02.05.01 - The Public Inquiry - Preparatory Notes for Speech of Committee Member Paul Huxley

Residential and Visual Amenities - Computer-Aided-Drawings faults
The Telephone House Development, Tunbridge Wells


I am Paul Huxley. I am owner and occupier, in York Road for the last four years.
I am resident of Tunbridge Wells for five years.

I am worried about several issues regarding this development.

  1. RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES and VISUAL AMENITIES

    Barton Willmore refer to distance between rear elevation Block C and rear elevation of Clarence Mews. No reference to distance between Block B and North side of York Road!

    Barton Willmore Proof of Evidence - Residential Amenities - p. 35 - 6.2.4.

  2. RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE

    Barton Willmore are reluctantly agreeing a commuted sum. The developers have stated a lack of young children and families as a reason for not developing recreational areas on site. The commuted sum towards enhanced off-site recretional provision has never been published. (was announced by Mr. Richard Philips, QC (appellant) to be £ 14,000)

    The reason for refusing to pay real on-site amenities or any commuted sum, is:
    "As you will no doubt appreciate, this development is for the construction of luxury apartments, and as such the nature of the intended occupants are not likely to include those with young children, or families. On this basis, .... additional provision is not necessary on site. In addition, given the nature of the intended occupants of this site, we do nto feel that there is a justification in this instance for any commuted payment in lieu of on site provision, as such a contribution would not be fairly or resonable related to the proposed development, ......"

    Barton Willmore Proof of Evidence - Recreational Open Space - p. 40 7.2.4
    Sutters Proof of Evidence - Barton Willmore’s letter to TWBC on 18 Sep 2000 - p. 31A p.3

  3. CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATIONAL PROVISION

    In the case officer’s report to the Western Area Planning Committee (18 Oct 2000) we found the letter of the Kent County Council Property Group to TWBC. KCC states that the development would create the demand for extra school places - the cost of providing these is estimated at £ 71,200.

    These comments raised by KCC are ignored and in the Statement of Common Ground (between the two parties: Developer and TWBC) we get informed that a contribution to educational provision is not needed.

    Letter of Kent County Council 1/9/00
    Statement of Common Ground March 2001 - 18.)

  4. LOSS OF AMENITIES DURING DEMOLITION/CONSTRUCTION

    Mr Richard Philips, QC (appellant Crest Homes), was concerned yesterday about the impact on residents in York Road by prolonging construction work by 6 months. Residents would gladly accept a further 6 months construction work in lieu of construction traffic ruining York Road. If this would cost the developers a further £ 250,000 the residents are happy to start a collection for them.

    Highway and Transportation Proof of Evidence of Denis Wilson - Appendix 4,
    letter from Crest Nicholson Residential (South East), Andrew McPhillips to Clive Patmore, Denis Wilson Partnership, 10 Dec 2000.

  5. EFFECT ON THE RESIDENTS’ UTILITIY SERVICES

    In the case officer’s report to the Western Area Planning Committee (18 Oct 2000) we found that Southern Water Authority does not wish to make any comments (24/07/00).

    But Policy EN1 quotes that all proposals for development will be required to satisfy all the following criteria and that includes EN1(5): "The foul or surface water sewerage or water supply would have sufficient capacity to meet the demands of the development; the necessary improvements to these services to cater for the extra demand resulting from the proposals should form part of the scheme."
    EN1(5) could have been used as a ground for refusal.

  6. COMPUTER-AIDED-DESIGN DRAWINGS BY SUTTERS PARTNERSHIP, THE ARCHITECT

    Some misleading information has been filed as evidence. CAD perspectives falsify the proportions of the massing / bulk of the various blocks

    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix B (p. 10 - p. 11)
    Comparative views: existing - proposed
    Trees have been added on the CAD to disguise the roofline of Block A in relation to No. 16-18 and 20-22 on Church Road. They can be seen at the west end of Block A.

    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix B (p. 12 - p. 13)
    Comparative views: existing - proposed
    The present group of trees - we, the residents, want to keep.
    New trees: how would new trees be squeezes between Trinity House and Block D?

    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix C
    York Road: View east: existing - proposed
    (page 26 - PV7) site context: photo
    - - parking on yellow lines & pavement
    (page 27 - MVE 7) proposed site context: CAD
    - - lost the trees - note the cars: confirmed to park on yellow lines & pavement
    ( page 28 - MVP 7) proposed site context: CAD
    - - confirms that parking on yellow lines & pavement is something we have to cope with in the future, too. Observe the style of the presentation and the adding of huge trees at the end of the street.

    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix C
    (page 30 - MVP 8) York Road: View south: proposed access road: CAD You can see on the CAD on the south side of Block D/affordable huge green bushes - while in reality on the proposed site and location plan you see 2 parking spaces!
    Sutters noted that pots as part of landscaping could solve these problems!

    Fenestration on Block D
    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix B:
    In the elevational modelling Block D/affordable July 2000
    there are windows above the door leading to the carpark (rear/south elevation)
    - BUT
    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix C (p. 34):
    In the axonometric view from South East March 2001
    there are no windows above the door leading to the carpark
    - BUT
    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix C (p. 33)
    In the appeal document No. MVP-9, 2001
    there are windows above the door (to the carpark) in Block D/affordable
    - Are there windows ? Are there no windows ?
    (heavy conflict of privacy/overlooking between Block D and Block C)

    [Peter Miller of Chambers Anthony Scrivener, QC, agreed to present this issue for TWBC]

    Architect Sutters Proof of Evidence - Appendix C
    Trinity Churchyard: existing - proposed
    (page 32 - MVE 9) Trinity Churchyard: existing view west across site: CAD
    (page 33 - MVP 9) Trinity Churchyard: proposed view west across site towards Ephraim Heights: CAD
    The outline of the Church Building suggests that the perspective angle of this CAD is taken closer to the development site.
    Why does the visible existing Mew house of Clarence Row become smaller ?
    Can the architect explain how it comes to this as I know that in pure 3- D CAD ratios are kept ?

    [Peter Miller of Chambers Anthony Scrivener, QC, agreed to present this issue for TWBC]



    February 2003 - CALA Homes contractor Wooldridge Demolition:
    The adequacy of the water supply for Telephone House site ?

    January 2003 - Interactive Map of the area of the Telephone House Development,
    explaining the traffic flow around the Church Road / York Road Block in Tunbridge Wells