Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllrs Aldridge, Cummings, Gemmell Smith, McArthur and Stockdale.

None.

None.

Resolved: to adopt the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting on 03 February 083/1-4, and that they be signed by the Chair of the meeting as a true and accurate record.

None.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application but noted:

• Property is in a conservation area and on the basis the conservation officer was satisfied
• The replacement of timber frames to aluminium is not a conflict of a condition of the original planning application at the time

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application on the grounds of:

• Impact on the openness of the Green Belt and inappropriate development
• Highways concerns with access road/entrance onto Pootings Road has poor visibility splays

Recommendation: Members objected to this application:

• They reject the BNG report as it does not meet the expectations as set out in the specifications set out by Kent Highways which requested a parking survey for seven day period within 100metres. Instead, there was one 24 hour survey presented as if two midweek, across a 200metre area, and included the Leisure Centre car park over midnight. It also does not include the high street in the day time. Overall, the submitted report is unhelpful.
• The property is literally just on the conservation area boundary; and should be noted as this is a Victorian building (and consideration as a heritage asset)

Members maintained their previous objections:

• There is no parking shown on the application and the areas suggested for parking facilities on Stangrove Road, which has extensive parking restrictions, and Lingfield Road, or Tekram Close are impractical as these streets are much further away from the proposed development site, and the relief road is already a very busy road.
• Parking at that end of the town centre is already used during the day by local businesses and shoppers.  If this parking is lost it will affect the regeneration of the town centre.
• The demolition of a Victorian building for a new block of flats will damage the historic market town appearance and, especially the view when entering the town from the North end.
• The height of this building is not in keeping with the street scene and also inappropriate for a town the size of Edenbridge. It will cause overlooking and loss of light for some neighbours and is over development in a Conservation Area.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application with the following comments:

• Ensure there is sufficient off road parking. Currently only three spaces provided for potential six dogs (these could be six individual people with dogs). Members have concerns for roadside parking in that location
• A condition be included to ensure proper management of dog waste
• Dog water provision considered

Recommendation: Members supported the application, though commented that:

• No parking had been provided and asked for consideration be given to utilising the rear of the property for some provision
• The development to provide improvement to the street scene

Noted

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

The Town Clerk was due to meet with Kent Highways Community Engagement Officer for the annual review of the Highways Improvement Plan (HIP). She provided an update on current HIP and invited members to comment so this this could be reported at the meeting. Of note, the following comments were made:

1. Main Road: It was noted that the new 40mph buffer zone (installed February 2023) had had some influence, and a new 'white gate' was due to be added in March.  Phase two, to consider additional changes at Hillcrest Road, to remain on the HIP (noting this was currently on hold).
2. Lingfield Road: Following an engineers assessment it had concluded the road was not suitable for white gates or additional 30mph signage. The review of HGV signage was outstanding. Members asked to keep on the HIP, especially in view of potential new development in the town.
3. Mill Hill near Blossoms Park: An engineers report had concluded this location was not suitable for white gates. Pedestrian crossing remained a concern and was to remain on the HIP, and in view of potential new development at the old hospital site and in the town.
4. Station Road: Pedestrian safety survey had been done and results were awaited.
5. Junction of Mont St Aignan Way and Lingfield Road: It was noted that Highways had reported that the only way to change the phasing of these lights would be to split the north/south phasing and given the location this could prove problematic in terms of congestion. Members noted that had not been any recent issues, and  agreed to remove from the HIP.
6. Main Road/Swan Lane: keep on HIP.
7. Crouch House Road near railway bridge: White gate had been approved and would be installed March.  Members asked to remain on the HIP and keep under review.
8. Main Road Zebra Crossings: The repainting had been reported but had not been carried out. This was to be reemphaised to Highways. Members also raised concerns about lighting and to be added to the HIP.
9. For Elms Road traffic lights: Phasing of the lights had been looked at; members agreed to have this removed from the HIP.
10. High Street Zebra crossing: To remain on HIP.

It was noted the funding for the white gates was via KCC Members grant and CIL funds. Members asked for the HIP to consider speed indicator devices (SID) for Lingfield Road and replacing the one on Mill Hill.

The review and update following the review meeting would be reported to the next P&T Committee (10 March). 

None.

None.

None.