Planning and Transport — 29 June 2026

Apologies were received and accepted from Cllr M Gemmell Smith, Cllr V Parker and Cllr B Todd.

None.

One member of the public made representation on application 26/00470/FUL Kettle Cottage. He raised concerns regarding the suggestion for a permissive footpath across private land, leading to the railway line and to cross across the level crossing to PROW SR591. The path was to service only the residents of the planning application, leading to an inadequate crossing across the railway line.

Resolved: The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8 june 2026 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting held on 15th December; (pages 2023-140/1-4).

None.

Recommendation: Members supported this application subject to the Conservation Officer and the Tree Officer’s recommendation(s).

Members noted this is a retrospective planning application, and:

Recommendation: Members supported to this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application subject to consideration to noise mitigations to residents close to the site, and ask for mitigations to include:

• installation of noise barriers;
• gaps between the properties and site;
• it was also noted deliveries are expected to be 24 hours and request consideration to restriction early hours.

Members agreed to consider this item as the first agenda item

Recommendation: Members repeated their objections to this application and commented:

The western sections of Hilders Lane have no footpath, but this new path, only addresses a straight (safer) section of the road, providing a longer alternative route. Members were concerned the longer route would not be used by residents, who would continue to walk along the road instead.

The planning term 'permissive' implies that there was already an unrecognised footpath in existence, while there was never a trodden-in footpath across these fields and this new one just does not seem appropriate. Members expressed concern about the permanence of such permissive access. 

Members would prefer to see a proper pavement installed along Hilders Lane, especially addressing the more dangerous bends on Hilders Lane.

This site is greenfield, and to lay a path through three fields is inappropriate, and in any case the footpath will not be of any use to residents wanting to walk into the town centre. Members were concerned that there is a different reason for providing the footpath.  'Planning by stealth'.

Members also discussed the likely need to address the railway crossing at the south end of the footpath especially given the developments taking place along Hilders Lane. 

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Noted. Members noted the likely disruption the approved wastewater connection would cause and questioned why this was not agreed prior to full approval.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

Ratified.

Members noted that their comments should read:

Members made no further comments. The Planning Officer has emailed SDC to amend their comments on the portal

Members noted that they had considered this as Item 6.1 on this agenda. 

Recommendation: Members objected to this application and commented:

The western sections of Hilders Lane have no footpath, but this new path, only addresses a straight (safer) section of the road, providing a much longer alternative route. Members were concerned the longer route would not be used by residents, who would continue to walk along the road instead. 

The planning term 'permissive' implies that there was already an unrecognised footpath in existence, while there was never a trodden-in footpath across these fields and this new one just does not seem appropriate.

Members would prefer to see a pavement along Hilders Lane, especially the more dangerous parts of Hilders Lane.

This site is greenfield, and to lay a path through three fields is inappropriate, and in any case the footpath will not be of any use to residents wanting to walk into the town centre. Members were concerned that there is a different reason for providing the footpath.  'Planning by stealth'

Members were also concerned that the footpath leads to a basic level crossing over the railway.

Cllr Baker advised that Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) would be considering the revised Local Plan for the forthcoming Regulation 19 consultation at its Development and Infrastructure Advisory Committee (DIAC) the following day (30 June 2026). The revised Plan reflected changes to a number of proposed development sites following the Regulation 18 consultation and subsequent updates to national planning policy. The papers were published on SDC website, and showed a reduction in housing numbers for Edenbridge. The Swan Lane site (EDEN16 - 600 dwellings) had been removed, but the other sites were retained, with some slight increases to their housing allocations.

Members noted EDEN15 (Mead Road/Phillippines Close) had been considered under a planning application 25/03241/OUT. SDC's Development Management Committee had approved the application at its meeting on 23 June 2026 for outline planning permission for up to 135 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with all matters reserved except access, and subject to a satisfactory legal agreement under Section 106.

Cllr Baker expressed disappointment that the application had been determined prior to the Regulation 19 consultation. As the site was no longer proposed as a Local Plan site allocations, the approved development would now be additional to those sites already benefiting from planning permission.

In her capacity as a District Councillor and member of the DIAC, Cllr Baker advised that she would be attending the meeting on 30 June. She intended to raise concerns regarding infrastructure provision for Edenbridge and the importance of providing clearer supporting information as part of the Regulations 19 consultation. She would also highlight concerns regarding the town's principle highway junctions, noting that, only the Hilders Lane/Main Road junction appeared to have been identified for mitigation works. Members were invited to advise her of any additional matters they wished her to raise.

Cllr Aldridge mentioned that at the recent NALC conference, he had the Spatial Settlement Plan with ONH Planning (considered by committee and Council last year). He highlighted the potential benefits of an independent evidence-based document in supporting the Town council's representations during the Local Plan Examination Hearing stages, and as future evidence base for any Neighbourhood Plan. Members noted that a report on commissioning an SSP would be presented to the Council at its July meeting.

Sevenoaks District Council's approval of this application was published prior to this meeting,