detailed drainage scheme, information shall be submitted which details the condition and capacity of the existing connection; any works required to provide a competent and operable connection shall be undertaken prior to formal connection.

Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal and to ensure ongoing efficacy of the drainage provisions. This is pre-commencement to ensure that suitable drainage is designed at early stage to prevent flood risk.

7/ Development shall not begin until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include:

(a) a timetable for its implementation, and (b) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime.

Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal and to ensure ongoing efficacy of the drainage provisions. This is pre-commencement to ensure that suitable drainage and its long term management is designed at early stage to prevent flood risk.

8/ No development shall take place until details for the disposal of foul sewage and surface water have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 21 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Reason: To avoid pollution of the surrounding area. This is pre-commencement to ensure that suitable drainage is designed at early stage to prevent flood risk.

9/ Not withstanding the details submitted, no conversion works shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include means of enclosure/boundary treatment; the surfacing of vehicle and pedestrian access, circulation and parking areas; other hard surfacing materials; and structures as well as schedules of plants and should specify the type of material in which planting will take place and the depth of that material. The submitted details shall also include the identification of all trees and shrubs which are to be retained and detail the measures for protection, to accord with the current British Standard BS 5837.

Reason: In order to protect and enhance the amenity of the area.

10/ All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of the landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development which ever is sooner and any trees or plants (including trees and plants shown to be retained) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species , unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.

11/ Prior to any conversion works, a scheme to demonstrate that the internal noise levels within the residential units will conform to the standard identified by BS 8233 2014, Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work specified in the approved scheme shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the premises and be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to protect the occupiers of the dwellings from undue disturbance by noise.

12/ No development shall commence until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

(1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

(2) A site investigation, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

(3) A remediation method statement (RMS) based on the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2). This should give full details of the

Page 22 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The RMS should also include a verification plan to detail the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the RMS are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

(4) A Closure Report is submitted upon completion of the works. The closure report shall include full verification details as set out in 3. This should include details of any post remediation sampling and analysis, together with documentation certifying quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect future occupiers of the site. The reason these details are required prior to commencement are to prevent harm to the environment and protect the health and safety of construction workers and future occupiers.

13/ If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and comply with the NPPF.

14/ A Residents Welcome Pack shall be made available to all new residents online and as a booklet, containing information and incentives to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes from new occupiers, including:

1. Maps showing the site in relation to walking, local buses, cycle routes, cycle stands, the nearest bus stops, and rail stations 2. Approximate time it takes to walk or cycle to various local facilities 3. Site specific public transport information including up to date public transport timetables 4. Links to relevant local websites with travel information such as public transport operator information, cycling organisations and the Council 5. Information on public transport season tickets and offers 6. Information on the health, financial and environmental benefits of sustainable travel

Reason: To promote the use of sustainable transport and reduce reliance on the private car.

15/ Prior to the occupation of any of the units hereby approved, details of the provision of at least 1 'fast charge' electric vehicle-charging point, including a timescale for its provision, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The charging point shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with an agreed timescale and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations.

Page 23 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

16/ Prior to commencement of any conversion works, a scheme of mitigation measures for the control of air quality, to include Low Nox boilers, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations.

17/ Prior to the first use of the premises, details of any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall ensure that the noise generated at the boundary of any noise sensitive property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR35 as defined by BS8233: 1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Building Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Engineers (CIBSE) Environmental Design Guide 2006. The equipment shall be maintained in a condition so that it does not exceed NR35 as described above, whenever it’s operating. After installation of the approved plant, no new plant or ducting system shall be used without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality.

18/ Prior to the commencement of any conversion works a scheme for the enhancement of biodiversity has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall take account any protected species that have been identified on the site, and in addition shall have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity generally. It shall be include a programme of implementation and monitoring. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and programme, and shall be permanently maintained.

Reason: To protect and enhance existing species and habitat on the site in the future.

19/ No development shall take place unless and until the details of the off site works, being the relocation of the give way line at the junction of Belgrave Road and Tunnel Road and the repositioning of the lamp column and telegraph pole as shown on plan DHA T-02 P1 for indicative purposes only, together with accommodating works, have been implemented in accordance with highway authority standards and specification. The approved works shall be carried out prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, pedestrian and vehicular. This is pre-commencement to ensure that off site highway works are secured at early stage to prevent risks to highway safety.

20/ Prior to first occupation 2.0m x 2.0m x 45m pedestrian visibility splays shall be provided within the curtilage of the site and either side of each access way and anything greater in height than 0.6m above the height of the adjoining highway shall be permanently removed. The splays shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, pedestrian and vehicular.

Page 24 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

21/ Prior to commencement on site the visibility splays shown on plan DHA T-02 P1 and T – 03 P3 shall be provided and maintained clear of obstruction of anything exceeding a height of 0.9m and maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, pedestrian and vehicular. This is pre-commencement to ensure that off site highway works are secured at early stage to prevent risks to highway safety.

22/ Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved the footways across the frontage of the site shall be widened generally to a minimum width of 1.8m, as shown on plan (GA-001 F) for indicative purposes only, in accordance with highway authority standards and specification.

Reason: In the interests of Highway safety.

23/ Gates or barriers shall be recessed from back of the highway as indicated on the approved plan GA 001F and no other gates are to be erected without prior consent.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

24/ The access and parking area hereby approved, shall be surfaced with in a bound material with adequate drainage within the curtilage of the site to ensure no surface water drains over the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

25/ The area shown on the approved site layout plan as vehicle parking and turning shall be provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the buildings they serve are occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the development in accordance with the details approved in the preceding planning condition, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking and turning of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users.

26/ Before first occupation, the lower sections of the living room windows and kitchen windows on the south east elevation (serving flats 6 & 7 and 10 & 11), facing the boundary with Belgrave Road, shall be fitted with obscured glass (privacy level/grade 3) and shall be non opening up to a height of 1.7m, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The obscure glazing shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties

27/ Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, written and illustrative details for renewable energy technologies within the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 25 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future

28/ Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, written and illustrative details for water conservation within the development, shall be submitted to, and approved in writings by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generation.

29/ Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, written and illustrative details for energy conservation within the development, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generation.

INFORMATIVES

1/ The applicant is advised to review the Mid Kent Environmental Code of Development Practice. Broad compliance with this document is expected and any queries relating to this document should be forwarded to MidKent Environmental Health.

2/ In the event that protected species (including the potential for bats) are identified during the course of the development, Natural England should be consulted and appropriate action be undertaken.

3/ It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure , before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents where required are obtained and that the limits of highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority.

4/ Across the county there are pieces of land next to private homes and gardens that do not look like roads or pavements but are actually part of the road. This is called ‘highway land’. Some of this land is owned by The Kent County Council (KCC) whilst some are owned by third party owners. Irrespective of the ownership, this land may have ‘highway rights’ over the topsoil. Information about how to clarify the highway boundary can be found at http://www.kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/what-we-look-after/highway-land

5/ The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the works prior to commencement on site.

6/ The applicant is advised that works to the highway require separate consent of the highway authority prior to the commencement of works on site. The works will require a S278/38 agreement and you are advised to contact the Agreements Engineer [email protected]

7/ This development is the subject of an Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

8/ Attention is drawn to Approved Document E Building Regulations 2010 "Resistance to the

Page 26 Agenda Item 7(A) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Passage of Sound" - as amended in 2004 and 2010. It is recommended that the applicant adheres to the standards set out in this document in order to reduce the transmission of excessive airborne and impact noise between the separate units in this development and other dwellings.

9/ Adequate and suitable measures should be carried out for the minimisation of asbestos fibres during demolition, so as to prevent airborne fibres from affecting workers carrying out the work, and nearby properties. Only contractors licensed by the Health and Safety Executive should be employed. Any redundant materials removed from the site should be transported by a registered waste carrier and disposed of at an appropriate legal tipping site.

10/ A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel:0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

11/ The applicant is advised to contact Network Rail’s Asset Protection team prior to commencing works, at [email protected] and to review comments made by Network Rail under this application to familiarise with the requirements for safe operation of the railway and protection of Network Rail’s adjoining land.

12/ Kent County Council recommends that all developers work with a telecommunication partner or subcontractor in the early stages of planning for any new development to make sure that Next Generation Access Broadband is a fundamental part of the project. Please liaise with a telecom provider to decide the appropriate solution for this development and the availability of the nearest connection point to high speed broadband. For advice please contact [email protected]

(B) IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT BY 11th DECEMBER 2017 THE HEAD OF PLANNING SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS (UNLESS A LATER DATE BE AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES):

(1) The proposal would fail to provide developer contributions towards library and book stock as requested by Kent County Council, and would therefore conflict with Core Policies CP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy CS4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(2) The proposal would fail to provide for Youth and Adult recreation and Children’s play space and would therefore conflict with Core Policies 1 and 8 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy R2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(3) The proposal would fail to provide developer contributions towards the 21st Century Cycle Route and would therefore conflict Core Policy 1 and Core Policy 3 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010.

Case Officer: Marie Bolton

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website. The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.

Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 17/01399/FULL APPLICATION PROPOSAL Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 31 No. residential units and associated car parking and landscaping works ADDRESS Travis Perkins Trading Co Ltd Belgrave Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent TN1 2BS RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to conditions and a Legal Agreement (see section 11 of the report for full recommendation). SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - In the absence of a five year supply of housing, the Development Plan housing supply policies are “out-of-date”. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that where relevant policies are out-of-date that permission for sustainable development should be granted unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted (and all other material considerations are satisfied). - The appeal at Common Road, Sissinghurst, concluded that the Borough fell significantly beneath meeting the five year housing land requirement. The NPPF requires local authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing. - The site is both allocated and located within a sustainable location. The site is previously developed land and would be at a relatively high density, which is considered appropriate on such a site. - The proposal would contribute toward meeting the housing needs of the Borough, including an element of affordable housing. This, along with the position of the site, all count towards the proposal comprising sustainable development. - The proposal would result in a loss of employment on the site, but this has been previously accepted and accounted for through the adoption of the Site Allocation Local Plan 2016. - The design, density and scale of the development is considered to be appropriate and in keeping with the context of the site and the surrounding area. - The development would impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, but this is not considered to be significantly harmful so as to warrant refusal, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. - The proposal would result in a number of developer contributions to address the demand create by additional demand on local services. INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The following are considered to be material to the application: Contributions (to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement/unilateral undertaking): - Tunbridge Wells Cultural Hub £10,896.19 towards the Adult Education element of the Tunbridge Wells Cultural Hub - Adult and Youth Sum 83 x £719 per bedspace (£59,677)

Page 29 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

- Children’s Playspace sum 53 x £783.50p per bedspace (£41,525.50) - Highways contribution to the 21st Century Cycle route: £20,000 - Primary Education - £24,930.00 Towards Additional classroom at Broadwater Down Primary School Net decrease in numbers of jobs: 14. However, these will be relocated to the former Sparhatts site on Longfield Road. Estimated average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A – see above. The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: £5,226.29 (31 x £168.59) Estimated annual council tax benefit total: £52,226.29 Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 4 years): £31,000 Estimated annual business rates loss for Borough: Committee to be provided with a verbal update. REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE The proposal comprises more than twenty dwellings and is recommended for approval and therefore is reported to the Planning Committee as required by the Council’s Constitution. WARD St James PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL APPLICANT Ashill Land Ltd N/A AGENT Robinson Escott Planning DECISION DUE DATE PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 01/08/17 02/06/17 26/06/17 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): Planning Application 08/02713/FUL Retrospective - Construction of storage racking Granted 03.11.2008 for timber products 06/01111/FUL Demolition of three terraced properties and Granted 08.06.2006 change of use to open storage and new boundary fencing. 90/00203/FUL Chainlink boundary fence – 3m high Granted 21.03.1990 79/01364/FUL Timber and cement storage building Granted 28.04.1980 Neighbouring Property History 25-27 Tunnel Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells 17/00987/FULL Conversion of an existing warehouse into 1 x Pending On this 1-bed and 11 x 2-bed apartments Agenda

Page 30 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

MAIN REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 The application site is located within Tunbridge Wells town centre and is occupied by a longstanding building merchant’s yard and associated storage. The area is mixed residential and commercial, with facilities within the town being in close walking distance of the site. To the east, there are 2 storey terraces on Goods Station Road, the boundary consists of palisade fencing with a few immature trees on the southern and eastern boundaries.

1.02 Further north of the site, there are residential properties of varying heights and styles, including flats, terrace and semi-detached units, within Goods Station Road. In view of the close proximity of the site to the town centre, the site is within the backdrop of the rear of the Royal Victoria Place, with its full height of service bay and car parking. Two storey terraces and shops are located between the application site and the rear of the Royal Victoria Place, along and to the rear of Goods Station Road.

1.03 On Belgrave Road, immediately south of the site, there is a pair of semi-detached two-storey residential properties. Further south, with Belgrave Road intervening, there are 3 / 4 storey flats, with parking at ground floor level and access taken from Belgrave Road. Windows and terraces face the surrounding highways (on each side), including towards the application site.

1.04 The site is currently occupied by Travis Perkins builders merchant, in a brick built, double height building, clad in green sheeting on the upper levels. A large building occupies the centre of the site, with a covered open bay that faces south, that stands on higher ground than the surrounding storage areas. Goods are distributed from the bay. To the south east of the site there is a racking system, used for the storage of wood. This racking lies immediately adjacent to the pair of two storey, semi-detached dwellings that abut the site, but are not part of the site. To the west, there is parking associated with the existing use on the site.

1.05 A small parcel of land further west, across from Tunnel Road, forms part of the application site, this is currently used as part of the parking/open storage area for the Travis Perkins Warehouse site. To the north of this part of the site, there are two storey modern dwellings with dormers and rooms in the roof. To the north of the application site is The Glassworks, with hardstanding front and rear. To the north of the largest parcel of land to comprise this application site, there is a row of terrace dwellings with short gardens to the front.

1.06 Both sides of Good Station Road are lined with single yellow lines. There are double yellow lines on Belgrave Road located to the south side. Land levels drop over the wider area to the north – although the Travis Perkins building itself stands on higher ground. A public right of way lies to the north of the Works building, north of the application site. The footpaths to the east of the site are wide, whilst part of the character of the Tunnel Road and Belgrave Road area are the narrow streets, part of the close knit, historic character of the area.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 The proposal seeks planning permission for demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 31 dwellings, with associated infrastructure, landscaping, access and parking. Four of the proposed units are to be affordable (3 one bedroom apartments and 1 two bedroom apartment). The number of units in each block are set out below.

Page 31 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Block 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed dwelling 4 bed dwelling apartments apartments house house North eastern units 1 2 3 1 facing Tunnel Road Southern block facing 7 4 Belgrave Road North eastern block 7 6 facing Goods Station Road

2.02 The scheme has been designed to respond to the local character by developing a perimeter block scheme, to address key boundaries. The four dwellings fronting Tunnel Road are to be in the form of 2/ 2 ½ storeys in scale and constructed in traditional materials of red facing brick, render and horizontal timber weatherboarding facades with slate roofs. These houses would be provided with private amenity space to the rear and also benefit from small, landscaped frontages. Nine parking spaces would be provided for these occupiers, in the form of separate parking, in front of the warehouse building, across (i.e. on the other side of) Tunnel Road.

2.03 The southern block facing Belgrave Road, would comprise 11 units over 4 floors, with the fourth storey recessed. The external materials proposed are red brick, render with glazing and grey metal cladding to the fourth floor.

2.04 The final block would be located to the north east of the site and would be of similar height and material finishes. Thirteen units would be provided within this block.

2.05 A central access would be provided between the two apartment blocks, located in a similar position to the existing and providing access off Goods Station Road. Twenty two parking spaces would be provided within this part of the site to serve the apartment buildings. Some landscaping is to be provided around each of the blocks, contained within low walls and railings, with low planting and specimen trees. Parking is to be provided under blocks 8-18, to the rear of the perimeter block with the 9 spaces opposite the terrace (units 1-7), and accessed from Tunnel Road.

3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing Proposed Change (+/-)

Site Area 0.22 HA 0.22HA No change Land use(s) including floor Builders Residential To area(s) merchant and residential yard Number of jobs 14 at this site None 14 on the and the site site to be being replaced in considered Tunbridge under Wells 17/00987/FULL No. of residential units (total) None 31 +31 No. of affordable units (within None 4 +4 total)

Page 32 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

No. of bed spaces None 83 +83 No. of storeys double height 2 ½ - 4 +4 warehouse Max height 8.7m Plots 1-7 – Approx. 10m Plots 8-18 – 8.6m-12.3m max Plots 19-31 – 8.6m-12.1m max Max eaves height 5.8m (on Plots 1-7 – approx. western 5- 6.3m corner) Plots 8-18 – 8.1-11.5m Plots 19-31 – 8.1 – 11.3m Car parking spaces 15 31 +16

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS - Ashdown Forest - The site is located within the limits to built development. - Public Access Land Tunbridge Wells Common - Network Rail tunnel – located underground – through the existing hardstand to the front of the warehouse and is located under the south eastern corner of the warehouse building. - Air Quality Management Area – the site is some 46-50m distant from the AQMA which is located to the south west of the application site, and follows along Grosvenor Road. - Policy AL/RTW 11 – Land at Goods Station Road

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Development Plan:

Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010: - CP1 – Delivery of Development - CP3 – Transport Infrastructure - CP4 – Environment - CP5 - Sustainable Design and Construction - CP6 – Housing - CP9 – Development in Royal Tunbridge Wells - - Site Allocation Local Plan 2016 - AL/RTW 11 Land at Good Station Road – allocated for residential development (C3) providing approximately 47 dwellings. Proposals for the redevelopment shall seek to retain the existing Victorian warehouse building and the development shall provide a connection to the sewerage system at the nearest point of adequate capacity, as advised by the service provider.

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006:

Page 33 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

- EN1 – Development Control Criteria - EN18 Flood Risk - H2 – Small and Intermediate Sized dwellings - H5 – Residential Development within the LBD - TP4 – Access to the Road network - TP6 – Central Access Zone (Residential) - TP7 - Central Parking Zone (Commercial) - TP9 Cycle Parking - R2 – Recreation open space in development of more than 10 bedspaces - CS4 – Development contributions to school provision for developments over 10 bedspaces.

Supplementary Planning Documents:

Affordable Housing 2007 Recreation Open Space SPD 2006 Renewable Energy SPD 2007 Renewable Energy SPD update (2016) Local Heritage Asset SPD Contaminated Land SPD (2016)

Other documents Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3 (Residential parking)

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

6.01 Three site notices erected on Tunnel Road, one on Belgrave Road and one on Goods Station Road, erected 12 May 2017 and an advert placed in the local newspaper on 12 May 2017.

6.02 A further consultation was undertaken, with three site notices erected, on Tunnel Road, Belgrave Road and Goods Station Road, erected 4.08.17.

6.03 Objections received from 4 Households objecting on the following grounds: - Parking insufficient in an area where there are already parking problems - One space per unit is not enough; - Plans show spaces for gardens that could be used for parking; - Existing use of parking permits is necessary and an excessive amount; - Comment on not being able to find site notices for 17/00987; - Comments that “units” suggests very small boxes, and it is hoped that this development isn’t for those who do not have homes; - Concern at the lack of feedback/objections recorded – presumed to be due to the buy to lets; - Reduction in daylight/sunlight; - Reduction/eradiation of skyline; - Lack of privacy; - Overwhelming affect on outlook; - Proposed three floor facing block of flats only 8m from existing three storey block of flats, - Flats at Chartwells face north, development will have a dramatic effect on light, resulting in impact on future occupiers and existing occupiers; - The proposed houses would also dominate the skyline, reducing light, and;

Page 34 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

- Concern in relation to the footprint of the Chartwell that has been used, which is the basement.

6.04 One comment neither objecting nor supporting the application from one property – comments can be summarised as follows; - Concern regarding the loss of privacy to occupiers of The Chartwell; - Concern at the loss of skyline; and; - Happy for the development to go ahead but with respect to The Chartwell.

7.0 CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency 7.01 (9.05.17) – No objections raised.

Kent Police 7.02 (24.05.17) – No objection raised. Although to date there has been no communication from the applicant/agent and there are other issues that may need to be discussed and addressed including a formal application for BREEM and Secured by Design (SDB) if appropriate. Please draw the applicant’s attention to the Kent design Initiative which will assist them with Crime Prevention and Community Safety. A meeting would be welcomed.

7.03 It can be difficult and costly to award items such as Secure By Design and BREEAM retrospectively. A condition is recommended regarding the incorporation of measures to minimise the risk of crime. (Officer Comment : It is not considered that there are reasonable, policy based, grounds to apply such a condition). If a condition is not used then an informative is recommended for the applicant to undertake pre-application discussion with the police.

7.04 (17.08.17) – No objection, comment made that any reduction in the footpath width should not allow easy access to ground floor windows, particularly if these are bedroom windows. Defensive space should be incorporated into the design as indicated with the use of low walls topped with railings. Previous comments remain valid.

Scottish Gas 7.05 (08.05.17) – No objections raised – no comments to make on this application. Applicant must comply with CDM Regulations

UK Power Networks 7.06 (5.05.17) - No objections to the proposed works.

Network Rail South Eastern 7.07 (8.05.17) – No objection raised. The sites location is in proximity to Network Rail’s operational railway infrastructure (tunnel) and is within the zone of influence, the developer needs to also be aware of shafts and possible hidden shafts within this location. Therefore it is advised the developer contact the Asset Protection Kent team, prior to any works commencing on site to discuss their proposals in relation to the underlying tunnel and to enable approval of any relevant works, more information can be found at Network Rail’s website. Standard comments are also attached regarding the requirements for the safe operation of the railway and protection of Network Rail’s adjoining land, these include; future maintenance; Drainage- no storm or surface water or effluent should be discharged from the site or operations on the site into Network Rail’s property, into Network Rails culverts or drains except by

Page 35 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

agreement with Network Rail; plant and scaffold; piling; Noise and Vibration; landscaping and vehicle incursion (Officer comment – it is recommended that the applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Network Rail to familiarise themselves with the requirements, this will be set out in the recommendation under Section 11 of this report).

Network Rail Southern 7.08 No comments received.

Southern Water 7.09 (25.05.17, 18.08.17 & 2.10.17) – No objections raised, initial investigations indicate that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. A formal application would be required for connection to the public sewer by the applicant or developer, an informative is requested to advise of this.

7.10 An initial desk top study indicates that Southern Water cannot currently accommodate the needs of this application without the development providing additional local infrastructure. The proposed development would increase flows into the surface water system and as a result is likely to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Should the LPA be minded to approve the application, Southern Water would request that a condition be applied to submit details of a drainage strategy detailing the means of surface water disposal and an implementation timetable, to be submitted to and approved in writing, prior to commencement of development. An informative is also required to enter into a formal agreement with Southern Water to provide the necessary infrastructure.

7.11 Reference is made to SuDs. SuDs rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure arrangements for the long term maintenance of the SuDs facilities and critical to be maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system.

7.12 Condition also sought regarding submission of details of the foul and surface water sewerage disposal. The applicant is advised, should any sewer be found, to ascertain its condition and discuss with Southern Water.

7.13 Comments made that the existing connection has not been proven and the existing flows have not been evidenced. Existing flows would be commented on during the course of conditions discharge.

Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board 7.14 (12.09.17) – No objection, site is not in the IDB area and its interests are unaffected.

KCC Lead Flood Authority 7.15 (25.05.17 & 21.08.17) – KCC as Lead Flood Authority are pleased to see that the applicant is proposing to reduce the rate of discharge to the public sewer as part of this redevelopment, it is recommended that Southern Water are consulted regarding the connection.

7.16 If the LPA are minded to grant permission standard conditions are recommended regarding submission of SuDs scheme.

KCC Planning Applications Group 7.17 No comments received

Page 36 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

KCC Contributions 7.18 (08.05.17) – The following contributions are requested; - £24, 930.00 Primary School contribution, towards additional classroom at Broadwater Down Primary school. - Tunbridge Wells Cultural Hub - £10, 896.19 – Towards the Adult Education element of the Tunbridge Wells Cultural Hub. - Whilst there is a Secondary need arising from this development, due to the CIL Reg 123 restriction, KCC are unable to purse currently. - Informative regarding high speed broad band also requested.

KCC Highways 7.19 (19.05.17) – No objections in principle to residential development on this site. Initial concerns raised in respect of the very narrow footway widths around the site in Tunnel Road and Belgrave Road. Improvements to the footpath widths sought in line with the NPPF. Single plan recommended with the works to be shown to be undertaken on both sites.

7.20 The proposed level of parking is in keeping with the expectations of IGN3, the split onto two sites is not ideal and users will be required to exercise caution. However KCC Highways is mindful that this is a central location, where parking opportunities are often limited and this reflects the current arrangements on the site. Reference is made to the improvement by KCC//TWBC to the cycle network in the vicinity of the site and the development which benefits is expected to make a financial contribution.

7.21 (18.07.17) Following earlier comments, plans submitted indicating that the proposed arrangements are now acceptable. It is regrettable that service vehicles are unable to turn within the site but considering the existing arrangements at the site and that the change of use will result in a significant reduction in the number of larger vehicles servicing the site, this makes it difficult to insist on further revisions. Conditions and informatives recommended covering implementation of access, pedestrian visibility splays, provision of footways, parking and turning to be provided, adequately drained and surfaced access and parking area, gates to be implemented as approved and construction management plan.

7.22 (17.07.17) – A request of £20,000 towards the 21st Century Cycle route is requested, other such developments in the area are making a similar contribution.

7.23 (08.08.17) - It is noted that the latest plan has varied the footway width around the site and on balance, objections would not be raised. Comments of 18/7 are valid, and an additional condition is requested that no doors or windows open over or across the public highway in the interests of highway safety.

KCC Public Rights of Way 7.24 (19.05.17) – No objection raised, Public Footpath WBX13 is located north of the site, between Goods Station Road and Tunnel Road. From the information supplied it is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect the public right of way which is approximately 15m from the site boundary and separated by an existing fence.

MKIP Environmental Health 7.25 (22.05.17 and 01.09.2017) – Further to previous comments made – Demolition/construction may have an impact on local residents and so the usual conditions/informatives apply. Changes to plans unlikely to have an impact Environmental Health issues previously commented upon. No Air Quality Assessment submitted.

Page 37 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

7.26 Land contamination – one hotspot identified. Concerned re the number of boreholes. Access to the site is likely to have been limited by the continuing use. Consideration should be given to making further investigation following site clearance.

7.27 Noise – the site is located near the town centre road network and a number of commercial operations. These noise sources need to be assessed and if necessary a scheme of mitigation designed into the development.

7.28 Air Quality – the site is near the Air Quality Management Area meaning that it may impact on the area or create another area of poor quality. The impact on the site in terms of air quality on new and existing receptors will need to be assessed.

7.29 Recommend- assessments of noise and land contamination can be dealt with by way of condition. However air quality and impact on the site will determine whether permission should be given. Application should be refused pending the completion of an air quality assessment.

7.30 (23.05.17) – In view of comments made by the applicant about the Transport Assessment, an air quality assessment would not be insisted upon – however, any development of this size would be expected to provide suitable mitigation against air quality impacts of the proposed development, notwithstanding any previous use of the site. Environmental Health would expect to see an air quality mitigation scheme including, for example, EV changing points in all allocated spaces, and in a percentage of any shared parking, along with the use of NOx boilers inside the properties. Would raise no objections subject to a suitable scheme.

7.31 (14.09.17) – Confirmation that in this instances, with the reduction in vehicle movements, especially in HGV traffic, EH would not object on air quality grounds provided that a suitable condition requiring air quality mitigation is attached to the consent. Previous comments included the potential to include EV points, travel plan and Low NOx boilers. Comment has also been made regarding the application of an Air Quality Calculation of mitigation/compensation, (Officer note – it is not considered that this condition is precise or enforceable) 28.09.17 – confirmation received that that revised conditions would be acceptable.

TWBC Client Services 7.32 No comments received

TWBC Urban Design Officer 7.33 (27.07.17) The site is located just beyond the transition area between the town and residential hinterland, although it does contain a mix of uses including residential and employment. The character ranges from small scale, two storey dwellings to industrial sheds and some open yard areas.

7.34 The proposal locates built form to the perimeter of the site, which is appropriate in design terms. Some parking is then hidden within the centre of the site. Overall the form and disposition is acceptable.

7.35 Different design approaches are adopted in response to the context of the site, including a very traditional design to the front of Tunnel Road. The Good Station Road aspect adopts a more contemporary approach. Two blocks sit either side of the vehicular entrance. This relates to the more eclectic mix of developments that now exist along Goods Station Road and prevents the scheme appearing too

Page 38 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

monolithic. Details such as windows and use of materials will be more than sufficient to tie the built elements of the site together.

7.36 Due to the urban context the public realm is minimal. The existing narrow footpaths are characteristic of the area and any attempt to widen them to 21st century standard would erode the areas character in the view of the Urban Design officer. It would be important to allow for a strip of defensible space, around the perimeter. A condition would be required seeking details of boundary treatments.

7.37 The approach to landscape is generally acceptable, although a more robust scheme for the Tunnel Road car park would be required, a simpler scheme, to include a bigger tree to complement the large specimen further along Tunnel Road. A condition is recommended to cover this.

7.38 Overall the design evolution of the scheme has been helpful, earlier proposals have been modified to produce something which is more appropriate in scale and form. Materiality as shown is considered to be acceptable and reflects the context of the site. Notwithstanding the materials shown, a condition covering materials would be appropriate. One small issue would relate to the usability of the cycle store in units 19-31. Wider doors could be considered.

7.39 Overall, the site is considered to be a sustainable location close to public transport and amenities. Therefore it is appropriate to maximise the development potential of the site, without compromising the character and amenity of the area. In this urban location the proposed scale is not unacceptable.

7.40 (02.08.17) – comments in relation to the footway widths. It is understood that there is a desire to achieve a minimum 1.8m wide footways around this site. A number of footways are c 1.0m wide. In view of the context there is concern that application of what is an ideal standard will result in a suburban appearance for this development, at odds with the close knit historic character of the area. It would make the development appear cramped being so close to the back edge of the footway. Goods Station Road is a key pedestrian route linking the northern residential areas of the town to the town centre and identified as a key radial route for pedestrians/cycles. As the proposed footway is 2.4m to 2.5m wide this should be reasonable. Although it is strongly suggested that Belgrave Road and Tunnel Road are no more than 1.5m wide. This would be greater than the existing situation and reflects the lower footfall on these streets as opposed to Goods Station Road. Removing the large vehicles and builders’ vans also represents an improved situation for pedestrians. Also of note is the fact that the western side of Tunnel Road is now proposed to have 1.8m wide footways.

TWBC Environmental officer 7.41 (17.07.17) – AL/RTW1 recommends: - Creation of green infrastructure links; - Consideration of the loss of employment; and; - Investigation of the possibility of remediation of contaminated land.

7.42 The applicant has prepared a landscape masterplan alongside submission documents which provides for some green links, which the landscape and biodiversity officer should be consulted on. The Policy team should be consulted regarding the loss of employment and it is noted that TWBC Environmental Health are reviewing.

Page 39 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

7.43 In terms of energy conservation, the developer’s proposal to install photovoltaics to achieve the 10% target detailed within the Renewable Energy SPD are acceptable. The developer has demonstrated that the fabric first approach has been followed through improvements in U values, passive solar gain etc. representing a 4% saving beyond Building Regulations. Standard conditions for energy and water should be applied. The application can be supported.

TWBC Landscape and Biodiversity Officer 7.44 (9.08.17 & 18.08.17) – No objection raised. An interesting response to the site providing a combination of modern and vernacular design that seems to fit well with the site and make a positive contribution to the townscape. The associated landscaping scheme will improve the visual amenity of the area and provide some greening of the urban area.

7.45 False chimneys are regrettable, a positive feature that appears to have no function. Unless a use can be attached they should be omitted, that can probably be controlled by condition.

7.46 It will be important to secure the indicative landscape scheme via a suitably worded condition requiring full hard and soft landscape details and boundary treatments, in general conformity with the submitted plan.

7.47 There should also be a condition for biodiversity enhancements consisting of bird and bat boxes incorporated into the building, this would be an ideal site for swifts.

7.48 There is a low potential for bats in such a location and so it suggested that an informative regarding their possible presence.

TWBC Housing 7.49 (10.08.17)- Confirmation received that it would be expected that the scheme provide 35% affordable housing on the site.

7.50 (31.08.17) – Policy would require 8 units for rent and 3 of them to be for shared ownership or another intermediate tenure, 11 units in total. Housing associations do not generally mix tenure types and would query whether two cores could be created. It may have to be accepted that the whole block is for single tenure which is not ideal. Alternatively, consideration could be given to renting the block and provision of two of the houses for shared ownership.

7.51 As regards to housing need, the data from the housing register for this area for 1 and 2 bed rented homes in the town centre identifies: 1 beds 208, 2 beds 210. There are 680 households registered with the Help to Buy Agent for shared ownership homes.

7.52 (02.10.17) Confirm that the provision of 4 x shared ownership units is acceptable as per the schedule. Whilst a list of Registered Providers who may be interested has been submitted, concern remains regarding the attractiveness of these units and would recommend a commuted sum fall back position.

TWBC Parking 7.53 (07.08.17 & 07.08.17) – No objection raised. It is noted that KCC Highways have commented in respect of highways and parking issues. TWBC Parking Services would like to add that the dwellings proposed would not be eligible for any on-street parking permits. Prospective purchasers should therefore be advised by the developer to avoid any misunderstanding.

Page 40 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

TWBC Trees 7.54 (09.08.17) – No objection raised. Confirmation received that the Tree Officer is satisfied with the proposed landscaping on this site.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS The applicant’s supporting statements can be summarised as follows;

- The Site Allocation DPD allocates the site for residential development under Policy AL/RTW11. There are other parcels of land under this allocation, however, the supporting text recognises that adjoining sites under allocations may come forward separately as proposed under this application. - The document also acknowledges that the approach to assessing potential is best done on the basis of three separate sites as they may well be developed independently and there is little gained by a single scheme due to the configuration of the site. The capacity assessment confirms that the eastern portion of the site is best developed as a perimeter block, comprising houses and apartments on the corners to respect the character of the area, with a central parking court off Tunnel Road. - The NPPF requires LPA’s to significantly boost the supply of housing (para 47), and requires applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Housing on this site would accord with CP1, which gives priority to the allocation and release of sites consisting of previously developed land inside the LBD of settlements. - The Council have accepted the loss of employment on this site by adopting the Site Allocations DPD. Travis Perkins have another site within Tunbridge Wells, that offers a far more suitable and practical site away from residential properties. - The existing site detracts from the character of the area. The removal of the large warehouse and unsightly racking will significantly enhance the visual amenity of Goods Station Road and Tunnel Road, regenerating an area close to the town centre. - The perimeter layout was envisaged by the Capacity Assessments for the Site Allocations DPD. The positioning of the apartment buildings would be stepped to respect the building line further north on Goods Station Road. The apartment building would reflect the built form of the south and south east. Dwellings on Tunnel Road have been carefully designed to reflect the density, appearance and scale of other properties in the area. Separate parking areas prevent domination of the car. - The scheme has been carefully designed to safeguard neighbouring amenity by way of daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook. - The proposal would demonstrably reduce the amount of noise and disturbance emanating from the site following the cessation of the Travis Perkins use, the number of deliveries and loading and unloading will represent a significant improvement in neighbouring amenity. - All residential units have been planned in accordance with the National Space Standard requirements, with three wheelchair accessible units. Internal layouts have been prepared so they benefit from good levels of outlook and daylight. All units would be allocated one parking space.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS Planning Statement April 17 Landscape Master Plan 1482/003 Rev D Landscape Analysis 1482.004 Rev B Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report /Tree Report Daylight and Sunlight Assessment

Page 41 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Drainage Statement Energy Statement Phase 1 Habitats Survey Statement of Community Involvement Design and Access Statement Schedule of Accommodation Contamination report Utilities Statement Transport Statement

2566-A-1004B Site Location Plan 2566-A-1005- Rev O - Site Layout 2566-C-1005- Rev O - Site Layout 2566-C-1210 Rev D – Proposed Street scenes 2566-C-1211 rev D – Proposed street scene 2566-A-3010 Rev F- Ground, first and second floor plans Flats 8-18 2566-C-3011 Rev G – Elevations and Section Flats 8- 18

2566-A-3020 Rev E – Ground, First and Second Floors Flats 19-31 2566-C-3021 Rev F – Elevations and Sections Flats 19-31

2566-A-3000 Rev E – Floorplans Plots 1-7 2566-C-3001 Rev E – Elevations Plots 1-7

2566-A-1000 Rev A – Site Survey ASH1611027 – Topographical Survey ASH21079 -01 Tree reference plan ASH20979-02 Arboricultural Impact Assessment Plan

2566-A-1201 Rev A Existing Street scene 2566-A-1200 Rev A Existing Street Scenes 2566-A-1000 Rev B Existing Site Layout 2566-A-1000 Rev A Title overlay site survey

10.0 APPRAISAL

Principle of Development

10.01 The site is located within the urban area, in a sustainable location, where the redevelopment of the land is acceptable in principle. The site is allocated within 2016 Site Allocation Location Plan for approximately 47 dwellings, including the land north of the ‘The Glassworks’ on Goods Station Road and the adjacent site, 17/00987/FULL. The site was allocated within the 2016 Site Allocation Local Plan and the loss of employment is therefore considered to have been accepted through the adoption of the site allocation local plan. The current occupier submitted a planning application for a builders merchants at the former Sparshatts site on Longfield Road. This was granted consent, with works ongoing at that site.

10.02 The policy states that proposals for redevelopment shall seek to retain the existing Victorian warehouse building. The application on the adjacent site, under reference 17/00987/FULL proposes the retention of the Victorian warehouse, as guided by the policy. Due to operational matters, this site and the Victorian warehouse building are coming forward separately. Vacant possession is expected to be different for the two sites, along with the fact that the two developments are quite distinct in terms of the conversion of the warehouse on Tunnel Road, but redevelopment of the Travis

Page 42 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Perkins buildings on the application site. There is the potential that the sites will be redeveloped by different developers. It is accepted that the two sites are distinct from one another.

10.03 The design and layout will be addressed below, however, the scheme proposed would not prevent the remainder of the site coming forward on land to the north of the Glassworks site. Paragraph 3.47 of the adopted policy recognises that where two sites adjoin one another, they have been listed together in order to facilitate comprehensive development, although it is recognised that adjoining sites may also come forward separately. In this case, it is considered that this site can come forward without prejudice to the adjoining parts of the allocation and not compromise comprehensive development. The implications for developer contributions and affordable housing are addressed in the paragraphs below. The application site, combined with the conversion of the warehouse on Tunnel Road, would comprise two parcels of land, a further parcel of land makes up the final part of the allocation, with the Glassworks located between. On the northern elevation of Flats 19-31 (the most northern block) windows have been sensitively designed to reduce overlooking, with stairwell windows in the central core of the building, and high level windows that would serve kitchens, located within dual aspect kitchen/living areas. It is considered that a development to the north of this building (either on the land subject to allocation AL/RTW 11 or at the Glassworks) could be suitably designed to prevent overlooking. Furthermore, the Glass Works is located between the application site and the remainder of the allocation. It is not considered that the proposed layout would compromise future development on the remainder of the allocated site.

10.04 It is also necessary to consider the Boroughs’ five year housing land supply. At present the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply compliant with the untested Objectively Assessed Need (OAN), which stands at 648 dwellings per year, as required by para 47 of the NPPF. Officers are also aware of ‘Planning for the right homes in the right places’ consultation proposals published on 14/09/17 and that this indicates the figure of 692 dwellings per year would be appropriate for the Borough. However this is a consultation and as such has little weight. It cannot be demonstrated that the Council has a five year supply using either calculation.

10.05 In such situations the NPPF advises that:

“housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”’ (Para 49).

10.06 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where such policies are out-of-date a presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and local planning authorities should grant permission:

“unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

10.07 The issue of sustainability is multi faceted, incorporating a) social, b) economic and c) environmental considerations.

Page 43 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.08 The site is located within the LBD of Tunbridge Wells, where adopted (but now out of date) ) Site Allocations Local Plan Policy AL/RTW 11 Land at Goods Station Road allocates the site, and Policy H5 of the 2006 Local Plan makes it clear that infill and redevelopment for residential development would be acceptable, providing that the comprehensive development of the site would not be prejudiced (which is not the case here). New development is encouraged within the LBD and larger towns, to ensure a managed and sustainable delivery of housing. The re-development of this brownfield site would accord with the spatial strategy set out in the core strategy in all respects.

10.09 In this case the site is considered to be in a highly sustainable position and would accord with the aims of the NPPF to provide for a range of housing and would boost the supply of housing, and would contribute to the social element of sustainable development. The loss of employment use on the site, whilst a negative in terms of the economic arm of sustainable development, has been accepted previously through the allocation of the site for housing. The site is Previously Developed Land (PDL), which is encouraged for redevelopment in the NPPF and would be seen as a benefit weighing in favour of the proposal.

10.10 Overall, the proposal comprises sustainable development. Having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the requirements of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, planning permission should therefore be granted unless specific policies in the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted. The allocation of the site in the SALP indicates that the site is suitable for residential development, and as above there is general conformity with this policy. The development of the site is therefore considered acceptable in principle. The following sections of the report assess whether the proposal accords with other elements of policy in the NPPF and the Development Plan.

Impact on Visual Amenity

10.11 The site is considered to be a transition area between the town centre and the residential hinterland to the north of the town centre. There is a mix of employment and residential uses in the immediate surrounding area. It is proposed to demolish the existing Travis Perkins building on the site and replace with a perimeter development, which would address all street frontages and is considered appropriate in Urban Design terms. Parking is located to the rear and mainly screened from public vantage points by the proposed buildings.

10.12 Para. 56 of the NPPF makes it clear that “Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” In this case the proposal would be in the form of the perimeter development that responds to the immediate surrounding area. Fronting Tunnel Road, 2 ½ storey 3 and 4 bed dwellings are proposed, that respond to the dwellings to the north on Tunnel Road that are 2/ 2 ½ storeys in height. The Urban Design officer comments that buildings fronting onto Tunnel Road are very traditional, with some variations. The proposal would pick up on the cues from these nearby properties.

10.13 The Good Station Road aspect adopts a more contemporary approach. Two blocks sit either side of the vehicular entrance, which is considered to relate better to the more eclectic mix of developments that now exists along Goods Station Road and reflect that context. It also prevents the scheme appearing too monolithic. Details of windows and the use of materials will tie in the built elements of the site together.

Page 44 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.14 To the south of the site there is a block of apartments, with undercroft parking at ground floor level and stands at four storeys in height with the top floor set back. The northern block would also stand at three/four storeys in height. To the west, the height of the proposed buildings would not be out of character with the heights of buildings to the north along Tunnel Road. On the southern element of the perimeter block, the heights stand at 3 storeys, but rise to four storeys on the corner of Belgrave Road and Goods Station Road, giving a presence on this junction, where the road and footways widen out and provide a more spacious feel. Further down Goods Station Road, three storey height development can be seen, both modern and traditional. As set out by the Urban Design Officer, the materials can be tied together through the submission of finishes, materials and windows. However, the scheme is considered to relate well to the site and surrounding area, and the scale of the buildings would not be out of character. The increased heights and density are located on appropriate parts of the site. In this urban location, the proposed scale is not considered to be unacceptable.

10.15 As a result of the highly urbanised context of the site, public realm is minimal. The Urban Design officer notes that the existing narrow footpaths are characteristic of the area and any attempt to widen them to 21st century standard would erode the areas character and that it is important to retain the strip of defensible space around the perimeter. It would be necessary to agree boundary treatments by way of condition.

10.16 Officers agree that landscaping is generally considered to be acceptable, although a more robust scheme is required for the Tunnel Road car park. These details can be secured through conditions. The proposal would, in general, introduce an improved setting of the site through the removal of industrial warehousing and racking, and introduce some landscaping. The buildings are set back from the boundaries as far as possible whilst providing landscaping and defensible space for future occupiers. Generally, the development would result in an improvement to the environment in this location. The scale, form and siting, along with materials proposed, reflect the local context. The heights and roofscape would not be out character with the wider area. The proposal is considered to accord with policy EN1 in all respects, along with the NPPF.

10.17 One area of concern raised by consultees is the usability of the cycle stores in units 19-31, however these final details can be secured through condition. Given the site’s sustainable location, along with the existing allocation, it is considered appropriate to maximise the development potential of the site, without compromising the character and amenity of the area.

10.18 Concerns have also been raised regarding the proposed footpath widths. KCC Highways have requested wider footways around the site at 1.8m. The Urban Design Officer raises concern regarding this due to the impact on the character of the area. However, there has been a need to compromise, in that traditionally some of the footways are some 1m wide. From an urban design context, what is an ideal standard (in pedestrian use terms) would result in a rather suburban appearance for this development at odds with the close knit historic character of the area. It would potentially make the development appear cramped being so close to the back edge of the footway.

10.19 It is accepted that Goods Station Road is a key pedestrian route linking the northern residential areas of the town to the town centre. The proposed footway, at approx. 2.4-2.5m wide is considered reasonable – however, the Urban Design Officer strongly suggests that Belgrave Road and Tunnel Road are no more than 1.5m. This would reflect the lower footfall on these streets. The amended plans indicate a

Page 45 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

1.5m wide path to the front of development on Belgrave Road. On Tunnel Road the footways would be some 1.8m wide on the western path and 1.2m -1.8m on the eastern path – with pinch points on the southern section of the path. This is considered to be a suitable alternative and KCC Highways do not object. The proposal would provide an enhanced footway and pedestrian situation, but at the width proposed, with suitable set back from the buildings, it is not considered that the works to the highway would be detrimental to visual amenity of the site and characteristics of the locality in general.

10.20 Overall, the proposal would represent good design, with the buildings taking appropriate cues in terms of their scale, layout, design and material choice from the development in the surrounding area. The introduction of landscaping, defensible space and the alterations to the footpath widths would ensure that the development would improve the appearance of the site and its edge of centre location.

Residential Amenity

10.21 In terms of neighbouring amenity, it is necessary to consider the impact of the proposals on the surrounding occupiers, these include the Glassworks to the north, and residential occupiers to the east, south and west. To the north, the development would stand at some 10m in height, with bathroom/en-suite windows facing north. The nearest residential occupier to be affected, is 20 Tunnel Road, situated some 17.8m side flank, to side flank, with the Glassworks located between. Due to this distance and the intervening Glassworks it is not considered that the development would result in an unacceptable loss of light or amenity to these dwellings located to the north.

10.22 In terms of The Glassworks, this is a commercial use and as such there would be no residential amenity to be affected by this proposal. The applicant has confirmed that the adjoining wall can be addressed through the Party Wall Act, outside of the planning considerations. The large block that would contain units 19-31, would face north, adjacent to the parking area of the Glassworks. Finally, such a use would be expected to open for standard working hours, it is not a public house for example, where out of hours working would be expected. Therefore, a residential use on the shared boundary is unlikely result in an encroachment in the operations of this neighbour. The impact on this neighbour is considered to be acceptable and to accord with the Site Allocations Local Plan that allocates land either side of this property for residential development.

10.23 To the east, flats 19-31 – rise to four storeys in height, to provide a unit at third floor. This block would be separated from neighbours to the east by some 15.2 – 16m at second floor level and 17m at third floor level, slightly off-set from the frontages of 32-42 Goods Station Road and with a significant footway and road intervening. Whilst there is a balcony proposed at third floor level, the frontage of the Goods Station Road properties is visible from the public realm, and the plans indicate that the balcony would be a solid, rendered part of the wall, to reduce the opportunity for direct overlooking when siting on the balcony. On balance, the balcony position is considered acceptable and would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, given the urban, close knit nature of this site.

10.24 It is also necessary to consider the impact of the proposal on the flats to the south, Chartwells. Concern has been raised that the plans submitted utilise the footprint of the parking basement. However, it is noted on site that a number of windows in this building are set further back than the car parking position shown on the ordnance survey – whilst there are a number of windows on the over sail above the car park

Page 46 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

entrance. The development would be some 8.6m – 8.8m distant, across a public road. Windows are proposed on the southern end of units 5-7. At ground floor level, a bedroom window is proposed, that would not normally be covered by condition by virtue of its ground floor position. The proposed units would be located on a similar building line to the existing pair of semi-detached dwellings, where there are existing first floor level windows. It is not considered that the relationship to existing windows would be significantly worse than the existing situation. On balance, this relationship is considered to be acceptable

10.25 A daylight and sunlight assessment has been provided with the application, based on the BRE Guidance. The introduction to the BRE document makes it clear that the advice is not mandatory; it should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy, and whilst it gives numerical guidelines, is clear that these should be interpreted flexibly, and is clear that natural lighting is only one of many factors in site layout design. TWBC has had regard to the assessment provided with the application, but TWBC assessments are ultimately made by officers, with the assessment as to impact on living conditions calibrated by Inspectors’ conclusions in appeal decisions.

10.26 In terms of the daylight and sunlight assessment there have been concerns raised regarding the validity of the assessment of daylight/sunlight, in relation to the over sail at The Chartwell, although survey plans attached to the report show that windows at the Chartwell have been assessed and have been surveyed to account for the over sail. The assessment concludes that there will be a reduction in the amount of daylight reaching windows of the buildings surrounding the development site, however, when the magnitude is considered, it is evident that this will be within the acceptable limits set out by the BRE Guidelines.

10.27 In terms of sunlight, in line with the BRE assessment, all three of the tests would need to be failed. Whilst there would be a reduction in the number of probable sunlight hours enjoyed by these windows, this reduction is again within the limits prescribed by the BRE document, and it is possible to conclude that there would not be a notable reduction in the amount of either daylight or sunlight enjoyed by neighbouring dwellings.

10.28 Having regard to the position of the Chartwell to the south side of the proposed development, it is Officers’ overall conclusion that the proposal would have an impact in terms of daylight, but this is not considered to be so significant as to warrant refusal.

10.29 To the south west of the site, 25/27 Belgrave Road is located at an oblique angle to units 5-7, with an intervening road. Whilst the road is narrow, as previously discussed, the windows of these properties would not directly face onto the proposed development and the impact on private amenity of these properties is considered to be acceptable.

10.30 To the south east corner of the southern boundary The Chartwell is set further back from Belgrave Road and any views between windows would be on an oblique angle and the separation distance increases to some 13.8m. At first and second floor levels, the windows that would face The Chartwell (at an angle) would be serving kitchen and bedroom windows. On balance, given the urban location of the development, along with the public road and separation distances not untypical of the area, this relationship is considered to be acceptable. However, there are balconies to the southern side: suitably designed privacy screens can be secured through condition to ensure that their presence is not intrusive.

Page 47 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.31 The other neighbouring occupiers that need to be considered are a pair of semi-detached dwellings that are located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site (31/33 Belgrave Road). Units 5-7 have been designed to follow the corner around and to be sited at a similar depth, block 8-18 has been amended to also provide a similar depth to this block compared to these semis. Historically, there were a further pair of semi detached dwellings adjacent to these properties. At the depths proposed for the blocks either side, the relationship is considered to be acceptable. To the east the building would then step back out some 4m from the shared boundary of the rear garden. The garden area to these properties is currently overgrown and the gardens face north. They also currently back onto the Travis Perkins site, which can operate at antisocial hours and can be readily overlooked. The design of the development proposed seeks to reduce overlooking to the east: the rear elevation of units 5-7 has one first floor window that would serve a hallway, this can be conditioned to obscure glass. To the east, balconies would face front and rear of block 8- 18, these balconies can also be conditioned to submit details of obscure privacy panels. Such a relationship is not unusual within the urban area. Finally, in terms of dominating these two properties, the development has been designed to prevent direct overlooking, the development would form a perimeter, of which these neighbours would form part. In addition, the heights have been stepped down towards these neighbours and would stand at some 1.3m higher to the east, raising to 12.3m on the corner of Belgrave, some 11.7m distant from these houses. Similarly, to the west, the eaves height would stand some 1.2m higher than the eaves of these properties and the roof would pitch away. On balance, it is not considered that this will result in a dominant effect on these dwellings and the rear garden, which, in particular, suffers in terms of residential amenity from the existing use.

10.32 On balance, the impact on neighbouring amenity is considered to be acceptable in terms of preventing unacceptable loss of light, overlooking and dominance of neighbouring dwellings.

Dwelling Mix and amenity of future occupiers

10.33 Following concerns regarding the impact on 31 and 33 Belgrave Road, the proposal has resulted in one of the 2 bed dwellings in block 8-18, becoming a single bed dwelling. The proposal would provide a mix of dwellings, 1 x 4 bed, 3 x 3 bed and 15 x 1 bed and 12 x 2 bed. The development would provide a range of units, both in terms of the type of dwelling, including some terraced properties but largely apartments, but also a range of bedspaces. Given the town centre location, where by its nature, there would be less opportunity to provide larger units of accommodation, and in an area where it would be expected to make best use of the land, the mix is acceptable. The 2 bed units would comply with policy CP6, and however, there would be a greater proportion of one bed units, which, given the site’s location, is considered to be acceptable.

10.34 In terms of the internal relationships between the proposed blocks, one of the main direct relationships would be between units 1-7 and the apartment block of 19-31. However, there would be a separation distance of some 27m between the dwellings. In addition, the tallest parts of the apartment building would be set forward, fronting Goods Station Road, balconies are proposed to the rear. Whilst the impact from these is considered acceptable in relation to units 1-7, it is considered necessary to condition these as privacy screens to ensure the privacy of the southern block – units 8-18.

Page 48 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.35 Further to the above, the other relationship internally to consider is that between the two apartment blocks. These would be sited to be within some 7m with the access road intervening. The tallest section of block 19-31 would be set forward from the southern block, and an enclosed, solid wall would be placed around the balcony to the front of the building. There are balconies proposed on the southern side of this building that for the reasons set out above, are recommended to be obscure glazed. At first and second floor there would be a secondary living room window, bedroom and kitchen windows. The third floor of this building would be set forward from the southern apartment building and is not considered to be an area of concern.

10.36 The northern elevation of the southern block 8-18, plot 16 and 18 would directly face the northern block. At plot 16 there would be bedroom and bathroom windows facing north, and a primary window serving the living room. With the provision of obscure glazing on the lower portions of the windows serving plots 23 and 27 on the northern block, and obscure privacy screens, it is not considered necessary to control the windows on the northern elevation of block 8-18 . Plot 18 would have 2 bedroom windows, bathroom window and access to the balcony, again, with the windows and balconies controlled to the north on plots 23 and 27, it is not considered necessary to control the southern block. It is recommended to control the northern block as the windows relate to a secondary living room window and a bedroom window. On balance, the relationship between the two blocks is considered to be acceptable. It should also be noted that the future occupants of the site would be aware of the relationship at the time of purchase. The blocks have been staggered and it is also considered that the tighter relationships are indicative of the tighter urban grain in this area. On balance, the level of amenity for future occupiers is considered to be acceptable.

Highways, Access and Parking

10.37 Following earlier KCC Highways concerns, the plans have been amended. Whilst they raised no objection to the scheme as submitted, concerns were raised regarding the footway widths. Comments were received that Tunnel Road and Belgrave Road are very narrow, approx. 1m at points, and that the scheme should include improvement to the pavements to provide a minimum of 1.8m around the site, in keeping with the expectations of the NPPF to promote travel by sustainable modes and to improve safety and enhance the access arrangements to a number of properties in the scheme which take direct access from the public highway. As set out above, a solution which is considered to be acceptable to both the Urban Design Officer and KCC Highways, is the inclusion of wider footways on Tunnel Road and particularly the junction of Tunnel Road and Belgrave Road, but to provide a depth of 1.5m to the eastern part of Belgrave Road. This offers an enhancement over the existing situation, especially on Belgrave Road where the path is 1m in some parts, and KCC Highways confirm that, on balance, no objections would be raised.

10.38 Whilst it would have been preferable for service vehicles to have been able to turn on site, the layout and relatively small size of the site does not provide for this. The Highway Authority is mindful of the existing arrangements on this site and existing situation with goods vehicles in relation to Travis Perkins. The change in the use will result in a significant reduction in the number of larger vehicles servicing the site, which would be an improvement and therefore further revisions have not been sought.

10.39 In terms of parking provision, the proposed level of parking is considered to be in keeping with IGN3, at one parking space per unit. This is a highly sustainable location and the lack of visitor spaces is not considered to be a detrimental to the

Page 49 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

scheme. The provision of a space per unit is considered to be acceptable, especially given the constrained nature of the site. Whilst the Highway Authority had commented that the split in car parking, with 9 spaces being accessed off Tunnel Road, is not ideal, and users will need to exercise caution, they are mindful that this is a central location where parking opportunities are often limited and this reflects the current arrangements at the site. On balance, there is no objection to the split of parking over two sites.

10.40 As part of the S106, the applicant has been asked to contribute £20,000 towards the 21st Century Cycle Route – given the close proximity to the site, it is considered reasonable to request this contribution. This would further contribute to the enhancement of the surrounding transport network.

10.41 The impact on the highway network is considered to be acceptable and the proposed parking would be to the adopted standard. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of highways and access. Conditions have been requested that include; Conditions and informatives recommended covering implementation of access, pedestrian visibility splays, provision of footways, parking and turning to be provided, adequately drained and surfaced access and parking area, gates to be implemented as approved and construction management plan.

Landscaping & Ecology

10.42 The Landscape and Biodiversity officer comments that this in an interesting response to the site providing a combination of modern and vernacular design that seems to fit well with the site and make a positive contribution to the townscape. The character of the area is of an urban nature. The associated landscaping scheme will improve the visual amenity of the area and provide some greening of the urban area. The replacement of the existing building with a development that responds to its boundaries, will provide an improvement to the urban landscape whilst contributing towards the acute housing shortage. The application is accompanied by a landscape scheme and it is recommended that the final details of which will be secured by condition.

10.43 It will be important to secure the indicative landscape scheme via a suitably worded condition require full hard and soft landscape details and boundary treatments, in general conformity with the submitted plan.

10.44 It terms of ecology, the submitted Phase 1 Habitats Survey concludes that the site is of low nature importance and therefore there are opportunities to increase the biodiversity of the site. The Landscape and Biodiversity Officer considers the site to be ideal for swifts. In order to enhance biodiversity on the site, a condition for biodiversity enhancements consisting of bird and bat boxes incorporated into the building is recommended, as recommended in the Phase 1 Habitats Survey (in relation to bat boxes). It is noted that there is a low potential for bats in such a location and so it suggested that an informative regarding their possible presence, that will highlight the potential, albeit the low possibility. This would address this matter satisfactorily.

Other Matters

Habitats Regulation Assessment 10.45 On the basis of the evidence available at this point in time, the impact of this proposal on the Ashdown Forest as a Special Protection Area and Special Area of

Page 50 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Conservation has been considered. It is considered there will not be a likely significant impact.

Network Rail Tunnel 10.46 The railway tunnel Is situated to the west of the site and underneath the parking area to the west of Tunnel Road. No objections have been raised by Network Rail, whilst the site is within the zone of influence, and the developer needs to be aware of shafts and possible hidden shafts in the area, the proposal would involve the conversion of the existing building and would not involve excavation work. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Network Rail South Eastern in the informatives. It is not considered that that proposal would be detrimental to the working of the tunnel. This matter is considered to be satisfactorily addressed.

Drainage 10.47 The applicant is proposing to reduce the rate of discharge from the existing surface water discharge rate of 9.9 l/s by 50% to 4.9 l/s to the public sewer as part of this redevelopment. This would create “sufficient headway” to accommodate an increase in foul water flows. The applicant has previously agreed conditions and confirmed ongoing maintenance of the drainage measures would be managed by a Residents Management Company in perpetuity. Conditions proposed by KCC are accepted. However, discussions are ongoing with Southern Water in respect of their comments. An update will be provided on this matter at the Planning Committee, together with final comments from Southern Water.

Air Quality Management, Noise and contamination. 10.48 Following initial concerns of the Environmental Health team in respect of the location of the site near the Air Quality Management Area, it is not now considered that an Air Quality Assessment would not be insisted upon – however, any development of this size would be expected to provide suitable mitigation against air quality impacts of the proposed development, notwithstanding any previous use of the site.

10.49 Environmental Health comment that they would expect to see an air quality mitigation scheme including, for example, EV charging points, along with the use of NOx boilers inside the properties. Environmental Health would raise no objections subject to a suitable scheme. It is therefore recommended that conditions are applied under Section 11 to address the need to incorporate such measures that have been agreed with Environmental Health.

10.50 Para. 35 of the NPPF states that developments should where practical incorporate facilities for charging plug in and other ultra low emission vehicles, as reflected in the comments of the Environmental Health Team. Environmental Health suggest a standard condition that provides for 1 publically accessible EV rapid charge point per 10 residential dwellings. The site is some distance from the AQM buffer, however, given the proximity to this buffer and the need to ensure sustainable development is achieved, it is recommended that a condition be applied to ensure charging facilities are provided on site. The applicants have agreed to such a condition. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

10.51 Environmental Health also commented in respect of land contamination and noise and confirmed that they were satisfied that these matters can be addressed through condition. Concern was raised regarding the number of boreholes and samples taken, however it was likely that access to the site was limited by the continuing use on the site. Further investigation following site clearance is recommended and therefore a condition is proposed to seek a scheme to deal with land contamination. In respect of noise, the site is near to the town centre road network and to a number

Page 51 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

of commercial operations. These noise sources would need to be assessed and if necessary a scheme of mitigation. Section 11 of this report sets out conditions recommended to deal with internal noise levels within the accommodation.

S106 Contributions and developer contributions 10.52 The applicant has agreed to enter into a S106 for the following contributions;

- Tunbridge Wells Cultural Hub £10,896.19 towards the Adult Education element of the Tunbridge Wells Cultural Hub - Adult and Youth Sum 83 x £719 per bedspace (£59,677) - Children’s Playspace sum 53 x £783.50p per bedspace (£41,525.50) - Highways contribution to the 21st Century Cycle route: £20,000 - Primary Education - £24,930.00 Towards Additional classroom at Broadwater Down Primary School

10.53 Legislation requires the planning obligations (including Legal Agreements) should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:

- Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; - Directly related to the development and; - Fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the development.

10.54 The requirement for developments to provide or contribute towards the services for which they create a need is set out in Core Policy 1 of the CS and requirements relating to various types of contributions, including education, recreation, transport etc. are referred to in various CS and LP Policies.

10.55 KCC has assessed the proposal for contributions towards meeting the additional needs for infrastructure and services generated by the proposed development, as summarised above. As a result, financial contributions are requested for the Cultural Hub towards Community Learning as there is an assessed shortfall in provision for this service, the current adult participation in District Centre is in excess of current service capacity. This is considered to meet the relevant tests as listed above and will be included within the recommendation below.

10.56 In terms of the Primary school contribution, the site gives rise to 2 additional primary school pupils during the occupation of the development. This need, cumulatively with other developments in the vicinity, can only be met through the additional classroom at Broadwater Down Primary School.

10.57 Contributions are also sought towards Adult and Youth recreation open space and Children’s playspace, to mitigate the demand arising from new residents of the development. The Parks and Sport Team Leader has commented that the contributions could be allocated towards the Calverley Grounds tennis court fencing which is estimated would be £45,000 to replace all the fencing and gates, there is also proposal for the supply and installation of adult gym equipment at Calverley Grounds, estimated at £20,000, to which these contributions could be allocated. There are proposals to refurbish the Showfields toddlers area which is estimated at £120,000. It is considered reasonable to contribute to these projects.

Affordable Housing 10. 58 The site is part of a larger allocation, although it had been previously recognised that the sites may come forward separately. The applicant has submitted a Viability

Page 52 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Appraisal that has been independently assessed. The applicant’s appraisal asserted that due to the viability constraints that no affordable housing could be provided on site or as an off site financial contribution. The conclusion of the independent assessment indicated that there are a number of areas of disagreement and whilst the differences in the assessment are not at a level that would justify the full affordable housing requirement, it does indicate that a significant provision or contribution towards affordable housing could be made.

10.59 The applicant does not accept the findings of this assessment. However, following negotiations an offer of four flats has been put forward for affordable housing under the shared ownership scheme. These would be 3 one bedroom properties and 1 two bedroom. The full level of affordable provision would have amounted to 11 units (35%).

10.60 The fundamental disagreement between the two viability consultants on the viability is an issue for both officers and the applicant. It is considered that the offer of four units is a reasonable compromise, which when considered together with the good design and general improvements to the area, reduction in larger vehicles, providing housing on PDL and an allocated housing site, the additional S106 contributions and the absence of a five year land supply for housing would mean that the development would comprise sustainable development in the context of the NPPF.

10.61 The applicant has also agreed to a reduced time limit for implementation (18 months rather than three years), this would ensure that the development is implemented, and the benefits of the scheme realised in a shorter time period, and that the build costs/viability appraisals remain relevant to the consideration of this application. Therefore, subject to a S106 to secure the affordable housing and developer contributions, the four units of affordable housing is considered to be acceptable.

10.62 It is not considered that the sites have been split artificially and there are justified reasons for bring the sites forward separately. It should be noted that the contributions identified above have been included within the applicant’s assumptions.

Conclusion 10.63 The site is located within the central area of Tunbridge Wells, the main urban area in the Borough. The site is considered to be highly sustainable and in close proximity to services and public transport. The scheme would contribute to the acute housing need and provide choice and variety. The proposal would provide a suitable level of affordable housing, which along with conditions, would secure early implementation of the scheme to realise the benefits. In the balance of issues, with the clear need for new housing development, it is not considered that there are any other material considerations that would indicate the application should be refused. Approval is therefore recommended, subject to conditions.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION – GRANT Subject to the following conditions;

A. GRANT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT 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 AGREED BY THE HEAD OF LEGAL PARTNERSHIP MID KENT LEGAL SERVICES BY 11th December 2017 (UNLESS A LATER DATE BE AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES ) TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING;

(i) Developer contributions towards: - Tunbridge Wells Cultural Hub £10,896.19

Page 53 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

- Adult and Youth Sum £59,677 - Children’s Playspace sum £41,525.50 - Highways contribution to the 21st Century Cycle route: £20,000 - Primary Education - £24,930.00 - (ii) Secure four units of accommodation for affordable housing. (iii) Payment of the Council’s reasonable legal fees for the negotiation and satisfactory completion of the legal agreement.

and subject to the following CONDITIONS;

1/ The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 18 months from the date of this permission.

Reason: In pursuance of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2/ The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

2566-A-1004B Site Location Plan 2566-A-1005- Rev O - Site Layout 2566-C-1005- Rev O - Site Layout 2566-C-1210 Rev D – Proposed Street scenes 2566-C-1211 rev D – Proposed street scene 2566-A-3010 Rev F- Ground, first and second floor plans Flats 8-18 2566-C-3011 Rev G – Elevations and Section Flats 8- 18

2566-A-3020 Rev E – Ground, First and Second Floors Flats 19-31 2566-C-3021 Rev F – Elevations and Sections Flats 19-31

2566-A-3000 Rev E – Floorplans Plots 1-7 2566-C-3001 Rev E – Elevations Plots 1-7

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Procedure) (Amendment No.3) (England) Order 2009

3/ Prior to the commencement of the development a Code of Construction Practice shall be submitted to and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved Code of Construction Practice and BS5228 Noise Vibration and Control on Construction and Open Sites and the Control of dust from construction sites (BRE DTi Feb 2003).unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The code shall include: - An indicative programme for carrying out the works - Measures to minimise the production of dust on the site(s) - Measures to minimise the noise (including vibration) generated by the construction process to include the careful selection of plant and machinery and use of noise mitigation barrier(s)

Page 54 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

- Maximum noise levels expected 1 metre from the affected façade of any residential unit adjacent to the site(s) - Design and provision of site hoardings - Management of traffic visiting the site(s) including temporary parking or holding areas - Provision of off road parking for all site operatives - Measures (including wheel wash) to prevent the transfer of mud and extraneous material onto the public highway - Measures to manage the production of waste and to maximise the re-use of materials - Measures to minimise the potential for pollution of groundwater and surface water - The location and design of site office(s) and storage compounds - The location of temporary vehicle access points to the site(s) during the construction works - The arrangements for public consultation and liaison during the construction works

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and in the interests of highway safety. This is pre-commencement to ensure that the site set up is secured at an early stage to ensure highway safety and the amenity of local residents.

4/ Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, written details including source/ manufacturer, and samples of bricks, tiles, cladding and all roofing materials to be used externally shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out using the approved external materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

5/ Prior to commencement of above ground construction works, detailed plans and information regarding the following aspects of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details:

a) Details and drawings relating to fenestration profiles, colour, and to include window recess and reveals,

b) The detailed design of any balcony structures, and shared entrance doorways to flats to include materials, lighting, door, colour and canopy design;

c) Details (including section drawings) relating to materials to be used in the construction of all walls, fences or other means of enclosure, and;

d) Details for the storage and screening of refuse.

e) Details of cycle storage

f) Details of external lighting.

Reason: To ensure the built quality of the development.

6/ Development shall not begin until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The detailed drainage scheme shall demonstrate that the surface

Page 55 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

water generated by this development (for all rainfall durations and intensities up to and including the climate change adjusted critical 100yr storm) can be accommodated and disposed of without increase to flood risk on or off-site. The drainage scheme shall also demonstrate that silt and pollutants resulting from the site use can be adequately managed to ensure there is no pollution risk to receiving waters.

Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal and to ensure ongoing efficacy of the drainage provisions. This is pre-commencement to ensure that suitable drainage is designed at early stage to prevent flood risk.

7/ No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include:

i) a timetable for its implementation, and ii) a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage system throughout its lifetime.

Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal and to ensure ongoing efficacy of the drainage provisions. This is pre-commencement to ensure that suitable drainage is designed at early stage to prevent flood risk.

8/ No development shall take place until details for the disposal of foul sewage and surface water have been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid pollution of the surrounding area. This is pre-commencement to ensure that suitable drainage is designed at early stage to prevent flood risk.

9/ Not withstanding the details submitted, no above ground works shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include means of enclosure/boundary treatment; the surfacing of vehicle and pedestrian access, circulation and parking areas; other hard surfacing materials; and structures as well as schedules of plants and should specify the type of material in which planting will take place and the depth of that material. The submitted details shall also include the identification of all trees and shrubs which are to be retained and detail the measures for protection, to accord with the current British Standard BS 5837.

Reason: In order to protect and enhance the amenity of the area.

10/ All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of the landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development which ever is sooner and any trees or plants (including trees and plants shown to be retained) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season

Page 56 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

with others of a similar size and species , unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.

11/ Prior to above ground construction works, a scheme to demonstrate that the internal noise levels within the residential units will conform to the standard identified by BS 8233 2014, Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work specified in the approved scheme shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the premises and be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to protect the occupiers of the dwellings from undue disturbance by noise.

12/ No development shall commence until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

(1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

(2) A site investigation, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

(3) A remediation method statement (RMS) based on the site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2). This should give full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The RMS should also include a verification plan to detail the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the RMS are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

(4) A Closure Report is submitted upon completion of the works. The closure report shall include full verification details as set out in 3. This should include details of any post remediation sampling and analysis, together with documentation certifying quantities and source/destination of any material brought onto or taken from the site. Any material brought onto the site shall be certified clean;

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect future occupiers of the site. The reason these details are required prior to commencement are to prevent harm to the environment and protect the health and safety of construction workers and future occupiers.

13/ If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected

Page 57 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

contamination shall be dealt and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and comply with the NPPF.

14/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, details of the finished ground floor levels, shown in relation to the existing and proposed site levels as well as eaves and ridge heights of neighbouring buildings, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance on completion of the development.

15/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works a scheme for the enhancement of biodiversity has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall take account any protected species that have been identified on the site, and in addition shall have regard to the enhancement of biodiversity generally. It shall be include a programme of implementation and monitoring. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and programme, and shall be permanently maintained.

Reason: To protect and enhance existing species and habitat on the site in the future.

16/ Prior to commencement of development details of the off site works being the creation of the new access points on Goods Station Road and Tunnel Road and the reinstatement of the footway at existing access points on both these roads as shown on Plan Omega 2566-A-1005-O for indicative purposes only, together with accommodating works in accordance with highway authority standards and specification shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved works shall be carried out prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, pedestrian and vehicular. The reason these details are required prior to commencement are to ensure the safety of future occupiers and nearby users are given early consideration.

17/ Prior to first occupation 2.0m x 2.0m x 45m pedestrian visibility splays shall be provided within the curtilage of the site and either side of each access way and anything greater in height than 0.6m above the height of the adjoining highway shall be permanently removed. The splays shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, pedestrian and vehicular.

18/ The visibility splays shown on plan DHA T-04 P2 with shall be provided and maintained clear of obstruction of anything exceeding a height of 0.9m and maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety, pedestrian and vehicular.

19/ Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved the footways across the frontages of the site shall be widened generally to a minimum width of 1.8m, with pinch points of 1.2m as shown on plan (Omega 2566 -A-1005-O) for indicative purposes only, in accordance with highway authority standards and specification.

Page 58 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Reason: In the interests of Highway safety.

20/ Gates or barriers shall be recessed from back of the highway as indicated on the approved plan 2566-a-1005-O and no other gates are to be erected without prior consent.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

21/ The access and parking area hereby approved, shall be surfaced with in a bound material with adequate drainage within the curtilage of the site to ensure no surface water drains over the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

22/ The area shown on the approved site layout plan as vehicle parking and turning shall be provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the buildings they serve are occupied, and shall be retained for the use of the occupiers of, and visitors to, the development in accordance with the details approved in the preceding planning condition, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking and turning of vehicles is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users.

23/ A Residents Welcome Pack shall be made available to all new residents online and as a booklet, containing information and incentives to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes from new occupiers, including:

1. Maps showing the site in relation to walking, local buses, cycle routes, cycle stands, the nearest bus stops, and rail stations 2. Approximate time it takes to walk or cycle to various local facilities 3. Site specific public transport information including up to date public transport timetables 4. Links to relevant local websites with travel information such as public transport operator information, cycling organisations and the Council 5. Information on public transport season tickets and offers 6. Information on the health, financial and environmental benefits of sustainable travel

Reason: To promote the use of sustainable transport and reduce reliance on the private car.

24/ Prior to the occupation of any of the units hereby approved, details of the provision of at least 4 'fast charge' electric vehicle-charging points, including a timescale for its provision, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The charging points shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with an agreed timescale and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations.

Page 59 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

25/ Prior to commencement of above ground works, a scheme of mitigation measures for the control of air quality, to include Low Nox boilers, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations.

26/ Prior to the first use of the premises, details of any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The scheme shall ensure that the noise generated at the boundary of any noise sensitive property shall not exceed Noise Rating Curve NR35 as defined by BS8233: 1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Building Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Engineers (CIBSE) Environmental Design Guide 2006. The equipment shall be maintained in a condition so that it does not exceed NR35 as described above, whenever it’s operating. After installation of the approved plant, no new plant or ducting system shall be used without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality.

27/ Before the occupation of any part of the building, details of the balconies shall be submitted to and approved in writing, to include, screening panels to units 10, 11, 14 and 15 on block 8-19 and units 23 and 27 of block 19-31 are to be installed to a height of 1.8m from the terrace or balcony, to be of obscured glass at least to the equivalent level of Pilkington level 3. The balconies shall be installed and maintained thereafter, in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality.

28/ Before first occupation, the lower sections of the living room and bedroom windows on the south elevation of block 19-31 (serving flats 23 and 27), shall be fitted with obscured glass (privacy level/grade 3) and shall be non opening up to a height of 1.7m the obscure glazing in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard against overlooking and loss of privacy in the interests of amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties

29/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, details of water conservation measures shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of water conservation.

30/ Prior to the commencement of above ground construction works, written and illustrative details for energy conservation within that phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 60 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development, which meets the needs of current and future generations.

31/ No windows or doors of the scheme hereby permitted shall open onto the public highway.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

INFORMATIVES

1/ The applicant is advised to review the Mid Kent Environmental Code of Development Practice. Broad compliance with this document is expected and any queries relating to this document should be forwarded to MidKent Environmental Health.

2/ Kent County Council recommends that all developers work with a telecommunication partner or subcontractor in the early stages of planning for any new development to make sure that Next Generation Access Broadband is a fundamental part of the project. Please liaise with a telecom provider to decide the appropriate solution for this development and the availability of the nearest connection point to high speed broadband. For advice please contact [email protected]

3/ It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure, before the development hereby approved is commenced, that all necessary highway approvals and consents where required are obtained and that the limits of highway boundary are clearly established in order to avoid any enforcement action being taken by the Highway Authority.

4/ Across the county there are pieces of land next to private homes and gardens that do not look like roads or pavements but are actually part of the road. This is called ‘highway land’. Some of this land is owned by The Kent County Council (KCC) whilst some are owned by third party owners. Irrespective of the ownership, this land may have ‘highway rights’ over the topsoil. Information about how to clarify the highway boundary can be found at http://www.kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/what-we-look-after/highway-land

5/ The applicant must also ensure that the details shown on the approved plans agree in every aspect with those approved under such legislation and common law. It is therefore important for the applicant to contact KCC Highways and Transportation to progress this aspect of the works prior to commencement on site.

6/ The applicant is advised that works to the highway require separate consent of the highway authority prior to the commencement of works on site. The works will require a S278/38 agreement and you are advised to contact the Agreements Engineer [email protected]

7/ This development is the subject of an Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

8/ In the event that protected species (including the potential for bats) are identified during the course of the development, Natural England should be consulted and appropriate action is undertaken.

9/ The applicant is advised that the dwellings proposed would not be eligible for any on-street parking permits. Prospective purchasers should therefore be advised by the developer to avoid any misunderstanding.

Page 61 Agenda Item 7(B) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10/ A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water, Sparrowgrove House Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel:0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk.

11/ The applicant is advised to contact Network Rail’s Asset Protection team prior to commencing works, at [email protected] and to review comments made by Network Rail under this application to familiarise with the requirements for safe operation of the railway and protection of Network Rail’s adjoining land.

(B) IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO ENTER INTO SUCH AN AGREEMENT BY 11th DECEMBER 2017 THE HEAD OF PLANNING SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS (UNLESS A LATER DATE BE AGREED BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES):

(1) The proposal would not provide affordable housing and would therefore conflict with Core Policy 6 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010.

(2) The proposal would fail to provide developer contributions towards primary schools and Cultural Hub. As requested by Kent County Council, and would therefore conflict with Core Policies CP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy CS4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(3) The proposal would fail to provide for Youth and Adult recreation and Children’s play space and would therefore conflict with Core Policies 1 and 8 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010 and Policy R2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(4) The proposal would fail to provide developer contributions towards the 21st Century Cycle Route and would therefore conflict Core Policy 1 and Core Policy 3 of the Tunbridge Wells Core Strategy 2010.

Case Officer: Marie Bolton

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website. The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.

Page 62 Agenda Item 7(C) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 17/02009/LBC APPLICATION PROPOSAL Listed Building Consent - Provide bracket supports for three statues near the top of the memorial ADDRESS Canon Hoare Memorial St Johns Road Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent RECOMMENDATION GRANT (See section 11.0 of the report for the full recommendation) SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - The works would protect the special character, fabric and appearance of this Grade II listed building.

- In accordance with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the works would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset however this harm is considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal (the restoration of the asset and the re-opening of the asset to the public, which is its optimum viable use).

INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The following are considered to be material to the application: Contributions (to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement/unilateral undertaking): N/A Net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A Estimated average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: N/A Estimated annual council tax benefit total: N/A Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 4 years): Estimated annual business rates benefits for Borough: N/A REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE The applicant is Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

WARD Culverden PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL APPLICANT Tunbridge Wells N/A Borough Council AGENT N/A DECISION DUE DATE PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 17/10/17 22/09/17 25/08/17 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): 08/00269/LBC Listed building consent: Cleaning and Granted 28/03/08 repair works to stone memorial

Page 63 Agenda Item 7(C) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

81/00512/TWBRG3 Regulation 4 - Re-siting of Canon Hoare Granted 09/07/81 Memorial 81/00511/LBC Listed Building Consent - Removal of Granted 03/07/81 Canon Hoare Memorial 80/00867/LBCDEM Listed Building Consent - Demolition Withdrawn 06/07/81

MAIN REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 This application relates to a Grade II listed memorial sited on the junction of Culverden Park Road and St Johns Road, Tunbridge Wells. It dates from the late 19th Century and is largely constructed of locally-sourced sandstone, with a Yorkshire stone and render base plinth. The Memorial is formed from a square pillar with angle buttresses, surmounted by a crocket and 4 figures of the Evangelists.

1.02 It was built in memoriam of (and is inscribed to) Edward Hoare (1812–1894), who was the Vicar of Holy Trinity Church (now the Trinity Arts Centre) for nearly 41 years. Hoare was a famous national and local figure in late 19th Century Protestantism and was a leading figure in the religious life of the town.

1.03 The Memorial formerly stood in the centre of the Culverden Park Road/St Johns Road junction, but was moved to its present position in the early 1980s (following an initial plan to demolish it). It is surrounded by low-level planting/shrubs and a paved area. It is normally accessible to the public, with a wooden bench sited just in front, but it is currently fenced off from public access due to safety concerns (see below). The Memorial is situated on land owned by Crest Nicholson (South East) Limited (the developer of the adjacent flats) but the responsibility for maintaining both it and the surrounding paving belongs to TWBC.

1.04 To the north and west of the Memorial are Edison Court and its communal garden areas. This is a five-storey block of 88 flats built approximately 10 years ago. To the south is a four-storey BT exchange dating from the 1960s. On the opposite side of St Johns Road are a public transport depot and several older buildings in office/retail use. The Planning Committee has resolved to grant consent for the redevelopment of the depot.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 The supporting Heritage Statement sets out that when the Memorial was moved, it was done so in one piece. It is possible that the move created stresses in the structure that may have damaged it. The whole Memorial has also suffered from damage due to pollution.

2.02 The accompanying structural report identifies that one of the aforementioned four stone figures has fallen from the Memorial and has sustained substantial material damage. Part of the stone stand below the figure (thought to be later repair work) had also fallen, but received only minor damage. It had been kept in place by the use of square metal dowels placed in round drilled holes packed out with resin and grout - weathering has deteriorated the latter. All of the remaining 3 statues appeared to have the same repair to the stand as the fallen statue and there is evidence of weathering and deterioration of the stone, one plinth has a major crack; one of the remaining statues also appears to be only loosely attached to the Memorial.

Page 64 Agenda Item 7(C) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

2.03 Due to this lack of adequate fixing, the accompanying Structural Engineer’s Report recommends that stabilisation work needs to be carried out on the three remaining high level statues to prevent them from falling. Advice has also been sought from a stonemason regarding a method of securing the remaining statues and some minor maintenance works. Due to the risk of another statue falling, Heras fencing has been placed around the Memorial and has been in place for about two years.

2.04 The application seeks LBC to introduce a tie-back system. This would involve the use of a “Y” shaped open ended bracket secured to the statue base or top of the pedestal. The stone work would then be fixed to the main body of the Memorial using stainless steel or powder coated, threaded bar resin fixed to the stonework at both ends. Details of the restraint fixings are shown on the Structural Engineer’s drawing S001 P2. The fixings would be finished in a colour to match the existing stonework.

2.05 The broken stand that supported the statue that fell off will be cut down to form a level surface to enable a new Wealden sandstone weathered cap to be fixed to it. The cap would have a bull-nose edge profile on all four sides to match the existing plinth.

2.06 Other works involve the removal of two saplings that have rooted in the top levels of the memorial, application of a herbicide and re pointing of the hole where the saplings had rooted to match the existing stone. A photographic survey will also be carried out by the stonemason who will provide recommendations for future works and a planned maintenance programme, but any works requiring LBC which flow from this survey would require a separate LBC application.

3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing – no changes proposed Site Area (sq m) 8 Land use Publically-accessible memorial

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Grade II Listed Building (statutory duty to preserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets under the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990)

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Site Allocations Local Plan July 2016

Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010

CP4 Environment

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006

Page 65 Agenda Item 7(C) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

EN1 Development Control Criteria

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

6.01 Two site notices were displayed and the application was advertised in the local press.

6.02 One representation has been received from a neighbour, supporting the restoration of the Memorial. Issues with the Memorial being screened off with Heras fencing, lack of regular maintenance or repair are highlighted.

7.0 CONSULTATIONS

Historic England 7.01 (29/08/17) - Do not wish to offer any comments on the basis of the information available to date. Suggest case officer seek the views of TWBC specialist conservation adviser.

TWBC Principal Conservation Officer 7.02 (verbal comments 13/09/17) – no objections. Recommend conditions for the mortar mix to be used in the repointing work; that the stone shall exactly match the corresponding stones on the existing structure; and that an informative is used regarding future works and the photo survey which informs them. The harm caused by the works is at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’.

7.03 The re-pointing work where the saplings are due to be removed does not require LBC as it would be deemed a ‘repair’. Recommend informative relating to future works that may flow from the photographic survey referred to in the heritage statement, as they may require LBC. This is a judgement that would be made when more is known about the necessary works.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS (taken from heritage statement)

8.01 The public health and safety aspects of the proposed work outweigh the minor intrusions into the fabric of the monument. The existing access will be unaffected by the proposed works.

8.02 The new supports are relatively small, mostly hidden, are at high level and will be finished to match the colour of the existing stonework so will have very little effect on the appearance or the heritage value of the memorial.

8.03 If necessary in the future the new supports could be removed and fixing holes repaired with very little effect to the memorial.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS

9.01 Application form Heritage statement Structural engineer’s report Site location plan Block plan Drawing number S001 P2

Page 66 Agenda Item 7(C) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.0 APPRAISAL

10.01 The main issue to be considered is the impact on the character and historic fabric of the Memorial, as a Grade II Listed building.

10.02 Planning legislation requires that, when considering whether to grant permission for development which affects a heritage asset, the LPA shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing that heritage asset. These matters should be accorded considerable importance and weight when weighing this factor in the balance with other 'material considerations' which have not been given this special statutory status.

10.03 The Principal Conservation Officer has been involved in discussions with the TWBC Estates department regarding the ongoing maintenance and repair of this Memorial, which pre-date this application. The PCO is aware of the condition of the Memorial and the heritage issues that arise from it. Objections have not been raised to what are relatively minor works at a high level to the Memorial, with a very small level of harm arising from a modern intervention to the fabric of the structure. The works would have very little effect on the overall appearance of the Grade II listed building, being barely visible from ground level once completed.

10.04 The resulting harm is considered to be less than substantial. This small degree of harm is outweighed by the benefit of achieving a durable solution to the building to allow the statues to be securely fixed to the Memorial. The benefits of the scheme include the repair work and enhancement to the heritage asset, which will in turn enable it to be opened to the public again. On this basis it is recommended that Listed Building Consent is granted.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION – GRANT subject to the following conditions;

1) The development to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this decision.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing number S001P2 Method statement included under heading ‘Proposals’ on page 5 of the Heritage Statement (excluding reference to future works and the planned maintenance programme).

Reason: To clarify which plans are approved.

3) Prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved, a specification for the lime based mortar to be used for repointing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric, character and appearance of the listed building

Page 67 Agenda Item 7(C) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

4) The new stone used in the works hereby approved shall exactly match the corresponding stones on the existing structure.

Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric, character and appearance of the listed building

INFORMATIVE

1) The applicant is reminded that the future works arising from the planned maintenance programme referred to in the Heritage Statement may require listed building consent.

Case Officer: Richard Hazelgrove

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website.

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.

Page 68 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 17/02547/FULL APPLICATION PROPOSAL Redevelopment of existing car park to provide 4no. 3 bedroom residential dwellings (C3 use) with associated parking, landscaping and refuse storage ADDRESS Car Park Culverden Square Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (See section 11.0 of the report for the full recommendation) SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR REFUSAL - The proposal would result in a development that would not respect the context of the site, would fail to re-inforce local distinctiveness and would not integrate appropriately in to the existing built environment.

- The proposal fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

- The proposal would result in an unacceptable level of residential amenity through limited privacy for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings within the rear garden areas;

- All other material considerations have been taken in to account and any public benefits are not considered to outweigh the identified harm that the proposal would cause;

- The proposal would not result in sustainable development;

- Whilst the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing supply, this is not considered sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the development.

INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The following are considered to be material to the application: Contributions (to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement/unilateral undertaking): N/A Net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A Estimated average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A

The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: £674.36 Estimated annual council tax benefit total: £6,743.30 Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 4 years): £4,000 Estimated annual business rates benefits for Borough: N/A as car park is not liable for business rates REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE Called in by Cllr Dr Hall for the following reasons:

Material planning considerations: Impact on residential amenity of the houses in Culverden

Page 69 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Square; Design, bulk and density and impact on Culverden Square:

Reason that warrants discussion at Committee: The particular context of Culverden Square.

Evidence of significant public concern: The numbers of objectors who have submitted written comments

WARD Culverden PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL APPLICANT HPJ Investments 10 Ltd AGENT Metropolis Planning & Design DECISION DUE DATE PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 19/10/17 15/09/17 06/01/17, 22/08/17 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites):

17/00654/TPO Trees: London Plane trees - Pollard Granted 21/04/17

93/01164/FUL Proposal: Demolition of warehouse and Granted 06/04/94 the laying out of a 23 car park and a large landscaped amenity area

History for Westcombe House 2 - 4 Mount Ephraim Royal Tunbridge Wells Kent 16/07532/PNOCLA Notification for Prior Approval for a Prior Approval 11/01/17 Proposed Change of Use of a building Not Required from Office Use (Class B1(a)) to Dwellinghouse (Class C3) - creating 24 new units For its prior approval to: - Transport and highways impacts; - Contamination risk; - Flooding risk; - Impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development 89/01944/FUL Four-storey rear extension Granted 14/03/90

MAIN REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 This site is located to the rear of the A26 St John’s Road. Culverden Square is a cul- de-sac accessed from a narrow gap between Nos. 16 and 18 St Johns Road. It comprises red-brick, two storey uniform Victorian dwellings in pairs and short terraces, closely arranged around the north, south and east sides. In the south-east

Page 70 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

corner is a three storey former warehouse now in use as offices. The road is entirely in private ownership.

1.02 To the west are a number of buildings fronting St Johns Road;

- No. 16, a two storey building in A2 (financial and professional services) use; - No. 18, a two storey building in retail use; - No. 18a (Culverden Evangelical Church); - Nos. 20-26, a four-storey office block which benefits from ‘prior approval’ for conversion to residential use; and - Nos 28-30, a three-storey building which is in retail and office use.

1.03 The application site lies in the centre of Culverden Square and comprises two distinct areas. One is an approximately 500 sq m paved private car park which is for the use of Westcombe House, an office block to the SW on the opposite side of St Johns Road. The car park is surrounded by black painted metal railings/gates and a brick retaining wall with areas of well established planting on three sides.

1.04 To the east is a smaller area set approximately 1.4m lower than the car park which amounts to approximately 260sqm (including pavement areas which wrap around the northern and southern car park boundaries). This is mainly an open paved area with trees, planters and benches, plus metal posts/bollards to prevent vehicular access.

1.05 The site is surrounded on its northern, southern and eastern sides by 14 Tree Preservation Order (TPO) protected London Plane trees, which are regularly spaced (except for a larger gap between tree Nos. 6 and 7 as identified on the plan accompanying the tree report) where presumably a 15th tree previously stood. The car park and open area were constructed in the early-mid 1990s pursuant to a 1994 planning permission (see planning history). This replaced a large storage warehouse that formerly stood on the site and was used by Chiesmans, a former town centre department store.

1.06 Land levels within Culverden Square slope towards the east, the exception being within the car park itself which is artificially levelled (hence the retaining wall dividing the car park from the open area). The applicant does not own the access from St Johns Road to the site, only the site itself.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 The application involves the removal of the car park, approximately half of the wider amenity area and the construction of a terrace of four three-bedroomed dwellings on an east-west orientation within the centre of the site. The dwellings would be two storey with further accommodation within mansard roofs (incorporating a single dormer window). The slab level of the dwellings is shown to be 1.4m lower than the current level of the car park (i.e. at the same level as the existing open amenity area). External materials are largely proposed to be brick and slate. Each dwelling is shown to include a private garden area with a paved area, with lawn closer to the trees.

2.02 The proposal includes a shared parking and turning area to the front of the dwellings, which would be constructed at the level of the existing car park. This includes four parking spaces, 13 cycle spaces and bin storage (the location of which was moved away from the trees via amended plans received on 25/09/17 and 03/10/17). The TPO protected trees are shown to be retained, as are the pedestrian footways to the north and south of the site. The existing vehicular access point is shown to be retained. Movement between the parking area and the houses would be facilitated

Page 71 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

through a set of steps and a ramp. The amended plans received on 25/09/17 and 03/10/17 also use different colouring to identify land to the rear of the dwellings.

2.03 The agent has clarified by e-mail dated 03/10/17 that the green areas shown on the drawings would form part of the private gardens to each unit and would be within the residential curtilage. There would be some form of boundary treatment to the rear however the agent envisages that this could be dealt with by condition.

3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing Proposed Change (+/-)

Site Area (including 1080 sq m 1080 sq m No access from St Johns change Road)

Land use(s) including Private car park 4 x C3 dwellings floor area(s) and an area of privately owned public space (sui generis)

Car parking spaces 23 for use by 4 for use by the -19 Westcombe House proposed dwellings

Cycle spaces Not known 13

No. of storeys N/A 2 with habitable +3 mansard roof area above

Max height N/A 9m (offset by 1.4m + net drop in levels) 7.6m increase

Max eaves height N/A 6m (offset by 1.4m + net drop in levels) 4.6m increase

No. of residential units None 4 +4

No. of affordable units N/A None

Page 72 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Air Quality Management Area

Ashdown Forest 15 Km Habitat Regulation Assessment Zone

Site is adjacent to the Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area (statutory duty to preserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets under the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990)

Inside the Limits to Built Development

Potentially contaminated land around the perimeter of the site

The London Plane trees around the perimeter of the site are protected by Tree Preservation Order (0038/2016)

Woodbury Park Cemetery to the east of Culverden Square is a designated Site of Local Nature Conservation Value, a Grade II listed English Heritage Historic Park and Garden and an Area of Landscape Importance

Nos 32-34 St Johns Road is a Grade II listed building (statutory duty to preserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets under the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990)

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Site Allocations Local Plan July 2016

Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010

CP1 Delivery of Development CP3 Transport CP4 Environment CP5 Sustainable Design and Construction CP6 Housing CP9 Development in Royal Tunbridge Wells

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006

EN1 Development Control Criteria EN5 Development in Conservation Areas EN13 Trees EN15 Statutory Local Nature Reserves and non-statutory nature conservation site EN16 Protection of Groundwater and other Watercourses; EN18 Flood Risk EN22 Areas of Landscape Importance H2 Small and Intermediate Sized dwellings H5 Residential Development within the LBD TP4 Access to the Road network TP5 Vehicle parking standards

Page 73 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

TP6 Tunbridge Wells Central Access Zone (residential) vehicle parking standards TP9 Cycle parking

Supplementary Planning Documents

The Royal Tunbridge Wells and Rusthall CA Appraisal SPD (Nov 2000); Noise and Vibration SPD (2014); Contaminated Land SPD (2016); Renewable Energy SPD (2007); Renewable Energy SPD update (2016);

Other documents:

Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3 (Residential parking);

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

6.01 Five site notices were displayed around the application site and on the main road on 22 August 2017. The application was also advertised in the local press.

6.02 26 objections (including Culverden Square Residents Association) have been received citing various matters which are summarised below;

- Partial loss of the open amenity space, which is used as a play area, for events amongst the local residents, etc. and has facilitated a community spirit and healthy outdoor activities for children and adults; - Loss of bin and cycle storage space for some of the existing dwellings; - Development should be restricted to the existing car park, not the open public amenity space; - Proximity to protected trees (walls and houses) and potential damage during and after construction; - Risk of overall tree loss; - Root protection areas are wider than those quoted within the arboricultural assessment; - Mansard and angular roof form, design, lack of symmetry, windows, materials are inappropriate; - Development is out of character with the specific area; - Density is too high and layout is cramped, site is overdeveloped; - Height, scale and massing are inappropriate; - Design features do not relate to the existing Victorian buildings in the Square – use of dormer windows, flat roofs and contemporary window design – appear to have been more influenced by the constraints of the site; - Harm to the character of the Square due to loss of trees, light and amenity value, and harmful to the open and light appearance of the Square; - Dwellings are wrongly orientated; - Parking/turning area is cramped; - Issues during the construction period; - Displaced parking from car park; - No visitor parking; - Highway and pedestrian safety matters relating to the St Johns Road access; - The access between the main part of the site and St Johns Road is outside the control of the applicants; - Loss of light towards The Warehouse and dwellings on Culverden Square; - Overlooking towards existing dwellings and overbearing; - Minimal contribution towards housing targets;

Page 74 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

- The Culverden Square Residents Association believe that they have ownership rights over the amenity areas within Culverden Square; - The local community has funded the maintenance of the trees, paving and road since it was created; - The community consultation section in the supporting documents is exaggerated; - Description of development is misleading as it does not refer to the open amenity area; - Conflicts with Character Area B4 within the Typical Urban Character Area Appraisal (April 2009) (Officers’ Note: the TUCAA was produced only as supporting evidence for an intended density policy within the 2010 Core Strategy, which was never ultimately taken forward. It is not therefore part of the adopted Development Plan). - Loss of storage areas for the existing residents on the north side of the site.

7.0 CONSULTATIONS

KCC Highways 7.01 (24/08/17) – below threshold for comments.

Mid-Kent Environmental Protection 7.02 (05/09/17) - Land contamination: The report submitted identifies a number of potentially contaminative former uses including the current use as a car park. The report proposes a draft further investigation which appears to be sufficient.

7.03 Air quality: The air quality report indicates that the impact of the development on local air quality will be minimal and that future residents will not be exposed to harmful levels of air quality pollutants. This concurs with recent modelling undertaken by TWBC.

7.04 Noise: No assessment of environmental noise has been submitted with the application. Although the site is shielded from the road by existing buildings to some extent, these are commercial buildings which may have associated plant and delivery vehicles servicing them.

7.05 Conditions recommended re: land contamination and noise levels within the new development.

TWBC Tree Officer 7.06 (verbal comments 27/09/17) - Tree Officer has advised that the re-located bin store would overcome the concern about the proximity to T1 and T2. The matters dealt with under paras 7.08 and 7.09 can be controlled by condition.

7.07 (06/09/17) - The site contains a formal planting of Plane trees around three of the four sides. The trees are described in the (Arboricultural Impact Assessment) AIA accompanying the application. They are relatively young mature trees that have been managed as pollards. The trees are protected by TPO.

7.08 The assumption made in the tree report is that the trees are unlikely to have rooted under the area occupied by the raised car park, however precautions would be taken when excavating this area out to the existing ground levels in case roots were discovered. The area of the site within the Root Protection (RPAs) of various trees would in the main not be reduced to any lower than street level, other than a very small incursion into the RPAs of T8 and T9. It is recommended that all of this would be done under arboricultural supervision.

Page 75 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

7.09 This is considered to be a reasonable approach, although some concerns are raised about how successful this would be around T5, but as long as this was dealt with on the basis that if the tree were damaged it should be replaced, then it would be acceptable.

7.10 Concerns in terms of potential damage, and risk to the trees is the area under T1 and T2, where bins are proposed. This seems to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, it is possible that the proposed boundary treatments could have an impact on the RPAs, and so more information is required here (Officers’ Note – see later Tree Officer comments above).

7.11 The other area of concern is the proximity of the flank wall in relation to trees T7, 8 and 9. In terms of RPA, with careful supervision, it is as said previously, acceptable. As the trees are pollarded regularly, then in terms of physical proximity, it would be acceptable. The reduction of the paved area, and the building so close to the trees would make it a very cramped spatial relationship, which would be detrimental to the impact the trees have on the visual amenity. In these terms, it is considered that the development is a unit too wide.

7.12 From an arboriculture perspective, raise concerns to the proposal because of the unsuitable location for bin storage, and the unsuitable spatial relationship between the trees on the East side and flank wall of the proposed buildings.

TWBC Client Services 7.13 (18/08/17) – Each property would require a green bin and two recycling bins, or there could be two communal recycling bins for the whole development. Access for refuse collection vehicle could be hindered by additional on-road parking on the private road.

TWBC Parking Services 7.14 (21/08/17 and 23/08/17) – Comments summarised as;

- Part of the consideration of the proposal should be what happens to any cars displaced from the site, as this is unknown. It is not clear whether it is staff or visitors or a combination of both whom currently occupy it?

- There is considerable pressure on roadside parking in this part of Tunbridge Wells and it is quite likely that additional parking controls may be required to address existing problems;

- Concerns about insufficient space to meet that demand, and this will start to impact negatively on business and retail uses in the town.

- Any shift to alternative means of travel is unlikely to keep pace especially in the absence of attractive public transport facilities.

- The cumulative effect of the loss of parking elsewhere within the town needs to be considered. Acknowledge that making this a reason for refusing an application would be difficult as planning policy locally and nationally no longer provide much support for retention of offstreet parking space.

TWBC Conservation Officer 7.15 (verbal) – Historic mapping and the case officer’s own research seems to indicate that the design intention for a square may have been incidental and for a brief period of time, which gives much less weight to this remaining an square for historic

Page 76 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

reasons. It would then come down to how this is appreciated as a shared open space at the moment with reference to design policy rather than historic environment issues.

TWBC Landscape & Biodiversity Officer 7.16 (verbal) – No Phase 1 habitat survey is necessary. Recommend conditions relating to biodiversity enhancements.

Tunbridge Wells Civic Society 7.17 (13/09/17) - Oppose this application on the following grounds:

7.18 This is a very congested area, in particular because of the lack of parking. The proposal, by the owners of Westcombe House, is related to the intention to convert the building to residential under Permitted Development Rights. It is not clear whether, and when, this will take place, but it will not reduce the demand for parking in the area. It is not realistic to assume that the future residents of Westcombe House will not require parking, and there is no way of enforcing this.

7.19 Part of the land for this development is laid out as a paved amenity area, with trees and other planting. It is understood that the ownership of this part of the land is disputed, but regardless of this, the area is an essential asset for the residents of Culverden Square, and has wider value in this area adjoining Woodbury Park Cemetery. The trees on the eastern side would [not] survive development of the site in the form proposed, while the trees on the northern side should remain in the communal space, rather than being enclosed in the private gardens of the proposed houses.

7.20 Four houses on the proposed site are excessive, and results in a cramped layout and very tight parking in the forecourt. The orientation of the houses also destroys the surviving character of the square as an open space enclosed by buildings. If development of the carpark is acceptable at all the buildings should be orientated to the east and the scale should replicate that of the houses on the north and south sides of the square.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS (taken from part 8 of the Planning Statement);

8.01 The proposed application involves the redevelopment of the existing car park at Culverden Square to provide 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings. The application follows two pre-application meetings with the LPA where the principle of the development was considered acceptable.

8.02 The proposed scheme has been designed to integrate well within the Culverden Square context through the configuration of the design and use of matching materials. The proposed scheme will provide attractive family sized accommodation in a sustainable location. The proposed scheme complies with the relevant policies within the Development Plan and is considered acceptable.

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS

9.01 Application form Planning Statement Covering letter dated 28/07/17 Arboricultural report and attached plan Desktop Contamination report dated 25/05/17

Page 77 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Transport Statement Air Quality Assessment Design & Access Statement Letter from agent dated 25/09/17 E-mail from agent 03/10/17 Overlay plan Drawing number 255_GE_01 A Drawing number 255_S_01 B Drawing number 255_ES_01 C Drawing number 255_GA_02 A Drawing number 255_GA_00 D Drawing number 255_GA_RF C Drawing number 255_GA_01 A Drawing number 255_S_02 C Drawing number 255_EX_00 A Drawing number 255_GE_02 B Drawing number 255_GS_01 A

10.0 APPRAISAL

10.01 The main issues are:

- Background matter: the status of the land subject to this application; - The principle of the development; - Design and visual impact; - Impact upon the setting of the Tunbridge Wells CA and other heritage constraints; - Trees; - Residential amenity; - Highways and parking; - Other matters.

Background matter: the status of the land subject to this application

10.02 The site partly comprises a private car park, the use of which is not controlled by a planning condition, except in requiring it to be used for parking ancillary to Westcombe House. This does not mean that it has to be retained in perpetuity for that use. The open area of pavement on the eastern side of the site is not a designated public open space by any planning policy (in the same way that a municipal park or play area is). It is wholly in private ownership but has been used by local residents as a communal outdoor area / children’s play area for many years now. There are no conditions on the 1994 permission requiring it to remain open and accessible to the public.

Principle of Development

10.03 Para 47 of the NPPF requires the Council to meet the full, objectively assessed needs (OAN) for market and affordable housing in the Borough and to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% buffer. The Council currently cannot demonstrate a five year housing supply compliant with the OAN figure (albeit untested). In such situations the NPPF advises that:

“housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should

Page 78 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”’ (Para 49).

10.04 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that where such policies are out-of-date, a presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and local planning authorities should grant permission:

“unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

10.05 The issue of sustainability is multi-faceted, incorporating economic, social and environmental considerations. The site is in a very accessible location due to its proximity to services/facilities. It is located within the LBD of Tunbridge Wells where adopted (but now out of date) Policy H5 of the Local Plan indicates that infill development can be acceptable. The provision of four dwellings would contribute to the Borough’s housing need, which would have social and economic benefits. The application site is previously developed land (PDL).

10.06 However, as set out later in this report, the proposal raises significant concerns (i.e. adverse impacts) with regards to its visual impacts and the impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the development. Having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the requirements of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, planning permission should therefore be refused and the reasons for this are set out in the rest of the report. Overall, the proposal is not considered to comprise sustainable development and there are objections in principle to the proposal.

Design and visual impact

Policy background and guidance 10.07 In design terms the proposal falls to be considered against the relevant policies and guidance at local and national level. LP Policy EN1 requires the design of a proposal to respect the context of its site and that the proposal would not result in the loss of significant buildings, related spaces, trees, shrubs, hedges, or other features important to the character of the built up area. CP4 (1) requires the Borough’s urban landscapes to be conserved and enhanced.

10.08 Part 7 of the NPPF addresses good design, which is a key aspect of sustainable development (para 56). Para 58, inter alia, requires that developments respond to local character and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; also that they are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. Importantly, para 60 of the NPPF states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness’. Para 61 states that;

‘Although visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors, securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Therefore, planning policies and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.’ This is considered particularly relevant as the current layout of the site was partly designed for public use.

Page 79 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.09 Para 64 states that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions’. Para 69 sets out that ‘Planning policies and decisions, in turn, should aim to achieve places which promote:

- Opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres and active street frontages which bring together those who live, work and play in the vicinity, and;

- Safe and accessible developments, contacting clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas.

10.10 Para 131 underlines the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

10.11 Design is also addressed within the PPG. Paragraph 001:26 sets out that good design responds in a practical and creative way to both the function and identity of a place. It puts land and other such resources to the best possible use – over the long and short term. Paragraph 006:26 underlines the importance of the physical environment supporting economic, social and environmental objectives beyond the requirement for good design in its own right. Issues such as local character and the creation of cohesive and vibrant neighbourhoods and provision of public places. Paragraph 020:26 underlies that distinctiveness is what often makes a place special and valued. It relies on physical aspects such as the local pattern of street blocks and plots, building forms, details and materials, style and vernacular plus landform and gardens, parks, trees and plants. Paragraph: 040 Reference ID: 26-040-20140306 requires consideration to be given to the servicing of dwellings such as the storage of bins and bikes, which should be carefully considered and well designed to ensure they are discreet and can be easily used in a safe way. It also states that unsightly bins can damage the visual amenity of an area. Carefully planned bin storage is, therefore, particularly important. Local authorities should ensure that each dwelling is carefully planned to ensure there is enough discretely designed and accessible storage space for all the different types of bin used in the local authority area (for example landfill, recycling, food waste).

Appraisal 10.12 Successful design and local distinctiveness is broadly measured by some or all of a number of factors which may influence what will make the scale, height, massing, alignment, materials and proposed use of new development successful in its context. These include;

- The general character and distinctiveness of the area in its widest sense, including the general character of local buildings, spaces, public realm and the landscape; - The grain of the surroundings, which includes, for example the street pattern and plot size; - The size and density of the proposal related to that of the existing and neighbouring uses; - The diversity or uniformity in style, construction, materials, colour, detailing, decoration and period of existing buildings and spaces; - The current and historic uses in the area and the urban grain.

Page 80 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.13 The open area was purposely designed as part of the scheme which was granted planning permission in 1994. The delegated report to that application sets out that the open area along the eastern side was introduced following pre-application discussions with the then Conservation Officer, as given the setting of Culverden Square if was felt that a development which sought to replace the former warehouse should be correctly detailed and carefully landscaped. The distinctive open area was included as a means of making the car park less intensive. The trees were intended as replacements for trees that formerly stood around the warehouse but could not be retained owing to root damage arising from their proximity to its walls. The open area is currently somewhat compromised by parking but still includes high quality open amenity space. It is surrounded on three sides by low planting, which softens the impact of the car park. The low profile of the existing raised car park still allows views across the Square, with the terraced houses providing a sense of enclosure. The general openness within the centre of the site gives Culverden Square a strong, distinctive sense of place owing to its special, simple character and hidden, backland position. In urban design terms this still needs to be respected. Loss or significant erosion of the openness of the site would not be appropriate, regardless of any past building presence there.

10.14 The open pavement area is currently 7.2m wide (when measured from the edge of the retaining wall surrounding the parking area to the edge of the roadside kerb). There are also two paved paths adjacent to the north and south boundaries of the car park, albeit the northern one is occupied by various items that presumably belong to the local residents, such as a log store, BBQ, picnic bench etc. Both these areas are indicated to remain but the main open area is shown to be narrowed to 3.8m to accommodate one of the houses. This area includes the trees themselves. The trees would end up being very close to the flank wall of house No. 4, creating a cramped, crowded and unappealing space and development when viewed from the eastern side of the Square. The quality of the remaining open space would be significantly lower than the existing open space.

10.15 The appearance of Culverden Square would also be harmed as the introduction of a large and prominent building would restrict views and erode the sense of being within a square. There is also concern regarding the loss of the landscaping around the perimeter of the car park – the replacement development would only seek to provide landscaping within the front garden areas of the dwellings, which would be largely hidden from the view of the road owing to the change in levels between the proposed car park and the dwellings themselves. The mock-up ‘views’ presented within the design and access statement (which include landscaping) are not verified and inconsistent with the submitted plans.

10.16 Overall the proposal would result in an unacceptable intrusion in to the open character of the site and the diminution of the open space area which, irrespective of the fact that buildings formerly stood on the site, is a focal point of the Square. What would remain would be little more than a wide pavement (the area is labelled as such on the plans) through which movement would be restricted by the presence of the trees. Whilst there are no planning conditions or planning legal agreements that require this area to remain open and available for public use, the resulting partial loss of this area is considered to represent poor design which would not ‘respect the context of the site’ (LP EN1-3), would result in the loss of a significant related space which is important to the character of this built-up area (LP EN1-4) and would not conserve the urban landscape (CP 4-1). Similarly, in this respect the development would not respond to local character, would not reflect the identity of local surroundings, is neither innovative nor original in the way it develops the site, would be visually unattractive, would not re-inforce local distinctiveness and would not

Page 81 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

integrate appropriately in to the existing built environment (NPPF paras 58 and 60- 61). The open area amounts to an active street frontage which brings together people who live, work and play in the vicinity (NPPF para 69) and the development would not result in the same high quality public space, whose active use is likely to be discouraged.

10.17 The visual harm arising from the loss of soft landscaping, the cramped relationship with the trees and the partial loss of the open area are not the only matters of concern. The combination of the height of the dwellings relative to the plot in which they are situated; the proximity to the office block and Nos. 20-26 St Johns Road; plus the excavation works and retaining walls necessary to accommodate the dwellings also contribute to a sense of a cramped development which appears to attempt to cram too much built form in to what is a restricted site. The agent points to the prevailing pattern and character of development within the street and compliance with national space standards as justification for a terrace of four houses, but density and space standards alone do not justify the quantum of development being proposed. The rear section of the office block at Nos. 20-26 St Johns Road steps down and this reflects the drop in land levels as one progresses in to Culverden Square. By contrast the ridge heights of the proposed dwellings would extend above the height of the lowest part of the terrace to the rear of the office block. This creates an incongruous feature and exacerbates the cramped appearance of the development.

10.18 Concern is also raised with the roof form of the proposed dwellings. The surrounding roofs are primarily low-pitch and two storey, without dormer windows on the front elevations. Their impact is exacerbated by the prominent location in the site. As it is, the roof forms of the proposed dwellings appear bulky, out of context, would not respond to local character, would not reflect the identity of local surroundings, would not re-inforce local distinctiveness and would not integrate appropriately in to the existing built environment.

10.19 Whilst the central space may have been occupied by buildings for much of the 20th century, this pre-dates the current chapter in the planning history of the site as an amenity area used for both private and semi-private purposes. The houses within Culverden Square are of their time (Victorian working-class homes) and are not all terraced. In addition to the above, the front parking area appears cluttered and cramped, even allowing for the movement of the bin stores as shown in the amended plans and the TRAC diagrams showing the movement of vehicles within the parking area. It would also appear that the pedestrian ramp cannot be accessed from the car park.

10.20 There are other aspects of the development which are considered more acceptable. The design of the houses seeks to achieve a more modern feel which as a design approach is not considered inappropriate. The use of brick reflects the materials found within the square and all external materials could have been controlled by condition had a grant of permission been recommended.

10.21 As set out above, it is accepted that there are no planning requirements to keep the area open and accessible to local residents, It is proposed, in line with NPPF para 64, that permission should be refused as the development fails to reinforce the distinctive characteristics of the area and to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of this area and the way it functions.

Page 82 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Impact upon the settings of the CA, the Historic Park and Garden (HPG), Area of Landscape Importance (ALI) and listed building

10.22 The site is located very close to the CA; the boundary at its nearest point runs along the southern edge of the access road and then turns south along the rear boundaries of Nos. 2-16 St Johns Road. The site is also contiguous with the CA in terms of urban grain – ‘discovered’ open space is valuable to the Victorian layout of this area of terraced housing. To be clear, this section considers the impact on the setting of the CA only.

10.23 The site at present makes a limited contribution to the CA. This is because of the contribution it makes to the overall CA setting and because its visibility is limited to the entrance to the square that is bordered by the CA. The private access road leading to Culverden Square is also partly within the CA, but this is semi-private land and not strictly the ‘public realm’.

10.24 However, the contiguous nature of the pattern and character of development between Culverden Square and the edge of the CA to the south is such that if the original design intention had been that Culverden Square should be arranged around central open space, the loss of that space would have a harmful impact on the setting of the CA through the presence of harmful infill development close to the boundary.

10.25 Para 131 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Paras 133 and 134 require a balance of public benefits to be applied should new development be considered to cause substantial harm, or less substantial harm, to the significance of the heritage asset. Para 137 states;

“Local Planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within CAs and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably.”

10.26 Impact on the setting of the CA also falls to be considered under LP policy EN5; then more broadly under EN1 and CS Policy 4, which seeks to conserve and enhance the Borough’s urban environments (including CAs) at criteria (1) and (5).

10.27 Whether the proposal would be harmful to the setting of the adjacent CA rests largely on whether the application site was originally intended to be an open focal point for the rest of the houses in Culverden Square. The facts relating to this matter are that most of the site has been occupied by a warehouse building from at least 1909 until the mid 1990s and then by a private raised car park/open paved area. The houses are arranged as if around a central square, but the land use has always been private and available for development, and historic maps back up this view. The square has gained a degree of openness through the low profile nature of the car park and the wide pavement area.

10.28 The proposal has been discussed with the Council’s Conservation and Urban Design Officer. The proposed development includes only a very small area of open space compared to what currently exists. However, it is not considered that refusal on the grounds of harm to the setting of the adjacent CA can be justified as 1) the use of the central section to accommodate buildings appears to have been the original design intention for the site and 2) the length of time that the site has been open and free of buildings is somewhat less than the period of time it was occupied by buildings.

Page 83 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.29 The application site has no functional relationship with Woodbury Park Cemetery and historic mapping consistently shows Culverden Square as an entirely separate development. The lack of a historic association, the intervening distance and the presence of intervening buildings are such that no impact is considered to be created towards the HPG, nor to the ALI. There would be no impact on the setting of the Grade II listed building at 32-34 St Johns Road.

Trees 10.30 The trees on site are protected by a TPO. None are proposed to be removed. The Tree Officer identified an area of concern relating to the use of the area in front of trees T1 and T2 (the trees in the SW corner of the site) for bin storage, however the plans have been amended to take the bin stores further away from the tree stems. Coupled with appropriate conditions this revised layout is likely to be acceptable (in terms of tree health impacts only).

10.31 The other area of concern raised by the Tree Officer relates to the proximity of the flank wall of house No. 4 in relation to trees T7, 8 and 9. As the trees are pollarded regularly, then in terms of physical proximity, no issues are raised. The main concern raised is that the combination of the reduction of the paved area, and the building’s proximity to the trees would create a cramped spatial relationship, which would be detrimental to the contribution of the trees towards visual amenity. This matter has been addressed earlier in the report.

Highways and parking

10.32 The Class O prior approval notification for Westcombe House excluded the Culverden Square car park within its red line area and does not require its retention. There are no conditions on the original permission (93/01164/FUL) that require it to remain available for parking either. The only control over its ongoing use is that it is restricted to the occupiers of Westcombe House. The owners could close it off at any time without further recourse to the Council.

10.33 Officers consider the impacts from the proposal must be assessed in two ways:

- Firstly the impact in terms of traffic generation and movement; and - Secondly upon parking pressure on the surrounding area.

Traffic Generation 10.34 The NPPF supports sustainable developments that promote transport uses and reduce the need to travel. Paragraph 38 states that for larger-scale residential developments, planning policies should promote a mix of uses and facilities should be within walking distance.

10.35 The applicant has submitted a Transport Statement to set out the impacts of the proposal in this regard although it does not make reference to comparative trip numbers. Nevertheless, it is recognised that an existing 23-space commercial car park (the transport assessment incorrectly describes it as a public car park) and four dwellings are likely to have comparable numbers of vehicle movements. The access point on to St Johns Road is used by 21 other dwellings and a commercial office building, along with the 31-space office car park serving Nos. 20-26 St Johns Road.

10.36 Taking into consideration Paragraph 38 of the NPPF, the site’s location close to the town centre surrounded by shops, good public transport and a short walk from Tunbridge Wells railway station, this site is considered to be a sustainable location

Page 84 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

for residential development supported by the NPPF. It is not therefore considered that the application can be refused on the grounds of traffic generation and associated highway safety matters.

Car Parking Impacts 10.37 Policy TP6 of the Local Plan states that a maximum parking standard of one space per dwelling will apply in the town’s Central Access Zone; and that with regards to larger-scale residential development, a contribution towards the implementation of a Residents’ Parking Zone may be sought if the need for the zone is directly related to the development. The Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3 (IGN3) sets out at p.10 that a maximum of one space per unit should be sought in town centre locations; reduced, or even nil provision is encouraged in support of demand management and the most efficient use of land. The plans show that one space per dwelling would be provided in the communal parking area. No visitor spaces are shown; however IGN3 directs visitor parking in areas such as this to on-street parking and public car parks. Culverden Square is also entirely private land and therefore parking within it is controlled by the freehold owner. Thus limited weight can be given to this consideration from a highway safety angle.

10.38 There is a difference between the inconveniences of high parking pressure to local residents and parking-related highway safety. Inspectors have, at appeal, normally only given weight to highway safety issues arising from parking. It would be difficult to directly attribute a significant parking-related safety issue directly to this development, given the number of other buildings that already use the surrounding roads, the slow speed that vehicles are likely to travel at in the area around the St Johns Road access point, the on-street controls in the surrounding roads and the fact that there is parking availability in nearby streets and public car parks. Therefore, in this instance, it is not considered that the proposal would cause harm to highway safety.

10.39 TWBC Parking Services have raised parking, particularly the loss of the office car park as an issue. However the extant prior approval for the conversion of Westcombe House to residential use (16/07532/PNOCLA) does not require the retention of the Culverden Square car park. It would be very difficult to object to the loss of the car park as there are no conditions on the original permission (93/01164/FUL) that require it to remain available for parking either. The only control over its ongoing use is that it is tied by condition to Westcombe House. The owners could close it off at any time without further recourse to the Council.

10.40 The Council’s Parking Services Manager has not raised objections as such, but has raised concerns with regards to the additional demand for parking and the implications for conflict with existing residential properties where supply does not meet demand.

10.41 However, it must be stressed that as the car park is not required to be kept available for the offices or any other site, any parking available for the current occupants of the building could be lost at any time. The Local Planning Authority would not be able to prevent this.

10.42 In summary, the evidence before the LPA is such that it would simply not be capable of sustaining an objection to this planning application on highway safety and parking grounds given the location of the site, and the ability of TWBC Parking to restrict the issuance of parking permits for nearby residential streets which are within the public highway.

Page 85 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Residential amenity

Existing surrounding dwellings 10.43 The proposal has the potential to affect a number of dwellings surrounding the site. The gap between the flank wall of proposed house No. 4 and the front elevations of Nos. 3-4 Culverden Square is 12.4m. The gap between the front elevations of the dwellings and Nos. 1-2 Culverden Square is 18-19m, as is the gap between the rear elevations of the dwellings and Nos. 14-18 Culverden Square. Given the difference in levels between the existing and proposed dwellings, the presence of the trees (which act as a filter) the width of the street and the close-knit nature of town centre residential uses it is not considered refusal can be recommended on the grounds of overlooking, loss of outlook or proximity to the boundary.

Future occupiers of the development 10.44 The building to the west of the site at Nos. 20-26 St Johns Road is currently in office use, but has an unimplemented prior approval for residential use. At the rear of this building are two open terraced areas serving the first and second floors respectively, which are arranged in a tiered formation. These currently overlook the Culverden Square car park and the associated open space alongside it. This area is shown to be outdoor amenity space for the proposed residential development.

10.45 The houses have been designed with their rear elevations angled away from Nos. 20-26 St Johns Road. Whilst this mitigates overlooking from the second floor terrace in to the rear habitable rooms of the houses, the entire garden area of houses 2-4 and some of No. 1’s garden area will be visible from the terrace. This overlooking would be possible whether the building is in office or residential use. This is proposed to form the second refusal reason owing to conflict with LP Policy EN1 and para 17 of the NPPF, which requires that the planning system should ‘always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings’.

Other matters 10.46 As the proposal is for less than 10 dwellings, it is below the threshold for developer contributions and affordable housing to be secured (in line with PPG advice).

10.47 The application form states that foul and surface water will be disposed of by way of the mains sewer. There would already be a degree of surface water run-off associated with the car park use. TWBC’s usual approach (if looking to recommend approval) would be that surface water would be attenuated on site and then discharged at a slower rate, to create sufficient “headway” for the increase in foul water. The agent has set out via an e-mail dated 3/10/17 that the existing area of car park totals approx. 533 sqm which compared to the built footprint of the dwellings will be only approx. 206.4 sqm. The remainder of the site presents an opportunity for permeable paving or permeable landscaping. It is considered highly likely that this matter could have been addressed through further information and relevant condition(s) in the event that the recommendation had not been to refuse permission.

10.48 On the basis of the evidence available at this point in time, the impact of this proposal on the Ashdown Forest as a Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation has been considered. It is considered there will not be a likely significant impact.

10.49 The recommended contaminated land conditions could have been used had a grant of permission been recommended. The Mid-Kent Environmental Protection team do not raise objections to the Air Quality Assessment.

Page 86 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.50 Objectors have alleged the description of development is misleading because it does not explicitly refer to the open amenity area. The development of the open area is clearly being considered as part of the proposal; this is evident not only from the plans themselves but also from the comments from the general public and the considerations set out in this report.

10.51 The Landscape & Biodiversity Officer has been consulted regarding protected species impacts, given the proximity of the site to the Woodbury Park Cemetery. If a grant of permission has been recommended, conditions could have been sought to secure biodiversity enhancements.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE for the following reasons;

REASONS

1) The proposal, by reason its scale, siting, and roof form would result in an overdevelopment of the site that erodes the openness of Culverden Square and results in a cramped relationship with retained trees. It would therefore fail to reinforce local distinctiveness and would not integrate appropriately with the existing built environment. The proposal fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions and is therefore not considered to be sustainable development. It is thus contrary to Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, Policy CP4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, the 'Design' section of the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2) The proposal would result in an unacceptable level of residential amenity through limited privacy for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings within the rear garden areas. This would arise through overlooking from the first floor terrace at the rear of Nos. 20-26 St Johns Road. The proposal is thus contrary to Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

INFORMATIVES

(1) The plans taken into consideration in reaching the decision to refuse planning permission are:

Application form Planning Statement Covering letter dated 28/07/17 Arboricultural report and attached plan Desktop Contamination report dated 25/05/17 Transport Statement Air Quality Assessment Design & Access Statement Letter from agent dated 25/09/17 E-mail from agent 03/10/17 Overlay plan Drawing number 255_GE_01 A Drawing number 255_S_01 B Drawing number 255_ES_01 C Drawing number 255_GA_02 A Drawing number 255_GA_00 D

Page 87 Agenda Item 7(D) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Drawing number 255_GA_RF C Drawing number 255_GA_01 A Drawing number 255_S_02 C Drawing number 255_EX_00 A Drawing number 255_GE_02 B Drawing number 255_GS_01 A

Case Officer: Richard Hazelgrove

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website.

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.

Page 88 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

REPORT SUMMARY

REFERENCE NO - 17/02727/FULL APPLICATION PROPOSAL Variation of Condition 2 (Approved plans) of 17/00038/FULL (Two-storey rear extension and replacement garage block) - Change brickwork to ground floor of garage to weatherboard ADDRESS Swaylands Barn Cranbrook Road Benenden Cranbrook Kent TN17 4ET RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to conditions (see section 11 of report for full recommendation) SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION - Whilst the proposal represents a material change from the scheme originally approved under reference 17/00038/FULL the proposal is considered to be minor in nature.

- It is considered that the proposal would not harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the scale, location and design of the development would preserve its character and appearance.

- The proposal is considered to be at the very edge of being acceptable in terms of the Local Plan policy restricting the size of residential extensions outside the Limits to Built Development, but as part of a finely balanced decision is considered to broadly accord with this policy.

- The scale, location and design of the development would respect the context of the site and preserve the landscape character of the locality.

- There would not be any significant adverse impact upon occupants of neighbouring properties.

INFORMATION ABOUT FINANCIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL The following are considered to be material to the application: Contributions (to be secured through Section 106 legal agreement/unilateral undertaking): N/A Net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A Estimated average annual workplace salary spend in Borough through net increase in numbers of jobs: N/A The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: N/A Estimated annual council tax benefit total: N/A Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 4 years): N/A Estimated annual business rates benefits for Borough: N/A REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE The applicant is a Borough Councillor WARD Benenden & PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL APPLICANT Mr & Mrs T Cranbrook Benenden Parish Council Dawlings

Page 89 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

AGENT Offset Architects DECISION DUE DATE PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE 13/10/17 15/09/17 10/01/17 and 09/08/17 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and relevant history on adjoining sites): 17/00038/FULL Two-storey rear extension and Granted 11/08/17 replacement garage block 17/00234/FULL Part Retrospective - Change of use of Granted 11/08/17 land for location of shepherds hut and for use of hut as occasional ancillary accommodation to main dwelling and a holiday let 16/500474/FULL Proposed replacement garage Withdrawn 08/02/17 16/500473/FULL Proposed two storey rear extension. Withdrawn 08/02/17 Including demolition of existing garage. 99/01894/FUL Erection of garage Granted 09/12/99 82/01019/FUL Stationing of caravan for temporary Granted (until 25/10/82 period 31st October 1984 only) 80/01148/FUL Conversion of barn to dwelling Granted 12/10/81 80/00670/FUL Conversion of barn to dwelling Refused 10/09/80

MAIN REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 This application relates to a former barn that has been converted into a dwelling following planning permission that was granted in 1981. It is a large dwelling in a rural location within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the outskirts of Benenden. It takes the form of a two storey converted agricultural barn with a steep pitched roof which is sited in the eastern corner of the land holding. There are two garages within the curtilage, one of which is a brick-built structure used more for general storage (“the larger garage”) and another purpose built garage granted permission in 1999 (“the smaller garage”).

1.02 Access is via an unmade track which serves a number of other dwellings, leading from Cranbrook Road. The nearest settlement is a group of dwellings loosely arranged around a former farm known as Mounts Hill Farm and an area known as Hemstead Corner around 300-400m to the south. The only neighbouring dwelling is Swaylands to the east; the application site is otherwise surrounded by open fields. The total land associated with the dwelling amounts to six acres (2.4ha), about two thirds of which is paddock land which is used to graze various livestock along with horses and llamas. In the corner of one of the paddocks, approximately 65m from the house and adjacent to the curtilage, is a mock shepherd’s hut which was granted retrospective permission for mixed use as holiday accommodation and for ancillary residential use in August 2017 (application reference 17/000234/FULL).

Page 90 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

2.0 PROPOSAL

Previous application and extant permission 2.01 Planning permission 17/00038/FULL was granted in August 2017 for a 1½ storey extension to the dwelling, which sits alongside the existing house as a distinct structure in a staggered arrangement. The extension was shown to be set 3m away from the existing dwelling with a similar roof pitch to its host. The approved external materials are largely weatherboarding, a brick plinth at ground level, timber joinery and a clay tiled roof. The larger garage would be demolished to make way for the extension.

2.02 That proposal included the demolition of the smaller garage and its replacement with a 1½ storey garage/store in the same location. The approved building includes a feed store on the ground floor along with a two bay garage; on the upper floor is an office/filing room. The SW roof slope includes three dormer windows, there is a small log store to the SE elevation and the first floor is accessible via an external staircase. The approved external materials are also proposed to be black weatherboarding with clay tiles.

Current proposal 2.03 The current application seeks a Minor Material Amendment to the above permission. The proposed amendment is to change the external ground floor materials of the new garage from brickwork to black weatherboarding. This would result in all of the external walls of the building being finished in this way. No other changes are proposed and the dimensions of the previously approved garage/extension remain as approved by Members at the 9 August Planning Committee meeting.

3.0 SUMMARY INFORMATION

Existing Granted Current Change from Change planning proposal existing between permission 17/00038 under and 17/00038 existing No. of 2 2 2 No change No storeys change Max Dwelling: Extension: Extension: Extension No height 8.3m 6.9m 6.9m 1.4m lower change Larger Garage: Garage: than existing Garage: 6.2m 6.2m dwelling. 4.3m. Garage 1.2 – Smaller 1.9m higher garage: than existing 5m garage structures. Max Dwelling: Extension: Extension: Extension No eaves 4.3m 3.5m. 3.5m. eaves 0.8m change height Larger Garage: Garage: lower than Garage: 3.6m 3.6m existing 2.5m. dwelling. Smaller Garage eaves

Page 91 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

garage: 1.1m higher 2.5m than existing garage structures. No. of 1 1 1 No change No residential change units Volume of Smaller Garage: Garage: +201.78 cubic No garages garage: 451.58 451.58 cubic metres of change 112.8 cubic metres garaging cubic metres metres. Larger garage: 137 cubic metres

Volume of 720 cubic Extension: Extension: +586.1 cubic No dwelling metres 586.1 cubic 586.1 cubic metres change metres metres (includes (includes cart cart shed shed structure on structure on NE NE elevation) elevation)

4.0 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of their landscapes - National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 & Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000)

Limits to built development OUTSIDE

5.0 POLICY AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): March 2012

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG): March 2014 and updated online thereafter

Site Allocations Local Plan July 2016

Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy (CS) 2010:

Core Policy 4: Environment Core Policy 5: Sustainable Design and Construction Core Policy 14: Development in the villages and rural areas

Page 92 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (LP) 2006:

Policy LBD1: Limits to Built Development Policy EN1: Development Control Criteria Policy EN25: Development Control Criteria for all development proposals affecting the rural landscape Policy H11: Extensions outside the Limits to Built Development Policy TP4: Access to the road network. Policy TP5: Vehicle Parking Standards.

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

Kent Design Guide Review: Interim Guidance Note 3 (IGN3) (Residential parking)

Landscape Character Area Assessment

Alterations and Extensions SPD

Other documents

High Weald AONB Management Plan 2014 - 2019

6.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS

Two site notices were displayed in August 2017. No comments have been received in response.

7.0 CONSULTATIONS

Benenden Parish Council 7.01 No comments received.

8.0 APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING COMMENTS

8.01 None submitted

9.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS AND PLANS

9.01 Application form

10.0 APPRAISAL

10.01 In this case, the main issues to be considered are;

- The principle of the development (including visual impact, design and layout and impacts upon the AONB); - Residential amenity; - Highways and parking; - Ecology.

10.02 This application is a ‘Minor Material Amendment’ to an extant planning permission. The only proposed change is to the external materials on the ground floor of the

Page 93 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

garage. If granted, the new permission would function as an amendment to the first planning permission, with the changes incorporated in to it.

Principle of the development 10.03 The key policy which this proposal would be considered against would remain as LP Policy H11. This seeks to limit the size of residential extensions outside the LBD to those which are considered ‘modest’. However, the very limited scope of change proposed here is such that very few additional issues are raised with respect to the principle of the development.

10.04 With regards to Criterion (1), as the 9 August report concluded that as the host dwelling was formed from a conversion undertaken in the early 1980s, this criterion is considered to be met.

10.05 Criterion (2): this requires that the development would be modest, in scale with the original dwelling, would not dominate it visually nor result in a poorly proportioned building, nor detract from its character and setting. The respective volumes involved with the previously approved scheme are set out in the table above and resulted in a total net increase of approximately 144%. Whilst that significantly exceeded the 50% guideline within H11, it was considered that (with regards to the new garage);

- The proposal would result in the demolition of both existing garages (249.8 cubic metres) which would visually benefit the site; - The garage was not intended as a wholly ancillary residential structure; part of the ground floor was intended to be used as a feed store connected to the wider grazing/agricultural use of the land; - The first floor office would only be a ‘home-office’ rather than a commercial space. - Overall, and as part of a finely balanced decision, the garage structure was modest and subservient in comparison to the host dwelling.

10.06 It was also felt that the extension was acceptable as;

- The proposed siting was between the bulk of the existing house and the substantial boundary hedging; - It was within the existing curtilage with limited views from the pubic realm; - Wider landscape and AONB impact would be quite limited and not substantially harmful; - The lower ridge height, use of similar materials and the set-down in to the ground would all reduce the visual challenge that the extension poses to the main house and give it a subservient appearance; - The extension was considered to be well-proportioned in terms of its height, scale, form and fenestration. It was not considered to cause over-development within the extensive residential curtilage. - The materials used on the extension could be conditioned to closely mirror those on the host dwelling; - The main dwelling was still clearly identifiable as the main house and the extension identifiable as a later addition; - The design approach for the extension, utilising a steeply pitched roof to match the main barn, prevented significant harm to the character and appearance of Swaylands Barn; - Overall the additions would not result in a significant level of harm. In reaching this conclusion, regard was had to the cumulative impact of the positioning of the shepherd’s hut (17/00234).

Page 94 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

10.06 The proposal involves only a change of materials without any volumetric increase. The design, use of materials and relationship with the main dwelling are all still considered appropriate and not to be significantly harmful in this location. Thus Criterion (2) is considered to be met.

10.07 Criterion (3) requires that the development would not lend itself to future sub-division to form a separate dwelling. The condition restricting the use of the garage as ancillary to the main dwelling/landholding can be repeated.

10.08 The proposal is therefore considered to be a minor change and the principle of the development remains acceptable.

Other issues 10.09 As with last time, due to the nature of the garage there would be no material impact from the proposal by way of overlooking, overshadowing, noise or any other neighbour amenity issues.

10.10 When the last application was considered, the ancillary use of the garage and extension were such that no significant impact was considered to be caused in respect of highway safety. The garage bays still meet with KCC standards for bay width/depth and the same conclusions are considered valid with respect to the amended proposal.

10.11 There was considered to be a limited impact upon ecology/biodiversity interests with the first permission and the same remains the case now.

Summary 10.12 Last time, Officers considered this proposal to be at the very edge of what is acceptable, and the recommendation was finely balanced. The changes involved with this proposal are not considered to alter that view. Overall, the development as presented in this amended form is not considered to have a significantly adverse impact upon visual amenity, the High Weald AONB (as part of a finely balanced decision), the wider landscape, the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, ecology or highway safety. It is not considered there is significant conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policies LBD1, EN1, EN25 and, on balance, H11 of The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan, Core Policies 4, 5 & 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy and Part 5 of the TWBC Extensions and Alterations SPD.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION – GRANT Subject to the following conditions.

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before 11 August 2020.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

(2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing numbers 4861-PD-02 dated June 2017 (drawing approved under 17/00038/FULL), 4861-PD-03A dated June 2017.

Reason: To clarify which plans are approved.

Page 95 Agenda Item 7(E) Planning Committee Report 11 October 2017

(3) The external materials and finishes to be used for the approved development shall be of the same size, colour, tone and texture as those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To assimilate the new development with the existing in the interests of visual amenity

(4) The extension and garage block hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling (known as Swaylands Barn Cranbrook Road Benenden Cranbrook Kent TN17 4ET at the time of the application) and the wider land attached to it outlined in blue on the site location plan submitted with the original application 17/00038/FULL (4861-PD-01 dated September 2016).

Reasons: To prevent the formation of a substandard dwelling without adequate independent living space, amenities, access and car parking. To prevent the formation of a separate dwelling in this rural location.

Case Officer: Richard Hazelgrove

NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant Public Access pages on the council’s website.

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.

Page 96