Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Baker, Cllr Gemmell Smith, Cllr Parker and Cllr Read.

None.

Three members of the public spoke: 

Regarding Item 6.1, a resident raised concerns about: 

• Infrastructure funding: The developer refuses to fund essential transport measures requested by the KCC Highways Authority, such as bus diversions and a pedestrian crossing, which are necessary for the development to be safe and sustainable.
• Design and Density: The scheme exceeds national design standards and relies on "fake" open space to justify excessive density, leading the District’s Urban Design Officer to effectively recommend refusal.
• Local Character: To compensate for the density issue, there is pressure to place three-storey buildings on the rural edge, next to the Green Belt and allotments, which would severely harm local character and amenity.
• Environmental Harm: The proposal requires the loss of high-value ecological assets, including Category A mature oak trees and established hedgerows, which cannot be easily replaced.
• Biodiversity Failure: The scheme fails on-site biodiversity requirements with a nearly 40% loss in habitat units, indicating the site is being overdeveloped and requires offsetting elsewhere.
• Pollution Risk: There are serious concerns about pollution risk to the River Eden due to flood constraints and increased runoff from the intensive layout.

Trust and Delivery: The developer is already reducing commitments, raising doubts about whether the promised 50% affordable housing will actually be delivered or if viability arguments will be used to erode that obligation.

Regarding Item 6.1 a second resident raised concerns about Southern Water's waste water discharge into the River Eden, the failure to meet ecological standards, and the cost of upgrading the sewage treatment plant to meet existing shortfalls. Water runoff from building sites affecting local flooding and erosion of riverbanks close to the site and elsewhere in Edenbridge, and possible pollution of the River Eden.

A third resident raised concerns about the stability of the Eden riverbank below Church Street. 

None.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application and wished to repeat their previous comments together with some added comments:

• Green Belt – being considered as a standalone site, there is:
  • Loss of Green Belt.
  • As a site on its own, represents inefficient use of Green Belt land.
  • No exceptional circumstances to justify its loss from the Green Belt.
• Density does not make sense as a standalone application with densities lower than previous application.
• Affordable housing element of 50% questions the deliverability of the site.
• Access – the land is currently inaccessible relying on the development of 20/02988/OUT.
  • Access must be via the Four Elms Road site; it cannot be accessed safely from Skinners Lane or other surrounding roads.
  • It fails NPPF 115-116 as a standalone allocation.
• The traffic survey relates to this one site, but should be considered as part of the wider Local Plan.
• SUDs – The site is 38.5% in Flood Zone 2 and 0.52% Flood Zone 3. The development will increase runoff water and potential flooding on the site which is clay. Mitigations are needed for the cumulative impact of development along St Brelades Stream (Kent and Surrey Golf Course, Champions Way, Spitals Cross and this site).
• Infrastructure – it is unclear what infrastructure benefits this application would bring to the town. Members echoed the concerns that the developer was walking back commitments that had previously bene offered. 
• The developer is now explicitly refused to fund essential transport measures requested by highways authority, including bus diversions and pedestrian crossing.
• The District's own Urban Design officer has recommended a refusal due to the housing density.

The Council note that this site has been included in the draft Local Plan Regulation 18 (3) consultation (closing date 11 December). The Council has submitted a representation to this site – EDEN12 Land south west of Skinners Farm Road. It supported this site as part only as part of a joined-up fully integrated strategic northern development with EDEN9 and the approved Four Elms Road scheme (20/02988/OUT), subject to flood mitigation, biodiversity management, and safe access via Four Elms Road.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application and commented:

Members maintained their objection to this application, citing:

• The site is in the Green Belt and within the National Landscapes
• Concerns with sewage (and the need for a Packaged solution to be adequately maintained throughout the life of the properties).
• Parking would be an issue on the site for the number of proposed units.

Recommendation: Members made no comments.

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

• The original application was for two dwellings, which is now increased to four smaller dwellings, and members still had parking and access concerns in this compact stie.

Members noted that the previous application had been to convert to two properties, and that this application would create four properties. Members also noted that the removal of external staircases would improve the appearance of the building, and that many of the images in the Conservation Report were inverted.  

Recommendation: Members objected to this application due to concerns about access and parking on this compact site.

Recommendation: Members supported this application on condition that the height meets planning regulations.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application:

Members had been unable to view the documentation for this application on the SDC website, so were unable to make any observations. 

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted and ratified.

None.

None.

None.