Tunbridge Wells

Much of the borough of Tunbridge Wells is in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). With a high degree of landscape protection, and a relatively low housing density, the borough is one of the most naturally appealing in the county.

There is, however, growth pressure. Of the 4,500 to 5,000 new dwellings the borough is expected to have to accommodate by 2026, CPRE Tunbridge Wells would like to see as many as possible going on to genuinely brownfield sites. The committee has asked Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) to produce a Supplementary Planning Document which would make it harder for developers to put ‘brownfield’ development on very green back gardens. Most of the borough’s new housing, the committee has argued at LDF consultations, should probably be in Southborough and the town of Tunbridge Wells.

The committee is currently especially concerned about the following two proposed developments:

Prison extension, Blantyre House, Goudhurst
In our opinion, the prisons authority grossly mishandled an attempt to build a very nasty new block of cells at Blantyre House Prison, Goudhurst. There was spirited local protest, backed by the parish council, which encouraged TWBC to stand up admirably to this clumsy and somewhat bullying attempt at development by central government. To some degree concessions were won, the developer being forced into proper consultation (something apparently not thought of previously), which brought about beneficial changes of detail and the establishment of permanent consultative arrangements.

As of January 2008, nothing has yet been built.

Benhall Mill Road development
This current proposed development – at outline planning-application stage – is for 72 houses on greenfield land; and though the site is just across the border in the Wealden district of East Sussex, the scheme would significantly affect Tunbridge Wells. Even more worryingly, Wealden Council wants the site to be recognised in its LDF as having the capacity for 500 dwellings.

Kent County Council has opposed the development, especially with regard to its potential ‘impact on infrastructure and services in Tunbridge Wells,’ a comment with which CPRE Tunbridge Wells wholeheartedly agrees.

In a letter to Wealden District Council, Sir Brian Cubbon, Chairman of CPRE Tunbridge Wells, wrote:

Dear Sir

I write on behalf of the Tunbridge Wells committee of the CPRE to object strongly to planning application WD/2007/3590.

We first point out that the site is not included in any land eligible for possible development in the non-statutory Wealden local plan of 2005 or any other currently valid plans. Although it has been included in Option 13a in the Wealden Core Strategy, that is still subject to consultation. It would be a travesty of the strategy procedures to take a premature decision now to admit the land for development.

In any case, there are strong objections on the merits of this application:-

1. The land is a greenfield site, designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance, which was confirmed in 2004.
2. Health, education and other facilities, if supplied by Wealden, will be remote, and the pressure will be on those in Tunbridge Wells, which District Council has not said it can supply.
3. Similarly, the pressure will be on the roads of Tunbridge Wells. Only a limited bus service is available. Travel to work will mainly be to Tunbridge Wells. 

In short, the proposed development would be an unacceptable extension into the countryside of urban Tunbridge Wells.

Local Development Framework Core Strategy comments
The committee has submitted comments on the borough’s Core Strategy proposals, with which we are in broad agreement, though we have suggested that the council should take a more robust line in certain respects.

Specifically, we strongly urged that the Core Strategy should, at the very beginning, be fully explicit about the substantial over-fulfilment of the housing target (of 300 per year) in recent years, and in particular the exceptionally high number of dwellings completed in 2006 and 2007. There should be a clear statement of the number of completions, we argued, up to the date of publication, making it clear how much has come from ‘windfalls’ and how much of a total target figure of 6,000 has been met by existing completions and permissions. This statement is an essential part of the justification for the limited (if any) requirement for new greenfield sites in the Strategy proposals. 

We regretted that no Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was undertaken as part of the Preferred Options. Such an assessment should, we believe, map genuinely ‘brown’ sites throughout the borough, no matter how small they are. We recognised (and congratulated the borough council on) the remarkably high percentage of recent housing completions on previously developed sites; but we remain concerned that current legislation on brownfield sites gives rise to applications on sites which are not brown at all, and which have landscape, wildlife or other environmental or community value.

We reiterated our reservations about park and ride, on the grounds that its costs include intrusion into the countryside (Green Belt land in particular) along with lots of lighting and signage, and an increase in traffic outside town greater than the reduction inside. We think the Core Strategy should maximise efforts to reduce traffic levels overall, particularly by improving public transport.

Our submission can be downloaded in full below. 

Attachments:

District Issues

• Tomorrow's Kent