Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Cllr M McArthur and Cllr V Parker

None.

Five members of the public from NEDRA spoke on Agenda items 6.1 and 6.2 planning application number 24/02765/OUT.

The five residents from NEDRA spoke about the provision for a school saying that KCC needed to secure funding for the school and that the school was not dependant on this site, nearer to the to the River Eden in Flood zones 2 and 3. Connected to this, they asked about the Developers' responsibility for the long-term maintenance of the drainage basins, swales and other SUDS features and what legal or financial mechanisms are in place to ensure these features remain effective over time. They also spoke on the preserving of the habitats of bats, reptiles and birds and that it was important for onsite compensation of the Biodiversity or at least to stay in Edenbridge. They stated that The local 2040 plan identifies several potential sites that should be prioritized over building in a flood-prone area. They also stated that the recent documents submitted by Provision for the 4 Elms road development application shows the flood risk. Appendix J of the Flood Risk Assessment shows a drawing that overlays the flood risk Zone 2 areas on the outline plan of the development, and that the school, roads and houses are within flood risk Zone 2. All of the development is also close to the Zone 2.

Resolved: the minutes of the meeting on 13th January 2025 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting pages 0203/080-1-03.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application and commented:

• The letter of 7th January from Kent Education clarified their desire to have early access to the site and provided some clarity on how the school could be delivered. The Council has always supported the need for a school in Edenbridge but have concerns about the viability of delivering the school within the near to medium term based on the information from KCC Education.
• Members remain concerned about the limited timeframe in which provision for of sites for the community benefit (school, youth club and scout hut) would be secured for the community. Members would like to see these secured in perpetuity. 
• Members acknowledged the additional flooding information but felt themselves unqualified to interpret this technical information. Members remained concerned about known surface flooding on the site, and the cumulative impact of development along St Brelades Stream (Kent and Surrey Golf Course, Champions Way, Spitals Cross and this site). 
• Members remain concerned about the impact on local infrastructure, especially the local road network and access under the Four Elms Road railway bridge. The additional information did not address this. 
• Members acknowledged the additional information on Biodiversity Net Gain, but reiterated their wish for BNG to be on-site or as close as possible within Edenbridge. 
• Members reiterated their desire for the development to be included and accounted in the emerging Local Plan. 

Recommendation: Members objected to this application and commented:

• The letter of 7th January from Kent Education clarified their desire to have early access to the site and provided some clarity on how the school could be delivered. The Council has always supported the need for a school in Edenbridge but have concerns about the viability of delivering the school within the near to medium term based on the information from KCC Education.
• Members remain concerned about the limited timeframe in which provision for of sites for the community benefit (school, youth club and scout hut) would be secured for the community. Members would like to see these secured in perpetuity. 
• Members acknowledged the additional flooding information but felt themselves unqualified to interpret this technical information. Members remained concerned about known surface flooding on the site, and the cumulative impact of development along St Brelades Stream (Kent and Surrey Golf Course, Champions Way, Spitals Cross and this site). 
• Members remain concerned about the impact on local infrastructure, especially the local road network and access under the Four Elms Road railway bridge. The additional information did not address this. 
• Members acknowledged the additional information on Biodiversity Net Gain, but reiterated their wish for BNG to be on-site or as close as possible within Edenbridge. 
• Members reiterated their desire for the development to be included and accounted in the emerging Local Plan.

Recommendation: Members supported this application but with reservations: 

• Members were concerned about the potential flooding impact, especially given the other major development proposals in the immediate vicinity of the site. 
• Members were surprised by the lack of detail in the proposals
• Members commented that the site might be better used to address the number of sewage overflows into the River Eden. 

Recommendation: Members supported this application

Recommendation: Members objected to this application, and repeated their comments that there is an absence of a Noise Assessment, and the proposal for the TV screen being not acceptable in the Conservation Area.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application, and repeated their comments that there is an absence of a Noise Assessment, and the proposal for the TV screen being not acceptable in the Conservation Area.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Members noted the information and will attend meetings or zoom meetings and submit a response.

Members supported the street name Bannister Mews but recommended that the street should have a plaque saying who Mr Bannister was.

None.