Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Mc Gregor, Cllr Sumner and Cllr Todd.

Cllr Baker declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 5.5 Eden Park Hartfield Road Edenbridge and Cllr Lloyd declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 5.8 Gaywood Solar Farm North West of Little Browns Lane Edenbridge.

A member of the public commented on agenda item 5.4 Land Rear Of Apex House Main Road Edenbridge Kent TN8 6HZ and stated that the proposed new building would overshadow their home and block the light at the front of their house. The member of public went on to say that the vehicle access through Haxted Place, which is already access for 15 houses and five flats, was a narrow area and would be strained with the vehicles accessing these new flats, and as the application had not shown any parking, their visitor parking would be compromised. Any parking on the corner of Swan Lane would cause problems for the emergency and waste collection vehicles. They stated this was already a restricted view when turning out of Swan Lane.

Cllr McArthur asked whether the existing parking was allocated parking. The members said that they residents all had allocated parking plus three visitor spaces.

Cllr Lloyd asked the member of public that they had mentioned they were concerned by the blocking of light, what did they think about overlooking? The member of public replied that all flats were shown with Juliette balconies there would be overlooking and overshadowing.

Members agreed to bring agenda item 5.4 Land Rear of Apex House Main Road Edenbridge Kent TN8 6HZ forward to be the first planning application to be discussed.

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 18 July 2022 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 9755-9757.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application

Members commented that the site seemed small for the size of the development. They felt that the cube shape of the building and its flat roof are all out of keeping with the street scene, and the size of it would represent overdevelopment of the site. The development would not provide adequate provision for the tenants, there are no spaces shown for bins or bicycles. The application referred to a traffic study that was not available with the documents. The parking provision is inadequate, and this will build up parking in Haxted Place, Swan Lane and Main Road, all of which have long-standing parking issues already. There would be overlooking and overshadowing of the existing homes near the building.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application

Members commented that there were no plans shown for the bungalow, making the application appear incomplete. The application would make the buildings significantly larger in an already tight space.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Members commented that mitigation of water run off should be assessed by Natural England. Construction vehicle access to the site via Monks Road would compromise the narrow road. Members noted that vehicle charging points are no longer included in the application and that a £30,000 contribution is now proposed as being made to Kent Smarter Travel Scheme instead. Members expressed concern about the slow progress of Kent Smarter Travel Scheme, and what the impact of this funding on Edenbridge would be.

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Members unanimously agreed that the Council will obtain the price to do this from the Contractor and charge the developer accordingly.

Noted

Noted

Members agreed unanimously that the Ladies team should be allowed to play at Nomads for the remainder of the lease period but that the lease should be reviewed by the Lease Negotiation Group in the autumn.

None