Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted, from Cllrs Cummings, McArthur, Parker, Stockdale and Todd.

Cllrs Baker and Layland asked it be noted, that they had been in contact with local residents from Fairmead Road.

Three residents provided representations on planning applications for Stanholm Residential Care Home Mill Hill - agenda item 6.1 25/01315/LBCALT; and application 25/01314/FUL.

Resident one: A resident of one of the four properties which is solely accessed by going up the driveway of Stanholm and located at the rear of the property. The proposal to turn the Stanholm into two properties at first was good news; however, having studied the application there is minimal change to the property dividing the property by a party wall, and has left fire escapes in place - this raises questions to the actual intentions of the property. There will be parking for just two vehicles per property, yet the proposal is for a five and six bedroom dwellings. It also shows to achieve this parking would be on a well tended grassy area which could potentially obstruct emergency vehicle access. There has not been an area designated for rubbish and recycling. The plans show minimal changes and very small gardens which suggests that it could be the intention that the two properties could become Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO). It is understood that there is no requirement to include this in a planning application where it is six of  less bedrooms, and if planning was approved then a HMO licence could be requested afterwards. Fairmead Road is very much a family residential area and it was very worrying that this could be turn into an HMO with approximately 22 or more residents. In addition, concerns included noise levels, increased traffic and obstruction on a single track driveway.

Resident two: Reiterated concerns over the intentions behind the application, suggesting the actual plan was to turn it into an HMO. There were no proposed changes to the external features which is believed to be deliberate to meet HMO fire regulations. No clear plans for waste storage. Inadequate parking for the building, restricting access to the house at the back, and and risk of additional parking on the main road. The application also falsely claims there is a communal garden space which is incorrect. The land is privately owned and maintained by residents. Stanholm directly overlooks their house and the proposals will mean they will loose all privacy. The plans have also not included the annex at the back of their home. 

Resident three: Supported all of the above and expressed concerns for parking and access, noise and mentioned that Stanholm and Fairmead Road are in the Conservation area, Stanholm has architectural value and as a Garde II listed building should have more detailed plans suitable to the area.

The developer for the proposed application spoke: He said an HMO had been considered at one point but the building was not suitable. The proposal was now to turn it into two houses. As the building is listed, this comes with many complications as he has found with other properties. It is hoped to have the scheme for two houses approved and then consider the detail further through amendments to the application. He acknowledged the land boarding (communal garden area) was a separate issue that did need to be resolved.

Resolved: to confirm the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 19 May and that they be signed by the Chairman as a true and accurate record, 095/1-5.

None.

25/01314/FUL - Stanholm Residential Care Home Mill Hill Edenbridge TN8 5DB
During discussions, Members noted that they could only consider the application as presented before them and not any speculation as to future intentions of site.

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

• Insufficient parking for 1x5bed and 1x6bed property.
• Access restrictions to the existing rear properties.
• Access for emergency vehicles to existing properties – driveway in needs to be kept clear for access. No measures to ensure clear access maintained.
• Waste storage provision.
• Design of building out of character to other residential dwellings and character of the area with the retaining of metal fire exit staircases.

Members also raised concerns with:

• The application form is unclear in section ‘Listed Buildings Alteration’. Both ‘c’ and ‘d’ answered No, yet believe should be ‘Yes’ as works is taking place to the internals of the building.
• Under the same section – listed buildings alterations – ‘b’ says No change to the exterior. Members question if this is correct given changing property into 2xdwellings. 
• Highways access during construction and agree with the need made by Highways for a construction management plan must be in place.

Recommendation: Members supported the listed change of use in to 2 residential dwellings subject to the following conditions:

• The Conservation Officer is satisfied.
• The two dwellings remain in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

Recommendation: Members supported this application - no objections.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application (noting it was retrospective).

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members continued to support this application, but maintain its concerns:

• To 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.

Noted.

Members noted planning decisions items 8.1 to 9.13.

Granted - noted.

Granted - noted.

Granted - noted.

Granted - no objection lodged.

Refused - noted.

Granted - noted.

Granted - noted.

Granted - noted.

Granted - noted.

Granted - noted.

Refused - noted.

Granted - noted.

Granted - noted.

None.

Members noted as part of discussions surrounding the emerging Local Plan, members had agreed that it would be helpful to have an understanding of the parking issues around the town centre and at its car parks. Sites audited week 10 May were Blossoms Park, Leathermarket, Market Yard car park (MYCP) and Church Street. A meeting of the Parking Working Group (PGW) will take place over the summer when they would review the audit results and consider repeating this exercise in September. 

A resident's email received recently raised concerns about traffic speeds; need for signage; lack of crossing. Traffic volume, speeding, and road safety at Mill Hill (B2026) are raised by residents from time to time, it had also been identified by Council, and was on the Highways Improvement Plan (HIP) as an area for safety intervention considerations. Below is a summary of points in response to the resident:

• A Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) was previously installed at the southern entrance to Edenbridge near Blossoms Park in 2005. In 2023 this was removed Kent County Council (KCC) Highways after it became inoperable. KCC advised they would not replace it.
• Council was looking at a £10k application to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Board to replace the sign.
• Speed survey carried out in 2024 along Mill Hill (near Blossoms Park) recorded average speeds ranging from 24.6 to 30.94 mph.
• 2022 Council purchased a portable Speed Indicator Device (SID), which was rotated between approved Highways locations - including Mill Hill near Portland Vets.
• SIDs are intended to raise driver awareness by highlighting when vehicles are travelling over the speed limit. Data collected from the SID is analysed intermittently; however, the most recent data reviewed did not indicate a sufficient speeding issue to warrant further intervention at that time.
• Improved 30-mph signage including "white gates" at the town entrance to encourage drivers to slow down. However, due to the lack of a sufficient two-metre verge, this was not approved. We continue to advocate for alternatives.
• Pedestrian Crossing: Highways deemed unsuitable due to proximity to several junctions (Old War Memorial Hospital, Mead Road, Blossoms Park entrance, and the petrol station). Nonetheless, we continue to push for improved pedestrian safety measures and keep the crossing request on the HIP.
• In our response to the 2024 Draft Local Plan consultation, the Council highlighted the need for pedestrian safety improvements as part of any redevelopment of the Old Hospital site. We specifically called for upgraded pavements and crossings in this area.
• Community Speedwatch: The Council facilitates the scheme with Kent Police. Blossoms Park is one of 15 approved sites. While recent sessions have recorded only a small number of speeding vehicles, those identified are reported to Kent Police.

The Town Clerk added that following a conversation with Highways, there maybe another site to be assessed for 'white gates'.

Action: To write to the new County Councillor Robert Mayall to raise the issues with the cost of the Kent Highways approved VAS and SID signs compared to other brands used across the country which are cheaper.

For the past three years, Council has received some emails from residents, and one recently from a local business, raising concerns about parking along Enterprise Way which was causing obstructions to both vehicles and pedestrians. Complaints included: parking on pavements; double parking restricting access; parking too close to junctions restricting visibility and access. 

The Council shares these concerns and acknowledges that parking and access have become a significant problem for businesses and residents in that area, and which had worsened in recent years. Particularly due to increased development nearby and the nature of some of the businesses which attract more vehicles adding further pressure to already limited space and are clearly impacting both access for large vehicles and the safety of pedestrians.

Unfortunately, the Town Council does not have powers to enforce parking or make changes to the highways. These responsibilities lie with the relevant authorities:

• Parking Enforcement: This is managed by Sevenoaks District Council (SDC). If vehicles are parked in contravention of existing restrictions – reports need to made to Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) to help them better understand problem areas and direct enforcement efforts.
• Pavement Parking: This is a police matter, but they must witness the obstruction to take action - specifically where access is impassable. Reports can be made via 101 or online at https://www.mycommunityvoicekent.co.uk/ 
• Highways and Yellow Lines: The responsibility for introducing new restrictions, such as yellow lines, lies with Kent County Council (KCC). Highways can also be reported directly to KCC via their portal: https://www.kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/report-or-track-a-problem-on-the-road-or-pavement.

Three of the Town Councillors (who also serve as District Councillors - and one was also a County Councillor at the time) met with SDC officers and the Police to discuss the issues on Enterprise Way. While the concerns were taken seriously and raised further up the chain, no concrete action had been taken to improve the situation.

The Clerk provided an update following a conversation with Kent Highways Community Engagement Officer who suggested the Council could to do an informal consultation writing to the business and local residents of Enterprise Road to gauge the support for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). If there was support, this would help for considering yellow lines in the future and could be added to the HIP next year. However, any TRO could have the potential of displacing the issue to another road. Members discussed and agreed to proceed with an informal consultation.

Action: Letters to be sent to local businesses and residents of Enterprise Road to informally consult on possible TRO, before February. To also raise the parking issues with Cllr Mayall.

Members noted the next Steering Group meeting, Tuesday 10 June. 

Members noted the Council office continues to provide printed timetables for:

• 236 - Oxted, Edenbridge, Lingfield.
• 231 and 233 - Tunbridge Wells, Edenbridge, Lingfield.

Discussing busses, members asked if KCC could consider a bus stop for Waitrose.

Action: To write to KCC and Cllr Mayall to request consideration for a bus stop at Waitrose.

The following was noted: 

• Pound Green - SGN had set up a works base here. Having contacted Kent Streetworks to enquire more details, they had advised that a licence was not issued, and that SGN had been issued with a fixed penalty notice and been asked to remove the equipment as soon as possible. SGN was advised to contact the Council regarding rectifying any potential repairs to the green, and to seek permission should they want to use this land.
• Lingfield Road - 16 June 2025 for 5 days - Coppard Plant Hire Ltd - Temporary Road Closure.
• Stangrove Road - 16 June  to 25 June 2025 - traffic lights - SGN works
• Crouch House Road - Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd - Temporary Road Closures - several dates had been advised across the year. At the moment we understand these have been postponed. The Council's website does post road closure notices and will update when new dates are confirmed.

Highways maintenance reporting report for 01 May to 04 June, was received and noted.

In the absence of the Community Warden (CW), the SID had not been out. The data from previous recordings needed to be downloaded. Cllr Stockdale has offered to analyse data from the SID and produce six-monthly summary reports. Once the CW returns the SID would return to its cycle of the five approved locations. Members discussed and concluded:

Action: Grounds team to take control of the SID, to recharge the battery and then rotate the SID between the sites. Analysing the data was not a priority as downloading the data was not straight forward nor creating summary statistics.

Members noted the CW reported to Council in January five speed awareness days with the volunteers, and two further sessions cancelled because of the weather conditions. There was also an issue with the Unipar Dual Display board which Kent Highways had agreed to purchase a new one for us - there was a six month order time, expected delivery July/August. Cllr Stockdale had volunteered to be the Council's responsible person to attend sessions with volunteers when sessions are able to restart.

Members received an update on the Highways Improvement Plan:

• White Gates - installed now at Main Road and Crouch House Road with new 30mph signs. 
• White Gates - Mill Hill - Highways had advised insufficient space, a minimum of two metres required. Having disputed this, we have measured just 1.8m. However, another location has potential to be considered.
• Zebra crossings - Highways maintenance has assessed each site and reported where painting improvements could be made, but said they all meet the standards and requirements.

Outstanding from the HIP meeting:

• 20 and 30 mph banners to be provided to the town for putting up on Lingfield Road, High Street and Main Road - should receive 13 June.
• Station Road – pedestrian crossing. Recent pedestrian survey was to be compared to vehicle traffic for P:V ratio. Whilst noting an assessment of the road concluded a crossing not viable, it had been agreed to revisit this and see what could be done, especially in view of pedestrian survey result. This was listed as priority one on the HIP.
• Lingfield Road - investigation into signage for “unsuitable for HGVs” and to get costs for KCC/ETC to consider funding signage.
• Four Elms Road - Kent Highways to arrange two new speed surveys (ATCs) between medical centre and the railway bridge. Expected in July or September avoiding school holiday period.
• Main Road/Swan Lane junction - potential yellow lines. Before this could be discussed further the Council needed to carry out an informal residents’ consultation by writing to all the residents in that area. If there is supported, Council could request with Kent Highways to consider as TRO. Council would need to fund this through its CIL funds and make an application to the CIL Board. 

None.

Noted, and also already on Council Facebook page and website.

None.

Noted.

Cllr Baker gave her apologies in advance.