Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Aldridge, Cllr Gemmell Smith. Cllr Sumner and Cllr Todd. Apologies for her late arrival were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr McArthur.

None.

A member of the public spoke on items 5.4 and 5.5 and stated the application had been amended to include rear access to the three first floor units, as SDC had refused the last application due to the access being through a central staircase from the ground floor of the building. The application was now for three residential units on the first floor, and the ground floor to remain unchanged so that it could be used for commercial business

A second member of the public spoke on item 5.6 stating that their first concern was flooding, saying the plan did not take account of flooding upstream from the proposed site. The developer’s hydrology had improved since the last application, but given the residents’ own independent hydrology, they felt that the proposed soak away to trench to reduce run off (though it was not known how much water can flow over the local clay soil in addition to the build-up of silt) was inadequate, with no provision to clean or replace the soak away trenches for over 40 years. They said that whilst flooding was not an everyday event, the risk increased after a dry period with rainwater not soaking in but running off, or the ground was already saturated. They stated that water levels for the stream normally ran at 4 inches but could get to 7 ft, with water 2ft from nearby houses, and the project would greatly increase the chances of those houses flooding. (Photos of flooding at their property were shown). They noted that Network Rail had felt the developer had not given enough detail in their report to satisfy their concerns. They said the route of the transport during the development had at least five blind corners and three single width bridges and was precarious for cars to pass each other, not suitable for 247 40 tonne articular lorries. Site access from Hilders Lane is between a single width bridge and a blind bend, and residents had historically complained to highways about the need for slow traffic signage, and they had witnessed three car accidents in last four months.
They stated that if Surrey deemed the route unacceptable, the only alternative route to the site would be the B2026, turning right on to Hilders Lane, which was already known as a dangerous junction and had width restrictions due to parked cars with few passing places for HGVs. They said that traffic lights as mentioned in the report would cause major disruption for all traffic in the area for the four months of build, and the proposed Saturday working had the additional hazards of horses and cyclists which were more prevalent at weekends. They stated that local concern was that accidents would happen with the addition of large trucks, vans and cars exiting from the site.

A third member of the public stated that over the last 15 months, local insight, statutory agencies, and independent subject experts had proven the developers reports (re submitted on this new application) to be inaccurate on headings such as ecology, landscape impact, transport and flooding. They said Edenbridge was blighted by the impact of flooding and that the application had been shown to increase the flood risk to properties around the proposed site, road and rail infrastructure below the site (hence Network Rails objection) and given the close upstream proximity to Edenbridge, was likely to increase flooding in Edenbridge. They said the developer had been working on this proposal for at least 9 years without producing a workable solution to mitigate the flood risk, and the application was requesting approval on the basis they would find a solution after gaining consent. The supposed public consultation from which all the developer’s marketing ideas to the community of wildflower meadows, tree screening, flood management and EV chargers in Hilders Lane had been removed in the new application. And that none of the reports from the residents’ groups, independent subject experts and statutory agencies had been linked to the revised application when they still apply. They felt that this application was being reviewed without any reference to that information or apparent testing of the developer’s reports. They felt the rejection of the previous Skinners Lane solar proposal established a precedent that had not been followed, and said they believed the application should be put forward to the Secretary of State. They summarised that whilst the application had a new number, it was the Kent element that had clear grounds for a refusal.

A fourth member of the public spoke on item 6.3 of the agenda, and additional application No. 23/00853/LDCPR referring to clause 3.2 of SDC’s residential extensions supplementary planning policy which states that an extension should be limited in size and respect the original dwelling with careful design. And clause 4.14 which states that on detached houses situated close to a neighbouring property, extensions should generally extend no more than 4 metres from the elevation. They stated that the proposed extension was nearly double the size of the original dwelling, measuring 8m out at the back and 3m in height. They said the height of the building would be well above the dividing fence panels and have an adverse effect on the outlook of neighbouring properties. They also referred to clause 5.5 which refers to the immediate outlook from neighbours’ windows and whether a proposal significantly changes the nature of the normal outlook. They said the resulting outlook from their kitchen and dining room windows would be to a large, obtrusive and dominating extension, and cause a level of overshadowing and loss of light due to the close proximity and size of the neighbouring property. They then referred to the further application 23/00853/LDCPR, with the same comments applicable, which was for a new attic floor with partial hi-gable additions at both ends and new dormer to rear, roof may need to be removed.

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning & Transportation Committee held on 13 March 2023 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 9892-9895.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application subject to the comments of the Conservation Officer

Recommendation: Members supported this application subject to the comments of the Conservation Officer.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application and commented:

• The proposed soak away trenches to mitigate rain runoff do not show how effective these would be when the contours and topography have the additional volume flowing through the landscape.
• Whilst the proposed site is in flood zone 1 (low risk), it is close to zones 2 and 3 (cross county border) about which residents have raised issues.
• Concerns for construction management on winding country roads and access to the site from Hilders Lane is between a single width bridge and a blind bend. Comments were also made about prolonged use of temporary traffic lights.

Noted.

Noted.

Recommendation: Members commented that this application being permitted development was a violation of garden or residential extensions and asked why this application was classed as ‘information only’.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

None