Transcript

Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the meeting of the planning committee on Wednesday, the 19th of June, 2024. I'm Councillor Paterson, chairman of this committee. Before we get into the agenda items, please give your full attention to the following announcements from the clerk, Mrs Moran. Thank you, chair, and good evening, everybody. In the event of the fire alarm ringing continuously, you must immediately evacuate the building at walking pace. Officers will escort you via the most direct available route and no one is to use the lift. We will make our way to the fire assembly point, which is by the entrance to the town hall yard car park on Monson Way. And once outside, a check will be made to ensure everyone has safely left. No one is to re-enter the building until advised that it is safe to do so. This is a public meeting and proceedings are being webcast live online. A recording will also be available for playback on the council's website shortly afterwards. Can I remind everyone to use our microphones when speaking? The red light indicates the microphone is on and any comments that are not recorded for the webcast will not be included in the minutes of the meeting. You should all be aware that any third party is able to record a film council meetings unless exempt or confidential information is being considered. The council will not accept liability for any third party recordings. It is very important that the outcomes of the meeting are clear. At the end of each substantive item, a vote will be taken by a show of hands. Members should raise their hands to indicate their vote and keep their hands up until the count has been announced. Members requesting a recorded vote must do so before the vote is taken. Members of the public who have registered to speak at the meeting will be asked to come to the microphone at the appropriate time. They will have three minutes to address the committee after which they must return to their original seat. Members of the public or members who have registered to speak but are unable to join the meeting will have their statement read out. Thank you, chair. For the benefit of the recording, we are going to take a roll call. Thank you, chair. Expected members here this evening. Councillor Atwood. Present. Councillor Brita-Allen. Present. Councillor Kent. Present. Councillor LePage. Present. Councillor Pound. Present. Councillor Neville, vice-chair. Present. Councillor Patterson, chair. Present. Thank you. And expected officers here this evening. Jennifer Beechman. Present. James Taylor. Present. And Lucinda Roach. Present. Thank you, and for the benefit of the recording, we have Councillor McAllan, cabinet member for planning with us this evening. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Members of the committee should be familiar with the process, but for the benefit of any members of the public who are attending, I would like to explain a couple of things. Committee members come from wards across the borough, and although they may have local knowledge, when they make planning decisions, they must consider each application in the context of the whole borough area. Committee members have had their agendas for over a week and have had the opportunity to study these and to clarify any issues with planning officers. So although members of the public might wonder why some matters are not discussed in more detail at the meeting, it may well be that members have already asked these questions and obtained satisfactory answers. When we come to the substantive items on the agenda this evening, the officer will first set out the report. I will then ask any speakers to address the committee before we then move into member discussion. At the end of the debate, I will try to summarise the committee's view and members should ensure that any proposals or actions are correctly captured before a vote is taken. Mrs Moran, do we have any apologies for absence? Yes, chair. We've had apologies from Councillors Dara, Johnson, Osborne and Pitts this evening. Thank you. Members of the public, item 3, declaration of interest. Members of the public committee should declare at this point if they have any declarations of pecuniary or significant other interests, or if they have fettered their discretion and need to withdraw from the meeting while a particular application is heard. Does any member have a declaration to make? Councillor Pound. Thank you, chair. In the interests of transparency, I wish to advise the committee and the public that in September 2023, in my then role as cabinet member and portfolio holder for housing and planning, I was involved with officers in pre-application discussions between Esquire, the developer, and Benenden Parish Council in a meeting chaired by the head of planning in relation to what is this evening application 7A. I have not been involved since that meeting and I am confident that I am not predetermined in my consideration of the application before us. I have taken advice from the monitoring officer who suggested that I advise the committee accordingly. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pound. Anybody else has declared interest in any item on the agenda? None. Decations of lobbying. Members of the committee should declare at this point if they have been lobbied on any of the applications of today's agenda. The clerk will ask each member in turn, please state on which application you have been lobbied, if any, and whether it is by objectors, supporters, or both. This is Moran. Thank you, chair. Councillor Atwood. Thank you. No lobbying for or against on any item. Thank you. Councillor Bicharlin. Also no lobbying for or against on any of the items tonight. Thank you. Councillor Kent. I have not been lobbied. Thank you. Councillor LePage. No lobbying. Councillor Pound. No lobbying from me, thank you. Councillor Neville. No lobbying. Councillor Paterson. No lobbying. Thank you, chair. Site inspections. Members have the opportunity to be at the site of two applications this afternoon, application 7A, Benenden Hospital, Goddard Green Road, Benenden, Cranbrook, Kent, and item 7C, Rocklands Cottage, Sandrock Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells. Item 6 is to approve the minutes of the meeting dated Wednesday 15 May 2024. Members are asked to confirm that the minutes of the previous meeting are a true record of the proceedings. May I please remind members that the only matter for discussion is their accuracy. Do members have any comments? Chair, there was, following the publication of the minutes, an adjustment has been made to the minutes for application PLA 310/23, 202 and 230 Upper Grosvenor Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, and the words on this site have been added to the end of paragraph 7 and it should now read, officers advised that although there may have been circumstances when the council was a registered provider, however, they were not aware that the council was taking on sites such as the one before members. The housing team has been consulted and their comments in the report did not highlight that as a way forward on this site. Thank you. The motion is to agree the minutes. Are we agreed? Agreed. Thank you. Subject to the amendment. Subject to the amendment, obviously. Item 7, this is the report of the Head of Planning Services. These reports are those of the Head of Planning Services. A presentation will be provided by the case officer of the applications but for those members of the public listening, I would like to be clear that the considerations, conclusions and recommendations of the report are those of the Head of Planning Services and not of individual case officers. I would like to remind members of the public that have registered to speak that they should not use personal, disrespectful or offensive language when making their presentations. The order of business this evening will be 7(e), 7(d), 7(c), 7(a) and then 7(b). So we move to item 7(e) which is the Granary Swigs Hole Farm, Yew Tree Green Road, Orsman Den, Tunbridge, Kent. This can be found on page 99 of the main agenda and page 24 of the supplementary pack. Mr Taylor, your presentation please. Thank you, Chair. This application is for the Granary Swigs Hole Farm on Yew Tree Green Road. You may remember another application on the site coming to committee in March for another holiday let. This follows on as there was a mention of a holiday let in the design and access statement but didn't have any permission. It's come before committee again as the applicant was an elected member within the last three years. This is the existing elevations. There's no physical changes. The only consideration is given to the proposed change of use to the holiday let. It does benefit from an existing separate access which you can see on the top left elevation which serves as a holiday let. This again is the same photo of the South Eastern elevation. The holiday let forms the right hand side, the front facing gable structure. It does connect to the main dwelling and it's subdivided when let out by an internal door but otherwise benefits from its own sort of separate access. These are also the floor plans of the holiday let. So you can see all the facilities necessary to sort of support the use which is necessary for the living accommodation. The door on the left hand side of the existing ground floor plan is the door that's closed when the holiday let is let out but it's otherwise opened when not let out and forms part of the main living accommodation. This is the rear yard. So this is the private amenity area to the rear. It's not visible from any, well not highly visible from any surrounding viewpoint. It's well screened by close boarded fencing and you've got the swimming pool, barbecue area and just all the amenity. This is the fire. You can see it's all relatively low level sort of development. It wouldn't be visible above that screening. If you see the fence to the left hand side behind the sort of honeycomb structure, that's the holiday let that was approved in March. So the recommendation is to grant an admission subject to conditions on page 105 of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. We have no speakers on this item so committee members do you have any questions for the officers? Can I just clarify basically what we're doing is allowing existing building just to be subdivided into a holiday annex essentially that's the extent of it and that obviously because it was property of a previous member of the council that's why it's come to the committee essentially. Yes so the constitution requires any application submitted by someone who was a member within the last three years to come before committee and it is effectively as you say just getting it ticked off that is a lawful use. Thank you. If there's no questions can I have a proposal from the member of the committee? Council Pound. Before I make a proposal I fully appreciate the retrospection of an application is not something that we consider but I would like to put on public record I do wish that members and ex-members of this council would abide by the same rules as they expect every other member of the public to abide by which is that they should be seeking planning application before an alteration not after the event. Having said that I can see no planning reason to object it and therefore I propose acceptance of the officers recommendation. Point well made Councillor Pound. Councillor Page. I'd like to make one quick point and that is as you've pointed out in 1016 the use of close bordered fencing would result in some limited harm to the character of the historic farmstead as well as to the rural character of the site that's the only harm that was identified and I can think of three ways in which that harm could be mitigated so I would like to suggest an informational saying please look at options for a close bordered fence that retains the privacy but is less harmful to the character of the historic farmstead if that's possible. Thank you Chairman. Just to confirm the close bordered fences are already erected so do you want an informative to advise its replacement or clarify please. My understanding is that we have to discuss this application on its own merits regardless of the fact that it's retrospective so if we're discussing it on its own merits I would like to suggest that the close bordered fencing be replaced with fencing which is less harmful to the natural landscape as it says in 1016. Would that be possible? It is possible to have an informative however I would just clarify that the close bordered fence it is permitted development doesn't require planning permission. Okay Councillor. Thank you I'm happy to second the motion but I also would just like to stick my head above the parapet here and say I've noted that this is the third retrospective application on this site. Thank you very much. Okay we have a proposer and a seconder for this item. All those in favour please show. Thank you. Thank you. The application is therefore approved. Item 7d is 240108548 Northfield Spellhurst Tambora's Wells Kent. It's on page 99 of the main agenda and page 19 of the supplementary plan. Mr Taylor your application please. Sorry your presentation please. Thank you chair. As you say this application is for eight Northfield films in Spellhurst and it's come before committee as the applicant is a relation of current elected member. It should be on. Yeah. I know. the applicant is a member is a relation of an active member. So it is situated in the centre of Spellhurst in the limits built development and is a end of terrace dwelling house. This is the aerial photo and you can see that all gardens back onto each other. That's the principal elevation characteristic of the area. And an existing and proposed floor plans. You can see there is an existing structure from the rear which is to be replaced with the proposed extension. The height remains similar but the proposed extension is around three metres wider so full width of the house and around two and a half metres deeper. The proposed existing elevation so you can see the existing structure still. It's a relatively minor enlargement of what it is as it exists and then the proposed flat roofed enlargement. The recommendation is to grant punnification subject to the conditions on page 98 of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. We have no speakers on this item. Committee members have you got any questions for the officers on this item? It seems not. Can I have a recommendation please from Councillor Page? I'm happy to propose. I'd just like to say that one of the neighbours or the neighbours worry about loss of amenity. They have an extension which is exactly the size of that other than the fact that that one is up to the boundary. So I'm very happy to propose that we approve the application. Thank you. Can I have a seconder? Councillor Richmond. Okay. We have a proposer and a seconder. All those in favour please show. Thank you. This application is therefore approved. Item 7C is 2400872 for Rocklands Cottage Sand Rock Road, Royal Tambridge Wells, Kent. It's on page 84 of the main agenda and page 15 of the supplementary pack. Mr Taylor, you've got another presentation for me. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Sorry to start by thanking you again for Rocklands Cottage. It's within the defined limits of Tambridge Wells and seeks punnification for the creation of parking through a drop curb, fencing alterations and installation of surfacing. It's been called in by Councillor Worthington on highway safety and environmental impact grounds. Just a couple of minutes. Yes. Stop, dammit. So these are the existing fence details, proposed details and the block plan. You can see from the existing details the fencing is already in place with a pedestrian gate. The current parking, as you can see, the dwelling is to the top right of the block plan. The parking is currently in the constitutional club to the south in their car park, but otherwise the dwelling has no dedicated parking. The gate itself, which is to be moved back would be 5.5 metres back from the edge of the highway. Cell pave is to be used. It was originally to be Grass Creek, but subject to comments from the tree officer that was amended and which was deemed to have a lesser impact on the trees. It has been designed to allow turning and ingress and egress in a forward gear and the retaining one which you can see in the bottom right of the black thick line details have been requested subject to condition. This is proposed fencing, so 1.8 metres tall and the gate itself is 3 metres deep. The fencing itself and the alterations of the fencing wouldn't require planning permission. The materials to be used are similar to the existing fencing as well. These are the visibility displays coming out of the site. So you've got 43 metre visibility either way at 2 metres tall. Pedestrian visibility displays of 2 by 2 metres. KCC highways were consulted and haven't raised any objections in regard to highway safety. This is the existing site. So you can see the parking area has been marked out with the stakes. There's no trees to be removed to facilitate the parking area. It is just surfacing to be implemented on that and then a retaining wall of a depth which is detailed to be forthcoming installed to the rear. But again no trees to be removed. This is a part of the existing fence. It has been overgrown. So there is planting which screens the fence into a degree. But the condition five recommended of this application has requested a landscape condition be attached or in fact has attached a condition to require further information hardened soft landscaping. And these are the views either way. So these are, you can see the visibility displays will be suitable and 43 metres either way. Again KCC highways have not raised any objections in regard to highway safety. No trees to be removed which has been secured by condition. A scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancements has again been secured by condition. KCC highways have not raised any concerns in regard to highway safety and there are no other technical objections in regard to trees, the Tum and George Conservation Area or biodiversity. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application subject to the conditions on page 93 of the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. We have no speakers on this item. Do members have any questions for officers on this one? Councillor Page. I seem to be the one with all the questions. Could you just very quickly tell me the difference in porosity and appearance between the Grass Creek and the Cell Pave please? I think the issue that the Tree Officer picked up wasn't necessarily the visible impact. It was more the previous Grass Creek would have required to be a level dug out and then sort of a plastic put down and then concrete poured in which he considered to have a higher impact on trees hence the recommendation to change it to the Cell Pave which is a no cut no fill solution. The applicant has changed it to those plans and it's more to do with the impact on trees and again the Tree Officer has not raised any objections. Is satisfied with the details proposed? That's fine, thanks. Councillor Penn. Thank you, Chair. A question and a comment if I may. Could I just get confirmation that you have tested all of the bulleted objections from the 14 residents in relation to the site? None of which I sense other than possibly harm to the conservation area have a planning consideration within them but I just wanted to ensure that they'd all been ticked off as not being reasonable grounds for objection. Thank you, Councillor Pound. Just to confirm, we have ticked off all of those that are planning related and material planning considerations that we can control under this application. Okay, thank you. My comment if I may, Chair, is that at 7.06 I do love the expression 'enable them to enter and exit the site in a forward gear'. Great expression. It should read enter and exit the site, not enter and access the site in a forward gear which implies you'd have to reverse out which I don't think is right. I assume that what you're saying is that it's ingress and egress from the site in a forward gear. Yes, I can confirm that's what it means. Thank you. Councillor Kent. My only concern is the site lines because there's an awful lot of children going up and down now and if it's only going to have a 10-foot gap for the car to park in 5.5 with a high hedge or a high fencing, is that adequate for children and their little ones that go by now every day? I'm just concerned that there's visual display enough to be able to see the children. That's my concern. Mr Taylor. Thank you. Yeah, as KCC highways were consulted and they have deemed the visibility displays, I mean the applicant got a transport survey carried out, KCC highways have viewed those documents and are satisfied that there is no impact on highway safety. As you say, the visibility displays for pedestrians has also been represented. KCC highways would have seen that as well and have deemed it acceptable. Thank you. Any other questions? We'll move into debate. Would anybody like to start us off or make a proposal? Oh, sorry. I'd just like to make a comment, if I may. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting a Councillor to attend or have something prepared when they call an item in. I understand that Councillor Wormington is having a baby, in which case he's probably allowed a free pass this time, but it would have been nice to have something prepared for our ema to read out to us, to elaborate on the feelings he has behind the highway safety and environmental impact grounds, because it's just, I don't really understand who he's coming from there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Yes, I think so. I think if a Councillor calls an item in, then we ought to know why. I will at least send a message to actually explain it because I'm not very clear about why it was called in. There we go. Would anybody like to propose the option of Councillor Pound? I'm happy to propose acceptance of the officer's recommendation. Councillor Di Ciano. Yes, I'm happy to second that proposal. Would anybody else like to speak on this item? It seems not. Okay. Could all those in favour please show? That's unanimous, Chair. Thank you. The application is therefore approved. Okay. We move on to Item 7A, 23032744 at Benenden Hospital, Goddard, Green Road, Benenden, Cranbrook, England. This you'll find on page 20 of the main agenda and page 2 of the supplementary pattern. Perhaps just take a short break while the officers move themselves around. Sorry, I'm just going to get this out of the way. Okay. Thank you. Ms Perishments, you're on the line. You're on the line. You're on the line. Ms Perishments, your presentation, please. Good evening. This is an application at Benenden Hospital, Goddard, Green Road, Benenden, Cranbrook. It's a recommendation for approval. And the summary of reasons for the recommendation is on the first page of the officer report. The reason this is before committee is because it's a major housing proposal recommended for approval and reduced financial contribution considerations. Before I start, there are just some minor typos and corrections and some updates that I'll just go through. On page 21, the public use of the hospital café and small retail outlet states in perpetuity that this should save for a minimum of 10 years from occupation of 50% of gross residential units. This will be picked up in the section 106 agreement. On page 22, at the bottom, the extension of time is not the 12th of June but the 26th of June. And just along from that on the right-hand side, the officer's site visit date, it's not the 8th of December '24 but '23. On page 35, the most recent Kent County Council flood and water comments is actually today, which I'll go through in a moment. And at paragraph 10.24, there's a word missing. KCC can then allocate as appropriate, the word as is missing. An important paragraph is paragraph 10.25, directly after that, the applicants have had discussions with Homes England. It's written there that the applicant has subsequently advised by email that they have not had discussions with Homes England but this is not the case. The applicant has subsequently advised via email that they have had discussions with Homes England about grant funding but they do not qualify for Homes England funding as they're either too small or not a public body, which I'll go through in a moment. And the rest of that paragraph is correct. The applicant has agreed to a clawback clause in the section 106 agreement. This would seek to secure additional monies for contributions if sale costs achieved are higher than expected or if other build costs change and allow additional funds to be put towards the requested contributions. On page 66, condition 8, the drainage details states that the development hereby permitted and it should say the development of the relocated staff car park hereby permitted shall not be convinced until that information is provided so that the rest of the development can start and that information can come forward. In terms of updates, there's additional drainage updates, you can see, on the public files since the committee report was issued. There are two emails from the agent from the applicant and Kent County Council have come back today with a response with conditions, so that ties in with condition 8. There's also an important email there from Homes England and they have confirmed on the 13th of June that the applicant has correctly interpreted the requirements of the two infrastructure funds administered by Homes England and they are unable to signpost any grant funding that would specifically fund the planning contribution shortfall referenced. Through the Affordable Homes Program of 2021 to 26, we are able to grant fund affordable homes that are delivered additional to section 106 requirements, but the funding outputs are affordable homes and still contributions are not an eligible cost for grant funding. Now starting with the presentation, you can see that the site here is the little black dot with the red arrow. It's right on the edge. You can see this is the boundary between Tumwich Wells and Ashford. The closest settlements are Benenden, Cranbrook, Sissinghurst and Eydin Green. You can also see the site in relation to the High World National Landscape, the former AONB. So the pink area is AONB and the site is just here surrounded by AONB, so within its setting. The light's not too good. It's too light. This is the site. It's three parcels of land. We've got the northern site and we've got the southern part of the site here and we've also got a small area to the west, which is a relocation of the Great Staff car park, which is behind the Quinlan Centre, which is the hospital. This is Benenden Hospital, the new hospital buildings. This slide shows the location in regard to public footpaths. The purple is the footpaths, the northern site here, the southern site. The yellow is promoted footpath routes and the green are bridleways just here. The National Cycle Route 18 runs adjacent to the site, so the site is just the bottom right part of that slide, that pink route is Goddard's Green Road and then down Green Lane. It's 30 miles per hour along Goddard's Green Road and there are bus stops either side, existing bus stops and the proposals do include the relocation of the existing bus stop of the southern side of Goddard's Green Road to ensure that the associated shelter falls outside of the required access visibility space. It's also proposed to provide a 30 miles per hour gateway features with red surfacing and carriageway roundels along Goddard's Green Road approximately 300 metres to the east and 300 metres to the west of the site. And a pedestrian crossing comprising dropped curbs with tactile paving and achieving 1.8 by 4.3 metre visibility space. And it's also noted that the applicant will not seek adoption of the internal road network by the local highway authority. This slide shows the neighbourhood plan housing allocations, so the Benandon neighbourhood plan has four sites allocated within its plan and this site forms SSP3 and SSP4. SSP3 is the northern part of the site and SSP4 is the southern part. This slide shows the red etching is the boundary of the application site. The blue is the approved extent permission. The green is open space. This shows the extent permission for 24 houses. This was approved in 2012. This slide shows the wildlife sites which are purple. The yellow is the existing buildings to be demolished. The blue is the car park. This bright pink adjacent to the car park is the tennis courts and then the green is the new buildings of the hospital. Of note is this orange curved building which is the old sanitarium building, the Garland wing. The Lister wing is the blue just to the left of that, opposite in the new hospital complex. This slide shows the proposed layout. 28 dwellings on the northern side of the site. They follow the existing building line with landscaping along the road frontage. Green open space to the north. There's a very small building which is difficult to see there but you can see the old pavilion building which is going to be a community space. And then on the southern side of the site, 59 dwellings. This slide shows the proposed landscape plan. The northern part of the site shows the former cricket ground which can still be used as a cricket ground. There's no change at all. And the building on the bottom western side of the site is the former cricket pavilion which we visited today which is going to be either refurbished or replaced as a community facility. The southern side of the site shows the main route in with a mixture of houses and terrace housing for the Garland wing. This slide shows proposed landscaping. There's an orchard area to the far right. This slide shows the local wildlife sites in purple. The ecology constraints which are quite marked. The existing site condition which we saw today. The buildings are in disrepair and have been for some time. This is a significant brownfield site which needs redeveloping. These are some aerial views of the site taken from the design and access statement which shows the existing Garland wing in the first top two slides. The photos below those show the tennis court, the car parking and the hospital complex. This is a slide showing the use of the site in the 1920s when it was a hospital sanatorium for TB. This slide shows the existing state of the Garland wing. It's a non-designated heritage asset, it's not listed. This slide is the design process. Taking cues from existing architecture within the settlement of Benenden and the surrounding rural landscape. Again another one of the design process. There are six character areas. The parkland edge which is the top bit which is coloured green. Goddard's green cottages which is coloured brown which fronts Goddard's green road. Village Lanes which is the blue area. Green Avenue which is the green area there. Garland Park which is the new Garland wing terrace building in a beigey green and then to the far right there the yellow area is the upper and lower paddock area which adjoins the bight which I didn't mention is not part of the housing allocation but a field adjacent to it which is largely open space with four houses just on the edge. This is Garland Park the proposed terrace building. It's a mansard roof which with discussions with the parish council and the conservation officer has been agreed that this is a good design solution to keep the height down rather than a pitched roof. It has undercroft parking and terrace. This is the green avenue character area. Design taking its cues from housing in the area. This is the upper and lower paddock again taking its cues from housing in the area. You can see where that is on the right hand side there. This is the village lanes another style semi-detached joined with carports. Goddard's green cottages so this is the design fronting Goddard's green road as you can just see here. This is the illustrative drawing of Garland Park of what it would look like which from our site visit today virtually in the middle of that drawing illustration there were views over the countryside and down to the pond. This is another slide of the proposed housing mix so there are 87 dwellings. On the northern part of the site the NEQ northeast quarter there are 28 dwellings and on the southern part of the site the southeast quarter there are 59 dwellings making 87. In the northeast quarter six of the existing dwellings are to be demolished. There to the right hand side there so of the 87 dwellings 30% affordable housing which is the requirement for Brownfield sites of which 61 will be private dwellings and 26 affordable dwellings. Of the 26 affordable dwellings there will be six one bedroom, 13 two bedroom, six three bedroom and one four bedroom. Of the private housing 19 three bed, 35 four bed and 7 five bed. You can see the purple there are the three beds, the mauve are the one bed, if you can see that it's very difficult. It's far too small I won't go into it. You can see the Garland wing there down the bottom and this is too small too for the drainage strategy but right down the bottom is the attenuation pond. Of importance is the independent review appraisal results in the independent review of the viability assessment. At paragraph 10 my report lists the key issues at 10.01 which is the principle of development, the policy background, the Benandon neighbourhood development plan which is made, the submission local plan, financial viability, affordable housing and housing mix, sustainability, impact on the high world landscape, design layout and density, trees and ecology, heritage, highways, drainage, residential amenity, noise and contamination and the planning balance and public benefits. Of importance is the financial assessment. You can see that at paragraph 10.19. Right through to 10.29. So there are significant policy conflicts since its original submission with this application and during the consideration process of the application the applicant submitted a financial viability report in February this year following the confirmation of the financial contributions required to support this proposal and following the submission the council sought a financial viability review that was undertaken by an independent financial viability consultant Dix & Sill partnership who were retained to provide the council with expert advice on these matters and the financial viability review was provided in April this year and they concluded that not only can the site not carry the full section 106 contributions requested but the site is not justified in providing for any section 106 contributions from a financial viability perspective and the viability report ran three financial scenarios based on 14,249 per dwelling, 6,500 per dwelling and zero per dwelling and this is further set out and that quote below at paragraph 10.20 summarises what Dix & Sill found and they acknowledged that the development for housing will put pressure on the existing public services in the area such as health, primary and secondary education, special needs, children's services, community learning, social care, libraries, waste and public transport and this will be significant but the applicant has pointed out this site has complexities including being a substantial and derelict brownfield site therefore there are significant additional financial constraints with contamination, demolition costs and associated build costs which are currently having a direct impact on the viability and profitability of all development proposals and projects. These impacts are well known within the development industry and there is currently no answer to address the current development cost and viability concerns being identified. And at 10.23 it sets out the contributions which cannot now be provided by the developer which I've just read through. Importantly the MPPF states that viability is a material consideration and at paragraph 58 it states where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker having regard to all the circumstances in the case including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up-to-date and any change in circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All viability assessments including any undertaken at the plan making stage should reflect the recommended approach and national planning guidance including standardised inputs and should be made publicly available. So following on from this the applicant has offered the following, the provision of 30% affordable housing which is a key issue. A one-off financial contribution sum of $300,000 which equates to $3,448 per dwelling and the applicant has offered this in order to seek a proactive way forward and assist the delivery of this complex brownfield site. It's offered community space and a refurbished cricket pavilion building. It's offered public use of the hospital cafe and a small publicly accessible retail outlet now that's within the hospital building and also a play area on the cricket pitch and a biodiversity net gain monitoring fee. And although outside of the planning process the applicant has paid a contribution of $10,000 towards the cost of a primary school bus to the local primary school. It's important to note that the NHS and KCC developer contributions and KCC highways and Benenden Parish Council have all been advised and reconsulted on the financial position and a summary of their comments is set out at 10.24 and below in my report, in the officer report. It's considered that the one-off developer payment of $300,000 be allocated to Kent County Council who can then allocate this money as appropriate towards education, special needs, community learning, children's services and waste. Of importance is the Benenden local plan which is the most up-to-date plan and Benenden Parish Council have advised at 10.26 that the applicant is maintaining the level of 30% affordable housing for the development and that's of highest importance as it's in compliance with the Benenden neighbourhood plan site specific policies SSP3 and SSP4. It welcomes the offer from the applicant of $3,488 per dwelling towards the section 106 contributions requested that acknowledges that this leaves a considerable shortfall of $866,000 towards KCC identified county infrastructure requirements relating to the application. Thirdly, it urges both the applicant and Tumut-Wellsboro Council to consider the recommendation made by KCC into the investigation into options for the housing infrastructure fund which would consider marginal viability funding of projects such as this. Fourthly, in the supporting document for marginal viability, the government sets out that this will be used to provide the final or missing piece of infrastructure funding in order to get existing sites unblocked quickly or new sites allocated. We expect the infrastructure to be built soon but after schemes have been awarded funding and for the homes to follow at pace. And lastly, according to a Freedom of Information request made by the Financial Times in January 24, there is still $2.9 billion remaining in the pot for this fund so it would appear to be a funding source well worth pursuing to enable section 106 shortfall to be fully financed. In terms of sustainability at 10.37, the site is allocated in the submitted local plan and the Benenden local plan so sustainability has been assessed. It's adjacent to the hospital, two miles from Benenden village to the south where there's a convenience store post office, it's 2.6 miles, a five minute drive. There's also an existing cafe in the village and the primary school and the village hall and Benenden has good connections to major highway networks. The stations of Headcorn and Stablehurst are further north of the site, a 10 minute drive. So in terms of accessibility, the site benefits from some access to local services including the hospital and the GP surgery. And in order to make the site more accessible and accord with policies, SSP3 and SSP4 of the neighbourhood plan, the existing hospital cafe will as part of this proposal be open to the wider public for everyday provisions during normal opening hours. At 10.39, it's noted that the applicant has stated that they will not be able to provide a proportionate financial contribution to KCC's Kent carrier demand, responsive transport service. However, a travel plan has been submitted with the application which brings together a coordinated strategy and package of initiatives to encourage future residents to switch modes of transport where possible. And the travel plan is oriented towards influencing the travel behaviour of residents, promoting other travel options in a welcome pack and this will be controlled through a planning condition and the initiatives that are set out in the travel plan are walking and cycling, bike transport, car sharing, provision for electric vehicles, eco driver training, social media and reducing the need to travel and home shopping. So the issue of sustainability is one which will need to be carefully weighed up in the planning balance, but importantly this is a long standing and allocated brownfield site containing disused buildings which are in disrepair and already has an stamp planning permission. This proposal would result in significant visual enhancement by demolishing the former hospital buildings and creating an attractive and vibrant place to live. It also forms the majority of the identified housing allocation needs for Benenden set out in the submitted local plan and supported by Benenden Parish Council, notwithstanding the reduction in financial contributions that can be offered to support this proposal. The impact on the high-world national landscape has been assessed in open space, it's a spacious development which will greatly improve this part of East End. In terms of design layout and density, the Conservation and Urban Design Officer has fully engaged with Benenden Parish Council and the planning officers and is in support. There's existing local wildlife area, existing trees to be retained, some will be lost but most will be retained, the dwellings are arranged to overlook the existing open space, there's pedestrian connectivity, working within the existing topography, sufficient car parking and it will introduce a higher architectural quality than the current buildings. In terms of scale, with the exception of the Garland wing, the development will be two stories to ensure that it's wholly domestic in character and sympathetic to the surrounding semi-rural area and the replacement Garland wing will form a terrace of 12 dwellings designed in a crescent formation to reflect the scale and form of the existing buildings. It's a modest increase in the rich height of the proposed building. Heritage, trees and ecology, residential amenity, noise and drainage have all been assessed and the planning balance and conclusion at 10.89 to 10.96 fully assesses what the benefits are and on the basis of this, even without the full range of financial contributions being sought, the scheme has been found on weighing up on the planning balance to be acceptable and in accordance with the local and neighbourhood planning policies and the overall aims of the NPPF framework, therefore approval is recommended. Thank you. Thank you. We have three speakers on this item who will have three minutes to make their statements. The first speaker this evening in support of the application is Mr Andy Wilford, the applicant, if you'd like to come to the desk. When you're ready. Good evening, members. Thank you, Chair. My name is Andy Wilford, Head of Land and Planning at Esquire Developments. We're a multi-award winning SME house builder, delivering high quality, bespoke developments throughout Kent. This site, like any long standing, redundant Branford site is extremely challenging. It poses complexities that require careful consideration and solutions. It has been crucial to find the right balance for a scheme that reflects the site constraints while still delivering a high quality development that meets the aspirations of the local community, the borough council and ourselves. Key to finding this balance has been the two years worth of stakeholder engagement and crucially the guidance and input from the parish council over the final design. The parish's input has of course far exceeded ours through the allocation of the site in their neighbourhood plan and we've worked extremely closely with the parish to find the right solutions to solve the complexities the site poses and unlock its full potential. The collaborative engagement reflected in the many hours of meetings with the parish, local community, offices at the council, the Kent Wildlife Trust, Kent Highways, the local school to name but a few, has allowed the scheme to carefully and thoughtfully blend the strategies to resolve the complex technical matters relating to ecology, heritage, contamination levels, landscape, demolition and viability. These matters have been pushed and pulled, tested and retested and debated at length to ensure that the right strategy for this site is found and the right balance struck. Core to this has been to respect the line in the sand position that the policy compliant level of affordable housing is delivered and the design is of high quality. The proposed garden wing design is testament to this. Regrettably the site comes with substantial abnormal costs, typical of the Brownfield sites of this nature, which has meant that the house had to be a compromise and this is reflected in the level of Section 106 contributions. The independent viability report concluded that no financial contributions were justified but we as the developer did not feel that this was appropriate as we do recognise that there will be some impacts on local services from the scheme. Accordingly we have offered what we can towards Section 106 contributions as set out in the committee report including seeking funding from Homes England which was not forthcoming. We do also continue to help support where we can such as assisting towards a new minibus from the primary school outside of the planning process following an accident in late 2023. Members this is a long-standing derelict Brownfield site that is an eyesore to the local area. It is allocated in a made neighbourhood plan that has limited public objection and parish council support. The development of this scheme has been genuinely influenced by the local community and we as other parish council are keen to begin the next chapter of this unique scheme in Benenden and the borough. We therefore respectfully request that the office's recommendation is supported. Thank you. OK, thank you. Our second speaker this evening in support for the application is Nicola Thomas on behalf of Benenden Parish Council. Good evening Mr Chairman, council members. As chair of Benenden Parish Council I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak to you in support of this application. The planning team at Tunbridge Wells have provided a thorough assessment of the proposal so I would just like to summarise on a few points. Benenden Parish Council is pleased to note that the applicant has closely considered Benenden neighbourhood plan policies throughout their submission and we welcome the consultation and discussions that the applicant held with the parish council and with Tunbridge Wells planning team prior to the submission of this application as well as ongoing discussions with us throughout the application process. The parish council is extremely familiar with these two sites having first allocated them for residential development in the Benenden neighbourhood plan some six years ago. The neighbourhood plan took over four years to come to fruition and was passed at referendum in February 2022. The parish residents proved they were particularly engaged with our plan with a turnout of over 56% which is almost unheard of the neighbourhood plan and there was an 80% overall majority in favour of the plan. We note that the application proposes 81 new dwellings and Benenden Parish Council understands and accepts these numbers noting that this will provide much needed affordable homes for our parish. Following the conclusion of the recent financial viability review the parish council unanimously agreed that maintaining a level of 30% affordable housing for the development is of the highest importance and this is in compliance with the neighbourhood plan site specific policies SSP3 and SSP4. In general terms we would commend the applicant's architect and design team for their thoughtful scheme layout with particular attention being made to the landscaping details proposed on this sensitive site. We are especially pleased with the collaboration between the parish council and the applicant in relation to the crescent shaped terrace which replaces the garland wing. We believe the strikes a thoughtful balance between the bespoke design that this site deserves and the financial constraints of a housing development. I would also like to say thank you to Tunbridge Bell's officers for all their help and support before and during the application process for these sites a truly collaborative approach was taken and we would highly recommend that this approach is carried out by the council with all parishes that face major applications such as these. We trust that members are able to share the conclusion drawn by your planning team in recommending this application for approval. Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. Thank you. Our third speaker is Councillor Tom Dollings who sent a letter to be read out. Thank you chair. A statement from Tom Dollings, borough councillor for Hawkhirst, Sandhurst and Benenden and a Benenden resident. Apologies for not being here in person, I had planned to be here when this item was listed as the first item on the agenda but cannot attend now as it has been slipped to later in the meeting. By way of some background, the redundant buildings at Benenden hospital have been a concern for the community since the new hospital buildings were planned some 20 years ago before I moved to Benenden. The site of the redundant old hospital buildings is surrounded by hoardings which are unsightly and often damaged. The expectation has been that the site would be sold and redeveloped at some stage. The original hospital building is the old sanatorium known as the garland wing. It is quite a feature, parts of which date back to 1906. It is not listed by Heritage England. I understand this because it has been altered and added to over the years. Consent has already been granted for its demolition. The Benenden neighbourhood development plan addressed the future of the site when submitted by the hospital society in response to the call for sites. The focus was on two different areas, the north-east quadrant mainly comprising dated housing and the south-east quadrant comprising the redundant hospital buildings. The sites at Brownfield and, although immediately adjacent to the AONB, are formerly outside of the AONB. The neighbourhood development plan took the view that the residential development was the best use for the area but recognised the east end was not a readily sustainable community. The neighbourhood development plan policies were designed to address some sustainability concerns to preserve the wildlife sites and trees and to focus development on previously developed land. It was considered important to recreate the crescent of the garland wing which fits the topography of the land and reflects the history of the site. The point was also made by members of the Planning Committee when Esquire initially outlined proposals to Planning Committee members. Benenden Parish Council have worked closely with Esquire on the scheme being presented which largely accords with the policy set out in the neighbourhood development plan. I would like to publicly record my thanks to Esquire, to Benenden Parish Council and to the Planning Officers for their constructive work in developing this scheme being presented to you. I would encourage you to support the Officer's recommendation and approve the application. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Officers, do you wish to make any points of clarification or correction arising from the statements made by the speakers? Committee members, any questions for the Officers? Councillor Pound. Thank you, Chair. I'll go straight to my questions. Just to say that I have been in conversation with Officers over the last few days and I'm grateful so that Esquire has responded to some of those questions already, so I won't go through them all. But I have talked about the Southern Water, Polyaromatic, Hydrocarbons, the KCC objections, sustainable transport, housing, cycling, parking and intensity of the social housing. So a number of issues have been covered. But my real question is not to debate either the number of properties that there are on this site, nor the design, nor the very positive relationship between Benenden Parish Council, Esquire and the Council. I think it's been positive. But my question is, if there is no realistic Section 106 contribution, who's going to pay for the one form of entry at the Primary School, who's going to pay for the expansion costs of mass schools which have been identified by KCC, who's going to pay for the additional waste transfer station capacity, who's going to pay for the development of the demand responsive bus service, which currently is almost absent, of course. Because if this is to be a sustainable development, we have to have an understanding about how those infrastructural support systems will be in place to allow this to be a flourishing and thriving community. And currently, I don't see it. That's my first question. I have a number, I'm afraid, but that's my first one. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, I mean, it's clearly disappointing we've not got the full financial contributions for this scheme. It's a brownfield site, brownfield sites, and it's obviously difficult to redevelop because they have high costs associated with that, which I won't go into unless you wish me to. The economic position and the current build cost situation, it is very difficult for developers to fund the full range of contributions requested. In the applicant's slight defence on this one, also the KCC costs for contributions have over doubled since this was first being considered, because they've reissued their contribution calculations. So obviously their costs and request for contributions have increased significantly since this scheme was first discussed. So they're some of the mitigating factors, but yes, it is disappointing, but it is a point that we currently can't achieve all of it. We've sought as a council to provide a suitably sustainable development that complies with the number of the criteria. Currently it can't comply with all, but I think we've made a good balance on this and have sought to try and minimise the impact as far as possible. So in terms of the cost being put forward, I mean, viability, as we've set out, is material planning consideration. We had that tested by an independent financial consultant, and it is found to be sound. So we've come to the conclusion that on the view that we're getting the affordable housing, which obviously we are aware as a committee on other sites that is problematic, it appears that it is one or the other that can be provided at the moment. And as the parish council identified, they consider the affordable housing to be critical. We have in the section 106 and the discussions that we've had also asked for a clawback clause into the section 106 agreement, which basically allows any uplift in the cost, there's criteria for financial contributions and calculations of how you work that out, but any uplift on the site sales, or if there's a reduction in the costs, can be brought back in and we can take extra contributions to try and give them over to KCC to provide for the extra finances. That is as much we can do as a local planning authority at this stage. Can I just come back on that then? Which hasn't, I mean, I understand all of that and appreciate the difficulties, particularly of liability, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question, which is the KCC are saying that there is a need for contributions, particularly to education and transport and other matters, which would make this a sustainable development and would contribute to the local community. And my question was, if we don't get it from the section 106, who is actually going to pay the missing $833,000 that KCC would be expecting to receive if, for instance, Benenden Primary School requires an addition, one form of entry, which it might. We can say we might claw it back later, but I'm trying to understand, if we go, well, okay, well, we're going to go ahead with this and it's a good development and it's been well designed, and it's down to you guys at KCC, therefore, to find the money, that to me doesn't seem to make sense, and they won't seem to be supporting it. I agree, KCC aren't supporting it on those reasons, and I can completely understand their point of view on that, and yours, Councillor Pound. We believe it's sustainable on a number of other factors, that's only one factor, and on the balance of the weight to be attributed to all the different elements the scheme proposes, it's considered to be sufficient to justify an approval of the application, even without those contributions. Does anybody else want to ask any questions on this item? If not, Councillor Pound will keep going. If you don't mind, I'll keep going. Go on. Part of the application, and I'm sorry, I haven't made a note of where, talks about the time that it takes to get to various places in Benenden and elsewhere, all of which are given as distances and driving time, so there is no appreciation of the fact that some people, I believe particularly in the social housing component, won't have vehicles. They will be dependent upon either public transport or upon cycling or walking, and my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is that route 18 doesn't actually go to Benenden, so there is no safe walking or cycling route from this site to Benenden. Is that right? It is only safe, in my understanding, in a car. That's right. It is dependent on the car, this site. You could cycle south to Benenden Village, and those details are in the transport plan of how long it takes. It has been already assessed as a sustainable location because it has been put forward in the neighbourhood plan and the submitted local plan, so those issues have already been assessed as being acceptable. Carry on. Carry on. If nobody else wants to join in, then just carry on. I'm sure you're glad I'm back on the committee, isn't it? Okay, well in relation to that then, MPPF paragraph 83, it says to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services, where there are groups of small settlements developed in one village may support services in a village nearby. To say that this is a sustainable development and that it will produce a vitally or a vital rural community, I'm not persuaded, but I think what it will produce in my sense is a commuter community. People will be leaving and turning left or right on the road to go somewhere. As we have a good component of affordable housing, which I'm very keen as everybody knows to embrace and ensure that we have, I do challenge whether the assumption of its sustainability without all of the infrastructure the KCC requires to be in place to make it sustainable is actually a valid argument. That's sort of the question. Thank you. I do understand where you're coming from. The fact is that we can't cover all bases on all applications so we've sought to identify as many as appropriate. I note your comments about paragraph 83. However, I would also refer to paragraph 124 of the MPPF, which gives substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield sites for needs and support appropriate opportunities to mitigate, remediate, despoil degraded derelict contaminated and unstable land, and on point D of paragraph 124, promote and support the development of underutilised land and buildings, especially where this would help to meet identified needs for housing, where housing and supplies constrained in available sites could be used more effectively. Yeah, sorry, I was just checking there wasn't anything more on that. So there are, yes, there's a sustainability argument, the fact that it's not the easiest to get to. But on the other hand, it's a brownfield site and effective use of land, hence why it was allocated in both the neighbourhood local plan and the submission local plan, the emerging document, for those reasons, because it is a brownfield site, it is therefore considered to be an appropriate site to develop for residential accommodation. Added to that, it's also got an excellent permission for I think 24 units. So it is something that has a history and sustainability is one factor that comes into it, but it's not the only factor. So it's balancing those different judgments against each other. Last one, that's my last one, as we're playing MPPF tennis, paragraph 108 C, which is about promoting sustainable transport, it very clearly says that transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan making and development proposals, so that opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued. And I keep coming back to this point, I'm not against this site being developed, I think it needs to be developed. And I think it's wholly appropriate that it is and I think that Esquire are a good developer who seem to have a very good relationship with both the council and with the parish council. So I don't have a problem about that. What I have a problem about is that it isn't sustainable currently without the infrastructure that needs to be in place to provide it. So can you acknowledge that 108 C does apply to this development and could be considered as a material reason for considering the appropriateness of the application? I can confirm that, but I would say, although not wholly dealing with the sustainability impact, the site does provide the connection to the public right of way, it is providing footpaths along the road frontage, it's providing cycle parking, yes it's not providing new facilities beyond the site for those aspects, but they're all provided for adequately within the site. In terms of public transport, I think there is a public transport service? On a Monday to the village, sorry? One day a week. Yes it would be helpful to get a betterment to that, I don't disagree. However that's why we've identified that the contribution that can be put forward is put forward to KCC and then they can distribute that accordingly. That would include KCC highways request for money towards enhancing that service and that provision that is available to the current population. Our faults, it hasn't ticked every single box but it's ticked enough boxes and that's why the recommendation has been put forward. It's not that those facilities don't exist, they have been promoted but we haven't been able to secure them as much as we would wish. I think in a rural site where there is a lot of mitigating factors there has to be an element of judgment as to where we should focus the finances and where we should focus the attention and I think that the improvements to the housing supply, the number of units this would provide, the number of housing units for Benenden itself, I think all of those add up and mitigate the fact that although this is not 100% sustainable in terms of public transport, it's sufficiently sustainable in other factors to justify approval. Just one other point, the Benenden Hospital is a major employer in the area and it would follow on that there would be people that would be living there that would work at the hospital. Thank you. Anybody else like to ask a question or shall we move into debate? Thank you. Just a quick one. On your slide, I think it was the previous one to this with the mix of the housing. The slide that you had up, I think it was prior to this one, the mix of the housing. Not that one. Is the affordable housing spread evenly between both sites and all the character areas or is it located in just one concentrated area? The affordable housing is grouped together because that makes sense for HAs as well as being able to maintain the properties. So the one beds and the two beds are along Goddard's Green Road. They're set back from the road with vegetation but that's where the locations are. I also just wish to clarify in that point that registered providers no longer like their housing spread out across a site. They like it all in one area because they can maintain it easier and will generally not seek to make offers on sites where it's not all in one area. So that's partly the reason for that on this site. Councillor Page. Thank you, Chair. I don't have as many questions as Councillor Pound because he's asked half of the ones that I wanted to ask but that's helpful. One of the things is regarding the NHS because although the hospital is a stone's throw, it's a private hospital and if I remember correctly the nearest NHS hospital is 14 miles away with all of those driving distances that were in the transport plan. Also there are 272 potential patients who need access to GP services and whatever other health requirements and that particular thing has fallen off the list that you've given us. For example, the list of things for that 300,000 to be spread out is primary and secondary education, special education needs, one form entry to school, children's services, waste transfer, KCC highways but the NHS has fallen off that list so I'm just wondering how people are going to provide for NHS services. Yes, as part of this proposal and as part of the viability that came in, I believe April time, following the request for contributions they were re-consulted and the fact that the viability did not allow contributions to be secured and that has been followed up with various emails and contact to the relevant parties. The NHS haven't come back to us to make any further comments, however KCC have and obviously theirs is a bigger contribution so that is the only reason why they have been taken out of that equation at this time. Obviously monies that we can claw back would need to go to KCC and the NHS, it's not that we have forgotten them, it's just that KCC have obviously made their point stronger and the NHS haven't come back to us to enable that to factor into the discussion at this point in time but yes, any claw back would be to all parties. So my concern also with that is that with this single payment of 300,000 which is going to KCC for them to disperse instead of having them outlined figure by figure, some of those things will be more important than others and my concern is that the Kent Highways will get the bulk of that 300,000 and there will be nothing left to all of these other aspects, positive aspects for the community, all of these nice things that you have mentioned. I don't see if KCC gets 300,000 for them to disperse by themselves, how can we be sure it goes, it's spread around those various things and it doesn't just go to KCC Highways for example? Right, well it's the KCC Highways requested 80 to 200,000, 200,000 is like the worst case scenario of what they need, they haven't quantified that, it will be set out in the Section 106 and KCC will be a signatory to Section 106 so they can decide as they see fit where the money should be distributed. KCC Highways haven't made a strong representation, KCC contributions for the secondary school, primary school, you know all those things all listed out, community, SEN, all of that, as where the main decision has been suggested by KCC. Just to clarify also on that because it's a tricky position, I understand that. We take money on a 106 basis that then KCC allocate anyway, the monies come in for the different elements, it all goes into the same area and they reallocate it so it's just subdivided in their consultation document to us, but in terms of the financial behind the scenes stuff that goes in as one figure. So it wouldn't be entirely dissimilar to what they do at the moment in terms of the actual financial movements, but yes, except it's not ideal, but that's the position we've got at this stage and that's what's being reported to members. Thank you. The Housing Association properties, are they clustered on the north side or the south side of the development of Godard's Green Road? On both the north and the south, fronting the road. So on the southern side of the northern quadrant and on the northern side of the southern quadrant, fronting Godard's Green Road. Okay, thank you, I understand that the development is going to begin at the Garland Terrace area there and then move up towards the road and that will take a process of two years, is it two phases or is it any more phases than that? We will need a phasing plan and that will be a planning condition. We do have an addition, so that's a very important issue because we will need to see how the development will be phased. Thank you. Mr Poe. Thank you, Chair. These are two questions that I'm simply not sure about. If the registered provider for the social housing has dropped out, what will happen next? There was an initial registered provider that's dropped out, but that would go back out to other providers to see if they can take on the affordable housing. So that's just one provider out of many, but I believe there's already discussions to try and find another provider to take on the units. Thank you. That just seems to be one of a number of loose ends. And the last thing I'm going to ask, please, is in the application we mentioned several times the possibility of applying to Homes England or wherever for granting, and we have heard today that that's been turned down, so it's actually no longer available, or it's not available, but does that change the balance of approval or not approval because those possibilities are now closed off? Yes, obviously because all the contributions couldn't be sought, KCC made comments that there was grant funding available. That was followed up by Benidorm Parish Council, so yes, it's in the report quite a few times. However, the applicant had already followed that up with Homes England, and they'd been advised that there wasn't funding available. Subsequently, the council has followed up directly with Homes England, and they've confirmed that position. So although it is referenced in the report and requests have been made that that should be taken forward, there is currently no grant funding available to take on additional extra contributions on this site. OK, is that it? OK, thanks, Jane, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you. And actually, the clawback clause, which you were talking about, how exactly does it operate? Does they tell you, oh, we've got a bonus, we're going to give you more money, or how do the council claim it? Thank you. There is a-- I mean, it can be done in different ways, and it does depend on negotiations with the Section 106. There is-- I haven't done many personally, but there is a formula for it, and that would be negotiated as part of the Section 106, and at what point we will be able to clawback on this. It's not only a percentage of the uplift, so it won't be all of the uplift, it would be sort of 50% of the uplift, and then we'd be able to claw that back. It also requires further viability reports to be undertaken to clarify the costs. But yes, hopefully we can claw some back to go towards some contributions. But yes, it will be all tied into the 106. Thank you. OK. If there's no more questions, would anybody like to start the discussion? Councillor McCharran. Thank you, Chair. Yeah. I wanted to start off by saying I very much echo Councillor Pound's comments on the scheme and principles. It's got good design, it's on the Brownfield site, it desperately needs redevelopment going there, you know, the relationships that parish and borough councils going forward with this. However, I am so concerned about the sustainability of this site, and I'm all up for, as everyone knows, massively up for social housing, which we desperately need more of. It's just-- I'm particularly going back to Section 10.21. It is acknowledged that the development of housing will put pressure on existing public services in the area, such as health, primary and secondary education, special needs, children's services, community learning, social care, libraries, waste and public transport, and this will be significant. I would suggest that all of these measures, because of the lack of funding going into Section 106, all of these measures are what makes them more sustainable, each individually if you've got families. And it's not just the development. It's going to be detrimental to the entire community. It's going to put-- this is a significant amount of money to be down. It's going to have massive impacts everywhere. And as a second point, I was just doing some, you know, back of a fact packet, so to speak, calculations. Everything's been put in as miles as, you know, six minute drive here or there, and roughly going into Benenden to the barriers, so you've got your come convenience store, the post office, primary school, Three Miles Village Hall. You've got them at around about three miles, it's slightly under some of them. Find the six minute walk. If you don't have access to a car or are unable to drive for whatever reason, you're going to be-- that's going to take you between 45 and 60 minutes to walk if you've got safe walking routes to go down, which we've already discussed may be an issue. So for those distances, if you wanted to get a taxi based on Tumfer Trails Borough Council information online about the happening carriages, that's going to cost you about 10 pounds either way to get to. That's just to get to the shop, the post office, or the Village Hall for activities to take your kids to. If you want to get to the train stations, so those commuting or come back from work, the nearest one's eight miles away. If you want to walk that, it's going to take you two hours and 40 minutes, and that's going to add to your commuting time. It would be a long all day on the way home if you wanted to go for a drink or something after work. And for a taxi, that's going to cost you just under 23 pounds each way. That's nearly 50 quid just to get to or back from the train station should you need to get a taxi and not have access to a car. So I do feel this is very car-centric, I appreciate looking at electric vehicles, but at the moment, if you don't drive, and I would, I'm not saying, but I would suggest if you have got social housing there, which has got one bedroom, two bedroom maze nets, you may struggle to be able to afford, it's not cheap to run a car at the moment, you know, everything going up in price and insurance and petrol and just keeping it on the road is not a cheap option. So I would, I would just suggest that I'm, I just think this isn't actually sustainable, it's not sustainable for everybody unless you're, you know, absolutely reliant on cars and we're trying to encourage cars to come off. Because of that lack of resourcing in funding, I think if that funding was there, that, what have we got, 866,000, it does make a significant impact on the viability of the building in terms of sustainability, and that is my major concern. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Councillor Pound. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Richard Allen has said a lot of what I was going to say, and I'll just repeat the point that I had some previous involvement in this site, so I know it, but I'm certainly not predetermined in my view, and I think it needs to be developed, I don't think there's any doubt, you know, and having visited it today, as most of us did, it's very apparent that it is a wholly appropriate site for some form of development, but as I keep saying, that development currently, with the mix of housing that is proposed for the site, has to be supported by infrastructure, and I genuinely think that that is currently failing. And I went back, and I've gone back to MPPF paragraph 74, and that says the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale developments such as new development or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, including a genuine choice of transport modes. It then goes on at B to say that in doing so, they, that is us as the planning authority, should ensure that their size and location will support a sustainable community with sufficient access to services and employment opportunities within the development itself, which was alluded to by the officers, but then it says, brackets, without expecting an unrealistic level of self containment or in larger towns to which there is good access. The suggestion, therefore, that, you know, some people on this site will be able to work at the local hospital flies in the face of self containment, because that is not what we want to do, and in truth, I have to say that if you are living in a new four bedded house, 34 of which there are on site, or eight of the five bedded houses, you probably aren't going to be working at the hospital, in truth. If you're lucky, you might get one or two people who are both able to afford that salary and a house on that site, but the reality is that this is not a sustainable development as it is currently proposed, and I would like to propose that we reject the officer's recommendation and that we do not accept this application. Thank you. OK, Councillor Pate, sorry. I just want to add on that, well a couple of points really, the MPPF, at the very beginning, paragraph 7 and 8, achieving sustainable development, identifies a huge number of factors that relate to sustainable development, and that isn't just infrastructure or transport, it includes enhancing the natural built environment, the historic environment, making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, all of which are happening on this site, and along with building the right houses, and sufficient land and houses to support growth, innovation and improve productivity. So there's lots of different elements that go into sustainability, there's economic, social and environmental, it's not just about transport and it's not just about infrastructure. I fully accept that those are the main issues on this site, and the key issues that members are debating with, but there are lots of different factors to sustainability. The second point I just wish to add, if members were minded to refuse the application, is perhaps we could look to defer the application and see if the applicants can improve their offer. In any way, it's unlikely, I think my recommendation would be as set out in the report, but I think that would be a better solution to a refusal if members are going down that line. Thank you. Councillor Page. Just to carry on from that, I think the developers have done a fantastic job with the development of the site as it is, I think it's going to be beautiful and a huge improvement on the area, and the amount of consultation they've done with the parish council and with the planning officers here has been really exemplary, I think. The thing that worries me, going on from the general discussion about this, is that some of the wording in the document, and I was looking at paragraph 708, which is KCC strategic development, they object the development is not sustainable, and KCC could not count on its shortfall of around 866,000. It does not meet the CIL community infrastructure levy, 2010 tests. KCC is extremely concerned by the very significant shortfall in funding for infrastructure, and then it says, if granted, this would leave both KCC and Thomas Wells Borough Council at significant financial loss which cannot be justified. So I feel that everybody, I think, feels that we need to go back a little bit to see how we can tease out the sustainability of the development, because I would really like the development to go ahead. So one of the things that occurred to me just on the hoof is these staged plans, for example, two years to develop the first building and then gradually going up the hill, but we've got the section 106 and the 300,000 has fixed the amount set now. Is there no possibility of teasing out, I mean, there must be, the developers must be looking at the risk of working on a contaminated site and building in some contingency if there are problems when they start digging holes. So as this development proceeds, is there no opportunity then to, once they've built, delivered what's there, tested the market by selling some of those houses, to then revisit section 106 contributions as it goes along? Ms Rocha. Thank you, Chairman. That's what the clawback clause in 106 would help, would seek to achieve, that's the purpose of it, is to try and claw back money as the development completes. I mean sometimes they have to review that every two years, every five years, possibly over ten years. We do need to phase in plan by condition which would be added to the recommendation if members were minded to approve the application, but yes, that's essentially what the clawback clause achieves and that is, that's purely because we haven't got all of the financial contributions. Again, not all developers would agree to that, but that's been agreed and we would obviously look at the words of that very carefully to try and secure any monies that we can back in towards the financial contributions. Okay thanks, I shouldn't have asked two questions at once, it still worries me about this potential exposure of required infrastructure that hasn't been budgeted for and the exposure is between the Borough Council and KCC and that's a bit that I don't understand. So if we were minded not to approve it at this point and to what extent, I mean how much development as it is, I'm happy to accept it's just a bit, those little bits around of unfinished business like the registered provider and this infrastructure and can it go back and have another look at those aspects of it? I think you're sort of proposing, well not proposing, but you're supporting deferral which is what the officer suggested that we might think about. Councillor British Island. Thank you Chair. Councillor Pound, would you consider in your proposal maybe altering that rather than a block out refusal to putting a deferment in on this one so that the applicant can go back and have a consideration of actually where they can look at supporting the infrastructure before I propose a deferral so I can jump on your one. I just want to clarify a few points. I mean obviously there is a risk of deferring the application. There could be an appeal against non-determination in which case the matter would be taken out of our hands as local planning authority and it would go to the planning spectrum for consideration and they will look at the viability side of it. So that is a risk by deferring. The other risk that I would say there is, is that you may not get the scheme that's before you if you want all the financial contributions. It may be a different scheme that isn't as nice, slightly dulled down design to make those costs up to get the financial contributions so there is a balance to be made in planning decisions and weighing up those balances and I'm looking at paragraph 8 of the MPPF and it fulfils a lot of those sustainability criteria. I know it doesn't meet all the tests and there are some issues here but there are risks associated with deferring the case as well. Can I say a couple of things? I mean I would be very reluctant to see this scheme refused, partly because of the quality of the building and the design, partly because the site has been derelict for years and something needs to be done to it and it is difficult to see what the alternative would be if it's not a scheme like this and thirdly because it's in the neighbourhood plan, it's been allocated by the neighbourhood plan, there's been a lot of negotiations obviously between the parish, the developer and the borough about it. It seems a product of all those things and I think the issues about lack of sustainability in some ways are consequences of where it actually is. We can't change that and I know how far this site is from even Bendon Village because my wife works at the school and I've used the hospital and I don't know how long it takes to drive there and walk there but it is where it is so I'm quite personally happy to have it for further discussions but I wouldn't really want to see it refused. That's my thoughts. Councillor Mitchell. Thank you, Chair. Just going back, I know we're saying transport isn't the only consideration to take into this but I would consider healthcare, education, SCN, disabilities, social care, libraries, children's services, waste and sustainable public transport are absolutely integral into any building, into any family's life, into any community if those, as I say, not just for this development but for the wider community, if they're going to have a serious negative impact then as it stands without the funding, the risk of this development, which in every other sense is great, it's really good and I like it and needs doing and yes, smashed derelict buildings aren't doing anyone any good but without proper funding for these services, the risk is that as it stands, the development going in with this lack of, this big hole of funding that needs the support will, could irrevocably damage the community as a whole and I personally, for me, a lot of weight to make a sustainable community goes on those elements listed that aren't able to get the funding, let alone if you can get there or get to your doctors, which is also going to be under pressure and lots of them can only get a card back to you anyway, is going to be an issue so personally for me, they hold some serious significant weight which I know aren't all and I appreciate the uplifts and various other designs and the, you know, social housing and the build and how it's been looked at, which as I say, is fab but they are so significant to how families, communities, your villages and areas work that I just think they need to be given an extra special consideration when it's all of them, not just one or two. Thank you, Chair. I don't know whether Councillor Powell and Councillor Page was first but, and Councillor Apple, sorry. Thank you. Sorry to add in another point that I do think is probably pertinent to say at this stage. Obviously, we have got the affordable housing but we haven't got the financial contributions. Members have seen other sites where the affordable housing has not been provided but the affordable financial contributions have. That was obviously recommended for refusal by members also so there is a risk on this site that by providing those contributions you're going to lose the affordable housing if a revised scheme comes in and I'd also highlight the wait that Bennington Parish Council put on the affordable housing in view of the viability considerations. I understand why it's such a critical point to members and I completely agree but sometimes you can't have everything on a site even though it's allocated for development, not just in the local neighbourhood plan but also our own as a site to come forward. Securing the clawback clause would be a major significant factor in my view in trying to bring back some of that profit and funding back into the system and may be the best option rather than losing all the affordable housing. It's not saying that we need one or the other, I'm not saying that's what's going to come forward, I'm just saying there is a risk that that could happen just to let you all aware of what the different circumstances could be. Okay, I think we have Councillor, I think Councillor Atwood and then Councillor, you weren't speaking? Sorry, I saw a big pop. If I could take Councillor Neville first because she hasn't spoken on this and then I'll come back to you two. Thank you. I'm torn on this. I completely agree with what you're saying about the infrastructure but I have to, sorry to pull the rural rank on you. I grew up in a village, there wasn't a shop, there weren't buses, there weren't doctors, there weren't schools or anything, that is rural life and this, to me, and certainly not libraries, so to me this does fall down to buses in terms of getting people connected to those facilities because that provision just can't be in Benenden alone otherwise we're going to want it in Bowdia more or Flimwell or wherever. You can't just have one village demanding all of those facilities, so it just does stick to me as the bus networks that need significant improvements and I am heartened by the clawback that will be embedded within this and I do feel that's our way forward. If we do turn this down or if we do run the risk of deferring this, I think it's going to be approved and it's going to cost us or we don't get quite the wonderful scheme that has had all of this immense work and contribution put forward to it. That's my penny's worth. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Pound and then Councillor Page. Sorry, I thought it was the other way around. Just to come back to your comment, Chair, sustainability, it's not just about the location as Councillor Bricher-Allen has said and it's not just about transport because I think we know full well that if this site is built out as it is currently proposed without the contributions to all of the other initiatives that Kent clearly has responsibility for, I know that what will happen as soon as those houses are occupied is that Benin and primary school will say I'm sorry we're full and you will have parents driving all over Kent looking for or taking their children to school and driving back and then driving back out in the afternoon and driving back. That for me is the reality. If you don't have funding for the NHS for a surgery people will be driving because there won't be public transport, they will be driving to surgeries elsewhere, dentistry, the fact we don't have rural mobile units and that sort of thing at the moment. Basically what will happen is that we will have a development in which people will be in their cars and I thought part of our approach as a council was we're trying to get people out of their cars by providing other more sustainable forms of transport. But what this proposal currently does by failing to provide the sorts of sums that are required to make it a viable, flourishing community is that essentially we will be saying if you go and live there, either in your big five bedroom house or in your small one bedroom maisonette, essentially you're going to be in your car. And that to me is not a sustainable community. And the clawback, what happens if we agree to the clawback and we say, well, with any luck we'll be able to get a bit more back because they'll be achieving 2% more on each of our sales at the bottom end. But if they don't, it'll still be built out and we'll be left in exactly the same position and we have no guarantee that the clawback will give us any return that will add value to the section 106 contribution. So the clawback is a nice thought, but the reality is it's not assured. And my worry is that it'll be built out. The developer will say there is no further viability that will allow for further contributions and we'll be left in exactly the same position as we are tonight. And that's why I think the clawback doesn't work. And I certainly don't agree that we should be accepting this just because it's a site that needs, that is there. We have to think much bigger and longer term about our responsibilities as a council about creating communities that are not constantly jumping in their car because there is no other option available to them and putting pressure upon services all over our borough, particularly to the eastern end, which should not be encouraged. And I think it's, sadly, I think it's a flawed development, not the fault entirely of the developer, not the fault of Benenden Parish Council, but of the fact that we need money to be put into our infrastructure to support developments. I stand by my recommendation, which we should turn down the officer's recommendation. Mr Page. Although I agree with the fact that it's really the sustainability's only thing that this falls down on, I'm going to argue against myself with, because the planning department has asked Dixon, Searle for a viability study and in the paragraph, in this paragraph it says, Overall, having tested a slightly lower built cost alongside higher sales values, our appraisals support the submitted view that at present day, cost values, the scheme does not technically support any level of Section 106 contributions alongside a 30% affordable housing. So that's the baseline from which people have been working. So my instinct is to say developer ought to have all this in mind, that these are the requirements when they start putting their project together. And so I'd like to approve the application for what's on the ground and say, No, go and sort out that some of the sustainability instruments are deferring until that's sorted out, without having to go back to the drawing board on the development. But I can see whether, if the viability study says, You're lucky to get 300,000, then we perhaps cannot push too far. Okay. So we have a proposal from Councillor Pound. Was there a seconder? There was a seconder of Councillor Pincher. So we've got a proposal from Councillor Pound. Yes, I'd like to second the proposal, please. Okay. So the proposal is for refusal on the grounds of lack of infrastructure to support a sustainable development. And you can quote either 74(b)83, 106(c) or 116(a), each of which we have actually discussed a bit this evening. Ms Roach, is that acceptable as a reason for refusal? Would that all be that? I mean, obviously, they're all matters set out in the NPPF, and I don't disagree that it would be contrary to some of those points. However, sorry. Just to confirm, if members feel they're the appropriate paragraphs of the NPPF to refuse it on, that's their decision to make as decision makers for this application. Okay. Councillor de Paige. Can you explain to me what the process is if we do a deferment, if we agree to defer it? And if it makes sense, then I'd like to make an alternative proposal to defer it. Obviously, we've got a motion on the table from Councillor Pound, seconded by Councillor Pritchard, and if that is lost, then we can go to a motion to either approve it or defer it, which I think are the two alternatives. Just for clarification on the constitution, which I've just been trying to look up, 4.1 of the constitution says if an application is deferred for any reason to a subsequent planning committee meeting, consideration of the item will recommence at the stage of the procedure at which it was deferred unless there is a material change to the officer recommendation, in which case the full procedure detailed in clause 3, which I'll have to look up, will be followed, if that is what you're asking. Just to make that clear, then the application will be brought forward at a subsequent planning committee meeting, so it will give us a chance to have a rethink and redebate and then turn it down. Yeah, so it will recommence at the stage of the procedure at which it was deferred unless there's a material change to the officer recommendation. So we'll just restart the discussion while I'm having the... Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Right, so the proposal is for refusal proposed by Councillor Pound, seconded by Councillor Mitchell, all those in favour of refusal, please show. That's three, true. Thank you. All those against refusal, please show. That's four, true. Okay. I need an alternative proposal. Councillor Page. I'm unhappy to propose that we defer it to a forthcoming meeting. Would anybody like to second? Councillor Page has proposed to defer the decision to a forthcoming meeting following, I presume, discussions with the developer about whether we can improve the financial considerations relating from the application. Yeah. I've just been with the legal officer. You do need to specify clearly what the reasons for the deferral is as well. Well, the reasons would be the same as the ones Councillor Pound put forward for refusing it, which would be lack of infrastructure, which makes the development unsustainable. Yeah, we'd need probably to say to negotiate or to see whether we can actually secure greater financial contributions. Well, at least to revisit them, to test them out. Yeah, okay. I would confirm that it would be to enable the developer to reconsider their position in terms of the financial contributions being put forward. I would also suggest it would be worthwhile having further discussions with KCC as to some of their contribution calculations because they aren't clear in some places. Okay, Councillor Page in that sense. Councillor Pound. Could I just ask in relation to that deferment, which we have done before, could we ask for representation from KCC to be here at our planning committee? We can ask is the question. That's my response. We can ask, but I don't think you're going to get a positive response. Yeah, we can put that to them. We can ask Councillor Atwood. In which case I'll second Councillor Page's recommendation. Thank you. Does anybody else want to make any other contributions? So we've got this proposal to defer on the basis that we discussed earlier, proposed by Councillor Page, seconded by Councillor Atwood. All those in favour defer or please show. That's five for two, two abstentions. The proposal to defer the application has been supported by majority, so thank you. If we could take a comfort break for five minutes. Five minutes. Thank you. It's 2042. We'll be back at 2047. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is item 7B24008404 Brown Knight and Truscott North Farm Road, Royal Tumbridge Wells. The details are on page 73 of the main agenda page and page nine of the supplementary pack. This is Benjamin, your presentation. Thank you very much. So this is an application by Brown Knight and Truscott North Farm Road, Royal Tumbridge Wells. It's a recommendation for approval, and the summary of reasons for recommendation are listed there on the first page of the report, and the reason why this is being referred to committee is the proposal is recommended for approval and comprises the conversion of non-residential floor space of 2,000 square metres or more, 3,000 or more. This slide shows the location of the site. You can see High Brooms Station, just below the red arrow there where there's a little red dot, and the location of the site on the North Farm Industrial Estate. It's the conversion of an old printing factory into an indoor trampoline park, making good use of an existing building. This shows the location plan, we're all aware of where brewers and other industries are along that frontage, just before you go under the railway bridge. The access to the site is on private roads in that facility. This is an aerial photo. You can see the High Brooms Station at the foot of the page, foot of the slide, and it's a very short walk straight up the road to the site. You can also see that there's an indoor gym, and there's a climbing centre as well, so there's other recreational facilities in the North Farm Estate. This shows the constraints, it's within the development boundary for number 12. Some photos of the site, you can see the building in the top photo there is just at the back, Brewers is along the front. This is the access on the lower slide. Again photographs of the existing site. This is the proposed site layout, there's no change to the building itself, other than internal changes that don't require planning permission. Car parking laid out, including cycle parks and electric vehicle charging spaces. This is the existing and proposed elevations, which remain the same, and floor plans which remain the same. That's the end of the presentation, thank you very much. Thank you. We've got one speaker on this item, who's Mr Joe Upstone, on behalf of Air Hop, the intended occupy of the site. I'd just like to start by saying good evening to the chair and the councillors, my name is Joe Upstone and I operate 10 parks in the South East as regional manager for Air Hop. I won't repeat the content of the comprehensive report by planning office, but I would just like to highlight some of the key points relating to this application. At Air Hop, we're in business of providing active enjoyment, whilst our core customer base is 6 to 14 year olds who attend with their parents, our registered customer base ranges from a few months old to customers in their 90s. Further, we cater for a multitude of different audiences through toddler sessions, after school sessions, and school holiday camps targeted to children of local workers, special needs sessions, in particular autism friendly sessions and family sessions. We haven't started marketing yet, but already from being a local Tunbridge Wales resident myself and monitoring our social media channels, there is a significant amount of interest and support for local people excited to have this facility, which offers a diverse range of activities in the area. Air Hop is the fastest and largest operator for trampoline parks in the sector, with around 1,200 employees recruited across 18 sites. Whilst the sector is new and the business is not and has been built on the vast experience of recruits from other sectors, including myself, having spent 18 years in the leisure sector and previously operating local leisure facilities in the area, such as the Tunbridge Wales Sports Centre, the World Sports Centre, and Putland Sports Centre, where I moved to opening and operating of the Tunbridge Wales parks previously in Tunbridge. We've been looking for an appropriate site in the area for a long time, having successfully operated a site nearby in Tunbridge, approving our application tonight will enable us to return to the area and occupy the vacant building. The site is an ideal location for us and meets our requirements by providing the amount of space we need for our equipment and sufficient parking for staff and visitors. There is also already other leisure uses on the estate, such as gymnastics and climbing, as you mentioned earlier on. The proposal of a trampoline park will create between 50 and 60 jobs, with a mix of full and part-time staff. All employees will benefit from company training and development programmes, including a mix of in-house and leisure industry recognised training and courses. We are pleased that your officers have recommended the application for approval and all relevant technical considerations have been addressed with the officers and statutory consultancies, including Kent County Council as highway authority. We're eager to be on the site as soon as possible, fitting out the site in order to provide leisure and recreation opportunities for the Tunbridge Wells community. Okay, your three minutes is up. Yeah, I'd like to say it's an opportunity, so thank you for your time. Thank you. That's it. Are there any points of clarification you wish to make as a result of the comments? No? Okay. Members, any questions for the officers? There's a pound. Thank you, Brendan. No, I have a question of you, Chair. This is slightly flippant. I just don't quite understand why we let these three gentlemen wait until the end of the evening before we heard this rather quick item, but I have no questions in relation to the application. I think they put themselves down to speak, which is probably unfortunate on their basis. Councillor Page. I know the area well because that's where I taught my son to drive. I think that the option of having mental health, physical health, and including the provision from autism, I was pleased to see, means that I have no objection to the proposal, to the application. I'd like to propose it and we accept it. Thank you, Councillor Page. Anybody like to second? Councillor Atwood. That's fine. Would anybody like to speak? Oh, Councillor Bichlala and then Councillor Papp. Yeah, I just wanted to say I was really pleased to see this coming, actually. I know it's been sorely missed from Tumbridge and it's nice to see an active, away from screens, physical, snackering, actually, trampolining. It's really, really tiring. I think long gone are my days after my stroke of trampolining, but it was really nice to see this application come in and a really good use within the industrial state as well, offering, adding to a good mix down there. So I'm very supportive of this. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Pan. I, too, support the application. I think it's very good news and I do wonder whether, slowly but surely, that industrial estate is going to develop more into a leisure and fun park for young people, which would be a good transition from what it is at the moment. And if that is the case, and I've already spoken to officers about it, we as a council do need, at some point in the future, to have discussions with Kent County Council about the safety of crossing the road from the station, crossing the road at the bottom of High Brooms Road and into Chapman Way, because I think that most children, I imagine, will be brought by car, probably, or by train with supervision, but increasingly won't be. And I think that we need to look at that going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? So we have a proposal by Councillor Page and seconded by Councillor Atwood. All those in favour? It's unanimous, Chair. Thank you. So that item is therefore approved. Item 8 is decision for noting, 3 May 2024, 10 June 2024, set out on page 107. If any members have any questions related to these appeal decisions, they should be raised with the panellists outside the meeting. Item 9 is urgent business, but I can confirm there isn't any urgent business. And the date of the next meeting is on Wednesday, the 24th of July, and the meeting is now closed. Thank you for your attendance.