Meeting Minutes:

Cllr J Aldridge was nominated as Chairman and, there being no other nominations, members

Resolved: Cllr J Aldridge be elected Chairman for the ensuing year.

Cllr S McGregor was nominated as Vice Chairman and, there being no other nominations, members

Resolved: Cllr S McGregor be elected Vice Chairman for the ensuing year

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Compton and Cllr Gemmell Smith

None.

A member of public spoke on item 6.1, stating that the estate had not been updated since it was built, but funding of £90,000 was spent on a new park which was now being moved near a drug dealing spot with no streetlights or CCTV. The poor security should be addressed. They asked does it need new houses and maisonettes to fund the development.

A second member of public was not sure whether they supported the application or not but said that social housing had gone from 40% to zero and if the car park was having to be funded by building the cost would go up. They asked why social housing had been removed from the application.

A third member of public stated that if it needs houses to make the estate better, residents would not be getting any money back to improve it. They asked why the FTRA hall had to shut and why was the asbestos not dealt with when it was last rebuilt, and why was the park being moved. They said that there were no new schools for the new houses, no doctors, so why keep building houses that people can’t afford.

A fourth member of public said they felt that SDC seemed to think that it was a ‘done deal’. They had been to one of the meetings but said no one would talk to them. They stated that they thought SDC were trying to bribe residents with parking spaces; the whole estate needs repairing, the community centre needs rebuilding, the playground is new in comparison. The said that a petition had been made not to close the playground. SDC had proposed a pop-up shop – there is no shop. There are more people coming to live in Edenbridge, there is nowhere left, every field is allocated and Edenbridge looks like one big estate and the building works will be damaging to the health and wellbeing of the residents.

The first speaker interrupted, asking for confirmation that the 23 new parking were not allotted to door numbers of the new house.

A fifth member of public asked why £60,000 had been spent on new electrics, fire alarms and plumbing to now pull the hall down, and why not just replace the glass with double glazing.

Meeting re-opened at 20:15

Meeting closed again at 20:15

A member of public continued to speak asking what was going to happen regarding the health of residents while the building works go for 6 -12 months, making dust and smoke.

Cllr Layland replied that there was a Construction Plan which is published in the planning documents

Cllr McArthur addressed the persistent talking public and explained that Edenbridge Town Council was not a decision-making body and could not give conditions. After the Town Council makes its comments to SDC the application will be taken to a Development Control Committee which would consist of 20 councillors from across the district. The lack of police stations, hospitals etc are not planning considerations.

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 24 APRIL 2023 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 9911-9912.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Members commented:

• Members expressed concern over the loss of Green Space caused by the application.
• It was important to provide CCTV in the area, particularly where the playground was being re-sited and between the new buildings and Templars' Court.
• Members required clarification of the noise, dust, and transportation in the Management Scheme for contractors regarding this application.
• Members wished to bring attention to the residents’ association being made ‘homeless’ and some consideration should be given to ensure that the association is still active in two years.
• SUDS report – the ground contamination described need to be addressed.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application.

Members objected to this application on the basis that no ecology report has been submitted and would like to see one first

Recommendation: Members continued to support this application but noted that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal added since they last considered it, has been published in an almost entirely redacted form.

Recommendation: Members supported this application subject to the comments from the Conservation officer.

Recommendation: Members supported this application but commented:

• The flood risk report is missing.
• The impact of the upstairs room on neighbouring properties.

Recommendation: Members supported this application subject to the Conservation Officer’s approval.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

None.