Edenbridge Town Council

Meeting Minutes:

Planning and Transport

Meeting Date:	Monday 17 Jul 2023
Time:	19:30
Councillors	Jon Aldridge Chairman, Angela Baker, Andy Eyre, Michael Gemmell Smith, Alan Layland, Margot McArthur, Stuart McGregor Vice-Chairman, Vince Parker, Angela Read, Jeff Streets, Bob Todd.
Committee:	Planning and Transport
Venue:	Rickards Hall. 72a High Street Edenbridge, TN8 5AR Kent
Notes:
Summary:

Agenda

View Agenda Onscreen | Public Full PDF | Public Short PDF

Minutes

View Minutes Onscreen Minutes PDF

1 To Receive Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllrs Baker, McArthur, Streets and Todd.

2 Declaration of Interests or Predetermination, including interests not already registered

None.

3 Public Questions and Statements

Meeting closed 19.32

A member of the public spoke regarding 4 Ridgeway, saying that this as a very large development of six houses one a site where there was only one house. This would cause road safety issues, surface water and sewage problems. They said that the buildings were too dense for the area, saying that six house each with one to three cars would increase parking in the road. Two parking space for each house was not adequate and this would increase parking on the road, which is a bend. They said that KCC had not commented on road safety. They went on to say that the developer was wrong having said that two dwellings were connected to the drainage system when in fact six original properties are connected, plus two more and the road drains. no one had taken ownership of the drainage system and the surface water needs drainage. KCC had said that system was overloaded but that the sewage would cause no increase. They said that the high density of the buildings were unsympathetic to the surface water and sewage system.

A second member of public, also speaking on 4 Ridgeway, stated that there many trees and shrubs had already been removed from the property and that there was an old oak tree with a TPO on her side of the boundary fence, which fir trees on the site had become entangled. The member of public was very concerned that the tree would be damaged if and when the fir trees were removed. They said that the oak tree should be preserved

A third member of public also spoke regarding 4 Ridgeway and said that the plot would be overdeveloped and the comments from the Sevenoaks Officers on the previous application were not valid. they said that there was always flooding when the surface water is overloaded. The SUDS report proposed 100% of retention of water on the site, but no solution was offered regarding the sewage proposal. They said that there could be up to 42 people living in the proposed houses, each with only two parking spaces, although KCC had made no comment on safety, three driveways would make less curb space on the road near a bend.

A fourth member of the public had sent a letter to ETC stating that this was the third application for the site at 4 Ridgeway, which seemed very similar to the previous application, which had not been granted, naming the 3D view, the block plan the Streetscape elevation and house elevation drawings as being identical to that previous, rejected, application. They said the drawings presented did not show the bulkiness of the six homes and three entrances on the bend of the street and that the 3D view appeared to be misleading. They wrote that there seemed to be differences between the approved 2021 Arboricultural report and trees that remained after the site clearance. They stated that:

The 2021 Canopy Consultancy Arboriculture Report 21-1248, August listed 35 trees in total plus seven groups on the site (Table pp 9 and 10). Of these it was proposed to remove 25 trees (21 to allow development, 4 for arboricultural reasons). and that Para 4.2 (page 5) of the 2021 report listed several trees to be retained including T2, T3, T4, T9 and T14. The Tree Protection Plan 21-1248-TPP-‘circled’ ten trees including five along the street in blue and/or grey. They also said that After the site clearance in Autumn 2022, a subsequent October 2022 Canopy Consultancy Arboriculture Report 21-1248 lists (page 10) just six trees on site (from an original 35) after last October’s site clearance. These are circled in blue (5) or grey (1) on the 2022 Tree Protection Plan 21-1248-TPP A. Of those six trees, Para 4.2 (2022) states that five ‘will be affected by the construction of hard surfaces’ namely trees T1, T2, T9, T14 and T15. Only T27 now seemed unaffected, but that T2, T9 and T14 grow along the street and contribute much to the streets scene. T3 and T4 in earlier 2021 list (see point 2.2 above) no longer appear to be on the 2022 retained list nor on the 2022 Tree Protection Diagram. They wrote that the KCC Ecology Report concerns had bee removed from the SDC portal. They went on to say that they felt the applicant’s Preliminary Ecological Assessment (ASW Ecology) in 23/01686/FUL was misleading. It suggested that slow-worms and other amphibians are not present in the area. They said they have slow-worms, newts, grass snakes etc in their garden. (In a Ridge Way Whatsapp straw poll, at least six neighbours confirm sightings this month). Marlpit Hill has many ponds. Slow worms and newts are present close-by, even if no longer on the No 4 site. Most Summers they see bats in the street. in conclusion they stated they agreed with the Town Council’s concerns last year that the development represents overloading of the site and does not seem to match the local street scene or local character assessment, and asked for ETC to continue to press Sevenoaks planners to take steps to ensure the developers meet SDC’s original conditions ‘to preserve visual appearance of the area and biodiversity as supported by Core Strategy SP11’ (condition 10).

The Agent spoke on item 6.2 (Land North of Little Browns Lane) and addressed ETC's previous comments that the site was located in a Flood Zone 1 but was close to Flood Zone's 2 and 3. They had been assessing the the water on site and liaising with KCC and Network Rail. They said that the drainage provisions would only be finalised when the Solar Farm detailed application is submitted. New hedges and plants would be planted which would help to avoid flooding. They stated that Kent Highways had no problem with the traffic during the building and it would be for four months, with traffic lights to manage the flow of traffic. It had been agreed with SDC that the developer would agree specific proposals with ETC., and explained that they would all benefit from the electricity, which would power 3,700, homes. They had committed funds to a local community fund for electric charging points in Edenbridge.

A question was asked whether the developer could go further with flood alleviation measures. The Agent replied that the project would have a net positive effect on surface water flooding and the design of swales and trenches would serve to slow down the flow of water off the site.

The meeting was re-opened 19.50.

4 To Receive, Adopt and Sign the Minutes of The Planning Committee Meeting Held on 26th June 2023 (pages 2023-08/01 to 2023-08/02

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 26th June 2023 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 2023-08/01 to 2023-08/02.

5 Matters Arising Not Covered Elsewhere

None.

6 Planning Applications to Be Considered

6.1 23/00505/FUL - Land North West Of Little Browns Railway Bridge Hilders Lane

Recommended: Members supported this application, on condition flood mitigation conditions are adhered to and the applicant liaises with the council throughout the project.

6.2 23/01686/FUL - 4 Ridge Way TN8 6AR

Recommended: Members objected to this application:

Parking is inadequate
There were historic flooding issues on the road which were still not properly addressed
The foul water disposal provision is not clear
Safety around traffic on the bend with the new driveways forcing more cars to park on the road
Three stories represented an overlooking risk and is not in keeping with the street scene.

Members also expressed concerns that the repeated submission of applications represented planning by stealth; the Tree Officer should be advised that an oak tree with a TPO in one of the neighbouring properties could be damaged in the process of removing a line of fir trees inside the site boundary.