Meeting Agenda:
Planning and Transport
| Meeting Date: | Monday 18 Aug 2025 |
|---|---|
| Time: | 19:30 |
| Councillors | Jon Aldridge Chairman, Angela Baker, Bill Cummings, Michael Gemmell Smith, Alan Layland, Margot McArthur, Stuart McGregor, Vince Parker, Angela Read Vice-Chairwoman, Michael Stockdale, Jeff Streets, Bob Todd. |
| Committee: | Planning and Transport |
| Venue: | Rickards Hall. 72a High Street Edenbridge, TN8 5AR Kent |
| Notes: | |
| Summary: | Planning Committee (Delegated authority over summer period) |
Agenda
Minutes
Members of the District Council wish to state that although they will be considering planning applications at this meeting they would be reconsidering them at the district level, taking into account all relevant evidence and representations there.
Members of the public, and members with prejudicial interests on items on the Agenda, may make representations, answer, ask questions and give evidence at this meeting in respect of items on the Agenda. (This is the only opportunity for members of the public to make a contribution during the meeting.)
Both public and members are limited to three minutes per person to speak and the total time designated for public questions shall not exceed fifteen minutes unless directed by the Chairman of the meeting.
| 25/01961/HOUSE |
| 25/01881/HOUSE |
| 25/01498/FUL |
| 25/02055/WTCA |
STREET NAMING & NUMBERING - SECTION 64 TOWN IMPROVEMENTS ACT 1847
Confirmation of the new addressing for the above development. Please see details in the attached letter. Also attached are plans of the development for information only.
| ufm23_Notify_Interested_Parties.pdf |
| 2500023PLANS.pdf |
| 25/02138/WTPO |
| 25/02216/WTPO |
| 25/02085/DETAIL |
| 25/02151/DETAIL |
Status: Decided
| 25/01478/TELNOT |
Status: Granted
| 25/01529/CONVAR |
Status: Withdrawn
| 25/01374/HOUSE |
Status: Granted
| 24/03104/FUL |
Status: Granted
| 25/01208/HOUSE |
Status: Granted
| 24/01281/HOUSE |
Demolition of five agricultural barns. Conversion of Dutch barn to single dwelling. Construction of four single dwellings (including amendment to previously granted new dwelling under 22/03413/FUL). Associated infrastructure and landscaping.
Recommendation: Members supported this application.
| 25/00077/FUL |
Demolition of timber canopy structure. Erection of single-storey side extension with canopy.
Recommendation: Members supported this application.
| 25/01964/HOUSE |
Kent County Council is not statutorily obligated to provide bus shelters or associated grants, but they are pleased to launch a Parish Bus Stop Shelter Grant (PBSSG) for the 2025/2026 financial year.
The Grant scheme has been developed to provide financial support to Parish Councils for the refurbishment or replacement of bus shelters that are in poor condition. Where appropriate, funding may also be available for the installation of new bus stop shelters. Funding will be awarded through a bidding process, and successful applicants will be responsible for delivering the proposed shelters and their longer-term maintenance.
The Town Council is responsible for five bus shelters in the town:
Meadow Lane
High Street/Mill Hill (opposite Old Eden)
High Street/Mill Hill – east side
Mill Hill by the Hospital
Swan Lane (by the The Swan)
The application deadline is 31st October 2025.
Please see attached guidance and application form.
| PBSSG Procedure and Guidance.pdf |
| PBSSG Application Form.pdf |
There is a requirement to provide upgraded equipment in the Hever Road location to accommodate increased network demands, provide modern technologies and allow for continued consistent VodafoneThree coverage to be provided to the area.
The applicant has extended the deadline to receive Members' comments.
Please se attached.
| CS14027823_VF_Cornerstone Planning Consultation Letter to Edenbridge Town Council -.pdf |
| E313989_CTIL14027823_TEF_NA_VF_31050_24_GA_1A_LPA MAP.pdf |
Kent County Council is taking part in the NHT Public Satisfaction Survey on highways and transport services. Whilst the main survey is being carried out by Ipsos, who are sending forms to a representative sample of households, they have also opted to take part in six web-based surveys on specific issues:
- Highway maintenance
- Accessibility
- Walking and cycling
- Public transport
- Road safety
- Tackling congestion
These surveys are publicly available online and will remain open until the end of February 2026.
They can be accessed via the link below:
| National Highways and Transport Survey 2025-26 | Let’s talk Kent |
This public consultation is a requirement of Regulation 14, Neighbourhood Plans Legislation.
There will be a Public Consultation 18 July to 26 September 2025, and Public Meeting Saturday 1pm 19 July 2025 Dormansland War Memorial Community Hall Paper copies are available in Lingfield Library .
Email your comments to parishclerk@dormansland.org.uk. Put DNP in the subject line. Or post to PO Box 335, Lingfield RH7 6BP Please include your name and address in your comment submission, so that they can validate your contribution Your personal information will be kept safe until the Plan is made and then it will be destroyed
The consultation will open on the 18th July at 1pm and can be found on the website below:
| Dormansland Neighbourhood Plan |
| Dormansland Design Code |
Council July meeting resolve delegated powers to Planning and Transportation Committee for July and August.
Settlement Spatial Plans (SSPs) are strategic land-use planning documents designed to guide how areas are organised, developed, and managed within a defined geographic boundary. They can provide a valuable evidence base when responding to planning applications and engaging with the emerging Local Plan. In the future, should a Neighbourhood Plan (NHP) be pursued, an SSP could serve as a supporting document.
At the July 2025 Council meeting, Members considered the potential benefits of an SSP and approved the associated expenditure, subject to clarification of key questions and advice from Planning Consultant Alan Dyer. A delegated decision was given to the Planning Committee (August meeting) to proceed or defer.
Feedback from OHN/ONeill Homer (planning consultant company) and advice from Alan Dyer (Council's planning consultant) are summarised below.
Alan Dyer’s View
Wait for Regulation 18 (3) Local Plan
- Alan recommends delaying any decision to commission an SSP until the Regulation 18 (3) consultation is published.
- The Local Plan is expected to set out proposed site allocations, growth areas, and infrastructure requirements. Commissioning an SSP before this may risk duplication.
Role of an SSP at This Stage
- SSPs are most useful early in the planning process to guide discussions before formal proposals emerge.
- At this stage, it may be premature or redundant to produce scenarios without knowing what Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) will propose.
Strategic Value
Despite current timing concerns, engaging a planning consultant could bring long-term value:
- In preparation for a Neighbourhood Plan.
- For contributing to the Regulation 19 consultation and public examination.
Any future NHP would need to address:
- Newly proposed sites,
- Site-specific development design,
- Infrastructure requirements,
- Community benefits and integration.
ONH Response – What an SSP Involves
Nature of the Work
ONH would produce the SSP using publicly available data, supplemented by local insights.
The plan includes:
- A settlement overview, constraints, and potential development sites (including HELAA sites)
- 3–4 spatial growth scenarios, each identifying a scale and pattern of housing growth, with associated infrastructure upgrades.
Timeline & Process
- Estimated duration: 6 weeks, depending on Council availability.
Key stages:
- Initial project meeting (inception),
- Responses to consultant queries,
- In-person roundtable to test scenarios.
Consultation
- No formal public consultation is included in the SSP process unless incorporated into a Neighbourhood Plan.
- Optional engagement with infrastructure providers and landowners is possible.
Validity and Use
While an SSP has no statutory status, it can:
- Influence Local Plan representations,
- Inform planning application responses,
- Support future Neighbourhood Plan development.
An SSP is designed to have a long shelf life (10+ years) by assessing long-term growth and infrastructure implications.
Note: ONH advises that the SSP would not weigh pros and cons or recommend a preferred scenario unless developed further within a Neighbourhood Plan framework.
Costings
- SSP: £4,950 + VAT.
- NHP Review: £3,950 + VAT – includes scoping existing work, policy direction, and a draft action plan.
Summary for Council Consideration
Pros of Proceeding Now:
- Provides an independent perspective on local growth and infrastructure needs.
- Could strengthen Council’s position ahead of the Reg 18 (3) consultation.
- Useful foundation for a Neighbourhood Plan or further planning input.
Risks and Drawbacks:
- May duplicate elements of the forthcoming Local Plan.
- Uncertainty over site allocations makes forward planning speculative.
- Risk of misaligned timing with Regulation 18 priorities.
Options:
- Defer commissioning of the SSP until the Regulation 18 (3) consultation is published, and then review.
- In the interim, consider building a relationship with a planning consultant to support future NHP work and Regulation 19 preparations.
How do Members wish to proceed?
Background
Following an extended period of negotiation, the Council and the Eden Valley Museum Trust (the “Museum”) concluded a renewal of the lease for Church House, 72 High Street, Edenbridge. The renewed lease was duly agreed and signed by both parties in June 2025.
Subsequent to the lease signing, the Museum sought independent legal advice in its capacity as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO). This advice identified a compliance issue regarding statutory obligations under the Charities Act 2011, which necessitated the inclusion of an additional clause in the lease to reflect legal requirements for charities holding an interest in land.
Deed of Variation and Clause 52
On the basis of the advice received, the Museum approached the Council’s solicitor with a request for a variation to the signed lease. After legal consultation, the Council’s solicitor drafted a Deed of Variation to formally insert a new clause - Clause 52 - into the lease.
Clause 52 (as drafted):
“The land demised by this Lease will as a result of this Lease be held by the Tenant, a non-exempt charity, and the restrictions on disposition imposed by sections 117-121 of the Charities Act 2011 will apply to the Property (subject to section 117(3) of that Act).”
This clause ensures that the Museum, as a CIO, is legally compliant with its duties under the Charities Act when disposing of any interest in the leased land (e.g. assigning the lease or subletting).
Clarifications and Legal Interpretation
The Town Clerk and the Council's Lease Negotiation Group sought clarification from the solicitor regarding the implications of Clause 52. Key points addressed by the solicitor (Wilkin Chapman Rollits) included:
- No Transfer of Freehold Ownership: The inclusion of Clause 52 does not transfer or imply ownership of the freehold by the Museum. The Town Council retains full ownership of the building and land.
- Interest Limited to Leasehold Rights: The clause refers solely to the Museum’s leasehold interest - i.e., the right to occupy under the lease - not to any ownership of the building or land.
- No New Rights Created: The clause does not confer any additional rights to the Museum beyond what was already agreed in the lease. It simply acknowledges that charity-specific disposal restrictions apply to the leasehold interest they hold.
Governance Considerations
The Council’s Lease Negotiation Group has reviewed the proposed variation. However, due to governance concerns - particularly the presence of dual-hatted members who are also Museum trustees - the group has chosen not to confirm the variation. To mitigate any potential conflicts of interest and to ensure transparent decision-making, the matter is therefore being referred to the Council's delegated Committee for consideration over the summer period.
Should the Committee be unable to reach a decision, the matter will be escalated for full Council determination in September.
Recommendation
Members of the Committee are asked to:
- Note the update on the lease negotiations.
- Review and consider the proposed Deed of Variation incorporating Clause 52.
- Approve or decline the execution of the Deed of Variation.
How do Members want to proceed?
| Confidential Annex Omitted from Papers. |