COMMENTS
to the Local Plan Review Deposit Copy - Policy H6(a) -
TELEPHONE HOUSE, CHURCH ROAD / YORK ROAD
Royal Tunbridge Wells

Allocation for residential development

Policy H6 as general policy allocates sites for residential development in the period 2001-2006.
Comments had to be filed between 10 August and 21 September 2001




>>>> ID No. 60/15/1

Rydon Homes
East Grinstead
Tel: 01342 827119
Peter Smith, Strategic Land Planner - 07.09.2001 / received at TWBC 17.09.01

AGENT: Sigma Planning Services
6 Garden Street
Tunbridge Wells
Tel: 01892 517107

"H6(a) - planning permission has been granted on the site and it should therefore be removed."

Rydon Homes used form of draft supplementary planning guidance, therefore there was no indication of appearing at any inquiry.




>>>> ID No. 68/1/1

Cllr Roy Bullock
- received at TWBC 07.09.2001

"The policy on Telephone House Church Road: now that the appeal has been decided should be removed from the plan."




>>>> ID No. 434/3/1

Croudace Homes Ltd
Caterham, Surrey - 19.09.2001 / received at TWBC 21.09.2001

AGENT: Charles Planning Associates
39 Locks Heath District Centre,
Locks Heath
Southampton SO31 6DX
Tel: 01489 577946

"H6(A) - In considering the allocations set out in Policy H6 it should be recognized that we have not yet had the opportunity to undertake a detailed assessment of the various identified sites.
However, it is apparent that there are substantial doubts, relating to this site in terms of general suitability, availability, capacity.
Consequently we object to the allocation of this site."

Appear at inquiry, no joint case




>>>> ID No. 528/22/1

Larkstone Ltd
Paddock Wood
- 18.09.2001

AGENT: Paul Sharpe Associates
The Old Rectory
Broad Blunsdon
Swindon, SN16 7DQ
Tel: 01793 700420
email paul@paulsharpeassocs.co.uk

"H6(a) - Objection is made to the allocation of site H6(a) in that its genuine availability is constrained and its ability to contribute to housing supply within the planned period to 2006 is uncertain.

Comprised of an assemblage of existing buildings and curtilages, difficulties are likely to be experienced in terms of land ownership, assembly and availability. Site preparation costs and construction are likely to be significant on this site closely hemmed in by adjacent development.

The development requirements imposed by the Council represent severe constraints for example the requirements for dwelling mix in accordance with Policy H2; Victorian form of development; building lines; conservation area requirements; affordable housing; access; open space requirements; contribution to recreational facilities; education facilities; and the need to meet the Councilís parking standards.

In all, the viability of the allocation in the form required is doubtful. The land take requirement, physical constraints and economic constraints with a high density requirement mean that a successful housing development is unlikely to be achieved.

The Council is requested to amend the Draft Plan as follows:
delete policy H6(a) and in lieu allocated land to the west of Blackberry Close, Paddock Wood."

Appear at inquiry, no joint case




>>>> ID No. 610/1/1

The Telephone House Neighbours Association
Tunbridge Wells
- 17.09.2001 / received at TWBC 19.09.2001

Reasons for objecting - Summary:

"The Policy as drafted, completely ignores the known views of the MP for Tunbridge Wells Archie Norman, of elected Councillors and all objections raised by a substantial number of residents and council tax payers."

If objecting - what change are you seeking to the plan which could resolve your objection

"Reduce Density - Set back houses opposite in York Road - Respect building heights - Restore Trinity Church as Landmark - Integrate exisiting Trees - Allow Church Road's own traffic arrangements - Relax affordable housing"

Appear at inquiry, accept joint case



The Telephone House Neighbours Association, Tunbridge Wells
Objections and Request to change Policy H6(a) - the Policy for Telephone House, Tunbridge Wells - in the Local Plan

Bizarrely, Policy H6(a) allocated for Telephone House was identical to the two refused planning applications for the Telephone House development.
[1st: refused at delegated officers' level - 2nd: refused by the Councillors of the Western Area Planning Committee].
Policy H6(a) is the most controversial document, produced by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, leading to the Telephone House Debacle.