Inspector Malcolm Lewis' allows Crest Nicholson's / BT's appeal and grants planning permission for the Telephone House Development, Tunbridge Wells

The Public Inquiry for the Telephone House Development, Church Road / York Road, Tunbridge Wells, was held at the Town Hall, Tunbridge Wells, in May 2001.

4/09 Kite Wing Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN


Inquiry held on 01-04 May 2001

By Malcolm Lewis DiplArch(Dist) RIBA

An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

Date 3 July 2001

Appeal Ref: APP/M2270/A/00/1054946
Telephone House, Church Road, Tunbridge Wells

Summary of Decision:
The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted subject to conditions set out in the Formal Decision below.

Procedural Matters

  1. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Crest Homes (South East) Ltd and Southgate Developments Ltd against Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

    The site and the surrounding area

  2. The appeal site extends to some 0.307ha and is situated between Church Road and York Road. Both these roads are located to the west of Mount Pleasant Road, one of the main thoroughfares through Tunbridge Wells. Church Road is also a primary distributor, linking Mount Pleasant Road to the east with London Road and Mount Ephraim to the west. The site lies within the Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area and is adjacent to a number of listed buildings, notably the Grade I listed Holy Trinity Church.

  3. The site is currently occupied by a 5-storey plus basement, concrete framed office building which was constructed in the 1960s. Although vacant, the building's authorised use falls within Use Class Bl. The principal elevation of the existing building is in Church Road, the land to the rear being primarily open in character and used for surface level parking. The existing building covers almost the whole width of the site on the Church Road frontage, and extends back into the site northward with a narrow wing to form a T shaped building. Overall, the building is approximately 19m high, measured from ground level, and is significantly higher than the buildings on either side.

  4. The site is located close to the town centre, and is within walking distance of both the main railway station and the bus services on Mount Pleasant Road. The surrounding area is of mixed character, Church Road encompassing a variety of commercial and residential uses, whilst York Road, to the north, is predominantly residential in nature comprising a mix of flats and single dwelling houses. The topography of the surrounding area is such that the building on the appeal site is clearly visible from Mount Ephraim to the west, and between existing buildings from Mount Pleasant to the east.

    Planning history and the appeal proposals

  5. Planning permission was granted for the erection of Telephone House in 1962. Subsequently, outline planning permission for the extension of the building was granted in August 1971, the permission being extended by a further 3 years in February 1975. Although the outline application granted in 1975 expired in 1978, a fully detailed application for the extension of the existing offices was granted in 1982, subject to a legal agreement requiring the provision of additional parking facilities both during construction and after completion of the development at the applicant's other site in the town at Culverden Park Road. At the same time permission was also granted for the demolition of Nos. 23 and 25 York Road. A planning application was submitted in 1982 to allow parking on the site of Nos. 23 and 25 York Road. The application was granted permission in June 1982 and the existing trees on the York Road frontage are the result of a landscaping scheme undertaken as a condition of this permission.

  6. In January 2000 the Council refused permission for the demolition of the existing building and the provision of 42 flats, but granted a conditional conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing building. The application consisted of a 4-storey block of flats fronting Church Road, and 2No. 3-storey blocks fronting York Road, the larger one having accommodation in the roof space. Parking was provided at basement/semi-basement level, and comprised a total of 40 spaces, accessed from York Road. An additional 6 spaces were provided for visitors, accessed from Church Road.

  7. The appeal application envisages the demolition of Telephone House together with the redevelopment of the site so as to accommodate a total of 43 units, situated in 4 blocks, with underground parking for 38 vehicles having an access from York Road. A 4-storey building is proposed on the Church Road frontage with a 5th floor set back from the main facades. This building would accommodate a total of 16No. 2-bed and 2No. 3-bed units. The building is designed to be contemporary in appearance, utilising a high level of glazing. It has an overall height of 13.2m to the parapet and 15.9m to the ridge.

  8. On the York Road frontage it is proposed to construct 2 new blocks, separated by the entrance to the mews. The western block is 4-storeys high. This will accommodate a total of 8 units, 5 of which would have 2 bedrooms with the remainder having 3 bedrooms. The block to the east is 3-storeys high and would incorporate 7No, 2-bed and 1No. 1-bed affordable housing units. Both buildings are set back from the pavement on a similar alignment to No. 27 York Road and Trinity House, the set back allowing for the introduction of roadside planting as part of the development proposals.

  9. Within the internal site area, the application incorporates a further block comprising 3 storey mews properties, accommodating 9No. 2-bedroom flats. Apart from the basement level parking provision, a further 4 spaces are provided at surface level off the entrance to the basement level car park, whilst 4 visitor spaces are provided at surface level fronting Church Road.

    Planning policy

  10. The development plan for the area comprises the 1996 Kent Structure Plan Third Review and the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan which was adopted in 1996. Structure Plan Policy H3 highlights the opportunity to use derelict land and buildings within urban areas that are no longer required, for housing purposes. This objective is also encouraged by Policy ENV16 which seeks to make the best use of land in built up areas, subject to maintaining and improving the environmental quality of such areas. Within Tunbridge Wells itself, Policy WK2 identifies the overriding need to ensure the conservation of the built environment and the setting of the town, and the need to respect the town's location within the Green Belt and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Similarly, Policy ENV15 seeks to conserve and enhance the character, quality and function of Kent's built environment, whilst Policies ENV17 and ENV19 seek respectively to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the County's Conservation Areas, and the setting of listed buildings. Other key Structure Plan Policies are S6, which seeks to concentrate housing provision in the 19 urban areas within the County an,d Strategic Policies and SI and S2, which give support to a sustainable pattern and form of development and environmental enhancement.

  11. Although the adopted Local Plan contains no specific policies as to the potential redevelopment of Telephone House, Policy H9 indicates that residential development is appropriate within the built confines of Tunbridge Wells, and Policy EN1 sets out the criteria against which all new development should be assessed. In addition, Policy H6 identifies the criteria for the provision of affordable housing, and Policy ENS reinforces the aims and objectives of Structure Plan Policy ENV17 on matters relating to Conservation Areas. Policies EN3 and EN6 are also material to the determination of this application, as they seek to preserve the setting of listed buildings and prohibit development that would have an averse impact on the skyline.

  12. The Local Plan is now the subject of review, the Tunbridge Wells Borough 2000+ Local Plan Review 2001-2011 having been published in October 1998. This document sets out the key issues that the Council considers should be addressed through the Local Plan Review. In this respect, I understand that Policy H6 of the Deposit Draft Local Plan specifically allocates the appeal site for a residential use at a density which would provide a minimum of 40 dwellings.

    Main issues

  13. Having due regard to the foregoing, I consider that the main issues in this case are
    firstly, the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area; and
    secondly, the impact on the setting of the listed buildings in Church Road. In considering these issues I intend to have due regard to the duties imposed by Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.


    Conservation Area

  14. One of the main concerns of Archie Norman MP, Council Members, and local residents relates to the proposed density of development which equates to approximately 140 dwellings per hectare. In support of these concerns reference was made to the advice contained at paragraph 58 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) and to the prevailing densities in the locality. However, existing densities in the York Road area were calculated by the appellant and confirmed by the Council as being in excess of 140 dwellings per hectare. Furthermore, although reference is made in PPG3 to densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare, it also advises that, to make more efficient use of land, greater intensities of development should be sought at places with good public transport accessibility such as town centres. I also understand that the site has been made the subject of a specific policy designation in the emerging Deposit Draft Local Plan which requires that it should be developed with a minimum of 40 dwellings at a net density of 130 dwellings per hectare. Having regard to all these matters I consider that the proposed density is entirely appropriate for the area.

  15. The Conservation Area appraisal statement, dated September 2000, identifies that Telephone House is a major intrusion in Church Road and goes on to state that "its slab-like mass offers a crude roofline compared with the delicacy and interest of the gables and chimneys of earlier buildings, and its mechanical elevations have none of the human scale modulation of its neighbours". With this in mind there was general agreement that the demolition of Telephone House would be of benefit to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

  16. Tunbridge Wells, although a town of considerable historic and architectural interest, is not a mono-culture but contains buildings of many styles, materials and ages. This is, in my opinion, reflected in that part of the Conservation Area which includes the appeal site. At the site inspection I observed that Church Road has a wide carriageway that accommodates buildings of differing designs and scales and noted that both large and small historic buildings are juxtaposed with more recent development. Immediately to the east of the site lies a 2-storey office building, known as Hanover House, and to the west are 3 1/2 storey listed residential villas, Nos. 16-22 Church Road. After the demolition of Telephone House, the tallest buildings in the locality will be on nearby sites, namely Trinity Arts Centre (Holy Trinity Church), Wellington Gate, formerly known as Europa House and Nos. 9-31 Church Road immediately opposite the site which have 4 1/2 storeys above ground-level.

  17. Historically, along both York Road and the roads that run parallel immediately beyond, density levels are high created by buildings with minimum sized back yards. Externally these are grouped in a tightly knit street pattern of Victorian terraced houses and villas occupying narrow plot widths. Architecturally it appears unified and has seen little disruption over the years. However, internally, a significant number of these houses have been converted into shared occupancy.

  18. The Council maintains that the principal elevation of Block B (York Road elevation) appears over intensive in terms of its fenestration treatment and would represent an uncharacteristic feature within the street scene due to the number and size of windows. In addition, it is argued that the narrowness of the vehicular and pedestrian access to the York Road side of the site is exacerbated by the large projecting windows within the gable end of Block D and that a wider gap would reflect more characteristically similar street patterns within the conservation area.

  19. I understand that in discussions with Officers of the Council the window sizes on the York Road elevation of Block B were reduced by some by 15%. With this in mind, I do not share the Council's concern that the proposed elevation will appear either cluttered or uncharacteristic. In my judgement, the proposals, which have been designed having regard to a detailed townscape study, not only respect the historic building line, but are also sympathetic with the variety houses in the conservation area. The 2 bay windows in Block D project across the mews access by some 600mm and would be clearly visible in the streetscape. They are raised well above street level and at this height would not impinge upon the usable width of the access road. Furthermore I do not consider that the bay windows would visually impinge upon the space which separates these 2 blocks and conclude that the mews entrance respects the character with the conservation area and that of mews type developments generally.

  20. In terms of Block C it is the Council's view that the scale and intensity of the glazing, together with the number of balconies will adversely affect the character of the open space behind Trinity Arts Centre. At the site inspection I observed that, due to site levels and the intervening walls adjacent to Hanover House car park, Block C which will appear as a predominantly 2-storey building when viewed from the churchyard. In my opinion the appeal proposals will enhance the views from Trinity Arts Centre which at present take in a series of boundary fences and dilapidated back walls, a car park, and the backs of a number of buildings.

  21. Turning to Block A, the Council consider that the attempt to reduce the visual impact of this building by incorporating a small recessed gap in the middle of the principle elevation does not function visually. It will not be seen when viewed at an acute angle and the perception would instead be that of one large structure with little or no architectural relief. This impression would be further exacerbated by views of the rear elevation from the car park of Hanover Place, Clarence Mews and from the grounds of Trinity Arts Centre. I heard that the scheme was modified during the consultation process to provide a greater degree of visual separation in the treatment of the front elevation. Having regard to the contextual views of the proposed building, I am satisfied that the impact of Block A within the street scene would be reduced by its successful articulation into 2 main elements with their roofs, entrances and other features aligned on 2 distinct and separate vertical axis.

  22. Concern is also expressed that the intensity of the development would be reflected within the roofscape, particularly Blocks A and C. It is argued that from Mount Ephraim looking east towards the cluster of roofscape which comprises central Tunbridge Wells, the uncharacteristic depth and overall mass of Block A would be apparent in this view. I observed that the existing building, due to its height and crude roofline, impacts on the historic skylines along Ephraim Heights and Mount Pleasant Road. The submitted photographic and perspective contextual views from Mount Ephraim, in my judgement, serve to illustrate that the proposed massing and roofscape offer a considerable improvement to that which exists and would blend in with the surrounding buildings. In addition, the reduced height of Block A compared to Telephone House, together with its modelled profile, will significantly increase the amount of the church tower that will be visible.

  23. The proposal would result in the loss of trees along the south side of York Road due to the close proximity of the proposed development to the pavement. These trees, which were planted some 19 years ago, are not the subject of a Tree Preservation Order although do provide a degree of visual amenity. However, I acknowledge that, in townscape terms, it is important to reinstate the historical street pattern and building lines along York Road and conclude that the loss of these trees is not sufficient to override such considerations.

  24. Taking all these factors into consideration I conclude that the proposal would serve to enhance the character and appearance of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area and that it would therefore accord with the objectives of Structure Plan Policy ENV17 and Policy ENS of the Local Plan.

    Listed buildings

  25. The Council makes the point that the siting of the development would not align with the adjoining frontages, Block A being set forward of the adjacent property, No. 8 Hanover Place. In these circumstances it is argued that the overall mass and bulk of the building would partially screen views of the listed buildings when viewed at a perspective angle looking west from the town centre. Furthermore, as the development would be located extremely close to the adjacent listed buildings it would adversely affect their settings and exacerbate the perception that the proposed development would be overbearing in relation to the adjoining property.

  26. I accept that the curved sections of Block A project forward of the building line although the block itself would be set slightly back from the front of Hanover House. Nevertheless, the illustrative views submitted clearly demonstrate that the proposed building would not obscure or dominate the listed buildings but on the contrary would, in my opinion, offer an improvement to their settings. In addition, I am satisfied that its height and bulk would not dominate the Grade I listed church or the group of listed buildings on the southern side of Church Road.

    Other matters

  27. Many local residents expressed concern over highway matters. In the main, these related to the movement of heavy construction traffic and to the on-site parking provision which was perceived to be inadequate.

  28. I note that the on-site car parking provision accords with the Council's standards. However, I am also mindful of the objectives of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 which aims to reduce reliance on the car. This site has excellent accessibility to public transport and is very close to the town centre. Future occupiers will therefore have a wide choice of means of travel, other than the private car, and in these circumstances I am satisfied that the provision made for on-site car parking is adequate.

  29. The total prohibition on the use of York Road for construction traffic is, in my view, unreasonable although I acknowledge that demolition material can and should be removed by way of Church Road. Clearly some control is required in order to protect the amenities of the residents of York Road during the construction process. To this end I intend to impose a suitable condition which would require the submission and approval of a scheme of works which would, amongst other things, identify which point of access would be used at any particular phase of the project.

  30. Concern is also expressed by local residents over loss of light and privacy. I note that the sunlight and daylight report prepared by Schatunowski Brooks and submitted with the application clearly demonstrates that the level of daylight retained at ground floor level within the properties opposite the appeal site would remain very high for a town centre location, and that similarly the level of sunlight exceeds the requirements of the BRE guidelines. Thus, whilst Nos. 34-38 York Road would suffer a greater degree of overshadowing than they currently experience, the level of sunlight and daylight would still exceed the BRE guidelines, such that the appeal proposals could not be construed as being adversely detrimental to the amenities of the occupants of these properties.

  31. I heard that the distance which would separate the houses in York Road from those on the appeal site would be approximately 12m. Although I am mindful of the concerns of residents in this respect, such an arrangement does follow the grain of the existing development in the locality and would not be contrary to the principles set out in Kent Design. In addition, whilst the distance between the rear elevation of Block C and that of Clarence Mews at 16m, is below the 21 m cited in Kent Design for the private rear facades of dwellings, this level of separation would be reminiscent of traditional mews type developments. Due to the difference in levels between the appeal site and Clarence Mews, the intervening wall, and the proposed boundary landscaping such an arrangement would not, in my opinion, necessarily result in an adverse loss of privacy.


  32. In the event that this appeal is allowed the Council suggested that a number of conditions should be applied. In view of the sensitive nature of the site I agree that conditions relating to the approval of external materials and the provision of certain specific constructional details are necessary and appropriate. For a similar reason I also accept that conditions requiring the approval and implementation of a scheme for hard and soft landscaping should be imposed. In order to give a certain level of protection to residential amenity during the construction process I have already indicated that I will be imposing a condition requiring the approval and implementation of a scheme of works. However, in this respect, I also intend to impose the suggested condition which restricts the hours of work.

  33. At the inquiry a completed Planning Obligation was submitted. This relates to a contribution for off-site recreational facilities and for the provision of the proposed affordable housing units. Notwithstanding the comments of the Council I am satisfied that this obligation provides the necessary safeguards over these 2 aspects of the proposal.


  34. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the views of English Heritage and the Civic Society, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

    Formal Decision

  35. In exercise of the powers transferred to me, I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of 43 flats together with basement level parking at Telephone House, Church Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. W/OO/01474/FUL/RCC dated 28 June 2000, and the plans submitted therewith, subject to the following conditions:

    1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this decision.
    2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
    3. No development shall take place until details of the boundary walls or fences shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such walls or fences shall be erected in accordance with the approved details before the dwellings are occupied.
    4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1998 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in any elevations of the buildings other than as hereby approved without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
    5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting Order), no windows or similar openings shall be constructed in the roof of the buildings other than as hereby approved, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
    6. No fans, louvres, ducts, meter boxes or other similar apparatus shall be installed externally without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
    7. No development shall take place until after details of the surfacing and drainage of the areas shown on the approved plans as vehicle parking spaces shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car parking areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details before the dwellings are occupied, and shall be retained as such thereafter.
    8. Turning facilities shall be provided within the curtilage of the site before the use of each access is commenced and thereafter retained free from any obstruction.
    9. No development shall take place until after proposals setting out precautions to be taken during the progress of the works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Such proposals shall include washing facilities by which vehicles will have their wheels, chassis and bodywork effectively cleaned and washed free of mud and similar substances. The agreed proposals shall be in place during full extent of construction works.
    10. During the demolition and construction works hereby approved, no works shall take place on the site before 0730 or after 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays, before 0730 or after 1300 hours on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.
    11. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development
    12. The hard landscaped areas shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwellings. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.
    13. No development shall take place until details of the refuse storage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before any unit is occupied, provision shall be made for the storage of refuse in accordance with the approved details.
    14. No development shall take place until drawings at a scale of at least 1:20 to show the details of the balconies, parapet walls to Block A, and porches shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
    15. No development shall take place until a scheme of works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of works shall show how dust will be-controlled during both the demolition and construction phases; which types of plant and equipment will be used on the site and what measures will be taken to ameliorate any noise problems; the sequence of construction, including details of construction access and whether Church Road, York Road, or both are intended as the point of access for any particular stage; and details of the location of construction compounds on the site including arrangements for the parking, loading, and unloading of all vehicles using the site. All operations carried out on the site shall be conducted in strict accordance with the approved scheme of works.


  36. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of this decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the date of this decision.

  37. This decision does not convey any approval or consent that may be required under any enactment, by-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  38. An applicant for any approval required by a condition attached to this permission has a statutory right of appeal to the Secretary of State if that approval is refused or granted conditionally or if the authority fails to give notice of its decision within the prescribed period.

  39. Attention is drawn to the enclosed note relating to the requirements of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended.




Mr R Phillips QC, Instructed by Barton Willmore Planning Partnership
He called
Mr T Sutters, Dip Arch RIBA ACA FRSA, Sutters Partnership Architects, Alton House, 105 Howards Lane, London, SW16 6NZ
Mr J R G Thomas, BAArch DipTP FRTPI FRSA FIMgt, Rothermel Thomas, 14-16 Cowcross Street, London, EC1M 6DG
Mr P McCreery, BSc FRTPI, Barton Wilmore Planning Partnership, 35 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Mailing, Kent, ME19 4BW
Mr C Patmore, MIHT FIHIE, Denis Wilson Partnership, Windsor House, 37 Windsor Street, Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 SAT


Mr P Miller of Counsel [Chambers of Anthony Scrivener, London], Instructed by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
He called
Mrs R Chambers, BA(Hons)TP MRTPI, Area Team Leader, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Mr P Ashby, DipArchCon DipTP RIBA MIHBC, Conservation Architect, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council


Mr A Norman MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA
Councillor K Lynes, Ward Member, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Councillor D Wakefield, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Councillor L Price, Planning Committee Chair, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Mr P Morse, Chairman of The Telephone House Neighbours Association, The Garden Flat, 60 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1JY
Dr D Bech, 10 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1JY
Mr P Huxley, 14 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1 JY
Ms H Jones, 36 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1 JY
Mr K Wilkinson, 37 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1 JY
Ms A Topliss, 42 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1 JY
Mr S McDowell, 75b London Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1DX
Mr N Watts, Belvedere House, Church Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1ER
Mr P D Scott, 37 Church Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1JT
Ms B Clarke, 1 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1JX
Mr S Page, Ground floor flat, 8 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1JY
Mr B Bennett, 72 London Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1DX
Mr G Lawson, 70 London Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1DX
Mrs M Moruzzi 27 York Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1 JY


Document 1 Lists of persons present at the inquiry.
Document 2 Letter of notification of the inquiry and circulation list
Document 3 Letters and petition in response to 2 above
Document 4 Statement of common ground and core documents
Document 5 Appendices to the proof of evidence of Mr Sutters
Document 6 Appendices to the proof of evidence of Mr Thomas
Document 7 Appendices to the proof of evidence of Mr McCreery
Document 8 Appendices to the proof of evidence of Mr Patmore
Document 9 Appendices to the proof of evidence of Mr Ashby
Document 10 Appendices to the proof of evidence of Mrs Chambers
Document 11 Appendices to the proof of evidence of The Telephone House Neighbours Association Document 12 Planning Obligation


Plan A Existing site and location plan S 1.01 A 1:500
Plan B Existing site survey plan SI.02A 1:200
Plan C Reference roofplan: Levels and sections 1.01B 1:200
Plan D Arrangement plans Level 0 Ground residential 1.02B 1:200
Plan E Arrangement plans Level+1 Residential 1.03C 1:200
Plan F Arrangement plans Level+2 Residential 1.04C 1:200
Plan G Arrangement plans Level+3 Residential 1.05B 1:2.00
Plan H Arrangement plans Level+4 Residential 1.06B 1:200
Plan I Arrangement plans Level-1 Parking 1.07B 1:200
Plan J Key reference site plan: Landscaping 1.09A 1:200
Plan K Proposed streetscape elevations 2.01 1:200
Plan L Proposed contextual sections 2.02 1:200
Plan M Daylight study: Section G-G 5.01 1:100
Plan N Daylight study: Section H-H 5.02 1:100
Plan O Block A-Elevations BLA.EL-01A 1:100
Plan P Block A-Elevations BLA.EL-02A 1:100
Plan Q Block A - Elevations BLA.EL-03A 1:100
Plan R Block B-Elevations BLB.EL-01A 1:100
Plan S Block B - Elevations BLB.EL-02A 1:100
Plan T Block B - Elevations BLB .EL-03 A 1:100
Plan U Block C-Elevations BLC.EL-01 A 1:100
Plan V Block C - Elevations BLC.EL-02A 1:100
Plan W Block C-Elevations BLC.EL-03A 1:100
Plan X Block D - Elevations BLD.EL-01A 1:100
Plan Y Block D - Elevations BLD.EL-02A 1:100
Plan Z Block D - Elevations BLD.EL-03A 1:100
Plan AA Block D - Elevations BLD.EL-04A 1:100
Plan BB Shadow diagrams

The Telephone House Neighbours Press Release to the Appeal Decision:
Twice, over a two year period, very similar plans have been rejected by TWBC . . . . But the Government Inspector has allowed this high density development of 140 units per hectare exceeding all comparable developments in Tunbridge Wells.

Could the Inspector's decisions have been challenged ?
Public Inquiry May 2001: Telephone House, Tunbridge Wells

The Telephone House Neighbours Association, Tunbridge Wells
The aims are to heighten peoples' awareness and concern for the controversial planning permission of the high density development of Telephone House site, Church Road / York Road, Tunbridge Wells.