Policy STR/CA 1: The Strategy for Capel Parish (part 1)
This response report contains comments received on Section 5: Place Shaping Policies – Capel section.
Contents
Policy STR/CA 1: The Strategy for Capel Parish
Comment No. | Name/Organisation | Response | |
|---|---|---|---|
DLP_21 | Darren Whi | Why are such a large number of properties proposed for this site when it could have been built along the A21 corridor whcih would have caused less impact and could have been supported through thransport links to paddock wood and tunbridge wells. | |
DLP_56 | Thomas Weinberg | Comments on Policy STR/CA1 (The Strategy for Capel Parish) p.156 Object Based on this document an incomplete and already unachievable Policy has been drawn up by a compromised Council. 2. The proposed secondary school site is next to an extremely busy road that is already very congested at school drop-off times. It also crosses a railway line that is at the bottom of a very deep cutting. 3. There is no requirement for more primary school places in the immediate locality. 4. 4,000 new dwellings are not needed in this area and there is no evidence they are needed. 5. Flood storage areas and other mitigation strategies can be delivered without developer contributions from new housing. Introducing hard surfaces and dwellings on to the meadows and fields will increase the flood risk beyond any mitigation measures. 6. You say that road locations have regard to KCC minerals allocations but those allocations have not yet been approved. Strategic transport links cannot be provided without destroying large areas of AONB. The offline A228 link will cause horrendous traffic issues at Pembury. Any transport links provided will have to continue on through Tonbridge doubling, tripling or quadrupling the road improvement costs and causing chaos in an already highly congested traffic area. 7. No comment. 8. Despite surrounding Five Oak Green with 4,000+ new houses, you state clearly that you want to keep on providing additional housing within Five Oak Green. 9. The release of Green Belt land is not permitted within the NPPF as there are no “exceptional circumstances”. 10. No comment 11. The impact on carbon sequestration provided by the farmland, meadows, mature trees and hedgerows in CA1 cannot be offset by a nod to zero/low carbon energy production. The impact of this development on climate change is severely negative and shameful. 12. This site is within the recognised 1km AONB buffer zone and so is entirely unsuitable for development of this scale. 13. The AONB Management Plan is destroyed by this plan. | |
DLP_63 | Dicky Wilson | I believe the Capel Tudeley proposed development is unsuitable because of the additional pressures it will bring to Tonbridge (and Hildenborough) which are much closer than Tunbridge Wells. I believe the key issues will be :-
| |
DLP_94 | Adrienne Bishop | I refer to the draft local plan presented to the parish of Capel on Monday 20 May 2019 and to the town of Paddock Wood on Tuesday 21 May 2019; this plan having previously been the subject of non-disclosure orders which could be seen as a breach of open democracy. I object most strongly to the provisions of this draft local plan for the following reasons.
| |
DLP_114 | James Deasy | TWBC: the standard response was submitted by the list of responders on the left: I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I will make some points here that I am sure you have seen before. Additional personal comments are overleaf. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
TWBC: The standard response (as above) along with the following additional comments were submitted: | |||
DLP_496 | Anand Ganguli | I am a resident of Tonbridge, living in Valley Close, which is right behind the Porsche Dealership, right next to the border with Tunbridge Wells. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_498 | Neil Nisbet | I live in Tonbridge with my family, my wife and I work locally and along with my daughter we all exercise snd enjoy the surrounding area. As a family we will be severely impacted if the “Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) goes ahead. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_501 | Valerie Walker | I live at Somerhill Cottages in Crockhurst Street,Tudeley. When I moved here over 10 years ago I felt confident that it would remain surrounded by agricultural fields, Dog walking would be a relaxing pleasure together with watching the wild life and enjoying rural life. My family and I have lived locally for many years taking please in the countryside and small villages. . Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_503 | Lucy Bradley | My name is Lucy Bradley and I live and work in Tonbridge. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_506 | Nick Hebditch | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I live on the North Eastern side of Tonbridge and frequently walk and visit the Tudeley area of this proposal. I am horrified by the proposed building of nearly 3000 houses on this site which would irreversibly destroy an area of great natural beauty which I have enjoyed and loved for many decades. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. It is scandalous that this site has been chosen over other considerably less damaging sites such as the area of land west of A21 between Longfield Rd., Old Forge Farm and Castle Hill Wood. This site is already hemmed in by road and rail infrastructure and would not therefore destroy an area of virtually unspoilt, unbuilt upon land. This site is closer to Tunbridge Wells and building of new schools and services would be far less disruptive and insensitive than the current proposal. Recent intensive house building near the multiplex cinema has been successful in infilling, and could easily be duplicated and extended in the area towards Castle Hill Wood. | |
DLP_508 | Roger Maxted | I live in Golden Green and object to the new proposed development in Tudeley and Capel. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_512 | Rachel Cattanach | My names Rachel Cattanach and I have lived in Tonbridge since I was born in 1991. I work in the town and visit Tonbridge daily my baby Rupert. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_529 | Emily Mercer | I live in the middle of Whetsted Road, so this new Local Plan will undoubtedly affect me and my family in the future. Therefore, I feel that it is incredibly important to inform you of our feelings towards the Local Plan. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_564 | Peter Bowden | I have lived in Higham Lane, Tonbridge for 25 years and often walk through the beautiful countryside around Tudeley and Capel. I have great concern over the proposed housing development and am writing to register my strong disapproval of this plan. As a Tonbridge resident I am amazed and alarmed that TWBC is considering offloading the downstream effects of so many houses with all the associated transport and other demands onto its neighbour. As the likely residents will not be local people in startup housing but London-based commuters, they will not be travelling into Tunbridge Wells to get the train and are certain to want to use the already unfit for purpose roads leading to Tonbridge station. This will exacerbate the already extreme congestion in our town. This is completely unacceptable. | |
DLP_574 | Marilyn Bacon | My husband and I have lived in East Peckham for 37 years, having moved here to escape living in London. This was to provide a much healthier life for our children in the lovely rural area surrounding Tonbridge & Tunbridge Wells. I am very disturbed to read about your plans for Capel and the surrounding area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_591 | Geoffrey Newby | We live at the junction of Alders Road and Five Oak Green Road and have done so for 38 years and in that time have enjoyed living in the countryside, albeit with towns nearby. Over that time we have witnessed many changes to the farming of the surrounding fields. Where there were once orchards and hop gardens there are acres of corn and rape seed. However nothing that has gone before is remotely as bad for the countryside and local community as what is now being bull-dozed through TWBC Planning Committee aided in no small part by the avarice of the local landowner who clearly has no interest whatsoever in farming. We are already on a rat run into Tonbridge (for trains and schools) at morning and evening rush hours and this would be made immeasurably worse by the proposed development. Access to Tonbridge would become all but impossible at peak times and even if one manages to reach the town there would be nowhere to park. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. We are not fooled by the description of the proposed Tudeley New Town as “Tudeley Garden Village”!!! | |
DLP_629 | Alexandra Standen | I live in South Tonbridge and work full time in London, commuting from Tonbridge Railway Station. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_638 | David Dunlop | I have always lived in the local area and currently reside in east peckham with my wife and young son. I am extremely worried about the impact the proposed plans will have on our local community and environment. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_640 | Richard Sherwood | I am a local resident of south Tonbridge, a regular commuter on the train from Tonbridge Station and have children at school in the area. | |
DLP_646 | Rosamarie Hicken | Other Comments: The above comments have been provided for me but I agree entirely with what has been stated. I have spent many hours going through the plan and supporting documents and have seen many bland statements about biodiversity, infrastructure etc. but no solutions. With reference to the Green Belt, the whole point of this was to prevent urban sprawl but this plan is designed to drive a coach and horses through that. Putting in a new town at Tudeley and the extension of Paddock Wood in Capel Parish by releasing Green belt land will open the door to further development. The Garden of England will rapidly become the back yard of London. Biodiversity – bland statements about net gains for biodiversity. How on earth do you replace hundreds of years of nature building habitats for flora and fauna by planting a few urban street trees and sticking in a few green wedges. The whole concept is laughable except I see nothing to laugh about. I know just from what I see in my own garden, that this area is home to protected species – native slow worms, grass snakes, common lizards etc., never mind all the birds and mammals and yet ancient woodlands are seen as disposable by this Council. New roads are proposed, a link road to the new Tudeley town and a Colts Hill by-pass which will take up more farmland. Provision of suitable housing – when left to developers, profit is king. The big expensive houses they want to build do not fulfil the needs of the community and will they sell? There are two new 4 bed detached houses in Five Oak Green which have been on the market for the best part of 1 year. If the demand was there, why have they not sold? Is it perhaps because at £850k we can’t afford them? When the time comes in the not too distant future when I want to move into more suitable accommodation, I want a small affordable bungalow in the local area, something which is in very short supply and unlikely to be provided by these new developments. The overpriced retirement apartments with their no doubt high service charges which are springing up all over Tunbridge Wells are something I shall never consider buying. Affordable housing is not something that developers want to provide, the need cannot be met by the market because it does not provide the profits required. | |
DLP_648 | William Harrington | I am a retired resident of Tunbridge Wells, who lives very close to the boundary with Tonbridge. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. Other comments: The proposed development of a Garden Village will have no detrimental effect on the Borough of Tunbridge Wells, BUT, will have a devastating effect on the Borough of Tonbridge. The destruction of Green Belt land is totally unacceptable, destroying valuable agricultural land, wild life habitats and a way of life for the existing residents of the areas affected. TWBC have taken the easy option, with the offer by, The Hadlow Estate, of all the land needed for the development of The Garden Village in Tudeley and the proposed secondary school.. TWBC will collect all the Council Tax from the proposed development in Capel and dump all the infrastructure problems onto Tonbridge. The roads in and out of Tonbridge are gridlocked, from all directions,from 7.45am to after 9am every weekday and throughout the late afternoon and evening. The infrastructure is not there to take anymore traffic. The rail network is full to capacity, with passengers often having to stand all the way to London. The long term car parks in Tonbridge are virtually full every day and parking at Paddock Wood Station is almost impossible. The B2017 is a narrow winding and congested road which, during the morning rush hour, has traffic queuing from the A26 at Woodgate Way roundabout back towards Tudeley. How on earth do the planners expect the existing residents of Capel and surrounding villages, plus the inevitable addition of a large number of new residents from the proposed Capel developments, to get to Tonbridge, either to catch trains to London, go to work, or attend the existing Schools. That brings me to my next very strong objection to the ludicrous proposal for the new Secondary School site (CA1/CA2) opposite the Schools of Somerhill, with access from the Woodgate Way roundabout. The site is bisected by the main railway line to Ashford, which is in a deep cutting. Access to the northern section of the site is via a Private Lane (Postern Lane), which crosses a very narrow Railway Bridge. Postern Lane is a single track lane with limited passing places. It is constantly used by delivery vehicles, farm vehicles and the residents of the lane. Children crossing the bridge would be unsighted , until the vehicles reached them. The possibility of a serious accident cannot be ruled out. The Railway Bridge poses too much of a temptation for teenage children. There have already been fatalities and the Residents of Postern Lane, don’t want another. It is suggested that pupils from the Proposed Garden Village in Tudeley should walk, or cycle to the proposed new Secondary School, along the B2017. This is a preposterous suggestion. This is a very narrow and dangerous road for cyclists and walkers at the best of times, but especially so in the winter months. There are 5 secondary schools, a number of primary schools, The Schools at Somerhill, Tonbridge School and other private schools, already in Tonbridge. Because of the very high rating of these schools they attract pupils from nearby towns and villages, often commuting by rail, car & private bus. It is inevitable that pupils for the proposed new school, will will come from similar areas and not just from Capel. There is not the infrastructure for another Secondary School in the south of the Tonbridge. | |
DLP_684 | Helen Connell | I have lived in Tunbridge Wells and surrounding area all my life. I now live in Crowborough, but often walk around Pembury woods area with colleagues. I am a member of the Tunbridge Wells Ramblers and an RSPB member, so have a particular interest in keeping the habitat for birds and all nature. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_686 | Vivien Concannon | I am a resident in Tonbridge and I enjoy going on walks in Hart Lake I am worried about the congestion that will occur in East Peckham. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_688 | Hany Hakim | I work in Royal Tunbridge Wells hospital Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_690 | Rebecca Richmond | We moved to the Parish of Capel this year, drawn to the area by its beauty, open space, peacefulness and countryside. At a time when sustainability and the environment are at the top of the agenda across the world, we are astonished that TWBC would consider the Tudeley development for the ease of dealing with one landowner. This ill-thought through plan will come at a great cost to our landscape, utterly ruining our enjoyment of our home after we had carefully selected a location within AONB and Green Belt! There are multiple less-devastating potential solutions – all of which should be considered ahead of the Tudeley development. Green belt is there for a reason and these are not exceptional circumstances in which to decimate it. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_692 | Sharon James | I live in Tonbridge Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_702 | Stephen Thompson | I have lived in Tonbridge for over 30 years and seen planning policy allow it to be wrecked by poor quality, unnecessary development with inadequate and poorly maintained infrastructure to support it. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_704 | Sarah Thompson | I live on the A26 Hadlow Road in Tonbridge and have recently been travelling into Tunbridge Wells to work. The congestion or queue of traffic can be seen daily from inside our house starting from around 7.30am(we are approximately 3.5 miles from the Tonbridge town centre)the queues extend back to Three Elm Lane and on occasion further towards Hadlow making the journey into work a nightmare sitting in stop start traffic all the way. I have on occasions tried to travel in via Hartlake Road (where 2800 houses are proposed to be built) where once again you are unable to turn right onto Tudeley lane due to the traffic queues, It doesn’t seem to matter which way you travel these days Tonbridge is grid locked. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_792 | Gill Keenan | I live at Brampton Bank on the Five Oak Green Road in Tudeley, so my house will be directly affected by the proposed development. I have enjoyed living in this area for many years but have noticed gradually over a period of time the traffic on the B2017 has significantly increased including HGV vehicles which use the road. Vehicles often use this road as a rat run driving at high speed, even though there are speed restriction signs. The extra traffic resulting from the proposed development will only add to this problem making it an extremely dangerous area to live for residents. | |
DLP_801 | Jim Madar | I am currently a resident of South Tonbridge, living proximal to The Schools at Sommerhill. We regularly walk and cycle around the area. Being long term residents of Tonbridge we have seen Tonbridge and the nearby towns & villages grow over the years we have lived here and witnessed first hand the inexorable growth in traffic, congestion and pressure on local resources - this being with gradual and evolutionary residential growth in the area. It is with a significant degree of concern that I have become aware of your extensive and intensive plans for the area. I include the pro-forma letter from savecapel.com which thoroughly and eloquently covers the issues which indicate precisely how ill considered and rash this plan is. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_807 | Ann Crosby | I live in Rusthall, and my daughter and family live in Tudeley. They have been there for ten years and moved to Tudeley for the clean air and to give their daughter a good start in life. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_816 | Nick Gandon | I live next door to Tudeley Church, where my family and I moved to 5 years ago. We move here because of the beautiful scenery, the countryside walks and clean air – this is the environment we wanted to spend our lives and bring our children up in. I work in Tonbridge and travel there by car every day – the roads are too busy and dangerous to cycle on. It take me approximately twenty minutes to travel the three miles currently. We are now faced with the proposition of havig our local Green Belt turned in to a new town! With the introduction of a new roundabout less than 50m from our property and a potential bus route even closer, our family’s future is now fraught with increased pollution and congestion. There is an abundance of Brownfield sites in the Borough, that would be far better used for housing regeneration as opposed to destroying our beautiful Green Belt - we need to maintain and sustain our green areas for our children's future, not destroy it because it's the "easy option". Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_825 | Jamie Gandon | I live next door to Tudeley Church, where my family and I moved to 5 years ago. We move here because of the beautiful scenery, the countryside walks and clean air – this is the environment we wanted to spend our lives in. I go to school in Capel and travel there by car every day – the roads are very busy outside my school and it is very dangerous when we have to cross it, I hope one day we will have a pelican crossing put in before any of my friends are seriously hurt. We are now faced with the proposition of having our local Green Belt turned in to a new town! With the introduction of a new roundabout less than 50m from our property and a potential bus route even closer, our family’s future is now fraught with increased pollution and congestion. There is an abundance of Brownfield sites in the Borough, that would be far better used for housing regeneration as opposed to destroying our beautiful Green Belt - we need to maintain and sustain our green areas for our future, not destroy it because it's the "easy option". Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_844 | Andy Bowerman | I am a local resident living in Golden Green, (A neighbouring hamlet to Capel), I own a small business that is based outdoors, and use the local facilities on a regular basis. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. Due to the above severe impact on the local “Green Belt “ and facilities, networks and environment I therefore urge the committee to reject these new developments. | |
DLP_890 | Anna Trafford | We live in the village of Five Oak Green. My children attend the village Primary School and I drive into Tonbridge each day along with a lot of other traffic to catch a train to London. I would like to cycle into Tonbridge but as there are no cycle routes and very busy roads this is just too dangerous. At weekends we usually go for at least one walk in the countryside surrounding Five Oak Green. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_903 | Jon Elliott | Having been a visitor and friend of Tudeley for over 25 years Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_990 | Stefan Knight | I live in Tonbridge, and commute into London from Tonbridge station every weekday. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_999 | Lucy Skinner | l live in Tonbridge, commute from Tonbridge station and my daughter goes to school in Tonbridge. I am adding my comments because I think the proposed development at Capel will seriously affect the town of Tonbridge, in a negative way. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I do hope you will take my comments into account when you come to make your decision. | |
DLP_1003 | Linda and Hugh Bingham | Our names are Linda and Hugh Bingham, and we live at XX [TWBC: house number redacted] Kings Road, Tonbridge TN9 2HB, which is at the South end of Tonbridge not far from where this new development is proposed. | |
DLP_1007 | Sean Lloyd | I have lived in South Tonbridge for over thirty years and am appalled at the proposed ‘strategies’ referred to below. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. The paragraphs below have been prepared by others, but I have included them in my letter as I wholeheartedly agree with the points made. It seems to me that TWBC have identified a way of meeting their housing target whilst at the same time pushing the majority of resultant issues onto Tonbridge and Malling Council and Tonbridge residents. As noted below, increased traffic, pressure on transport links, schools etc will be felt by TMBC rather than TWBC, whilst TWBC conveniently collect the additional revenues raised through Council Tax from the proposed new development. Neat, from TWBC point of view, but totally lacking responsibility towards Tonbridge ‘neighbours’ and the environment. In relation to the proposal to build on Green Belt land I have heard it argued that it is fine because alternative land will be designated as Green Belt in its place. This is clearly a ridiculous argument, in that using this approach anyone could build anywhere and the whole point of designating land as Green Belt – to prevent the outward sprawl of existing urban areas – is defeated. | |
DLP_1009 | Joanna Baldock | I have lived in Tonbridge for since I was a child and moved to Tudeley ten years ago. We also have a Business here and our children attend Capel School. Every day since I first heard the news of this tragedy I can’t believe this beautiful and historic area will be lost to what I believe is no good reason. This is not because I think we are not in need of affordable housing but because I don’t believe there is one moral or sensible reason to create 2,800 homes is this destructive manner, other than conveniently there is one land owner offering their land. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. . I realise the UK needs more housing, especially affordable housing but I feel creating large areas of ‘Garden Villages’ not only destroys beautiful areas of heritage, countryside, community and farming but also creates a vastly negative impact on issues mentioned above such as flooding, transport, schools, biodiversity, sustainability, green belt, well being, pollution and the emergency services. If houses were to be fairly and evenly spread over the whole of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council this would have far less of a destructive impact to all the reasons previously mentioned. | |
DLP_1016 | Paul Andrews | Our family has lived in Tonbridge for last 17 years. Living on Hadlow Road we have found that traffic volumes have increased hugely over this period of time and we now find that we are effectively blocked in our drive way during rush hours due to the rapid and unsustainable increase in traffic volume caused by the expansion of housing in our town without any increase in road capacity. There has been no commensurate increase in any of the services provided by the local council and everything appears to be in decline due to budgetary constraints. How is our town possibly going to cope with the vast increase in traffic and demand on local services that will have to be provided by Tonbridge, not by Tunbridge Wells as it should be? TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1018 | Lynn Hams | I am a resident of North Tonbridge and strongly object to a large number of houses being built on the Tonbridge borders. People living in these houses will increase the traffic, significantly, in Tonbridge and the surrounding roads, not Tunbridge Wells, whilst all the council tax income will go to Tunbridge Wells who will not have the cost of managing this additional traffic or their residents suffer the consequences. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1364 | Mr and Mrs Leach | Object Re: Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18 Consultation) - Adjoining Resident Comment It was good to meet you at the SaveCapel Public Meeting, on 18th September 2019. We wish to comment on the Draft Local Plan (LP), in relation to certain policies outlined under the headings stated below. We are specifically concerned about the negative impacts of the proposed garden villages will have to our town, especially without adequate public transport provisions, and with such a large loss of the countryside and Green Belt. 1. Policy STR/CA1 - The Strategy for Capel Parish We do not believe that the current plans for two huge, nearby housing developments around the small villages of Tudeley and Capel is a sustainable strategy, based on the existing rural context and poor infrastructure provisions, so these proposal should be reconsidered. Having thousands of new houses built around small rural villages, especially the nearly 3,000 homes proposed for a disproportionately enlarged Tudeley settlement, with such inadequate infrastructure provisions is rarely considered sustainable; as other Local Authorities have found out, when similar plans have been examined. For instance the West of England Plan, where the three new garden villages proposed, was rejected by the Planning Inspectorate. Our concerns and comments are further outlined, as follows: 1.1 With regard to Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019), two of the criteria that Local Plans are assessed against is whether it is positively prepared and it is consistent with national policy, the former is stated below. Policy prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assed needs ...where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development. 1.2 In our opinion, the word "needs" includes infrastructure requirements, as stated in the equivalent text of the previous NPPF versions, and this should include public transport. 1.3 With reference to the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan1 that has been prepared, as part of the Plan making process. For the site at Capel ("new garden settlement at Tudeley"), the transport infrastructure proposed is related to highways improvements that appear to be just limited to sections of roads adjacent or nearby the site; with no improvements proposed to the destination town networks. There are also limited other local services proposed and so residents will need to travel to other towns. 1.4 As outlined in our opening paragraph and commented on further in Section 2, we are concerned about the development within the Green Belt. With reference to Paragraph 138 of the NPPF (2019), it states that: "... Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release the Green Belt land for development, plans should first give consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well served by public transport. ..." 1.5 We are of the opinion that the proposed Tudeley garden village at Capel does not meet either of these requirements. The proposed site largely covers open unspoilt countryside and is poorly served by public transport. As such the proposed strategic site is not consistent with this National policy nor is it sound in-terms of Paragraph 35. 1.6 Furthermore, we do not believe that the proposals contained within Policy STR/CA 1 are not consistent with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF (2019) that states: "... Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. ..." 1.7 Again in our opinion, the significant development at Capel is not currently in line this National policy, with the only public transport provision being to establish bus services. 1.8 We are also of the opinion that Policy STR/CA 1 is not consistent with other proposed policies in this Draft Local Plan. Including, Policy STR 5 states that "It is essential that all new development will be supported by the provision of the necessary infrastructure, services and facilities ..."; Policy STR 6 states "All sustainable modes of transport ... will be facilitated to reduce dependence on emission-producing private car use ..." and "Encourage improvements in public transport ... including in terms of rail access ...". In addition, the Vsions and Objectives 2 includes "... the delivery of all forms of infrastructure to mitigate the impact of development and where possible result in 'betterment'." and "To tackle climate change and minimising the impact of development on communities, the economy and the environment ...". 1.9 Our points in relation to Policy STR 5 are as follows: a. We support this Policy, but believe an additional requisite should be included stating: All the infrastructure required for the garden settlements must be delivered prior to any housing being built (or similar), to minimise the development impact. b. The necessary jobs, services and facilities, such as all the shops and other business that people will require, are unlikely to be provided within the proposed garden settlements. As such people will need to travel to other towns for these. c. The lack of public transport both limits people's options, with a greater reliance of private car usage, and is not consistent with National policy (see Items 1.4 to 1.7). d. In light of this, we believe that thousands of new residents opting to commute by train (to London, etc), or to go shopping, are likely to drive to Tonbridge; as this is the nearest main town, due to no railway station being provided as part of the proposed development, despite the enlarged Tudeley village straddling a mainline. This will add to existing acute congestion in town and increase bus journey times. 1.10 Our points in relation to Polict STR 6 are as follows: a. Again we support this policy but believe an additional requisite should be included stating: All sustainable transport services, with a proven capacity to cater for the planned populations, at any given time, must be provided before any more houses in a garden settlement are built (or similar), to minimise the development impact. b. Further to Item 1.9d, without a new railway station at Tudeley, the proposed garden settlement at Capel cannot be viewed as being in accordance with Policy STR 6 that requires "All sustainable modes of transport ... will be facilitated to reduce dependence on emission-producing private car use". Although, bus services are promoted to nearby towns; the increased levels of congestion, resulting from the huge developments, will reduce the attractiveness of any new bus services and so people are more likely to opt for the convenience of their own cars. c. Polict STR 6 also requires improvements in public trasnport, including in-terms of rail access. Thus, Policy STR/CA 1 and the associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan1 must include the requirement for a mainline railway station at Tudelely, which has frequent train services, to be built as part of any garden settlement. Although, this proposal will not alleviate the significant impact this development will have on Tonbridge; having a railway station option might minimise it, if such huge unsustainable settlements have to be built around our communities. 1.11 Our points in relation to Vision and Objectives 2 are as follows: a. We agree with the majority of these strategic objectives. However, we disagree with Objective 9 that proposes garden settlements as a model of future development. We are of the opinion that this Objective should be removed, as rural garden settlements rarely deliver sustainable developments; especially where there are limited employment opportunities and a lack of public transport options available. Also, with reference to Sir Letwin's (2018) review2, the average build-out "for sites over 1,000 homes is 15.5 years". This lengthy build out period is in part due to local market saturation of new homes. Thus, it would be better to disperse the new housing across the Borough rather a local area with c.6,000 houses. b. We also believe that some of the other crucial Objectives are incompatible with the proposed rural garden settlements. For instance, Objective 8 aims to tackle climate change. We are not sure how destroying 600 acres of fertile land in Capel, containing small woods and hedgerows; replacing it with settlements built from energy intensive, man-made materials and hard surfacings, which will in part be occupied by commuters reliant on private cars, will help tackle climate change. c. Furthermore, to help reduce the development congestion impacts and in light of the Governments new goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050; we must avoid taking forward poorly planned and unsustainable developments, such as the proposed Tudelely village. As the development effectively promotes private car use and fails to meet its new needs, with the limited employment and transport options. This would significantly increase congestion; with the adverse effects outlined in 1.11d and will create more parking issues in Tonbridge, especially near the station. d. Objective 8 also aims to minimise the development impact on communities, the economy and environment. However, the current rural garden village proposals are likely to cause immense harm to all three, especially in Tonbridge that appears to have had little consideration in this draft Plan, with some of the issues listed below: i. Communities - potential loss of identity that this massive modern development will have; in-terms of the character, sense of place and of a tight-nit community spirit that the existing small rural villages have and its residents currently share. There may also be a loss separate village identities, as future unsustainable development is mentioned in Paragraph 4.40 that may fill Tudelely and Capel with houses until they merge with Tonbridge and Paddock Wood. We are also concerned about the impact on our community in Tonbridge, as increased congestion and air pollution (Items 1.10b and 1.11diii) is likely to impact on the vibrancy of our High Street. As people may potentially avoid the town centre, instead of using it; and move away, due to a loss of sense of place / identity. ii. Economy - loss of local rural employment and agricultural/equestrian business, with relatively little new retail/service job provided as part of the developments. New retail offerings may struggle to be viable, with other established centres. Congestion from inapt infrastructure provisions will harm the viability of many local firms and limit Tonbridge's sustainable economic growth, even with some new spend. The short-term construction benefit should be given limited weight. iii. Environment - loss of 600 acres of the countryside, carbon storing vegetation and habitats; with developments generating a disproportionately high carbon emissions, from a poorly thought-out car reliant settlements that are located away from good public transport links. Furthermore, due these settlements being so reliant on private car usage - it is very likely that the current proposals will cause more severe traffic congestion in our town, which has a limited road network that will struggle to meet our own planned development in Tonbridge. A further increase in traffic congestion is also likely to exceed air quality limits, especially on Tonbridge High Street that is in an Air Quality Management Area. 1.12 Additionally, we do not believe that the proposed rural garden villages and this Policy abide by the principles of sustainable development, which is at the heart of the NPPF. The sustainability objectives are set-out in Paragraph 8 (NPPF, 2019), as follows: a) an economic objective - to help build a strong, ... economy, ...to support growth ... and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure; b) a social objective - to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities ... c) an environmental objective - to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including ...helping to improve biodiversity ... minimising waste and pollution ... including moving to a low carbon economy. 1.13 In relation to this, there will be negative impacts on all three of these objectives, as partly outlined in the points raised above (items 1.11di to iii). In addition, there will be a reduction in the quality of life and wellbeing of our communities; with the loss of the countryside to enjoy, loss of rural village character and reduced air quality - social impacts. In summary, we object to Policy STR/CA 1. Large rural garden villages, like the one proposed at Capel, are rarely considered sustainable developments; especially where there are limited employment opportunities and transport options, with a resulting high private car reliance. The current development proposals in this Policy are inherently unsustainable and are inconsistent with National policy, so this Policy should be removed form the Draft Local Plan. To attain a more sustainable development this Policy must include the provision of a mainline rail station at Tudeley, with frequent train services, to minimise the some of the development impacts as outlined above. However, it is understood Network Railway have stated that a new station is not viable, within the plan period, and so these developments should not be taken forward.# In conclusion, we do not consider that the Draft Local Plan is sound, in relation to the proposed large garden settlements, with inadequate infrastructure connecting nearby towns. The current proposal for such a substantial loss of the Green Belt and countryside, as part the massive village expansions, is not sustainable development and nor is it consistent with National planning policy. This will cause immense environmental harm, including a heavy reliance on car use with poor public transport links. The justification for building on the Green Belt is unsound, as there are alternative brownfield and non-Green belt sites available. We are also concerned about the deliverability of the Draft Local Plan, with the local market saturation of nearly 6,000 new houses allocated for two nearby villages within one local area. In light of these concerns and the potentially flawed approach in favouring Green Belt development, over other suitable sites and as no exceptional circumstances exist, alternative sites should be considered. A more sustainable development approach might be to spread the allocation across the Borough, reducing the concentrated development pressures and local market saturation, whilst helping to unlock the greatest amount of brownfield re-development. | |
DLP_1386 | Melanie Saunders | Myself and my immediate family live, work and attend school in Tonbridge. I walk daily on the fields that I am lucky enough to have on my doorstep off the Hadlow Road and my children both walk to school. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. This development will not only have a detrimental effect on its immediate surrounding areas, but will also impact on the wider area including North Tonbridge. Hadlow Road already heavily congested at peak times will grind to a halt with the increased volumes of traffic in the south end of town. Traffic will also increase on unsuitable roads such as Hartlake Road and Three Elm Lane, as people will use these roads to avoid the congestion. Traffic already speeds and cuts through our estates, when these routes are congested or blocked and pollution levels are rising, which is a huge concern when my son is a severe asthma sufferer. The increased congestion will mean no-longer wanting to visit my own town to shop. The greenbelt land and views will slowly be eroded and destroyed, one of the reasons that makes North Tonbridge an appealing place to live. This proposed development will suffocate Tonbridge, its way of life and its residents. | |
DLP_1400 | Rhea Patel | I am a 16 year old sixth-form student at the Judd school, and I have lived in Tudeley for five years. Before this time, I lived in Tonbridge since the age of 5. | |
DLP_1409 | Alistair Cook | My Name is Alistair Cook and although I live in Golden Green I own and am currently building a property on the London Road, Southborough. Consequently the proposed development have an impact on both my properties and am very much aware of the issues that I have mentioned below. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1429 | Sarah Hughes | I am a resident on Golden Green. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1655 | Daniel Maxted | I live in Golden Green and object to the new proposed development in Tudeley and Capel. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1657 | Anthony Baldock | Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” Policy STR/CA1 I have lived in Tonbridge for since I was a child and moved to Tudeley ten years ago. We also have a Business here and our children attend Capel School. Every day since I first heard the news of this tragedy I can’t believe this beautiful and historic area will be lost to what I believe is no good reason. This is not because I think we are not in need of affordable housing but because I don’t believe there is one moral or sensible reason to create 2,800 homes is this destructive manner, other than conveniently there is one land owner offering their land. I realise the UK needs more housing, especially affordable housing but I feel creating large areas of ‘Garden Villages’ not only destroys beautiful areas of heritage, countryside, community and farming but also creates a vastly negative impact on issues mentioned above such as flooding, transport, schools, biodiversity, sustainability, green belt, well being, pollution and the emergency services. If houses were to be fairly and evenly spread over the whole of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council this would have far less of a destructive impact to all the reasons previously mentioned | |
DLP_1660 | Victoria Maxted | I live in Golden Green and object to the new proposed development in Tudeley and Capel. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1665 | Alex Baldock | Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” Policy STR/CA1 STR/PW1 I have lived in Tudeley since I was born. I attend Capel School, which I love. I'm so scared we will lose my school. I am also really worried about losing all the beautiful countryside. I love living here and it makes me so sad to think it may all change be destroyed. I realise the UK needs more housing, especially affordable housing but I feel creating large areas of ‘Garden Villages’ not only destroys beautiful areas of heritage, countryside, community and farming but also creates a vastly negative impact on issues mentioned above such as flooding, transport, schools, biodiversity, sustainability, green belt, well being, pollution and the emergency services. If houses were to be fairly and evenly spread over the whole of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council this would have far less of a destructive impact to all the reasons previously mentioned. | |
DLP_1711 | Nicola Maxted | I live in Golden Green and object to the new proposed development in Tudeley and Capel. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1996 | Richard Songhurst | Other Comments: We have lived in this area for the past 25 years and have always loved the fact we are surrounded by beautiful countryside. We thought we were safe in the knowledge that this would never be spoilt as it’s green belt land and hence protected as was the promise made when green belt policy was set up. It seems this does not apply to county councils in this area. | |
DLP_2157 | Bryan, Jane and Rosalind More | As residents since 1999 in Badsell Road, Five oak Green, we are writing to express our very real concern with the proposals in the Local Plan to build 1,400 houses on land at East Capel and 2,800 in Tudeley. It was obviously easy for the Council to agree to the proposal to build on the sites offered by two landowners - no searching would be required for brownfield and other more suitable sites. | |
DLP_2158 | Helen Homard | I am a resident of TMBC living in a village to the North of the town. My family uses Tonbridge regularly for shopping, entertainment, visiting family and sporting activities and our children travel daily by bus through the town to school in Tunbridge Wells. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents relating to this matter. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2291 | John & Linda Chapman | We live in Tonbridge and are very concerned with the proposed plans for Capel. Should they go ahead the plans will adversely affect traffic in Tonbridge, the Medway floodplain and destroy many Green Belt areas. Please add our contact details to your consultation database so that we can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. We understand that our comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2344 | Richard & Tracy Paddington | I live in the Somerhill Green development, just off the Somerhill roundabout. I work locally and am fortunate to be able to walk to work at a local secondary school. During school drop off and pick up, the roads are very congested. It beggars belief the consideration of another secondary school in the area without realising the roads will be gridlocked. How would the emergency services cope getting through the additional traffic congestion? Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2354 | Jan Bedden | Other comments: It will cause an increase in noise and pollution during and after the build. It will have a big impact on the roads and services around the area. | |
DLP_2360 | Lara Shatto-Sweeney | I am a resident of Hildenborough who commutes to London for work and feels a close connection with the local environment. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2378 | Matthew Edwards | I would like to strongly object to TW borough councils proposals to build on my doorstep. I cannot believe that they are allowed to build on green belt land when there are so many potential brown field sites that could be developed . It seems to me that you have just chosen these sites because it’s easier to deal with just a few landowners and cheaper to build on larger sites than a few smaller sites. I am not convinced that so many houses are necessary . Where will it end ? We will become a concrete nation , especially in the south east. The traffic in this area is increasingly getting worse and parking more and more difficult. Most of the people living in these proposed areas will use the Tonbridge local amenities and yet pay tax to Tunbridge Wells. | |
DLP_2381 | Maria Gonzalez | My name is Maria Gonzalez and I lived in Hadlow for 17 years so this area is very important to me. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2516 | Paul Latham | I am a resident of Five Oak Green, having lived in the area for 48 years. Over those years the roads and infrastucture have been over-stressed with large increases in population, with all that entails, and they are only just able to cope these days. Very little appears to have been done by the Authorities over the years to alleviate the pressures on the roads and infrastucture and I have little confidence in those same Authorities being capable of improving matters for the present population, let alone the enormous increase in population that would ensue with the addition of tens of thousands more. I assume that the local roads and infrastucture would need to be upgraded/rebuilt, but at enormous cost and with great suffering to all during the build process. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2523 | Philippe Negri | My name is Philippe Negri and I leave on kings road in Tonbridge Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2554 | Barry Watson | Other comments: I agree with everything mentioned on this form. | |
DLP_2589 | P Sierts | Other comments: I agree with all comments made here, and object very strongly to these developments. | |
DLP_2591 | Jessie Moon | Other comments: Why should we accept all the pollution & extra traffic while T.W.B.C. collect all the cash. The use of good agricultural land is scandalous, all the extra rain water will be going into the Medway the wrong side of Edenbridge, which cause even worse flooding to Golden Green East Peckham Yalding & all other villages in this area probably some that have never flooded before. The roundabout at Hartlake will surely call for a widening of the Railway Bridge. This seems to me a plan for some people to make a lot of money. As for homes for youngsters to get a start will never happen | |
DLP_2617 | Mr S Munday & Mrs J Munday | Other comments: Please do not destroy this green belt land. There is plenty of brown belt sites to consider. This would absolutely destroy Tonbridge. All the extra pollution from traffic would be very harmful to us all. | |
DLP_2623 | Mr & Mrs C Cadell | Other comments: Why haven't TWBC included the very many brown field sites within Tunbridge Wells town in their plan. We do not need more executive housing in this area. What is needed is affordable housing for essential workers ie lower paid NHS personnel, teachers and teaching assistants, care home and nursing home personnel, refuse collecters, those on minimum wage and young people who have to move away in order to afford to get on the property ladder. Affordable properties in Tunbridge Wells town where there is a good public transport network should mean less cars on the roads and less commuters on the alerady overcrowded trains. Green belt land is needed for agriculture and to enable people to get out and enjoy fresh air and exercise. This plan is an easy option on the part of TWBC. Property developers love green belt. It means more profit, less work. That is not the purpose of a Local Plan. More thought needs to be given to the actual requirements of the people living in the Tunbridge Wells borough. The councillors making the decisions around the Local Plan were put in place by the electorate of Tunbridge Wells Borough therefore they should be representing them not making decisions that take no account of the needs of the locals. This current proposal appears to be a tick box exercise which, by virtue of the proposed building in Tudeley and Capel, places the burden firmly on another local authority whereby Tunbridge Wells Borough Council gets all the financial benefits from the Council tax payments of 4,000 plus homes with none of the responsibility for increased pollution, congestion on the roads, lack of GP facilities, dentists, schools, nurseries, the list goes on. I am firmly of the opinion that this Local Plan is not fit for purpose and those responsible for putting the proposals together need to look at the needs of the local population rather than just trying to comply with central government policy. | |
DLP_3204 | Graeme & Tina Anderson | We write as residents of Tunbridge Wells Borough. Our house is on the B2017, between Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood, adjacent to the proposed East Capel development. We have lived here for twenty-four years and are extremely concerned about the proposed developments and their impact on Tudeley, Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood, given our knowledge of the area and our observations of the local environment and infrastructure in that time. | |
DLP_3210 | Andrew Bowen | I have lived in Tonbridge for over 8 years and prior to that circa 20 in the local villages and have seen the inability of the infrastructure to cope with current volumes of traffic on the Tonbridge Industrial estate and along the A26 leading to the A21 - if you were to visit these roads you could see for yourself the number of hours during the day when they are gridlocked so to see a school being sited where there is no walking/public transport available beggars belief. I also struggle to see the need for 2800 houses in Tudeley on Greenfield land bordering the flood plane - quite senseless. I am copying verbatim the comments below which you have undoubtedly seen already but to which I fully subscribe: Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_3400 | Joanna Osborne | I live in Five Oak Green and regularly travel along the road to Tonbridge and Paddock Wood and use the facilities in both towns. For many years, I was a regular commuter through Tonbridge station, which was massively overloaded then. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_3518 | Peter Scrimshaw | I am writing to send you my comments on the TWBC Draft Local Plan. Please add my contact details to your consultation database, so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I live on Badsell Road and work from home, so I am very well placed to comment on how I feel these proposals will affect to local area. Other than the outrageous destruction of green belt land, I am very concerned about how traffic levels will change on what are quite minor roads in this area. Badsell Road (B2017), Colts Hill and Five Oak Green village are already often at a standstill during the busy rush hour periods and this is before the extra traffic which will be generated by the 900 new homes already being built on the three development sites around Paddock Wood town. Paddock Wood has a fire station, police station and the ambulance service centre on Eldon Way, so there is a regular stream of emergency vehicles using all the roads out of the town. Colts Hill / Whetsted Road (A228) is known to be an important road link between the Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone hospitals and I see that the Colts Hill bypass is being resurrected, with the destruction of yet more old farmland which this will require. But this scheme was first deemed necessary before the current expansion of Paddock Wood, so how can this possibly be a sufficient solution to all of the extra traffic which this daft Local Plan will doubtlessly generate? At the very least you will need to wait and re-assess local traffic flow after all of the current new housing around Paddock Wood is finished and fully occupied. Building a new garden village at Tudeley along the B2017 (basically a country lane) is frankly preposterous, as the vast majority of new residents will need to drive from there; parking at either Paddock Wood or Tonbridge railway stations will be totally impossible, if not already! I am also very concerned that this idea would eventually result in a continuous corridor of urban sprawl, from Tonbridge, through Tudeley and Five Oak Green to Paddock Wood, completely destroying the green belt buffer around Tonbridge. I regularly walk my dog along the footpaths to the north of Badsell Road, up to the railway line and Whetsted Wood; this is an important area which is used by many other walkers & dog walkers, especially from Paddock Wood. Whetsted Wood itself is a small pocket of remaining ancient woodland, linked to the surrounding habitats by the existing field boundary hedges; it would become completely isolated by the new housing proposals. I am also staggered by the outrageous hypocrisy of the proposal to build on green belt land at all, with other local planning applications often turned down for “inappropriate and harmful development which would have a greater impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt”, for example 18/01767/FULL (Erection of building for six B&B rooms associated with The Poacher, Tudeley) and 18/03915/FULL (Demolition of existing buildings and erection of detached dwelling at Builders Yard, Five Oak Green). I do appreciate that there is a requirement to plan for future housing needs, but sincerely urge you to re-assess all available brownfield sites. Being able to deal with a single landowner is not any kind of justification for the destruction of such a large area of green belt land and the location is rather inappropriate anyway, being on the Medway flood plain and right on the boundary of Tonbridge & Malling BC. | |
DLP_3759 | Tara Stanley | I have lived in Paddock Wood my entire life, with most other family members residing in the Tudeley area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4055 | Jill Giles | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I live & work in Tonbridge and think the proposal to develop land in Tudeley for over 2000 homes will be detrimental to all who live & work in the area. | |
DLP_4057 | Suzy McAllister | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be a huge increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will devastate the landscape and kill wildlife en masse, including many rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4059 | Catherine Gunton | As a resident of a new build site I appreciate the need for housing, the requirements of buyers and the desire to live in the area but I do not feel due consideration has been given to the impact this development could cause. I have witnessed so many near-miss traffic accidents on the Somerhill roundabout, I cannot even begin to count them. I have witnessed cars parking on the non-double yellow section of roads on Tudeley Lane, causing passing traffic to be forced into dangerous manoeuvres given their location. I have witnessed parents queuing along Tudeley Lane in their cars causing traffic chaos in advance of the school gates opening. I objected to the laughable car parking provisions of Bishop Chavasse school given we have no public transport and await the day the school is full and parents are fully aware of the impact. Building a new school in this area will cause further congestion, a new housing estate will have far reaching and devastating effects on the local environment and the impact on the local communities will be severe. It is undeniable that these residents will be using the services of Tonbridge and yet paying council tax to Tunbridge Wells, resulting in more strain on our local infrastructure. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4081 | P Scally | I live with my family in East Peckham and I was shocked and stunned by the proposed housing development across Capel & Paddock Wood. I regularly travel from East Peckham to Tonbridge through the beautiful countryside , along Hartlake road and am constantly impressed by the views across the fields during the changing seasons. As a family we moved to this area to bring our children up in the beautiful surrounding countryside. So I’m am deeply saddened by the proposal. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4094 | James Wade | I moved to Colts Hill earlier this year and am staggered by the scale of the project you are suggesting. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4096 | A Scally | As a resident of nearby East Peckham I was surprised and stunned by the proposed housing development across Capel & Paddock Wood. I regularly travel from East Peckham to Tonbridge through the beautiful countryside , along Hartlake road and am constantly impressed by the views across the fields during the changing seasons. As a family we moved to this area to bring our children up in the beautiful surrounding countryside. So I’m am deeply saddened by the proposal. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4318 | Sue Fairbairn | My family of 4 live in the heart of the Parish of Capel in the middle of Five Oak Green moving there some ten years ago. We love the parish, the sense of community and particularly the surrounding countryside in which I frequently walk alone deriving considerable physical and mental well-being from such a seemingly simple and free thing as the countryside on my doorstep with its diverse habitats. We have noticed the decline in wildlife species already in the last 10 years and we don’t think irreplaceable natural habitats should be sacrificed further in this area of green belt and outstanding natural beauty most particularly on such a massive and disproportionate scale as is proposed. We want our future grandchildren and other generations to hear cuckoos and nightingales which can be heard by Hartlake bridge and the skylarks over the surrounding fields as we have done. My husband and I both work in London (myself for the BBC) and use the train from Paddock Wood, so we are fully aware that the line is already over capacity on most peak services. We have also lived through the Village and surrounding areas flooding and would not wish to see any development that would increase that risk. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4425 | Ian Tilley | I have been a Tonbridge resident for over 40 years and have noticed over the years an increase in housing on brown field sites which I am in favour of. However, to build housing on a vast area of beautiful Kent countryside which is farming land I find quite short sighted . If the country needs food in the future we will no longer be able to provide land for such a need in the Garden of England. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4430 | Mark Bourne | I live in Paddock Wood and regularly travel to Tonbridge via Five Oak Green and Tudeley which is already a very busy route. | |
DLP_4452 | Cassandra Cook | I am a local resident concerned for the infrastructure of the local area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4526 | Colin Hurley | I have lived in Tonbridge for thirty six years. I am deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed build of a new town in a location that can only have a detrimental effect on a part of the county that is already highly stress due to lack of existing core infrastructure. I am also concerned about the ‘Spin’ that has been allowed to propagate in official documentation. An accepted definition of a town is, that it is bigger than a village and smaller than a city. What is proposed is a new town. It should be described as such if its impact on the area is to be fully understood and appreciated. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4528 | Steve Parrish | I am a resident in East Peckam, and own properties in Five Oak Green. I have live in the Five Oak Green area most of my life. I am very against the building of a garden settlement at Tudeley. I have paste and copied the information below from the Save Capel website. I have deleted the parts I do not agree with but all the part below I am very much in agreement with. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4600 | Ruth Rankine | I am a local resident and live on Park Farm in Tudeley. I work for the Care Quality Commission as Deputy Chief Inspector and travel to London for work so am a regular commuter. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4611 | Catie Walklin | I live in Tonbridge on Somerhill Green development, Baker Lane and would like to make my objections clear about the proposals for the development of the Capel area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. Please take the above as my formal objections to these plans and keep me updated on any developments. These plans have significant impact to the surrounding community and need to be thoroughly re-assessed. | |
DLP_4630 | Michael McKee | I am a Tonbridge resident. I regularly commute from Tonbridge station to London each week. My children both went to Somerhill School and we regularly eat at Turmeric Gold in Tudeley and have also frequently visited the church there. We also frequently use the road through Tudeley particularly at weekends. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4636 | Neil & Jill Goldsworthy | We are residents of Tonbridge, have lived in the town for nearly 50 years and have witnessed many changes during this time. Mostly they have been favourable and we enjoy living in a town surrounded by beautiful countryside. We are 'country walkers' and frequently traverse the footpaths in and around Capel and Tudeley. Please add our contact details to your consultation database so that we can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. We understand that our comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4640 | Caroline Brooks-Johnson | I am a resident of Hadlow. Although not resident in Tunbridge Wells I feel very strongly about your local plan. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. We are only custodians of our land for future generations and I urge you to reconsider in particular turning our green belt into housing. Kent is an amazing county and can still just about be described as the garden of England. Your plans will change our landscape forever and turn Kent into the carpark of England. | |
DLP_4655 | Carol Stanton | I write as a widow whose husband is buried in All Saints Church, Tudeley. I will also be buried there. The final resting place was specified due to its tranquility and proximity to nature. My husbands grandparents are also buried there. Mere words cannot convey the horrific prospect of being put to rest in the middle of a housing estate. My husband was an army officer and there are two military graves in the cemetery which is a recognised War grave. My son attended the schools at Somerhill. As such I am acutely aware of the traffic congestion even at current levels. The addition of the planned houses and senior school will compound the traffic exponentially. | |
DLP_4715 | Claire Light | My name is Claire Clarke and I currently live in the village of a Tudeley. I’m writing in opposition to the proposed building of a new garden village. | |
DLP_4795 | Mr Steve Morecroft | I currently reside in Pembury, however I am the co-owner of a business in Capel and I own a property in Alders Road, Capel, which I currently rent out. I intend to move back there when I retire. My contact details are below. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4843 | Joanna Nightingale | I live in Whetsted with my husband and two children and have done so for 12 years. We moved here from a town because we wanted to live in a country village. If I had wanted to live in a community like Kings Hill I would have moved there. I work in London and commute by train and there is no way that the Southeastern network will be able to cope with any extra passengers let alone thousands. The roads around here can't cope with the traffic we already have. It can take 10 mins or 30 mins just to get into Tonbridge and there us no rhyme or reason to the congestion just SWOT. | |
DLP_4894 | Janis Lee | I am in full agreement with the objections stated above. I am shocked and dismayed at this proposed plan. I have known this area since my parents moved here 45 years ago and there have been many losses since then but this would be massively detrimental on all counts. Please look at the bigger picture here. Thankyou. | |
DLP_4904 | Emma Hewage | My name is Emma Hewage and I live in North Tonbridge by the A26. I am a relative newcomer to Kent having relocated here from London with my family five and half years ago. Since then we’ve come to really appreciate the rural setting of this area and to greatly appreciate the richness of the wildlife it supports. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4910 | Clare Thorpe | I have lived in Sherenden Road in Tudeley for the last 30 years and I am horrified by the plans to build so many houses in this beautiful hamlet set within the green belt. Over the years I have seen how much busier the roads have become, with more and more cars using these roads, and I have experienced the traffic jams on Hartlake road at peak times when taking my children to school. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4912 | Maureen Dennis | I am a local resident of Five Oak Green and have lived here for 27 years in two properties and choosing not to relocate due to the beautiful surroundings and thriving countryside community in which we currently have the privilege to live. We have raised our three children here and have been looking forward to a peaceful and relaxing retirement here. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4914 | Kirstie Hart | I am a resident in Five oak Green and have been for 31 years. I have also spent a large part of those years working locally too. I currently spend a large amount of time travelling around the Borough in my role with the NHS school nursing service. Travelling time is imperative to my role since it is dictated largely by school hours, visiting children and young people to deliver packages of care. In the years of living in Five Oak Green, quite apart from the steadily increasing volumes of traffic, I have witnessed the devastation of numerous floods. I have at times been cut off in the village as roads have been impassable. Travelling times have increasingly become problematic, which was heightened at the time of the addition of the slip road leading from A21 at the Vauxhall junction. At peak times it regularly takes well over an hour to travel from Five Oak Green to Tunbridge Wells. Traffic into Tonbridge is always at a standstill at school times past the Somerhill Schools. Whilst providing a service to the local children and young people, the travel time can already often half the number of service users that I can accept onto my caseload. To increase the volumes of children and young people in the area along with additional traffic, raises concern for the well-being of local residents on an already stretched service. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4923 | Anna and Nicholas Watson | We are responding to the TWBC Local Plan regulation consultation as residents of Golden Green, Tonbridge. We feel that the developments will negatively impact upon us in many ways, in fact in far more ways than those who live in the Tunbridge Wells borough. Please add our contact details to your consultation database so that we can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. | |
DLP_4929 | Colin Burgess | I am a resident of Hadlow in the borough of Tonbridge and Malling, living on the outskirts in a rural location. As a family we value the rural nature of our location and of our surroundings. An important aspect of village life is the sense of local community which is shared by the residents of a cohesive and clearly defined locale. I am very concerned that the proposals within your local plan have the potential to have a significant adverse effect upon these established local village communities which sit close to, but outside the TWBC boundary. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4932 | Ann Stammers | I love where I live –Five Oak Green - something TWBC actively encourages and promotes and yet now, in the most extensive, harmful and offensive way, want to change the way I, and those who live in and around this area enjoy it by destroying hundreds and hundreds of acres of beautiful countryside and, along with it, vital flora and fauna including rare species; footpaths and views that were the reason I moved here and that gives so much pleasure and adds to physical and mental wellbeing to many; further congest already congested roads and trains; increase air pollution that already compromises health and pushing local services to beyond breaking point. Take the countryside to the town, not the town to the countryside. | |
DLP_4934 | Anthony Bagwell | I have lived in Tudeley for the last 3 years having moved away from Sevenoaks to enjoy the quieter pace of life and to bring up my son in a countryside environment. I obviously would not have made this move if I was made aware of the proposed development. The development which has been part of TWBCs plane for over three years but was not made public till earlier this year and therefore did not show in any local government searches (something I find outrageous). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4936 | Sean Waddingham | My name is Sean Waddingham and I have lived in Golden Green for 22 years. I am retired, age 67, own my own house and am active in various local groups and both a car driver and user of public transport. My house is part of a development based on a “Brownfield Site” which damaged no Green Belt status land when it was created, but enhanced the village with the removal of a dilapidated former factory site. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4938 | Fiona Claire | My name is Fiona Smith and I live in Five Oak Green. My kind neighbours from Five Oak Green and surrounding areas are fighting the plan for new houses to be built making our lovely villages into bigger villages/small towns. We do not want these plans to go ahead. There are lots of different reasons why and we can go on and on about them. The infrastructure of our roads, lack of facilities for new families, more traffic, cars, people, etc, and these are all valid points. Also people are fighting with their hearts. We all choose to live in the more rural areas because we like what the countryside has to offer, peace and quiet, beautiful views, countryside to be proud of, places we can walk with our children and be at one with nature. You are wanting to take this away from us, and from our children, and in turn, their children and generations to follow. What you want to do can not be undone. Once this mistake has been made, it can not be unmade. Our green spaces are becoming smaller and smaller, our children will have no place to go to learn about nature, to explore; this will be a travesty. I have four boys, three are old enough to know that these plans are wrong. They don’t want the houses built, these towns formed. They want the beauty of what our land gives us. Our journey into Tonbridge for school reasons is bad enough, without adding to it. Our journey back is even worse. I want my children to be able to get home and relax before they start homework. With these new plans adding more traffic, this won’t happen as it will take so much longer to get home. Their lives will be affected in more than this way. Please hear our comments, please listen to us, and please do not just think about the money side of things. | |
DLP_4940 | Kim Botten | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I will make some points here that I am sure you have seen before. Additional comments | |
DLP_4944 | Lesley Ribbens | I have lived in Tonbridge for almost 20 years. Together with my husband and two sons, I have, over the years, enjoyed exploring the countryside in the area. We particularly like walking along the River Medway to the east of Tonbridge towards Whetsted and have had some very special wildlife encounters while enjoying the peace and quiet. We’ve seen kingfishers, turtle doves, cuckoos, nightingales, warblers, skylarks and our favourites, the barn owls. On one occasion a grass snake swam across the water. I understand otters have been spotted too, although I’ve never been lucky enough to see one in the area myself. I work as a volunteer warden at the nearby Tudeley Woods RSPB reserve which gives me a huge amount of satisfaction, knowing that I am helping to maintain the habitat of a vast array of species that call the reserve and the surrounding area their home. I am therefore enormously concerned at the impact that the proposed development in the area between Tonbridge and Paddock Wood will have, not just on the wildlife and the environment but on the people too. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4950 | Keith Hardwick | I have lived in Tonbridge and Southborough all my life and these proposals along with the Mabledon site make no sense whatsover and put simply the local infrastructure just cant cope with more housing and car movements. The impact on Tonbridge will be severe and they appear to have no say in the matter when their services and roads will be used rather than Tunbridge Wells.?? Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website.?? | |
DLP_4952 | Kerry Allen | As a resident of Somehill Green development in Tonbridge…. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4957 | Lorraine Ballard | I live on the Somerhill Green development. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4961 | Simon Hewitt | I am a resident of Tonbridge and have lived here with my wife and children for the past 11 years. I am a teacher at a school in Tonbridge and my wife works at a company in East Peckham. We moved here as a family, from London, to enjoy the change of life afforded by living close to the open countryside, in a town with distinct borders and in an area scattered with beautiful and individual villages. All of us have benefitted from spending time walking through fields, beside the Medway river, and along towards Little Mill. Like most of my neighbours, we have enjoyed not feeling bounded and hemmed in by endless conurbation and its associated stressful environment. While I understand and support the need for more dwellings, I strongly believe that policies identified below are not the best for Tonbridge or for Tunbridge Wells, for the reasons detailed. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4963 | Olivia Rose-Wilson | I live in Golden Green and am extremely concerned about the planned housing development in Capel. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4965 | Shane Priestman | I live in Paddock Wood, having moved here just recently and have learned of the current proposals, to which I would like to object. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4967 | Rachael Foster | I currently live at the Somerhill Green site in Tonbridge near Woodgate Way and the Somerhill roundabout and as such I am extremely concerned about the above proposed plans. Not only do I severely object to building on the green belt (in an area subject to terrible flooding no less), but the impact this garden city will have on Tonbridge is in my opinion disastrous. The traffic is already unbearable from Tudelely down Woodgate Way. Moreover, the station car park is hideously packed and the trains more so. I would likely have to leave my job in London as I doubt I would be able to park at the station or get a seat on the train. Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells in my opinion is already overpopulated and swamped with people - adding 4000 homes to this would destroy the town - the only benefit is clearly a financial benefit to Tunbridge Wells Council with absolutely no consideration to Tonbridge and is residents. Tonbridge is not an affluent town and to place this hideous impact on Tonbidge is actually in my opinion inhumane on the residents of Tonbridge, both from a social and environmental perspective. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4969 | Tom Barber | I am writing as a nearby resident at SomerhIll Green, close to the planned garden settlement of Tudeley. We also have children at the Bishops Chavesse school and are very concerned about the planned development that will put huge pressure on neighbouring roads and Tonbridge as a town. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4973 | Michael Dale | I was born in Paddock Wood in 1968. I have witnessed poorly planned housing developments over the decades and associated increased traffic and flooding as well as insufficient services and infrastructure for local residents. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4978 | Hannah Grogan | I am a resident of the Somerhill Green development in Tonbridge. My son attends nursery school in Paddock wood, and I work at a school in Bodium (south of Tunbridge Wells). Every day I have to drive through Tudely/Capel and with the huge amounts of disruption and stress the building of a new development will cause you my day-to-day life, I would request that you Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4982 | Noelle Quinn | I live in Tonbridge, Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4987 | Christine Bowden | I consider the plan to build 2,800 homes almost on the T&M boundary abutting Tonbridge itself to have no consideration for the residents of Tonbridge of the impact this number of extra residents will have on the Town…..its schools, medical centres, infrastructure and the loss of very accessible countryside. I am not persuaded that these homes are solely for the residents of TWBC, T&MBC or of Kent itself….more likely to be accommodation for those who work in London, cannot afford decent homes near their work and wish to enjoy some of our lovely Kent countryside- a laudable aspiration in itself, but disastrous for the Green Belt on which this proposal is to be centred upon. I have several other concerns that would take time to elucidate regarding the cost of homes for my two daughters who work locally, my grandchildren having suitable schools to accommodate them at secondary level, travelling times through Tonbridge at peak times, poor routes through Tonbridge , and more all of which will be exacerbated by a further influx of residents coming from TWBC area. I feel the “Save Capel” and other concerned organisations have very ably detailed the many reasons for not going ahead with this monstrous proposal and I support them in their overall objection to this plan. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. Objection to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4993 | Drs CR and EJ Buchanan | My family live in East Peckham and use Tonbridge station and the roads around Paddock Wood and Tonbridge daily for travel to work, shopping, sports and leisure. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5012 | Sara Davis | As a resident of Tonbridge I wish to register my objection to the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan to build thousands of houses on Green Belt land in Tudeley and East Capel. Living in Tonbridge I walk the footpaths in Tudeley and along the river Medway. I enjoy seeing larks and buzzards, goldfinches and egrets. All of this will be lost. Cyclists and horse riders will no longer be able to roam down quiet, narrow Sherenden Road and the footpaths through the orchards to the Postern will be lost to walkers. This number of houses will change Tonbridge forever impacting upon transport, schools, NHS services and the character of the area as a whole. It will create a massive new town linking Tonbridge and Paddock Wood and destroy the countryside of this part of the Medway Valley. Wildlife habitats will be lost, valuable farmland will disappear beneath concrete and a vital local resource for local people to walk and enjoy the benefits of the countryside will be gone. All the cost of this urbanisation will be to the residents of Tonbridge. It is a deeply cynical move on the part of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council which will receive all the resulting income. It is a plan designed for the convenience of TWBC (no fear of upsetting Tunbridge Wells voters!) which will make huge profits for the landowner and developers. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5019 | Pauline Bevan | Although I live in Hildenborough, I use to live in Five Oak Green. I still have many friends there and visit it quite often. Taking walks in the lovely countryside. | |
DLP_5022 | Bernadette Cawley | My family live in Tudeley. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5025 | James Carpenter | My name is James Carpenter and I live in Tonbridge. I moved to Tonbridge in 2014 for the beautiful country surrounds. We enjoy walking in the nearby countryside most weekends. I work in London and commute Monday to Friday on an already busy train service. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5031 | David Sagar | My family and I live in the Somerhill Green area just outside tonbridge. My wife commutes into London everyday from tonbridge station and my son goes to nursery in tonbridge. We really like the area we live in and can see us living and contributing to the community and economy of the area for the foreseeable future. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5034 | Gordon Hodge | My names is Gordon Hodge and I live in Tonbridge. I moved to Tonbridge in 2014 for the beautiful country surrounds. We enjoy walking in the nearby countryside most weekends. I work in London and commute Monday to Friday on an already busy train service. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5036 | Hayley & Simon Hobbs | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I live in the borough of Tonbridge and Malling (Hadlow) and travel through Tudeley and Capel every day on my school run and my husband commutes from Tonbridge Station. We are particularly upset about the potential loss of beautiful countryside and its impact on wildlife and the air we breathe. In addition to this the traffic into Tonbridge at rush hour is particularly heavy already and to consider adding to this will simply add to the misery and air pollution. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5037 | Colin Nye | I was born in Tonbridge and have lived in the town and surrounding villages all my life. I am dismayed at your proposals to include in your forthcoming local plan the proposed housing developments in Tudeley and Capel. Recent housing developments in and around Tonbridge have greatly increased traffic flow, particularly in peak hours, and the anticipated additional traffic resulting from the proposed housing developments will bring traffic to a halt at certain times of the day. Tonbridge based businesses will suffer from the resultant chaos and some may find it impossible to continue trading. There will also be pressures on Tonbridge health services and on the already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge to London. Large parts of the development will be built on the Medway flood plain and in the light of serious floods in recent years it would appear that insufficient attention has been given to this problem. Finally the building of so much housing on farm land that is Green Belt land will have a detrimental effect on local wildlife that is very special to the area including rare species of fauna and flora. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5040 | Jenny Nye | As a resident of Tonbridge of many years I am horrified at your proposal to include in your forthcoming Local Plan the proposed housing developments at Tudeley and Capel. I can’t help but feel that this “idea” is a question of “NIMBY” where the effects of these large development will be of great detrimental affect to Tonbridge whilst Tunbridge Wells Borough Council will get off lightly. Living in the North of Tonbridge I experience the impact of the recent redevelopments of premises in Vale Road which has greatly increased traffic congestion both into and out of Tonbridge. Three Elm Lane and Hartlake Road, which are basically country lanes and not designed for use by large amounts of traffic already have high traffic use particularly at peak time, they are being used to access the A21 and A26 avoiding the town centre as well as to Paddock Wood. Additionally the Hartlake Railway Bridge is single lane. Furthermore, there is already an overload of traffic passing through the town and it is quite chaotic particularly at peak times. The effect additional traffic generated by these proposed developments would mean that Tonbridge will just not be able to function. Large parts of this development wll be built on the Medway flood plain and in the light of serious floods in recent years would suggest that inadequate attention has been paid to this and makes the plan very unsuitable for the wider area. There is also concern for the effects of wildlife and the biodiversity that is present in this special area of Green Belt Land along with the loss of farm land. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am therefore adding my objections to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). | |
DLP_5048 | S George | I live in Tunbridge Wells but my family live in the area designated for this housing. The road from Tonbridge to Five Oak Green must be one of the most truly beautiful stretches of road in Kent, In addition to the points detailed below. THIS AREA CANNOT SUSTAIN THIS INCREASE IN HOUSING. IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECENT FLOODING IN YORKSHIRE ON HOUSES BUILT ON A TRADITIONAL FLOOD PLAIN, AS WELL AS THE FLOODING SUSTAINED IN 2013 MORE LOCALLY IT IS UNBELIEVABLE AND IRRESPONSIBLE THAT TWBC ARE CHOOSING TO BUILD IN THIS AREA IT IS EXTREMELY DISINGENOUS FOT TWBC TO DESIGNATE LAND AT THE FURTHEST REACHES OF TUNBRIDGE WELLS FOR THIS PROJECT. AND NOT USE BROWNFIELD SITES IN LESS VULNERABLE AREAS. | |
DLP_5050 | Stephney Dallmann | I live at Spring Farm Oast, Colts Hill, Five Oak Green. My daughter attends school at Derwent Lodge, Somerhill and I drive on the roads from Colts Hill to Tonbridge, passing through Tudeley in the morning and evening every day. The journey in the morning, around 8am, is always significantly congested with a queue from Tudeley Church all the way to Somerhill School and then on to Tonbridge railway station. I then commute to London. My main concern is that with an additional 2,800 houses at Tudeley, 1500 houses at East Capel and a Senior School opposite Somerhill, I would literally not be able to get anywhere. The roads would be gridlocked. Then the additional pressure on Tonbridge Railway Station would be very significant - with not enough parking available at the station and overcrowded trains meaning we would need to stand all the way to London. As well as these practical concerns which will have a very significant impact on my day to day life, I am dismayed that the most beautiful landscape will be scarred forever for future generations. It is one of the most beautiful views of our countryside from the top of the hill looking out over Tudeley. To think that will be gone is just awful. It can never be rectified. And it will be a most terrible legacy for future generations. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5068 | Stephanie Tizzard | Hello there. My name is Stephanie Tizzard. I am a 33 year old Graphic designer living in a converted chapel in Five Oak Green with my husband, Ollie and my dog Bunsen. We have lived in Five Oak Green for 6.5 years but I am originally from Tonbridge and my partner is from Matfield. I work in Larkfield full time and my husband is a Firefighter working full time at the Maidstone Fire Station and as a retained Fireman at Paddock Wood Fire Station. We spend every weekend walking our dog Bunsen in the surrounding countryside - Tudeley, Matfield, Five Oak Green, Tonbridge and Paddock Wood. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5077 | Caroline Lovell | I live in Capel and enjoy the glorious countryside. The growing and significant concerns around the environment, preserving soil and protecting the green belt are just not compatible with your local plan to destroy this landscape and build the sort of houses that not required whilst ignoring the reasonable objections which have quite rightly been raised by myself and others. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5082 | Michelle Sanna | I have lived in Five Oak Green for 7 years. I moved here because it is a rural village surrounded by beautiful countryside. I spend much of my spare time walking through my local Green Belt land. I love to take photos, walk my dog & often just walk through the fields & spot the amazing wildlife which includes everything from deer and herons to red kite and woodpeckers. I travel into Tonbridge each day to work and drop my child to school. This 5 mile journey currently takes me 30-40 minutes at rush hour. My child does not catch the bus to school because by the time it reaches our nearest stop it is full up. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5086 | Paul Alderman | I moved to Tonbridge with my family three years ago. I am extremely worried and concerned about the plans to turn bulldoze Capel into a building site to build thousands of new properties. The disruption to the local area, the traffic congestion and knock-on effects will be overwhelming for me and my family. Although I work in London, we moved to Tonbridge to enjoy a relaxing time at home and feel the new sites would spoil our way of life beyond all recognition for the worse. And would make me consider moving to a new area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5088 | Cristiana Dias-Dafforn | I live in Tonbridge. I am a lover of nature and a hiker. I have a dog that I walk in all the surroundings areas of Tonbridge. I have a car that as it is I have difficulties to park on daily basis in Tonbridge. I have been late several times due to be stuck in traffic jams in Tonbridge. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5090 | Patricia Mathieson | I grew up in Five Oak Green, went to Capel Primary School, and it is still 'home', my Mother living in the same house to this day - and it is somewhere I am keen to get back to. At the moment, the chances of that happening are pretty slim, with people staying put and extending their homes, and the new homes being built way out of reach for many, myself included. That wouldn't be quite so bad if they were actually selling, but greed on the part of both the developer and presumably the Council have given rise to two large houses sitting empty for a long period of time, when one lovely family home could have gone up and undoubtedly sold. Who is really going to pay nearly £1m to share a driveway? More practical and affordable homes are needed, but not at the cost of the whole reason the area is such a lovely place to live in, not when there are better options. Building properties that require a family income of £100K+ and calling them "affordable" is utterly ridiculous. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5092 | Judith Deckers | I have lived in Golden Green for more than 25 years and am shocked to hear of Tunbridge Wells planning application for builds that will severely impact Tonbridge without Tonbridge getting any of the income from Council Taxes to pay for the additional demand on its services and facilities. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5096 | Michael Perretta | Being a resident of Golden Green and already suffer the twice daily "work/school rat run" I am very concerned regarding proposed future developments in the local area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5103 | Louisa Rowlands | I am a resident of Tonbridge and also grew up in the area. I have two young children and I chose to live in this area to bring up my children due to the wonderful natural surroundings, and that it is not a huge sprawling urban area. I have detailed some of my concerns below on the Local Plan, which include the significant issues of the traffic that is already at an awful level on my road (Pembury Road). Please also add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5109 | Mandy Pereira | I moved to Tonbridge last year and now find out that there is possibly going to be a development of dwellings and schools that will impact on Tonbridge being planned by Tunbridge Wells Council.. I previously lived in Tunbridge Wells and a few years ago they were going through a similar planning process for a large residential development on the south side of Tunbridge Wells. This was under the control of Weald Council. Tunbridge Wells were robust in the rejection of this development on the grounds of the insufficient infrastructure for the amount of proposed dwellings and the ensuing disruption to local residents paying their Council to Tunbridge Wells Council. Ironically, this would seem be the same result for the Tonbridge residents who would suffer the disruption, increased use of resources in Tonbridge and cost to rectify the issues that will arise from the development. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5122 | Linda Garratt | I have lived in Tonbridge for over 25 years and travel through the area affected by your local pan on a regular basis, particularly at rush hour. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5151 | Mike & Ginny Stennulat | We are a family of 5 living in Tudeley Lane on the Southern outskirts of Tonbridge, we have lived at this location for 20 years and in that time have seen many new residential developments popping up both in the town centre and also recently the large residential development at Baker Lane. The Baker Lane development was also being constructed at the same time as the A21 improvement scheme which was particularly painful for everybody in the area and caused terrible road congestion daily in the South Tonbridge area. The local infrastructure and facilities are already stretched to breaking point without the extra demand this proposed development at Capel would add. I commute to London daily from Tonbridge station, the trains are full to bursting at peak times already, has an assessment been carried out to see how much extra capacity is possible on this line at peak times? The local roads are gridlocked at peak times already, particularly with lots of schools in the South Tonbidge area, the extra demand from this Capel development would only make this an awful lot worse for everybody. Also getting an appointment to see a GP in Tonbridge has become increasingly difficult in the last 5 years due to the increased local population, how will the system cope with potentially 10,000+ new residents in the area. Furthermore, the proposed area of development in Tudeley is beatiful green belt land where we often take our dogs for walks to enjoy the fields and woodland, this area is criss crossed with ancient walking paths through the countryside that would be lost forever with this large scale development. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5155 | Jackie Smith | Living in Golden Green and have done so for the last 40 years. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5167 | Johnny Boult | Hello, my name is Johnny Boult from XXX [TWBC: House number redacted] Warrington Road, Paddock Wood. I feel immensely strong about all of the objections listed below, I feel there is no where near enough plans to create any kind of infrastructure, for what we currently have can not stand anymore influx of homes. The poor people who would potentially be buying these homes, do they know what kind of standard of living they are going to be ploughed into. If they think it's hard to get into schools, doctors and hospitals now, just ask them to think what it would be like with the potential bombardment of new homes. There would be a requirement of new villages and a new town, along with all the infrastructure that that would come with. Not just shove them onto the end of an existing one. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5182 | Kimberley Miller | I live just outside Tonbridge and Capel areas and feel the need for you to add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I have friends and family who would all be great affected in a negative way by the proposals, including ourselves, who frequent Tonbridge, the stations and surrounding areas. | |
DLP_5184 | Chris and Jessica Lowe | I am writing to you on behalf of myself and my partner Jessica. We live in Tonbridge on the new estate that has been constructed at Somerhill Green. I understand that this could come across as hypocritical complaining about new housing developments, however we bought knowing that the property was being constructed on brownfield land, not affecting the green belt. To name just a few direct personal factors in the proposal; I work in Tonbridge and surrounding areas and find the roads to be extremely busy already. This is also not just during rush hour times or school start and end times but traffic can mount at random times of the day as well. We also enjoy making full use of the public footpaths that would be affected by the building of the new homes. Finally, Jessica is a commuter and the already busy Tonbridge line would be unmanageable for all at peak times. Trains can already be packed both arriving and departing from Tonbridge station. The building of these new homes would only exacerbate this further. I hope all aspects and all responses are taken into consideration fully when looking into this. | |
DLP_5188 | Stuart Hodgson | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I live in Tonbridge and have 2 children in local schools. Since I moved to the area in 2011, the Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells area has got steadily busier and our local road network, schools (primary and secondary, healthcare facilities and the commuter trains are all running at, or over, full capacity. The proposed development will inevitably exacerbate these problems. | |
DLP_5191 | Jillan Haydock | I am extremely concerned about the local developments. I live in Tonbridge and feel the current plans will have a huge negative effect on the area, the local community, the surrounding villages, the town of Tonbridge and I feel most importantly the local environment. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I also feel that this whole plan is an exercise in Tunbridge Wells fulfilling housing quotas at the expense of Tonbridge and the surrounding villages. I implore you to reconsider this plan as I feel the local area will be irreparably damaged for ever. | |
DLP_5196 | Rebecca Waugh | Me and my family are extremely concerned about the local developments. I live in Tonbridge and feel the current plans will have a huge negative effect on the area, the local community, the surrounding villages, the town of Tonbridge and I feel most importantly the local environment. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I also feel that this whole plan is an exercise in Tunbridge Wells fulfilling housing quotas at the expense of Tonbridge and the surrounding villages. I implore you to reconsider this plan as I feel the local area will be irreparably damaged for ever. | |
DLP_5198 | Stephen Constant | I am resident of Tonbridge and have been so for several years and over this time I have found myself having to watch the increased strain on Tonbridge infrastructure and having seen your local plan I feel compelled to write and raise my objections. | |
DLP_5282 | Mr Raymond Steward | I live in Paddock Wood and drive to work in Tonbridge every weekday. I drive for a local school and have to exit Hartlake Road turning right on to the B2017 Tudeley Road. It is difficult to exit here as the B2017 is busy at 08:00. Hartlake Road is also very busy avoiling the very long queues into Tonbridge along the Hadlow Road. Hartlake Road has very little traffic generated from local residents.It is foolish to suggest that residents will be encouraged to use non private car transport from a rural village development. Rural bus services are of very limited use to working people as a simple survey would reveal. And, of course, reference to an improved Colts Hill is just a red herring as the rush hour will be generating transport to and from the stations in Paddock Wood or Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5294 | Natasha Hiddingh | I am a Tonbridge resident. | |
DLP_5296 | Ellis Parsons | I am a resident in Golden Green and have been living here with my family for only 2 years, one of the main reasons that we moved to Golden Green from Tonbridge was to move to the country side and away from the main roads and noise that you get in more built up towns. Building houses on this green belt is unacceptable and will have a massive impact, not just on the roads and the traffic situation that is already a problem in Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells, but also on the wildlife and habitats that live in these areas. I use the fields behind my house to walk the dog and jog around to improve on my fitness and health, the additional houses being built will have an adverse effect on the fresh air. I only work in Hadlow and use a small road, Victoria Road, to get to and from work, but this road is already busy with cars and is constantly being fixed at the edges and the potholes due to the amount of traffic it gets from people trying to avoid already busy main roads. Hart Lake Road is another road with a similar situation where people use it as a rat run to get from Hadlow and further afield towns to get across to the A21 and get to Tunbridge Wells. With the additional 3000 houses this will be around 6000 cars or more using these roads that are already failing. I am only 23 years of age and have already got a fear of not being able to afford a house in my hometown because of the unfathomable prices in the local area. If these new houses were to go ahead, and I am hoping they aren’t, would there be any of these houses being built for first time home owners to be affordable to get onto the property ladder? I would assume there isn’t. Usually new houses being built in the area pushes house prices up, again making it harder for me and other people in my situation, which are many. | |
DLP_5310 | Jason Foster | I currently live at the Somerhill Green site in Tonbridge near Woodgate Way and the Somerhill roundabout and as such I am extremely concerned about the above proposed plans. Not only do I severely object to building on the green belt (in an area subject to terrible flooding no less), but the impact this garden city will have on Tonbridge is in my opinion disastrous. The traffic is already unbearable from Tudelely down Woodgate Way. Moreover, the station car park is hideously packed and the trains more so. I would likely have to leave my job in London as I doubt I would be able to park at the station or get a seat on the train. Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells in my opinion is already overpopulated and swamped with people - adding 4000 homes to this would destroy the town - the only benefit is clearly a financial benefit to Tunbridge Wells Council with absolutely no consideration to Tonbridge and is residents. Tonbridge is not an affluent town and to place this hideous impact on Tonbridge is actually in my opinion inhumane on the residents of Tonbridge, both from a social and environmental perspective. | |
DLP_5319 | Sue Goldfinch | I have been a resident of south Tonbridge for the last nearly 60 years and have seen many changes and pressures put on the services and general area of this part of the town, especially near the rail station which is close to where I live. | |
DLP_5343 | Paula Fry | I am a resident of South Tonbridge, work at North Farm, was born in Paddock Wood and have lived most of my life in this area. Paddock Wood used to be a village and Tonbridge a small market town. Both have grown to cope with increased population, and whilst road infrastructure has changed to deal with increased usage, it has not eased congestion along Colts Hill, into Tunbridge Wells along Pembury Road or into a Tonbridge and rail links remain the same. To now add further development will put further strain on these services, add to the risk of flooding which has increased since I was a child, areas flood now that did not used to, and also erode our beautiful countryside, taking away natural habitats when we should be conserving this. The comments and information as below, taken from the suggested email content, expand further on this. | |
DLP_5362 | Ruth Mullan | I live in Five Oak Green. I have lived here happily for nearly 22 years. I love our community, our beautiful countryside and wildlife. In recent years, we have had to endure many types of change and developments. Solar Parks built on arable farmland, quarries mutilating our beautiful fields. This in turn has robbed us of favorite footways and walks we have enjoyed for years. vast areas where we once walked now barred against us. This local plan has added to my stress and depression. I am devastated at TWBC considering it. | |
DLP_5364 | Geoff Pearson | I am a resident of adjoining Tonbridge and Malling. I choose to live in a modern property on a brownfield site within a wider area of countryside. In a bid to keep fit in retirement I enjoy, inter-alia, cycling, particularly in the local Green Belt countryside, and am very familiar with the villages of Capel and Tudeley, through which I pass regularly. | |
DLP_5370 | Mr B Lambert | I live in Tunbridge Wells but lived in the Tonbridge for 25 years before moving to Tunbridge Wells in 1986. I know the area well. My son and daughter in law live in Tudeley. I believe that this development is not acceptable for this area because the infrastructure will not cope with new development. I think the loss of green belt and good agricultural land is unacceptable. The road network across Kent struggles to deal with the traffic now without adding new developments across the county. The public transport system is not adequate now. I believe the following statements are true and applicable. | |
DLP_5378 | Mr and Mrs J Hancock | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). The proposed building scheme is totally unsustainable there is not sufficient infrastructure to accommodate such a vast amount of new build houses. | |
DLP_5407 | Mr and Mrs N Starritt | We are Mr and Mrs Norman Starritt and have lived in Willow Crescent, Five Oak Green since 1975. Our two sons were born and grew up in the village and attended Capel Primary School, which was a small, friendly school. They both still live in the Tunbridge Wells borough. We have seen many changes to the village in this time with new roads and houses being built but, thankfully, these have not encroached on nor spoilt our village community. Any new builds have been small and suitably placed. The spoiler in the village is the very busy Five Oak Green Road where the amount of traffic has increased several fold and where speed limits are non existent for most drivers who pass through to their busy lives in Paddock Wood or Tonbridge. Fortunately, being keen walkers and living where we do, we do not have to tolerate noise and fumes of cars as we have lovely walks at the back of us, walking through the fields to the River Medway and surrounding countryside. This has been the major factor of never moving house because of the beautiful area we live. Other comments: As stated at the beginning of our statement, Capel School has grown significantly over the last 30 years, taking in many children from Paddock Wood and other surrounding villages. The vehicles of parents collecting the children from school cause a great disruption to the traffic flow and the parked cars stretch down to Sychem Lane and a considerable distance up Church Road (where the verges have also been destroyed by the parking). How can this roadway take the parking of many more cars without specific parking areas being constructed? It is also surprising but also very worrying that no serious accident involving a child has not occurred as the traffic speeding through our village is constant. Is it the same old adage that a fatal accident needs to happen first. To increase even further the size of Capel School seems incomprehensible and also sadly, taking away the children's playing field if that is where new buildings are to be erected? If a further school also needs to be built in the parish because it is not viable for Capel to be increased in size then the same arguments above apply, even more so. It has been conveyed by you that Five Oak Green will have a by-pass, although this has not been confirmed re where this will run. Because of the plan for Capel School to be increased in size, Five Oak Green Road will still have to accommodate a large amount of traffic relating to school runs coming in from both ends of the village. Additional traffic will also use this road as a typical "rat run" eg Alders Road and Whetsted Road, Five Oak Green. Paddock Wood and Tonbridge are already popular commuter towns. To build a garden village of such a size between these two towns make us wonder who this village is going to benefit and who is it going to attract. It seems the fashion at the moment is for Londoners to benefit from the countryside because of the "feel good factor" being promoted. By being able to move out and reap the rewards of "cheaper" homes but still carrying on with their careers in London is ideal for them as it is their "affordable" housing. Is this "affordable" housing for the benefit of our children - we definitely don't think so. Are there going to be any Housing Association properties and if so are there going to be enough for the demand of the Tunbridge Wells population? The population in our community is being increased to such an extent that it is frightening to think about how our medical services are going to cope. It is proposed by you that new health centres will be provided but is the NHS aware of this and have the Government agreed that the money is there for this to be made possible because, otherwise, where are the finances and professionals to work in our community coming from? Since Paddock Wood has grown, we have noticed Woodlands Health Centre deteriorate together with our dental service. We know that this is common throughout the country but this is personal to us and we can see why our health service has struggled to cope, because of the large growth of Paddock Wood. We cannot see a 3 week appointment time improving, especially when the new housing with new influx of people is going to swamp the area before very important services and facilities are in place. Your future plans include modern leisure facilities for the massive increase in population. How long will the community have to wait for these. Putlands Leisure Centre in Paddock Wood was built many years ago and a swimming pool was a request from the community - this has still not happened. How about financing facilities for the existing community? We are very concerned regarding the increased flood risk to the area. Our property has been flooded twice. Two cars have been flood damaged with one being written off as it was half submerged in filthy water. Although many measures in our village have been taken to decrease the risk ie higher kerbing and extensive work carried out to the culvert which runs through the middle of the village, by building on flood plains at the back of our property will these measures be sufficient? We believe that plans to build on the flood plain are a serious backward step. Finally, as Five Oak Green is sandwiched between these vast building proposals, you are expecting us to live for years surrounded by building sites, road works, road closures, large site vehicles, noise pollution. Is this an acceptable environment for anyone to live in? Our peaceful rural environment will be destroyed. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN AND SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. | |
DLP_5423 | Lisa Landreau | I live in Paddock Wood and have done for the last 18 years. I am saddened by the controversial permission by TWBC for circa 1000 houses to be built on land I have walked on and around for years. They are flood plains every winter and building more concrete-based structures will result in more flooding of our drains which are unable to cope already. Mascalls Grange already has a huge 'lake' where the water is unable to drain away and they are still building houses! Based on this :- | |
DLP_5427 | Derek Fouche | As a resident on the boundary between Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells this proposed development will greatly impact my area and I feel that it is necessary to object to this development in any size going ahead. Especially since there are better sites closer into Tunbridge Wells town centre that could be used. This seems like a deliberate attempt to put a development on the boundary so that Tonbridge take the brunt of the impact but Tunbridge Wells recover the income. | |
DLP_5429 | Graham Whibley | I have lived in this parish for 52 years and when I arrived in 1967 it was very much a rural community, you could cross the B2017 through Five Oak Green with ease now of coarse things are different due to the increase in traffic flow, but what you are proposing will turn this parish into almost a metropolitan area with vastly increased levels of pollution due to traffic flow (which is bad enough already) and increased likelihood of accidents. There is also the question of infrastructure how will the medical services cope with an increase in population of two or three times the present level, it is hard enough to get a doctor’s appointment as it is,, and Woodgate Health Centre is not suitable for expansion so where will all the patients go. This area was subject to flooding and due to flood defences in the 70’s and 80’s has been alleviated, with all the people who tarmac over their front gardens the general area will once again become subject to flooding,, after all we live in a valley, and you only have to look at Yalding to see what can happen. I think the whole scheme is ill advised and I am sure there are many brown field sites that could be used | |
DLP_5431 | Nicholas Lang | I am a resident on Tonbridge currently, and as a result I ask that you Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5437 | Tracey Jones | I live in Hildenborough and my family all live locally, one particularly in Tudeley - a lovely Oast House which, if this monstrous plan goes ahead, will be surrounded by houses as opposed to lovely fields of hay, rape seed and grass. I cannot believe this is even being considered as an option when there are other sites around more suitable and less intrusive. | |
DLP_5443 | Eddie Haydock | My family and I are extremely concerned about the proposed local developments. My daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren live in Golden Green and we all feel the current plans will have a huge negative effect on the area, the local community, the village, the surrounding villages, the town of Tonbridge (where I am a resident), our family and I feel most importantly the local environment. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I feel that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council appear to be foisting the majority of the burden not on their own infrastructure and services but on those of Tonbridge and Malling and its residents. It looks like a clear case of the big town bullying its smaller neighbour into accepting all the problems, upheaval and disadvantages involved in years of construction and the eventual overwhelming of our roads, resources and amenities while they sit back miles away and rake in the proceeds. A travesty and totally unfair. I implore you to reconsider this plan as I feel the local area will be irreparably damaged for ever. | |
DLP_5448 | Anita Peach | I live and work in Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood, respectively, and as a keen countryside walker, nature enthusiast, a mother, lover and yoga teacher, the plans are quite simply horrendous! The loss of green belt land that attracted me to move to the Borough and to buy a home here are my main concern. The impact of the proposal seems to be lacking in thought and care for the environment. If this plan goes ahead it will be to the huge detrimental and irreversible effect of so many humans and creatures in our current environment. Please reconsider! | |
DLP_5450 | Elizabeth Andrews | Our family has lived in Tonbridge for last 17 years. Living on Hadlow Road we have found that traffic volumes have increased hugely over this period of time and we now find that we are effectively blocked in our drive way during rush hours due to the rapid and unsustainable increase in traffic volume caused by the expansion of housing in our town without any increase in road capacity. There has been no commensurate increase in any of the services provided by the local council and everything appears to be in decline due to budgetary constraints. How is our town possibly going to cope with the vast increase in traffic and demand on local services that will have to be provided by Tonbridge, not by Tunbridge Wells as it should be? TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5455 | Maria McNamara-Westlake | I live in Kings Hill but my son attends school in Tonbridge and so I regularly travel into the town as well as regularly travelling to Tonbridge Wells. The traffic on the above routes is already horrendous with far too much pressure on small local roads. Building more houses will only add to this problem. Also, once built this land will be lost forever to future generations. We need land to grow crops and not to be filled with unaffordable homes. I have lived in Kings Hill for eleven years and even in that short space of tune I have seen houses built and no investment made in infrastructure, it is almost impossible to get a doctor’s appointment and traffic is increasing all the time. Please think about future generations, take a look the wildlife and the beautiful scenery. I grew up in London and am grateful that my child has grown up in Kent, it is so sad to see Kent disappearing at such an alarming pace. Think of the future and not just about profit! | |
DLP_5461 | Steve Waugh | My family and I are extremely concerned about the local developments. We live in Golden Green and feel the current plans will have a huge negative effect on the area, the local community, the village, the surrounding villages, the town of Tonbridge, our family and I feel most importantly the local environment. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I also feel that this whole plan is an exercise in Tunbridge Wells fulfilling housing quotas at the expense of Tonbridge and the surrounding villages. I implore you to reconsider this plan as I feel the local area will be irreparably damaged for ever. | |
DLP_5464 | Tim Farazmand | I live in Golden Green and am an active walker/rambler in the local area as well as a regular commuter into London from Tonbridge Station and have material concerns about the proposed Capel development. I know that all my friends that locally are similarly enraged and concerned at this potential development, it should not go ahead. | |
DLP_5467 | Alison Williams-Walker | I live on Hartlake Road and work as a teacher in Sevenoaks. I am incredibly concerned about the proposed developments and my reasons are listed below. | |
DLP_5477 | Hayden Parsons | I live in Golden Green and I work in Tunbridge Wells, having more houses in this area would be detrimental to the local area, not as much open space or air, no more country walks at the weekend, no where to take your dog on long walks. If there are more houses then going to the Poacher pub won’t be the same, you won’t be able to sit in the garden and take in the nice views and fields that surround the area. It would affect my travel to work because of the amount of cars there will be, will add a substantial amount of time to my journey, would cause more air and noise pollution. Overall I cannot see any positives for building new houses within this area, this is the countryside so let’s keep it that way. | |
DLP_5482 | Jonathan Sayers | My name is Jonathan Sayers, a resident of Tonbridge for the last ten years. I myself commute to London for work everyday and my children attend our local primary school. We as a family use Tonbridge town center for a variety of amenities and retail outlets as well as the excellent transport links to London and the south coast. We also enjoy the expanse of open space on our doorstep, be it for walks in the countryside or bike rides around the country lanes. Over the last ten years we have watched Tonbridge expand and grow into a vibrant place to live and have also noticed a huge increase in the local traffic volumes into and out of town especially at peak times with some journey times at least doubling and tail backs clogging local routes as people seek to avoid the traffic. In our opinion Tonbridge itself has expanded to its maximum capacity with the current infrastructure, with many former brown field sites now made up of flats and townhouses. The proposed local plan for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1) and East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1) would put untold strain on an already overloaded infrastructure and transport links as well as destroying forever a huge amount of the green belt land on our doorstep not only for us but future generations as well. TWBC's gain will ultimately be TMBC's loss. | |
DLP_5490 | Eliza Chilvers | My name is Eliza Chilvers, I have resided on the Hartlake Road for the entirety of my life, apart from a few years spent at University in Birmingham. The beautiful surrounding countryside has always been a joy to be around, I currently enjoy walking my dogs in and around Tudeley and Capel. I am also an avid rider, keeping my horse at Bank Farm Stables in Tudeley, the thought of losing the limited riding I currently enjoy is very distressing, having to force me to exercise my horse on the roads with the potential of increased traffic flow, making me increasingly vulnerable when enjoying my hobby. I currently work in Sevenoaks a journey which should take under 20 minutes however due to the already vast volumes of traffic often can take an hour, I simply cannot comprehend how long the journey will take me with the potential of an extra 4,000 cars on the road! I understand the need to fulfil the housing deficit, however flooding the market with new homes in a poorly connected area in a flood risk does not seem like the most appropriate way forward to ensure these needs are met. | |
DLP_5494 | Peter Gurr | Our daughter and family have lived in Five Oak Green for 15 years and it is obvious that this village would not be able to cope with the increase in traffic. The local school our youngest granddaughter goes to is at capacity, the main road is very busy now and the increase in traffic would be a nightmare. Our oldest granddaughter catches a bus to a school in Tonbridge and never gets a seat as it is. | |
DLP_5496 | A Richardson | I live in Postern Lane with my wife and 3 young children and would love for them to grow up in this green belt and quiet environment. We love taking walks up what is a quiet lane with great access to the beautiful woodland and Grade II listed buildings and we want this to remain this way. In the 5 years we have lived here we have seen an huge increase in traffic around this area of Tonbridge and the building of a new town but more specifically a school at the end of the Lane will create havoc with our day to day lives. We strongly object to the plans for the new school as it is not a suitable location due to the railway line and lack of transport links but more importantly due to adverse impact on local residents and wildlife. | |
DLP_5498 | Richard, Hollie, Harry and Jack Sadler | I have lived in Five Oak Green for 15 years, and have two children who attend Capel School. Every day since I first heard the news of this tragedy I can’t believe this beautiful and historic area will be lost to what I believe is no good reason. This is not because I think we are not in need of affordable housing but because I don’t believe there is one moral or sensible reason to create 2,800 homes is this destructive manner, other than conveniently there is one land owner offering their land. I realise the UK needs more housing, especially affordable housing but I feel creating large areas of ‘Garden Villages’ not only destroys beautiful areas of heritage, countryside, community and farming but also creates a vastly negative impact on issues mentioned above such as flooding, transport, schools, biodiversity, sustainability, green belt, well being, pollution and the emergency services. If houses were to be fairly and evenly spread over the whole of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council this would have far less of a destructive impact to all the reasons previously mentioned. | |
DLP_5505 | Natalie Sadler | I have lived in Five Oak Green for 15 years, and have two children who attend Capel School. Every day since I first heard the news of this tragedy I can’t believe this beautiful and historic area will be lost to what I believe is no good reason. This is not because I think we are not in need of affordable housing but because I don’t believe there is one moral or sensible reason to create 2,800 homes is this destructive manner, other than conveniently there is one land owner offering their land. I realise the UK needs more housing, especially affordable housing but I feel creating large areas of ‘Garden Villages’ not only destroys beautiful areas of heritage, countryside, community and farming but also creates a vastly negative impact on issues mentioned above such as flooding, transport, schools, biodiversity, sustainability, green belt, well being, pollution and the emergency services. If houses were to be fairly and evenly spread over the whole of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council this would have far less of a destructive impact to all the reasons previously mentioned. | |
DLP_5508 | Amalia Floyd | My name is Amalia Floyd. I live in Five Oak Green and work in Tonbridge and here are my views on the new local plan: | |
DLP_5520 | Joanne Warnett | We live in North Tonbridge and have done for a number of years. We were shocked to hear of the proposed plans at Tudeley and East Capel. | |
DLP_5530 | Julie Tilley | I am a Tonbridge resident having lived here for over 57 years. My grandparents and other members of my family are buried in Tudeley Church Yard and I would not like the church and its occupants disturbed by the enormous building project proposed. | |
DLP_5628 | Kate Shorten | I am a resident of Tonbridge who has chosen to raise my young family here and I also work in the town. | |
DLP_5668 | Paul Nightingale | I live in Whetsted with my wife and two children and have done so for 12 years. We moved here from a town because we wanted to live in a country village. If I had wanted to live in a community like Kings Hill I would have moved there. I work all over the South East and commute by train and there is no way that the Southeastern network will be able to cope with any extra passengers let alone thousands. The roads around here can't cope with the traffic we already have. It can take 10 mins or 30 mins just to get into Tonbridge and there is no rhyme or reason to the congestion just SWOT. Building in Paddock wood on the site Badsell Road / Mascalls is underway and it is already a nightmare. It is a single lane road in and out and there is constantly temporary lights on the road which the road can’t cope with. I dread to think how long we will have to live like this already! The building at Mascalls Grange has come to a halt, due to the following reasons, 1) they can’t sell the houses they have built already in the first small phase and so they can’t build more and 2) they are having problems with drainage eg septic tanks etc. There are approx. 10 houses that are currently for sale in Five Oak Green alone (that have been on the market for a long time) that are NOT selling. We do not need more homes here. The infrastructure can’t cope. In addition to this the quarry in Whetsted Road is being re-opened anyway with plans (which I have objected to also) to expand massively. Whetsted Road can't cope with the amount of HGV's going in and out of Scripps as it is. This traffic has increased hugely sine we moved in 2007. It is damaging the road and our houses with these HGVs rumbling along 7 days a week. It can't cope with any more traffic. | |
DLP_5780 | Robert Davis | I am a resident of North Tonbridge adjacent to your Local Plan proposal for housing development in Tudeley and East Capel. I wish to register a strong objection to this TWBC Local Plan. I regularly walk the Medway and the footpaths in Tudeley. I have kept a horse for 9 years at Bank Farm, Sherenden Road and know that horse owners and riders regularly use Sherenden Road, the toll rides and farm headlands. This area of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt is home to Larks, Buzzards, Goldfinches, Swifts and Egrets to name only some of the wildlife to be enjoyed by walkers and riders. This number of houses so close to Tonbridge will impact transport, schools, NHS services and the character of the area as a whole. This proposed development and the development to follow will link Tonbridge with Paddock Wood forming, in effect, a massive new town. Wildlife habitats will be lost, valuable productive farmland will disappear and a valuable and vital resource for people to walk and enjoy the countryside will be lost. The cost of this urbanisation will be born by the residents of Tonbridge. It is a cynical move on the part of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to receive the resulting council tax income but none of the monetary or social cost, whilst landowners and developers make huge profits. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5784 | Mrs Jacqueline Hayward-Gant | As a resident of Paddock Wood with the absolutely disgusted by the planning permission on green fields and the environment increasing an area with pre existing flooding and destruction of animal habitat and separate fields between Paddock Wood and Capel and Tonbridge. We all have separation and support for each other. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_6116 | Tim Page | I live at Somerhill Cottages in Crockhurst Street,Tudeley. When I moved to the area I enjoyed the countryside and open space. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
End of additional comments submitted with standard response | |||
DLP_138 | Gregg Newman | Object Your so called strategy is nothing of the sort. It is an attempt to push through an ill thought out and self-serving agenda without any care for the countryside which you purport to want to preserve. As noted above, there are enormous risks, not least to human lives (not to mention the deaths of literally thousands of trees, animals and other wildlife that have lived in our green and pleasant land since before we ever did). In the words of Great Thunberg, “How dare you”! I support a previous submission in the following respects, and quote it in full as follows in support of my submission that tis plan is hugely flawed: QUOTE This is a strategy which is absolutely, completely, totally unachievable. The risks involved in plonking a “garden settlement” on this Green Belt hamlet are huge. The infrastructure costs are huge. The landowner and co-masterplanner is inexperienced and ill-equipped to deliver such a complex project. Point by point the policy is flawed in the following ways:
You have a Masterplanning and Delivery approach within this policy that does not reference the involvement of developers and landowners. It is my understanding that the masterplanning of East Capel will be completely controlled by the Council. However, the masterplanning of Tudeley appears to be shared between the Council and Hadlow Estate. This is unfair and unwise. The Hadlow Estate are inexperienced and have a poor track record of delivery of even small projects on time and on budget. The properties they have in their care at present are generally maintained with minimal effort and regard to aesthetics and maximum regard to rental potential. Why would this change when they build thousands of homes to sell at maximum profit? How can you realistically ensure that they use masterplanning for the greater good to achieve good design and not just to maximise profit? UNQUOTE Please note also in respect of Hadlow Estate, they are clearly conflicted and cannot be awarded the roles considered. | |
DLP_156 | Nigel Barretto | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I have made some points here that you have seen before. Additional personal comments are also included. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. | |
DLP_158 | Nigel Barretto | Other Comments: With the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council proposal to build over 4000 homes in the Parish of Capel ,in the areas of Tudeley and to the west of Paddock Wood.I am asking you to consider my very strong objections. You will be aware Capel is a rural Parish that sits within the green belt, and there are currently 900 homes in the Parish. It is mainly agricultural land and woodland that house various forms of wildlife, the unique culture and heritage that is in the Parish include Tudeley and St Thomas a Becket churches. The proposal that you have put forward to build the enormous number of homes would have a significant impact on the rural landscape, environment, and wildlife, changing the Parish beyond all recognition. It would cause the loss of the important buffer of green belt from Tonbridge, which would result in urban development from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood.Therefore losing the ability of having the freedom for families and individuals to walk, explore and enjoy peacefulness of the open space away from the towns and villages. The suggestion of so many homes in these location, could lead to a greater risk of flooding both locally and further along the River Medway floodplain, putting at risk other built up towns and villages such as Yalding that struggles when the Medway overflows. If you are required to Increased housing it should be developed in proportion to existing population numbers across the borough the brownfield sites and other sites which already have infrastructure in place. Much of the land proposed in Capel for development has a single landowner and the simplicity in developing that land should not come before the significant detrimental impact it would have. Part of the site of the proposed development sits at the very edge of the Borough next to the border with Tonbridge and Malling. It is hard to belive that there appears to be no consideration given to any increase in population within Capel that would result in a significant demand upon the neighbouring Borough without any plan or infrastructure to cope with the increase of people traffic etc. This would result in a deterioration of lifestyle and have an impact on businesses. Under the Government proposals for garden Villages and settlements they recommend that they are not built where there are existing settlements but should be new and discrete. There is nothing discrete about the proposed plans which would be situated in the existing settlements. The Government also advise that garden villages and settlements should have local support, I would suggest that this is clearly not the case in the Capel proposal. In addition, from the proposed plans the existing railway line will dissect the proposed sites which does not support garden settlement principles. Please can you advise me of why you consider this proposal to be the prefered choice ? Finally, on behalf of myself ,my family and friends that visit the Parish of Capel .I request that you do not support this proposal that does not appear to have been thought through properly and is unsustainable and is detrimental to both local residents and businesses and those from further afield. I would appreciate your earliest response in this matter. | |
DLP_159 | Gregg Newman | I strongly object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I refer you to my comments in full contained in my response to the Draft Local Plan Consultation Response Form and Sustainability Response Form. To reiterate for emphasis. This is an ill thought out and ill-conceived proposal that will forever be a stain upon the consciences of any and all who are concerned should it become reality. You dare to pay lip service to protecting the environment, whilst at the same time destroying the habitats of innumerable plant and animal species. Although on a smaller scale, there is no difference between your plans and the Brazilian Government’s policy towards the Amazon Rain Forest (which you have doubtless wrung your hands over!). Your plan will turn the area not into some idyllic “garden villages. It will tarmac and concrete over ancient woodland, and contribute to global warming and flooding. No amount of platitudes, half-truths and cynical distortions of facts in your so called plan will alter what this really is. Turning the Garden of England, the heart of our Green and Pleasant Land, into a soulless waste land of identical poorly constructed house with inadequate infrastructure, a ghetto well enough hidden from the residents of Tunbridge Wells so as not to offend their sensitivities. Your plan will also, undoubtedly, result in injures or even deaths to children who will have to travel miles on poor roads, in darkness, to get to and from school. I could write reams, but it seems pointless. Everything has been said over and over again. Please, TWBC, deeply examine your consciences and show yourselves to be above the Westminster gerrymandering that is destroying our country, take a stand and protect England and this beautiful planet and all its inhabitants, not only human but plant and animal too. I look forward to you restoring y faith in human nature, thank you. | |
DLP_163 | Norman Pickett | Other Comments:The proposed developments are disproportionate to the environment in which they will sit, and will overburden the locality. The sign “Love where we live” will become a sad memorial to the once pastoral nature of this eastern fringe of the borough. | |
DLP_167 | Tony Castleden | Other Comments: By firstly even considering and then publishing this ill thought out plan based on pure convenience you have probably already effectively destroyed the values of most properties within the immediate area. Thank you TWBC. | |
DLP_170 | Lyn Castleden | Other Comments: By firstly even considering and then publishing this ill thought out plan based on pure convenience you have probably already effectively destroyed the values of most properties within the immediate area. Thank you TWBC. | |
DLP_191 | Christopher Wise | Other Comments: I have made the unarguable points regarding traffic congestion in three personal letters sent direct to Greg Clark MP and Tom Tugendhat MP. The inevitable and unsustainable gridlock that will be caused on A26 (Woodgate Way) and B2017 (Five Oak Green Road/Tudeley Lane) will arise from ‘Tudeley Garden Village’ alone, let alone East Capel and enlarged Paddock Wood. That’s before considering the new secondary school, with its traffic entering/exiting and crossing either of these already clogged roads, depending in where the entrance will be – it has to be one or the other. I have also made the equally unarguable points regarding the already saturated peak hour train loading from Tonbridge to the two MPs mentioned above, as well as Sir Michael Fallon MP. At a recent Save Capel meeting, a planner from Tonbridge expressed real concerns over the plans, saying that Mr Tugendhat urged residents to respond – which I urged him to do publicly in my letter to him, given his powerful voice (and recent success in West Malling). Tonbridge should indeed be furious and very worried – these plans are about the most un-neighbourly act imaginable: Tunbridge Wells will trouser all the Council Tax, whilst all the new residents will use Tonbridge’s amenities and roads. Charming, I don’t think. Perhaps that at least in part explains why of the three MPs I have written to, the only one I have yet to hear from is Greg Clark, my own MP. | |
DLP_193 | Iain Thomas | Other Comments: This is a crass and lazy plan. There are large areas of brownfield within the Borough which could and should be developed instead. The pressure on infrastructure caused by this gargantuan development will be unsustainable and an historic and beautiful part of the Kent Countryside will be lost forever. Moreover, the decision of the Council to promote a scheme which is remote from Tunbridge Wells Town Centre and which will rely on other adjoining boroughs for its infrastructure and services is completely contrary to the purposes of the Council. This, and the fact that the Council only has to deal with one single landowner WHO IS NOT EVEN A RESIDENT OF THE BOROUGH demonstrates a complete lack of any imagination or intellectual application in addressing the need for increased housing supply. I speak as a former resident of TWBC for 27 years before I moved to Hadlow in January of this year when I say that the legacy of this Council will have been to reduce a once beautiful Victorian town to a soulless windswept urban desert, with dozens of empty shops, a half vacant shopping centre, classrooms and doctors' waiting rooms full to overflowing to meet demand from the thousands of new residents, roads clogged with traffic and no consideration for preserving the town and its surrounds for future generations. Councillors need only look out of the windows of their offices to see their legacy – the former cinema site, smack bang in the centre of town and derelict for 20 years while the Council chooses the oak panelling for its luxurious new offices to be built on one of the few remaining public open spaces in Calverley Grounds. This proposal has to be halted. Permanently. And the Council need to fulfil their civic function and consider more sympathetic and imaginative schemes. | |
DLP_197 | Lawrence Matthews | Other Comments: My comments echo this draft form regarding Traffic,noise and air pollution. Above all creating such Housing, and need for greater infastructure will cause mass destruction of Woodland and Farm Land in a Green Belt area. We must protect this area for Wildlife and people. We all need the remaining Green Belt for the enjoyment of all, which has been shown to aid peoples mental wellbeing. Around Tudeley is a wonderful enviroment, a big area like this proposed Garden Village in Tudeley, must and cannot be destroyed. A growth corridor approach would be far better for the increasing population. It would appear that Sevenoaks Council have adopted a far better approach to protect Green Belt land, and we should do the same. | |
DLP_201 | Andy Myers | Other Comments: The main summary has well documented the issues. As a local resident, choosing to live (and pay for) in what is a semi rural, and currently beautiful area, my family and I are devastated by the changes afoot. We have no faith in the Council’s strategy around providing the infrastructure around this expansion. This is already visible with the other developments/expansions done to date and indeed personified by the likes of the (lack of) education facilities, traffic and rail issues already in existence. | |
DLP_204 | Martin Meyer | Other Comments: I am been resident of Tonbridge for 12 years and during that time I have seen considerable change for the worse. The development of housing has been relentless, and Tonbridge has suffered as a consequence. Traffic is appalling most weekday mornings and evenings and for most of the day at the weekend. Pressure on local schools is already bad and will get considerably worse. I know of children who live next door to a Tonbridge school but commute to Sevenoaks because there are no places available for them. My commute by to train London which is expensive, and poor can only get worse if the Capel development is given approval. What concerns me the most is the impact this development will have on the countryside and environment. I was born in Kent and in the last forty years, the area I have grown up in has been decimated by development. Initially the development was small and slow- wealthy London commuters converting farm buildings into residential homes but now the development is large scale and considerably more destructive to the very thing that gives Kent its ‘Garden of England’ identity. Once gone, this identity cannot be recovered, and this will do irrevocable harm to the quality of life for residents and to the health of the environment. | |
DLP_207 | Neil Brooks-Johnson | Sirs, I cannot express how upset I am with the plan, in addition to all the reasons above the wider impact has just not been considered. Hartlake Road which is already a rat run through to Victoria Road and onto the A21 at Hadlow will become even more dangerous. Additional roads do not allay or mitigate congestion they merely move it elsewhere. We all know that the impact of this development is in Tonbridge and environs and not TW. Tudeley is a Tonbridge village within your boroughs boundary. You are exporting your demands onto another local authority. I am not against correct development and have supported my council on their plans for more housing in our village, but more housing needs ought to be built within or adjacent to existing towns and villages upgrading and improving existing infrastructure, to avoid the constant need to build many more roads over Kent’s green belt, destroying it forever for future generations. We need the good farming land to support our expanding population, which this is, but with farmers who are prepared to farm not sell up to make a quick profit. . There is very little in your plan here that is founded in logic, please withdraw this foolish plan and think again. | |
DLP_209 | Mrs P Price | I am writing to object to The Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1). I have for 60 years lived in Tonbridge and both my husband and I went to school by train to Tonbridge from Sevenoaks. We are extremely concerned about the TWBC proposals to build 2,800 dwellings in the Parish of Capel which will naturally cause Tonbridge to bear the costs of extra people coming into Tonbridge for schools, doctors’ surgeries, commuters using trains (already over crowded), parking and other facilities. Tonbridge residents will get no help for the extra costs but the council tax will go to Tunbridge Wells - what a cunning wheeze! It would seem most likely that the residents of any new development would gravitate to Tonbridge to use the facilities, there being no easy route to get to Tunbridge Wells, either by road or rail. The land where it is proposed to build all these houses is, I understand, Green Belt land and we often walked from Tonbridge to Capel and Tudeley in the lovely countryside. It is still a popular walk for many people. | |
DLP_213 | Jacqueline Arscott Hangman's Hill Residents Association | Other Comments: I agree with the all the above comments [TWBC: see Comment Number DLP_212] and wish to emphasise that the proposed development land is designated as both Green Belt and as an AONB and is also a flood plain. There is no situation where massive development on such land is appropriate. It seems to be lazy governing by TWBC to simply let the Hadlow Estate build over their land, thereby only dealing with one landowner. The proposed development would not only be a catastrophe for the environment, but would devastate Tonbridge. The housing would be sold to Londoners, not local people, because "affordable housing" is only affordable to Londoners. They would all drive into Tonbridge to use the facilities - the trains, the schools, the doctors, dentists, shops. My road (Goldsmid Road) is full of parked commuter cars by 6am as it is. There simply isn't any space for any more cars and the silly idea that these Londoners would use a bus or bicycle to get to the train station is not even worth discussing! It is clear that TWBC has given no consideration to the effect this development would have on Tonbridge. TMBC would have to cater for all the extra facilities these people would require whilst TWBC would collect the council tax! I do not believe Tunbridge Wells needs so many new houses, regardless of random figures from central government. I also understand that councils with large areas of Green Belt or AONB land can lower the amount of building required because there is less available land. TWBC seem to have ignored this, presumably because the Hadlow Estate want to maximise the profit from the proposed development. There does not seem to be a need for a new garden town which will simply increase pollution, congestion, parking issues and commuting and ruin landscapes, wildlife habitats and quality of life. So, my objections to this proposal are that it is wrong and unnecessary to build on Green Belt land and on an AONB. It is crazy to build on a flood plain, especially with the effects of climate change still unfolding. It will absolutely destroy Tonbridge and will not bring anything other than council tax income into Tunbridge Wells (these proposed new residents won't work in Tunbridge Wells and won't shop there or use the facilities - they will use Tonbridge). My main objection is that IT IS GREEN BELT LAND! | |
DLP_220 | Claire Songhurst | Other Comments: Last weekend, I went for a run through the beautiful countryside around Capel. While I ran, I was listening to a podcast of Radio 4’s Ramblings programme in which Clare Balding was proclaiming the proven benefits to mental health of walking and being in the countryside. This seemed to me to be particularly pertinent as I was in the very areas that would be affected by this disastrous development. Please see sense and cancel these plans. | |
DLP_223 | Diana Allchorne | Your site is not user friendly. I wish to comment on your plans for building on green belt land. You do not make it easy for people who are not professional developers, architects, town planners. I am unhappy about the way you have introduced this proposal for thousands of houses on green belt land. There is insufficient infrastructure and the damage to the countryside is inestimable. I did love where I lived but now and the wildlife and the countryside I love is under major threat. There is also the question of pollution. I do not think there would be a safe air quality if this major development were to go ahead. [TWBC: further comments sent in response to TWBC email]: Many thanks for your response and yes, I would like you to include the comments I have made. I am very concerned also about the effect on the wildlife and habitats in the area. As you May know, this country has the most depleted wildlife habitat I believe in the whole of Europe. Hedgehogs have declined dramatically in numbers and we need to preserve the countryside not trash it (for an example see the countryside which has already been wrecked by quarrying in Tudeley. I do not believe this development will be any different from any other soulless development which make lots of money for the developers. I do not want a Poundbury on my doorstep either. As for providing ‘much needed’ housing that is a joke when many people are still living with their parents (my son included) because they cannot, as a single person, afford to buy even a studio flat in this area. We need to rewind this area not cover it in concrete if we are to halt the destruction of our countryside. | |
DLP_228 | Julie Smithers | Other Comments: Any future developments should all be on high ground with plenty of drainage, no long term housing should even be considered on low ground, or on our green belt. | |
DLP_231 | Sara Day | Other Comments: I live on the ANOB which was initially included. I am concerned that there is an option to include it again in 2024. The ANOB should be protected at all costs, once it is gone it will be lost forever. I am concerned as a long term member of the RSPB regards the loss of habitat for the migrating birds: the threatened skylarks, turtle dove, lapwings and nightingale. There areas are already threatened by the quarry proposal. It is our obligation to protect the areas which are visited by these visitors. They follow the same routes and will not look for alternatives if their habitat is lost. Studies show this to be the case. I am concerned that the increased number of houses in the area will not be policed. The roads are becoming more dangerous with young drivers using it as a race course. The A21 dualling is one of the most dangerous roads created with many accidents since it was opened. I am concerned that I paid a premium to move to a lovely area which will be decimated by people who do not appreciate the countryside. The local plan will serve people moving out of the London area, this is not what a local plan should be made for. There is a lack of police presence, how will this be served with the area to be heavily developed being in TWBC with Tonbridge bearing the impact of the increase in people. It is our obligation to protect Kent, the garden of England. The climate allows for farming and development in this area, once gone it will be lost. The county has faced some tough times and the significant increase in development should be resisted as Sevenoaks BC have tried to do. A garden village cannot be created and just dropped onto an area without careful planning and thought, I have no confidence that the area will be developed sympathetically, the pressure being to squeeze in as many houses as you can. 2800 is urban sprawl, not a “garden village”. I am sorry that it has come to this. I urge you to read the comments made by all but my primary concern is that even though a public consultation process has been started the development seems to be a forgone conclusion with no real thought as to how it will impact on the people who have lived in Tudeley all their life, or as in my case someone who has paid to live in a semi rural area, whose existence is now called into question. | |
DLP_239 | Mrs Linda Hewings | Other Comments: Green Belt land was specifically designed to surround urban areas with buffers to prevent urban sprawl and give inhabitants of these built up areas a chance to leave noisy, busy, polluted streets and reconnect with nature. Research has shown that the natural environment helps reduce stress, feelings of sadness and lifts a person’s spirits. Increasingly, if utilised correctly it is having the effect of reducing spending on mental healthcare. To concrete over fertile agricultural land, when we now know that climate change is putting increased pressure on our food production, makes no sense. We should be concentrating on preserving the countryside and increasing the amount of food we produce in this country. | |
DLP_260 | Ian Huddart | Other Comments: I object to any building on Green Belt. It is vital to preserve it and brown field sites should always be developed first, even if far more expensive. As a means of combating climate change it is also vital to maintain and try to increase green spaces, trees and vegetation. This also helps to maintain and hopefully increase the numbers of wild animals, bird, insects and fish which are under increasing threat from humans and have seen their habitats massively reduced. As a resident of Tonbridge, I experience traffic congestion on a regular basis. Due to the railway line through the town and the limited places at which it can be crossed, any increase in local traffic would exacerbate the situation and also increase local pollution levels. | |
DLP_263 | Simon Walton | I am utterly upset at the way precious Green Belt land is set to be sold off and developed when there are so many large Brownfield sites that exist across the borough. Myself and my family love our walks through to the fields at Whetsted Woods at the end of our road in this largely unspoilt landscape. The pressures on Tonbridge town centre and the surrounding area will be far too excessive, it will not cope. I was brought up in South Tonbridge near Somerhill estate and moved to Paddock Wood 5 years ago and spent my life travelling that route by either train, car or bike and it will be ruined to allow TWBC to dump a vast percentage of it’s building quota in one small area that simply does not have or can not accommodate the infrastructure. It’s a terrible shame and makes me want to leave the area I have known for 38 years. It’s astonishing how I’ve moved some 6 miles from where I grew up and this development will fill the area between. How can that be sustained. The trainline is very ill-prepared, what provisions would be made to help the already failing operator cope with some additional 2000 probable daily users. It’s a pretty traditional British trait to hide ones emotions and keep a stiff upper lip but what has very much surprised me is the various conversations I overhear in the street on this subject. Absolute strangers have brought this up to me in passing. It just tells me the depth of feeling and hurt this appears to be causing. It’s mystifying why TWBC would want to inflict this on the people who live there, and why they want to damage their own area in this way. | |
DLP_266 | Rosemary and Bernard Hayton | Other Personal Comments: We OBJECT in the most strongest possible way. Yours, in hope of common sense and decency, | |
DLP_269 | Cheryl Randeria | This land is Green Belt land and should only be built upon if an “exceptional circumstance” exists. Building here, even with flood risk mitigation and “betterment” could have disastrous consequences for all, as the measures being looked at are based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. | |
DLP_271 | Alison Edwards | I am so disappointed that TWBC are proposing to build on so much green belt land. I do not believe that these are “the exceptional circumstances” that allow councils to do this. There are many brownfield sites available but these naturally, being smaller sites probably cost more to develop, but you have to weigh this against the cost of ruining our countryside and the impact that has on everyone living in the area. Along with my friends, I walk through this area using public footpaths and bridleways across this green belt land at least once a week. This beautiful countryside is my therapy. I work as a nurse in the NHS and have done so for over 30 years. It is a stressful and demanding job. One of the reasons I can cope with all the stresses and strains that my work throws at me is that I can de-stress through walking outdoors in green spaces, not pavements through towns and villages but getting back in touch with nature. I am appalled by this proposal. The area around Tudeley and Capel is very rural. In these days of climate change, how can we justify destroying so much farm land and other green belt land in place of housing and consequently more cars and traffic. We need our green spaces more than ever, not just to reoxygenate the air but to also feed the nation. We need more farmers and farmed land, not less. In the light of Brexit too, it is probably even more important that we develop places that can help to feed us, rather than build over them. I also firmly believe that facilities and road structures in Tonbridge cannot sustain this level of development. As a nurse working in a local GP Practice I am well aware of the pressure on GP surgeries at the present time without further development. It is very difficult to employ regular GPs, in fact the GP surgery where I work at present is struggling to recruit GPs and we are currently managing on 1 part time GP and various locum Doctors (which cost the NHS a lot more money) for 6000 patients. This is the case in many surgeries and I believe that most, if not all the local surgeries are full and have closed their books. Building this new village so close to Tonbridge will have a huge impact on local Doctors. Are TWBC going to pay the locum bill for the extra staff needed in Tonbridge surgeries? Somehow, I doubt it. | |
DLP_272 | Petrina Lambert | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I will make some points here that I am sure you have seen before. Additional personal comments are overleaf. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. Commuter parking at Tonbridge Station 837 spaces and 20 disabled. Comment on web site “purchasing tickets and permits in advance does not guarantee a parking space”. Commuter parking in Paddock Wood, 470 spaces and 13 disabled but there is a permit holder waiting list (£1087.40 per year) There is no guarantee that these new commuters will get parked never mind get on a train or even into Tonbridge on the roads that are at capacity already. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. The site of the new Town at Tudeley was not in the issues and options document or the SHELAA at the date that we were told about the ‘new garden village’ and was only added in July 2019. So I cant understand how people gave a fair opinion about the suitability of a new ‘garden village’ when asked about their preferred options in the issues and option document when the location had not been revealed. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_274 | Petrina Lambert | BUILDING ON THE GREEN BELT. The development at Tudeley would result in the destruction of a small but happy and supportive village community. With the added sorrow of the great loss of some of most beautiful countryside and wildlife. We have wonderful bluebell woods, beautiful trees, natural ponds and great many insects, butterflies, owls, bats and we must not forget the occasional deer, pheasant and of course the birds. We see the hawks on a daily basis. We should not be building on the Green Belt. It would also cause irretrievably damage to the climate building on the Metropolitan Green Belt. The green belt is there to clean the air not just for our local area but far beyond. It is there to prevent coalescence of towns and Tudeley would become a nondescriptive bridge joining Paddock Wood and Tonbridge together. Scarring the landscape and be visible from the ANOB North Downs. Distribution of Development Topic Paper for Draft Local Plan – Regulation 18 Consultation See page 79 and chart there on, Tudeley village green belt is there to prevent sprawl and towns merging. Could this be to stop the Coalescence of Tonbridge, Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood? We have not seen any evidence of other sites for a new town outside the green belt. There is other land in non green belt, non ANOB and not on floodplains and more central to the borough and also not so reliant on an adjoining boroughs infrastructure. The Distribution of Development Topic Paper for Draft Local Plan (page 10) says that Households on the Register are understandably seeking properties in their locality in most cases. Preferences for location are well distributed across the borough. There is more of a focus (likely for younger people) on Royal Tunbridge Wells/Southborough, although western areas are likely to be less appropriate for people in the east of the borough and vice versa. According to the Tunbridge Wells Borough HNS 2018 Capel’s housing need is 47 and Paddock wood is 313. The council admits that people would prefer to remain in their communities. So who are these new houses for, if not for the people in the local area. This development is on the far western side of the borough and the people living on the eastern side of the borough are not likely to move here. I understand that we have a need for housing, especially affordable housing for the younger generation and smaller houses for our ever increasing elderly planning to move down the housing ladder. According to Tunbridge wells 24.7% of people will be 65 and over in borough by 2033. In conclusion I am sure housing would be accepted in this area in a lot smaller capacity, especially affordable housing and homes for our ageing population. HERITAGE We have a world renowned church in Tudeley, Tunbridge wells likes to boast about The Pantiles and being a centre for foreign visitors, have they looked at the visitors book in the church? We regularly have coaches of visitors. Building a housing estate on top the church would be the same as building high rise flats along the Pantiles. This is a valuable heritage site and should be treated with dignity. It is set among fields allowing natural light to light up the Marc Chagall windows. AGRICULTURE It would also be the loss of good agricultural land, with our food supply of over 40% from abroad and an increasing population and the resulting carbon emissions from imports, surely we should NOT be looking at building low density housing on farmland but be more concerned with the damage that would cause. DELIVERY PLAN, PAGE 17 THE PLANS TO IMPROVE THIS B2017. We live on the B2017 at Brampton Bank and the speed outside our house is 40mph. Because the road straightens out just outside Brampton Bank the cars speed up and it becomes almost impossible to pull off the driveway now between 7.00am and 9.00am and some mornings impossibly dangerous to cross the road to the bus stop opposite us, never mind after improvements have been made. I have a near miss most weeks and in the week beginning 9/9/19 there was yet another accident at Brampton bank, police and ambulance attending, a van pulling off the drive and a car coming along the B2017, it wasn’t even in the busy period of the day. Mostly the accidents are little knocks and not reported. You can see that there is a problem by driving along the road by the number of Visual display mirrors along the verge. Central Tudeley has a great many of these. Surely traffic calming measures applied to the B2017 to stop it becoming a Tudeley new town bypass and endangering the residents should be considered, I fail to see how other improvements could be made without there being a risk to life with the obvious increase in traffic from both developments. The NPPF page 24 paragraph 84. Says ‘does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads’. The proposed new school on the roundabout at the end of the B2017 leading from Tudeley to Tonbridge is an extremely busy road, one death in the last couple of years. There is no street lighting or footpath, according to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan page 96 under transport walking and cycling, this is referred to as desirable and not critical. Surely if TWBC want to reduce carbon emissions and car usage this should be critical and if the children attending the school are to walk or cycle from the new town. The majority of people from this area travel to Tonbridge with a great many school buses headed that way already. My daughters’ bus to Hadlow Rural Community School is late most days of the week because of the traffic headed into Tonbridge and the build up at Vale Road. The traffic jam can begin in Tudeley itself somedays. The proposed roundabout at Tudeley Road/Hartlake Road will not help with the congestion that exists now, add more cars and the problem will only get worse. Not to mention putting a roundabout so close to All Saints church that receives international visitors by coach. Is the council aware that when there are problems on the A21 between Sevenoaks and Pembury that the traffic is rerouted along the B2017, the sign saying no HGV’s at the Tonbridge end of the road is not compulsory just advice. INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN PAGE 39 GENERAL PRACTICE. Today 23/9/19 there are 2 vacancies for GP’s in Tonbridge, 1 in paddock wood and 2 in Tunbridge wells. It is a known fact that there is a shortage of GPs in the country. There are also 20 practice nurse vacancies within 5 miles from Tudeley. How are they planning to attract doctors to this area? Also the additional pressure on the Hospital and waiting times with such an increase in the local population. This is an addtional concern with an ageing population in the borough. SCHOOLS I was unable to find any reference to a preschool or nursery provision. The preschool in Five Oak Green is at capacity. Where are these new commuters/new home owners going to leave their under 5’s? FLOOD RISK We have a natural stream running beneath our extension, it was found by the builder. When BBS now called Stroma Building control advised that the foundations should allow for this. It would worry me that a development behind us would affect the natural drainage from the fields and result in flooding locally and in the new development itself. I think that the risk of flooding in something that needs to be more thoroughly looked at, with climate change at the forefront of minds and building the East Capel development on high risk flood plains. Yalding has its own flood plain very close to Paddock Wood and if development here puts more pressure on the river Medway with run off, this plain might not cope with the extra water. I know there are proposals to increase the Leigh Barrier, but that is up river and will not help with the excess water that this development will produce. I worry that there will be a repeat of the recent floods of 2013/14 especially in the future. Surely this needs to be future proofed. See below Local plan-supporting documents- environment and landscape-Tunbridge Wells Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Key Documents See page 91, future flood risk column for 60 years time. 75 % Capel east falls in high risk 3a and 25 % of Tudeley. I cant emphasise enough how much I object to this development, its size and position is just an extraordinary idea and will permanently damage a historical landscape that can never be replaced and irretrievably damage the environment. | |
DLP_277 | Samantha Fenton | As a resident of East Peckham the lack of infrastructure, in particular the highway network, for this scale of housing is really concerning. East Peckham suffers very badly from flooding and this will undoubtedly be exacerbated by the proposals in the DLP. Issues have arisen with the Leigh barrier previously in that many animals were drowned at the Hop Farm, this to stop the flooding at Tonbridge. The rural areas in Kent seem to be expendable. We no longer have the Woodlands (PW) extra GP surgery so the pressure on the health system will be enormous. | |
DLP_280 | Peter Hills | These policies, introduced at the last minute into the Local Plan, are clearly highly controversial, as demonstrated by the extent of local opposition that has been expressed. They appear to be a cynical attempt by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to push a perceived requirement for additional housing as close to the Tonbridge border as possible, such that the costs of that development, in the form of loss of amenity and additional infrastructure, are largely borne by a neighbouring authority. As noted above, the need for housing may well have been over-stated. Additionally, my understanding is that there is little or no support from Tonbridge and Malling for these proposals. This is important as I understand there is a ‘Duty to Cooperate” with neighbouring authorities when Local Plans are produced. I urge the Council to reconsider the need and feasibility of the proposed development of Tudeley Village and to withdraw these policies from their Local Plan proposals. | |
DLP_287 | Paula Hills | These policies, introduced at the last minute into the Local Plan, are clearly highly controversial, as demonstrated by the extent of local opposition that has been expressed. They appear to be a cynical attempt by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to push a perceived requirement for additional housing as close to the Tonbridge border as possible, such that the costs of that development, in the form of loss of amenity and additional infrastructure, are largely borne by a neighbouring authority. As noted above, the need for housing may well have been over-stated. Additionally, my understanding is that there is little or no support from Tonbridge and Malling for these proposals. This is important as I understand there is a ‘Duty to Cooperate” with neighbouring authorities when Local Plans are produced. I urge the Council to reconsider the need and feasibility of the proposed development of Tudeley Village and to withdraw these policies from their Local Plan proposals. | |
DLP_289 | Mary Crouch | The proposed development is extremely worrying for villagers and farmworkers, many of whom have lived and worked in the area for decades. Many are living in tied-cottages. Many rely on the land for their livelihood. We are a village, not a town. Please, please reconsider!!! | |
DLP_291 | Paul Cullen | Other Comments: as we are residents of tudeley,what t.w.b.c. went to do to the greenbelt is awful. | |
DLP_295 | Anne Etherington Rich | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). | |
DLP_298 | Graham Roy Edwards | In addition to the comments above, which I fully endorse and support, I was disappointed and disgusted that at a recent public meeting at Somerhill School (18th September 2019) your planning representative conceded that Tunbridge Wells had effectively taken on the shortfall of housing from Sevenoaks area. Consequently, in order to meet government guidelines, you have “dumped” this additional requirement to the outer edge of your own area, effective passing it over to Tonbridge and Malling to deal with. I feel very strongly that it is wrong for you to target such a large area of Greenbelt in one fell swoop. This land is supposed to be protected, unless there are exceptional reasons. The justification that you have provided so far, do not in my and may others’ opinion meet “exceptional”. Most likely the reasons being that;
I urge you to reconsider these plans and cancel the proposed mass development of Capel and Tudeley. | |
DLP_301 | Graham Edwards | I believe that you are cynically cashing in on the council tax revenue in an area which is just within your boundary, knowing full well that a neighbouring area will end up picking up the cost and social impact of these proposed developments. These costs include roads, health (such as GP surgeries), congestion, schooling and many other social costs. I am especially worried about the traffic which is already very busy and to add a town to this area seems to be madness. The Somerhill schools and Tonbridge Cannon Lane industrial areas are already particularly bad at peak times and will be unable to cope with the additional traffic. I do not believe that you can argue that public transport or cycle routes can be an effective remedy to minimising the impact as most residents will end up having cars, as these will be a necessity by the very nature of the proposed site location. I urge you to rethink these proposals and respectfully request you to drop the plans for the new Garden Town at Tudeley. | |
DLP_304 | Anne Etherington Rich | Finally; my postal address is Tonbridge, my landline dialling code is Tonbridge, my doctor is in Tonbridge, I am a member of Tonbridge library, I do my shopping in Tonbridge and yet I pay my council tax to you, TWBC. If your plan should go ahead I suspect any new residents would do exactly the same, which to my mind doesn’t seem very fair on Tonbridge, they provide the amenities and you get the money. | |
DLP_307 | Mr Nigel Lambert | Roads and Transport As a child/teenager I regularly cycled from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood either for leisure or to visit friends. I also cycled to St Gregory’s Comprehensive School (Reynolds Lane) for six years from South Tonbridge through Southborough on the A26 or via Vauxhall Lane to join the A26 at the north end of Southborough. At the time in the 70’s and early 80’s the A26 was known as the busiest road in Kent. I also regularly cycled on the A21 up Castle Hill to Blackhurst Lane to visit friends and play football and tennis. There were talks to make the A21 into a dual carriage way for more the 30 years before it came into fruition. There is already a serious problem with the road network in and around the jurisdiction of Tunbridge Wells. With the closure of the Kent and Sussex Hospital in Tunbridge Wells, the A228 (a large country lane) is the main road link between Pembury (Tunbridge Wells) Hospital and Maidstone Hospital. If the A21 is closed or blocked for one reason or another the B2017 is often used as a link between Paddock Wood , Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge. Large vehicles drive along a B road, including HGVs and Car carriers frequently.. The proposed plans to build 4,000 plus houses in Tudeley, East Capel and Paddock Wood will have a significant increase of traffic on the A228 and B2017. The B2017 is a dangerous road in the mornings and evenings and almost impossible to leave the drive safely and dangerous for our daughter to cross the road to the bus stop to catch her bus to Tonbridge. Cars still speed up and overtake the bus and don’t stick to the 40mph speed limit now, I fail to see what improvements can be made (as referred to in the infrastructure plan) that will not endanger life unless it is traffic calming measures that are intended. When my family and I moved to Tudeley 11 years ago, the speed limit on the B2017 had a grading of ‘National Speed’ limit. I campaigned for the speed limit to be reduced for various reasons, road safety being the main priority. The B2017 should not be a major road connecting towns with an increase of traffic from a further 4,000 houses being built in the immediate area. There is a bus stop directly outside our house and it is frequently difficult to cross the road safely. There is no pavement or crossing to safely use the bus stop. There is no street lighting and a great many driveways leading off the road. There are no pedestrian crossing’s outside of Capel Primary School, in Five Oak Green itself between the bus stop and the local store (One Stop) making it hazardous for adults and children to cross the road. This speed limit is often ignored by car, van drivers and motorcyclists. There is no information to say that the new roads or infrastructure will be in place before the houses are built. Many Parents park their cars either along the B2017 or down Church Lane when taking their children to Capel Primary School. The entrance to Church Lane opposite the school is often used as a turning point which is hazardous during peak times. I received a letter from Greg Clark MP dated 16 October 2009 : “Dear Mr Lambert Thank you for your e-mail, dated 2 October 2009, regarding speed limits along the B2017 – I can certainly appreciate your comments about this issue. I understand that there has been a lot of work carried out on road safety issues locally. As you are aware, Charles Mackonochie has drafted a Capel Road Strategy Plan and he told me that your idea of having 40mph limit along Brampton Bank stretch of the B2017 fits in nicely with the Plan. The document has been sent to Kent Highways and the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board for their consideration and, hopefully, it will receive a positive response. I know that your County Councillor Alex King is very supportive. I am in close contact with both Charles & Alex and am sure that they will keep me updated on progress. Thank you once again for getting in touch. Yours sincerely With best wishes Greg.“ The speed limit between Tudeley and Tonbridge is currently 50mph. This should also be reduced and be consistent with the 40mph speed limit already in place in other sections of the road. This is not a straight road and already has various turnings from the road, including the entrance to Somerhill School. There was a death on this road in the last 2 years and frequent knock on blind bends with people trying to get on or off driveways. How will the building of a new school help with the current road network problems? There are already cars that park at the top of the A26 by Woodgate Way and leading to Vale Road outside of the former Mini Garage. As there are no yellow lines, are commuters using this stretch of road to park cars or is it being used for local businesses? I commuted to London for 19 years, seven years from Tunbridge Wells and then moved back to Tonbridge to gain the benefit of having access to two main line rail links, Ashford and Hastings. I could not always get a seat from Tonbridge in 2009. I applied for a parking space in the main car park at Tonbridge Station and it took three years before I received my permit. The cost was over £1,000 in 2009. The rail network have already stated that are at full capacity in this area and cannot provide a new station in Tudeley or provide extra trains. If TWBC are looking to build 4,000 plus homes, to attract people who commute to London, how will the rail network cope with this? Where will commuters park? There are new homes being built in Tunbridge Wells advertised on Heart Radio, stating that commuting to London Bridge takes only 42 minutes. The railway tunnel in Tunbridge Wells can only take ONE train. From previous experience, I have been delayed on a train for an hour outside of Tunbridge Wells station as the train in front had broken down inside the tunnel! Affordable Housing We have not received any information regarding the amount of ‘Affordable Housing’ that will be provided. The number of houses proposed in this area does not reflect the housing needs across the borough of TWBC. It is well known that it is very difficult to buy your own property with the current wage and house price divide. There appears to be more emphasis how much developers can make on building the properties and what Council Tax is paid to the local council. An example of this is at Kings Hill where the proposed number of houses to be built was reduced. Due to the reduction of homes being built, it was agreed with developers that the 40% of affordable housing to be built was reduced to 17.5%. There is still a big question mark over ‘What is affordable housing in reality?’ The main emphasis appears to be that there is one landowner willing to sell a large area of land which appears to be the easy option for TWBC, although the impact will mainly be on local residents and Tonbridge. It appears that TWBC will gain the benefit of extra Council Tax, however, a lot of the stress on infrastructure will be on Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. Impact on the Environment The Green Belt : In British town planning, the green belt is a policy for controlling urban growth. The idea is for a ring of countryside where urbanisation will be resisted for the foreseeable future, maintaining an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness. The Metropolitan Green Belt around London was first proposed by the Greater London Regional Planning Committee in 1935. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 then allowed local authorities to include green belt proposals in their development plans. In 1955, Minister of Housing Duncan Sandys encouraged local authorities around the country to consider protecting land around their towns and cities by the formal designation of clearly defined green belts.[1][2] Green belt policy has been criticised for reducing the amount of land available for building and therefore pushing up house prices, as 70% of the cost of building new houses is the purchase of the land (up from 25% in the late 1950s). The Government formerly set out its policies and principles towards green belts in England and Wales in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts,[4] but this planning guidance was superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March 2012. Planning Authorities are strongly urged to follow the NPPF's detailed advice when considering whether to permit additional development in the green belt. In the green belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated to show that the benefits of the development will outweigh the harm caused to the green belt. The NPPF sets out what would constitute appropriate development in the green belt. According to the NPPF, there are five stated purposes of including land within the green belt:
Once an area of land has been defined as green belt, the stated opportunities and benefits include:
The proposal to build on Green Belt land and the extensive size of the proposed sites for Tudeley, East Capel and Paddock does not support the guidelines set out above. This will become a large built up area, closely adjoining Tudeley, Capel and Paddock Wood with Tonbridge. This does not prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. Are the plans to build Tudeley Village or Tudeley Town? The countryside will not be protected from encroachment. Tudeley has a unique historic church visited by people from all over the world. How can it be guaranteed that the church will not be affected by the number of dwellings proposed to be built around it and with the number of people being attracted to live on the new site, there will be no vandalism. The windows and history of the church are irreplaceable. Surely urban regeneration should be concentrated on Brownfield sites, not Green Belt land. How can building on agricultural land, ancient woodlands etc…in rural areas, be classed as the retention of attractive landscapes and the enhancement of landscapes, near to where people live. This is a contradiction. There are is a large community of wildlife within this area. Crested newts have been found in the local primary school in Capel. We have had slow worms at the end of our garden and living in a compost bed. We have numerous types of birds on our bird table and have hawks circling the fields which are visible by the naked eye. Foxes, pheasants and a great many bees, butterflies and other insects. Owls and bats can be heard and seen in the evenings. With the increase in population there will also be a large increase in pets be it cats and dogs. This will also have an impact on local wildlife. There will be greater emissions from vehicles, patio heaters, gas BBQs in this rural area. The light pollution will also increase significantly. There will be a huge impact on noise pollution with the increase in traffic and the building work itself in the first instance. As a family we enjoy the countryside and the many public footpaths across Tudeley. It is a time to destress and relax as well as keeping fit. We meet walkers from across Kent enjoying the Church to church walk between St Thomas a Beckett church in Capel to All Saints Church in Tudeley. This area has a history of pilgrims and a more recent history of Hop Picking, with Oast Houses and hop pickers cottages scattered across the countryside. This should not be lost and buried under tarmac. Closing comments Five generations of my family have lived in the Boroughs of Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. My Family and I moved to Tudeley for a better standard of living in a rural environment with better air, fields and walks, away from a town. We have come to appreciate what a great community we live in and have made many friends in Five Oak Green and the surrounding area either by walking our dog or just talking to people in the village. Many of the residents have lived in this area or had connections through families for decades. It is sad that such a vibrant happy community may be destroyed with the increase in housing and the changing of road networks across fields and behind people’s homes. Cutting Caple village off from Tudeley and Five Oak Green. The Save Capel campaign has shown how strongly we all feel about the lovely area and environment we live in to bring up our children and also in our retirement. Please think again on the impact of a large housing proposal and road restructuring will have on the local community and environment. Thank you. | |
DLP_310 | Mary Lambert | This land is a very important part of my life as it is a way for teenagers, not just myself, but to be able to go out for an evening stroll or just for some peace and quiet in the fields to destress. Especially from exams and school stress; even at home stress. A popular place where most people my age go is to the locks in Golden Green. This is a popular place as that is quiet and allows us to chill and just enjoy the wildlife. The bluebell woods and the patches of bomb holes out the back of Tudeley and opposite the George and Dragon are thriving with wildlife. There is a variety of what is there. The Bridleways and footpaths out there would be ruined by the buildings. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOOT PATHS??? Will they be tarmacked over and still classified as a nature walk? Or will they just be left to rot? The Bridle paths are key part in this area because it not only allows equestrians to entertain their horses, also the horses need to be able to experience these things, you cannot just rely on a sand school with nothing that could be frightening. The ground needs to be soft to canter on NOT HARD TARMAC AND CONCRETE. They need to be able to stretch and release their energy. The land is GREEN BELT not BROWN the BROWN should be sorted out first NOT THE GREEN. The TWBC needs to assess the environmental hazards on this land especially as you claim that ‘this land does not flood’ in recent times. But in the past, you have announced how badly this area of GREEN BELT does flood. The B2017 is ridiculously busy in the mornings before school. It takes me ages to cross the road to the bus stop, some cars are speeding. I think that if you widened the road cars would take more of a risk to overtake others and more will then overtake a stopped bus. If you are trying to cross the road after you have got off the bus, there is always the chance that a car may not notice you and come speeding round the side of the bus. My bus is meant to arrive at Tonbridge station around 10 past 8. I was arriving there at roughly that time at the end of the last school year, but in the last few weeks I have been arriving at the station around 25 past instead which then allows our bus to be late to school by around 20mins. I have noticed a mass increase in traffic since I came back to school. Overall the loss of wildlife and habitats out in the fields are the most devastating to me as the majority of them will not be able to find new homes or even be relocated. | |
DLP_313 | Alexander Fenton | As a resident of East Peckham the lack of infrastructure, in particular the highway network, for this scale of housing is really concerning. East Peckham suffers very badly from flooding and this will undoubtedly be exacerbated by the proposals in the DLP. Issues have arisen with the Leigh barrier previously in that many animals were drowned at the Hop Farm, this to stop the flooding at Tonbridge. The rural areas in Kent seem to be expendable. We no longer have the Woodlands (PW) extra GP surgery so the pressure on the health system will be enormous. | |
DLP_317 | Amanda Parkes | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I will make some points here that I am sure you have seen before, after my personal comments below.
Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Please ensure ALL the comments above and noted and put forward for public inspection. | |
DLP_319 | Amanda Parkes | Whilst we all appreciate there is a need for housing, this should be spread across the Borough, evenly and sustainably, and fairly, without causing distress and destruction to one particular area. I very much hope that TWBC will see that this proposed housing is out of scale to the area, and will cause devastation to the physical area, and to all its residents. Please ensure ALL the comments above and noted and put forward for public inspection. | |
DLP_324 | Kit Hawes-Webb | To quote one of Great Britain’s newly acquired assets, the writer Bill Bryson: “I have said it many times before, but it really cannot be stated too often: there isn’t a landscape in the world that is more artfully worked, more lovely to behold, more comfortable to be in, than the countryside of Great Britain. It is the world’s largest park, its most perfect accidental garden. I think it may be the British nation’s more glorious achievement. All we have to do is look after it. I hope that’s not too much to ask.” | |
DLP_328 | James Arscott | TWBC’s Draft Local Plan was done without consultation with TMBC’s own Draft Local plan, which will have its own (prioritised) impact on Tonbridge’s infrastructure and services. TWBC has not factored that, despite plans to improve local road links to Tunbridge Wells, residents of East Capel will not utilise this new infrastructure and instead continue to use Tonbridge as the nearest centre for shopping, schooling and London commuting convenience. What due diligence has TWBC carried out on Hadlow Estates Properties Ltd (Company # 08093143)? It has not disclosed what the Teacher Estate’s involvement has been in the local plan process, especially in terms of providing staff resources, research and application submissions. | |
DLP_330 | Elizabeth Brett | Although I appreciate we need more housing in this country, I feel very strongly that TWBC should not propose to fulfil its government quota by planning to build right on the edge of its borough and so impacting very heavily on Tonbridge with no council tax benefit for TMBC. Despite the development being carried out over a number of years little consideration has been given to the current infrastructure which is already creaking with bottlenecks on roads at peak times as well as the station, schools and health services at full capacity. Also, many of our roads are in a poor state owing to lack of funding for their repair and improvement. More housing development will affect Tonbridge’s capacity to deal with sewerage and potential flooding. I further deplore such a heavy toll on the Green Belt, the loss of good agricultural land and opportunities for local people to enjoy the countryside. On another note the famous windows at Tudeley Church which draw crowds of visitors from all over the world often in coachloads would now be surrounded by a housing estate instead of the current idyllic location which is the pride of our town’s Tourism offering. I feel this would detract from the visitor experience. I believe I am right in saying that the proposed secondary school would have a railway line running through the middle of the campus. Surely a better site could be found. | |
DLP_333 | Simla Patel | On Wednesday 18 September 2019 I patiently listened to Stephen Baughen, Head of Planning at Tunbridge Wells present the draft local plan at Somerhill School. He tried to reassure us that draft proposals had been thoroughly tested against all the criteria and felt this was the “best” solution to meet the housing needs of Tunbridge Wells Borough. I DISAGREE! It is an absolute shame that I did not have Planning Decision Notice application reference 18/01767/FULL to hand as I would have challenged the motives of the Council in devising this plan. The above mentioned planning decision notice was in fact written and signed by Stephen Baughen on 31 July 2018. I have “lifted” some of the transcript from the notice below which I have shown in italics below: The Council hereby REFUSES Planning Permission for the above for the following Reasons: (1) The proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt, which by definition is harmful to its openness. (2) The proposal, by virtue of creating new buildings with associated domestic paraphernalia, works to alter the land levels and potential additional impacts from further parking and works in close proximity to the trees at the rear would have more than a minimal impact on the landscape character of the locality. It would not conserve and enhance the rural landscape, nor would it protect the countryside for its own sake, nor preserve the interrelationship between the natural and built features of the landscape. The overall impact is harmful to the rural character of the area. (3) It has not been demonstrated that the occupiers of the development would not be at risk from flooding or that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Therefore the development is likely to result in a risk to human life from flooding and is contrary to policies EN18 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and Core Policy 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the Planning Practice Guidance. Informative:. Please can someone explain to me the basis for which the application of 6 B&Bs would be “harmful” to the area and was rejected by the Council last year and now they feel a “garden village” would be acceptable and they are happy to ignore the sound reasons they put forward only a year ago It just does not make any sense! | |
DLP_342 | JG and BA Burchett | To my wife and I your proposals seem to be pushing your housing responsibilaties onto other areas, e.g.Tonbridge, Hadlow, Golden Green etc, as your plans negatively impact these areas more than central Tunbridge Wells. Also we are amazed that you can think of building on Green Belt land when you have so many Brown Field sites within the borough, enough for some 7000+ dwellings at the last count. Plans to build a school on the busiest roundabout in Tonbridge are at best idiotic, at worst, the misguided ramblings of the insane. But the worst of this plan is the wholesale destruction of hundreds of acres of fields and woodlands an enviroment that once it is gone is gone forever. This is an area that we walk on a regular basis, like hundreds of others in and around the area,the impact of your plans will be nothing short of an Enviromental Disaster. | |
DLP_346 | K and L Entacott | We have been residence of the borough of Tunbridge Wells for 43 years. We moved here with the intention of bringing up our family and eventually their families within the beautiful Weald of Kent countryside. My family and I are at a loss to understand the level of vandalism that TWBC are intending to inflict on this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Greenbelt. The decision to even consider building in Tudelely and East Capel what is a small town,(hardly a garden village) has in our opinion been taken due to the following. 1 The Hadlow Estate wanting to profit from the sale of a large portion of its land, to build "a village community", under their guidance. As stated in the letter received by the residents of the Parish from the Hadlow Estate. We believe that this project is being executed with a complete disregard for the current residents of this Parish 2 This invitation from the Hadlow Estate would appear to be a manna from heaven for TWBC. In one fowl swoop they are able to divest themselves of 60% of the quota of housing they would have us believe is required within a given time frame. Plus the added bonus of only having to deal with one land owner. We are not NIMBYS! We accept there is a need for housing country wide. But as stated above this project has unacceptable incumbent problems. Perhaps TWBC should be looking to develop more manageable options within existing communities? There is nothing about this Tudeley debacle that can be considered commendable and the TWBC planners should hang their heads in shame for trying to inflict this decision on the people of Tudeley and Capel and also the wildlife which has no voice other than the local residents who are fighting for their very existence. | |
DLP_352 | Megan Forster | Can we have confidence in Southern Water ? Could there be a question mark over the ability of Southern Water to be able to cope with so much extra foul water treatment ? I live in Five Oak Green but our foul water goes to the Paddock Wood treatment plant. Given that Paddock Wood has ongoing developments that are struggling to connect to the sewerage infrastructure - Southern Water had stated that only 60 more homes are advisable with the current pumping facility - but hundreds are already in construction or have planning approval. Paddock Wood Town Council have been in dialogue with Southern Water for five years and still have no clear understanding how the foul water system will function adequately without a huge financial outlay. The Paddock Wood sewerage plants are known to be antiquated, difficult to repair and frequently fail. There are areas of Paddock Wood and Five Oak Green [I have personal experience - my own property floods] where foul water inundation already occurs when rainfall is excessive and storm water enters the sewerage system. In Paddock this is so extreme that some elderly residents in bungalows have to use chemical toilets when there is heavy rainfall as their property toilets overflow. I myself have been forced to use a bucket when drains are overflowing. This is a public health issue. A public health issue that could/will escalate. Do SW have the resources to upgrade and increase capacity ? The BBC reported [25th June 2019] on OFWAT’s investigations into the failings of Southern Water. “Southern Water has been hit with a record £126m punishment for spills of wastewater into the environment from its sewage plants and for deliberately misreporting its performance.” That is £123m to rebate customers and £3m as a fine. “Southern’s failings included not making the necessary investment, which lead to equipment failures, and spills of wastewater.” Ms Fletcher [head of OFWAT ] said the findings showed “the company was being run with scant regard for its responsibilities to society and the environment”. “It was not just the poor operational performance, but the co-ordinated efforts to hide and deceive customers of the fact that are so troubling.” “The previous management failed to stamp out this behaviour and failed to manage its plants properly. In doing so, Southern Water let down its customers and operated in a way completely counter to the public service ethos we expect.” Southern Water’s current chief executive, Ian McAulay, said: “There are no excuses for the failings that occurred. “We have clearly fallen far short of the expectations and trust placed in us by our wastewater customers and the wider communities we serve. The Environment Agency has launched a criminal investigation into the case. This is not the first time that Southern Water have been penalised. 2007 OFWAT fined the company £20.3m. for 'deliberate misreporting' and failing to meet guaranteed standards of service to customer. 2010 - £3k 2011 - four separate fines amounting to £92k 2014 - £500k 2016 - £2m Statutory obligations Water Companies have a statutory obligation to connect to all new properties built and they are unable to refuse connection. Are they being so overwhelmed by such a high demand for new connections that they can’t operate competently ? It is Southern Water general policy to only plan for five years ahead. How can this be realistic and efficient ? How can it comply with government and climate change guidelines ? I am lead to believe that it is SW policy not to engage with developers until full plans are submitted. Is this not counterproductive and short sited ? In Paddock Wood solutions have been put forward only to be withdrawn when found to be flawed. Continuity with communication has proved difficult due to repeated management and staff changes. With all this in mind, can Southern Water be relied upon to fulfil the radical overhaul necessary for the developments at CA1 and PW west ? | |
DLP_354 | Charles Harrison | I am writing to draw your attention to the following items pertaining to this proposal, which I believe are not insignificant.
I am therefore of the opinion that Council should be more resolute in identifying suitable “Brown Field Sites” in order that it may fulfil its obligations towards meeting it housing supplies as set out by the UK Government. To pursue the proposed Capel Parish Strategy any further would I believe be a gross waste of tax payers money. | |
DLP_366 | Susan Pickett | You are aware of the proposals to include in the Local Plan, what can only be described as a "massive development" of housing from the Woodgate Way roundabout at the western end of the Borough (and, incidentally, of Capel Parish) to Five Oak Green and beyond. The proposal is for, as I understand it, some 4,000 plus homes to be constructed on green belt and agricultural land. Quite clearly, this will have a massive impact on local residents and, indeed, on any one travelling through, in particular, Tudeley Road and Five Oak Green Road, all the way from Woodgate Way to Paddock Wood. I am assuming you know this area well. If not, may I make a suggestion that you look a little deeper into this particular issue. There are a number of issues of significant importance which will arise should this massive development be allowed to proceed. PLEASE NOTE: I wish to object most strongly on the following grounds : 1. Significant and irreversible impact on the rural aspect. 2. Violation of green belt land (which was implemented to avoid such developments as this). 3. Violation of agricultural land. 4. Saturation of housing. 5. Significant increase in water run-off which would have to go down to the River Medway which, in times of flood and heavy rain (as experienced very, very, recently!) is already running at capacity, which would mean that there would be a significant backup of water which would affect properties close to or neighboring the Medway River. 6. Significant increase in traffic - the road infrastructure a the moment is running at full capacity during peak times. 7. Disruption to wild life and their environs. We have very near to us deer, badgers, foxes and many bird species (including buzzards, barn owls and various smaller owls - all protected species) all of whom will have their nesting habitats upset or, indeed, destroyed. This would irreversibly affect the lives of many local people who have enjoyed the quiet aspect of this largely rural and agricultural community. To call it "Garden Settlement" hardly ameliorates its huge impact. Proposed School and playing fields near Postern Lane. Postern lane is a private lane with many blind bends. It has been proposed that children attending the new schools would need to walk down the lane, over the railway bridge, to get access to playing/sports fields. This would be extremely dangerous, both to the children and to car drivers accessing Postern Lane. Sir, have you walked down our road yourself? Have you seen the definite dangers that exist and would you be happy to allow any child of yours to be exposed to such dangers? I would welcome your comments on this. I did attend the meeting held at Tunbridge Wells on 15th August 2019, and I must say that I thought the Council's cavalier attitude to this proposal was most unacceptable. Tudeley is not for urbanisation. It is an historic Hundred, and as such, should remain so. Please take notice of my objections to the proposals laid out and do your utmost to alleviate the situation. I am sure there are other sites for housing purposes, albeit smaller, in the Borough of Tunbridge Wells that would resolve the housing situation that your Council is expected to provide. When Regulation 18 is considered in the not too distant future, please place this letter before whatever panel will be hearing this case. | |
DLP_370 | Hadlow Parish Council |
The proposal for a large new school between Vale Road and Postern Lane can only aggravate transport and road safety issues around Tonbridge further. Tonbridge is already served by several significant secondary schools drawing from large catchment areas. Traffic generated by this additional school will be most unwelcome. | |
DLP_394 | Keith Sinclair | Having looked at specific elements of the draft plan and attended the presentation of the plan at Mascalls school, I have the following comments.
In summary, I would question the need for further significant housing development in this area. Although the plan talks of the need for infrastructure development, past experience indicates that his does not happen in a timely manner if at all and the borough has little ability to influence this provision. I believe that no more decisions to expand housing in Paddock Wood be taken until the currently approved 800 houses are built and sold and the subsequent effects on our community are carefully assessed. | |
DLP_400 | Fiona Pengelley | I OBJECT TO the proposal to build a new town of nearly 3,000 homes at Tudeley in the parish of Capel and OBJECT TO the proposals for even more housing on Greenbelt land. The sustainability appraisal refers to “some loss of green belt’ but it is actually 600 acres adjoining AONB and including AONB which will be harmed by the developments and associated transport infrastructure. There has been no detailed report on the implication of the impact of so many more cars on the roads. There is no acknowledgement of the extra pollution that will arise and the impact that pollution has on people’s health especially children. There is no in depth detailed proposal to handle the extra traffic. Why would cars travel south out of the new town at Tudeley to Colts Hill. Where are they going? If they wish to go to Tonbridge or Tunbridge Wells then they will use the existing road and the A21. If they wish to go to Paddock Wood and Maidstone then they will travel through Five Oak Green. A new A228 will only cause considerable extra traffic on minor roads in the Parish especially Alders Road. Alders Road will be used as a clear run through to other villages like Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden where the traffic should be forced onto the A21 road. The characteristics of the area will be destroyed and not enhanced. The site of the new town at Tudeley was not even considered in the first appraisal. I strongly object to this proposal by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council as there are no exceptional circumstances shown as to why the destruction of green belt and AONB land should be allowed. The law needs to be adhered to. | |
DLP_401 | Fiona Pengelley | I am writing to STRONGLY OBJECT to Tunbridge Wells Draft Local Plan (regulation 18) and specifically for “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). TWBC has said that “if the draft local plan is agreed it will allow the Council to meet government-imposed housing targets in the way that is considered to be the most appropriate for the borough as a whole”. The new Leader of Kent County Council, Roger Gough, has stated that the county needed to work with councils to present an argument to government over current housing targets “people must not feel that housing is coming on such a scale in places that it is not balanced with the infrastructure that comes with it.” Tudeley and the Parish of Capel is one such place. How can the total destruction of Green Belt and AONB in the Parish of Capel be appropriate for the borough as a whole? It would appear that the building of these houses driven by greed rather than meeting housing needs. The housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. The NPPF clearly states in paras 133 to 147 that green belt should only be released in exceptional circumstances BUT that housing need is NOT able to be used as “exceptional circumstances” to overrule AONB/Green Belt. TWBC has not shown what the exceptional circumstances are that would allow them to build on AONB and Green Belt. The need for housing countrywide is well documented but what is required is “affordable housing” not 4/5 bedroom luxury houses. We need to be providing permanent housing for those who are homeless and social housing for those on low incomes. TWBC has not addressed this matter in the Draft Local Plan and has not shown that they have considered brownfield sites across the borough to build these necessary homes. The infrastructure has not been addressed sufficiently and building in the region of 2,800 dwellings in Tudeley and a further 2500 in East Capel will change the whole character of the Parish of Capel and destroy much of its historic characteristics with the impact on the landscape. Kent is not called the Garden of England for no reason. There will be a significant increase in traffic on all the local roads. The idea that a by pass of Colts Hill will alleviate this issue is incorrect as the traffic will simply go in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. What need would cars have to drive to Colt Hills from a development in Tudeley. The Colts Hill bypass will destroy AONB land and destroy the habitat of protected species namely slow worms and great crested newts. The A228 should be widened along its current route. The proposed secondary school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be an odd choice for a site for a new school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. There has been much documented evidence about the harm that pollution does to school age children. TWBC have proclaimed that they are addressing levels of pollution in the area BUT this settlement will increase the pollution levels across the Parish and specifically in an area that has already reached its acceptable level. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. The parish church at Tudeley will be surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road and roundabout. Tudeley Church has the only complete set of Marc Chagall windows in the world. TWBC has a duty to protect our heritage. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land producing much needed food as we embark on the need to be more self-sufficient as a country. | |
DLP_403 | Martin Pengelley | OVERVIEW COMMENTS I OBJECT TO the proposal to build a new town of nearly 3,000 homes at Tudeley in the parish of Capel and OBJECT TO the proposals for even more housing on Greenbelt land. The land to be used is Greenbelt and adjacent to AONB. To use Greenbelt land there needs to be “exceptional circumstances” and housing need is NOT sufficient to overrule Greenbelt. In recent press, TWBC has been quoted as saying “If the Draft Local Plan is agreed it will allow the Council to meet government-imposed housing targets in the way that is considered to be the most appropriate for the Borough as a whole.” This confirms that the Council have been lead by the government targets, not by local housing needs. There is insufficient evidence that the local housing needs exist such that a new town at Tudeley, on Greenbelt land, is justified. Any consideration of this ill-thought through plan should take account of the fact that it comes from a council that proposed running up significant debt to finance a hugely costly theatre, a reckless proposal that was palpably not wanted by the people of the borough. FULL COMMENTS I OBJECT TO the proposal to build a new town of nearly 3,000 homes at Tudeley in the parish of Capel and OBJECT TO the proposals for even more housing on Greenbelt land. The land to be used is Greenbelt and adjacent to AONB. To use Greenbelt land there needs to be “exceptional circumstances” and housing need is NOT sufficient to overrule Greenbelt. In press/BBC TV in Oct 2019, TWBC has been quoted as saying “If the Draft Local Plan is agreed it will allow the Council to meet government-imposed housing targets in the way that is considered to be the most appropriate for the Borough as a whole.” This confirms that the Council have been lead by the government targets, not by local housing needs. There is insufficient evidence that the local housing needs exist such that a new town at Tudeley, on Greenbelt land, is justified. Jake Berry (Minister DHCLG) stated in April 2019 that: “the housing need figure is not a mandatory target. Local Authorities should make a realistic assessment of the number of homes their communities need, using the standard method as the starting point in the process. Once this has been established planning to meet that need will require consideration of land availability, relevant constraints and whether the need is more appropriately met in neighbouring areas... The NPPF is clear that only in exceptional circumstances may a Green Belt boundary be altered, through the Local Plan process. Last year we strengthened Green Belt policy in the revised NPPF”. Brandon Lewis (Housing Minister 2015) stated clearly that “maintaining strong protection for the Green Belt is national policy and LAs are required to observe this. In the context of planning applications or appeals, the policy is that unmet housing need alone will not amount to the “very special circumstances” to justify planning permission for inappropriate development on Green Belt. We have repeatedly made clear that demand for housing alone will not change Green Belt Boundaries.”
Consequently, Government imposed housing targets are disproportionate for a borough with such a high proportion of land being Greenbelt and/or AONB. TWBC should push back on this imposition from central government as Sevenoaks Council have done. Government targets are based off 2014 ONS data not the updated 2016 numbers which are at a lower level. Roger Gough, leader of the Conservative Party at Kent County Council and likely new leader of Kent County Council, has said about housing plans in Kent: “the consensus is housing has moved ahead of infrastructure. We are talking about roads, we are talking about schools……we do need to work together to present to government what is required in terms of a balanced approach. People must not feel that housing is coming on such a scale in places that it is not balanced with the infrastructure that comes with it.” (Courier October 11 2019, page 14) Local needs. What level of diligence has been applied to the work to identify local needs? Not just in numbers of houses, but also in the type of housing? Building a new town at Tudeley is highly likely to generate executive homes which are far more profitable for the developer, than social or affordable housing. Yet the local need is for affordable or social housing. Has TWBC undertaken its work to identify all the brownfield sites with similar diligence as they have asked landowners to put up greenfield sites for development? Did they initiate visits to potential land owners to encourage the provision of brownfield land, as they did for greenfield categories? Para 137 NPPF requires local planning authorities to “examine fully all other options for meeting its identified need for development” before concluding whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. If TWBC used greater efforts in seeking out landowners for greenfield land than brownfield, the draft plan fails that test. Enfield is an example showing that the process that councils use to assess brownfield land is often inadequate. The council in Enfield identified a brownfield register for 2,700 homes. Local resident groups identified non-green sites and visited each site to assess its suitability as brownfield. This found space for 37,000 homes. Housing density. What assumptions have been used by TWBC on housing density in the new town at Tudeley? The destruction of Greenbelt land should certainly justify a high level of housing density to reduce the irreversible loss of the valuable natural landscape. Insufficient housing density is a ground for refusal of a Local Plan. Transport considerations. Para 138 NPPF states that: “Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport.” It is quite obvious that the new town at Tudeley is not well served by existing public transport. Extra car usage will be generated on roads that are already congested at peak hours. Whilst a new road is proposed south of Five Oak Green, this too is in Greenbelt land, resulting in yet more destruction of the natural environment. The roundabout at the Colt’s Hill end of Alders Road will encourage ease of access onto the proposed Colt’s Hill bypass, thus driving traffic down Alders Road at peak times rather than along the proposed new road south of Five Oak Green. Additionally, the proposed Colts Hill bypass is in both Greenbelt and AONB land. Hospital capacity and extra needs. A new town and 4,000 new homes in Capel will put great pressure on the services at the Kent & Sussex hospital at Pembury. What work has been done to assess the extra demand and the current capacity of the hospital to cope with this? How can the TWBC guarantee the extra resources needed to fund the necessary hospital expansion? Natural environment. The destruction of greenfield land and Greenbelt land will impact adversely on the natural environment and the wildlife in the area. There is an RSPB nature reserve south of Alders Road less than one mile from the proposed new town in Tudeley. The rise in birds of prey, Buzzards and Sparrow Hawks in particular, that we have witnessed within the last few years, will be impacted adversely given the range of land they cover. The agricultural heritage of the parish will be lost for ever. Soil quality. The Greenbelt, agricultural land that will be forever destroyed is of what quality? What proportion of the good quality agricultural land in the TWBC area will be lost? Has there been sufficient consideration of such issues? Flooding and water supply. There is already much known about the issue of flooding in Five Oak Green and other parts of Capel parish. The proximity of the new town to the natural flood plain of the Medway should be properly assessed, including the impact downstream of faster run off. How much increase is there in the likelihood of damaging floods in Yalding, which already suffers regularly in times of heavy rain? As well as flooding considerations, research should be done on water supply. The whole of the South East is a region of stress for water supply. What professional research has been done on the extra demand from the new town and 4,000 extra homes. Where will the water supply come from? Are there sufficient supplies available? Air quality, light and noise pollution. The extra housing, cars, street lighting and all that goes with a new town, will lead to increased levels of pollutants in the air and poorer air quality, coupled with noise and light pollution in what is now a rural, Greenbelt area. The quality of the environment in Capel will be irreparably damaged and changed for the worse; for ever. Is this consistent with a desire for betterment of the parish? It is certainly a total destruction of the existing way of life. Listed buildings and historic site of Tudeley church. Marc Chagall is a world-renowned artist and only one church in the world has all its windows designed by him; Tudeley church. A key contributor to the ambience of this historic church is its setting in the green fields of Kent. This will be lost when the fields are destroyed and the church is surrounded on three sides by the new town at Tudeley. What assessment has there been on this historic site and the other listed buildings in the parish and its surroundings? Sustainability assessment. As per the TWBC Sustainability Assessment, the housing objective is compatible with only 5 of the 19 sustainability objectives and is incompatible with 9 of them. Even in the situation here of marking one’s own home work, this shows a dramatic lack of sustainability and poorly thought through planning. Mitigating climate change. There is little evidence that adequate weighting has been given to the topic that is getting widespread coverage now, that of climate change. As the ultimate threat from climate change is negative for every human being, everything that can be done to mitigate the adverse impact from development on climate change should be done. Under government NPPF guidelines, proposed development needs to consider the impact of climate change. In the area of the proposed new town for Tudeley, flood risk is an issue for consideration. As well as the impact of extra carbon emissions in the construction of the new town and the existence of greater population density afterwards. Has sufficient work be done by TWBC on this issue? CONCLUSION In conclusion, I contend that this draft Local Plan and the concept of the new town to be built on Greenbelt land in Capel, has been poorly thought through, is a ‘convenient’ solution to meeting government imposed targets rather than addressing local needs and provides no justification for the destruction of Greenbelt land and riding roughshod over the long established precedents to protect the Greenbelt. Any consideration of this ill-thought through plan should take account of the fact that it comes from a council that proposed running up significant debt to finance a hugely costly theatre, a reckless proposal that was palpably not wanted by the people of the borough. | |
DLP_404 | Charlee Harman | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Please do try to remember that we are towns and villages and NOT a city. Yes the need for housing is on the rise but why can we not be resourceful and make use of the many derelict and unused parts of our towns in order to creat a more close knit community rather than just plonking a cluster of houses in the middle of our green belt. Completely ignorant of the environmental impact that this will cause. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. Meaning that a usual commute from for members of the public from Tonbridge to Tunbridge Wells will not just take over an hour which it usually is now but longer, meaning more congestion along the A21 through to Pembury Road (which will also affect our AMBULANCE SERVICES, here hoping that none of us will need to be taken to hospital at all as due to this it will take even longer to get there which could be potentially life threatening) and Tunbridge Wells town centre but also the alternative route through South borough. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_422 | Adrian Dawn | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I have made some points here that you have seen before. Additional personal comments are also included. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. I do not live in these areas but know them well. All of the above I agree. This is madness to build such a large settlement in these areas. | |
DLP_424 | Susan Marchant | I have been a resident of Five Oak Green for 41 years and feel I must write to object to the appalling vision set out in the Draft Local Plan. The idea of developing a garden village in Tudeley in a beautiful valley accessed by a winding lane is crass in the extreme and the infrastructure implications, particularly with regard to local roads and traffic are horrendous. I think that proposed/possible transport links should have been included in the Draft plan as they are a vital element of the sustainability or otherwise of the scheme. From details in the TWBC Infrastructure Delivery Plan costs have been allocated for new roads/bypasses, roundabouts, bus lanes and cycle lanes……. yet more land to be concreted over and endless frustration for local businesses and the public while this all goes ahead. If your remit is to destroy Green Belt, lose valuable agricultural land, compromise wildlife and biodiversity, increase the risk of flooding, air and light pollution, add traffic to already congested roads and create commuter chaos in neighbouring Tonbridge, then I congratulate you on a marvellous plan. | |
DLP_429 | Susan Whitfield | This area is Green Belt and AONB. To place such a density of buildings in this area is ludicrous. The housing is not vital. It will not ease the housing waiting list as the majority of the properties will be well out of the reach of local people, and will be snapped up by Londoners looking to downsize and get a house for a lot less then their properties would sell for. The only people to benefit from this build will be the developers not the local people who live and work and contribute to the borough. As to TWBC, how can they benefit from this large influx of residents as most will look to Tonbridge for their needs. We always go to Tonbridge first for shopping, leisure our GP etc., and so will they. Paddock Wood residents use the road through our village to get to the A21 and Tonbridge. Any new residents will continue this route. Crossing this small road has at times been hard enough without adding to it. Even with the new proposed link road, they won't use it they’ll come through here, blighting our lives even more. I feel also that placing 60% of the borough’s supposed housing needs in one small area is due to the ease of dealing with one landowner, therefore one developer, one set of lawyers etc Harlow Estates have shown themselves as only Interested in making a quick buck regardless of the land lost to their ever increasing desire to sell it for any reason ie solar panels now surrounding us. Please please see sense, we are not in dire need of this mass housing spree. Think about the future because once this beautiful landscape is gone, it’s gone | |
DLP_432 | Coralie Tringham | I am not a NIMBY I believe we need new and good local housing. Lots of it, affordably, ecologically and fast. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_436 | Colin Sinclair | I am writing to object to the plan to build 2,800 houses in Tudeley. This will cause a huge amount of congestion in the area and in Tonbridge. I really don’t think that the infrastructure of roads and railways will cope. I also shudder to think how busy Tonbridge station will become. Will the main line to London be able to cope? Please do not build any more houses in this part of Kent; there are enough already. I live in South Tonbridge with my family. My children go to local schools and I commute to London every day. I see life becoming very difficult, should this building plan go ahead. | |
DLP_444 | Roger and Mary Lawes | We write to you as concerned residents of Tonbridge – not Tunbridge Wells. What we have learned so far (that 2,800 new houses are to be built on the town border, at Tudeley plus another 1,500 allocated to Paddock Wood, but falling within Capel) dismays us. The numbers are far, far too high for the area. It would involve the loss of a large area of countryside amenity. Part of the “green lungs” around Tonbridge amongst other things. It would also add to the already significant traffic congestion problems in and around Tonbridge. Where are the prospective residents going to work? Possible answer...London. To which they would commute. Tonbridge rail station already handles 4.3 million passengers per annum. The development would add significant numbers to this figure with consequent “all day” car parking problems in the town. There has been insufficient consideration given to the provision of infrastructure, particularly sewerage disposal for a development of this size. Where would the new treatment plant(s) be sited? Probably Tonbridge. Where is fresh water to come from? Probably (again) from boreholes/ treatment plants in Tonbridge. What about electricity sub-stations, gas pipelines and (these days) cable for internet/TV/telephone etc? At present there is far too much traffic on the local roads near the proposed site, which are much the size of country lanes as they are. We question whether the roads could cope with the new influx of vehicles. As far as encouraging people to cycle more. It’s too dangerous now, the growth in traffic brought about by this development is not going to improve the situation. The church at Tudeley is the only church in the world with windows by Marc Chagall. It attracts visitors from around the globe. One of it’s attractions must be it’s peaceful setting amongst the fields. This peace would be lost if, as we understand it, a housing estate is to be built around it. A development of this size is going to give rise to an increased need for both primary and secondary school places which could not be met from the existing provision. So, further primary and secondary resources would need to be built thus leading to further congestion (and danger) in narrow lanes around the proposed site. On this subject it is understood that the plans include a secondary school that is apparently to straddle the main London-Ashford rail line! At the very least that idea is insensitive. This is Tonbridge, not Croydon!! It is probably too complex a civil engineering idea to be practical anyway, even if it were sensible, which it is not. A school should be on one site. Another matter is the question of health facilities. At present it is very, very hard for anyone coming into the area to get registered at a doctors or dentists surgery. Given 4,800 houses, 2 adults in each and say half the households having 2 children that is another 14,400 patients for doctors/dentists to care for at a time when GP numbers are not increasing! Come on, this really will not do. Remember, the proposals belong to Tunbridge Wells, but the problems will affect Tonbridge. For the numerous reasons mentioned above the whole idea of this scale of development so close to Tonbridge is wrong and would do real harm to the enjoyment of those who live here. Because of this the proposal should be refused. | |
DLP_449 | East Peckham Parish Council | East Peckham Parish Council is a parish within Tonbridge and Malling and a neighbouring parish of Capel and Paddock Wood. Having examined the contents of the Draft Local Plan in some detail, the Parish Council has strong objections over the proposal to build over 4,000 homes in the Parish of Capel in both the areas of Tudeley and to the west of Paddock Wood. Capel is a rural Parish that sits within the green belt, there are currently 900 homes in the Parish. It is mainly agricultural land with a diverse wildlife. The proposal to build the substantial number of homes would have a significant impact on the rural landscape, environment, and wildlife, which would have detrimental impacts upon Capel, Paddock Wood and neighbouring parishes which fall within the borough of Tonbridge and Malling of which East Peckham is one. Furthermore, the proposals would lead to the loss of the all-important green belt buffer from Tonbridge, which would result in urban sprawl development from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood. The suggestion of so many homes in this location is not sustainable with the existing infrastructure and could lead to a greater risk of flooding both locally and further along the River Medway floodplain, putting at risk other built up towns and villages including East Peckham. Increased housing should be developed in proportion to existing population numbers across the borough brownfield sites and other sites which already have infrastructure in place. Much of the land proposed in Capel for development has a single landowner and the simplicity and convenience in developing that land should not come before the significant detrimental impact its development would have. Part of the site of the proposed development sits at the very edge of the Borough next to the border with Tonbridge and Malling making East Peckham a close neighbour. Any increase in population within Capel would result in a significant demand upon Tonbridge and Malling Borough and neighbouring parishes without the plan or infrastructure to cope. Tunbridge Wells Borough would benefit by receiving the Council Tax and Business Rates whilst Tonbridge and Malling and neighbouring parishes would bear the brunt of any problems. Having made the above generalised comments, The Parish Council wishes to highlight the following concerns:
I hope the views expressed by East Peckham Parish Council will be considered as the Local Plan progresses. | |
DLP_474 | Miss Elizabeth Turton | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) I live in the very centre of Tonbridge two streets from Tonbridge Castle. I have lived in the town for 35 years and love where I live for the environment immediately on my doorstep and in this area of West Kent, the rail links to the coast and to London. Most of all I love it for its community as an identifiable town. I don’t want to see it become part of a conurbation created by building continuously all the way to Paddock Wood, absorbing the villages in between in the process. The plans to build 2,800 homes creating a ‘garden’ village out of the tiny hamlet of Tudeley and adding a further 4,000 homes to Paddock Wood in addition to the hundreds already given permission concern me greatly. The effect on the town of Tonbridge could be catastrophic. Some of the issues are: Flooding – After the flooding of parts of Tonbridge and villages downstream in the winter of 2013/2014 it was decided that the Leigh Flood Barrier needed to be raised urgently. Six years later the planning application is only going to be submitted sometime in 2020/21 and who knows how much later the actual work will begin. Building in Tudeley (and Paddock Wood) will add yet more pressure on the flood plain of the Medway and its tributaries, more run-off from hard surfaces, fewer trees and open farmland to absorb the moisture. More flooding will affect Tonbridge, East Peckham, Golden Green, Yalding and Laddingford. The climate is changing and there are more extreme weather events with heavy downpours after hot dry periods. Has this been incorporated into flood mitigation plans? Fresh Water supply – are new reservoirs to be built, Bewl Water is already under pressure? Hotter summers have seen levels drop to 25% with additional water taken out of local rivers. The South East is the driest part of the country. Sewage – will a new sewage treatment works be built prior to any more development? SE Water have said that even homes currently under construction at Paddock Wood cannot be connected to the present treatment works. Transport – People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. There is no bus service and no train station. Schools – what on earth is the logic of putting another secondary school right on the border of Tonbridge when it is designed to cater for children from the new Tudeley and Paddock Wood? How will they get there? More road traffic. How sensible to choose a site with a railway going through the middle of it. South Tonbridge already has 5 secondary schools: Judd, Hayesbrook, Hillview, Tonbridge Grammar and Weald of Kent, plus the schools at Somerhill, surely another secondary school needs to be where the bulk of the development is (if it goes ahead) at Paddock Wood. Medical and emergency facilities - The Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone hospital at Pembury is expected to serve another possible 15,000 people, again not enough parking, poor transport links and it is already over subscribed. Doctors practices in Tonbridge are closing their lists to new patients because there are not enough GPs. All the above is bad enough but, in addition, the loss of ancient woodland, parts of an AONB, green belt land and walks and views of the weald and historic landscapes is dreadful when climate change is (or should be) top of the agenda. Road pollution, water pollution, noise pollution will all be increased. There is no commitment in the plan to put a figure on how much of the housing will be ‘affordable’. In this area so called ‘affordable’ is nowhere near what people can afford to pay. An influx of people looking for cheaper property than London and its SE boroughs has pushed up house prices and rents over the past few years making it more and more difficult for local people earning local wages to afford to buy or rent. The fact that all the land targeted for this development is owned by one landowner is, I suspect, the big attraction for TWBC added to the fact that our borough of Tonbridge and Malling will take the brunt of the impact. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. I have registered on the TWBC site but I found it so hard to use that I have decided to make my comments by email instead. I would like to be kept informed of progress of the Local Plan. | |
DLP_476 | Paul Dixon | I am writing to strongly object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Having read through the various documents regarding this strategy, I am writing to strongly object to the proposed plans for the Capel Parish. This is for the following reasons: I trust that the above comments are given the appropriate consideration. Do not underestimate the strength of local feeling regarding this, not just in the directly affected areas but in the wider region too. These plans should not succeed. | |
DLP_480 | Tunbridge Wells Ramblers | As Chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Ramblers I am writing on their behalf with respect to the proposed building of over 4000 homes in the parish of Capel. The proposed area sits within the GREEN BELT AREA and to build on this extensive rural and agricultural site would be detrimental to the extensive wild-life found in the area and cause loss in food production. The location is not only used by Ramblers groups from all the surrounding areas but by dog owners exercising their pets and by families showing their children the joy of walking in rural areas teaching them how to respect and look after the land and enjoying the exercise that can be missing in today's society. There is unique culture and heritage within the Tudeley area which would be completely swallowed up and lost FOREVER if this proposal went ahead. | |
DLP_488 | Michael Perry | I live in Badsell Manor (wrongly described in the draft local plan as Badsell Manor Farmhouse) a grade II listed building surrounded by a working moat and located in the centre of green-belt land, protecting the nature of this ancient building. I am writing to strongly object to the proposed strategy for developing Capel Parish and Paddock Wood. I particularly feel that the development of East Capel would highly detrimental. A large proportion of residents that live in East Capel do so because of the semi-rural nature of the area, in the knowledge that it is Green Belt land and should only be built upon if an “exceptional circumstance” exists. TWBC’s own assessments in their Sustainability Appraisal show that Paddock Wood can expand and meet most of the plan’s aims without using the Green Belt land at East Capel. Currently the land in East Capel is a flood plain and building there, even with flood risk mitigation and “betterment” could have disastrous consequences for all, as the measures being looked at are based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. The proposals to allocate such a large proportion of the Borough’s requirements for housing and other development in one area will have a huge negative impact on local residents. There will be a significant increase in traffic going into Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. There would also be unacceptable levels of traffic on the A228, which would not be helped by the building of the proposed Pembury bypass, which would simply increase road noise and move the bottleneck going into Tunbridge Wells. People living and working in the proposed developments will use Tonbridge and Paddock Wood Stations for commuting. The increase in traffic will be more than Paddock Wood and Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers, on already packed commuter trains from Paddock Wood and Tonbridge stations, will be unsustainable. Most people living in the new settlements will inevitably drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. Proposals to deal with the traffic problems by bus, cycle and pedestrian solutions are conveniently naïve. Elsewhere this has been shown not to work. Intensive development, on the lines proposed, will require massive infrastructure improvements. The proposal is that this infrastructure will not be put in place until after development has taken place. Whilst this may be a viable option for a series of small developments, it is impractical for such a huge series of proposed developments in one area. The result would be chaotic with a collapse in the provision of health, education and transport facilities for an extended period of time, causing misery for local people. The proposed development at East Capel will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will increase flooding with the increased flood risk impacting not only Paddock Wood and Five Oak Green but also other local areas. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the developed area, creating an urban environment. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food, and act as a flood plain. There is little point in the concept of Green Belt if it then developed at the whim of a Borough Council. I believe that the housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt in the borough. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. I am concerned that if this plan is adopted it will eventually create a ribbon development running all the way from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood, permanently destroying the rural environment. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites. The developments in East Capel and Tudeley are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Paddock Wood and Tonbridge. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_489 | Heather Corrie | OBJECTIONS TO TWBC DRAFT LOCAL PLAN I write as a resident to raise my strong objections to the proposals by TWBC to build over 4000 new homes in Tudeley and East Capel with a large school near Somerhill, namely “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). My objections are grouped as follows: 1. This is over 600 acres of greenbelt (GB) which is mostly prime agricultural land, with diverse woodland, wildlife and hedgerows which would be destroyed. TWBC has brownfield and non GB and non-AONB land available across the borough with better access to infrastructure and under consideration until this year. There are no “exceptional circumstances” to merit Green Belt being used. There is no Green Belt Study, Landscape Assessment or Biodiversity Assessment for these sites as this proposal was rushed through after the Issues and Options process in 2017. 3. The visual impairment of this AONB will be very significant. The Weald of Kent is an historic landscape, in particular around All Saints Church Tudeley with its complete set of Chagall windows, one of our most prized local assets. 4. Commuter trains are already full to capacity via Paddock Wood and Tonbridge and Network Rail has already indicated it is not possible to build a new halt at Tudeley. There is not room to push thousands more commuters onto the trains at Paddock Wood and Tonbridge and no capacity to run enough additional services at peak times. Traffic congestion will be massive with the additional cars particularly around Tonbridge where there already is inadequate parking. 5. How can TWBC councillors justify that the future cost incurred as a result of the proposed developments in providing public services and infrastructure will be offset by the future council tax revenues? Ie that they have not been negligent and will be able to balance the books without huge borrowing increasing the costs for all residents and worst case the council becoming insolvent. The council aim to balance their books via Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 payments from developers. Each dwelling will require a £50,000 contribution based on current estimates for good infrastructure around the” new town” at Tudeley, let alone the East Capel developments. Spreading development across the borough as previously proposed would be the cheaper option building on existing infrastructure and services. Issues not properly analysed and costed include: * Adequate flood protection measures 6. How do TWBC councillors justify dumping the cost and problem of providing additional support services, schools pressure and traffic problems on the residents of Tonbridge Borough? B. ADDITIONAL OBJECTION RE EAST CAPEL C. ADDITIONAL OBJECTION RE TUDELEY DEVELOPMENT | |
DLP_492 | Tonbridge Civic Society | Tonbridge Civic Society – the largest amenity society in Tonbridge with almost 500 members – objects to the above proposals, which would have a big impact on Tonbridge and the countryside near it. We oppose very strongly on environmental, amenity and infrastructure grounds the proposal to build up to 2800 dwellings at Tudeley, which is less than 2 miles from Tonbridge (indeed, it is much closer to Tonbridge than to Tunbridge Wells):
The impact on Tonbridge would be in addition to that of the extensive new development which has recently taken place in the town and which is proposed in Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council’s own plan. The fact that one landowner has accumulated a great deal of land round Tudeley with the aim of developing it is not a reason for allowing this proposal to go ahead. The proposal needs to be looked at objectively, not regarded as a matter of convenience for the Council and the landowner. Looked at objectively, the case against it is overwhelming. It would make much more sense to develop the large tract of unbuilt land on the north-eastern edge of Tunbridge Wells between Pembury Road and the A21 which would offer easy access to the centre of Tunbridge Wells, including its railway station and to the railway station at High Brooms, both of which are much less busy than that at Tonbridge. The Civic Society also objects to the building of a new secondary school on the eastern edge of Tonbridge. Tonbridge already has one of the highest concentrations of secondary schools of any town of its size in England. It will be a major traffic-generator, drawing yet more people from the east and south-east of the town towards Tonbridge. Moreover, urban sprawl east of Tonbridge is undesirable and will impinge visually on Somerhill and its park. If Kent County Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council judge that a new secondary school is needed in west Kent, it should be built at Paddock Wood or Pembury. | |
DLP_510 | Tim Dale | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Having lived in the Capel area for 20 years I have had the pleasure of enjoying the beautiful countryside and in fact it was one of the biggest reasons I moved into the area. Over that time the infrastructure has been stretched to breaking point and the roads around Golden Green , Capel , Tudeley and Summerhill school have been turned into rat runs and are now so busy that at times it's impossible to make a local trip during school times and rush hour. Hartlake has been recently resurfaced but already has been badly damaged by the sheer weight of traffic. The idea of building more homes in this specific area is monstrous and totally against local interest. In recent years we have had to see our country side blighted by quarrying and already there are plans to increase the amount of quarrying in the close vicinity. It is outrageous to even think of ruining what is left of the green and pleasant land around Capel and Tudeley. On another point the Railway station of Tonbridge has been given a facelift but would in no way be able to deal with the extra commuter traffic from a substantial number of new homes in the area. The trains are already packed to breaking point in the rush hour, and car parks in the vicinity are jam packed Monday to Friday and together with the associated traffic at key times is totally unacceptable. Perhaps you can review your plans and instead of destroying the south east Of England and particularly this part of Kent use this opportunity to reallocate the population to a more appropriate area where there is more space to house people properly with the proper level of infrastructure and support services that are required for such a large development, instead of squeezing them into ever decreasing spare space around this beautiful countryside. | |
DLP_515 | Sarah Hughes | I write as a local resident to raise my strong objections to the proposals by TWBC to build over 4000 new homes in Tudeley and East Capel and a large school near Somerhill. Namely “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). I understand you may publish my objection but not my contact details. My objections are: The residents of the 2800 homes proposed for Tudeley (possibly 6000+ people) will come to Tonbridge for their services eg health service, schools and other amenities as its closer than Tunbridge Wells. As a council tax payer in Tonbridge I strongly object to carrying the cost of increased demand for our local services which will be stretched beyond capacity and TWBC walk off with the council tax payment. This is over 600 acres of greenbelt (GB) and prime agricultural land, including major floodplains, which would be destroyed. TWBC has brownfield and non GB and non-AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) land available across the borough and previously under consideration in 2018. There are no “exceptional circumstances” to merit greenbelt being used on this scale. In particular, for me as a commuter, it will push thousands more people onto the Paddock Wood and Tonbridge commuter trains. In Tonbridge, the roads at peak times are already very heavily congested and not able to be widened. Parking is a nightmare. Where will all these cars and people to go? TWBC are simply viewing the additional commuters at Tonbridge as somebody else’s problem. This is not acceptable and has not been thought through. | |
DLP_517 | Mr Neil Franklin | I am totally opposed to imposing such a large development on to such a small community. | |
DLP_531 | Paul and Kate Chalklin | We are Paul & Kate Chalklin. We have lived in Five Oak Green for the last 32 years. The main reason we moved here from Southborough, Tunbridge Wells was to raise a family in the countryside. This we were able to do in relative peace and quiet with many strolls across the beautiful countryside around Tudeley that is proposed to be covered in concrete. Countryside recently has been disappearing at an alarming rate in complete juxtaposition with the stated environmental aims of local and national government. Once this land is gone, there is no going back, no matter how dire the need for countryside becomes. You will have destroyed it’s ability to produce food. Kent already has a higher population than many other areas of the country, and a blanket approach that we should build as many homes as other district councils is clearly wrong. But if this policy is insisted upon then you should be building on brownfield sites. I appreciate that compared to the proposed sites this is more difficult for you, but this is nowhere near as difficult as the loss of farming land will be to the generations that will follow us. They will not forgive us! Kent is England’s largest non-metropolitan county with a resident population of 1,568,600 people in mid-2018. You are just seeking to make this even worse by increasing it by 10,000 more people (assuming 2.5 people reside in each new house in Capel). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 new dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line, presumably using a new bridge (as the line is in a cutting) to access both sides of the site. It would be dangerous for children to use the existing bridge. The children will in many cases have to walk from and to Tonbridge Station crossing busy roads including the northern section of Woodgate Way. Presumably some, possibly many of the children would be from out of area.You cannot control this. It would appear that you have placed the school at this site out of desperation. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Having commuted for 25 years to London from Paddock Wood (stopping in June 2019) I can give you some insight into the problems this will cause:
So the housing in Capel is not just a local problem. It is going to spread to the rail infrastructure as well up to and including Sevenoaks. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. A once soaked commuter will not be cycling ever again to either Tonbridge or Paddock Wood stations, even if he/she does have an ebike - been there, done that! There may be some people who are working from home but the vast majority who work in London will commute. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but due to the area being concreted flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Any railway bridges put in to join the two separate halves of the "garden village” will have to be proud of the landscape as the railway line sits on the flood plain. These will surely be a blot on the landscape. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. The council seems to be moving in one direction while society is moving in the other trying to protect the environment. I believe that housing needs calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_539 | Hogben | Objections 1 The land is designated Green Belt and is Prime farming quality, essential for the long term production of food crops to cater for the forecast growth in the UK population. 2 An additional 2800 dwellings on the borders of Tonbridge will increase the traffic coming into the town by between 3000 and 5000 vehicles each weekday plus service vehicles, traders etc. Already Tudeley Lane, Cannon Lane, Hadlow Road are at a standstill in the rush hours and exceptionally busy at most other times of the day. 3 Tonbridge Station is one of the busiest in the Southeast, the trains are overcrowded at peak times and there is no way to increase capacity or frequency. 4 The Tunbridge Wells hospital is struggling to cope with today's demand and the car parks are always full. 5 Tonbridge and Malling have proposals to build more housing at Hayesden which will also impact on the roads, schools, hospitals, trains etc. 6. The roads into Tunbridge Wells from Paddock Wood, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Sevenoaks are also at saturation point and would, like Tonbridge become gridlocked, with all of the problems and pollution that this would cause. OBSERVATIONS To cope with forecast growth new towns need to be planned and built away from existing populations with the infrastructure and industry created first followed by housing. ( not the other way round) They would be car-free towns with underground ,low energy transport systems linking to mainline stations and airports. The residential areas would be surrounded by green spaces, walk and cycle ways and full leisure activity centres. Such a solution would require government funding until established with the monies being recovered from residents, businesses etc over a period of years. | |
DLP_542 | Mr and Mrs A C Wickens | We have lived in Five Oak Green since 2002. We moved here to get away from the estate we had both lived on for over 50 years . We moved away from the noise , Traffic, & general urban living. We like it here, and would like to spend the rest of our days here. However , I live in Sychem Lane, Next to Capel Fencing , with whom I had many disagreements with regarding the noise and traffic from their yard at all times of the day and night. I sent in many complaints to TWBC as did other Neighbours, I still hold all of the Correspondence and Photographs today. I was told on all occasions that there was nothing you could do as there was no planning conditions attached to the yard or lane. What you didn’t say, was that you owned half the yard they were using , and the lane they were using for access. And that they only paid you rent. I believe this was withheld deliberately How on earth are we to believe anything you say about the additional 4000 new house’s you are planning between Paddock Wood & Tonbridge. I Believe you are only motivated by money and not concerned about any local residents at all. You must also know that none of these house’s , flats or whatever you intend to build, Will be out of reach of the majority of the local workers, we do not earn the high salaries here. The 2 house’s built last year in the village still haven’t sold. Please think again about this ridiculous plan you have. | |
DLP_544 | Jane Jackson | I write as a Sevenoaks resident to raise my strong objections to the proposals by TWBC to build over 4000 new homes in Tudeley and East Capel, namely “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). I understand this email may be published but not my contact details. My objections are as follows:
| |
DLP_546 | Mr Don Foreman | I am Don (Donald) Foreman and I have lived in the Parish of Capel for 35 years. During that time I have become closely involved of the life of the parish as member and currently Chairman of the Capel History Society, which has published 3 books to date, member of the Friends of Capel Church, working as a volunteer maintaining the churchyard, member of Capel Cricket Club, where I am Publicity Officer, and throughout my time here have supported a range of other parish activities on a less formal basis. As a dog owner I walked virtually every parish path north of the A21 and thus gained a knowledge of the land, its use for agriculture and recreation, and the wildlife which inhabits it. My late mother lies at rest in the beautiful and tranquil graveyard of St. Thomas a Becket, Capel, and I will in due time also be buried there. This message is to object to 'The Strategy for Capel Parish' (Policy STR/CA1). Given the egregious enormity of the damage this plan will inflict on the Parish of Capel it is difficult to know where to start in condemning it, and how to describe it in a concise way. I remain unconvinced that so many houses are required at all, and they are certainly not being built in response to local demand. It is evident that the majority of houses currently being built are 'executive properties' way beyond 'affordable'. Already in this parish TWBC has granted itself planning permission for five 4/5 bedroom houses off Sychem Lane, obviously ignorant of the fact that 2 such houses were built in Five Oak Green two years ago which remain unsold. In the south-east of England (including the Borough of Tunbridge Wells) there are hundreds of empty properties, thousands more which are under-occupied, thousands of buildings which could be restored for, or brought into, residential use, and many acres of 'brownfield' land. To inflict the cancer of 'Tudeley New Town' on the green lung which lies between Tonbridge, Pembury, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Southborough and Paddock Wood is a matter for which the landowner and TWBC, members and officers, should be deeply ashamed. Capel Parish is fortunate to have 98 listed buildings and other features, many of which will be either directly or indirectly adversely affected by the construction of houses and roads proposed in, or arising from, this plan. Chief among these are the Grade I All Saints Church, Tudeley, with its unique and internationally renowned Chagall windows, and Grade II Badsell Manor, both of which will be surrounded by housing estates, and Grade I St. Thomas a Becket Church, Capel, with rare mediaeval wall paintings, which could have a new road built within a few yards of its peaceful position. Mention of this road – the unnecessary 'Colts Hill bypass' (the existing road could be widened) is another – gives the opportunity to draw attention to the increased traffic these new houses and the several thousands who will presumably live in them will generate. The parish's roads are already at capacity and TWBC planners' vague references to ameliorating the effects of vastly more vehicle movements are little short of pathetic. Further, the construction of roads in or near the AONB will compound the loss of open land and all that implies such as intrusive noise, light pollution and obstruction of wildlife movement. I travel to London by train on occasion, and while no longer a commuter am well aware that the rail service is already chronically overstretched. Car parking at Tonbridge and Paddock Wood railway stations is insufficient, with rail users often obliged to park in residential roads a mile or more distant from the station. Residents of the new houses (those currently under construction in Paddock Wood, Marden etc. are being marketed in London and Croydon and so, doubtless, will those in Capel) will in the main be commuters, and it must be plain to all that the rail network could not cope with hundreds more passengers – even if they could make their way to the stations along traffic-clogged roads and find somewhere to park their cars. Walking and cycling are not realistic options. Besides the mere problem of 'getting around' I have no confidence that such essentials as doctors, policing, community facilities etc. will be provided at the same time as houses are built. My impression from the waffling answers of TWBC planners is that they might come later, i.e. once money has been allocated from the selling of the houses, or not at all. There are no guarantees, and the consequences of building houses without provision for health care etc. need not be explained. In the meantime it will be the nearby town of Tonbridge which has to absorb the pressures of the increased population on its doorstep, and without receiving a penny to fund its services. And what of the other essential services? For example, how is the sewage to be disposed of? Building at Paddock Wood has had to be halted because Southern Water cannot provide the necessary sewerage infrastructure. It cannot, or should not, have escaped notice that Five Oak Green and parts of Tudeley (and indeed the part of Capel in which I live) have suffered flooding on several occasions in recent years. This is, after all, the area of the Medway Levels. Assurances have been given, in total disregard of the experience of residents, that planned building will not be in places liable to flooding. Even if this were true, which I would dispute, the increased need to dispose of domestic water (2,800 houses in Tudeley New Town means 2,800 more washing machines, dishwashers, baths, showers etc. - a fact which planners seem to have conveniently overlooked) together with rainwater run-off from roofs and other hard surfaces, is bound to raise the risk of flooding downstream in East Peckham, Yalding and beyond. So far I have not drawn attention to the map which shows Tudeley New Town, and the proposed school site contiguous with the Tonbridge boundary, straddling the railway line. How anyone, least of all a planner claiming competence, can imagine this is practical, desirable – or even safe – is beyond me. But perhaps the over-riding objection is that this ill-conceived plan demands the destruction of prime, productive, agricultural land which currently enjoys protection as Green Belt. This landscape affords habitat to wildlife, quiet recreation – so vital to mental well-being for residents and our many visitors alike – and is valuable for food production. It should be regarded as a precious asset for all these reasons, and not selected as a building site in a highly dubious planning process. In 1964 pupils of Tonbridge School made a study of our parish, which they described as having “villages, still relatively unspoilt, havens of quiet, and one of the more purely agricultural communities of West Kent: they have, to the modern eye, quite considerable charm.” This description remains accurate today, and it is this haven of quiet which TWBC's plan will destroy for ever. Our Conservative Borough Councillor's election manifesto made these commitments:- I passionately support maintaining the quality of our rural environment and heritage and will work to prevent inappropriate development of the Green Belt, and preserve the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I will work with the Borough Council to limit any proposed residential building to small appropriate developments . . . That manifesto was endorsed by the Leader of the Conservative Group, but now it is that very Group and the officers it instructs which is proposing destruction of Capel's rural environment, our heritage, and large swathes of the Green Belt, and is promoting residential building which is most certainly neither “small” nor “appropriate.” I urge the Council to think again, withdraw this threat to our precious environment, and tell Her Majesty's Government that the Green Belt in general and the Parish of Capel in particular is not to be sacrificed to provide houses for wealthy commuters. | |
DLP_547 | Andy Halford | Why are you not working for the community as a whole as we do not want anymore unfairly shared housing in Capel . I’m not sure if you are thinking of us or you want to go down in the record books as the ones that created the so called garden village . It will go down if we go forward and the biggest mistake made so use some common sense and stop this now before you waste even more of the taxpayers money I feel strongly as most others do | |
DLP_559 | Carole Noakes | I have lived in Capel parish since 1983 and was born and brought up in Matfield. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I feel very strongly that the plans for development in our area. Negative impact will occur to: Traffic (already congested) Flooding (already a problem) Environmental damage (which will be mostly irreversible) Quality of life of the existing residents We believe that the need for housing in the area has been badly miscalculated; witness the recent developments in Marden where they are now find it hard to sell the houses. We need farming and we need farmland, and the need will increase as time goes on. It makes no sense to cover it with a version of Milton Keynes. | |
DLP_572 | Lee Prebble | Introduction I am not a resident of Tunbridge Wells Borough but live near to the Borough boundary with Tonbridge. I do visit the Borough on a regular basis and enjoy the significant benefits of the countryside and Green Belt that should both be protected and enhanced as required by National Planning Policy. The Draft Local Plan documents produced are vast and complex. As an individual I do not have the time and resources to examine each and every part and policy in detail. I have, therefore, concentrated on consideration of two particular aspects of the Draft Plan that concern me most (the proposed development at Tudeley and the proposed secondary school on land in west Capel). That is not to say that I support other policies in any way. Indeed, I am aware of some of the concerns of others and agree with many of them. I may also add that I am a retired member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and have some considerable experience of the production of local plans. I have to say that I would not be at all happy to put documents like these to the public. In essence, I consider the approach has been shoddy and the output both dubious and faulty in many respects. I would go so far as to say I would be ashamed to have these as part of my legacy. My comments are in relation to three documents: the Distribution of Development Topic Paper; the Sustainability Appraisal and the Draft Local Plan. Draft Local Plan
| |
DLP_590 | Adrian Dawn | Dear Sirs , I do not live in the Capel area but know it well . The size of this development is madness and will ruin the area . Please do look again , this cannot go ahead . | |
DLP_595 | Sport England | Policy STR/CA 1 Sport England would encourage any masterplan to incorporate Active Design Principles http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/ in order to create healthy and active environments for the new residents and visitors. Sport England supports point d under Contributions Required which is supported in the adopted playing pitch strategy and the indoor/built sports facility needs assessment. | |
DLP_609 | Katie Lewis | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). We moved to Paddock Wood in 1999, choosing to move to the countryside as we enjoy walking and nature and were reassured that the land locally was on greenbelt, thus could not be built on. This was an important consideration for us, as we knew with a growing family, we did not want to end up living in a gradually enlarging conurbation. Now in 2019, we find this is exactly what is going to happen and with the recent addition of plans for East Capel, Paddock wood is due to double in size. Already hundreds of houses have been built - though cannot be sold - in Mascalls Court and earlier this year, the beautiful apple orchards opposite our house and over which several of our upstairs windows looked, has been cleared ready for the building of the second - newly enlarged - phase to begin. Now, with the East Capel plan, building is also planned to the right of us, all the way to the roundabout, so that instead of living surrounded by fields and birdsong, we will be hemmed in by modern housing estates. On top of this, the thought of the significant increase in traffic along Badsell road, the noise, the fumes, harm to health when walking to the village, waiting times for doctors appointments, parking nightmares at the station and supermarket not to mention the chance of finding a seat on a train, all fill me with dread. It makes no sense at all. Why, oh why, build so many thousand houses in such a concentrated area, where flooding and sewage problems already abound? Surely, a larger number of smaller developments, across the borough, would be much more in keeping with rural life and in turn, much more attractive to potential buyers. Please don't be so short-sighted as to simply let the ease of having one vendor over and above many, selling smaller parcels of land, drive this process. It smacks of laziness and complacency and I fear, will be an environmental - as well as a social and political - disaster. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_612 | Margaret Grigg | We have 300 cars dropping off children to Somerhill School every day, the line of stationary traffic past Billy Bucks Barn every school day. You have not thought about the added traffic through Five Oak Green via Tudeley that is used as rat run. Please can some one from your department spend a couple of days from 7.30 to 8.45 to see the chaos now so what it will it be like with an extr 1000 cars per day . | |
DLP_637 | Christopher Hyatt-Twynam | I live on Hartlake Rd in Tudeley Hale, and have done for 34 years. I walk the local footpaths most days and visit Tonbridge 3 or 4 times a week. I live here because it is rural. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council. I strongly object to the strategy for Capel Parish STR/CA1 I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish”(Policy STR/CA1) Tudeley is a green belt buffer between Tonbridge and Five Oak green (4 miles). There is not room for a new village of 2800 houses without producing an urban sprawl joining Tonbridge to Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood. We already have a local example of that and the problem it causes in Southborough. The proposed Garden Village is 2 miles from the medieval town of Tonbridge extending it in an unplanned and unsustainable way. Tonbridge cannot cope with an infusion of 7000 locals using its roads, railway, schools and health services. It is already at capacity and gridlocked at times. The new village will be unsustainable. A garden village solution is the wrong choice for new houses compared with more sustainable expansion around existing communities. The proposed new settlement boarders AONB and against existing policy will adversely affect it. Placed on a slope overlooking the flat Medway valley the new development will ruin rural views for miles, changing a large area of rural villages forever. Light and sound pollution will affect local wildlife and communities. The development will destroy the rural nature of the area to the detriment of all who live and pass through it. The countryside around Tudeley is enjoyed by many as amenity land for walkers, bird watchers and river users etc. The proposed garden village will adversely alter the nature of the area for ever reducing the positive experience for all amenity users. The new proposed village has a railway splitting it in two, so it will not comply with the garden village ideals of a single community. The cycle route to Tonbridge is only listed as desirable when it should be listed as essential. It is not possible for a proposed village of this size to satisfy all the needs of its residents. Trips to the nearest town (Tonbridge) will be essential. The B2017 is not up to it and even if improved, once Tonbridge is reached, its road network will not be able to cope with the extra demand. Flood assessment has not been made in relation to the operation of the Leigh flood barrier. Faster run off from the proposed village into the Medway will reduce the ability of the barrier to release volume storm water without endangering Yalding. They will have to hold more back leading to an increased risk of flooding to Tonbridge when the barrier can hold no more.. As happened Christmas 2013. Global warming will only make this worse. Tudeley and Tudeley Hale are quiet rural hamlets which will be irrevocable destroyed by the 7000 extra residents proposed in their midst. 400 acres of productive grade 2 and 3 agricultural land will be removed from production for ever. Estimates for 5 year loss of existing products are : 645 tons of blackcurrants, 1325 tons of bramley apples, 1080 tons of conference pears, 1037 tons of wheat, 775 tons of barley, 437 tons of oil seed rape, 875 tons of field beans, and 1250 tons of straw. This is not low grade agricultural land. Development should be on brown field sites. Biodiversity: The wildlife in the hedgerows, fields and trees of the 400 acres and surrounding areas will be severely affected. Skylarks cannot nest in gardens. I do not believe that the high level of biodiversity in this area will be increased once 2800 houses have been built as hoped for by the planners. The extra housing figures for Tunbridge Wells are supposedly to satisfy local need. I believe it is likely that a high proportion of houses built will be sold to London residents moving out into the country who mistakenly think they will be easily able to commute to the City through Tonbridge Station. Transport to Tonbridge and parking for extra travellers will be a serious problem . Train capacity is at a maximum already. A cycle path to Tonbridge is only listed as desirable so is unlikely to be built. The planners say the commuters will catch a bus to Tonbridge. Really ? I am against the construction of a proposed relief road from Tudeley village towards the north east as it would plough straight through the best of the biodiversity amenity land with its beautiful views and footpaths. In a way this would be an equal destruction of this part of the Medway valley than the new village itself. The disused quarries which would be near the proposed road are a haven for wildlife. Noise and pollution from a main road to the north east would be a disaster to this valuable area. I would question the needs of the new village residents to travel towards the north east as access to the M20 will still be quicker along Hartlake Rd and on to the Hadlow Rd and only a limited few would want to visit Maidstone. As for traffic from the north east into Tudeley village that seems to negate the ideals of a garden village. I do not believe the 7000 residents of the garden village will find a meaningful volume of employments in the Village itself and they will need to travel to Tonbridge and Tunbridge wells on unsuitable roads. Tonbridge amenities will bear the brunt of this new village whereas council tax will go to Tunbridge Wells. The world famous grade 1 All Saints Church in Tudeley will back onto houses or industrial estates instead of field and trees . Is this a desirable planning result? I believe TWBC have chosen Tudeley village as a solution to their housing targets not because it is the best solution but because with the one land owner it is the easiest solution for them . Not so easy for the countryside and its existing human and animal residents. The housing figures for TWBC calculated by the government can be reduced if they require development on the Green Belt unless exceptional circumstances exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to reduce the figures and remove the Garden settlement of Tudeley from the local plan. I walk the AONB over the road from Tudeley and the Tudeley proposed village site and if anything, the Tudeley village site overlooking the Medway valley has more outstanding natural beauty than the AONB . It needs the same protection from destruction by developers. We do not have gas or mains drainage in Tudeley Hale. How will the new village cope? The proposed secondary school on the junction with Tonbridge extends the urban sprawl of the town, is difficult to reach using Train, will be challenging to reach by car due to Somerhill school and work traffic already blocking that area. It will have high polluting roads on two sides and a railway line through the middle. You cannot walk or cycle to it. It will destroy the border between Tonbridge and the green belt. The beautiful countryside aspect from Vale Road will be lost and the sprawl of Tonbridge to Tudeley extended. It is difficult to think of a worse place to put it. We can all enjoy the” Green and Pleasant” aspect of England and benefit from it. Building over Tudeley will destroy the Heritage of an ancient rural settlement forever. Don’t do it. | |
DLP_641 | Andrea Childs | I wish to register my objections to the proposals by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to build over 4000 new homes in Tudeley and East Capel (the Strategy for Capel Parish - Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel (the Strategy for Paddock Wood - Policy STR/PW1). I understand my contact details will not be published. My concerns are: Firstly, this is greenbelt and agricultural land, including floodplains. I understand there is brownfield land available within the borough which was previously under consideration in 2018. There are therefore no ‘exceptional circumstances’ to merit greenbelt being used. Secondly, this will result in many more commuters on the Paddock Wood and Tonbridge commuter trains. These trains are already overcrowded at peak times. Thirdly, this area is well known for its walks. Visitors are particularly attracted by All Saints Church, Tudeley, well known for its Chagall windows. It is entirely inappropriate to develop this area for housing, particularly when there are brownfield sites available elsewhere. Finally, local schools, doctors and hospitals are already full to capacity. Any increase in housing in this area of Kent will add to this problem. | |
DLP_643 | Alexander Hewitson | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I am a resident of the Tunbridge Wells borough, and was brought up both in Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. I am now studying for an MSc in architecture at TU Delft (though my home address remains in Tunbridge Wells) and have experience working in the building industry in the UK. I hope, therefore, that my comments can be considered to come from a place of professional concern and not simply as those of someone who does not wish for more homes to be built. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge, though there will be limited effects on Tunbridge Wells (presumably a prime reason for the choice of location). There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use - if the plan included provisions for protected cycle routes from the new garden settlement to the local station this would of course be different. However, as Tunbridge Wells Borough Council have decided to locate the new settlement on the edge of Tonbridge, rather than their own town centre, they have (presumably) purposefully absolved themselves of any responsibility in this regard. I am an avid cyclist, and have commuted by bike in London, Rotterdam and Munich, however I would not dream of commuting from Tudeley to Tonbridge by cycle - the road is far too fast and far too dangerous, and the inevitable increase in cars would only make this worse (Note - a protected cycle route is useful, painting white lines on the road that will be ignored is not, and even if there is a minor increase of safety it does not encourage cycle lane use in the way a protected, separated cycle lane would). The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows, and should be considered as one of Kent’s greatest pieces of architecture and art. That Chagall should have painted one window in Tudeley is astonishing, that he painted all the windows is exceptional, and the significance of this should not be overlooked by the council. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Indeed the very principle of a “garden village” is absurd. As I am sure you are aware, the first garden settlements were formed by the Garden City Movement led by Ebenezer Howard, the idea being to create self-sufficient communities that promoted healthy living in a clean and attractive environment, surrounded by a green belt. This was later developed into the “garden suburbs”, which essentially took the name but none of the principles of the garden city movement. Tudeley can never be self sufficient, nor does the plan propose the proportionate system of housing, agriculture and industry that garden cities require. The naming of this as “Tudeley Garden Village” is a transparent ploy to make the development more palatable, whilst mocking the principles of the garden city movement. Ebenezer Howard would be rolling in his grave if he heard of these proposals. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. As proposals for the council’s consideration, I would suggest:
Finally, TWBC has a history of dumping so-called “affordable” (which of course is a misnomer - if you wanted affordable housing you would be building council houses) housing on the edges of the town (see High Brooms, Sherwood, Ramslye etc) and leaving the residents with underfunded and overpriced transportation, thus leaving the town centre as a haven for middle-class privilege, devoid of anything that may upset the people shopping there. Actually building the “affordable" housing miles from any town centre, particularly any town centre within the borough, is a new low, as is the purposeful expectation that Tonbridge should bear the brunt of increased traffic and pressure. | |
DLP_651 | Jane White | I wish to object to your Local Plan developments in the Parish of Capel and for Tudeley. This is Green belt Land which is so vital to our countryside and originally designated to stop the fingers of encroaching building engulfing good farm land, small hamlets and villages into urban sprawl. The infrastructure of the proposed developments, with access roads joining the already over full country lanes leading to Paddock Wood, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, the A21, railway stations and schools, will be a nightmare. There is also the problem of water, drainage and sewage on the low lying land near the river Medway which is already suffering from pollution, and possible flooding. I cannot think of a more unsuitable area to consider building houses. STOP THIS PLAN NOW. | |
DLP_694 | S Parrett and family | I am a resident in Golden Green. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows)The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to provide for their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_696 | Margaret Game | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. My husband and I moved to Tudeley from Hertfordshire with our young family in 2008 where we lived close to Welwyn Garden City. We moved away because over the 21 years we live there the area had become increasingly developed to the extent that it turned a beautiful natural woodland area into an urban sprawl. It was a typical stealth strategy with developers demolishing existing houses standing on good size plots and the local council permitting them to squeeze as many new houses onto each plot as possible, for maximum profit. As a result the character of the area changed beyond recognition and a beautiful woodland area became a maze of new houses and cars lining the narrow private roads. One of the main reasons we chose to move to Tudeley was to escape the commuter belt for an area protected by green belt where the countryside was safeguarded against urban sprawl and the historic setting would be preserved for generations to come. ……or so we thought! My objection is that the draft local plan has not been thought through adequately and the following issues have not been satisfactorily addressed :
it is also important to understand whether TWBC have a comprehensive Brownfield Site Register, when this was last updated and how can residents be assured that despite the higher cost of building on brownfield sites these will be used to minimise the need for development on the green belt.
In itself this was a sensible requirement to protect the character of the area BUT if the draft plan goes ahead the adjacent field will become part of the Tudeley Village settlement in which case how are existing residents able to comply with the covenant imposed by Hadlow Estates on one hand and protect the privacy and security of our home with an open rail fence backing onto the new settlement? I appreciate the need to ensure the TWBC need to plan for the future of the borough but I am seriously concerned that the draft local plan for Tudeley Village has not been adequately thought through and there has been totally insufficient rigor and challenge applied by TWBC to ensure their proposal is necessary, sustainable and not detrimental to the area. | |
DLP_697 | Debbie Hughes | I write as a local resident to raise my strong objections to the proposals by TWBC to build over 4000 new homes in Tudeley and East Capel and a large school near Somerhill. Namely “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). I understand you may publish my objection but not my contact details. My objections are: The residents of the 2800 homes proposed for Tudeley (possibly 6000+ people) will come to Tonbridge for their services eg health service, schools and other amenities as its closer than Tunbridge Wells. As a council tax payer in Tonbridge I strongly object to carrying the cost of increased demand for our local services which will be stretched beyond capacity and TWBC walk off with the council tax payment. This is over 600 acres of greenbelt (GB) and prime agricultural land, including major floodplains, which would be destroyed. TWBC has brownfield and non GB and non-AONB land available across the borough and considered up to 2018. There are no “exceptional circumstances” to merit greenbelt being used on this scale. In particular, for me as a commuter, it will push thousands more people onto the Paddock Wood and Tonbridge commuter trains. In Tonbridge, the roads at peak times are already very heavily congested and not able to be widened. Parking is a nightmare. Where will all these cars and people to go? TWBC are simply viewing the additional commuters at Tonbridge as somebody else’s problem. This is not acceptable and has not been thought through. | |
DLP_699 | Dermott Young | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I will make some points here that I am sure you have seen before. Additional personal comments are overleaf. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley could well cause a great deal of harm to residents of Capel and Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning, especially now that the construction of new traffic lights at Tonbridge Station has already resulted in some significant traffic problems. There are also great traffic problems on the Pembury Road inside and outside of the rush hour and the building of a proposed new sixth form senior school will again exacerbate the problem. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary into Tunbridge Wells and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. This new development will end up polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tunbridge Wells | |
DLP_700 | Dermott Young | Capel is a beautiful area which has been very lightly built on up until now. There is an RSPB site there for the protection of birds obviously. The building of a garden village in that area may well lead to the destruction of the plantation necessary to sustain the wildlife. Quite frankly, the development will be a huge stain on the area and change the whole nature of the countryside around Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, Pembury and Paddock Wood, at a time when we should be sustaining as much green and wild ara as possible. Please have a rethink on this development, and don’t wreck the beauty of the area we live in. In your own words “Love where you life”, - Don’t **** on it. | |
DLP_706 | David Parker | I wish to object to the proposed building of a large number of houses in the Tudely and Capel areas. Apart from obviously destroying the nature of the area, it would make a very large impact on the already difficult travelling situation and living conditions in Tonbridge. Currently traffic into Tonbridge during busy times is often backed-up towards Tudley. More houses will mean extra journeys towards Tonbridge Railway Station and local amenities, not towards the Tunbridge Wells direction. The cynical amongst us are also asking why Tunbridge Wells wants to build as close as possible to Tonbridge, rather than in other available areas closer to their own town. Tonbridge would be left to deal with all of the hassle and problems of such a large new conurbation right on its doorstep, BUT with Tunbridge Wells receiving all the rates income. Please register my disapproval for this scheme. | |
DLP_709 | Ruth Dixon | I am writing to register my objections to the recent Tunbridge Wells Council Local Plan. I have lived in Tonbridge with my family for nine years, having previously lived in Hildenborough for twelve years. We live on the northern edge of Tonbridge and I work at a local secondary school. My family and I enjoy living in Tonbridge and appreciate all that it has to offer in terms of facilities and services and also the open countryside. I am writing to strongly object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I have read through the various documents regarding this strategy and I am writing to strongly object to the proposed plans for the Capel Parish. There are a number of key reasons:
I trust that the above objections are taken into consideration. | |
DLP_735 | Mr Peter Chapman | STR/CA1 TWBC are incapable of rolling out a fit for purpose new refuse collection service, or indeed answer their phones without a 40 minute delay. I do not beleieve they are a fit or competant body to devise this grotesque plan that no one wants that will destroy hundreds of acres of prime Kent countryside and thousands of residents lives. | |
DLP_791 | Janet Connor | I moved to Five Oak Green in 1983 with my husband and children. The children have moved out now but we have no wish to move. One of the things we value most about living in the village, is the fact that we are surrounded by Green Belt land, meaning that within minutes we, can be walking up in the country. I thought the whole point of setting up a Green Belt was to prevent land being built on and to allow villages and town to be separated, and to have their own identity. There seems to be land to the north of Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden which is not included in the Green Belt. Why don't you build there? What are the "exceptional circumstances" that warrant the plan for a new Garden Village? There are no mention of these in the Local Plan. | |
DLP_794 | Gayle Manning | Myself and my partner have lived in rented accommodation as part of the Hadlow Estate for 6 years. We regularly have our elderly parents visit as well as my partners 4 children whose ages range from 14 to 29. We have recently welcomed our first grandson to the family and were looking forward to him having the open space of Tudeley to grow up in. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic into Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail has confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. Tonbridge High Street has been closed and traffic disrupted on numerous occasions over the last 18 months due to pavement widening and bus stops being introduced/removed. This is already on an extremely busy road, additional vehicle and foot traffic will bring Tonbridge town centre to a standstill. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. During heavy rainfall, Sherenden Road becomes a small river; with the addition of new homes, this will only get worse. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I urge you to reconsider the Local Plan to stop it ruining what is currently a beautiful place to live. | |
DLP_796 | Peter Ashlee | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1 and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). The fundamental point is that this is Green Belt land. When The Town & Country Planning Act was 1st published in the 1940’s it was in response to the effects of the effective unregulated pre WW2 planning and the detrimental effect that this was having on the countryside and the people. As the famous Polish author Marina Lewycka has written, a country needs its cities and towns at its heart but it needs its countryside as its lungs. Both need to be kept in good condition and both are needed for a healthy life. One of the purposes of the Green Belt was to literally draw a line where no urban development would be allowed so that developers and planners were clear that this land was sacrosanct and could not be touched. The only consideration would be in “Exceptional Circumstances”. Are not examples of exceptional circumstances war, famine, flood and other extreme isolated incidents? Surely simple market forces for housing cannot be considered in the same category? Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. If this proposal goes ahead it will lead to ever increasing motor traffic from the B2017 from Tonbridge as well as all of the lanes from Golden Green , through Tudely, Capel, Paddock Wood, and the surrounding area. It will lead to the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows and farmland, spoiling the landscape, killing wildlife and creating noise and pollution in an area of priceless beauty. These are not mere words, they go to the nub of the issue about the quality of the overall environment. As an Occupational Therapist I am fully aware of the need to maintain a healthy mind and healthy body. It is accepted that that the peace and tranquilly of the countryside can assist with the former and being able to exercise by walking and cycling the latter. This scheme will have a detrimental effect on both for the reasons mentioned above and while difficult to coldly cost must be considered. With regard to climate change, sustainability and biodiversity, the Garden Settlement proposal goes against all. The Council’s sustainability assessment shows that it’s housing objectives are compatible with only 5 of the 19 sustainability objectives they have set themselves and incompatible with 9 of them. Covering the fields with houses and roads will make the river Medway flood more often not only in the area affected by this development but also East Peckham, Tonbridge & Yalding, areas already at extreme risk where significant flooding has frequently occurred in recent years. The inevitable increase in motor vehicles and the houses themselves will all increase noise air and light pollution at a time when it is supposed to be Government policy to reduce them. The infrastructure in the surrounding area is barely able to cope with the demands of the movement of people at the moment in relation to motor vehicles and train capacity. How will the people living in the new settlements get to work , to the shops, to meet their friends and family? Will it be walking or by bicycle? Of course not. They will be driving. 2,800 dwellings will create an unsustainable demand on the existing infrastructure and the mitigation measures are counterproductive. The reason for the housing being proposed in this area needs to be questioned. Who offered it for sale and why? Is it not convenient for TWBC to have been offered a huge parcel of land from one landowner instead of them having to apply for compulsory purchase orders? Is this proposal a lazy way to achieve the numbers they feel they need to achieve in the draft local plan? With regard to the Draft Plan the whole basis of the proposals are flawed because the figures are likely to be wrong. The most current national statistics on population growth and household formation have been ignored by national government. Instead of the arbitrary target of 300,000, Mulheirn’s report published by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence concludes that no more than 160,000 homes per year need to be built to cater for housing need. TWBC is using housing need numbers and the NPPF to justify building on this Green Belt Land by saying that if they do not do it central Government will do it for them. However, in 2018 Rt Hon Sajid Javid said , Planning inspectors cannot enforce Green Belt releases onto authorities. The NPPF states that before changes to Green Belt boundaries are proposed, councils should examine fully all other reasonable options and make as much use of brownfield as possible. Has there been a complete and thorough search for Brownfield land in the Borough of Tunbridge Wells? In addition to this, national planning policy does allow Tunbridge Wells to provide for less than the assessed housing need, in view of the high proportion of Green Belt and AONB land. Finally, we are in a nationally recognised climate emergency. Under the Government’s climate change guidance, planning authorities are advised that the distribution and design of new settlements and sustainable transport solutions are particularly important considerations that effect transport emissions. Tudeley garden village represents a housing model highlights the unsustainability of this draft plan. It represents unsustainable, environmentally harmful destruction of the countryside, replacing a beautiful, unspoilt and protected site with a dormitory for city commuters, heavily reliant on private cars for transport. It will destroy local communities, ruin local residents’ lives and ruin for ever the Kent that we know and love. | |
DLP_798 | Peter Lakhani | I live in Tonbridge and have done for almost 20 years. I'm copying in Tom because he is my MP. I'm copying in Greg because he is the MP for the area that has created these strategies. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I also object to the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). It is clear and obvious to anyone that gives it a moment's thought that these 'strategies' will cause immense harm to residents in the local area. The entire area is already near to 'gridlock' on a regular basis and this will make it a whole lot worse. What on earth are those that put this strategy together thinking of? Where will all the additional people park when they come into Tonbridge? (please don't say they will cycle or get the bus - we all know that isn't realistic!) What calculations have been done to assess the effect on car journey times? What is the increased safety risk to cyclists and pedestrians? Where will the additional train commuters sit (the trains are already bursting at the seams)? What has been done to assess the effect on air pollution? Where will all the additional people go to see a GP? Or to hospital? TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. I would appreciate a full response to the questions above please as soon as possible? | |
DLP_799 | Amy Dixon | I have lived in Tonbridge for nearly ten years and am writing to object to your Strategy for Capel Parish and the fact that you are including land in East Capel in your Strategy for Paddock Wood. I am writing to strongly object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). There are a number of reasons for this: Firstly, houses should not be built on Green Belt land unless there are exceptional circumstances. But, you have not explained what those exceptional circumstances are. There are plenty of spaces for additional housing throughout the Tunbridge Wells borough and these would not require building on the Green Belt land. We should not see the Green Belt damaged. It should be kept as it is. Your plans will destroy hedges, farmland, meadows and woodland. They will also destroy the wildlife in the area. The plans will lead to lots more traffic in the area. The main road from Capel, through Tudeley and on to Tonbridge are already very busy and the plans will make this worse. Also, lots of residents will then use the country lanes in the area to avoid the traffic which will make the country roads more dangerous. The extra traffic will lead to more pollution from cars and more noise in the area, increasing the risk of global warming. Plus there will be light pollution at night too. There is a flood risk in the area being considered. Houses should not be built in this area as they will flood occasionally. And building on floodplains often makes flooding elsewhere even worse. The plans allow for a secondary school to be built. This will create more traffic congestion. And, the school will be split across the railway line. This would be dangerous. Tonbridge will end up getting much busier and it is already very busy. The trains are already busy every day and the roads are clogged up, This will get even worse under the new plans. The council should arrange for a Green Belt Study, a Landscape Assessment and a Biodiversity Assessment before putting in its plans. These will highlight the issues raised above. There is no valid reason for the plans to go ahead and they should be rejected. | |
DLP_803 | Pete Woronkowicz | I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Tonbridge, in regards to your proposal to build a large number of homes in nearby Capel. (Policy STR/CA1). This development would result in a dramatic increase in the number of users of Tonbridge's rail and road services. As a daily commuter by train, I can tell you that the current franchise owners (Southeastern) struggle to offer a decent service to the number of passengers they already have. I do not relish the thought of having to continue paying extortionate season ticket rates on even more tightly packed trains. The strain on Tonbridge's (already stretched!) amenities such as GP surgeries / Schools / Parking will also be felt, whilst I note that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council would be the recipients of any addition council tax revenue. The resulting increase in the number of cars will be terrible for the environment, at a time when our local governments should be doing more. Furthermore, the creation of so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food and space for leisure activities that don't adversely affect the environment. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments may be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_805 | Linda Jorden | I have lived in the parish for all of my 59 years, being a third generation member to grow up in Tudeley,go to school at Capel County Primary then onto Tonbridge for secondary education. I was christened, sang in the choir, married and I hope eventually buried at All Saints Church in Tudeley. Although I moved away for a few years I regularly visited my family here in Capel and wanted my own children to enjoy the same open spaces and countryside I loved when growing up, therefore I moved to Five Oak Green in 1996 and have been part of village life ever since. Helping out at Beavers, Cubs, Scouts, School and Football. I work in Pembury, not far but a lengthy commute if you time it wrong, due to the poor road conditions of Colts Hill, one broken down vehicle causes chaos for the whole area. In , my spare time I walk the footpaths around the area, mainly those between Five Oak Green and Tudeley as I enjoy walking to see friends and family instead of taking the car. I walk every morning and evening considering myself fortunate to be able to unwind in the countryside, its great for mental well-being. I used to enjoy cycling between the two villages but its far to dangerous to cycle on any of Kent's roads and cycle paths just seem to end in the middle of nowhere. I would like you to add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garde settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows)The development site will not only blight the church with its magnificent views but being the site of the old village (mentioned in the Domesday Book) will cover the burial site from the times of the plague. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. I know that things cant stand still, but I would urge the council to look at the brown field sites, empty shops and offices in the borough and re-think this ridiculous plan as once it has started there will be no turning back. Eventually there will be no Five Oak Green and Tudeley, just a corridor between Tonbridge and Paddock Wood not affecting Tunbridge Wells at all! Please, Please reconsider! | |
DLP_809 | Janet and Tony Griffiths | We are Janet and Tony Griffiths residing at xx Willow Crescent, Five Oak Green, Tonbridge, Kent, TN12 xx. [TWBC: full postal address redacted]. We have lived here for 31 years having moved from Tunbridge Wells. We moved out of the town as we wanted to move to a more rural village environment where in due course we would hope to raise a family. We have had two children whilst living in the village of Five Oak Green, one still resides with us. They were lucky enough to have been raised in a village community and attend the local village school, and thereafter attended secondary schools in Paddock Wood and Tonbridge. We will hopefully be continuing to live here for further years to come but are concerned about the proposed plans which will we believe take away the village environment and commuity we currently enjoy, because of the extra housing, traffic, loss of greenbelt where we currently enjoy country walks and bike rides and are extremely opposed to any plans for any further housing. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel (including our village of Five Oak Green) and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. I currently work in Tonbridge, as does my husband and my journey to work is current fraught with traffic, as it is at the end of the day when trying to come home, how on earth with our current roads cope with all this extra traffic servig 2800 dwellings, each of which will probably have two cars! People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows)We had flooding in our road some years ago, which they have now managed to manage in recent years, but another 2800 houses will possibly start problems off again beause of the Medway floodplain, it can't copesometimes now let alone with thousands of new houses. The beautiful Church at Tudeley will never be the same in he middle of thousands of houses, it just does not make sense. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. We moved to the village to enjoy the countryside which we do. We walk, enjoy cycle rides, living in our village will never be the same if our lovely countryside is taken away, we will end up moving again and then will probably have problems selling because of the new housing developments, current house prices in the village and surrounding areas will probably decline, this Plan will have a knock on effect on lots of things, especially the countryside. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. As stated above, we moved here to enjoy a village and countryside environment, if this Plan goes ahead (and we sincerely hope it does not) then we will be back to living in a 'town' enviroment, our once country walks will be on housing estates, and the roads will be so busy because of the extra traffic our cycle rides will be a think of the past. WE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A TOWN!! | |
DLP_812 | Paul Game | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. My objection is that the draft local plan has does not provide a proportionate or sustainable solution to address the future housing needs for the borough. My understanding is that TWBC have based their plans on government statistics of 13,560 homes which for some reason has been uplifted to 14,776 despite a strong argument to reduce the figure due to; the proportion of Green Belt & AONB land across the borough and also recent ONS figures that indicate population growth across the borough is slowing. This is fundamentally important, as without this uplift the settlement at Tudeley would simply not be necessary. In fact, as proposed Tudeley Garden Village is more likely to provide housing for London commuters attracted into the area and not local people, in which case naïve to think this will address the core objective of providing housing for population growth across the borough. In addition, the over 60% of the growth is being borne by the Parish of Capel which is on the furthest point of the borough boundary meaning that almost all of the infrastructure must be provided by the neighbouring borough of Tonbridge & Malling despite the fact that council tax to fund the infrastructure will be paid to TWBC. As a result there will be no vested interest for TMBC to repair, maintain and develop the infrastructure to support Tudeley into the future. The National Planning Policy Framework specifically states that the potential harm to the Green Belt would need to be clearly outweighed by other considerations and TWBC have yet to justify these ‘exceptional circumstances’. TWBC have said that I would also like to understand whether TWBC have a comprehensive Brownfield Site Register, when this was last updated and how can residents be assured that despite the higher cost of building on brownfield sites these will be used to minimise the need for development on the green belt. The majority of people living in the new Tudeley Garden village will drive privately owned cars (some additional 4,000 cars based on an average of 2 cars per home) this will significantly increase congestion on the B2017, the only route into Tonbridge. The B2017 is a narrow winding road (with no pavements) that becomes heavily congested each morning with commuters and school traffic heading into Tonbridge between 8am-9am. The volume of cars using the B2017 between Paddock Wood and Tonbridge would more than double the current level but there is no scope to widen the road to cope with the increase flow of traffic. Whilst it is commendable that TWBC intends to promote use of public transport & cycle lanes the reality is that neither will provide an acceptable solution for the vast majority of adults who will continue to use their cars to get into Tonbridge, the A21 and beyond. As the plan does not currently include a railway station at Tudeley, commuters will travel by car to Tonbridge station requiring extended parking facilities in the town centre which is simply unrealistic and not sustainable. One of the proposals seems to involve building a roundabout at the top of Hartlake Road where a dedicated bus/cycle lane will join the B2017. This will simply mean the buses and cycles will join the ‘nose to tail’ queue along the B2017 for the final 2 miles into Tonbridge. In addition, the acceleration of traffic off the roundabout will mean it is dangerous to exit the private road leading to All Saints Church that is in constant use by residents and visitors to the church. By locating a roundabout at the junction with B2017 and Hartlake Road this private road will be sandwiched between a blind bend in one direction (which is already very dangerous) and the traffic accelerating off the roundabout in the other direction meaning that residents and visitors to the church will not have sufficient time to ensure the road is clear and pull onto the B2017 safely. It is easy to overlook the importance of this point on the basis that this is a minor private road with limited traffic, however this cold not be further from the truth. The private road is in constant use by residents and a large number of visitors and coaches to the church, which is the second most visited church in Kent after Canterbury Cathedral. In addition to the ill-conceived roundabout on Hartlake Road, the single lane railway bridge will be unable to cope with the volume of traffic into the village and would need to be widened and my understanding is that Network Rail have refused to develop the bridge, in which case this means the whole plan is totally unviable. The main railway line would split the new garden village into two sites requiring additional crossings to be built which would compromise the development of a thriving heart to the village in line with the principles of a garden village. In addition , the proposed site of a new senior school favours means the school will be surrounded by heavy traffic and the campus split by the electrified main railway line, which feels like a massive health & safety issue. I am also very concerned that the proposal does not respect or protect the heritage site of All Saints Church, in fact I have heard that the plan is to locate a bus lane behind the ancient church, which totally inappropriate and I would suggest not in line with the principles of a Garden Village, which is to enhance the locality rather than destroy the local character. Extensive building will mean water has nowhere to flow or run off across the fields and any solution would need to meet not only protect the area from flooding based on the current position but also to propose a solution that will deal with the impact of climate change on the flood risks into the future. Our property includes a covenant imposed by Hadlow Estates to ensure the boundary between our property and the adjoining field must be of post & rail construction, presumably to ensure the homes on their boundary do not spoil the agricultural status of their land. I suspect this is a similar situation for other existing residents if they check their deeds and whilst I would agree this is a sensible requirement to protect the character of the area HOWEVER if the draft plan goes ahead the adjacent field will become part of the Tudeley Village settlement in which case how are existing residents able to comply with the covenant imposed by Hadlow Estates on one hand and protect the privacy and security of our home with an open rail fence backing onto the new settlement? I appreciate the need to ensure the TWBC need to plan for the future of the borough but I am seriously concerned that the draft local plan for Tudeley Village has not been adequately thought through and there has been totally insufficient rigor and challenge applied by TWBC to ensure their proposal is necessary, sustainable and not detrimental to the area. | |
DLP_814 | David Hughes | I write as a resident to raise my strong objections to the proposals by TWBC to build over 4000 new homes in Tudeley and East Capel with a large school near Somerhill, namely “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). Please add my details to your consultation database so I can be kept informed of future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand my comments can be published but not my address and contact details. My two key objections are set out below. Economics for TWBC: the true cost has been under estimated – the arithmetic does not work As a finance professional, I have done a brief cost benefit analysis and concluded that council tax raised from the developments would not cover the cash investment and borrowing required to provide the required additional new and upgraded Council services needed for some 15/20,000 people. The numbers presented in the plan hugely underestimate costs in a number of areas. This project would appear to have a significant negative net present value from the Council’s viewpoint and would be ruled out as uneconomic if proposed in the private sector. The councillors have not justified their arithmetic sufficiently, using limited and flawed assumptions, assuming that utilities will foot the many of the costs and deliver required infrastructure on time and that implicitly Tonbridge Borough Council will carry the burden and costs of additional services for Tudeley. Councillors have a duty of care which also should extend to the medium to longer term when they are no longer in office so that someone else is not landed with a major debt problem. Councils have become insolvent in the past due to poor decisions which may then carry personal liability for the councillors. Local Infrastructure issues I have spent the past 15 years investing in various forms of UK infrastructure and renewable energy and am particularly aware of local area difficulties re utilities, including:
Major upgrades will take perhaps 10 to 15 years to complete. Economically the previous draft proposals for smaller developments across the borough made sense as bolt on services and utility upgrades can be added at lower cost and more quickly. There are no “exceptional circumstances” to justify using 600 acres of Green Belt which was established to prevent exactly this form of development. This massive set of developments threatens the character of the Kentish Weald, an ANOB. Most of this is prime agricultural land when other brownfield and infill sites are available. It potentially creates a conurbation between Tonbridge and Paddock Wood, the very thing the Green Belt was meant to protect against. | |
DLP_824 | C G Rickard | Please can you add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to strongly object to "The Strategy for Capel Parish" (Policy STR/CA1) I have lived in the Tonbridge area for over 40 years.
| |
DLP_834 | E D Rickard | Please can you add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to strongly object to "The Strategy for Capel Parish" (Policy STR/CA1). I am writing to strongly object to the proposals put forward in the strategy for Capel Parish within the Tunbridge Wells Draft Local Plan. My family and I have lived in Tonbridge for over 40 years. A Proposal by Tunbridge Wells Planning for the "Garden settlement at Tudely" seems to ride rough-shod over Green Belt guidelines and fails to acknowledge the significance of its AONB designation. The proposed area for development lies within the Green Belt land and bordering AONB. The prime purpose of designating an area as Green Belt is to maintain an area where agriculture, forestry and outdoor leisure can be expected to prevail and to prevent urban sprawl which should only be built upon in 'Exceptional Circumstance'. In my opinion, Tunbridge Wells Planning Team has not come up with an explanation of any "exception circumstances" for reversing the status given to this area of land for the enjoyment of future generations. Permanent destruction of this rural environment, including ancient woodland, hedgerows, meadows will not only impact the existing Kent population but additionally have a negative impact on wildlife, including 'at risk' species. Smaller development on "Brown Field" sites must be exhausted before proposals such as this are sanctioned. Much of the proposed plan is located in the Medway flood plain. Increased flood risk caused by buildings and construction of hard impermeable surfaces by decreasing flood plain storage and increasing the scale and speed of run-off is well document on the government planning portal - PPS 15: Planning and Flood Risk Annex B: The Impact of Development on Flood risk. Unsuspecting new residents to the area, who have not witnessed the environmental impact of past local flooding, should not be tempted into this highly unsuitable location. In choosing to position this large development on the edge of Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells Council is effectively hoisting its responsibilities and costs onto Tonbridge and Malling Council and residents, while reaping the financial benefits of the additional Council Tax. P1.29 of the Draft Plan lists NPPF requirements for consideration of needs of bordering Boroughs. This common ground is not evident in the Draft Plan. The impact of this proposed development on the Borough of Tonbridge will be immense, in terms of congestion and over-stretched facilities and infrastructure. Tonbridge infrastructure has been put under extreme pressure over the last few years with its own building developments and as a small town should not have to shoulder the pressures off-loaded by Tunbridge Wells. Local roads, including the B2017, Woodgate Way and Vale Road already become grid-locked at peak periods. Three Elm Lane and the A26 will also feel the strain as they become rat-runs. Tonbridge Railway Station will undoubtedly feel the impact being the most convenient line to London, rather than Tunbridge Wells. The Tunbridge Wells Local Plan has been developed to ensure the needs of Tunbridge Wells Borough are met until 2036. In England we have an aging population, with the growth in population stalling over the last 2 years to its slowest since 2004. It would seem logical therefore, that to meet the needs of the projected future demographic, more appropriate accommodation is needed within the existing urban confines, with priority given to future proofing existing public transport links and infrastructure. The proposed development of a commuter dormitory town seems inappropriate in the longer term, encouraging irreversible expansion into the countryside with the additional need for increased infrastructure to make it in any way viable. This proposed development flies in the face of all environmental and demographic future planning concerns and in the light of this should be rejected. | |
DLP_835 | Queenie Clark | It was very disturbing and sad to read that you are planning to build so many new houses in these two villages. In my opinion this development is far too big and surely space can be found elsewhere to accommodate the increasing local population. It will be devastating for such an area of outstanding beauty. The farmland, so beautiful for the area, will disappear and this good agricultural land will be lost forever. The wildlife will be destroyed, pollution will increase, roads (already congested) will be more crowded and commuters will find the trains already carrying excessive numbers of people, over - filled with yet more. Please re-think this policy and do not go ahead with this blight on our beautiful countryside. It is very dismaying that it is even being considered and the motivation behind it. | |
DLP_847 | Ian Pattenden | I totally reject your plans to build a new town in Tudeley, the additional houses at East Capel and the new school adjacent to Tonbridge. Your comments procedure is extremely difficult when we are expected to annotate each comment referring to a paragraph within your document. I believe this is a strategy to dissuade people from taking the time to comment. I have made my best efforts to comply with this clumsy and time consuming requirement on the basis that if I do not my comments MAY BE IGNORED. Furthermore, you as a Borough Council broadcast the fact that you recognise the climate emergency and the need to reduce carbon emissions. The destruction of 600 acres of good quality farmland in Capel (Including wooded areas) and replacing this with a huge development will only have a negative impact on this serious ecological situation and is contrary to your published ethos. | |
DLP_864 | Ian Pattenden | Comments on Policy STR/CA1 (The Strategy for Capel Parish) p.156 You have developed a strategy which is absolutely, completely, totally unachievable. The risks involved in dumping a so called “garden settlement” on this Green Belt hamlet are huge. The infrastructure will be an immense challenge with eye watering costs. The overriding fact is that the landowner and co-masterplanner is inexperienced and ill-equipped to deliver such a complex project. Point by point the policy is flawed in the following ways:
| |
DLP_869 | Ian Pattenden | I was fortunate to move here to Tudeley 33 years ago with my wife and two small children aged 6 and 7 in the knowledge that we could all enjoy our chosen way of life in a rural location surrounded by Metropolitan Green Belt to protect our future. This chosen rural lifestyle is now being threatened not only for us but our whole community of Capel by the TWBC draft Local Plan to build 2,800 on the MGB and concreting over perfectly good arable farmland for what I believe to be an unsustainable proposal without infrastructure and based on “an easy option one land owner” deal. This draft plan was sprung on us at short notice at our local Parish Council normal monthly planning meeting, we were totally shocked. This whole plan is dressed up to sound acceptable by calling it a “Garden Village” how can this be when the area is cut in two by the main railway line making two distinct separate developments. I am now retired and had planned to spend the rest of my days in our tranquil surroundings having spent the vast majority of my working life travelling away from home, I am very strongly against this absurd and irresponsible proposal and attach my responses I have added a copy of the letter I received from The Ministry off Housing, Communities & Local Government for your additional information and draw your attention to paragraph 5. | |
DLP_875 | Lisa Leslie | As a resident in Capel Parish, specifically Five Oak Green, I want to make you aware of my objection to your local plan. I have been a property writer for more than 22 years, working closely with housebuilders and estate agents on a daily basis in that timeframe. Therefore I am sending you my comments with an extensive property background and a working knowledge of building practices. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I object to the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). I have attended meetings, read the literature, taken part in one of your Facebook Q&A sessions and listened to your Head of Planning but I still have a number of unanswered questions. Your inability to provide any answers or answers that are 'lose', flim flam in nature, lack detail or are not specific enough form the backbone of my objection. I want to also make it crystal clear that in top addition to my points below, I do NOT support building on Green Belt land, on a flood plain, on any SSNI, on AONB or anywhere that jeopardises our natural wildlife habitats and precious ecosystems. Who will buy these homes? - I do not think you will sell all the properties proposed in the Draft Local Plan. When asked, your Head of Planning said 'Londoners' would buy them. This is an admission, right there, that the homes will be priced in a way local Kent people will be unable to afford, alluding to the fact that Londoners will be able to cash in on their higher property values to move to Capel Parish. This is not in the spirit of building local homes for local people. If Londoners are so desperate to live here, why are so many homes for sale and to rent still on the market? Rightmove will show you just how many and tell you the 'length of time' they have been for sale or up for rent. Add in thousands of new homes - many being built in neighbouring TMBC - and tell me where these people will come from. Figures - TWBC is adamant it has been given housebuilding targets by Government. These are outdated figures that do not reflect: a.) current migration trends, with more people choosing to leave our country b.) a trend for people to have fewer children c.) Brexit and the scrapping of Freedom of Movement, that is likely to see our population decrease very soon d.) an ageing population who need assisted living homes and not 'executive' detached houses e.) economic fluctuation, that may see us tip into recession f.) the distinct prospect that interest rates will rise from their historic low and make home buying and moving prohibitive for millions g.) the prospect of so many 'garden villages' coming to fruition over the next 20 years, saturating the market and tipping many people into negative equity. Why have you not got the professional foresight and gumption to challenge your TWBC house building quota? Or even a backbone to refuse it! A profit exercise - house builders build for profit, not for charity or good causes. This is merely a commercial exercise. As soon as this plan moves into the hands of developers, all control will be lost. Developers can go back in for new planning applications to amend plans and extend the size of the development or alter the density of the site. They can tinker will asking prices too. Therefore what you present to us as existing residents now will most likely not be what we end up with. Landbanking - are you aware of this? No one at TWBC has been able to tell me if the developer at the helm of the garden villages will be prohibited to landbank. If they do landbank in the hope that land values will rise, they may sit on the land for decades. This, in turn, will cast a black cloud over the parish that will detrimentally affect existing residents' house values and ability to sell - your Local Plan will be cropping up in conveyancing searches and deterring people from moving here. What's to say the parcels of land won't be sold on it the future and become part of a bidding war? May I remind you of your very own TWBC ABC 'cinema site' debacle for perfect illustration. Fake 'affordable homes' - not one person at TWBC has been able to give me a break down of your affordable homes plan. To Mr Joe Bloggs on the street, they think your promise of 'affordable homes' means cheap property well below market value or even council houses of the old variety. Help to Buy and part buy, part rent are not affordable homes, and evidence suggests that it's actually more expensive to own a home this way! Real affordable homes - I have been unable to establish who will be offered any true affordable homes. It is a nationwide trend to redistribute people and families in need, with influxes of people from outside of the county - let alone the parish or borough - being moved into the affordable homes. I have not been reassured that your affordable plans are for Kentish people, which they should be. Birmingham families being moved to Marden is not how the process should work as there are deserving families within TWBC that should benefit. Non exploration of vacant properties and brownfield sites - I have not been given assurance by TWBC that it has fully explored brownfield sites and vacant properties (of both residential and commercial nature) in its borough to create new homes. Lack of skills an even bricks - have you ever spoken to a house builder? Did you know that building in Kent has recently been suspended on some residential sites because of a lack of bricks? But, of course, this may not be a concern of yours if the huge quarry plan off Whetsted Road is given the green light - another huge blot on our wonderful Capel Parish landscape. Brexit will also cause a skills shortage - it's already being felt by housebuilders - so this may stunt any plans unless there is a huge training and recruitment plan. I am more than happy to sit down and speak with you in detail. In addition, please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_876 | L Huddart | I am writing as a concerned resident of Tonbridge, and as a regular user of the roads through Tudeley, Capel & Five Oak Green areas. I would like to strongly OBJECT to this plan. Having read the draft local plan for the addition of thousands of new homes in what is currently pristine and much needed green space around already busy Tonbridge & Tunbridge Wells, I was filled with dread & horror at the proposed concept & its inevitable resulting stress on the environment and facilities. The area simply cannot withstand the onslaught such a huge additional number of people, cars, children & commuters being added. I live in Tonbridge, use the A21 as well as the surrounding lanes to try & reach my coaching job at local primary schools in the area. It is already noticeable, in the last 5 years, how much congestion has increased on the roads; I am having to allow longer time in order to reach the same destinations. I also regularly travel to London on the train from Tonbridge Station, and whereas 10 yrs ago it was no problem getting a seat it is now a gamble and no guarantee. At the cost of more than £5000 for an annual season ticket, with increasing numbers of potential commuters, the service is destined to decline as a result of the proposed plan, as most of the new residents would look to Tonbridge as being the nearest station as opposed to Paddock Wood or Tunbridge Wells; The station will simply not be able to cope, nor will the roads & car parks in the town, where parking spaces are already difficult to come by or very expensive (season tickets >£2000 per annum) I understand that large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplan, with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_895 | Tonbridge Line Commuters | As a rail user group, our comments are strictly limited to the impact of this development on the transport infrastructure in the area. Tonbridge Line Commuters (TLC) is a recognised rail user group, representing the interests of rail passengers from Tonbridge, Paddock Wood and Hildenborough. We have three main areas of concern around the draft plan. In proposing the volume of housing and the concentration of residential development in the Paddock Wood and Capel areas Tunbridge Wells Borough Council does not address adequately the impacts of an inevitably large increase in rail commuting that would result. Access to Stations. TWBC proposes prioritising development in the Paddock Wood and Capel areas of the borough, partly because these areas have convenient access to local railway stations (Paddock Wood and Tonbridge). However, none of the allocated sites are within reasonable walking distance of those stations, and realistically, cycling is going to remain a minority choice. Without a very significant provision of high frequency (minimum 15 minute intervals) shuttle bus services running from 06.00 to at least 21.00 on weekdays, the majority of trips to and from stations are going to be by car, either as drop-off/pick-up journeys, or with associated parking around the stations. We note that bus provision is outside the remit of TWBC, and is Kent County Council’s responsibility. We therefore have very low confidence that TWBC would be able to adequately ensure that suitable bus services will be introduced as developments take place. Existing road access to both Paddock Wood and Tonbridge stations is via congested and relatively narrow town centre roads. Especially in Tonbridge, traffic at peak times is already heavy and slow moving and there is limited opportunity for improvement (and in the case of Tonbridge, not in the remit of TWBC). TLC is of the opinion that any local development that is likely to increase car traffic to and from these stations is unsustainable. Station Parking. On the assumption that the proposed developments go ahead without mitigation of the station access issues noted above, once passengers reach the station there is very limited capacity for additional parking at existing facilities in either Tonbridge or Paddock Wood. In theory, it would be possible to provide more parking by converting the existing surface car parks in both locations to multi-deck parking, as has already been partially implemented at Tonbridge. This, however is a very expensive option and it is not clear where any funding would come from, especially as the existing parking infrastructure is not under the control of TWBC (being owned by Network Rail or Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council). Our analysis, supported by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, suggests that the majority of people would drive to Tonbridge station (not going back on yourself and much greater choice of services). TLC believes that the significant increase in parking that would be required would not be achievable. Passenger Capacity. The existing train services from Paddock Wood and Tonbridge into London are already nearly full at peak times, and there are housing developments underway further down the line from Ashford to Tonbridge. The vast majority of rush hour trains in this area are already 11 or 12 cars and so extending the remaining services would add very few seats and not nearly enough to cope with the influx of commuters this development will bring. The trend towards part-time commuting may provide some respite but is not, in TLC’s opinion, sufficient to offset the likely extra demand that some 9,000 homes in the Paddock Wood and Capel area would generate. Looking to the medium term, Network Rail’s Kent Area Route Study states (paragraphs 6.9.4 and 6.9.5) that routes via Tonbridge are most in need of extra capacity but providing any extra capacity between 2024-2044 is “challenging” and there are no practical or fundable schemes for doing so. Such capacity improvements would require expensive and innovative solutions such doubling 2 track section between Tonbridge and Orpington to 4 tracks. Other issues include power supply limitations and lack of capacity at the Charing Cross terminus, which could not be addressed without a major rebuild of the station. The Kent Area Route Study makes clear that the rail industry simply has no plans to solve these issues. To do would require huge investment from Central Government and is certainly beyond the 15 year horizon covered by the draft TWBC Local Plan. All of the likely train overcrowding mitigation measures are outside TWBC’s capability to directly influence. Realistically, should these proposals go ahead in their current form then commuting from this area into London will become an intolerable experience. As a result of the concerns above, we cannot support these proposals. | |
DLP_898 | Hubertus van Hensbergen | I am a resident of Nettlestead with grandchildren in South Tonbridge. I therefore travel through five Oak Green and Tudeley several times a week to do babysitting and school runs for their working parents. I believe that the proposed development will so disrupt traffic that it will become impossible to travel from Nettlestead to South Tonbridge in reasonable time. This will be particularly important during a construction phase when heavy vehicles will be using a road which is classified as being unsuitable for such vehicles. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. It would be completely irresponsible to proceed with this planning proposal in the absence of a complete biodiversity assessment of the areas proposed for development particularly given the likely importance of the areas for insects in the face of large scale declines as revealed in the governments own data. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_900 | Jennifer Rohan | I have been a resident in Park Farm in Tudeley for over ten years and thoroughly enjoy living here with my family; I have twins aged 9 who are particularly fond of enjoying all the beautiful greenery around. They are even lucky enough to be able to walk through the woods to their school at Somerhill. Every single person, whether friend or visitor, ALWAYS comments on what a beautiful place we live in; surrounded by nature, greenery and wildlife. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. I have a 2 minute car journey to the school to drop off my children and even at 745am I have to wait for at least 15-20 cars to bypass me before I can join the road. The already unacceptable levels of traffic coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. In addition, it is proposed to be opposite the entrance to the School at Somerhill; which already causes traffic chaos. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with; with the recent opening of the Aldi and B*M stores Tonbridge is in grid lock every morning and afternoon; it simply cannot cope with any more traffic. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. I trust you will take these comments into account as we as a community feel VERY strongly about the proposed plans to ruin our countryside, | |
DLP_957 | Mrs Karen Stevenson | To create a garden settlement at Tudeley of up to 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm both to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of neighbouring rural villages and Paddock Wood. There will be a significant increase in traffic throughout the rural road network exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on local roads already every weekday morning and evening. Even with proposed and long overdue improvements to the A228 at Colts Hill, this will do little to cope with all the additional traffic that will be generated by building so many homes where there train station within walking distance. If people living in Tudeley use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking, plus the roads between Tudeley and Tonbridge will be very congested at rush hours. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking at and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. This development can only really be contemplated if a new station is created at Tudeley to serve the residents of the new community. This new town proposal is also totally against the current environmental initiative seeking to reduce carbon emissions and be carbon neutral by 2050. New towns, which will be wholly reliant on private cars for people to access services, places of work and education is not taking into account the damage to the environment and the contributory impact on global warming. Whilst the longer term plan is for all cars to be electric, this won’t be until 2040 before it is mandatory and probably 2050 before virtually all combustion engine vehicles are off the road. | |
DLP_988 | Janet Harman | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CAPEL As to the proposed development of Capel my objections are as follows: This proposed Garden Village will be out of character for the area and will destroy a large area of the Green Belt which was originally put in place to safeguard our countryside from this kind of major development but now seems to be ignored. These excessive proposed development sites are outside of the Limits to Built Development. Ordinarily, these 'limits' are set to prevent the sprawl of villages into the surrounding countryside. It will have a negative impact on the environment, including dark skies and air pollution. Traffic issues and the impact of highway safety. The road into Tonbridge is already congested at times and journeys take more time and the increased volume of traffic adds to air pollution also extra traffic generated from a development such as this will impair road safety. | |
DLP_1001 | Esmond White | Your plan will cause heavy over-load on already congested roads in and around Tonbridge. TWBC will take the new residents' council tax while T&MBC will have its health and support services inundated with thousands of extra people (your own estimate is about 6000!) It is wrong to plan to build on productive farmland and the floodplains of the River Medway. Your plans will increase surface water run-off and increase the flood risk to us who live close to the river downstream. There will be a horrible increase in noise, light and air pollution. Now is NOT the time to be building on 600 acres of Green Belt and destroying the scarce natural habitat. In the 21st Century you should be planning low-rise development on brown field sites where the necessary infrastructure can be expanded. Do not even think of building a new senior school so far from existing railway and bus stations. | |
DLP_1005 | Christopher Dennis | I am a local resident of Five Oak Green and have lived here for over 20 years and have a keen interest and understanding of the ecology of the local area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). The development of such a settlement in this area will have a negative impact on a number of habitats and species which, due to the value of the area in terms of biodiversity, could not be sufficiently offset through enhancement and mitigation within the local area. Attempts of offset any negative impacts outside of the Tudeley area should not be seen as sufficient due to the high value of the habitat mosaic in its current location, in part due to the open nature of this landscape. Not only is this Green Belt land but this area is of especially high value to biodiversity in the context of the local area, with European Protected Species, reptiles and declining bird species present across the proposed development footprint. I do not consider it to be possible to offer a true net gain for biodiversity within the local community due to the types of habitat present within the development footprint, such as open farmland and ancient broadleaved woodland. These habitats would either be impacted through direct loss or impacted indirectly due to the development reducing habitat functionality e.g through reducing connectivity and increasing disturbance. Proposals to enhance existing woodland habitats away from the proposed development will not be sufficient to counter loss of ancient broadleaved woodland or impact on open farmland habitats for which the development area is of such high value, particularly to declining farmland bird species. It is this habitat which would be impacted on not only by this development but by other development across the wider area, including planned quarrying activities. I do not believe the cumulative effects of the proposed housing developments and quarrying has been considered at all. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_1020 | Mr & Mrs R B Coles | We have lived in the Parish of Capel since 1973 at Colts Hill in a property bordering the B2015 road , now renumbered as the A228. We object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish “(Policy STR/CA1) The creation of a garden settlement of 2800 dwellings at Tudeley ,in the Green Belt and partly in an AONB ,appears very ill -conceived , as does the creation of a senior school bordering the Borough of Tonbridge.In particular the former will create a scar on the edge of the High Weald which will be visible from across the whole Weald. The loss of valuable grade 2 and 3 arable land, the likelihood of increased flooding of the river Medway both locally and further downstream at East Peckham and Yalding,not to mention in Tudeley itself, where the B2017road is sometimes flooded in winter,is unjustified.This flooding may happen more frequently in the future due to climate change. Residents of any such settlement will undoubtedly use Tonbridge for their shopping and rail station of choice rather than Tunbridge Wells or Paddock Wood , which will cause greatly increased traffic and parking problems in Tonbridge and evermore crowded trains from that station.It will also increase the existing pressure on health, education and other facilities in Tonbridge. At present the B 2017 road and Hartlake Road bordering the sites are unsuitable for HGVs and the latter has only a single lane bridge over the railway line.There would therefore be a need for a very considerable improvement in the road infrastructure if the village settlement should proceed. The siting of the village settlement on both sides of the main railway line requiring the construction of bridges or tunnels to join the two halves together ,not to mention the noise and pollution caused by the railway , indicate the site is unsuitable. Also the site of a senior school divided by the main railway line, bordering the Tonbridge mini bypass, and surrounding an ancient woodland appears even more unsuitable. Furthermore, the surrounding by the garden settlement of the unique All Saints Church at Tudeley, the only building worldwide all of whose windows were painted by Marc Chagall , and visited by many tourists to the area, would be a very great pity. The suggested road to be built from the B2017 near Capel Primary School to the planned A228 Colts Hill bypass to bypass the southern side of Five Oak Green also seems ill-conceived.If residents of the garden settlement wish to travel to Tunbridge Wells they are likely to use the fast A21 to Pembury or use Alders Road to Colts Hill and on to Pembury. If they wish to go to Paddock Wood they will continue to travel through FOG, Dampiers Corner on the A228 ,and on to Paddock Wood. We are ,however, pleased to observe that the Colts Hill bypass -first planned in 1976 - is still planned. The A228 road running through Colts Hill is now heavily used by HGVs ,ambulances and police and other emergency vehicles and is totally unsuitable for such vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, and has no bus stops.The planned developments at Paddock Wood and Capel will cause the road to become even more congested unless the bypass is built beforehand. | |
DLP_1379 | William Forster | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and to the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” I have lived in this area for 30 years and in Capel for c27years. As a family we have explored the countryside and made great use of available footpaths and landowner generosity. I object to the plan, both where it is sited and the volume it proposes. It is based on a disproven target, developer wishfulness, and very limited insight on the scope of impact and what would need to be funded by TWBC and residents. It brings with it a huge political risk as well as commercial risk of failure, puts vast swathes of the garden of England under yet more concrete and fails to address the flooding which such a site alongside, and in, a known flood risk area will bring. Locations. Plan The plan should not be taken further until Government addresses the target numbers. The new town The Borough planners talk about developer levies as being the answer to many problems but not to the above and are anyway unreliable. As cost escalate, the levy would run short. As new things are identified, the planned budget would not cover it and local taxes would get raised or services cut. A developer elsewhere dropped a few houses from a plan so they didn't have to build the surgery and other community facilities which were contingent on the full permitted build being achieved. Bus funding by Developers is promised to help manage traffic, but it is not clear how that will work and whether it will work. Nor is it clear how it is funded when development stops. And the plan appears to rely on Autonomous buses, a technology that is not yet available and for which there are many hurdles, both technical and legal. Over 40 years ago a planned development in Paddock Wood was stopped for a while when it was found there was no sewage capacity. History repeated itself with the present Paddock Wood estates being built. When Transfesa was developed it was on the basis that Colts Hill would be bypassed. We still wait for that, despite reclassifying a small capacity B road to an A road to help the process. While a green field development is attractive to developers, it isn't to the community and no use of brownfield development is in the plan and has not been properly investigated by TWBC for delivery of any significant part of the target. Bearing these points in mind we can have little faith in the integrity, necessity and adequacy of the proposed plan. It should be dropped and the target addressed with Government. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1382 | Will Pattenden | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Additionally, the fact that this proposed development is located squarely within the Green Belt on good quality agricultural land is staggering. I am well aware of the pressure to build houses within the county. I am also, however, well aware that development within the Green Belt (particularly at this scale) should be considered only as a last possible resort when all other options have been explored. I find it very hard to believe that we are in that position currently, given the number of brownfield or edge of development sites there appear to be in the area. If this proposal is approved, it will leave a scar on our beautiful landscape that can never be reversed. The future enjoyment of this unique and charming area by generations to come should be protected fiercely. Every lobby group, charity and activist movement associated with the environment have condemned this proposal in the strongest possible sense, and for very good reason. Detailed plan comments: The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. | |
DLP_1415 | Mrs Jenny Vincent | My husband and myself moved to Five Oak Green 15 years ago. We moved here due to the rural location surrounded by green belt land ideal for raising a family with a lovely village community and a small village school surrounded by farm land and amazing views. Our daughters are now 11 & 8 and love walking around the parish, one of our family favourites is to the poacher and back. We are so lucky to have this rural environment surrounding us which is why I feel so strongly about the proposed Capel expansion in the local plan my concerns are detailed below. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. Our 11 year old daughter now travels to Weald of Kent Grammar in Tonbridge by bus and rarely gets a seat on either journey, how will the current public transport cope when they can’t even provide suitable volumes with the current housing levels. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_1436 | Jane Anscombe | I live in Golden Green with my husband – we have lived here since April 1990. Tonbridge is my local town (shops, doctor and so on) and I regularly commute to London from Tonbridge station. I am writing to object to the Local Plan because of concerns relating to the huge volume of additional traffic; impact on the green belt (my husband and I are keen walkers and regularly walk across to the Tudeley/Five Oak Green/Kent College areas); impact on the environment including risk of additional flooding; and the fact that it appears that Tunbridge Wells will get all the additional council tax whereas Tonbridge and Tonbridge train station will suffer from a massive amount of additional traffic, congestion and pressure on facilities. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I believe that creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause significant harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge and Golden Green. I am very concerned about the additional traffic, both between the proposed Tudeley site and Tonbridge and coming north into Golden Green. There is already significant congestion on the B2017 into Tonbridge every morning, and between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road. It is likely that many of the residents of the proposed Tudeley settlement will travel into Tonbridge to work, shop or commute to London rather than going into Tunbridge Wells which is much further and in the wrong direction. This congestion will be exacerbated by the proposed new senior school, close to the Schools at Somerhill where traffic is already stationary around pick-up times. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. It appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. It seems highly likely that a lot of traffic from the proposed new development will take the Tudeley Road if they want to go north towards Hadlow/Maidstone rather than the much longer route (with queuing) through Vale Road and the Tonbridge Industrial estate. The Hartlake Road is a narrow country lane across beautiful countryside and not at all suitable for heavy use or development as a major artery as it is winding, floods regularly and arrives the middle of our village. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting yet the station car parks are already close to capacity, as are the trains in peak hours. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. Tonbridge town centre is already very busy, with daily queues and it is hard to see where all the extra cars will park. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents yet it is Tunbridge Wells will receive the council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. AS I understand it, TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. I understand that the plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I believe that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will ruin a huge swathe of countryside. AS far as I can see, TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_1536 | Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council | The potential significant impacts of the proposed developments at Tudeley and Capel on the local highway network and on infrastructure and services in nearby Tonbridge are a major concern for TMBC, particularly in the light of the existing infrastructure challenges in Tonbridge and surrounding villages and communities which have been identified by TMBC. TMBC believes that some of these will present delivery challenges for the allocation due to appropriate mitigation measures not being feasible. However, we wish to work collaboratively with TWBC to explore all possibilities and particularly welcome the early identification of a number of junctions requiring mitigation within TMBC. It is acknowledged that Policies STR/CA1 and AL/CA1 recognise these issues and require comprehensive master planning and ongoing liaison between Tonbridge and Malling, Tunbridge Wells, Kent County Council and all other relevant stakeholders. This will include land owners, promoters, and infrastructure providers to ensure that the infrastructure accompanying these proposals is properly planned for and delivered at the appropriate time. TMBC requests that they are specifically mentioned in all relevant policies with the emerging Local Plan to ensure that this collaborative approach is enshrined in policy. Both this site and the Paddock Wood sites discussed below require appropriate onsite health service provision to be provided at a primary care level. Given the proximity of these sites to Tonbridge and the proposals for Local Care Hubs that are being progressed by the West Kent CCG, TMBC request that the potential for facilitating Local Care delivery through this strategic site allocation providing land or contribution (our preference is Tonbridge Cottage Hospital) should be explored in detail as part of the next stage of plan development, should this site be taken forward. | |
DLP_1568 | Celia Curling | I am very concerned to hear of your planned development of Tudeley Garden Village and further housing in Capel. I live in Tudeley for many years while bringing up my family. The access to Tonbridge from Tudeley was very important to us. My husband, a senior civil servant at H.M. Treasury, needed good access to parking at the railway station. The boys and I needed to access Tonbridge for educational reasons. I do not believe the road to Five Oak Green & Tudeley is able to cope with any further traffic. Congestion between the schools in Tonbridge is really bad without further addition. I am one of a team of church members who offer hospitality and talks to our visitors, who come on the tourist route to All Saints Tudeley, with its famous Chagall windows. Our visitors frequently comment on the beautiful countryside setting of this special Grade I listed church. Now resident in Golden Green, I am concerned about the threat of flooding to our homes here. Parts of the village have already experienced flooding in 2013/14 and much of this village is low lying. With mental health and the quality of the air and pollution high on the agenda, I consider access to green spaces and especially an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to be important. I urge Tunbridge Wells Planning Authority to set aside these ill-considered plans. | |
DLP_1575 | Mr John Hurst | Green Belt - do not develop. Completely egregious proposal. | |
DLP_1579 | David Rowlands | I am a retired resident of Tonbridge and have lived here for 45 years, I worked in the town for over 20 years and now a regular walker in the area and an active member in the community. ( See attached file form) [TWBC: attachment is has been copied in full below]. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Your plan to create a garden settlement of at 2,800+ at Tudeley and 4,000 at Paddock Wood will cause nothing but harm to the local community, environment and wellbeing of the residents of the Parishes of Capel, Paddock Wood and the residents of Tonbridge. The only benefits are to TWBC through receiving the council tax of these new dwellings and that it solves 60% of their incorrect housing targets with one Vendor without them having to investigate their local brown field sites and other smaller sites within Tunbridge Wells and that they would happily use 600 acres of our green belt. 1. My objections are as follows: - (Please note you have already rejected planned building in this area for building only 6 B&B rooms) 1. GREEN BELT: - Losing 600 acres of Green belt and creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife, clean air, and biodiversity. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. And to quote from Rejected building application 31st July 2018 REFERENCE: 18/01767/FULL. “The proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt, which by definition is harmful to its openness. There is insufficient evidence of the necessary 'very special circumstances' to overcome this harm. The proposal is thus contrary to Policy MGB1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, Core Policy 2 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. The proposal, by virtue of creating new buildings with associated domestic paraphernalia, works to alter the land levels and potential additional impacts from further parking and works in close proximity to the trees at the rear would have more than a minimal impact on the landscape character of the locality. It would not conserve and enhance the rural landscape, nor would it protect the countryside for its own sake, nor preserve the interrelationship between the natural and built features of the landscape. The overall impact is harmful to the rural character of the area. It would thus be contrary to saved Policies LBD1, EN1 and EN25 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006, Core Policies 4, 5, and 14 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2010, the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the Planning Practice Guidance.” 2. FLOODING: - Note the danger of Flooding and threat to life as highlighted in rejected planning (quote from Rejected building application 31st July 2018 REFERENCE: 18/01767/FULL). “It has not been demonstrated that the occupiers of the development would not be at risk from flooding or that the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Therefore, the development is likely to result in a risk to human life from flooding and is contrary to policies EN18 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and Core Policy 5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010, guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the Planning Practice Guidance” 3. TRAFFIC: - Increase in traffic in the region of 4000 vehicles on already congested roads in particular B2017 that will cause extreme high levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) near at least 6 local schools queuing at current road junctions and roundabouts. The Office for National Statistics: - Household Labour Force Survey shows that: Percentage of households by combined economic status, April to June 2019 that 60% of households have both residents working which means at least one will use a car and 26% have one family member working which again no doubt will be using a car. I will be interested to see how you as stated achieve “ Zero and low carbon energy production to be considered during early design stages” 4. INFRASTURE: - Unacceptable increase of pressure and stress on local Tonbridge Doctors, Schools, Buses, Roads, and Parking, Tonbridge will become this garden settlement’s town of choice as its much closer than Tunbridge Wells. 5. TRAINS: - Unacceptable increase of commuters on already overcrowded trains at Tonbridge with no room for any increase in carriages due to length of platforms. 6. PARKING: - Insufficient parking in and around Tonbridge now. 7. SCHOOL: - The proposed new senior school will draw children in from all of West Kent. It is a 40-minute walk from the over busy station of Tonbridge. And the plan has a railway line at the back of the school grounds. 8. HERITAGE: - Damage to environment around a very important prized heritage site – All Saints Church at Tudeley, with its world renowned stained unique stained-glass windows. 9. Community: - This plan will divide the communities of Capel, Tudeley, Paddock Wood, and Tonbridge who will pay the price for this disastrous planning application that threatens the wellbeing of all of these communities. | |
DLP_1584 | Mrs Jane Lloyd | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). We live in Goldsmid Road, Tonbridge, (under Tonbridge and Malling Council) but nevertheless, will be very much affected by the 2800 or more residences that are planned to be built on farmland surrounding the villages of Tudeley and Capel. My main objection is on grounds of the uncosted impact on neighbouring communities, but I also object on grounds of damage to heritage, environment, leisure and tourism; and on lack of suitable infrastructure for this size of new community, (and lack of means and resources to provide it). I am concerned because this number of dwellings planned to be built on this site is totally disproportionate, and will destroy the rural character of the Tudeley and Capel area, and with it, the special peaceful quality of Tudeley parish church, (All Saints), and churchyard, (with its views of Hadlow Tower, oast houses and fields) with its internationally renowned Chagall stained glass windows that attract visitors from around the world. It will create a visual scar with roundabouts, light, noise, and traffic pollution. I think this is an indiscriminate and sprawling development, not representing the best that TWBC can do, nor does this represent the Kent that we wish to showcase to visitors, who will be denied that special experience to encourage further tourism. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, on farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected, it will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife. This is not compatible with preserving the best of our heritage and supporting a policy for a sustainable environment alongside climate change objectives. The residents of this 'new town' will use the facilities of Tonbridge, as the most accessible centre, not Tunbridge Wells, and it is Tonbridge that will bear the burden; the Council tax of new residents will be paid into Tunbridge Wells coffers. This will mean 2800 or more vehicles using the narrow roads around these villages, and daily trips into Tonbridge will add to traffic on the extremely busy Woodgate Way, Pembury Road and Goldsmid Road. The infrastructure of the Tonbridge area is totally inadequate to support this number of new residents. There are serious flaws in poorly thought-out planning - the site of the secondary school that is planned nearby is split by a railway line, and adjacent to a major road. There are already insufficient spaces in medical practices to support the Tonbridge population, which has grown hugely in recent years, and there is inadequate Tonbridge town centre parking. In particular, the impact on neighbouring communities has not been fully costed and evaluated. Many of the vehicles from the 'new town' will use Tonbridge residential roads, such as Goldsmid Rd and Pembury Rd, as a cut-through to Tonbridge town centre, the shops and Tonbridge station. Goldsmid Road is already heavily trafficked. Below describes the type of congestion that already exists, creating a safety hazard for pedestrians, motorists and residents alike: * Goldsmid Road is very busy in the rush hour, and is used heavily by buses, industrial lorries, and commuter and school traffic. It has several 'bottle-necks'. At the junction with Pembury Rd, vehicles have to queue to turn right. This proposed new development is on Green Belt land and should only be built upon if an “exceptional circumstance” exists. TWBC’s own assessments in their Sustainability Appraisal show that Paddock Wood can expand and meet most of the plan’s aims without using the Green Belt land at East Capel. The grounds for housing need, as calculated by the government, can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the settlement at Tudeley from this plan. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_1585 | Tricia Bewsey | I can’t help wondering if there’s any point in objecting to the vast scale of planned development for the Paddock Wood and Capel /Tudeley area of the borough. Many extensive objections were raised to the current developments in Paddock Wood and went on for some years. In spite of good and valid grounds to object the only benefit is alterations to schemes. The fact that the schemes will inevitably happen is a fait accompli. We now have the first of such developments underway, discussions with sales staff has told us of the extremely limited interest in purchasing these properties. To the point where local rumour has it that Berkeley homes has put two tranches of that site back up for sale. The proposed new school and other benefits to the community are simply not happening. Yet at the same time ancient green belt land in Badsell road is also being hacked about an enormous development planned yet again. Orchards destroyed. No sign of the necessary infrastructure promised is happening. No village hall is being built. No swimming pool promised many years ago, no larger car park at the station to cope with new residents commuting needs. No new health centre to cope with one that is already at full stretch. That’s before we begin on the hospitals capacity, and the country lanes that abound around this area. Infrastructure needs to begin in tandem. We all know developers offer a token amount for something but if that something, such as a village hall or school isn’t on the table quickly enough they walk away from that commitment. At what point do local councils stand their ground with government policies and say enough. Infill by all means, small localised developments definitely. But planning to concrete over vast areas of one of the most expensive property areas in the country seems little short of ludicrous. A minute one bed flat here would buy a reasonable house in the midlands. If we need developments then let them be in areas where homes are affordable and create jobs and infrastructure to help these areas prosper. | |
DLP_1588 | Maggie Fenton | I strongly object to the Policies STR/CA1, STR/CA2 and STR/PW1
Almost all of PW1 lies within Flood Zone 3 – only 7% of the Borough has this designation. It would therefore seem that a different site with a lower flood risk (which would accord with NPPF 149) would be to be more appropriate and sustainable. There is a reason the current boundary of Paddock Wood stops where it does – its on the edge of a flood plain! All 3 sites are within the MGB. 2 would impact hugely on the AONB. Planned road infrastructure will cut straight through the AONB. | |
DLP_1619 | Maggie Fenton | Policy STR/CA1 (The Strategy for Capel Parish) p.156 You have developed a strategy which is absolutely, completely, totally unachievable. The risks involved in dumping a “garden settlement” on this Green Belt hamlet are huge. The infrastructure costs are huge. The landowner and co-masterplanner is inexperienced and ill-equipped to deliver such a complex project. Point by point the policy is flawed in the following ways:
| |
DLP_1634 | Amanda Parrett | As a resident of Tonbridge, I am devastated at the plans to alter the landscape and innate character of the town and local area in which I’ve lived my whole life. The very essence of what makes Tonbridge Tonbridge is its position within the countryside; with greenbelt land all around, yet with access to larger towns such as Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells nearby and quiet country villages in between. This is the reason for the town’s popularity and why people pay large sums of money/take out massive mortgages to live here. The plans for thousands of new homes and communitites to be built on our doorstep in our surrounding countryside will negate a signficant element of Tonbridge’s appeal and its inhabitants’ quality of life. I understand the need for additional housing, but – as with other elements of the TWBC plan – it needs to be distributed more equally throughout the Tunbridge Wells borough, rather than sandwiching our historic town next to a new ‘super town’. My 4-year old son started his school life in September this year (at the new Bishop Chavasse school right on the border with Tudely) and already the journey and parking is becoming an issue. The school is set within a new housing estate (a small version of what TWBC plans for Tudely/Capel/Paddock Wood) and it is already obvious that planners have not accounted for what will happen as the school grows. Traffic at the Somerhill roundabout on the approach is very busy at peak times. The new Tudely town will put additional pressure on this busy area, compounding the problem. Will there be new roads/ road layouts / parking areas to facilitate all the traffic from thousands more inhabitants? I object very strongly to the scale of the plan on the border of Tonbridge and feel sad at the prospect of losing the character of my home town. | |
DLP_1636 | Peter Crawford | Regarding the plans for additional housing in the Tudely and Paddock Wood area I would ask you to consider the effect of these proposals on the residents of East Peckham. Many people in East Peckham are dependent on the services provided by Paddock Wood. The following will have a major impact on East Peckham residents: TRANSPORT- road, rail and bus services are already under stress and the new housing will substantially increase this FLOODING - flood control within the Medway valley is the responsibility of various bodies with no overall control or central planning and funding EDUCATION - students from East Peckham, where there is no provision within the village for secondary education, have to travel to school; many going to Mascall's in Paddock Wood HEALTH SERVICES - following the closure of the surgery in East Peckham residents are dependent on the services provided by Woodlands Health Centre which already is very busy and parking difficult The overall environmental impact of these proposals on East Peckham will be extremely adverse. The call for housing proposals to 2031 has produced a raft of ideas which are likely to be damaging and need to be drastically revised. The concept that each council should produce a plan without reference to the wider impact is basically unsound and there is a pressing need to consider the impact of major housing developments within the Medway valley area from Tudeley to Marden etc | |
DLP_1648 | Tom Tugendhat MP | STR/CA 1 - The Strategy for Capel Parish and AL/CA1 - Tudeley Village Finally, I wanted to comment on the allocation for the strategic site at Tudeley which has probably attracted the most publicity in the run up to this consultation. It has certainly galvanised the interest of residents in Tonbridge and Golden Green since the proposals were published a few short weeks ago and from the allocation it is obvious to see why. The boundaries of both Tonbridge and Golden Green are very clear and self-defined. On the south east of Tonbridge, Woodgate Way forms a natural buffer between the town and the countryside, and in the most part acts as the borough boundary as well. In Golden Green, the River Medway acts as a natural boundary between it and Tudeley. The result is that development here cannot be considered to be congruous with either settlement. The lack of acceptance that development at Tudeley would provide north-south traffic movements between it, Golden Green, Hadlow and East Peckham is striking of the need for additional work. As I mentioned in my response to STR/PW 1 and AL/PW 1, the impact on the rail network is one of significant concern for any development on or near the Southeastern mainline. In the most likely event that a railway station is not built at Tudeley, residents will use Tonbridge station as their closest and I have significant concerns about the travel connections between Tudeley and Tonbridge. First, considering the most sustainable form of transport, there are no cycle paths between the development and even if one was constructed along the B2017, there are many questions about the route it should take in Tonbridge. For a number of years I have been campaigning alongside Kent County Councillors, Richard Long and Michael Payne, as well as Tonbridge Bicycle Users Group to connect Tonbridge Station with the A21 Non-Motorised User Route and we have found agreeing an acceptable route with all parties extremely difficult. There are no indications that this would be any easier from Tudeley. Consequently, we cannot rely on the bicycle as being a primary and suitable mode of transport for residents in Tudeley. Furthermore, parking capacity at Tonbridge station is already both limited, and expensive. Access to the car parks can be tricky, especially on the way in from the B2017, with cars having to go through Sovereign Way and Avenue du Puy to get there. This area is also frequently congested at peak times with existing business access, and possible improvements to the road network are limited. Consequently, development of this scale at Tudeley would have an unacceptably high impact on the centre of Tonbridge, and one which I highly doubt can be appropriately mitigated. It is essential that TWBC looks at the impact of development on key junctions in Tonbridge if its proposals are to be progressed any further. If this does happen, it is down to TWBC to suggest ways that these will be improved which will not have an adverse impact on the quality of life of residents in Tonbridge, will come with the agreement of KCC and TMBC and, crucially, will not be funded by them either. Turning to Golden Green, it is not possible to adequately assess the impact of development near the village without referencing the terrible flood events which have caused so much trouble for people here in recent decades. Like Tonbridge, in 2013/14 the flooding event hit Golden Green hard and the suitability of the land in the immediate area for further development is questionable. At the time of writing, the River Medway Flood Relief Act 1976 has yet to be amended and consequently we must assess these proposals on the basis that improvements to flood defences at the Leigh Flood Storage Area don't happen as quickly as we would like, although I am confident that they will be delivered. In light of any additional flood defences in the Golden Green area, I have my concerns that the increase in development will increase the flood risk and would request that TWBC engages closely with the Environment Agency to produce accurate models for the Regulation 19 consultation under all eventualities. Of course, these models should extend to Tonbridge as well. Finally, I wish to cover the health provision needed to make this development acceptable. I am hugely concerned that these have not been identified and cannot find any reference in the Local Plan to the number of GPs needed to serve this development, and where they will be located. My concern is based on my experience representing Leybourne Chase. While TWBC may not be aware, this development of 733 dwellings came with provision for a GP surgery. However, now 5 years on from the first occupation, there isn't a GP on site, with discussions now taking place about changing the use of the building through the planning process. Like in Leybourne Chase, neighbouring practices are full and in Tonbridge WKCCG has to allocate surgeries to new residents because of their closed lists. Therefore GP facilities are needed on site, but only if agreement can be found with a GP provider to take on ownership of the building. If this doesn't happen, development should not be permitted here as it would put an additional burden on the three Tonbridge GP practices. In addition, shortly following the conclusion of this consultation we eagerly await the result of WKCCG's study into the need for hubs across West Kent. In Tonbridge Cottage Hospital we have the ideal site for one of these to serve residents across Tonbridge and the borough of Tunbridge Wells and I am concerned that the vague nature of the policy in the current Draft Local Plan leaves open the possibility for a hub to be located at Tudeley. This would no doubt be used as a reason to make any development acceptable, but would also undermine the viability of Tonbridge Cottage Hospital. Therefore, I urge TWBC to do much more work on the health impacts of these proposals on a strategic level ahead of the next consultation. In summary, based off the available evidence it is clear that the development proposals at Tudeley would fundamentally change the character and nature of Tonbridge and Golden Green. I am hugely concerned that many of the key issues have not been adequately assessed so far and urge TWBC to complete this work so we know what the impact is on communities across the borough boundary. Without this being done, the Draft Local Plan cannot be considered sound, and I would not be surprised at all if it demonstrated that there was an unacceptable impact on towns and villages in Tonbridge and Malling as a result of these proposals. [see also full response - Comment Number DLP_1577]. | |
DLP_1654 | Tom Game | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I live in Tudeley and am a student studying Civil and Environmental Engineering and wanted to object to the draft local plan. | |
DLP_1678 | Ian & Julia Henderson | I am writing to object to "The Strategy for Capel Parish" (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in "The Strategy for Paddock Wood" (Policy STR/PW1) in the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan. I understand my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. My family and I have lived on Old Hadlow Road in Tonbridge for many years and regularly use the roads in and around the Tonbridge and Tudeley area. Specifically our son used to attend the Schools at Somerhill, so we are well aware of the traffic issues that are caused by the amount of traffic using the roundabout at the end of Woodgate Way coming from the Tudeley direction, as well as the tendency to use the road from Tudeley to Golden Green and then up to the A26 Tonbridge to Hadlow Road as a back route. We also use and have used the footpaths and rural area around Tudeley for dog walking etc. The proposed creation of the garden settlement at Tudeley and a new senior school on the border of Tonbridge will create a huge increase in traffic which the current narrow rural roads are not equipped to cope with. There is already a substantial amount of traffic congestion on the B2017, particularly during rush hour in the mornings and any further development of the area would raise this congestion to unacceptable levels, leading to gridlock in and around Tonbridge, including the narrow, twisting road to Golden Green with a blind bend on a bridge over the river. Public transport is insufficient and too inefficient and people living in a rural area will always use cars in preference, despite schemes to encourage them to use other forms of transport. Commuter traffic will cause further problems with parking and train overcrowding at Tonbridge. Whilst the burden of the increased traffic and related costs to the Tonbridge council, individuals and businesses which will suffer as a result will be borne by Tonbridge the income from the new settlement from council tax will go to Tunbridge Wells. In addition residents from the new settlement would tend to use Tonbridge amenities which are closer than Tunbridge Wells which will cause further burdens to already overstretched health and other services. The area proposed for a new senior school is completely unsuitable, being on farmland which is cut off from Tonbridge and public transport links in the town by a busy main road (A26) and a railway line. Tonbridge is well served by current secondary schools and the creation of yet another one would pull more children into the area from outlying settlements, so creating further traffic along already congested roads. Schools for the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council area should be built closer to other centres of population in the Tunbridge Wells borough, not on the border of Tonbridge borough. The development of such a large area of housing on the flood plain is of substantial concern, particularly with the unknowns associated with climate change and rising water levels. It is known that development of housing increases water run off and potential flooding problems and any increase in this area close to the Medway could cause further problems with the already flood prone areas of Tonbridge, Golden Green, East Peckham and Yalding. The road from Tudeley to Golden Green already floods on occasion which would cut off one of the main exit routes from the proposed garden village. The flood risk assessments should be updated before any development plans for such areas are included in the Local Plan. Sites CA1 and CA2 were not included in the plan preparation process until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017, meaning a large area of housing did not go through all the processes, with no detailed Green Belt Study, no Landscape Assessment, and no Biodiversity Assessment, meaning this part of the Plan is not ready for public consultation. The protection of Green Belt land was a high priority for those who participated in the Issues and Options process, and the building of the garden village at Tudeley and the Capel development would both be on Green Belt land. A growth corridor led approach should be implemented to protect Green Belt land within the borough. The new housing in Capel parish would destroy current green belt land, including hedges, meadows and productive farmland as well as the wildlife associated with these. It would also destroy an area of countryside and turn Tudeley into a major settlement instead of a country village, disrupting local views and historic assets such as Tudeley church. Whilst there may be local housing need in the Tunbridge Wells area this is more than covered by other provisions in the Local Plan and the destruction of green belt land to provide housing would be unacceptable. The use of Tudeley to provide housing needs now will mean that in the future the Council would view it as an area which could be further developed to provide additional housing - the gap between the proposed garden village and Tonbridge would then gradually be filled until there was a complete corridor of housing along the road from Tonbridge to Capel and on to Paddock Wood (see the reference in 440 of the Local Plan to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations). Such a large extension of Tonbridge would destroy the character of the area and cost Tonbridge council and its residents an enormous amount in terms of burdens on services, transport and roads, whilst having little impact on neighbouring Tunbridge Wells. Development should be spread across Tunbridge Wells borough through development of brownfield sites where possible and, should a large development be necessary, it should be placed in an area with better transport links and more central to the borough, rather than placing all the burden on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_1681 | Jessica Exall | My name is Jessica Exall, I have lived in Tudeley area for 28 years and currently work in education. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” Policy STR/CA1. In a letter sent by the Hadlow estate to Capel locals it mentions how the new development would create new local jobs and how this would be good for the people in the community. People in Capel already have jobs and what the Hadlow Estate did not consider is how the proposal would negatively affect local businesses and in some cases cause loss of income. I don’t understand why the TW council are trying to build new houses when the new houses in Paddock wood and Five Oak Green have failed to sell and have been on the market for almost a year. What makes them think the new properties in Tudeley would sell? I find the dealings in all of this sneaky and suspicious and the idea of a village with no roads, only bike lanes is ridiculous. TW council must have plans for big roads they are just not telling the public as that would make it easier to have the plans as a whole dismissed. This all makes the Capel community feel on edge and uneasy about the future at a time of already great uncertainty. We have a problem in the Tonbridge area with flooding, I am worried if the TW Council go through with their plans the flooding problem will get worse especially with weather becoming far less predictable due to climate change. With new roads and properties there will be problems with draining and the river Medway would flood with increased regularity. We have highly varied wildlife and areas of ancient woodland in Tudeley that would be lost to this new development. Even if you leave some patches of green there still be a massive decline of birds due to pet cats and other direct and indirect factors relating to the development. The average number of cats owned per household is 2.1, and the RSPB estimate that ‘cats in the UK catch up to 275 million prey items a year, of which 27 million are birds.’ This would be a disaster for local wildlife including wildlife residing in Tudeley Woods RSPB reserve. My family run holiday lets in Capel and we have people from around the world revisiting due to our beautiful landscapes, wildlife and rich in farming history. In Capel you can still go on walks and see hopfields, a sight that seems to be disappearing across Kent. In Tudeley we are very lucky to have a church designed by the famous artist Marc Chagall. I am worried the new development would ruin the church. I am a supporter of ‘Churches Conservation Trust’ and they often post about churches that have been vandalised. Lead and tiles have been ripped from roofs, graves vandalised, valuables stolen, but worse is the recurring problem of stones thrown at stain glass windows. This has been happening recently in Hadlow and Goudhurst. How would you stop this be prevented in Tudeley? People travel down from all over Europe to see these windows. All Saints church was voted number 3 on ‘Time Out’ for best alternative art days out. There are only two churches in the whole of the UK with windows designed by Marc Chagall, Chichester Cathedral (one window), All Saint Church Tuedely (12 windows). All Saint Church's windows are unique and deserve to be protected as much as our amazing habitats and wildlife. | |
DLP_1685 | Trevor & Lesley Hill | As residents of Brampton Bank on the B2017 Tudeley we strongly believe the points made below about the “Local Plan” should not just be noted, but given serious consideration by the “Planning Committee”. Please add our contact details to your consultation database so that we can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. We understand that our comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. We are writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley (“New Tudeley”) of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new sixth form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. We believe this would be an unsafe site for a school given that it would be surrounded by heavy traffic and would require pupils and staff to have a safe crossing facility across the railway to access both sides of the site. As the railway line has a high voltage electrified third rail system there will always be a risk that someone could not keep to the official crossing installed leading to injury and potential fatality. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but we believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley and East Capel but also in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary into Tonbridge & Malling and create an environmental scar across the landscape. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction and loss of 600 acres of farmland, orchards, natural habitat for birds, fauna and flora, and area of natural beauty. This loss will probably have a negative impact on species numbers and the natural food chain. Historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley, world renown for the complete set of Marc Chagall windows, may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout, which would no doubt have a negative impact on its value as a heritage asset. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, yet TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 identified by the government and upscaled it to 14,776. We believe that the housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist and would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the proposed development of “New Tudeley” and other similar proposed developments from this plan. Supplementing this argument we would like to draw your attention to the fact that the plan preparation process did not include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through the plan preparation process as recommended/required by the Government White Paper “Garden Communities”, August 2018. As there is no published Green Belt Study, Landscape Assessment or Biodiversity Assessment for these sites, we think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation given that a significant proportion of the housing sites haven’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The plan strongly indicates that TWBC want to build housing in and around Tudeley and East Capel until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre when alternative sites are available throughout the borough. We also note that TWBC’s own assessments in their Sustainability Appraisal show that Paddock Wood can expand and meet most of the plan’s aims without using the Green Belt land at East Capel. The comment above about coalescence and the creation of a conurbation from Paddock Wood right across to Tonbridge is very relevant here, as is the land’s use as a flood plain. Building here, even with flood risk mitigation and “betterment” could have disastrous consequences for all, as the measures being looked at are based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. | |
DLP_1689 | Jamie Newman | It has been brought to my attention that you plan to build in excess of 4000 new homes in and around Capel. To myself and many others in the already existing community, this is simply unacceptable. [TWBC: this comment also entered against Policies AL/CA 1, AL/CA 2 and AL/CA 3. See comment numbers DLP_1691-1693]. | |
DLP_1717 | Oliver Worsfold | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. As a resident of East Peckham I pay my council tax to Tonbridge & Malling Council and I want to voice my objections to the proposal by TWBC to develop Tudeley Garden Village as this is a naïve and poorly conceived plan to push 60% of TWBC housing plans onto the furthest border of the borough with no regard for the financial and environmental damage on TMBC residents who pay their council tax to fund local needs not those of TWBC. How can it be reasonable for TWBC to expect the residents of TMBC to accept over 60% of their total housing requirement to be built on the furthest edge of their borough with no regard to the sustainability on the finances, infrastructure, and environment for residents of TMBC. The residents of Tudeley Garden Village will be dependant on infrastructure, emergency services and amenities in Tonbridge but they will be paying their Council Tax to TWBC. By any stretch of the imagination how can it be acceptable for residents living in TWBC to be funded by residents of TMBC? Especially as TMBC do not have sufficient funds to do everything required by their own residents, for example the road in which I live is affected by major parking issues but TMBC do not have sufficient funds to address this issue. Looking forward I can see the cost impact on the infrastructure getting worse, technology will drive a need for ongoing development and it is not equitable to expect this to be funded by TMBC residents? The close proximity of the Tudeley Village to the boarder with Tonbridge & Malling means that residents will naturally treat Tonbridge as their local town (in fact their postal address is Tonbridge not Tunbridge Wells). As a result some 8,000 additional cars will be using the roads in and around Tonbridge all of which are already congested, which will get worse as TMBC develops additional housing for the needs of our borough going forward. Over the past 10 years TMBC have undertaken sensible development of Tonbridge, which has generally been to the benefit of the area, however there is no doubt that the traffic congestion and parking is barely adequate and will be totally inadequate if there are 8,000 additional cars on our local roads. If the draft plan is successful the green belt released will be only the start point with more and more green belt released in future years until Tonbridge, Tudeley, Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood become an amorphous mass of housing that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells. As far as I can see the only justification for the plan is that a single landowner (Hadlow Estates) wish to sell the land. Whilst it may be convenient for TWBC to deal with a single developer this does not justify the ‘exceptional/special circumstances’ required under the National Planning Policy Framework as the harm to the Green Belt, local environment, climate change, biodiversity and infrastructure would clearly outweigh the convenience for TWBC and profit for Hadlow Estates. This aspect requires the closest of scrutiny. Neither is the traffic infrastructure sustainable, the B2017 and Hartlake Road are both narrow roads that can not be widened. In addition there is a single lane railway bridge on Hartlake road that will be totally unable to cope with the volume of traffic into the village creating a bottle-neck and more congestion. The current plan does not currently include a railway station at Tudeley therefore commuters will travel by car to Tonbridge station requiring extended parking facilities in the town centre which is simply unrealistic and not sustainable. Both the Garden Village and the new school will be split a dangerous electrified main railway line presenting an obvious safety risk to the residents, children, property and wildlife. I am also very concerned about the increased risk of flooding in communities around the Garden Village. Extensive building will mean water has nowhere to flow or run off across the fields, which are saturated in winter months. East Peckham already has a flood risk and additional development in the area could increase the risk especially with the additional demands on flood defences due to future climate change. If additional measures were required to protect East Peckham and/or other communities in the area, these would need to be funded by TMBC when the root cause of the problem is development by TWBC. I can see no redeeming feature in the plan, other than it offers a convenient solution for TWBC dealing with one developer and all the impact will be felt by residents in TMBC not TWBC – their selfish approach is quite astonishing. | |
DLP_1725 | Emma Game | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I live in East Peckham and pay my council tax to Tonbridge & Malling Council and am appalled at the proposal for TWBC to develop Tudeley Garden Village as this will mean there are thousands of additional homes, residents & cars creating an unsustainable strain on TMBC infrastructure and amenities. My specific objections are: 1. Proportionality of the development - if TWBC require additional homes these should be distributed fairly across the borough not dumped on the furthest edge of their borough with the major impact on residents of TMBC residents. Based on the draft local plan the Parish of Capel (and therefore Tonbridge) would bear the brunt of 60% of the total housing requirement for TWBC which is totally disproportionate. 2. Unsustainable cost implications for TMBC Residents– residents of Tudeley Garden Village will be dependant on infrastructure, emergency services and amenities in Tonbridge but they will be paying their Council Tax to TWBC. By any stretch of the imagination how can it be acceptable for residents living in TWBC to be funded by residents of TMBC? Especially as TMBC do not have sufficient funds to do everything required by their own residents, for example the road in which I live is affected by major parking issues but TMBC do not have sufficient funds to address this issue. Looking forward I can see the cost impact on the infrastructure getting worse, technology will drive a need for ongoing development and it is not equitable to expect this to be funded by TMBC residents? 3. Pollution & Congestion –the close proximity of the Tudeley Village to the boarder with Tonbridge & Malling means that residents will naturally treat Tonbridge as their local town (in fact their postal address is Tonbridge not Tunbridge Wells). As a result some 8,000 additional cars will be using the roads in and around Tonbridge all of which are already congested, which will get worse as TMBC develops additional housing for the needs of our borough going forward. Over the past 10 years TMBC have undertaken sensible development of Tonbridge, which has generally been to the benefit of the area, however there is no doubt that the traffic congestion and parking is barely adequate and will be totally inadequate if there are 8,000 additional cars on our local roads. 4. Release of Green Belt if the draft plan is successful the green belt released will be only the start point with more and more green belt released in future years until Tonbridge, Tudeley, Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood become an amorphous mass of housing that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells. 5. Plan of Convenience - so far the only justification for the plan is that a single landowner (Hadlow Estates) wish to sell the land. Whilst it may be convenient for TWBC to deal with a single developer this does not justify the ‘exceptional/special circumstances’ required under the National Planning Policy Framework as the harm to the Green Belt, local environment, climate change, biodiversity and infrastructure would clearly outweigh the convenience for TWBC and profit for Hadlow Estates. This aspect requires the closest of scrutiny. 6. Narrow road access to Garden Village - the B2017 and Hartlake Road are both narrow roads that can not be widened. In addition there is a single lane railway bridge on Hartlake road that will be totally unable to cope with the volume of traffic into the village creating a bottle-neck and more congestion. 7. Unsustainable railway services - the plan does not currently include a railway station at Tudeley therefore commuters will travel by car to Tonbridge station requiring extended parking facilities in the town centre which is simply unrealistic and not sustainable. 8. Senior school outside the catchment area for TWBC – with the standard admission policy based on proximity to the school, residents of TMBC sremore likely to get places in the school than TWBC residents, which makes absolutely no sense. 9. Health & Safety – both the Garden Village and the new school will be split a dangerous electrified main railway line presenting an obvious safety risk to the residents, children , property and wildlife. 10. Protecting the Historic Site of All Saints Church - how can the plan even consider building a bus lane behind the historic Grade 1 Church of All Saints? This is a real warning sign that TWBC have no intention of preserving the identity, attraction and character of the historic sites, or that the transport scheme has not been properly thought through, neither prospect inspires any confidence in the remainder of the plan. 11. Compromising the Flood Plain increasing the risk of flooding as extensive building will mean water has nowhere to flow or run off across the fields , which are saturated in winter months. East Peckham already has a flood risk and additional development in the area could increase the risk especially with the additional demands on flood defences due to future climate change and if additional measures were required to protect East Peckham and/or other communities in the area, these would need to be funded by TMBC when the root cause of the problem is development by TWBC. The This is a totally misguided plan that has only been developed as it is an easy option for TWBC to push 60% of their housing plans onto the furthest border of the borough so they only need to deal with a single developer and TWBC have paid no regard to the financial damage for TMBC residents who pay their council tax to fund local needs not those of TWBC. | |
DLP_1730 | Hugh Fairbairn | I live in the heart of the Parish of Capel in the middle of Five Oak Green .We love the parish, the sense of community, the surrounding countryside and the general lifestyle we have come to enjoy since arriving in the village some ten years ago. We love the fact that we can leave our house and be walking in the open countryside within moments and the diverse range of habitats to be found right on our doorstep. Head north and you have orchards and arable land leading down to the river, head south and the rolling high weald is a completely different experience. My wife and I both work in London and use the train from Paddock Wood, so we are fully aware that the line is already over capacity on most peak services. We have also lived through the Village and surrounding areas flooding and would not wish to see any development that would increase that risk. We also have noticed the decline in wildlife species already in the last 10 years and we don’t think irreplaceable natural habitats should be sacrificed in this area of green belt and outstanding natural beauty. We want our future grandchildren and other generations to hear cuckoos the Plants, and nightingales by Hartlake bridge; Owls down Postern Lane and skylarks over the fields. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. The lack of appropriate infrastructure will see a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This site selection for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site is truly unbelievable. People living in Tudeley will probably choose to use Tonbridge Station for commuting as Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Tonbridge town services are a;lfready overcrowded and the newly extended multistorey carpark would not provide the extra spaces that will be needed. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food, as it currently does. I believe that the current landowner for this site is promising low density housing as part of his mitigation to protect habits, but this would in itself make it unlikely that the development would provide much if any affordable housing, so it is a case of the wrong type of development in the wrong place. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. In conclusion I would like to add that I am not a nimbyist – I just don’t feel that the type of development proposed is suitable for these sites due to the many concerns listed above, summarised again here: | |
DLP_1784 | CPRE Kent | The overview table for Capel (including Tudeley Village) provides data on the extent of green belt, AONB and over the page at 156 other matters (including ancient woodland and historic features) across the parish and at the main settlements within the parish of Five Oak Green and Tudeley. Given the impact of the development on Tudeley itself it is not clear whether there are no ‘other matters’ for Tudeley, or whether this box in the table is mistakenly blank. If there are Tudeley-specific issues these should be clearly identified in order to enable a full and balanced understanding of the impact of the proposed new settlement. Section 6 of the policy refers to the provision of new road links and that the exact location of such a link has not been determined. This raises the question of how much a link would cost, who would pay and when would it be provided. It is not clear whether development would be able to fund this and other infrastructure requirements. Section 11 states that “zero and low carbon energy production to be considered during early design stages and incorporated to provide an exemplar scheme.” Given Government aim to achieve zero carbon by 2050 the policy should omit the phrase ‘and low’. The phrase “to be considered” is at odds with the rest of the sentence. Text should be replaced as follows: 11. Provide an exemplar scheme that incorporates zero carbon energy production. At paragraph 5.60 the bullet point summary of the site (page 160) confirms that the site is in single ownership, and then goes on to refer to the Council working with the landowners (plural) – this is confusing. | |
DLP_1949 | Ms Madeleine Bohringer | This is the wrong place for a 'garden village'. The land should be kept as green belt and flood plane. The more we build the more problem there will be with flooding. | |
DLP_1988 | Mr D A and Mrs S M Maclennan | Proposed Developments by the Council We are very concerned to learn that your Council is proposing to build 2,800 new houses in Tudeley, a large senior school opposite nearby Somerhill and 1,500 new houses in East Capel. A particular concern for us is the impact that these proposed developments will have on us as long-standing residents of Golden Green. We regularly use the route from Three Elm Lane in Golden Green (our nearest main road), via Hartlake Road and Tudeley Road to gain access to Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and other areas. From all that we hear, if these developments proceed, there will be resultant chaos on already congested roads in the Hartlake Road, Tudeley Road and Tonbridge areas, whilst associated hard surface work will increase flooding risk in Tonbridge, Golden Green, Hadlow and East Peckham. There is also an unquantifiable, but highly probable, negative effect on the marketability of and prices obtainable on domestic and other property in these areas. We would like the Council to reconsider its proposals in view of the potentially significant adverse effects that they are likely to have. | |
DLP_1998 | Dr David Parrish | Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). UNBALANCED LOCATION: 63% of allocation is on the Tonbridge border - probably due to the ease of dealing with only one (late entry) landowner (and one that wishes to develop the land themselves - despite having no development experience). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic into Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a mainline railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible location for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE: People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail has confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. | |
DLP_2066 | Terry Everest | Strongest Objection Possible Capel is a tiny hamlet Tudeley an historic village These huge developments must not go ahead in these locations and neither should this level of development be pursued anywhere. There are wildflower meadows, woodlands, streams and rivers in this area which would be destroyed by these plans. This is Green Belt and AONB and needs protection not developments. There are large areas of diverse and fragile habitat within and near these proposed sites which deserve protection and to remain unspoiled. There are thousands of opponents to these plans. Both local and semi local. These developments threaten to create an urban link between Paddock Wood and Tonbridge and possibly even Tunbridge Wells in collaboration with other plans that would severely disrupt wildlife corridors, the green spaces necessary to define our towns, and the environemnt of the whole area. These cannot go ahead and I refer further objections back to these comments also. | |
DLP_2151 | Sheila & Michael Bunn | We wish to register our objection, in the strongest terms, to the proposed development and construction of 4300 homes on farmland at East Capel & Tudeley. | |
DLP_2155 | Paul Marchant | This email is to register my disgust and anger at the proposal to build 2,800+ houses at Tudeley near Five Oak Green. This beautiful Green Belt land should be left alone and never disturbed by a greedy land owner out to make even more millions or TW council only interested in making a fortune in council tax! I regularly visit the area in question (which I am willing to bet none of you have any idea what this land even looks like) as I am a keen photographer and huge nature lover. In spring I watch this land burst into life and watch the skylarks chatter happily as they rise and fall. In summer I watch and listen to the thousands of insects, birds and animals enjoying the freedom and peace around them. In autumn the colours of the trees and bushes is amazing and in winter the mist from the nearby river Medway makes this land beautifully eerie and the frost and snowy scenes here are amazing! Please leave this beautiful land alone. The Council builds far in excess of its quota of houses every year and it’s own figures show this! Pure greed is not a good enough reason to decimate this haven for struggling wildlife. This land is a pathway for deer, foxes, badgers, hedgehogs, birds and insects to follow all the way to the Medway and to cut this link will be devastating when their numbers are declining alarmingly. Throw out this awful plan and respect the local residents who never want to be a ghetto of Tonbridge or Paddock Wood‘s unchecked sprawling towns. Their councillors are absolutely clueless and just allow anything shoved under their noses if it makes them a fast buck! We just want our local nature left alone. The council doesn’t need this land as it is building record numbers of houses and its quota has been met for many years to come! | |
DLP_2156 | Phillip Jesson | I am writing to you as a resident of Tonbridge. I am most concerned about the proposed Local plan being adopted by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council for Capel and Tudeley. | |
DLP_2163 | Mr Robert Assirati | I am a retired civil servant living in the Parish of Capel. I spent my career managing and reviewing major government projects, working latterly for the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury. I was Deputy President of the British Computer Society and an Honorary Fellow of the Association for Project Management. I am still invited by the Government to review their Major Projects for deliverability and value for money several times a year. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I chose to live in this area because of its rural nature, with beautiful views over the Medway valley and opportunities for walking the network of footpaths and the towpath along the River Medway. I took account of the fact that my house is in both the Metropolitan Green Belt and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and regarded this as a guarantee by government policy that I would not be subject to uncontrolled development. How wrong I was. | |
DLP_2167 | Rena Pope | The proposed TWBC housing plan suggests development on borders for which TMBC have administrative responsibility. This is equivalent to parking tanks on a neighbours lawn. Such behaviour would ruin neighbours relations for ever. My question deals with one area, Hartlake Road. How many on site meeting were held there before plans were drawn up? As on site meetings would have established, Hartlake Road is a narrow lane between Golden Green TMBC and Capel TWBC. There is a busy public house and restaurant at the junction with Sherenden Road. There are two bridges in the lane, one over the Medway river, a memorial area where hop pickers will killed TMBC, the other over a railway line TWBC. It would appear that not content with endangering drivers and pedestrians, you are also intent on dishonouring the memory of the hop pickers and the peace of the dead in the small walled cemetery near the railway bridge. I repeat, how many site meetings did you have in Hartlake Road? | |
DLP_2264 | A Price | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I am a senior citizen and have lived within the area for 52 years. I have been privileged to enjoy this beautiful countryside, walking my dogs along the many footpaths which cross the open landscape. I am strongly against this beautiful green belt agricultural farmland being considered in a plan to be destroyed in order to build a new town, roads and associated civic amenities. I believe a so called “garden settlement” at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings is inappropriate and does not follow the principles of garden settlements as defined by the Government. Additionally the settlement will be divided into 2 by the main line railway. There would be a significant increase in traffic into Tonbridge along the B2017, exacerbating the current extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning and evening. The additional traffic will cause increased levels of air and noise pollution as the residents of this new settlement will want to use their private vehicles for the convenience of getting into their nearest town of Tonbridge, even with the proposed public transport bus link. The major portion of the new housing will be taken up by people being drawn into the area as there would appear to be an excess of housing already available for local residents. Many of these people will be commuters who will want to travel to London to work on trains which are already at capacity. I therefore consider this proposal to build this new town on the Tudeley site to be unsustainable. Destroying valuable good quality grade 2 and 3 arable farmland located in the middle of the Green Belt is irresponsible and must never be allowed under any circumstances. In fact I understand that the Government require there to be “exceptional circumstances” before green belt can be considered to be used for development. Doing so will deprive our future generations of this valuable and irreplaceable asset forever. Additionally, we must protect productive agricultural land to provide our food, also we need precious green spaces for our well-being both physically and mentally. Why destroy this important local precious asset just because it is an easy planning option for the council planners based purely on one land owner who is willing to sacrifice his heritage for financial gain. At this stage there are no ideas what so ever being put forward for comment on infrastructure for roads, sewerage, water supply, gas, etc. All very “finger in the air” strategy which we are constantly being told is normal at this stage of the planning process and will be sorted out with a Masterplan. Yet other parts of the Borough have more details available for comment and already have some of the infrastructure in place. The Tudeley site is obviously a late addition to the process, being the easy option for 65% of the apparent local housing need, there are Brownfield sites within the Borough but these are not so profitable for developers. The Police, Fire and Ambulance services are already at capacity and often overstretched and the proposed creation of a large new town will only make this situation even worse. Furthermore, health and dental services within the area, to accommodate the possible additional 9,000 to 10,000 extra people, will be passed on to the adjoining Tonbridge and Malling Borough council. Climate change is occurring and the introduction of 2,800 new houses and the accompanying additional civic amenities will add to this global catastrophe, adding more carbon and reducing the carbon uptake of the land and associated flora and fauna. Also Tudeley is located on a floodplain with risk assessments based on old and out of date data, locating houses on a floodplain is irresponsible. Due to the openness and topography of the area, the proposed dumping of 2,800 houses into this landscape will destroy this beautiful and historic part of your Borough, including AONB, heritage sites, listed buildings and traditional Kentish farmsteads. This would appear not to bother the Council planners since we are far away and out of sight in the far outer reaches of the Borough. Being a rural area, Tudeley is blessed with a diverse and important list of birds and wildlife, many on the European list of protected species and some endangered such as Bats, Great Crested Newts, Turtle Doves and field nesting birds such as Skylarks, Linnets and Yellowhammers. This legacy cannot be just brushed aside by statements that they will be re-located to somewhere else, this is wishful thinking and a complete fantasy. The birds and wildlife will just decline in numbers and finally disappear into extinction. Ancient and old woodlands along with beautiful hedgerows will also disappear and leave a baron and lifeless landscape devoid of wildlife, is this something the Council will be proud to leave as a legacy for the future? In summary, this proposed new town plan has been ill thought through, in indecent haste without any regard to the needs of the community of Capel and future generations who desire to live in this rural parish. There are other alternatives that should have been discussed and considered, but the so called responsible officers of the Council hastily “nodded through” this unacceptable scheme without question and in a dismissive way. Furthermore, the consultation response process has been made impossibly difficult, especially to an elderly person such as myself and many others like me, how can this be a democratic, fair and open process. | |
DLP_2284 | Rosemary Worsell | I am writing to protest against T.W.B.C. proposed plan to build a garden village at Tudely and Capel on the grounds that the site is a designated green belt area and a natural flood plain. I guess the members of the council that have proposed this really don’t know the area very well but have chosen this site on the far boundary as it will not impact on the centre of Tunbridge Wells. If the development is allowed to go ahead it will have a huge impact on Tonbridge which is already grid locked every morning and evening adding more pollution to a highly polluted area. T.W.B.C will collect all the council tax / rates from the area and Tonbridge services will be stretched to breaking point with no additional revenue. There are various small pockets of land in this area where the land owners have been unable to obtain planning consent on the grounds that it is green belt. Small developments of one or two houses would have little impact on the area but consent has been refused. Very strange how it is o.k. to build on green belt when it’s the council that wants to do it. I urge you to reconsider this proposal as the impact on Tonbridge and surrounding area will be catastrophic. | |
DLP_2309 | Delia Moss | These proposals if implemented are not welcomed .Reasons are as outlined on the savecapel.com web site ,and I wish to support them. I am a resident in Golden Green and fear the impact that this proposed development will have in and around this area will be huge in a negative way. | |
DLP_2356 | Andrew Sweeney | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I am a resident of Hildenborough and have been very concerned to read about this proposal. My first concern is of course loss of the environment, this plan will basically obliterate Tudeley and Capel and the surrounding Green Belt farmland. Knock on effects on Tonbridge A lot of the new residents will be motorists and a lot will probably wish to commute from Tonbridge How is that going to work in practise? It is quite clear this development will have a significant negative impact on the environment and lives of everyone currently inhabiting Tonbridge and surrounding areas I also notice that this is a TWBC initiative which will have the benefit of additional council tax revenue while most of the impact and cost will be inflicted on Tonbridge. The planning process appears flawed. This proposal in isolation is bad enough but I note East Capel is included “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). Finally, I note most of this land identified is a flood plain! This looks like a shoddy attempt by TWBC to afflict residents of a neighbouring area with the consequences of very ill-conceived and unnecessary plan. | |
DLP_2365 | Martin Rohan | I have been a resident in Park Farm in Tudeley for over ten years and thoroughly enjoy living here with my family. I am also a local business owner. We chose to live in Tudeley for good reason, beautiful surroundings and the area is awash with wildlife that our 9 year old twins see and enjoy on a daily basis. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. The plan has been rushed, not following correct processes (references below), it is ill thought through from an infrastructure perspective with no coherent strategy and seems only to benefit landowner’s & Developer’s pockets and tick box government housing quotas. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with; with the recent opening of the Aldi and B*M stores Tonbridge is in grid lock every morning and afternoon; it simply cannot cope with any more traffic. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_2368 | David Lovell | I live in Capel and walk extensively in the area, enjoying the beautiful countryside and its diverse landscape. I relish the wildlife, clean air, birdsong and dark skies, but fear all of this will be lost under TWBC’s plans to build thousands of unneeded houses in protected Green Belt land. I therefore want to object to the intention to build extensively in the area, but the public consultation process is overly complicated, made all the more difficult by a Local Plan of over 500 pages of repetitive and thickly worded planning jargon. It must have been obvious the lay person would find it extremely hard to navigate, yet the process is further complicated by a convoluted on-line mechanism. By its complex nature people will be dissuaded from raising objections, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion this is by design. Many Capel residents are concerned that, if we fail to comment in the right way, our objections may be misfiled or dismissed. This suspicion is down to a lack of trust in the planning process, compounded by misinformation and the avoidance of questions. Examples of include: * Head of Planning’s claims of regular consultation opportunities for residents before the shock revelation in May 2019 of the intention to build extensively across Capel. This may refer to the Local Plan process before sites CA1 and PW1 were included, but that would be disingenuous at best. Such misleading comments, avoidance of difficult issues, alongside a lack of detail and assumptive statements throughout the documents, and ignoring sharp developer practice, suggests TWBC have a policy to disguise or disregard inconvenient truths. The public consultation looks suspiciously like a cosmetic exercise, with principal conclusions pre-decided and likely to be disguised by minor changes. Plans for Capel appear rushed, despite being the main thrust of the Local Plan, and with a flow of misinformation, lack of detail and biased assertions, planning strategy appears to be centred on finding ways to justify the unjustifiable, rather than a subjective exercise on the merits of the Capel proposals. This leads to my concluding the Local Plan is unsound, riddled with inaccurate and self-serving explanation, and cannot therefore be trusted. I therefore strongly object to the proposals for sites CA1 and PW1. Comments on STR/CA1 GREEN BELT Having struggled through the Local Plan and a number of supporting documents, I am left with a vision of development for Capel dressed up in speculation and predisposition, with little of substance beyond the notion of building as much as possible on Green Belt. These proposals are unneeded and unnecessary. The 2014 housing figures used to justify the proposals are out-of-date and miscalculated; only pressure of parliamentary process has prevented the adoption of official figures from 2016. These newer figures indicate the number of 13,000+ homes used by TWBC would drop by over 5,000, more than the total proposed for Capel. Using the 2016 calculation would negate the need to build on Green Belt, and ease problems elsewhere in the Borough, but the Council insists on the highest possible numbers. Moreover, they intend to build a further 9% on top, despite the NPPF allowing a lower figure due to protected land constraints. These excessive numbers suggest a ‘build for build sake’ mentality pervades the Department. The NPPF states in paragraph 11(b) that; “the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area.” Footnote 6 expressly mentions the Green Belt as a protected area. As Green Belt and AONB cover over 70% of the Borough, this gives legitimate scope to reduce numbers and argue strongly in favour of using the more accurate 2016 figures, but the Council have declined to do so, claiming the NPPF is ‘ambiguous.’ However, the intention of this clause seems very clear and there is no good reason not to argue for the NPPF exemption and retain the integrity of the Green Belt. STR1 of the Plan also reveals it is an objective to target Green Belt: 7. The release of Green Belt around the settlements of Royal Tunbridge Wells, Southborough, Paddock Wood, Pembury, and in the parish of Capel, to deliver development allocated in this Local Plan. This objective should be replaced with environmentally responsible objectives, such as use of brownfield and under-used land, but tellingly, use of such land is not included as a strategic objective. I therefore object to this strategy and the destruction of the Green Belt it represents. About 25% of the borough is unprotected land but has attracted only small-scale development, another inconvenient fact glossed over by Planners. The 400 acres of Green Belt proposed for development in CA1 belongs to a single landowner, and Planners initially indicated it was a significant factor in revoking delegated status. Developing on Green Belt should only be in ‘exceptional circumstances’ and must be justified and evidenced, and not just to alleviate demands for further housing. TWBC themselves state: ‘…it is not sufficient to redraw Green Belt boundaries based on a site being considered to be in a sustainable location.’ Yet that is precisely what the Local Plan aims to do by targeting Green Belt to accommodate claimed housing need. TWBC has failed to detail any exceptional circumstances of note to evidence a compelling need for this extensive removal of Green Belt, yet continues to push its flawed proposals forward. It should instead remove these proposals and preserve the Green Belt. The focus on Capel and Paddock Wood for development reveals a gross imbalance; around 60% of the borough’s housing plans. Other areas have been dealt a more even-handed approach, and unprotected areas of the Borough are all but unscathed; a more equitable spread would be a more justifiable outcome. After the imbalance of solar farm placements, and now housing, residents in Capel and Paddock Wood believe our area has become a ‘dumping ground’ for all unwelcome requirements TWBC councillors are obliged to consider. TWBC’s plans for the Green Belt even surprised James Brokenshire, Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government. In a letter dated 03/07/2019, his Planning Policy Advisor, Alan C Scott, states: “A scheme of 2,800 dwellings would almost certainly be too large to build on land still in Green Belt, so would require the local authority to be convinced that the Green Belt boundary should be adjusted… a local authority can propose a Green Belt boundary alteration only in exceptional circumstances and only if it can show evidenced justification that it has examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs.” Mr Scott adds: “I am advised that the Tudeley garden village scheme does not form part of the Garden Communities Programme, and is not currently supported by our Housing Infrastructure Fund programme.” Whilst the local authority may have convinced themselves the use of Green Belt is justified, they have failed to publicly explain the ‘exceptional circumstances’ or to show evidence that it has examined all other options, such as pro-actively seeking brownfield and under-used land to meet its development needs. I therefore object wholeheartedly to the intention to use Green Belt in Capel and the proposals should be dropped. BIODIVERSITY NPPF para 177 states: The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site. However, there has been no cumulative assessment of the effect of development across Capel, compounded by KCC gravel excavations between CA1 and PW1, and the extensive road infrastructure required. The combination of these proposed works will transform Capel from a rural ward with little development, to an urban stretch with little countryside, from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood and from the Medway into the AONB. The cumulative impact on wildlife, agriculture, landscape, local heritage, the local community and the effects of flooding, is likely to be far greater than each aspect of TWBC’s and KCC’s plans taken in isolation. It is therefore vital a cumulative impact assessment is made; however inconvenient findings may be to the strategy of placing the majority of development in Capel and Paddock Wood. There are EU protected species living in the area; Bats (common pipistrelle, serotine, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared and noctule), Great Crested Newts and Dormice. The EU Commission Biodiversity Strategy 2010–2020 aims to halt the EU and global loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020. TWBC’s strategy directly counters this by targeting countryside, which will have an inevitable and catastrophic effect on fauna and flora in and beyond the local area. Kent Ornithological Society lists 70 bird species that winter or breed in the Capel sites; 12 are Species of Principal Importance and must be taken into consideration with a view to conserving biodiversity. I have found nothing in the Local Plan to confirm such consideration, or how this conservation might be achieved given such large-scale destruction of habitat. This is indicative of a slap-dash approach to biodiversity, which appears to an expendable inconvenience to TW planners. Ten breeding species are ‘red-list’ Birds of Conservation Concern due to significant population decline caused by habitat loss, including Turtle Dove, Nightingale and Spotted Flycatcher in orchards and woodland; Lapwings, Linnets, Yellowhammers and Skylarks in the fields. Swans, geese, grebes, ducks, herons and egrets breed or visit the flooded quarries and streams, and four species of owl live in the area (Barn, Tawney, Little and Long-eared), whose habitat must also be considered, but the Local Plan is silent. Destroying the habitats of this rich diversity of birdlife will further reduce their alarming loss and must be stopped, rather than ignored. Apart from the protected Great Crested Newt, other amphibians and reptiles live in the area, including Toads, Frogs, Lizards and Slow-worms, each requiring protection against habitat loss. Other animals include badger, stoat, field mice, hedgehog, shrews and voles, all relying on the fields, orchards, hedgerows and woodland. Proposed mitigation is vague and therefore lacks sincerity; habitat loss is inevitable to achieving such large-scale construction on open countryside. In a report submitted to the TW Planning & Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board on 19/08/2019, the Landscape and Biodiversity Officer suggests better woodland management might mitigate the loss of habitat and achieve ‘net biodiversity gain’. However, the land to be lost in CA1 and PW1, which forms the vast bulk of the borough’s development plans, is primarily fields and hedgerows, so woodland management would achieve very little against the inevitable biodiversity loss. I therefore object to the plans the Local Plan refers to on ‘biodiversity gain’ as vague, inadequate and destructive. The National Planning Policy Framework is specific about protecting biodiversity; for example, paragraph 174 states that ‘To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks...’ As shown above, this has not been done in any meaningful way for CA1 and PW1, yet further indication of a rushed plan that is not ready or fit for public consultation. It needs to be redrafted, with a focus away from areas of countryside rich in biodiversity. ENVIRONMENT 1. Pollution The concept of over a decade of construction across the area is going to have a detrimental effect on the health and well-being of the residents, but this has been glossed over with condescending comments about encouraging healthier life-styles and electric bicycles. The countryside and open spaces are recognised to improve well-being, but these ill-thought out developments not only remove those wider green and open spaces, but air quality will suffer, noise levels will be incessant and Capel’s dark skies will be lost, all aspects I object to. Light measurements taken for site CA1 between July and September 2019 show an average reading of 20.55. According to instruction from the High Weald AONB, this is a measurement equal to that area. The Local Plan is vague on how the inevitable deterioration in light pollution levels will be tackled. However, TWBC’s magazine ‘LOCAL’ states the Local Plan proposes a “…new policy which addresses this in rural areas.” That policy is not explained and one is left with the Orwellian concept that turning a rural area into urban TWBC will satisfy their obligations. 2. Climate Emergency If TWBC were serious about climate change they would challenge the 2014 government figures, and build on brownfield and under-used sites, enhancing the Green Belt through planting of trees and promoting organic farming. 3. Community 4. Agriculture To avoid justifying the consequences of significant loss of productive agricultural land, TWBC has persistently made the claim the land in CA1/PW1 is ‘poor quality’. This contradicts their own assessment in the Development Constraints Study, which shows the land as Grades 2 and 3; defined by Natural England as ‘Very Good’ and ‘Good to Moderate’, whilst only Grade 4 is ‘poor’. In an email on 15/10/2019, the Head of Planning again described the land quality as ‘poor’, a misrepresentation that disguises the inconvenience of destroying productive land; if the land is considered as ‘poor’ then it can be claimed the loss has little negative impact, but ‘good’ and ‘very good land’ lost is hard, if not impossible, to justify. 4. Flooding Potential homeowners may also face problems raising mortgages or insurance against such properties, but two requests for confirmation that planners have consulted with financial and insurance institutions to understand the risks, and list those bodies who have given reassurance, have gone unanswered. I can only draw the conclusion this has not happened and claims of flood mitigation are more hopeful than realistic. The increased ‘run-off’ of water from these thousands of homes, with roads, drives and pavements, not only threatens the viability of the new developments, but poses a hazard to communities downstream in neighbouring boroughs. Yet again the Local Plan is woefully short on mitigation detail and appears more hopeful than realistic. The Local Plan is an environmental, and human, catastrophe in waiting. The Local Plan therefore shows scant regard for the scheme’s settings, in particular for CA1 which lies in the Low Weald and next to the High Weald AONB. Current views from the AONB and across the high ground to the north show an area of countryside interspersed with historic farmsteads and the cowls of oast houses. Building a significantly sized new town on this area will have a huge visual impact, totally altering and depriving the nation of this historic landscape. Indeed, views across site CA1 from the B2107 skirting the AONB, and Hartlake Road are stunning and worthy of the highest protection, but this is precisely the landscape TWBC proposes to vandalise without due and proper consideration. 6. Heritage Of key heritage significance is All Saints’ Church at Tudeley, and the stunning windows designed by Marc Chagall, which are a unique national, and global, asset. Chagall was commissioned to design one commemorative window in the church, however, he considered the light and setting so perfect he designed them all. All Saints’ is the only church in the world to have a complete set of Chagall windows. The development proposed for CA1 will radically alter the setting of the Church and the windows. The full set of windows would surely not have existed had the setting not been so inspiring, and therefore that same setting needs preservation for the enjoyment of the Church’s many visitors. TWBC’s plan compromises the windows and betrays this global artistic treasure. All Saint’s is not the only historic Church whose integrity will be compromised by the CA1 development. St Thomas à Becket Church, Capel, may be disturbed by a new road connecting CA1 to the A228. Even if that does not happen, the views from the churchyard across to the North Downs will be permanently scarred by the new town. This historic church has 13th century wall paintings, and a yew tree under which Becket is supposed to have preached, and is another national asset that needs protection. Again, the Local Plan shows little consideration of the impact on the setting of the church and the landscape it watches over. SUSTAINABILITY Policy STR 2 of the Local Plan refers to the “Presumption in favour of sustainable development”, but there is little of substance around sustainability when applied to the CA1 and PW1 proposals. The word ‘sustainable’ appears more a desire than an evidence-based proposal; the siting of roads is not known, any mitigation about biodiversity loss is vague, as is mitigation against inevitable noise, light and air pollution and flooding risk. Moreover, the loss of productive agricultural land, obligations to co-operate and consult, destruction of a rural community, and responsibility for the siting of the school are hidden by misinformation, or ignored. The process being applied to the Capel sites by TWBC smacks of desperation, which cannot be a sound basis on which to draft a Local Plan. I therefore object to STR 2’s lack of credibility, which indicates the CA1 and PW1 proposals are not sustainable and unlikely to ever be so. The lack of detail around infrastructure for such a large-scale proposal as CA1 is deeply worrying, as not only are residents unable to comment, but the very nature of the proposal cannot be considered ‘sustainable’. As the siting of new roads remains unknown, costs and effects on traffic flow, particularly within Tonbridge, are yet another ‘presumption’. Increased car use is inevitable, and the excavations in the gravel pits will add HGV traffic to the already straining infrastructure. Moreover, the geographical position of CA1 implies extra traffic will likely travel into Tonbridge, not Tunbridge Wells. The neighbouring borough will therefore pick up the financial and human costs of handling this increased congestion, whilst TWBC collect the rates. This might be seen as cynical rather than sustainable. The same is true for mitigation against flood risk; more hopeful than realistic, especially given the ongoing problems caused by new developments already ongoing around Paddock Wood. The extra run-off from 6000 homes is going to be considerable and pose a threat to local communities and further downstream, yet the response is little more than a wave of the hand. There is also no consideration given to the inevitable increase in commuters travelling into London generated by the new developments. Commuter trains are already packed and passengers find it difficult to get a seat at Tonbridge. Developments in Capel and Paddock Wood, and further down the line in places like Marden, will increase the pressure on the stretched rail capacity and by Tonbridge and Sevenoaks the trains will be beyond crammed. The cumulative impact of this focus of development along the railway line has not been addressed and any discussion between neighbouring boroughs non-existent or unresolved. Network Rail have indicated there will be no station at Tudeley, and even TW Planners concede this much. With no station, the CA1 site will be a new town split by a railway, with very limited means of travel between the two halves (one narrow bridge and a single lane tunnel). This cannot be considered ‘sustainable’ or in line with ‘garden settlement principals’. A town built as two separate entities on either side of a railway track is at best an aesthetic mess, if not a disastrous community concept, and any right-minded person would query why a town was designed in this way; surely it should be one side or the other, or more practically sited elsewhere? The very notion of planning a town at CA1 looks unprofessional and ill-considered, and needs to be scrapped. Policy STR 3 refers to ‘Masterplanning’ and use of Compulsory Purchase Orders, which TWBC can use to acquire land for “…the wider benefit of the community, usually to enable regeneration and development schemes that involve complex or multiple land ownership…” However, negotiation with multiple landowners and the use of CPOs have been ignored for the ease of dealing with one or two landowners willing to deliver the majority of TWBC’s supposed housing requirements, even if their land enjoys protected status. To justify this lassitude TWBC have included as a strategy the worrying objective of releasing Green Belt land for development. Given their stated intention to focus future development around so-called ‘garden settlements’, designated land appears an inconvenience to be removed. The Local Plan exudes an attitude of how to get around inconvenient policies and guidance, rather than adhering to and being guided by them, and I object to these poorly considered proposals. In terms of ‘masterplanning’ this is also something nebulous described in vague terms, and appears to be a planning phrase used as dressage to cover the destructive elements of their ambitions. It has also been mooted the new town at site CA1 will be ‘masterplanned’ by the landowner’s company, an enterprise with no experience of large-scale development, which is a risky proposition; errors will be impossible or expensive to repair, and may be extremely damaging. As, for example, would be the proposed and inappropriate siting of the new secondary school, split by a railway line and alongside a busy main road that children will need to cross. How this site came to be proposed as suitable is incredible; if it reflects the landowner’s vision, or worse TWBC’s thought processes, the concept of ‘masterplanning’ is off to an extremely poor start. Whatever error manifests itself should the proposals be adopted, no doubt the ratepayer will be expected to yet again meet the costs of TWBC planning indulgence. TWBC have released a leaflet to explain the Local Plan which states, specifically for site CA1, that a ‘…masterplan approach with community involvement is key to this proposal.’ As the community has overwhelmingly expressed objection to the proposal, logically it should now be removed. It remains to be seen whether this consultation exercise will act on those views or proceed regardless without the ‘key’ element of community approval. The hugely inappropriate site at CA1, to which I strongly object, should be dropped in its entirety from the Local Plan. | |
DLP_2371 | Mr D & Mrs J Beak | Draft Local Plan (Regulation 18) Capel and Paddock Wood housing development As you can see from our address we live in Hadlow and have done so for the past forty years. We are mindful of the past flooding that has occurred in our vicinity and if the fields which alleviate flooding are built on how much more misery that will bring. Over the years we have witnessed the change to our environmental regarding air pollution and congestion on the roads. They have both badly impacted on our lives. Indeed we no longer try to travel between 7.30am to 9:30am and 3:30pm to 6:30pm. The roads around Tonbridge are usually gridlocked during these times. Waiting for a bus subjects us to breathing in high rates of car fumes, affecting our breathing and quality of life. The expansion of Hadlow College has given rise to unbearable increases in congestion on the roads and air pollution. We are in no doubt, therefore, that the building works being contemplated will be catastrophic to anyone already living in this area. | |
DLP_2372 | Jan Lloyd | Objections to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I have lived in Tonbridge for over 30 years and so although I am not a resident of the borough of Tunbridge Wells I feel I must write to express my deep concern and anger at your proposals for Tudeley Village. | |
DLP_2374 | Alexander Clelland | I am a resident of Golden Green who daily commutes to Tonbridge and regularly enjoys the local countryside. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. I commute daily to Tonbridge and find the level of traffic already extremely difficult. Additionally, all it takes is one cyclist on Tudeley Road to create massive tailbacks. I dread to think of the impact on traffic if this proposal goes ahead. It will become unsustainable very quickly. Alternative routes along the Hadlow Road will also be affected. There are currently massive tailbacks there in rush hour and this will be exacerbated by diverted traffic from a packed Tudeley Way. Much of this traffic will pass through Golden Green, where drivers already ignore the 30 mph speed limit and cause danger to other road users and residents. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. As a disabled person this is particularly important for me and getting a seat is already very difficult, endangering my health. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. This is very important post-Brexit when the country will need to become more self-sufficient to counter higher imported food costs. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_2385 | Peter & Veronica Bryant | We agree to setting my comments against both the strategic place shaping policy in the Capel and Paddock Wood sections: these would be Policies STR/CA 1 and STR/PW 1. In connection to the Proposed Draft Local Plan (Reg 18) please find our comments to this proposal. As residents of South Tonbridge, we will be directly affected by the Proposed Draft Plan as it’s boarders run alongside Tonbridge & Malling Borough and the road infrastructure will impact our area considerably. a. The road infrastructure from Paddock Wood to Tonbridge is at breaking point at this present time. With narrow streets in Five Oak Green and bending slow roads throughout the 6 miles, travelling along this route is certainly demanding during peak times of the day. (Early morning rush hour, school leaving times and evening rush hours). With the proposed additional housing along the route, the increase of traffic flow in both directions would be dramatic. b. With the Ambulance Service stationed in Eldon Way, Paddock Wood, Emergency Services requiring to travel to Tonbridge already have a difficult enough time negotiating the traffic to get to an emergency. With the dramatic increase of traffic this would put lives in danger. c. At present, bus services use the route from Paddock Wood to Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. Again with the dramatic increase of traffic flow created by new housing, services would be greatly affected, especially buses being used for the school runs in rush hour times. d. Tonbridge town already has a dis-proportionate amount of Secondary Schools in the county which require children to be transported into the town from other boroughs mainly by bus. Adding an additional Secondary School into our area, which is on the boarder of the town will only increase the traffic congestion. e. We find it totally unacceptable that any Green Belt land is used for building, especially in an area of outstanding beauty. This land is protected for a reason. Once this land is destroyed, it will never be re-instated. f. By destroying Green Belt land you are going against all Government objectives on Climate Change Controls to obtain zero rated omissions. | |
DLP_2397 | Ann & Jeremy Wickens | I just want to add my objection to the plan of building over 4000 houses in Capel. They will probably end up second homes for the better off with the houses being rented out with sky high rents. There will be absolute bedlam on the narrow roads especially when there will be more cars parked along the roads. We live near Capel school and it is bad enough now trying to get to Tonbridge when all the parents are parked along the main road. | |
DLP_2401 | Graham Hughes | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Clearly the development of 2,800 at Tudeley will significantly increase traffic in Tonbridge which is already massively overburdened. The proposed new senior school will also add to the already heavily used roads around Tonbridge and will make accessibility to the town almost impossible adding to the decline of the High street. Indeed Shoppers and local residents will be caught in significant traffic jams and not be able to park ,which already is almost impossible at peak times and therefore as a result they will seek easier out of town shopping alternatives. I am also concerned for local businesses which may be forced to relocate due to accessibility issues as they simply will not be able to move goods in and out of the area in timely fashion. The added burden to the currently already overcrowded existing infrastructure, such as buses and trains will obviously be unsustainable. I have lived in Tonbridge for nearly 40 years and seen the gradual erosion of the beautiful Kent country-side with ill-considered and badly judge large scale housing developments. The purpose of the green belt was supposed to be to protect this legacy for future generations but it seems to be conveniently forgotten when there is money to be made. I imagine the dramatic environment effects that this development will have ,such as flooding etc, will also be ignored for the same reason. I fully understand the need for more housing however surely it is better to locate a large development in a location with better existing infrastructure and where there is a growing population which is not the case here. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns. | |
DLP_2474 | John Potter & Jan Roberts | We need to express our extreme concern regarding the proposed development by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council close to the borders of Tonbridge in the area near Tudeley and in particular Woodgate Way. Woodgate Way in Tonbridge has always had an old peoples care home/respite hospital and now has a recent development of sheltered housing as it is a relatively quiet, calm area for older residents of TMBC. We do not believe this would be a suitable spot for new housing and a secondary school. Development of this scale so close to Tonbridge would impinge on all our local services - road, rail and god knows what else. We are already experiencing unacceptable traffic levels within Tonbridge itself. You should consider the brown field sites closer to your centre rather than building on green field ones very much on your outskirts. You have, right in the middle of your town, a classic case of a brown field site where the cinema opposite the Town Hall used to be. That site could accommodate umpteen flats with close access to the station and shops. It might even encourage companies to invest in all the empty retail outlets in and around the Victoria Centre if they had the prospect of a higher level of customers. Once green field sites are allowed to be destroyed this will be the downfall of so much and such short sightedness is abhorrent. | |
DLP_2492 | Mr John Wotton | Policies STR/CA 1 and AL/CA 1 I object to these policies, which provide for a new settlement of 2,500-2,800 new homes on greenfield sites in the Green Belt, misleadingly named "Tudeley Village", for the reasons given by CPRE Kent in their response to this consultation. I have visited the sites, had detailed discussions with the Save Capel campaign group and spoken at a public meeting which they convened. I support their objections to this proposed development. | |
DLP_2504 | Roger Golland | Your on-line response form seems to be deliberately restrictive and convoluted. On a draft borough plan, where the overall impact on West Kent residents is at issue, it is not feasible to assign specific comments to particular paragraphs of a 554pp document. I live just over the western border of TWBC. Our neighbourhood will be adversely and permanently damaged by the impact of the proposed so-called garden village at Tudeley and its associated secondary school on the edge of Tonbridge. The Vision speaks of a ‘vibrant’ master-planned village. The reality is that it would be a stagnant dormitory housing estate clogged with vehicles trying to get to the already over-stretched facilities of Tonbridge. Traffic is already choking the access roads into town, for schools, shops and the railway station – for instance at Vauxhall Roundabout and along Pembury Road. The proposals guarantee thousands more commuting vehicles and log-jams for hours every day. The existing winding road network is inadequate as matters stand. There is nowhere near enough road and parking capacity in Tonbridge, let alone Tunbridge Wells [STR6]. Your sustainability policy claims about clean air, public health, road safety and protection for wildlife in the blast of this development are not credible - assertions without supporting evidence. Green Belt [STR 4] serves a statutory purpose and exceptional grounds must be given to justify its sacrifice. Expediency and the convenience of dealing with one profiteering landowner does not amount to exceptional grounds. The same landowner has already moved to develop Green Belt land on Tonbridge’s fringes in the TMBC Plan, where the same arguments apply. It is laughable to defend the plan on spurious bio-diversity grounds when ancient woodland and so much green space is to be chewed up unnecessarily. The plan speaks of increased ‘walking and cycling permeability’, not to mention ‘active travel provision’, whatever that means. There is very little evidence from Tonbridge of a significant move to cycling and walking for children going to school, or people going to work. There are hardly any bus routes available to serve the planned ‘village’ and little reason to believe they will materialise. The notion of ‘low levels of private car use within the settlement’ is pious hope, especially when it is rainy and dark. There are no clues as to what employment will spontaneously appear in the new community to replace horticulture and farming. Many, if not most, residents will be commuters trying to reach Tonbridge station. The plan suggests that the Tudeley plans are contingent on approval for a new secondary school on the edge of Tonbridge. The selected site, alongside the ring-road, next to industrial units, split by a busy railway line, over a gas-pipe, with limited pedestrian access from any direction, is utterly hopeless, for reasons countless objectors have already spelled out. Absent a suitable school site, can we assume the plans will be dropped? Tonbridge cannot absorb the numbers proposed. The plan is a monster. It is bound to spoil vast areas of precious landscape. TWBC should challenge the basis of the excessive housing targets imposed by Whitehall (as it is free to do) and adopt genuinely sustainable settlement policies which will protect the environment, not continue to destroy it. An authority pursuing such old-fashioned development sprawl, based on the car and miles away from employment centres, does not deserve to stay in power for long. | |
DLP_2508 | Richard Sankey | I am writing to state my very STRONG OBJECTION to the proposed new town or ‘garden village’ at Tudeley. I, and my family, have been long-term residents of Tonbridge and make frequent journeys from the town through the village of Tudeley, and the surrounding area, for social and work related reasons. We also have a number of family friends who live in and around the Tudeley area. | |
DLP_2595 | Richard Bysouth | I oppose all development in the Capel and Tudeley areas on the basis of destroying Green Belt land. | |
DLP_2632 | Residents of Bourne Park | Please find enclosed 21 Objections to the "Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1), from 20 residents of Bourne Park Golden Green Tonbridge and 1 resident from Hildenborough. [TWBC: Comments DLP_2554-2555, DLP_2557-2560, DLP_2562-2565, DLP_2567-2569, DLP_2571-2573, DLP_2575-2576, DLP_2580-2583, DLP_2585-2592, DLP_2617-2624, DLP_2626-2629] Bourne Park is a small retirement village and a majority of the residents do not have access to any computer facilities or the internet, and have therefore used the Savecapel.com template for convenience to respond with their comments to the Local Plan. Some of these residents have lived in this area all there lives and are very upset and concerned that such dramatic plans are being considered for the parish of Capel/ Tudeley, the removal of Green Belt and the flooding concerns which could effect their homes is of great concern, the potential loss of the village community in Golden Green and Tudeley. The loss of views across the valley from the centre of the village, the dramatic change to the landscape as well as the impacts and loss to the rich and vibrant wildlife in the area, with the removal of 1,000's of acres of prime agricultural Green Belt land will have a substantial impact to both human and the wildlife within the area. Thank you for your consideration | |
DLP_2639 | Mr Nigel Exall | I write in respect of the above consultation, and to express my deepest concerns about the proposed land use planning strategy for Capel/Tudeley. The policies referenced above promote a comprehensive mixed-use development for Capel/Tudeley, in the form of a ‘garden settlement’, and encompassing approximately 2,500 — 2,800 dwellings; employment provision, a range of local services and facilities to serve such a settlement; and open space, leisure and recreation uses. Also proposed is a new six form entry secondary school — which is remote from the proposed ‘garden village’. There are a number of very obvious, and very serious, problems with this proposed Strategy, including (but not limited to):
These shall be briefly addressed in turn as follows: Green Belt — The site for the new garden settlement falls within the Green Belt, wherein the primary aim of planning policy is to keep land permanently open. In terms of Local Plan preparation this means not releasing land from the Green Belt except in exceptional circumstances. I understand that exceptional circumstances cannot exist if there are alternative, non-Green Belt sites that might be available to accommodate the proposed development. In this case only a small proportion of Tunbridge Wells Borough is washed over by the Green Belt. There is a significant swathe of land to the east of the Borough that is not within the Green Belt, and is therefore free of such constraint. Has it genuinely and robustly been demonstrated that there are no alternative sites available that are outside of the Green Belt? If the answer to this is no, then exceptional circumstances simply cannot exist. Infrastructure/Deliverability — Clearly the delivery of a new garden settlement will be entirely dependent upon the provision, up front, of the infrastructure to serve such. The provision of such infrastructure is likely to be complicated by the fact that the proposed site is dissected by a railway line. In this context, timescales become important. For instance, by the time a (very large scale) planning application has been determined, conditions have been discharged, and sufficient infrastructure works been undertaken to enable housing and other development to be delivered, it seems incredibly likely that it will be a number of years down the line. As such the strategy does nothing to alleviate housing and employment needs in the short to medium term; and does nothing to meet the stated objectives of producing a Local Plan. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/Heritage Assets — The site of the proposed garden village lies outside of, but adjacent to, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 172) states that ‘great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. Similarly, there are a number of Listed Buildings located around the perimeter of the proposed allocation, including my own home. The current (and historic) setting of those Listed Buildings is one of a distinctly rural environment, characterised by open fields, interspersed with historic field boundaries and other historic buildings. There is simply no way that the introduction of 2,500 — 2,800 new homes, employment, and associated facilities, on a large swathe of attractive, undeveloped, rural land cannot have a significant and detrimental visual impact upon the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and upon the setting of the surrounding Listed Buildings. Flooding — The site itself might not be subject to significant areas of flood risk, but adjoining areas certainly are. Surface water flooding has proven repeatedly to be an issue of serious local concern. Providing a new garden settlement on currently undeveloped, free draining, greenfield land — with the inevitable (considerable) increase in areas of hard surfacing and built form, will simply increase the prevalence of surface water flood risk on the areas of land that adjoin the proposed allocation. Ecology — Given the extensive scale, and rural/undeveloped nature of the site of the proposed garden settlement, it seems inconceivable that it will not be home to protected species. With such a large-scale development it is impossible to fully mitigate against such wholesale destruction of habitat. The Location of The New School — As indicated above, the new secondary school to serve the proposed garden settlement is actually located remote from the resulting settlement — approximately 1 mile away at the closest point, and accessed via country roads without the benefit of pedestrian footways. The school would only realistically be accessible by motorised vehicle — pupils, parents and staff are most unlikely to walk or cycle given the nature of the road network between the garden settlement and the school site. Additionally, and linking back to the above referred issue of infrastructure/deliverability, the school site is also dissected by a railway line running east-west through the centre of it. Delivery of the northern half of the proposed school allocation is therefore subject to provision of access across the railway line. The southern half of the proposed school allocation contains a sizeable area of Ancient Woodland, which must be protected as such. Given these constraints, it seems incredibly unlikely that a school could be delivered on site in the early, medium or even long term parts of the Local Plan period. In light of the foregoing matters, the proposed allocation of land at Capel/Tudeley must be removed from the emerging Local Plan, and an alternative, and more sustainable means of meeting housing and employment needs must be identified. I hope that the foregoing clarifies my position, but should you require any additional information then please do not hesitate to contact me. | |
DLP_2642 | Anthony Clark | The plight of our fellow countryfolk in Derbyshire and South Yorkshire is a timely reminder, should one even be required, of the need to protect our homes and businesses from the increasing risk of flooding Much time has been spent assessing and mapping those areas which as a simple consequence of their position are considered to be at the greatest risk. The fact that we know where they are is amply evidenced by the home insurance premiums they attract and it is a constant source of concern for all those who, like me, reside in low-lying areas Setting aside the obvious but highly questionable funding presumption for the above - which sees TWBC draw rateable income to its benefit while requiring consequent costs and inconvenience to be largely borne elsewhere, in this case by Tonbridge (a town already creaking under the weight of its own recent and particularly extensive residential building programme) and parking (every pun intended) a number of very sound objections these being well documented elsewhere, it is quite clear that on the issue of flood prevention alone, the scheme lacks credence. In fact it beggars belief that the proposal could even have got this far A plan that would incidentally require the wholesale destruction of Greenbelt in the case if the proposed 'garden' village at Tudeley is a monstrously reckless betrayal of custodial responsibility. It might tick a box, it might well suit Hadlow Estates (who, may I say, deserve no credit for their obvious complicity in the matter), but it is completely unacceptable for the broader rate-paying community going forward I appreciate there exists a national need for additional housing and that targets, however arbitrary, have been set. I also understand the challenges of meeting such targets locally and completely where there are substantial areas of precious Greenbelt, areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Ancient Woodland etc to be considered. But considered they must be and, by definition, protected. In essence it shouldn't be necessary for me to point out that this is clearly your job I expect, at the very least, the proposed development at Tudeley- sitting as it would on the very edge and therefore contributing to the problems of a clearly identified floodplain - to be consigned to history and look forward to learning of this at the earliest opportunity | |
DLP_2788 | Mrs Karen Langston | Policy Number: STR/CA 1 and AL/CA 1 I strongly object to the proposal to create a standalone garden settlement in Tudeley of 2,500-2,800 dwellings. Whilst the public consultation on the Issues and Options document resulted in some support for growth strategy 5 – growth within a new, free-standing settlement, the strong view within that feedback was that this settlement should not be in the Green Belt or AONB. However, the site proposed lies entirely in the Green Belt, and partially in the AONB. The NPPF attaches great importance to Green Belts, stating that their essential characteristics are “their openness and their permanence.” (NPPF paragraph 133) It sets out five purposes for the Green Belt designation and protection, which includes, “b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;” and “c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.” The NPPF allows for changes to Green Belt boundaries where, “exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.” (NPPF paragraph 136). The draft Local Plan appears to suggest the “exceptional circumstance” in this case is the need to meet an untested housing target. As I argue elsewhere in my feedback, this target is based on out-of-date data, resulting in a much higher figure for new homes than the borough actually needs. In addition, the total number of new dwellings proposed in the draft Plan, through strategic site allocation, excluding windfall, exceeds this target by 1,240 dwellings. If you consider the extremely high cost of destroying Green Belt land, the strain on inadequate infrastructure to ensure timely sustainability, the destruction of an existing community, including displacement of tenants, the impact on the environment and the failure to safeguard the countryside from encroachment, I argue that this is far from “exceptional circumstance” to justify the proposed development. Had the swathe of land not been offered by a single land owner through the Call for Sites process, I argue that this location would never have been considered suitable, sustainable or desirable for the creation of a free-standing settlement. The site allocation and subsequent policy AL/CA 1 is, I argue, not strategic, but opportunistic on the part of the Council. I urge the Council to reconsider this policy in the context of the irreversible damage it will cause to the protected landscape of the borough and the severe challenges it will present to achieve the balance of sustainable development (NPPF paragraph 8). | |
DLP_2792 | Sara Miller | I live in Five Oak Green, work locally at Paddock wood school and i have lived here for 15 yrs now and i have recently had the up most concern to the proposed housing development in Capel and the surrounding areas. I have worked in PWPS for 14yrs now and i have already seen an increase in the size of the school numbers and the impact that the doctors suffer. dentists and parking issues. There has also been a mass increase in flooding which is getting worse, only the other day Tudeley road flooded and the top end of Badsell road with just 30 mins worth of rain . No real answers have been given to all of these questions in many of the meetings and Im sorry to say those who are in charge of this large development do not seem to bothered due to ( again sorry to say) by the time these houses are complete those in charge probably wont be here so they do not care and seem bothered . Apologises for that comment ! And why on our beautiful green belt there are brown belt ares to use too, one day the The garden of Eden will simply be the concrete congestion of hell where is the common sense. People visit Kent from all over the world this will not be the case one day, Also why all of these houses in one major beauty spot and why so so so many . What about Cars... the congestion isnt great going to work in the morning to PWPS and yet people i know who travel towards Tonbridge say the congestion is awful at rush hour can you honestly say that this will benefit Tonbridge and its surrounding areas . Because there are so many who do not . If you live in these areas with the concerns we all have would you honestly say its got to happen ... Transport is awful to and what will be the procedures to deal with thousands of commuters how will that work it mayhem at the moment. Thank you for taking the time to read this, this will be a huge mistake if you live and work here and care about this massive problem you are proposing , this whole area will face massive issues that in the end the council and the government will have to sort out costing millions...Please look carefully at all the plans for this. | |
DLP_2805 | Graeme Veale | GENERAL COMMENTS: with specific reference to Capel sites (CA1) I am writing to OBJECT to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Introduction The Draft Local Plan documents are numerous and quite complex. In addition, cross referencing between the documents is in places non-existent, which leads to confusion and frustration. As an individual with a full-time job and a family I do not have the time to examine each and every part and policy in detail. There appears to be no overarching, well constructed and balanced summary of the documents, apart from the 8 page summary which is at such a high level and therefore of no substance. The Local Plan website is not particularly user friendly; for example there are drop down menus and colour differentiators, but you are not lead back to where you came from, which means wasted time searching through more menus. Given the investment in the draft plan to date, and the proposed scale of development, some more time spent on user interface and user experience would have been worthwhile. For such a significant plan, these are basic elements which need addressing. Proper consultation needs to be accessible and user friendly for the people to whom it matters – this local plan is neither of these things and should be significantly revised before going any further. I find it very frustrating that it has taken over two years and many thousands of pounds in fees and reports in order to get planning permission for a 65m2 single storey extension; and yet, in just over one further year, it seems a plan has been assembled to build 2,800 houses and related services and infrastructure on green belt land, within a mile of our house. I wish to make specific comments as follows: Distribution of Development Paper 2. Paragraph 6.56 confirms that there was no landscape assessment of Green Belt sites. It seems unacceptable to identify land for development, particularly Green Belt land, without understanding its existing value and contribution to the local ecosystem, especially if there are ‘exceptional circumstances’. 3. Section 4 discusses housing needs. These appear to be based on 2014 figures. The majority of lay people are able to google more recent ONS population figures and see the downward impact on housing requirements for all boroughs. Again, this does not speak to ‘exceptional circumstances’. 4. In section 5, a key issue identified in the Issues and Options consultation was: “Vision should be balanced to both developing existing built town areas and preservation of surrounding countryside and unique historic villages” Given the allocation of 2,800 houses to a garden settlement at Tudeley, it appears such preservation of countryside has been disregarded, without satisfactory explanation. 5. Issues and options section 5 – The most preferred option for provision of housing was clearly option 4, the ‘corridor’ option. A Garden town was less preferable. There is no real explanation for the U-turn in strategy or decision to move away from the preferred option. This is unacceptable. 6. Section 6.140 – it appears all scenarios set out are about meeting housing needs in full. TWBC has not considered it appropriate to partially meet or consider flexibility depending on numerous possible circumstances, and therefore has not planned in any way for this. This would seem blinkered at best. Infrastructure 2. Section 3.59 - Cycling provision is in its infancy – even an afterthought. The separate cycling policy document is largely platitudes and waffle about health benefits. There are a few possible route suggestions but far too little of substance which suggests TWBC has no real strategy as to shifting people away from their reliance on cars. Very few people are going to cycle any further than 10-15 minutes. 3. Cycling isn’t the answer in terms of modal shift from cars. As a nation we are too comfortable, too used to cars, too lazy and too obese. To get people cycling, it isn’t just about upgrading or providing new routes, it’s about education, offering bike discounts etc 4. Section 3.63 Car parking: b. In the parking plan document (dates from 2016) almost exclusively focused on Tunbridge Wells. Absolutely no consideration of new garden town, and also no consideration of parking required at Tonbridge station for additional commuters. This is TMBC’s responsibility and clearly very little by way of cross border communications have taken place. 5. Parking is one of the biggest pressures on transport and adding 2500 houses to Capel is only going to make it worse. 6. Section 3.133 Water – Southern water hasn’t yet carried out capacity assessments? This would appear to be a big hole in the plan, making it unsound. 7. Section 3.151 + Carbon emissions etc: On the other hand the Currie and Brown (Energy Policy Viability) report suggests no new homes built after 2025 should connect to gas. TWBC needs to think about low carbon fuels, renewable energy, future proofing design and build of property etc. This is simply not addressed in the infrastructure plan. Also note Labour general election campaign pledge that all homes after 2022 should not be heated by fossil fuels. THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF NO INTERALATION BETWEEN REPORTS. Local Plan – STR/CA1 1. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic into Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. 2. There is a proposed secondary school to be situated east of Tonbridge (AL/CA2 – site 447 & 454). This utterly preposterous for a number of reasons: 3. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). 4. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. 5. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. 6. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Masterplanning If TWBC are to be involved, one would also question its pedigree in this field. The new hospital at Pembury, completed in 2011, is already at full parking capacity. I have been there on 3 separate occasions recently and had to wait between 40 minutes to an hour to park. Clearly, whatever forecasts were made about visits, footfall, etc, were either not heeded, or totally wrong. Transport Strategy Review – Context and way forward Climate Change Summary There appear to be many more questions than answers, and given the very justifiable objections, it is my view TWBC should reconsider this plan as soon as possible. I CONFIRM MY OBJECTION TO THE STRATEGY FOR CAPEL PARISH (STR/CA1). | |
DLP_2809 | Georgina DuBern | I am aware that TWBC is planning to create a large number of new homes near Tudeley. I object to the plan on the following grounds:- | |
DLP_2813 | Sallyanne Clark | I live in Five Oak Green, and regularly walk and travel through the area proposed for a new garden village in Tudeley. I also walk regularly in the area of East Capel, where further housing is proposed. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land, unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. So why are you proposing to use Green Belt land? A significant point is that the plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. Earlier in the plan you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. Do TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation? | |
DLP_2815 | Laura Gandon | I am writing in response to the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan Document, and wish to voice my concerns. My response refers in particular to the proposed building within Capel Parish. | |
DLP_2816 | David Warwick | I am writing as a Tonbridge resident to express my deep concerns over the proposal by TWBC to develop land for over 2000 homes on land adjacent to the hamlet of Tudeley plus other plans involving a secondary school adjacent to Tonbridge and road improvements. All of these proposals have a direct and negative impact on Tonbridge whilst the impact on Tunbridge Wells is negligible. | |
DLP_2819 | Sylvia Bourne-Moore | I am angry and distraught at the proposed development proposed by Tunbridge Wells Council. The loss of Green Belt land comprising much of good quality agricultural land is a scandal. Also the loss of an area of outstanding natural beauty along with its habitat. | |
DLP_2821 | Sam Rawlins | As a resident of Tonbridge, living only 10 minutes away from Tudelely, I am rather unhappy at your proposals to develop land for over 2,000 homes and a secondary school. Tudeley is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful villages in the area and it would be a great shame to ruin this. As well as making Tudeley an unattractive place, if carried forward your plans would heavily increase traffic flow through the local area, creating noise, light and pollution complaints. I certainly do not want to be affected by this, so please think about the local community before progressing further with these plans. | |
DLP_2822 | Mike Hyde | Tunbridge Wells Borough Council have announced plans to build a number of new homes in Tudeley, East Capel, and Paddock Wood, and a new senior school opposite Summerhill. The purpose of this email is to add my thoughts to those that say this is a terrible move by TWBC for those living around the proposed area. I will concentrate mainly on the Tudeley and the school developments, as I am less familiar with the details at East Capel and Paddock Wood. | |
DLP_2823 | Ashley Gittens | As a resident of Deakin Leas, South Tonbridge I strongly object to the plans to build new homes and a new school in the area when local infrastructure is already at breaking point. During peak hours the traffic around Tonbridge station and Pembury Road is gridlocked. It is virtually impossible to turn right out of Deakin Leas or Baltic Road in the morning without risk of causing an accident. As such alternative routes have to be found which add to journey times. To add further congestion to these roads is a very bad idea. I commute from Tonbridge station to London each morning. Regularly I can not find a seat so I have to stand for my 40 minute journey which costs £4,500 / year. Walking to the station after 07:30 becomes very challenging due to the inflow of school children using the station for the local schools. I frequently have to walk on the road. To add further inflow of pupils to this area will further gridlock this already unsustainable situation. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_2825 | Helen Parrish | I Object to the Tudeley Garden Village proposal at Capel in the TWBC Local Plan (LP) for the following reasons: 1 The call-for-sites land details supplied to TWBC by Hadlow Estate is incorrect. There are at least 4 Freehold dwellings annotated incorrectly as Hadlow Estate property. Mine is one of them. How many more incorrect details have been supplied to TWBC 2 63% of the Local Plan “Housing Needs” are Unplanned (i.e. we need to wait to the “Master-Planning” stage for answers) Sited where there is 0% Infrastructure Located in Capel Parish Council (70% of this in Tudeley) – there is no fair dispersement across the Borough 3 There is no Plan B if their Plan A does not work (when more suitable locations do actually exist e.g. Horsmonden – but where, coincidentally, the Leader and Deputy-Leader Council of the have their wards and live – or Frittenden). If sole Plan A is found UNSOUND – their would be a complete waste of Tax Payers money 4 It is biased development developed by a biased, wrongly structured, TWBC - The Planning Organisation and Cabinet has a common Chairperson for all committees They are using a late entry (Hadlow Estate) to the call-for-sites offering (where 4 alternatives exist) For a site split in two by a major Railway Line to place these 63% of “Housing Needs” which are based on the wrong figures (ONS) placing it next to Tonbridge & Malling Borough’s resources (knowingly therefore not affecting TW’s resources for which I pay my Council Tax) enabling an inexperienced, non-community orientated, nor a high building-standards Estate (Hadlow), to Master Plan the 63% of TWBC requirements due to TWBC’s ease of having to deal with only one landowner 5 It Plans to build on the only area of the Borough which is ... Green Belt (i.e. in the middle of it – not at the edge) – with no re-allocation of compensatory Green Belt suggested. There is no mention of the “special circumstances” required by the NPPF to justify Green Belt destruction On, and next-to, Flood Plains On, and next-to, AONB On prime, productive, agricultural land (A2 and A3 cereal, orchards, berries etc.) and equestrian fields Across fields of abundant bio-diversity 6 It Ignores ... Brown Field and Unoccupied Field site potentials (due to out of date data?) - Brown Field land in the middle of Tunbridge Wells has been empty for over 10 years – and changed hands as an “Investment” between developers I understand the effects on Climate Change and the Environment (Flora, Fauna, Air Quality, flooding, arable land, local farming/equestrian employment) early consultations (2017 pre-LP) – with a non-representative Borough Councillor for Capel PC – and employing NDAs (even the Press) co-operation with T&MBC – which T&MBC, contradicting TWBC’s many such statements, say does not exist. The NPPF Para 35 states that Local Plans must be “based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters”. As this is not so the Local Plan for Capel must be Unsound. This Local Plan is full of Contradictions with too many issues and hurdles to surmount | |
DLP_2978 | Robert Johnston | There are no good things to say about the extraordinary number of new homes planned for the T.C.P.W. area. | |
DLP_3004 | Liz Drew | I’m writing to express my concern about your proposal. The local area is already very congested as it is. More traffic into Tonbridge will be chaotic. | |
DLP_3010 | Steven Tate | I write hoping this email will be taken into consideration. I want to register my objection to the development on the following grounds: | |
DLP_3061 | Kathleen Davey | This plan put forward in injunction with the Hadlow Estate and continued and kept under wraps in an abolition of both parties and you should be ashamed of yourselves in bearing the names of Councillors. This part of the landscape is a haven to escape from all the other disgraceful planning you have instigated over the years. The land will flood just as in Sheffield because areas here already have. As for road congestion it will be inescapable, made like spaghetti junction that residents here already suffer. You have no appreciation of the environment, first look around at the village areas where planning has ruined peaceful landscapes with modern buildings which are alien to the countryside. These buildings you suggest will be sold to outsiders with money as second homes and they, the inhabitants will have no appreciation whatsoever of the countryside. I hope if this goes through you can live with your consouics - I doubt it, so many lives you are happy to ruin. Well done T.W.B.C. | |
DLP_3139 | Andrew Pinhorn | I am not a resident of Tunbridge Wells Borough but live near the Borough boundary with Tonbridge. I have lived at my current address for 22 years and prior to that for 5 years in Golden Green. I know the area around Paddock Wood, Capel and Tudeley well. This is an attractive rural landscape and an important reason why I choose to live here. I am writing to object strongly to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR / CA 1) and “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (STR / PW1) on the grounds that this will involve the release of Green Belt Land. This land was designated as Green Belt many years ago to ensure that important countryside was kept open, that urban sprawl was stopped and to preserve the special character of historic areas. It follows that the Green Belt designation should only be overturned rarely and in exceptional circumstances. In my view, the merits of this Green Belt Land are striking in terms of agricultural use, amenity /therapeutic value, ancient woodlands and hedgerows, biodiversity. These merits far outweigh the dubious benefits should of more housing. The exceptional case argument has not been made. The proposed destruction of Green Belt land is strongly opposed by local residents. The Local Plan needs to be stopped in its current form. | |
DLP_3194 | Harriet Maidman | I write as a local resident to raise my strong objections to the proposals by TWBC to build over 4000 new homes in Tudeley and East Capel and a large school near Somerhill. Namely “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). I understand you may publish my objection but not my contact details. My objections are: In particular, for me as a commuter, it will push thousands more people onto the Paddock Wood and Tonbridge commuter trains. In Tonbridge, the roads at peak times are already very heavily congested and not able to be widened. Parking is a nightmare. Where will all these cars and people to go? TWBC are simply viewing the additional commuters at Tonbridge as somebody else’s problem. This is not acceptable and has not been thought through. | |
DLP_3255 | Kent County Council (Growth, Environment and Transport) | Highways and Transportation The Local Highway Authority conditionally supports this policy Paragraph 6 of Strategy for Capel lists destinations to provide strategic transport links to. It should possibly include destinations to the north (Maidstone, Kings Hill, M20). Further work is required to assess this. KCC recommends this paragraph begins with the following statement: Strategic transport links and junctions shall be provided/improved between.... Proposed growth within Paddock Wood and Tudeley Village is forecast to generate the combined need for an additional eight forms of entry of secondary provision. It is proposed two forms of entry are provided through the expansion of the existing Mascalls School prior to the establishment of a new 6FE secondary school within the area. The total level of growth cannot be accommodated through the expansion of Mascalls alone and therefore Policy STR/PW 1 relating to growth in Paddock Wood must reflect the need for sites relating to the policy to contribute financially to the provision of the new 6FE secondary school. Scale 1 - Development of this site (or part of) should be avoided | |
DLP_3377 | Pamela Stanley | I have lived in Five Oak Green for 60 years. I like where I live but am distressed by this unfair plan which will destroy my parish forever and ruin so many lives. I know lots of people who hate this plan but aren't writing because thy say it's a waste of time and you will build what you want, where you want. I object to The Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1) Capel is a lovely rural parish and that is why people live here. It has plenty of green, open spaces and places to walk, breath and observe wildlife. It is just not right to place such a large part of the borough's houses in such a rural area. It will cause even more traffic problems on the road (B2017) through Five Oak Green and onto Tonbridge or Paddock Wood and these are already terrible at all peak times. How will TOnbridge and Paddock Wood town centres and rail stations cope with the traffic, parking and commuters (especially considering the extra houses being built from Ashford to Marden)? There is no further train capacity; what do people in Paddock Wood and Tonbridge think about this? The plan will mean development from east Paddock Wood through to the new school of Somerhill on the fringes of Tonbridge. It will also require upgrading in roads notably the A228 through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and then another across Capel to join to Tudeley New Town. Hartlake Road is entirely rural but will become choked with traffic. Capel will have roads and houses everywhere. We will need to get in our car to find a place for peace and quiet! There are better alternatives to these proposals! The A21 corridor and Knights Park offer better alternatives with ready access to the A21. Capel may have to accept a small amount of additional housing in line with other rural parishes but that should be in line with its rural aspect and population (as with other Parishes within the borough). Large parts of Capel are in known flooding areas which is a major reason why no large development has taken place before. Five Oak Green floods regularly and this is despite the flood mitigation that has been put in. Concreting from Paddock Wood to Tonbridge cannot be a worthy plan when it is a flood area and known to be so? | |
DLP_3388 | Andy Ornsby | I live in Five Oak Green and have spent a significant time living in the village. I am objecting to the Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1) Capel is a rural parish and that is why most people live here. It is wrong to place such a large part of the borough's houses in a rural area such as this. It will cause massive traffic problems on the road (B2017) through Five Oak Green and onto Tonbridge or Paddock Wood and these are already terrible at all peak times. I cannot imagine how Tonbridge and Paddock Wood town centres and rail stations are going to cope with the traffic, parking and commuters (especially considering the extra houses being built from Ashford to Marden). I'm aware there is no further train capacity. The plan will mean development from east Paddock Wood through to the new proposed school at Somerhill on the edge of Tonbridge. It will also require a huge upgrading in roads notably the A228 through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and then another cross Capel to join to Tudeley New Town. The cost of building these roads will be enormous as will future upkeep. That money could have been better spent elsewhere. Hartlake Road is entirely rural but will become choked with traffic. Capel will have roads and houses everywhere. We will need to get in our car to find a place for peace and quiet! Whatever happened to mindfulness? There are better alternatives to these proposals! The A21 corridor, land near Mabledon and Knights Park offer better alternatives with easy access to the A21. Capel may have to accept a small amount of additional housing in line with other rural parishes but that should be in keeping with its rural location and population (as with other Parishes within the borough). Large parts of Capel are in known flooding areas which is a major reason why no large development has taken place before. Five Oak Green floods regularly despite the flood mitigation that has been installed. How can concreting from Paddock Wood to near Tonbridge be a worthy plan when it is a flood area and known to be so? | |
DLP_3405 | Priscilla Jane May | Can you make this clear as I don't have email, I am using my husband's email. My husband has already responded and I wanted to do the same but was unsure as to how to do this. He tells me to make it clear that as a co owner of our property and have been for the 43 odd years we have lived here I am right to file an objection to your local plan. having seen my husbands email of objection there is little I can probably add. I have seen the plans and knowing the area better than my husband as I like walking and when we started our family I stopped working and apart from a spell of working as a cleaner as we got in a spot of bother with the bank when trying to give a lot to our children by way of things to do etc it got a bit difficult. I am familiar with the area where you want to put a village, or as my husband calls it, a new town. Our eldest of 3 daughters will be 48 in 1 days time to give you some idea of how long we have stayed in capel. Before this house it was a terraced cottage about 100 yards away. | |
DLP_3424 | High Weald AONB Unit | STR/CA 1, AL/CA1,2, 3 and PW1 and 3 These policies propose significantly expanding Paddock Wood by 4,000 homes and associated facilities, and promoting a new settlement of 2,500-2,800 homes at Capel (branded as ‘Tudeley Village’). This development would include the provision of an offline A228 strategic link and a new secondary school west of Tudeley. The new settlement and school directly abut the AONB boundary and, whilst the alignment of the strategic link has yet to be determined, the current A228 runs through the AONB. The land north of the AONB boundary is low lying, forming the environs of the River Medway, with the High Weald rising steeply above it, meaning that there are significant long views across this area, particularly from Capel Church. | |
DLP_3439 | Lindy Hall | I live in Five Oak Green (FOG) and have spent the majority of my childhood and adult life in the village. I am objecting to the Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1) Capel is a rural parish and that is why most people live here. It is inappropriate to place such a large part of the borough's houses in a rural area. It will cause even more traffic problems on the road (B2017) through FOG and onto Tonbridge or Paddock Wood and these are already terrible at all peak times. I cannot imagine how Tonbridge and Paddock Wood town centres and rail stations are going to cope with the traffic, parking and commuters (especially considering the extra houses being built from Ashford to Marden). I'm aware there is no further train capacity. The plan will mean unrestricted development from east Paddock Wood through to the new proposed school at Somerhill on the edge of Tonbridge. It will also require a huge upgrading in roads notably the A228 through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and then another cross Capel to join to Tudeley New Town. Hartlake Road is entirely rural but will become choked with traffic. Capel will have roads and houses everywhere. We will need to get in our car to find a place for peace and quiet! There are surely better alternatives to these proposals! The A21 corridor, land near Mabledon and Knights Park offer better alternatives with easy access to the A21. Capel may have to accept a small amount of additional housing in line with other rural parishes but that should be commensurate to its rural aspect and population (as with other Parishes within the borough). Large parts of Capel are in known flooding areas which is a major reason why no large development has taken place before. FOG floods on a regular basis despite the flood mitigation that has been applied. How can concreting from Paddock Wood to near Tonbridge be a worthy plan when it is a flood area and known to be so? | |
DLP_3520 | Peter Scrimshaw | I object to the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1). This land is Green Belt land and should only be built upon if an “exceptional circumstance” exists. TWBC’s own assessments in their Sustainability Appraisal show that Paddock Wood can expand and meet most of the plan’s aims without using the Green Belt land at East Capel. The comment above about coalescence and the creation of a conurbation from Paddock Wood right across to Tonbridge is very relevant here, as is the land’s use as a flood plain. Building here, even with flood risk mitigation and “betterment” could have disastrous consequences for all, as the measures being looked at are based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. | |
DLP_3523 | Nick Burbidge | I am a resident of Tonbridge who commutes into London daily and I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Building 2,800 houses in Tudeley is an extremely ill-thought out plan for a number of key reasons: 2. Many of the people moving into the proposed Tudeley development will use Tonbridge Station for commuting. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Commuting from Tonbridge will become a daily misery. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Apparently, Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Essentially, TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge infrastructure. The lives of Tonbridge residents will be made worse, especially those of us who commute. Meanwhile, TWBC pocket the council tax. | |
DLP_3537 | Paul Smith | I wish to object to the current draft plan in respect of Tudeley 'new town' and East Capel for the following reasons:-
| |
DLP_3554 | R D and P A Gregory | Save Capel We are writing this protestation to register our overwhelming objections to the proposed building of 2500 homes in Tudeley area togethet with the addition of a further 1500 homes in the Paddock Wood area. It is appreciated that new homes are required in the area but the numbers put forward are beyond any sensible reasonable proposal. No doubt as with other development throughout the country they will be the larger and more expensive houses that will be beyond the aspirations of the local less well off residents. It is noted that when the previous approved developments have been built the affordable part tends to diminish as the profit factor tends to take over. Yes, new housing is reqired, why does a large number have to be sited in one location. As the Green Belt seems to have lost it's original concept, why cannot small developments generally be built as an extension to eh current villages similarly as took place after the second world war. Presumably the large developers are not interested in this type of scheme but prefer to have these giant schemes to make larger profits. Who are going to live in these new properties, people from away who will overload the current services. The train services will be overloaded, likewise with car parking in the shopping areas. What of the other amenities such as drainage, power, refuse and the like going to be overcome. Definitely we are for many small developments, but are emphaticcaly against this monsterous proposal that has been put forward. Please take heed of the feeling against your proposal and reconsider. | |
DLP_3686 | Capel Parish Council | Object This strategy is absolutely, completely, totally unachievable. The risks involved in plonking a “garden settlement” on this Green Belt hamlet are huge. The infrastructure costs are huge. The landowner and co-master planner are inexperienced and ill-equipped to deliver such a complex project. Point by point the policy is flawed in the following ways:
You have a Master planning and Delivery approach within this policy that does not reference the involvement of developers and landowners. It is our understanding that the master planning of East Capel will be led by the Council. However, the master planning of Tudeley appears to be shared between the Council and Hadlow Estate. This is not consistent and the product of having one developer to deal with. Hadlow Estate are not experienced developers and have failed to share their plans and ideas with the parish council or the wider community. We fear these ideas will be completely inappropriate for this Low Weald landscape and that they will try to build a high end urban development completely out of keeping with the local heritage and landscape, designed to appeal to an upmarket London based clientele. We strongly urge the council abandon this idea and failing that to take a more pro-active role with the landowner in managing this development. Comments on paragraph 5.60 (Allocation Policies) p.159 This site is unsuitable for a garden settlement because it has a main railway line running through the middle of it. There only two crossings. At Hartlake Road on its boundary (no more than a country lane) and Sherenden Road which is so narrow that only one car can pass at a time under the railway embankment. There are no proposals as we understand to change this as it would require major works to the railway which is the main Tonbridge – Dover line. CPC believe it is two settlements divided by a railway line, neither of which satisfy garden settlement principles. This site is under single ownership. This appears to be the overriding factor in its selection. The landowner has no track record in managing or master planning a development of this size, and they are not widely trusted to do so within the wider Capel community in our judgement. No-one has had any positive form of engagement with them since the development was disclosed, and thus nobody has any idea of what this development might entail. Development on the site will adversely affect flood risks in Tudeley and neighbouring Golden Green, East Peckham, Hadlow and Tonbridge. The River Medway is more prone to flooding and the impact of a failure in the Leigh Barrier has not been considered, particularly in light of rapid increase in sea levels and other Climate Change. The Five Oak Green flood risk will be reduced by a storage reservoir on the Alder Stream, that can be delivered and funded by a much smaller scale of development than that envisaged by this garden settlement. The Biodiversity on this site is extraordinary. As is rightly noted, it is also adjacent to a Biodiversity Opportunity Area and directly adjacent to AONB. | |
DLP_3764 | Geoff Croker | Re: Objection to Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1) & (Policy STR/PW1) I wish to raise my strongest objection and concerns to the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Draft Plan for a Garden Village (New town) at the CA1 site, Capel East and Paddock Wood sites all of which appear to have manifest as potential white elephants, with CA1 and its inherent complex nature proposed by some twisted logic .The proposed development at CA1 is I believe misplaced in both scale and its location. The combination of these joint proposals would result in some 8000 homes within a small area of 3 miles of the borough. Residents are likely to face higher Council Tax/ rates to fund these proposals, and the council risk facing a very large number of compensation claims.I believe it would be wise to halt this Draft plan promptly to avoid a repeat of the Calverley Park outcome which has apparently wasted £10,000,000.of residents money, the Draft plan sum that could be wasted is likely to be much greater. Greenbelt Other buildings and sites are also available, Blantyre House, Goudhurst Parish, Frittenden area, Horsmonden area, Kippings Cross, Land adjacent to Colliers Green Primary School, Land at Great Bayhall, Land between Cranbrook and Sissinghurst,Langton Green, Wakehurst, land between Sandhurst and Iden Green, and Wakehurst Farm Bennenden. The Draft Plan of 2017 has been abandoned, interestingly this stated there was no place for a Garden Village. It appears that criteria for the garden village is contradicted with regard to the dissection of the CA1 site by an existing railway line which would create 2 separate villages, hinder many operations including access and egress and pose a danger to the proposed school site as well as other basic transport and appears to fail the basic principles of containment and cohesion and will not form a standalone settlement but transpires as a bolt on to Tonbridge The Garden Village (New Town) at Poundbury would appear a real failure with crime and murder at the top of the problems and I wonder why the council think such a scheme may work in Tudeley ? The CAI Tudeley village (New Town) site is dissected by a railway line which hinders water flow from south to the north. Much of the site is a functional floodplain level 3 with any further building on the land increasing flood risks both locally and to communities further east down river of the River Medway. It is important to remember quote Kent County Council select committee in 2007 stated (that significant floods can happen at any time with enough severity to overrun flood defences major incidents such as the 1953 flood devastation, or worse can happen in any season). The simple logic is if you build on or near to flood plains you will be flooded at some time and risk loss of life. Local Housing Need The local requirement for Capel may actually be some 25 new homes, these being added to those already for sale at the current time, those under construction, and those pending planning permission. The Draft plan appears to go against the NPPF paragraphs 174, 175, and 177 and will likely go against the Environment Bill 2019-2020. No Biodiversity assessment has been undertaken. Development on such an inappropriate scale in such a naturally long standing ancient landscape can only have a damaging effect. One example is the litter problem that sadly now exists along Tudeley lane and the B2017 since the advent of fast food and drinks outlets at the Tonbridge industrial site. "The Natural Balance of Nature is Harmony ! Infrastructure Heritage. The proposed site at CA1 includes two Grade 1 Listed Churches All Saints at Tudeley and the medieval church at Capel and Hadlow Tower will all be screened from view together with other listed buildings. To construct homes and roads around these heritage sites would appear to be legalised vandalism if allowed. Visitors from many countries come to see these famous sites. I understand no Heritage Assessment has been undertaken. Impact Upon Residents and Health Issues. The use of concrete incorporates heat generation into the atmosphere by the chemical process of hydration. Chemicals are then released into the soil from the concrete over years such as alkaline, other chemicals would have to be added to the concrete to prevent sulphate attack as the area is and has been for ever farmland this then seeps into the waterways tributaries, many of which are under ground, contaminating tree roots,( note the Building Research Establishment prepared a document on this subject), and potentially polluting the aquifer before passing into the River Medway. The Geology of the site with clay cap and mudstone and sandstone below will lead to high building costs and very probable foundation movement due to the clay type which is prone to changes in volume with changes in moisture content. Potential purchasers may well find these proposed homes difficult or very expensive to insure. The financial Viability of the scheme would have to be scrutinized and be open to “public view” and assessment. Build costs in difficult sites with heavy clay soils on sloping ground with underground streams and watercourses are notorious for crippling overspend. The impact upon Tonbridge town is very significant and the consequences extreme causing an unnecessary over burden and raises questions as to sustainability of the Draft plan and its Robustness under paragraph 35a of the NPPF. The placing of 60% of the unnecessary housing numbers in one small Parish is wrong. Surely the most important endeavour to consider here is to strive for morality in our actions our inner balance and our very existence and values depend on it, only morality in our actions can give beauty sense and dignity to peoples’ lives. I sincerely hope TWBC will think again in view of the very real and irreversible harm and destruction they may endorse leaving a wound in this gift of countryside that is Capel and at best a scar for future generations . | |
DLP_3777 | Sharon Hunt | Re: Objection to Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1) & (Policy STR/PW1) Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on planning policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website I am writing to you to raise my strong objections to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s recently published Local Plan proposal to build over 4000 homes in the Parish of Capel in both the areas of Tudeley and East Capel. I live in the village of Tudeley and work at Tunbridge Wells Hospital. I would like to make clear that the complicated convoluted way that you have requested objections from the general public leads me to believe this is a deliberate ploy to make it as difficult and confounding as possible for the general public to object. The arrogance of a council to assume that everyone uses the internet astounds me. This process should be easy for internet and non-internet users and for the Chief Planner to say to a room of 300 people during a SaveCapel meeting to ‘please go online to register your objections or we will have to read the letters and that your objections may not be put in the right place’, is appalling if you are in any way unsure where an objection should go then put it in more than one place. Healthcare Tunbridge Wells Hospital is already too small for the area that it serves. Since opening in 2011/2012 the hospital has already had to add three new wards. The hospital is struggling now to see people who have been referred on time so that they do not breach government set targets patients are waiting months for appointments, this is risk to life. The hospital does not have enough staff let alone enough beds and even if they did have enough beds there would be no staff to look after the patients. Already during the winter many elective surgeries are cancelled this will only become a bigger problem with 4,000 more homes. GP surgeries are closing throughout the borough and some are combining and my own surgery is struggling to employ GPs and exists on a trail of locums, a garden village is supposed to have everything it needs within its boundaries if we can’t get GPs for already existing surgeries in this area how can a whole new surgery be fully staffed – again ill thought out plans. Agriculture Capel is a rural Parish that sits within the green belt and the High Weald AONB, there are currently approx 900 homes in the Parish. CA1 and East Capel are mainly agricultural land, including orchards which I believe are protected, mostly grade 2 and 3 agricultural fields (which are in short supply in Tunbridge Wells borough as a whole) and not poor agricultural land as has been claimed by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, many of these orchards and fields growing much food for this country for multi-national companies such as Ribena who buy substantial amounts of blackcurrants from Sherenden Farm. CA1 if built on will deprive the nation of some 6,175 tonnes of produce over 5 years. We should be aiming to be a self-sufficient borough and country not cover good agricultural land with concrete. Geology Biodiversity An agreement was signed and reached with 190 countries including the UK to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020 (DEFRA) and to ultimately increase biodiversity, this development clearly goes against DEFRAs agreement as there can only be a loss of biodiversity if this huge development is built, despite claims that there will be a net biodiversity gain, I fail to see how this is possible when woodlands, fields, agricultural land and streams will clearly be greatly affected by this development not to mention birdlife, mammals, reptiles, insects, fish and other organisms all important to the protection of our village, town, borough, country and world as a whole. Diverse wildlife including many red list species, yellowhammers, skylarks, lapwings, house sparrows, swifts and EU protected species such as Great Crested Newts, Dormice and bats (many species of bats). A news item on BBC Southeast News on 13 November stated that dormice are now in danger because of loss of habitat and climate change in the south east, we should be striving to protect our species not deprive them of valuable habitat. The government has spent some £6 million on research into Ash dieback, there are many ancient, veteran and mature healthy Ash trees in both CA1 and East Capel. There are also some 30 veteran Oaks and a huge number of mature and newly growing Oaks and Ash trees along with ancient woodland which will suffer if this development goes ahead as the ecosystem will not remain as it should as mammals, bird, reptiles, insects etc etc will leave these ancient woodlands and the woodland will suffer from this loss. The balance of nature is fine and we constantly distress and destroy it Domestic Animals and their Impact on Wildlife / Wildflowers / Ancient footpaths A development of this size 4,000 homes (both CA1 and East Capel) would also introduce a significant number of household pets, particularly dogs and cats. 25% of the UK population own a cat and equally 25% own a dog. This will introduce at least 1,000 cats and 1,000 dogs (best case scenario as many people own more than one dog or cat) - (PDSA.org). This will have a significant effect on wildlife, cats enjoy hunting even when well fed, they will travel several miles from their home to hunt, they will also just maim and not kill leaving prey in agony and potentially young without adults to care for young birds, mammals, reptiles etc. Dogs will also affect ground nesting birds if off lead, this will lead to ground nesting birds leaving their broods and chicks being lost. If dog faeces are not cleared up this will have a detrimental effect on wildflowers and will increase the growth of nettles and thistles to the detriment of rare flowers such as the orchid and true fox sedges etc. (SWT.org) 1000 dogs being walked twice a day on ancient footpaths will have a severe effect on these old walkways. These footpaths are part of the openness of the greenbelt and the open views will be lost to concrete. Heritage Capel has a unique culture and heritage. There are two Grade 1 listed churches All Saints and St Thomas a Becket, All Saints being famous worldwide for being the only church in the world with windows all created by Marc Chagall who so loved the location and light of this church that he chose to design all of these windows after being asked to do one memorial window for the Goldsmid family, how sad he would be at this legalised vandalism of our greenbelt. The proposal to build such a huge number of homes would have a significant impact on the churches, the rural landscape, environment, community and wildlife, changing the Parish beyond all recognition and in effect wiping out two small and happy communities. Tudeley which currently has around 96 homes would effectively no longer exist as a historical village, by building 2,800 homes, this would also cause the loss of the all important green belt buffer from Tonbridge, which would result in urban sprawl development from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood. Flooding and Water Supply Transport Housing Needs Impact on Neighbouring Borough – Tonbridge and Malling Government’s Garden Village Criteria Road Network, Pollution and Climate Change The roads are already severely congested so presumably another road would have to be built which would cross greenbelt and AONB, this is just unacceptable and may move transport though the development area more quickly but will just end up polluting and congesting Five Oak Green, Capel, Tudeley, Tonbridge and surrounding towns and villages to an even greater extent than they are congested now. The pollution caused by all this additional traffic in a greenbelt area will just add to the problems of climate change and building on greenbelt where many trees, ancient and veteran (the lungs of the world) exist will be devastating for our clean air. There would be significant light pollution from these two developments CA1 would have a considerable impact on the AONB as currently this area enjoys dark skies and clearly this would be lost as 2,800 homes on CA1 will produce considerable light pollution and likewise in East Capel. Costs The Council have already wasted £10 million of Tunbridge Wells’ taxpayers hard earned money on a vanity project in Calverley Park which has now been voted out and abandoned. How much has been wasted thus far on this ill thought out local plan for a new town, another vanity project using the wrong methodology in assessing numbers required, use the right methodology (2016 not 2014), this would be the professional and correct way forward. The council and employees, planners, etc are paid by local taxpayers and as such should be representing the needs of the constituents of this borough, clearly they are not representing us at all just trying to make a ‘name’ for themselves with another badly thought out ‘vanity project’. This proposal it is ill thought out and unsustainable and is detrimental to both local residents’ health, physical and mental. I believe this is a lazy plan and has only been proposed so that the council do not have to deal with multiple landowners and just have to deal with one in Tudeley, (this site was not on the first call for sites and as such not planned for as rigorously as should be) and two in East Capel, this should not be a reason for this development. This is not a special circumstance ! The council have also not advised what their ‘very special circumstance’ is for building on greenbelt, as there should be a special circumstance as required by the NPPF, and I have to ask why not ! The plan preparation process did not include Tudeley (CA1 and CA2) until after the issues and options process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan did not go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no greenbelt study, no landscape assessment, no biodiversity assessment, the Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when these two areas (the biggest development in the borough) have not had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The issues and options process led to most people – some 60% - wanting growth corridor led approach, less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they did not know a garden settlement would involve the destruction of many acres of precious greenbelt and have a significant impact on the AONB. Protection of greenbelt was a key priority for people who participated in the issue and options consultation the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach to protect green belt and I stress again that the correct methodology should be used 2016 as instructed by the government! DO THE RIGHT THING – PROTECT OUR GREENBELT – PROTECT OUR CLEAN AIR – PROTECT OUR DARK SKIES – PROTECT OUR WILDLIFE – PROTECT OUR WILD FLOWERS - PROTECT OUR ANCIENT TREES – PROTECT OUR FOOD PRODUCTION - PROTECT OUR HISTORIC VILLAGES - PROTECT OUR FUTURE | |
DLP_3786 | Konrad Legg | My family and I have lived in this historic hamlet of Tudeley cum Capel ( Mentioned in the doomsday book) for the last 47 years. I want to make you aware of our strong objections to your plan, particularly those parts that relate to the strategy for Capel. (STR/CA1) There is no attempt to set your plan in the context of likely economic development over the next few decades. It looks like ‘housing for housings’ sake as if nothing else matters. What are going to be the economic drivers in this borough? Where is the entrepreneurial growth going to come from? Where are the mega warehouses (Amazon style) likely to be sited? Where are the digital hubs to be placed. Where are the science parks? Where will new facilities for further education be? And the overriding consideration, where will the future jobs be? Your plan is putting the ‘cart before the horse’. The question to Network Rail should not be - would you consider building a new station at Tudeley, but what are your plans for the future. Where do you plan to build new railway stations? Where are your plans to upgrade Paddock Wood and High Brooms and other stations within the borough. You and we need to know all this so that effective planning can take place. You have in Paddock Wood and High Brooms railway stations fantastic strategic assets and the potential for reinvigorated rail connections but little seems to be being done. Where is the improved access? Where are the new carparks? Don’t we need to know the details of these plans before you finalise your plans for the borough.? What will be the effect of proposed new legislation in the Queens speech to give the county a say in that part of Network Rail which runs through its territory.? Similarly, I understand KCC is shortly to publish its plans for the future of the road network in Kent. Do we not need to know all this before we decide where it is best to site new development? There has been a huge emphasis in recent years on trying to make sure that the communities have a real say in building consensus about their futures in particular by using Neighbourhood Plans. (Localise act of 2011 promoted by Greg Clark MP when Minister for Decentralisation) Your planning process seems to have ensured that the local communities have little or no say in their future. Is it significant that the Parish of Capel has not produced a Neighbourhood plan but has been allocated 63% of the Borough’s future housing requirement while accounting for less than 8% of the Borough’s land area? 8 other Parishes have produced or are producing Neighbourhood plans. Those 8 Parishes with plans have been allocated in aggregate far less than the one single Parish of Capel? Why was the Parish of Capel not pressed to produce a Neighbourhood plan when you must have known that such a plan would assist you and the community in building a sensible consensus for the future of the Parish? The Parish has a good record in producing such plans and many of the proposals of the 2006 Parish plan are still valid today. It is sad that it is only now, after many years that key issues like flooding in Five Oak Green and safety issues at the junction of Alders Road and Colts Hill are being addressed and cynically presented to the community as ‘betterment’ after more than 20 years of lobbying. Five Oak Green is a settlement with some obvious deficiencies. You have not explained how plonking an up-market Garden Village a few hundred yards from Five Oak Green is going to help to address those deficiencies. You have not properly explained how it was ‘ Option 5’ the least favoured Option in your paper ‘Issues and Options’ came to be the one that you are now recommending. It makes one wonder whether that whole process was nothing more than a clever exercise in disinformation to make sure that the natives did not get wind of your real intentions. And I am afraid it makes one wonder whether this whole Regulation 18 process is not just such another ploy to satisfy due process. I strongly object to the way in which you and the landowner at Tudeley have conspired to ensure that the local community had no real input in the process of formulating the plan. It is strongly rumoured that you required the Parish Council and other parties including the local Press to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. This cannot be right. To excuse this behaviour, you have suggested that disclosure of such plans might disadvantage the land owner who was offering his land. If his plans were prematurely made public as it might encourage other developers to put forward proposals. Surely that is exactly what you want, particularly if those proposals did not involve using green belt. I thought the ‘Call for sites’ process was supposed to be to be open and transparent and it was not for the Planning authority to favour one land owner over another but to decide/recommend sites based purely on planning considerations. I am deeply concerned to learn that the area offered at Tudeley was originally much greater than currently set out in your Reg 18 draft. And I am alarmed to discover that you reserve the right to review the area allocated in Capel every five years so presumably using the much larger area that was originally offered. This fact taken together with the proposal to use ‘master planning’ means that the community will have no real information about what is intended until it is too late to stop it or change key matters and millions will have been spent and the community effectively presented with a ‘fait accompli’. I am concerned that undertakings relating to the Masterplan for Tudeley Village may well be given relating to affordable housing for instance and that they might not be honoured in the long term. It is instructive to review the planning permission record of the promoter of the Tudeley Village over the long term. Back more than 50 years ago that land holder applied for permission for Mineral extraction on nearby land. This was granted with strict conditions that the high-grade agricultural land that was being lost would be restored at the end of the extraction period. Surprise Surprise !-Some decades later environmental issues came to the fore and the exhausted gravel pits were then to be maintained as protected ‘wet lands’ to encourage bird life and so of course saving the vast cost of reinstatement. The agricultural land was lost forever. We now come to today, when those environmental issues are dwarfed by the supposed need for affordable housing. Can we be sure that in years to come we won’t look back and say that the clever land owner has again manipulated the planning authorities and achieved a dramatic increase in the revenue earning potential of his estate, largely at the expense of the State. Although you have your register of Brownfield sites, I am not convinced that you have carried out a sufficiently rigorous and systematic survey of the Borough to identify Brownfield sites with development potential. You will be well aware that many experts believe the development of Brownfield sites has a great economic and social impact and that it is believed that the UK currently has scope for the building of over 1 million new dwellings on such sites. Our borough must have its fair share. You will be aware that Prime Minister recently promised an increase in house building on Brownfield sites and that the new housing minister has made similar commitments. What can’t be changed regardless of how much money is involved is the endangerment of our rural heritage and the multiplicity of historic sites in this Green Belt setting. Once gone they can never be reinstated. You drew particular attention to the functions of the greenbelt in you issues and options document. In this particular case, as its name implies, the green belt has a primary purpose of demarcating the urban environment around Tonbridge from the rural setting at Tudeley. The green barrier along the Hartlake Road to the river and beyond fulfils just such a purpose. The proposed large scale development at Tudeley and Capel will certainly result in the coalescence of the settlements of Tonbridge, Tudeley, Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood into one large urban sprawl to the detriment of all the inhabitants be they human or otherwise. | |
DLP_3857 | Mike S | Re: “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) The placing of the proposed school if not a cynical attempt to offload its transport impact onto Tonbridge would seem capricious to say the least. It occupies a site distant from both existing and proposed conurbations, but very close to Tonbridge. And it is divided by a railway line. Why is the school not nearer Whetsted, convenient for the proposed Colts Hill bypass and the proposed major developments? The vague representation of an east-west road makes it impossible to comment sensibly on the Tudeley proposal, more detail is needed. But it is clear that the plan would lead to over 2000 people from the proposed Tudeley trying to access Tonbridge station in the rush hours along gridlocked roads to commute to and from work. If they want instead to go north or south there are inadequate roads, so that funnels those drivers towards Tonbridge as well. For ordinary community, social and retail services, again Tonbridge would carry the burden. Tunbridge Wells is further away and harder to access; both town’s road and parking systems are overloaded already. A cynic might think that it looks like a wily stratagem to harvest council tax, while dropping the entire infrastructure burden on neighbouring Tonbridge. In the proposed Tudeley are you confident that the developers will gladly fund a number of railway bridges, or even better an artificial tunnel, to avoid a social divide between the north and south communities? I assume that a Gerrards Cross Tesco tunnel type collapse could be avoided with proper management. Recent experience demonstrates that the existing predictions of flood severity and frequency err on the conservative side, so these proposed developments will be under some threat from the outset. Flood mitigation measures may help, but water has to go somewhere; the modelling should extend as far as Wateringbury to avoid Yalding suffering once again. There would obviously be environmental damage to diverse green belt land from such developments. Are there “exceptional circumstances” here? The situation of Tudeley church, a popular tourist destination, is delightfully rural at present, which seems unlikely to survive. please email me notifications of further information. I authorise you to publish this email if you wish. | |
DLP_3925 | IDE Planning for Paddock Wood Town Council | OBJECT as per STR/PW1 below | |
DLP_4022 | Caroline Steadman | I never know what to write, so please note that I am very concerned about the current waste water situation in Paddock Wood, which will only get worse with every new house or redevelopment. Southern Water need to get involved and actually DO something about preparing for ANY and ALL building work, including the current ones taking place. Flooding is also a major concern; there is already a huge pond on the Mascalls Grange site (where the school is due to go), so what the Church Farm site will be like is the stuff of nightmares for those living closest. Roads also a concern. When will councils realise that just because they want people to walk and cycle doesn't mean the people either want to or will? And not building enough garages or allowing parking facilities will again exacerbate the problem. | |
DLP_4026 | Janet Allcorn | I'm appalled at the idea of these houses being built on such beautiful green belt land. There are so many country lanes surrounding the sites, the roads aren't built for the increased amount of traffic that will come with the houses. I cant begin to imagine what damage will be done to the wildlife. Tonbridge railway station will be a lot nearer than tunbridge wells and that is already so busy with parking at a premium. Surely there must be somewhere more suitable on brown belt land. We need countryside !!!! Please rethink ! | |
DLP_4037 | Mr I and Mrs E Turvey | We feel that we must join with everyone that has already written regarding the proposed developments for Tudeley, Capel and Paddock Wood. The planners need to take heed from what is being said by the local residents. The area around Tudeley that is proposed to become a garden village is on a floodplain, as is Capel and Paddock Wood. The environment agency seem to make light of the situation however the impact to the area with the amount of houses that are proposed will put an even greater pressure on the local infrastructure. Parts of Tonbridge flood on a fairly regular basis and Paddock Wood is already having sewerage problems with the new houses being built. Given the problems that are now happening up North with flooding, and the local amber warning that's in place here for Thursday 14th November, there is a real need to consider the implications putting so many houses in an already at risk area. The whole infrastructure needs to be readdressed before new houses are even decided upon. The Leigh barrier needs to be upgraded and there is an awful lot of groundwork to be considered. You do not build houses and then decide how to deal with flooding issues. This leads onto the next point, the existing roads cannot cope and we basically here at Five Oak Green live in a triangle that is supplied by B-roads. There is already a vast amount of traffic that uses Colts Hill and the B2017. There have already been several serious accidents on the new Pembury Bypass. Heavy lorries are using substandard roads. The Transfesa site was only allowed back in the 70's by the Secretary of State on the understanding that, most of the haulage would be transported by the rail link at Paddock Wood. It appears however that most is transported by road. The road at Colts Hill can just about allow the passing of two heavy goods vehicles and as for reintroducing the idea to put in a Bypass, that was on the agenda over 40 years ago and the money that has been spent to date would have helped to achieve that at the time. There is a lot of short sightedness by those in charge and the bureaucracy deciding the fate of the 'little person'. The whole idea of these planning proposals are going to completely spoil this area of our green and pleasant land, the Garden of England. With all the different proposals around the country, Ebbsfleet, Lenham and Ashford etc. We are now drowning under the strain and are just becoming one large expanse of concrete / car park (for the Eurotunnel transport). Once done, this land can never be brought back to agricultural or green belt. Please think very hard. With these arguments, we hope there will be consideration on the part of the Council to at least address the current problems i.e. flooding and roads before you embark on further houses which at best will still not be available to the younger generation as on average new houses on the market in this area have a starting price of £300-345,000, still beyond the reach of first time buyers. We will close now and look forward to hearing the decisions that will be made. Also apologies for actually having written this letter because as stated at the meeting in Somerhill School, someone will have to sit and read this! | |
DLP_4044 | Martin Smith | I am writing in opposition to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I believe this plan to develop the area near Capel ia an assault on our remaining open spaces. I have experience of the knock-on effects to traffic in Wingham (East Kent) resulting from development at Aylesham – in my opinion resulting in the loss in character of a region of about three-five mile radius. I do not understand why the Council cannot understand this wide effect. This plan will dump houses on the edges of the Borough for arbitrary target reason - it is not acceptable. The effect of targets cannot give rise to such a reduction in the Natural capital of the area. The Borough Council should not be allowed to test the green belt | |
DLP_4051 | Roberta Neale | Strategy for Capel p 158 onwards I oppose the proposals for the development of Capel. I am also concerned what this will mean for the longer term and am not convinced by the jargon used. What are “betterment” and an appropriate masterplanned approach; it can mean anything? Nibbling away at the Green Belt is, however, certain as is destroying wonderful views and the whole ambience of this community and its amazing church of such historic value. Similar considerations apply in the case of the proposals for developing Tudeley which I also object to. | |
DLP_4083 | Niamh Burbidge | I am a resident of Tonbridge who commutes into London daily and I am writing to object to ?The Strategy for Capel Parish? (Policy STR/CA1). Building 2,800 houses in Tudeley is an extremely ill-thought out plan for a number of key reasons:
Essentially, TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge infrastructure. The lives of Tonbridge residents will be made worse, especially those of us who commute. Meanwhile, TWBC pocket the council tax. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4084 | Julian Morgan | I live in East Peckham & work equally from home / commute to London from Paddock Wood Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). 1) the destruction of so much green belt / wildlife is heartbreaking, especially when it could be reduced by making use of local brownfield sites. So far I haven’t seen any arguments for not prioritising brownfield over green belt We will therefore see more countryside replaced by housing & driveways. This not only impacts local flora & fauna but also undermines efforts to control carbon emissions as trees & soil are good carbon sinks 2) East Peckham & surrounding areas are prone to flooding, & while TMBC has done a lot of work to mitigate these affects climate change will increase the risk of flooding Therefore we need to retain the trees & soil we have to help absorb floodwater & reduce the risk of runoff or downstream impact. Building so many houses on River Medway floodplains could directly affect East Peckham | |
DLP_4100 | Jackie Edwards | I am a resident of Golden Green, and use the surrounding countryside for dog walking and cycling. I am very concerned about the proposed Capel development plans. I would be grateful if you could add my contact details to your consultation database as I would like to keep up to date with all future consultations on planning policy. I am happy for you to publish my comments. I moved to Golden Green 8 years ago and one of the main reasons we chose this location was because it is so beautiful and rural, and the characteristics of the countryside are such that you can live near to a large town (i.e. Tonbridge) but be in the middle of the Green Belt, and also be part of a small rural community. The creation of a new Garden Town at Tudeley by building 2,800 new houses will absolutely devastate the countryside that we have moved here to enjoy. It will also cause harm to the residents of the Parish of Capel and to the residents of Tonbridge as a whole. The increase in traffic on the small B roads and country lanes in the area will only make the existing traffic congestion worse. Every morning the roads into Tonbridge are blocked by traffic. The scale of the new town will lead to gridlock on the local roads, which are not able to cope already. There is also a proposed new school, the site of which does not seem to have been considered very carefully. The railway line runs through the middle of the school, and it is surrounded by busy roads, meaning that schoolchildren are having to cross a railway line or major traffic routes in order to get to, and move around, the new school. Inhabitants of the new town will most likely use Tonbridge station as it is the nearest station for commuting to London. The commuter trains to London are already heavily congested and traffic and parking at the station will also be an issue. Apparently Network Rail have confirmed that there will not be a new station at Tudeley which means that any commuters will use Tonbridge, which is already at capacity. The increased traffic will cause more accidents, more pollution, and kill more wildlife than ever before. The lack of infrastructure will cause problems throughout Tonbridge, and the costs of the new residents will have to be borne by Tonbridge and Malling, whilst Tunbridge Wells receives the Council Tax. The new residents will want local doctors, dentists, schools, shops, leisure facilities…and these will be supplied by Tonbridge without receiving the benefits. Aside from the financial problems, the site is located next to an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is Green Belt land, which should not be allocated for building projects. The site is on the Medway flood plain and does not really take into account the impact of climate change and how the new development will cause increased flood risk in Tudeley, Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. These areas have all suffered flooding in the past. The development will ruin habitats, create light and noise pollution, and create a huge visual scar on our beautiful landscape. Other brownfield sites are available for development and I would suggest these are looked at before we destroy our countryside. I wholeheartedly object to the inclusion of land in Capel in the “Strategy for Paddock Wood” also. This is Green Belt land and needs exceptional circumstances to be built on. I know many of my friends and neighbours are also very concerned about this plan and the potential development. It should be abandoned. | |
DLP_4115 | Tunbridge Wells District Committee Campaign to Protect Rural England | Object Please see the response submitted by CPRE Kent’s Head Office | |
DLP_4368 | British Horse Society | Support with conditions The policy should include provision of new public bridleways and horse riding routes in public open space as part of the green infrastructure. Ideally this should be linked to provision of a site for an equestrian centre so that the residents of the new houses have somewhere to learn to ride/keep horses without having to use a car to reach it. This should form part of the masterplanning. The proposed new road to serve the Tudeley settlement should also include a public bridleway or restricted byway alongside or close to it and some safe crossing facilities for equestrians. | |
DLP_4411 | Alison Adams | I am a resident of Horsmonden and have lived here for the last 6 years. During my time I have been the Chair of the local Horsmonden Kindergarten and I have been very busy renovating my home and garden. I love living in this village with its community spirit and feel very involved and integrated in the society here. Although I appreciate that new housing is inevitable and do not object to sensitive and structured new building I am concerned greatly by the idea of large scale new development which does not take into account the requirements of the existing community or the actual requirements of the prospective purchasers of the homes. Horsmonden like most villages provides a mixture of housing and there are many residents living here who do not foresee living anywhere else. Houses however do come onto the market and at present there are a number in the village that have been up for sale for over a year. My question is therefore, how have the “powers that be” come up with the decision that we need to create 13,560 new homes (Para 4.7)? If we do need these homes I sincerely hope that the main priority is to create homes that will fulfil the specifications that these new prospective owners are looking for. In my view one of the biggest problems that we face is that large family homes continue to be occupied by parents well after their children have left, couples in their 60s, 70s and 80s are reluctant to downsize due to the lack of smaller but prestigious, spacious, convenient houses/apartments/bungalows that also offer attractive outside space. This creates a barrier to the upward movement of younger families who wish to gain more space. Space in the South East is at a premium so there needs to be some incentive to free up these family homes for the new generation. I would also like to be 100% certain that the companies that are employed to build all these new homes are actually controlled so that the new homes are good quality and sustainable with eco-friendly initiatives being used. Why is it not compulsory to have solar panels, permeable paving, grey water storage? All these design features are available and if every builder was enforced to use them there would be economies of scale so the price of these technologies would ultimately come down. In terms of the Consultation I would like to comment on the following: STR Policy – Capel Parish CA1 This is the Medway flood plain – why on earth would anyone want to build houses on this land and anyone who bought a property would struggle to obtain insurance due to the risk of flooding. Supposedly there are flood mitigation measures in force for Tonbridge, but it still managed to flood, so why would anyone have any confidence in the flood mitigation measures for such an area of land? This area is part of Green Belt land and the whole idea sounds like a complete disaster to me for residents of all the neighbouring towns and villages, it would be of particular harm to the beautiful and historic All Saints Church in Tudeley. I appreciate the opportunity to comment and hope that the Borough Council will take into account the many and varied views of the people of the borough. Maybe building thousands of new homes will boost the economy in the short term but once built these homes cannot be removed so let’s hope there is a real demand and that the houses built actually satisfy that demand. | |
DLP_4434 | Peter Charlton | My wife and I have lived in the same house in Mill Lane, Tonbridge, for the past 36 years and we know the whole of the local area very well. We were amazed that TWBC should be contemplating building such a huge new conurbation in the two Tudeley and Postern Lane areas, so close to Tonbridge, without even, as I understand it, there having been any prior discussion of the TWBC plans with Councillors or Officers at Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. I am therefore writing to object very strongly to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and to the associated policies AL/CA1 and AL/CA2 Many of the strong arguments that can be made against the proposals have already been made very effectively and eloquently through the Save Capel campaign and do not need to be repeated verbatim here. I would however, as a resident of Tonbridge, like to pick out and personally re-emphasise the key elements identified by the ‘Save Capel’ campaign which I believe will have a particularly serious adverse impact on the future lives and wellbeing of all of the residents of Tonbridge (as opposed to the residents of Tunbridge Wells, who will be totally unaffected!)
Given the major adverse impacts which it would have on Tonbridge, if it were to be implemented, (‘all costs’, with ‘no benefits’) I very much hope that the Strategy for Capel Parish (STR/CA1) and its associated policies (AL/CA1 and AL/CA2) will be completely removed from the TWBC Local Plan. | |
DLP_4461 | Mr Andrew Rankine | Education: | |
DLP_4465 | Mr Andrew Rankine | Concluding Remarks: | |
DLP_4476 | Paddock Wood Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group | No comment | |
DLP_4489 | George Andrews | I object to the proposed Plan as it will be detrimental to Tonbridge in that it will increase vehicular traffic in and through the Town and that it will have an adverse effect upon the rail and other facilities . The proposals have not been thought through and the effects of them should not be foisted upon Tonbridge . | |
DLP_4501 | K Jones | I have been a resident of Tonbridge for 38 years latterly enjoying the open landscape of Higham Wood. I have worked locally in both Tonbridge and Hildenborough for 36 years and on occasion travel to London. During this period I have experienced longer travel times to my place of work latterly 45 minutes for what takes 15 mins out of rush hour. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1, AL/CA1 Tudeley Village, AL/CA2 Land to East of Tonbridge/West of site for Tudeley Village) Creating an enlarged settlement at Tudeley of 2800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel, but also to the residents of Tonbridge. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species and increase air and light pollution. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. The levels of traffic are already unacceptable during rush hour and beyond. The proposed school is on the border of Tonbridge, split by a main line railway alongside a heavily used road. Undoubtedly the school will attract students from outside the area of Tudeley and Tonbridge and I have concerns about the travel connections to the new school and road congestion as a result. The site would seem totally unsuitable for a school when considering the safety of students accessing both sites across a busy railway and pedestrian access to the school alongside an already heavily used road. Traffic will undoubtedly back up along the A26 inconveniencing those travelling from the North and South through Tonbridge. The proposed housing consists of family homes and as we all know most households have 2 cars as a minimum. The increased traffic will exacerbate the already congested main routes and cause further rat runs of the surrounding small lanes. The possible relief roads which may or may not come to fruition will not stop this. As it is likely that a railway station is not built at Tudeley the extra footfall at Tonbridge station could be significant on an already oversubscribed service. The lack of parking and bus routes will impact parking in surrounding roads which do not have parking restrictions and greatly inconvenience these residents. There are no cycle paths between the development and Tonbridge and indeed none along the A26 from Three Elm Lane heading to Tonbridge. Cycling is not a safe viable alternative mode of transport. It is of concern to me that the area of development is subject to flooding relief and I worry any redirection might only exacerbate other areas, as we have seen in the recent case of Fishlake, Yorkshire. Medical practices within the Tonbridge area are already swamped. One Tonbridge medical practice is moving to larger premises, but the advantage of the services they hope to provide and long overdue for their patients will only be absorbed by the residents of the new development, causing increased pressure on Tonbridge health services and have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of Tonbridge residents. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge side of the boundary will be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst TWBC will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area, resulting in higher unemployment and further pressure on social services available with detriment to the High Street. TWBC is using Capel to meet their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. They should reconsider and look to these brownfield sites and housing that is derelict before imposing this development on Green Belt land. The developments in Tudeley are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge with no benefit to the residents of Tudeley or Tonbridge, only misery. | |
DLP_4517 | Mr D, Mrs M and Mr S Allen | We would like to express our views over the proposed building plans for the area of Capel, Tudeley & Paddock wood. We feel, that the sheer scale of the negative impact on everyone's quality of life will be catastrophic, is incomprehensible, and has not been considered carefully enough to take the full impact of the various developments into account Surely, if there are changes to be made that are to impact so many lives, they should be in a forward direction, so that everyone concerned can benefit from them in a positive manner, so as to enhance quality of life, not to make things more difficult and miserable, isn't that a backwards step? We are all residents of East Peckham for over 50 years, so it is fairly safe to say that this is our home and we do know what life is like here. The proposed Two Thousand homes in Capel plus thousands more in & around Paddock Wood in reality is potentially around Twenty Thousand more people on our doorstep, maybe more & as some families start and others grow, that could easily double inside Five years pushing the realistic figures towards Fifty thousand or more people!!! We find this incomprehensible that the current infrastructure is expected to accept the demands this will undoubtedly bring. In reality, the current Hospital situation clearly cannot cope with demand as it is, when you are told it is around 9 months just to see the Consultant, without getting any treatment, it is quite sole destroying. When we are taken ill, we would all like to be treated as quickly as possible and most illnesses, diseases and injuries have a greater chance of being treated successfully and even more likely to be cured completely if treated quickly, if they are not treated quickly, the problem actually becomes harder to treat and in some cases, incurable and may also make it difficult to manage too, then quality of life deteriorates and it is almost certain that regular treatments to try and improve or just maintain quality of life will then be needed putting additional strain on an already overstretched hospital, this is the reality of the current situation here and now. Even bringing Maidstone hospital into the equation doesn't really solve anything, as there are surgeons retiring that they seem unable to replace, so there are patients being diverted to London, because we cant cope, coupled with all the new developments in the Maidstone area, without any additional infrastructure being put in place to accommodate them, like parking for example, and all the additional congestion! Both Hospitals are massively overstretched, seriously understaffed, with woefully inadequate parking. GP surgeries are also at breaking point, at the height of the summer, it was a Nine week wait to see my doctor!? It is therefore no surprise that Accident & Emergency departments are constantly full. The roads are already far too heavily congested & too few parking spaces, especially when there could easily be another Ten Thousand vehicles in the area, that is without mentioning the endless roadworks and the massive inconvenience it will cause all of us while its being built. The problems will start when building work begins with Construction vehicles and Roadworks, it will be the beginning of years of inconvenience and misery, which will only deteriorate. With the increased demand for water, which will start when the building works start, does this mean that there will be even more inconvenience while the infrastructure is put in place to accommodate the new demand, or that instead the hose pipe ban will be extended into December? Families will inevitably grow requiring the need for schools, shopping, activities. Have you seen the rush hour queues, or worse still, had to sit in them for either Tunbridge wells Maidstone or Tonbridge or tried to go shopping at the weekend, then tried to find a parking space? There will be a huge Negative effect on every aspect of normal daily life to all of us in the Local and not so local surrounding areas. These proposals and the effects of the negativity will only grow as we try to play catch-up to resolve all of the issues that these developments will bring, then there will be limitations to the resources needed to put it right, but it will be too late, the damage will already be irreparably done. Also, if it really is so necessary to build here and the demand is so high, why are so many homes in Paddock Wood empty? I would like to add some positive reasons for the proposed developments going ahead, but none have been suggested and I am unable to find any. If you are able to provide me with reasons why this is a good idea and any benefits that will come from it, I will be delighted to hear them. | |
DLP_4522 | Arnold Hugh Foster | I am a resident of southe Tonbridge and together with three friends from Fordcombe, Tunbridge Wells and Otford I form a small gropu of enthusiastic walkers around the local district. One of our favorite summer walks is from the church in Tudeley eastwards to Capel then on to Five Oak Greena and then back to Tudeley Hale and finally Tonbridge. There were some important reasons why I chose to live in Tonbridge, these were easy commute to London, good schools and green belt countryside that would not get built on. All three of these reasons are now under threat due to the Local Plan. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4589 | Kate Hardy | Policy Number: STR/CA1 I object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish”. The location of this site is on the borough border with Tonbridge; with the Tonbridge train station, high street and supermarkets all in closer proximity than any TWBC alternative. The current population of Tonbridge is approx. 40,000. The Tudeley Village/Capel development of approximately 4,000 new dwellings has the potential to increase the population using the already strained Tonbridge infrastructure by 25-50%. It will be crippling to all roads and carparks in Tonbridge town centre; something which cannot be addressed simply through new transport links in and out of the Village or the inclusion of cycling paths, as the council well knows. There will be a significant increase in traffic into Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. There is no mention of new access to the A21, which means Tudeley village residents will be funnelled westward along Tudeley Road to the A26, putting immense pressure on an already busy roundabout. Infrastructure for a development of this size cannot simply ignore the need for a new railway station. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. The longer journey times and less frequent trains from Paddock Wood make it far more likely that residents of Tudeley village would use Tonbridge station, which is already dangerously overcrowded during peak hours. (The council would be well advised to look to municipalities like Singapore, where site locations for rail stations always come first in the planning agenda.) It is, frankly, irresponsible to progress with this development, when Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council have raised “serious concerns”. Specifically, that "the proximity of some of the major development proposals to the borough boundary and specifically, the south east of our main settlement of Tonbridge, is a matter of serious concern due to the potential impacts on the local highway network, rail services and other community infrastructure including health care and education, particularly when combined with planned developments in Tonbridge as part of our own Local Plan." Furthermore, none of the council tax revenue from these new homes would support infrastructure in Tonbridge. These are fundamental flaws in the planning process. TWBC cannot be allowed to make decisions of this magnitude in a vacuum. Vague and Inaccurate Targets In addition, the portion of these new homes designated as “affordable” is also unacceptably vague. This country does not need more over-priced housing to line the pockets of developers. Flooding Pollution Heritage Assets Housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. Housing need is not an exceptional circumstance. TWBC should use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. This version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4599 | Save Capel | I am writing to you on behalf of the Save Capel campaign. We have the names and addresses of 3,750 people who signed the following petition: “We, the undersigned, petition Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to remove the proposal to build 4,000+ new homes in Tudeley and East Capel from the TWBC Local Plan.” Consequently, Save Capel would like to register 3,750 objections to the Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1) and 3,750 objections to the inclusion of land in East Capel in the Strategy for Paddock Wood (Policy STR/PW1). Please let us know if you would like the list of names and addresses. Save Capel has worked closely with Capel Parish Council and we fully endorse their comments on both the Local Plan and Sustainability Appraisal. Members of Save Capel teams have submitted comments and objections as individuals, detailing evidence gathered across a range of topics, including landscape, environment, biodiversity, heritage, flooding, sewerage, housing need, transport and highways. We will not duplicate their comments, as we understand that their comments will be studiously considered as individual submissions. As a campaign, we understand the national policy constraints applied to the development of the Local Plan and will watch its progression post-consultation and the evolution of national planning policy with great interest. [TWBC: list of petitioners (signatures and addresses redacted) are attached to this representation]. | |
DLP_4607 | Mrs Suzanne Callander | COMMENTS: with specific reference to sites in the Parish of Capel (CA1 & PW1) I strongly object to the intention to build so extensively in the parish of Capel. I live in Tudeley and my home will end up on the periphery of the intended Tudeley new town. I made a conscious choice to live in a semi-rural location, for the views, the environment, and to be in the countryside and to enjoy the stunning low-weald landscape. I am uplifted every day by the sight and sounds of the diverse wildlife around my house and I have the joy of dark skies at night. The Local Plan in its current form will wreck my chosen way of life, with thousands of unnecessary dwellings being built on the Grade 2 and Grade 3 productive agricultural land on what we assumed would be protected as it is Green Belt land. Throughout the creation of the Draft Local Plan there has been very little constructive consultation. Indeed, the Capel sites were only made public in May 2019. Before this TWBC’s intentions were restricted by non-disclosure agreements. Throughout the process, since the Capel sites were made public TWBC planners have continually issued misleading comments, have avoided difficult issues, and have refused to produce any detail about the plans, in relation to Capel The Plans for Capel appear rushed and unfinished, despite the fact that they relate to such a large percentage of Local Plan! I believe that the Local Plan, in relation to Capel is currently unsound, unfinished, and inaccurate. It fails to offer evidence that planners have exhausted all other site opportunities, before making the decision (helped no doubt by a keen and willing single landowner) to utilise vast expanses of protected Green Belt land with the CA1 and PW1 sites. The Local Plan currently lacks any hard evidence that these sites constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’. TWBC planners have also been publicly admonished by TMBC for a lack of consultation relating to the plans for Capel, which TMBC have acknowledged will have a devastating effect on the town of Tonbridge. The figures: STR1 of the Plan reveals it is an objective to target Green Belt: 7. The release of Green Belt around the settlements of Royal Tunbridge Wells, Southborough, Paddock Wood, Pembury, and in the parish of Capel, to deliver development allocated in this Local Plan. I believe that this objective should be replaced with More environmentally responsible objectives ¬– brownfield and under-used land – NOT THE PRODUCTIVE, GOOD QUALITY (GRADE 2 AND GRADE 3) AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN CA1 AND PW1. There has been no cumulative assessment of the effect of development across Capel, which would be compounded by KCC gravel excavations between CA1 and PW1, and the extensive need for new road building and other infrastructure that the CA1 site in particular, would require. These works would transform Capel from a rural ward with little development, to an urban sprawl from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood and from the Medway into the AONB. (Which the Green Belt is in place to avoid). The current Local Plan will irrevocably change and destroy the parish. The Local Plan will have a very negative impact on the parish of Capel including an increase in air, noise and light pollution. TWBC has declared a climate emergency, but it is not demonstrating this through its willingness to destroy vital fields, shrubs, hedgerows and trees within this Green Belt, agricultural land. The small Parish of Capel will be subject to over 10 years of disruptive, noisy, dusty development work during the intended construction period. Light measurements taken for site CA1 between July and September 2019 show an average reading of 20.55. According to instruction from the High Weald AONB, this is a measurement equal to that area. The Local Plan is vague on how the inevitable deterioration in light pollution levels will be tackled. However, TWBC’s magazine ‘LOCAL’ states the Local Plan proposes a “…new policy which addresses this in rural areas.” That policy is not, however clearly explained. Despite its own publicity to the contrary, the Local Plan in its current form, will have a hugely detrimental impact on the TWBC’s own climate emergency goals. TWBC is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2030. The loss of 600 acres of fields and hedgerows to create over 4,000 dwellings around Capel, where only 940 currently exist, does not align with this aim. All Saints’ Church at Tudeley, and the windows designed by Marc Chagall, for example, is a global, asset. Chagall considered the light and setting so perfect that he designed all of the windows, despite only being commissioned to design one. The development proposed for CA1 will irrevocably alter the setting of the Church and the windows. The CA1 site is bisected by a mainline railway which will adversely affect flow around the site. With only one, single lane – restricted height and width – road tunnel under the railway, within the site, the site will also likely need to be built as two separate sites, with two separate construction entrances. The site currently has no access to services, nor is it close to any existing transport infrastructure. Increased car use from the site is inevitable – with such a long build timeline ¬– residents will need to travel to shops and schools ¬until the site it large enough to sustain its own facilities and services. This will adversely affect the surrounding areas for the foreseeable future. No consideration appears to have been given to the increase in commuters travelling into London that will be generated by the new developments. Commuter trains are already overcrowded and local car parks are always full. Developments in Capel and Paddock Wood, added to expected developments further down the line in Marden, Staplehurst and Ashford, for example will increase the pressure on the already stretched rail capacity for this line. The Landowner of the CA1 site has stated that he will be responsible for masterplanning of the site. I cannot understand how TWBC is comfortable leaving such an important task to an amateur developer, particularly on a site of this size and complexity. Errors will be impossible or costly to repair, and may be extremely damaging to the environment and to the surrounding areas. The landowner has so far refused to engage with the local community, despite assurances from TWBC that a ‘masterplan approach with community involvement is key to this proposal.’ The community has overwhelmingly expressed objection to the proposal, highlighted by the success and support for the Save Capel campaign. | |
DLP_4608 | Nicola Van Hensbergen | I am a Tonbridge resident, living just off the Pembury Road. My husband commutes into London for work and I frequently travel round/ utilise the Capel area to enjoy the countryside and to visit family living close by. My 2 young children are school age and I use the Pembury road on a daily basis during rush hour for the school commute. I am writing to object to your plans to develop the Capel area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of Tonbridge in addition to those living closer to the proposed development. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. It can already be a struggle for me to access the Pembury Road at these times due to the high level of traffic. The huge influx of school children walking along the Pembury Road to and from school each day together with an increase of traffic into the town would seem a recipe for disaster. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. My husband will struggle to get a seat on the train to London each day with the significant increase in passengers. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) I have family living in the Medway valley and they have had flood risks in that area frequently. It would be devastating to increase the risk and see the community suffer when it floods again. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. | |
DLP_4637 | Rosie Bleet | We live in south-east Tonbridge, which is very close to the proposed new developments at Tudeley and East Capel. We are concerned about the proposals for a number of different reasons, which are outlined below. Please add our contact details to your consultation database so that we can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. We understand that our comments will be published by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, including on its website. We are writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will not only impact significantly on the residents of the Parish of Capel, but also to us as residents of Tonbridge. There will be a large increase in traffic along the B2017 as well as on the A26 and other roads leading to local schools and to Tonbridge station at peak hours. These roads are already very busy at peak times and the increased pressure from further traffic as a result of the proposed garden settlement and nearby school will not only cause congestion to increase, but an increase to air pollution. This is a particular concern as the peak in air pollution coincides with the time when children (who are more vulnerable to this pollution than other groups) are on their way to and from school. As Tonbridge is the nearest large settlement to the proposed garden settlement, future residents will use Tonbridge station for commuting and Tonbridge town services. The roads in Tonbridge cannot be made wider in most places and therefore will struggle to cope with this increased pressure. As one of us commutes into London from Tonbridge station, the addition of potentially hundreds more passengers onto the already packed trains is not a happy prospect. Parking in and around Tonbridge station will be even more difficult and we will likely end up with even more commuters parking on our road and adjacent roads as a result. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on our side of the boundary in Tonbridge & Malling will have to be carried by us and fellow residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking (both formal and curb-side) as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Some services in Tonbridge are already stretched (for example the waiting list for an NHS dentist is over 2 years), and therefore this is extra pressure on these services that we as Tonbridge residents do not need. The proposed secondary school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. Large parts of the developments will occur on the River Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Scientific studies suggest that we will face an increased likelihood of longer periods of wetter weather in the United Kingdom in the years to come as a result of climate change. We have already been seeing this pattern in recent years, with frequent flooding events across the UK, particularly in autumn and winter. We should absolutely not be building more houses on floodplains and other areas at increased risk of flooding. The cost of mitigating against floods is astronomical already and therefore adding to this through the building of new developments in flood risk areas is a poorly thought out strategy. Further to this, the hard surfacing of more land in this area will increase run-off of water into the Medway, leading to increased flood risk in other areas such as Golden Green and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it will not tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. This could cause a lack in the sense of community in this fractured settlement. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and result in a reduction to biodiversity in the area, which includes a number of species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England, listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act. In light of recent reports about catastrophic insect declines worldwide and with wildlife populations increasingly threatened by factors such as pollution and urbanisation (e.g. https://nbn.org.uk/stateofnature2019/), we should be doing more to help conserve the wildlife we have left not to destroy it. Indeed, one of the outcomes of the government’s ‘Biodiversity 2020’ strategy is to ensure that “by 2020, we will see an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and will have prevented further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species.” The proximity of the proposed development at Tudeley is very close to the nature reserve of Tudeley Woods, which is managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. This ancient woodland site is home to a significant number of nationally rare and threatened plant, animal and fungus species and the increased pressure from dog walkers and other visitors as a result of the proposed settlement is very concerning as this could have negative impacts on some of these special species. For instance, an increase in dog fouling can increase nutrient levels significantly such that areas become unsuitable for less competitive plant species. We believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. We would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process did not include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan did not go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. We think that this version of the draft Local Plan is not complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing has not had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they did not know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. We think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. We think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Tunbridge Wells has more amenities than Tonbridge and it would therefore seem counter-intuitive for a new settlement to be encouraging residents to a town outside of the borough than encouraging them to take advantage of the facilities that could be afforded to them in Tunbridge Wells. | |
DLP_4652 | William Parkin | I was brought up in Tonbridge, living in Three Elm Lane in 1950s and also for the past 41 years since 1978. I am a retired agricultural adviser (formerly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), more recently specialising in conservation matters and carrying out research on habitat management. I have been familiar with the area around Tudeley and Capel since the early 1950s. I appreciate the countryside there and enjoy walking, particularly along the River Medway. I would like to be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents, so please add my details to your consultation database. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object strongly to "The Strategy for Capel Parish" (Policy STR/CA1) My main objections to the proposals, particularly as they affect Tudeley, are: 1. Loss of Green Belt. The Tudeley village proposals lie entirely within the Green Belt. The fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts being their openness and permanence. Green Belt should only be built on in "Exceptional Circumstance". No such exceptional circumstance exists in this proposal. There has been no detailed Green Belt study for sites CA1 and CA2, no Landscape Assessment and no Biodiversity Assessment. TWBC does not appear to have properly considered alternative sites including brownfield sites. 2. Effect on wildlife. The rich and varied habitat in the vicinity would be damaged by the proposals putting several rare species at risk. There is likely to be a spin-off effect on the important habitat and wildlife corridor of the River Medway - due to direct damage and disturbance caused by the increased population with their domestic animals. Several species of butterfly have been recorded and bats are important as well as a number of nesting birds. Nightingales have been heard by the river and kingfishers are to be seen. 3. Landscape. The proposals for Tudeley (which borders an AONB) would destroy an area of countryside of orchards and fields with hedges and ditches which characterises this part of the Weald of Kent. The development would cause a scar on the landscape interrupting the fine view across the Weald. Of particular importance is All Saints Church, which is a heritage asset of world renown (due to the unique and complete set of Marc Chagall windows). The charm of this gem is considerably enhanced by its rural situation surrounded by fields. The proposals (housing and a busy roundabout nearby) would completely destroy the setting with its essential ambience and tranquility. 4. Traffic. The development would generate considerable extra traffic on the local roads which are already overloaded and extremely busy. This would greatly exacerbate the existing traffic problems accessing and/or parking in Tonbridge. The B2017 is already already a busy road with traffic jams at peak times and the plans will lead to more traffic pouring into Tonbridge from this direction with a spin-off effect on other country lanes and in particular Three Elm Lane being used as a "rat run" as an alternative route. 5. Loss of prime agricultural land, much of which is used for fruit production. 6. Water management. Surface run-off from the development will impact on the River Medway increasing the likelihood of flooding in low lying areas such as Yalding. The effects of new roads, driveways, houses and other buildings will impede the natural absorption of rainfall by the soil which is important in maintaining the aquifers and future water supply. 7. Pollution. The development will produce air pollution (from increased traffic, domestic heating etc), noise pollution and light pollution (which has an effect on wildlife). Road run-off is likely to cause pollution of watercourses. 8. Positioning. The positioning of the Tudeley development midway between Tonbridge and Five Oak Green poses a danger of future urban sprawl with insufficient "green space" (less than2 miles) between the different "built up" areas - leaving little countryside between Tonbridge and Paddock Wood. The close proximity of the Tudeley development to Tonbridge will result in many of the new residents relying on Tonbridge to provide a number of services and activities placing an extra strain on Tonbridge facilities with increased cost to TMBC. The above are my main reasons for objecting to "The Strategy for Capel Parish" (Policy STR/CA1) with particular reference to Tudeley. | |
DLP_4680 | Catherine Scales | I am an East Malling resident whose child attended Mascalls school in Paddock Wood and as a family we have many friends in Golden Green, Tudeley and Capel. I travel regularly through these areas. Policy str/ca1 These plans are going to be a disaster.... at East Malling, since I have moved here 16 years ago, my journey to work has doubled due to increased traffic, the nearest set of lights to me now take 3 changes opposed to 1 when I reach them at Wateringbury, the increase in all local traffic due to this development will make this worse again, over here at Kings Hill we have more proposed housing developments. This is low lying land and a potential flood danger. I and my family have had to use the local hospital Pembury several times recently and my notes were lost meaning my cancer was not treated as soon as it should have been.....my daughters baby had treatment also and it is clear that the hospital is working at full capacity with no scope for extra patients. This is green belt land and should be protected for wildlife, farmin and people’s mental and physical wellbeing. | |
DLP_4681 | Zerina Bagwell | We moved to Tudeley in 2016 because we simply fell in love with the Parish. We previously lived in Sevenoaks but wanted to move a bit further out to the countryside within easy reach of a train station to London for work. Tudeley offered us both options as well as a good selection of secondary schools. We were right on the border of Tonbridge which meant that we were close to the amenities that a town offered. We consider Tonbridge as our local town because it can take up to 40 minutes by car to travel to the centre of Tunbridge Wells. In addition, Tudeley offered a piece of the beautiful English countryside. Wherever you looked, the agricultural land was being used to its full potential. It wasn’t just left as something to look at, but it provided food as well as jobs. Surely, we had found a piece of heaven?! When people came to visit, they all exclaimed that they wished they lived in Tudeley! When we heard the news of the Local Plan and the proposed garden town at Tudeley, we were quite honestly heartbroken. However, what was more serious and important was the lack of consideration for the agricultural, environmental and infrastructure impact that the Local Plan would have on the Parish. There is a lack of clear evidence in the Local Plan that suggests other more appropriate sites (such as brown fields along the A21) had been thoroughly considered. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to both the residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge as well as to the landscape. The Local Plan for this policy is unsustainable, unrealistic and short sighted. First of all, Tudeley is a very small village with one country road running through it. Hartlake Road is used as a short cut from North Tonbridge to the A21 and it is very popular. Tudeley is located right on the edge of the large bustling town of Tonbridge. In addition, there is quite simply not enough physical space/land in Tudeley to put the aforementioned 2,800 houses. The garden settlement at Tudeley would make traffic movements in Tonbridge unsustainable. There will be a significant increase in traffic into Tonbridge from the B2017, which will increase the extreme traffic congestion that already exists on this road every morning. We have to leave our house by 08:00 for the school run in order to get my son to school for 08:30 in Hildenborough. This already unacceptable levels of traffic during peak hours from Tudeley Lane to Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road will also coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. I can’t even begin to describe how this proposed school site will add to the already high levels of congestion on the above roads. It simply is not feasible. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. I believe it is unrealistic and naive for the Local Plan to rely on bicycles as being the primary and most suitable mode of transport for the residents in Tudeley. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but it is without a doubt that flood risks will increase. Covering agricultural fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. At the moment, the Medway river already rises when there is substantial rainfall. I know this for a fact because I frequently walk my dogs along the Medway river. The heritage of the All Saints Church at Tudeley must be preserved. What a wonderful piece of history that is set in the middle of a breath-taking landscape. According to the Local Plan, it will end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) You will be surprised, as I was, that the church is actually well known in the art community around the world! The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Sherenden Road is a single-track road that runs in front of my house from the south to the north of Tudeley. There is no mention in the Local Plan how this road will be used – am I to expect at least 2,800 cars to pass by my front door on a single track every day? Again, any proposed infrastructure for Tudeley will be unsustainable given the size of the current roads and existing surrounding houses. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. The loss of agricultural land that is currently being used by Scripps Farm is heart breaking. Did you know that you can buy apples in Tescos that have been grown in the fields along Sherenden Road? The Scripps Farm is the biggest producer of fruit in Kent, which is something we should be proud of and not want to destroy! I believe that the housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. I urge you to seriously consider the above points and the adverse effect that the Local Plan will have on the current infrastructure in Tudeley and the surrounding areas of Tonbridge. The Local Plan for Tudeley is clearly (and beyond any doubt) unsustainable. The development of this scale will have an unacceptable high impact on the centre of Tonbridge, and it is highly impossible for the above issues to be mitigated properly. Having read the published documents, I feel that the Local Plan has targeted Tudeley because it is simply the easiest option. However, it just does not make any logical or rational sense on so many levels which extend beyond what I have written above. Have the Planning Councillors actually physically visited Tudeley to get a sense of what it is like at 08:30 in the morning trying to get to the train station in Tonbridge? Just because it is an easy option does not make it the right one. | |
DLP_4682 | CBRE Ltd for Dandara Ltd | Draft Local Plan Policy STR/CA1 ‘The Strategy for Capel Parish – Dandara notes the following: 4.14 The strategy for Capel Parish under Draft Policy STR/CA1 advocates a comprehensive masterplan approach and includes Land at Capel and Paddock Wood. Dandara supports the need for a masterplan-led approach, however, considers this should be a Strategic Framework rather than a masterplan as set out within our response to Policy STR3. It is considered that the policy should be amended so as to require a Strategic Framework or Town Wide Framework including an Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This will ensure that both development, design and infrastructure requirements are comprehensively coordinated across the various sites around Paddock Wood and include town centre regeneration. 4.15 This Strategic Framework and Infrastructure Delivery Plan should be coordinated and not separate documents, the objective of both to establish development principles, parameters and infrastructure requirements but not detailed design of each site, which would be the role of a masterplan as part of the planning application process. 4.16 Dandara has not submitted any concept masterplan or any illustrative scheme for Paddock Wood at this stage. This work will be progressed alongside a Town Wide Framework including Infrastructure Delivery Plan, and will be informed by a robust technical evidence base. 4.17 As set out throughout these written representations, Dandara does not consider it necessary for the Paddock Wood and Tudeley Village allocations to be linked, even for infrastructure delivery purposes. Both allocations need to be separate in their own right, with the Framework allowing for a coordinated approach, but one that is not dependant on both allocations coming forward within the same time frames; tying the two sites together is likely to heighten risks around delivery. 4.18 We think this particular risk is avoidable by separating Paddock Wood and Tudeley Village Infrastructure Delivery Plans into distinct separate plans which correspond to two separate allocations. This may require the Infrastructure Delivery Plans to be coordinated in the event both allocations come forward at the same time, or to plan for future requirements to be incorporated. Dandara also suggests the delivery of new infrastructure at Paddock Wood needs to be viability tested, and based on a robust evidence base demonstrating that such infrastructure is required and to be delivered in realistic timescales to encourage and not stagnate growth. 4.19 Specifically, the delivery of Tudeley Village should not fetter the expansion of Paddock Wood, which is available and deliverable sooner in the Plan period. 4.20 In respect of Point 6 of Draft Policy STR/CA1 and the potential provision of an offline A228 strategic link, it is noted that under Draft Policy AL/CA3 there are in fact two options for this; the offline A228 strategic link and link between Tudeley Village and the A228 or Tudeley Village and land at Capel and Paddock Wood (dependent on which approach is considered appropriate). This should also be referenced in Draft Policy STR/CA1. 4.21 Draft Policy STR/CA1 makes reference to the expansion of Mascalls secondary school. Crucially, this policy is not clear whether the expansion of Mascalls secondary school is an alternative or in addition to Tonbridge. Dandara suggests this point is clarified and referenced in the policy wording to ensure robust strategic policies. It is necessary to ensure that the expansion of Paddock Wood is not dependent on the delivery of a school outside of Paddock Wood and it is noted that Policy AL/CA3 refers only to the expansion of Mascalls secondary school in relation to the extension of Paddock Wood allocations including the sites within Capel Parish. This highlights the confusion arising through having a number of policies relating to one site and very detailed strategic policies. 4.22 Furthermore, TWBC should ensure that the delivery of schools associated with the site allocations are not reliant upon one another. School provision associated with the expansion at Paddock Wood needs to be deliverable in its own right. [TWBC: see full representation]. | |
DLP_4755 | Amy Constant | As a resident of Tonbridge, I wanted to respond to your Local Plan to build a significant number of new homes in the adjacent area of Tunbridge Wells, specifically the area of Capel and Tudeley. I spend a significant amount of time travelling to Tunbridge Wells for social and leisure activities as well as needing to travel in and around the local area and further afield for my work. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and also, most significant to me and my family, to the residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, a route which is already extremely congested. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. I think this level of risk for young people is unacceptable and will result in accidents and incidents. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. As a Tonbridge resident who pays my council tax, I feel very aggrieved that my council tax money will be spent footing the bill for this additional infrastructure. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. One of the attractions of living in this area is the outstanding natural beauty. If I wanted to live in urban sprawl I would choose to live in a London borough, not Tonbridge. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4761 | Heather Campbell | We are writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/PW1). We are residents of Paddock Wood, backing onto the proposed East Capel site. We brought our property earlier this. We loved the small town friendly feel of Paddock Wood and the beautiful surrounding countryside. Which will all be lost with the proposed plan. Flooding Biodiversity Green belt Wellbeing Pollution Sewage and water Health services Emergency services Utilities I object to the inclusion of land in Tudeley Now Town site (Policy STR/CA1). | |
DLP_4768 | DHA Planning for Caenwood Estates and Dandara | Comments on Policy STR/CA1 3.3.27 In addition to the comments above [TWBC: see Comment Number DLP_4765], we remain concerned about the overall strategy for a garden village at Capel. As set out in our response to policy STR1 above, not only are we very concerned about what appears to be an over-optimistic timetable for development, we simply do not agree that the overall development strategy is the right one, for the reasons above. [TWBC: see full representation]. | |
DLP_4770 | Alexander Christofis | We are writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/PW1). We are residents of Paddock Wood, backing onto the proposed East Capel site. We brought our property earlier this. We loved the small town friendly feel of Paddock Wood and the beautiful surrounding countryside. Which will all be lost with the proposed plan. Flooding Biodiversity Green belt Wellbeing Pollution Sewage and water Health services Emergency services Utilities I object to the inclusion of land in Tudeley Now Town site (Policy STR/CA1). | |
DLP_4886 | Claudia Johannes | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am a local resident and landowner in North Tonbridge. My family also owns land adjacent to the River Medway at Hadlow Stair in TN10, on the A26, overlooking Tonbridge and the Medway Valley. The land here has always been managed carefully with a view to protecting and enhancing the natural environment, and I feel that this has always been part of our responsibilities as landowners living within the community. Part of this land was subject to many years of attempts to obtain planning permission for housing over an extended period in second half of the 20th century, when Mr Bernard Thorpe requested permission for around 126 houses on land adjacent to the A26, eventually leading to defeat for his proposals in around 1980. The key reason for the permission being defeated at this time was the location of the development on the Greenbelt, the loss of important agricultural land, and the potential impact on the floodplain, and the arguments were backed up by the Government Agencies at the time. The importance of these matters seems to be being completely ignored in the plans outlined, and if as a country, we require a loosening of these rules to achieve our housing targets, we should take a wholly more considered approach to how we deal with the development of Greenbelt land in general and how if affects the local community. The addition of such a large swathe of housing across the Tudeley and Capel area, seems wholly imbalanced and out of kilter with the road network and local infrastructure. Roads in and out of Tonbridge are already choked by the existing traffic. There may be other more appropriate positions for smaller developments, however creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. I also feel very strongly that Borough of Tonbridge and Malling and Tonbridge town in particular, will bear the brunt of such a major development, and I feel it is wholly wrong for TWBC to foist its allocation to the very edge of its Borough for another Borough to bear the every day costs. This is not good neighbourly behaviour and I am embarrassed for you that you have revealed yourselves as such poor neighbours to us in Tonbridge. I hope that you bring some more sense to the planning process moving forwards and rectify the damage you have caused to interborough relationships. | |
DLP_4899 | Sue Claxton | I am a Tonbridge resident, having lived in the town for more than twenty years. I feel compelled to write on the TWBC local plan as my community will be very seriously affected. You will see that I have chosen to use the well expressed points derived from the Save Capel website, I could not put them better, but add my own personal observations here. Keeping in mind that at the moment a good deal of the country is yet again suffering serious flooding, which had become such a regular event that many people have not been able to insure their homes and have lost everything. Please do not let that happen in our locality. Increasingly non-residents have chosen to park their car in our roads to get to the station, although we are almost a mile away. Some roads are now difficult to drive down as there is no room to pass, this constant stop/start increases the pollution levels for residents, particularly children who live within walking distance of the many schools in the area. Since living here we have regularly walked the foot path from our house over Somerhill and the fields and orchards beyond to visit the peace of All Saints Church at Tudeley. It breaks my heart to think that this may no longer be an option. Even if the footpaths are reinstated or preserved there would be little point as the area will be changed for ever if this plan goes ahead. Part of the attraction of moving to Tonbridge was to experience these simple pleasures. They will be lost not just to us but also to future generations. | |
DLP_4908 | Alison Froggatt | I moved with my family to north Tonbridge from London in 2009. I work from home, and my husband and children work in and attend local schools. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Like so many people, we were attracted to Tonbridge because of its unique blend of lively, thriving town facilities, surrounded by unspoilt rural and agricultural land. In the decade since we moved here, road traffic has worsened immeasurably. Of particular concern is the area where the B2017 feeds into the Tonbridge town traffic - the knock-on traffic jam regularly stretches all the way to Tonbridge Station in the south and Hadlow Road in the north. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road - a ludicrous and dangerous site for a school. It’s a fantasy to imagine that people in Tudeley will all work from home and ride around on bicycles or buses, despite planned ‘initiatives'. They will use Tonbridge Station for commuting, and the already-stretched Tonbridge car parks for parking. Tonbridge will not be able to cope: it doesn’t take months of observation to know that its roads are already at maximum capacity at peak times and that in most places they can’t be widened. All those extra Tudeley residents will find themselves hard-pushed to find a seat on the already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult than it is now. When we moved to Yardley Park Road in 2009, nobody parked along the road. Now, as one of the few roads in Tonbridge wide enough and without a yellow line, the kerb is lined with commuters’ cars, bumper to bumper, Monday to Friday. Where are all the extra commuters going to leave their cars? Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and will not be built in this plan period. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge-based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Of particular pertinence nowadays, and given that floods are again dominating the news, large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain, with flood risk assessments based on out-of-date data. Data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase here just as they are demonstrably increasing across the country. It doesn’t take a scientist to understand that fields and woods can absorb more water than roads and building developments. The garden settlement will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. And then there’s the increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown, due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Last but by no means least, building so much housing in Capel Parish will require the unforgivable destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland. This is Green Belt land and should be protected for all our good. It will do irreparable damage to local wildlife, much of it special to the area and including rare species. This area should remain rural, a combination of productive agricultural land used to provide food and restorative natural landscape. To lose both is at best short-sighted and unimaginative, at worst ill-conceived and dangerous. I believe that the housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist, and I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable, environmentally unfriendly and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4931 | David Scott | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). My name is David Scott an I have lived on Hartlake Road in Tudeley for the last 20 years, having moved from London to a Green Belt area to live in, raise a family, and enjoy the Kent countryside both on foot and on bicycle. I work at home and in London so use the train services that run from Tonbridge. There are already considerable infrastructure challenges in the area, that the plan does not show any understanding of, or propose any solution. The roads in and out of Tonbridge from Tudeley and Capel are extremely congested, both during school drop off times and weekends, with some journeys for the 3 mile journey into Tonbridge taking more than 20 minutes. Train services from Tonbridge are already crowded during commuting times, with no seating available for the 40 minute journey several times a month. With an extra 2,800 dwellings there will obviously be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, lengthening journey times even more. There will be a need for additional parking close to Tonbridge station, and additional train capacity to cater for the number of new commuters. Without a comprehensive plan as to how these basic transport infrastructure needs can be met the local plan does not appear viable or sustainable. I understand that he costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. This will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. The land around Hartlake road already suffers from flooding and as large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change I can only believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. My understanding of green belt land is that it is designed to provide a buffer between towns, with tightly controlled developments that incentivises regeneration of damaged and derelict land in urban areas; has all such land been properly considered in the creation of the plan? Green belts are meant to be cherished, conserving nature and agriculture. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_4942 | J Borrett | I have lived in Kent all my life and witnessed it’s systematic destruction due to over development, and collapsing infrastructure. My Father and Grandfather will be turning in their graves as Green Belt land which should be used to feed us is being concreted over. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to "The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) The building of thousands of houses will cause immense harm to this area in so many ways. Large parts of the development will occur on the Medway Floodplain, flood risk assessments being based on old data. Poor and non existent maintenance by the Environment Agency, together with the impact of climate change have not been taken into consideration. Commuter traffic in this area is already intolerable with roads, particularly in Tonbridge, becoming grid locked on a regular basis. Any infrastructure costs on that side of the boundary will be, very reluctantly and hesitantly, met by Tonbridge & Malling Council residents. Whilst TWBC collect council tax revenue from the new dwellings. The public transport system is overloaded and Network Rail have confirmed that a new station at Tudeley is not viable. I believe that housing need, calculated by the government, can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land, and TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure. Both here and in Tunbridge Wells. Polluting rural areas rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites. | |
DLP_4948 | David Lovell | Additional objection to Policy STR/ CA1 I have already been registered in the consultation process, but further to my earlier comments [TWBC: See comments DLP_2368_2370] objecting to the Local Plan’s intentions for a new town at Tudeley, I have now been made aware that no Landscape Sensitivity Assessment was made for the site, although other smaller scale developments have had such an assessment. This is further evidence that the plans for CA1 have been rushed and are clearly not ready for public consultation. That such an omission has allowed to take place before the publication of the Local Plan is astonishing, given CA1 is proposed as the single major stand-alone development for the borough. The development is squarely in the Green Belt and abuts the AONB. This historic landscape offers stunning scenery when viewed across from the AONB to the northern ridge, and from Hartlake Road to and along the Medway valley and, of course in all directions from the many vantage points around. To omit a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment under such circumstances is either a serious lapse of judgement, incompetence, or demonstrates that the CA1 proposals were included so late that they should not have been be included at all. This is one more serious flaw in the Local Plan to which I strongly object. To compound the unsettling nature of this late proposal, I note from the Distribution of Development paper of September 2019 that the second call for sites ended in June 2017, where officers contacted promoters of sites submitted earlier and then “contact owners of land around settlements….that had not been submitted…”. As the site at CA1 is the sole property of one owner, it is difficult to see how this refers to contact being made through this “pro-active” process. (If only TWBC had been so pro-active about identifying and approaching owners of brownfield sites). From a chronology of events it does not appear that the landowner of the CA1 site approached TWBC with his proposals until March or April 2018, or even later. To cover this, I note paragraph 6.3 of the Distribution of Development paper claims that “the Call for Sites remained open until the publication of the Draft Local Plan…” This seems highly fortuitous and apparently did not apply to the first call for sites. Even so, it is clear the proposal for CA1 was so late that it has appeared as slap-dash and unprofessional, risky and opportunistic venture. The lack of a Landscape Sensitivity Assessment of an historic landscape in and next to designated land is just one such example among many of the rushed approach taken. CA1 should not have included at all, as it was clearly submitted far too late for a proposal of such magnitude to be properly considered. I therefore strongly object to the proposal for CA1 and ask for it to be withdrawn in its entirety. | |
DLP_4954 | R. G. Cazalet | We have lived in North Tonbridge for 38 years, worked locally and educated two children in local schools. Obviously there have been many changes in the town and surrounding area over the years but nothing so drastic as the proposed developments in the Tudeley and Capel area. These,to me, seem insensitive on many levels and possibly unnecessary if TWBC recheck some of their data which may not be as up to date as it could be. There does seem to be a cynical element to this proposal sited as it is so near the borough boundary, with the obvious local amenities and the station being situated in Tonbridge rather than in Tunbridge Wells who will collect the Council Tax but be relieved of the burden of the extra population and traffic. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. Surely we should be learning from the current flooding in Yorkshire. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows)We have, over the years, had many adult language students staying here all of whom have been taken to see the Chagall windows as well as for country walks in the area with which they have been impressed. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Fewer than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Will they actually meet TWBC's housing need which to me suggests the need of local people to find housing in the area. I suspect that this type of development is likely to be too expensive for many local people and is more likely to encourage commuters wishing to move from London and thus to need road and rail transport from Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4959 | Jean Thompson | I am Jean Thompson and I have lived in Five Oak Green for thirty one years. I have loved living here as it has so much going on and so much community spirit. The surrounding area is beautiful Green Belt, and the farming traditions are kept up, despite a change in some of the types of agricultural usage. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a so called "Garden Settlement" at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new six form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. It appears to have been chosen simply because there is available land. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The available space is already too little. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at any time, but particularly peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge-based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. High Street businesses have already declined severely. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. It is already difficult to recruit new staff to health services, for instance, the surgery at Paddock Wood. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. During heavy rain at present, fields are saturated as the water cannot percolate down any further - i.e. the water table is very close to the ground surface. Any more tarmac and concrete will only make this worse. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be a proper individual settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_4986 | Anna Samuels | I am writing with regard to the housing proposal in Tudeley/Capel. I am currently a resident in Golden Green but I wanted to share my opinion on this development which will have a huge impact on not just those in Capel but in Golden Green too. I previously lived in Five Oak Green, in the middle of the village, on the main road. Our main reason for moving was to have a quieter place, which was not rocked by large lorries and huge numbers of cars and was much safer for our children. Although clearly we no longer live there, if those were our experiences at that time, I shudder to think what it will be like with so much more local traffic. The amount of traffic is an issue with regards to the safety of the children at the school too, as the road is horrendously busy already and very dangerous to cross. The impact on other local roads (including those that we use daily to get our children to school) is also going to be huge. The majority of these roads are country lanes and not able to cope with extra traffic. The road through Golden Green will also be impacted, as both Hartlake Road and Three Elm Lane are used as cut throughs to avoid the horrendous queues that already plague Tudeley when heading towards Tonbridge. Another huge concern is the impact on the wildlife. The fields are home to a host of British wildlife - badgers, foxes, rabbits, voles, mice to name but a few plus a huge range of birds, including pheasants, kestrels, buzzards and owls. Not only will the housing development destroy their homes but those that survive the ripping up of the ground in which many live, their source of food will also be destroyed. A whole ecosystem will be hugely affected. On the note of the school, it is a small country school, one-form entry that cannot cope with more children. If looking to extend the building, besides affecting the family ethos of the school, it will encroach on valuable space which is vital for the wellbeing (and health) of the children. My youngest son, as a member of the Capel community through school and Cubs is dismayed and appalled at the thought of this development, and I have attached a letter that he has written. It says it all much better than I ever can. If an eight year old feels this strongly about it, I feel that notice needs to be taken, and I think that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council needs to take a look at the bigger picture of the impact that their actions will have - not only the physical aspects of the infrastructure and the impact on the environment but also the wellbeing of all the current residents. In a time when there is such a high level of mental health and wellbeing issues, surely removing places that provide a feeling of calm and tranquility, and replacing them with busy, noisy machines and people is very short sighted and damaging to everyone (including the wildlife) in the local area. I understand that there is a need for housing, and replacing derelict buildings and previously industrial sites with housing makes sense. Restoring big old houses into apartments Is also logical. There are houses that are sitting empty around the country, perhaps in places that are not deemed to be the right place to live, but it makes more sense to revamp and sort out these areas rather than destroying our countryside with even more houses. I sincerely hope that the decision to go ahead with this development is reviewed and, when looking at the impact it will have, that the council realise that this is not a suitable place to build. | |
DLP_4999 | Sue Large | I am writing to you so that you can add my contact details to your consultation database as I would like to be kept informed of all future consultations on this Plan. I understand that my comments will be published by TWBC on it’s website. I would like to strongly object to the Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1). My reasons being many, including:- a) The harm and distress this will cause to the residents currently living in the Parish of Capel and with particular reference to the beautiful Old Saints Church which could be completely surrounded by houses! How awful. Lastly, I am appealing to you to please, please as Tunbridge Wells residents like myself not to build this carbunkel on our beautiful landscape. I only moved here 2 years ago and where I live now is heaven, there are birds everywhere, buzzards, little owls, barn owls, tawny owls, green woodpeckers, spotted woodpeckers, deer, foxes, newts, snakes and lizards and so many more I cannot write them all down. To have this all destroyed and become yet another faceless new urban conurbation would break my heart, it really would. | |
DLP_5001 | Alex Rennie | I am writing to object to the Strategy for Capel Parish policy STR/CA1 I have been a resident of Capel parish most of my life having attended both Capel Primary School and Mascalls. I am a qualified Landscape Architect and spend my spare time walking my dogs in the surrounding countryside. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on planning policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by TWBC including on its website. The proposed development will have a significant effect on the environment by nature of its size and location but does not seem to have been included in the Landscape assessment carried out as part of the whole Local plan preparation. There also seems to be no mention of any Environmental Impact Assessment screening, which I believe this proposal falls under schedule 2 of the 2017 regulations. I fail to see how any meaningful master planning or public consultation can be proposed without expert and detailed analysis carried out by an unbiased party. The proposed development not only sacrifices large areas of the MGB but it will fragment the remaining parts of the MGB to the point that one development could be seen from another and ultimately lead to an unbroken urban sprawl from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood. The local authority does have the ability to reduce its allocation of new homes due to its percentage of AONB and Green Belt yet refuses, for no apparent reason, to contest the allocation in favour of urbanising the existing Green Belt. The proposed development will necessitate the compulsory purchase of AONB land for a large link road. All current studies point to a warmer wetter climate with the risk of flooding increasing. The Medway flood plain of the Low Weald should, in my mind, be utilised to combat this increased risk to existing low level developed land and not add to the areas requiring protecting. Contrary to policy STR/CA1 there seems to be no evidence of any contribution towards achieving the objectives of the most recent AONB management plan or the High Weald AONB Vision for 2034. | |
DLP_5003 | Louise Wells | My Husband and myself bought our “country” cottage over 13 years ago and since then we have got married and had a Son who currently attends the village school, Capel Primary. We live in a beautiful rural area and enjoy the countryside with country walks. We attend different village events that are held locally in Five Oak Green and at the school and very much enjoy the village life. We also attend All Saints Church when we can. Our son is part of the Capel Beaver Pack who sometimes go out on local hikes in the surrounding countryside and only a couple of weeks ago our son’s class at school did a Gruffalo walk in the countryside. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. The traffic on the B2017 can sometimes be congested back to where we live due to congestion in Tonbridge and with traffic that is travelling to the Somerhill schools site. I commute by car to work in Tunbridge Wells and experience congestion on most days getting either round Tonbridge or actually getting into Tunbridge Wells so surely this garden village will just make this congestion worse. The primary school is also on the B2017 and the traffic speed and volume outside the school in the morning and at end of school is dangerous enough. Increasing the traffic past the school is just going to make this issue worse and the childrens safety at even more of a risk. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. The Five Oak Green Road already is like a river when we get high rainfall and floods at several points which makes it an extremely dangerous road. This problem will just get worse if you take away the farmland and concrete over this. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. We can see the Hadlow Tower from our property and our lovely views across the Low and High Weald will be completely destroyed. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. We regularly have deer and wild boar in the field to the back of our property. Our bird visitors include woodpeckers, green woodpeckers, buzzards, hawks, robins, blue tits, chaffinches, bullfinches, goldfinches, doves. Other animals include weasels, stoats, foxes, adders, Owls (in the area). Bats are also seen at dusk flying round the garden in the summer months. These will all disappear. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. There are currently houses for sale in Five Oak Green (executive houses) that have been on sale for a year and they have not sold. If these are not selling then why do we need to build more in this area? The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. It also appears that the plans are to not just develop the land at the front of our property but also to build onto the land at the back of our property which is green belt and AONB. Our “country” cottage will then no longer be in the “country” as it will be surrounding by housing estates. Since living at our price we have ourselves put in a planning application for a 2 storey extension which was not approved due to the property being in green belt and AONB. How does this make sense? Our property does not have all the utilities as we do not have a gas supply and we are not on main sewage. There is not the infastructure for these services. It takes a couple of weeks to get a doctors appointment and the TW hospital is a nightmare to visit with a car as there are not enough parking spaces for patients. How can you increase the population of the area with not the appropriate medical services? So following the points that I have made I request that you reconsider your plans for the Capel parish and stop this development on our beautiful countryside. Please do not destroy this rural area that some residents may just think it is an area that they drive through between Paddock Wood and Tonbridge. To us it is not, it is our rural home that we escape to at the end of the day and we love it and it should be preserved for future generations. | |
DLP_5004 | Andy & Katey Halford | I am emailing you as I live and work in Caple and Paddockwood and I moved her as I chose to live in the country side and not a concrete jungle Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Building a concrete and tarmac and calling it a garden settlement at Tudeley for 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a enormous increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, overloading the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road .This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a dangerous site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more inpossible Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period Dear Local Plan team Building a monstrous overdevelopment and calling a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause unrepairable harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be enormous increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.30 to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5006 | Debra Brindle | I have lived in Golden Green for 20 years and walk extensively along and around the Green belt area. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5011 | Matt Crane | I have lived in and around the Tunbridge Wells area since moving here when I was 8 years old. Having left the area in my late 20s I recently moved back two years ago and purchased a house in the hamlet of Golden Green. We chose this area because of the wonderful countryside, the outdoor areas and community. We felt this would be a great place to raise 3 young boys. I work in London so enjoy the daily commute from Tonbridge and can testify firsthand how this service is already stretched. Also given Golden Green is situated so close to Tonbridge we often use the amenities and our children go to a new school Bishop Chavasse recently opened to service the area of south Tonbridge. We are therefore acutely aware how the development in Capel and Tudeley will significantly impact our lives. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. As noted above my two youngest sons attend the new school Bishop Chavasse on Baker Lane. We already have to leave at 8am in order to get the children to school for 8.30. The proposed plans do not adequately deal with how the significant increase in traffic will be dealt with. I can envisage having to leave the house at 7.30 am to get my children to the gate by 8.30am. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) One of the main reasons we moved back to Golden Green was so our children could grow up and enjoy the surrounding countryside – it is stunning and we feel privileged to live within it. We recently had friends visiting and on one of the walks around the fields backing into Tudeley, their 4 year old daughter turned to her parents and said “wow this is beautiful”. I note the plans are sold as serving the needs of a future generation but they absolutely don’t deal with what they are taking away from that generation and once the development starts you cannot put it back. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5016 | Mrs Sophie Cashman | I am a mother of three young children who has lived in Tudeley for five years and been a resident of Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells for the last twenty years. I was horrified when I saw the scale of the proposed development within this rural and protected landscape. My own property has had past modest planning applications by previous owners rejected 'due to the rural and open nature of the landscape'. And yet the same planners are proposing to build 2800 new houses within the same rural and open landscape. Both Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells suffer from increased congestion and limited access roads into the town centres. I appreciate that at busy times Tunbridge Wells traffic backs up to the A21 via the Pembury Road, to Southborough via A26 and up through the North Farm Industrial Area to the A21. Therefore the Councillors are loathed to increase this congestion by developing more housing in Tunbridge Wells. Unfortunately, what they have failed to acknowledge is that Tonbridge suffers from exactly the same problem due to residential and commercial development within the Cannon Lane area. My daughter attends primary school in North Tonbridge and routes either via B2017 or Hartlake Road and Hadlow Road are both backed up and stationary 2 miles from the town centre. There are simply too many cars for the current infrastructure of both town centres. I am very concerned that this development may be particularly attractive to Tunbridge Wells Council as it will leave Tunbridge Wells completely unaffected whilst obliterating acres of beautiful, historic and valuable Kent country side that will be gone forever, leaving Tonbridge town and its residents with additional traffic, pollution, demands for already stretched services and facilities such as emergency services, healthcare and education, train overcrowding, increased flood risks, huge reduction in local open spaces nature and wildlife and general air quality. In short Tonbridge gets all of the significant disadvantages and none of the increased revenue generated by council tax paid by the new residents. I am confused and at a loss of how to explain to my children how this type of development can even be considered. My children come back from school talking about the importance of Climate change, environmental sustainability, reducing pollution, eating food grown locally, safeguarding the wildlife and plants so important to our ecosystem and our responsibility to do so and yet our Council's local plan is contrary to all of this. When there are clearly brownfield sites available within the borough to build new houses on. I also feel strongly that many families I encounter have relocated from London in search of a better quality of life and are attracted to the area by Tonbridge's excellent commuter links. By placing a development of this scale within 3 miles of Tonbridge mainline station in beautiful countryside more and more families from outside the borough will be attracted to move here. This will absolutely not help the local population. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. As referenced above, people living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking and more people from outside the borough will be attracted to the area by the prospect of new housing within easy reach of London. This is detrimental to the local population as housing will command premium prices due to location and be out of reach financially for local people. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. This situation is only set to get worse as Tonbridge and Malling Council have their own housing targets to meet. The plan is simply not sustainable and Tonbridge's infrastructure will not cope which is hugely detrimental to local residents and the local environment. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. The land is based on clay and currently the surface water runs off the fields onto the B2O17 in Tudeley often causing hazardous driving conditions. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected for future generations to enjoy. My children love drawing wild orchids, catching newts and identifying wild birds by their calls. It will completely spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food as it has done for centuries. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5029 | Kim Stanley | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I was born and raised in Five Oak Green and have lived my entire life in the borough of Tunbridge Wells, so have a very keen local interest in this subject. I am a keen walker, and cross country runner and still regularly run the footpaths and lanes across and adjacent to the area under threat. The area under threat is almost entirely unspoilt and beautiful countryside, currently mainly being farmed. The creation at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new town at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5050 | Stephney Dallmann | I live at xxx, Colts Hill, Five Oak Green [TWBC: part of postal address redacted]. My daughter attends school at Derwent Lodge, Somerhill and I drive on the roads from Colts Hill to Tonbridge, passing through Tudeley in the morning and evening every day. The journey in the morning, around 8am, is always significantly congested with a queue from Tudeley Church all the way to Somerhill School and then on to Tonbridge railway station. I then commute to London. My main concern is that with an additional 2,800 houses at Tudeley, 1500 houses at East Capel and a Senior School opposite Somerhill, I would literally not be able to get anywhere. The roads would be gridlocked. Then the additional pressure on Tonbridge Railway Station would be very significant - with not enough parking available at the station and overcrowded trains meaning we would need to stand all the way to London. As well as these practical concerns which will have a very significant impact on my day to day life, I am dismayed that the most beautiful landscape will be scarred forever for future generations. It is one of the most beautiful views of our countryside from the top of the hill looking out over Tudeley. To think that will be gone is just awful. It can never be rectified. And it will be a most terrible legacy for future generations. | |
DLP_5052 | John Sleeman | I write as a resident of Capel, living off Sychem Lane. I have lived here for 18 years and for most of that time I have travelled regularly through Tudeley to reach Tonbridge Station in the morning to work in London. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). As a regular traveller through Tudeley, I have witnessed the increase in traffic over time and especially the snarl ups that have occurred since the opening of The Somerhill Schools. That one school has brought about immense frustration to motorists. Imagine then the horrific consequences of building 2,800 homes in Tudeley. The road systems would be overwhelmed. Not only would existing residents be grid locked but those on the new estate would be locked in. And to build in the Green Belt is criminal at a time when there is much brown land available upon which to build and which is much more widely distributed around the Borough. In taking major decisions of this nature much time should be expended upon getting it right. To accept a large parcel of land because it is easy to do so shows poor governance, and the only people who would benefit from this situation would be the sellers. | |
DLP_5053 | Zara Marsh | I live in South Tonbridge with my husband and two children. We have strong concerns about the proposed development at East Tudeley. As local residents we already feel the pain and pressure of the traffic and congestion that plagues the roads in and around Tonbridge. My husband now cycles to work in Tunbridge Wells, not only to reduce his environmental impact, but also because it is quicker than driving. He also occasionally gets the train from Tonbridge to London. A service which is horrendously overcrowded as it is. This plan seems incredibly flawed and badly thought out. I have set out our main, and quite frankly obvious, concerns below. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. , | |
DLP_5056 | Claire Landolt | I am writing in response to your local plan. I live in Golden Green with my husband and young children. I work for Kent Community NHS Foundation Trust and cover West Kent including this area of proposed development. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Below are some of the reasons why I am objecting to the planned development of Cat Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings. 1. There will be a significant increase in traffic coming through the village of Golden Green and in the surrounding roads. Golden Green will become a rat run with people trying to avoid heavier traffic through Capel and Tudeley. This will increase both the air and noise pollution and put residents at increased risk of road traffic accidents and collisions. The planned development of a secondary school opposite the schools at Somerhill is not feasible. The traffic that is already backed up at peak times in this road is significant with traffic jams as far back as the Tudeley church trying to get across the roundabout at Woodgate Way. Our children attend the new primary school on Baker Lane. The infrastructure of the roads around this school is already struggling to cope with the increased traffic demands. There is no public transport linked to this area of a Tonbridge therefore the only option for getting children to school currently and for the planned secondary school is by car. The roads are not safe or wide enough to allow cyclist to move safely along them and there are no pavements in this area meaning that accessing the proposed site for secondary school on foot is impossible. 2. Local services not able to cope with any increase in demand. Having moved into the area recently we struggled to find a GP surgery that would accept us, I visited 3 GP surgeries in south Tonbridge and none of them were accepting new patients as they were at capacity. Building a village of 2800 houses will greatly exceed any capacity in health services in the area - GP surgeries, dentists and indeed the services provided by Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust. 3. Costs of infrastructure and services that this increased population will be using will lie with Tonbridge and Malling residents not Tunbridge Wells. 4. Increased risk of flooding. The increased amount of concrete jungle that will be added to this high risk flood area will surely tip the delicate balance over the edge. A significant part of land identified for the development is on the flood plain. Developing in this area will significantly increase the risk to the area being developed but also neighbouring areas such as Golden Green. Hartlake Road is already flooding regularly during the winter months. Development of the land around this will significantly increase this further. Given the recent flooding up North, mortgage lenders will be more wary of approving a mortgage on an area identified as at high risk if flooding, this means there is a risk that houses will be built but no one will be able to purchase any if the properties due to flood risk. 5. Destruction of beautiful green belt land which is a natural habitat for multiple different species. This proposed development increases the risk of light, sound and air pollution and will lead to the complete destruction of the countryside around us. This is an area which we should be protecting and we should be fighting to keep these areas of green belt land. Not only is it aesthetically pleasing. The beautiful countryside we live in encourages people to take on a more active lifestyle, following footpaths and enjoying the peace and quiet of nature. Thus not only helps people with their physical health but also addressed their mental well-being. This countryside therefore is of prime importance in reducing health care costs to the NHS associated with obesity, mental health and managing long term conditions. | |
DLP_5059 | Jane Stanley | My name is Lesley Jane Stanley and I live in Paddock Wood very close to the fields that the proposed new plan intends to build on just off of Badsell Road. I love walking with my dog and use the footpath that runs through the fields adjacent to the railway line and woodland every day and I work in Tunbridge Wells. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). The proposed garden town with dramatically increase the amount of traffic on our roads. It currently takes me on average 45 to 50 minutes to get to work in the morning. The congestion is already intolerable. I can’t even imagine how long my journey will take with the added traffic! Travelling to Tonbridge is no better with the Summerhill School traffic causing traffic jams/delays. Commuters using the train station trawl the streets of Paddock Wood looking for parking, of which there is already insufficient. Where are all the extra commuters, should the plan go ahead, expected to park their vehicles? Even if they manage to park how are they supposed to travel on already full trains from both Paddock Wood and Tonbridge? The drainage system is already under great strain with Capel’s pipes running through the fields and alongside the woodland into Paddock Wood. One of these pipes running under the stream recently collapsed causing the waste to be ferried away in trucks while it was being repaired! More houses will add extra pressure to this already insufficient system. The destruction of woodland, hedgerows and meadows in Capel Parish, which should be protected as it is green belt, will have a disastrous effect on the environment and its wildlife. The beautiful landscape that I walk through every day will be ruined forever. Lastly, large parts of the development will be built on the Medway floodplain. The flood risk assessments used are based on old data that does not take into account the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation may help, but in my opinion, will not resolve the increased risk of flooding to Tudeley, Golden Green, Tonbridge, East Peckham and Yalding. There will be an inevitable increase in air, light and noise pollution that will affect not only Tunbridge Wells borough but Tonbridge and Malling too, changing our landscape irrevocably. This undoubtably will have an effect on our historic buildings All Saints Church in Tudeley and Hadlow Tower. All Saints Church may end up being surrounded by houses which can only be detrimental to its appeal as a tourist attraction. People travel from all over the world to see it’s beautiful Chagall windows. Please lodge my objections and the comments I have made against the plan. | |
DLP_5062 | Richard Tucker | I am a resident of Hadlow Road and have lived in Tonbridge with my family for the past twenty years. I have seen huge changes in Tonbridge in the last ten years, some for the better but much for the worse. There have been several promises of new development, including a Tesco store and new roads, which didn’t happen, new larger Sainsbury store with new cinema and shops, which didn’t happen, whilst instead we have seen massive expansion of housing particularly in and around the town centre with large blocks of residential flats including the particularly hideous development adjacent to Waitrose. Whilst I appreciate that additional housing is needed in the area there has been a severe lack of upgrades in the infrastructure to support the housing development. Our schools, hospitals, doctor surgeries are overwhelmed and the traffic is becoming unbearable especially the HGV traffic which is now virtually constant, including throughout the night. It is without doubt that any further development on the edge of Tonbridge will increase the already over-stretched services in the town and the roads into and within the town centre and for that reason I am pleased to support the Save Capel campaign. Please therefore add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am formally writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall stained glass windows). The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food and wildlife habitat. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5065 | John Buckle | As a Capel resident in Alders Road for 25 years from 1976 but now living in Langton Green I still follow with deep interest the happenings there, and to put it mildly are somewhat disturbed by the current plans, Perhaps I might therefore be permitted to make a few comments on the planned developments I am writing to object to the ‘The Strategy for Capel Parish’ (Policy STR/CA1)
Please add my contact details to your database pertaining to this policy, so that I can be updated on future developments. I understand that my comments may be published by TWBC. | |
DLP_5080 | Joanna McEachern | I am a resident of East Peckham and I am a regular user of the Five Oak Green Road. One of the many pleasures of having chosen to live in a rural location is to avoid the congestion and intensity of housing associated with town living. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a “garden settlement” at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. The B2017 is already an extremely busy and dangerous road (it is very narrow in places and almost impossible for walkers or cyclists). There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, on the basis of 2,800 dwellings that will be at least 2,800 ( or likely 3000+ taking account of a number of 2 car families that is not unusual when living in an out of town location where public transport options are limited) additional vehicles exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. There is already one school at the Somerhill roundabout and the already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road will only be made worse as this coincides with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. Due to the nature of the B2017 all children will have to be delivered to and collected from school in cars or other vehicles so only making traffic congestion worse. This will impact badly on the environment with added pollution at a time when our aims are to improve our air quality and live in a more environmentally friendly manner. In addition this proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in the new homes will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services for all their other needs. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use (very unsafe on the B2017 due to its narrowness). it seems completely inequitable that all the costs of infrastructure will be on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary and carried out by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. The plan gives the impression that Tunbridge Wells has deliberately picked this location as it will have zero impact on its existing residents. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. Anyone who has lived in this area will know how often the Medway floods - with no fields to take the run-off this will only get worse.There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. Once this land is built on this asset will be lost for ever. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. TWBC need to establish that there are exceptional circumstances for building such a huge settlement on farmland. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5101 | Robert Harris | I live at xx Goldsmid Road, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 xx [TWBC: part of postal address redacted] and have studied the draft local plan especially in connection with the large expansion of housing in the Capel Parish (notably the garden settlement of 2,800 dwellings at Tudeley) and associated problems that I believe this will cause to east Tonbridge and its environs. Primarily, I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) for the reasons stated in the following five paragraphs. I understand that my comments below will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I live on a residential road which already acts as a cut through for traffic on Pembury Road trying to avoid the morning queues when approaching Tonbridge town centre. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and there will be a significant increase in traffic into Tonbridge both on the B2017 Tudeley Road, the A26 Woodgate Way and the A2014 Pembury Road, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that usually exists on these roads every morning. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult and I understand Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. The pupils from Weald of Kent Grammar School, Tonbridge Grammar School and Hillview School for Girls already face dangers when using Pembury Road and Goldsmid Road and I consider any increase to traffic flows in this area totally unacceptable. And this is before your proposals regarding a new Six Form entry senior school. | |
DLP_5102 | Virginia Legg | I was born and brought up in Tudeley. As my family still live there, I visit the area on weekly basis, as well as visiting the area for work purposes. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I strongly object on the basis of the points below: Greenbelt – I object to a garden settlement at Tudeley being built on greenbelt land. There are numerous brownfield sites and other sites in the district that should publicly considered before building on greenbelt land. Building on greenbelt land will affect the rich biodiversity of the area. In the 2019 National Planning Policy Framework document is clearly states ( Proposals affecting the Greenbelt points 143-145) “Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”. In Point 145, it goes on to list other Exceptions. – The proposal for Tudeley garden village does not qualify under these listed exceptions. Flooding - Although there is awareness and mention of some provision to be taken as it is a flood plain area. It is apparent with the recent flooding round the UK ( Nov 19) that even in areas of the UK that have had huge amounts money spend on flood prevention, they have still suffered with extreme and unpredicted flooding in areas that were thought to be protected. With the obvious changes in climate matched with as increase urbanisation increasing the risk of flooding to a greater extent than before, I strongly object to building this area. I grew up in Tudeley I have personal experience of witnessing the flooding, in Tudeley. On an extreme occasion flood waters came almost up to Sherenden Lane, just short of the car park at the Poacher pub. As flood occurrences have been happening all around the UK in greater extremes than ever before, I strongly object to building on the borders of an area known to flood. Tonbridge / Transport and Roads – it could be safely assumed, that as Tonbridge will be the nearest main large town and railways station, that by default, residence will naturally choose to drive to and/or use some services in Tonbridge. There are already big congestion issues at peak times from traffic coming from Tudeley into Tonbridge and although I appreciate Tonbridge is separate district, this issue has not been properly addressed. The creation of the yet unspecified new road in the Tudeley settlement area isn’t going to alleviate this as residence will still seek to utilise services and travel to / through Tonbridge. Furthermore, as a frequent visitor and property owner in Tonbridge I strongly object to the proposed settlement at Tudeley as this will have a measurable and undeniable pressure on Tonbridge services, roads and transport network. Housing need – with all the above said I would also questions whether there is the appropriate housing demand to match the proposed development. I have observed sales and property prices of 1-4 bedroom terraced and smaller houses in Tonbridge, Capel, paddock wood areas over the last 2 years. If there was an urgent and growing need for affordable housing why is it that properties in these areas are staying on the market a long time, even after some sales prices have been reduced? This could mean that the proposed new housing must to be built and sold at a lower cost possibly forcing building contractors to reduce the quality to ensure profit. Lower quality builds are known to have to be less durable and sustainable. In this case how does TWBC plan to build both affordable and sustainable housing and infra-structure for this Tudeley settlement given this economic scenario? | |
DLP_5107 | Sandra Campopiano | I am a Tonbridge resident – I have been here for 25 years – and have recently had access to understanding the plans Tunbridge Wells has for considerable development of land which is on the outskirts of Tonbridge. I believe the proposals will fundamentally change the character and nature of Tonbridge and Golden Green and more importantly the wellbeing of residents here. I urge the Tunbridge Wells planners to spend time in and around Tonbridge to experience how it is to live here. However, having lived here for a while, it is clear the infrastructure in this town, cannot cope with the existing population as it is today. I travel to London frequently by train. When you cannot travel around and you cannot get to work, and you cannot see a doctor – all these things increase the stress and strain of everyday life. | |
DLP_5116 | Fiona Lee | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I live in Golden Green and have done so for over 20 years. It is a wonderful community, in a spectator rural location, giving all that choose to live there, the best of all worlds - town and country living within good proximity to transportation links. My daily car route, in and out of the village is via Hartlake Road and am all too aware how this development will impact my life and ultimately, the reason for our choose to live in the area in the first place. Whilst my responsibility of good citizenship is to be acknowledged, I do feel there are far better solutions to achieve housing quota targets than this one proposed. Such examples are the great development around Tonbridge’s old industrial estate, combining business and living together with adequate transportation links to and from the area. Encouraging more of this combined approach, with incentives to businesses to provide more opportunity, must surely be a better solution. And how about utilising the retail high street units, providing landlords incentives to release unused retail space for living, work and educational spaces? Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. | |
DLP_5139 | Peter & Veronica Bryant | We refer to our email sent on the 23rd September 2019 and wish to add additional comments. In connection to the Proposed Draft Local Plan (Reg 18) please find our comments to this proposal. As residents of South Tonbridge, we will be directly affected by the Proposed Draft Plan as it’s boarders run alongside Tonbridge & Malling Borough and the road infrastructure will impact our area considerably. a. The road infrastructure from Paddock Wood to Tonbridge is at breaking point at this present time. With narrow streets in Five Oak Green and bending slow roads throughout the 6 miles, travelling along this route is certainly demanding during peak times of the day. (Early morning rush hour, school leaving times and evening rush hours). With the proposed additional housing along the route, the increase of traffic flow in both directions would be dramatic. b. With the Ambulance Service stationed in Eldon Way, Paddock Wood, Emergency Services requiring to travel to Tonbridge already have a difficult enough time negotiating the traffic to get to an emergency. With the dramatic increase of traffic this would put lives in danger. c. At present, bus services use the route from Paddock Wood to Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. Again with the dramatic increase of traffic flow created by new housing, services would be greatly affected, especially buses being used for the school runs in rush hour times. d. Tonbridge town already has a dis-proportionate amount of Secondary Schools in the county which require children to be transported into the town from other boroughs mainly by bus. Adding an additional Secondary School into our area, which is on the boarder of the town will only increase the traffic congestion. e. We find it totally unacceptable that any Green Belt land is used for building, especially in an area of outstanding beauty. This land is protected for a reason. Once this land is destroyed, it will never be re-instated. f. By destroying Green Belt land you are going against all Government objectives on Climate Change Controls to obtain zero rated omissions. g. Tonbridge is valued as an important commuter town and as such has high demand on it’s rail network and car parking. Car parking is limited for commuters and with an additional increase of population around the Tonbridge boarders would not be sustainable. h. We know that our doctors surgery in Tonbridge has closed their books as they are working to capacity. Surgeries would not be able to cope with the increase in population, NEW surgeries would need to be built. i. We also have great concern over the increase of land being covered with concrete and therefore restricting the amount of land for drainage. With many homes and villages in the area already under threat of flooding, this would only increase the probability of future flooding in the Tonbridge & Malling area. | |
DLP_5146 | Residents of Golden Green Association | This is Objection submitted on behalf of the Residents of Golden Green Association, Golden Green, is a small rural village with a population of 400, situated within the Medway Valley, 1 mile from Hadlow and 4 miles from Tonbridge, within the Borough of Tonbridge and Malling . The surrounding area is predominantly agricultural with fruit orchards and cereals as the principal crops. The village is located on a ridge over looking the River Medway and The Medway Valley to the south and the River Bourne to the north. Goldhill Mill is the only watermill on the Bourne that retains its original machinery. The Bell Inn public house is located in the village centre along with Golden Green Mission Church hall a Grade II- listed tabernacle opened in 1914. These development proposals will have life changing consequences, the removal of 1000’s acres of Metropolitan Green Belt Agricultural Land which is situated upon one of the Uk’s largest natural floodplains, this floodplain has protected parts of the village from flooding since the villages existence, partial removal of this natural flood protection could seriously increase flooding to the area. The village enjoys panoramic views across the open farmland and the Medway Valley across to the High Weald ANOB, a development of 2,800 houses would have a substantial adverse impact on the setting of Golden Green Village. The provisional allocation of CA1 and CA2 will result in significant urban sprawl, diminishing a majority of the Green Belt countryside borders between Tonbridge and Paddock Wood. The evidence within the Draft Local Plan does not provide any special circumstances that justify the permanent removal of this land from the Green Belt. The land was designated as part of Metropolitan Green Belt for sound reasons and particularly to protect and safeguard the many surrounding villages from inappropriate development and urban sprawl and to protect against the proposals that we are strongly opposing today. The current road infrastructure is already at capacity and during peak travelling hours is barely coping with existing daily traffic volumes with long delays, these proposals will further increase the traffic congestion situation, especially through the centre of the village, Three Elm Lane and Hartlake Road. The current road infrastructure quite simply will not be able to accommodate the sheer quantity of motor vehicles from such a sizeable development, parts of the village don’t even have pedestrian footpaths. There has been a significant amount of quarrying activity in the area over the years, notably at Stonecastle Farm Quarry to the East, which has led to amenity impact from noise, dust, vibration, light pollution and increases in HGV traffic. Active quarrying ceased 12 years ago and the area has been left undisturbed and has enjoyed a resurgence of many species of wildlife and plant-life returning to the area. Villagers discovered in 2018 that the quarry operator intended to recommence operations after years of absence this has led to strong opposition against such proposals, which are currently being reviewed by the inspectorate. The character of the local area, Capel,Tudeley, Golden Green, Whetsted, Five Oak Green villages, which are all situated within Green Belt, would be virtually destroyed by the cumulative effect of these developments, together with the quarry extensions, and the removal of more than 1,000 acres of agricultural land. We would like to endorse all the comments and objections that have been made by saveCapel Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Golden Green and Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. I previously commuted and frequently had to stand the entirety of my journey up to London, how can the existing transport links cope with the extra commuters. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. We believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. we would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. We think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. We think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. We think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5149 | Andrew Deckers | I am a resident of Golden Green and have lived here for over 25 years. I am shocked to see that one Borough Council is apparently able to proceed with a planning application process that risks almost all the consequences onto another Council. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists, and that I have endured, on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. All in all Tonbridge will suffer all the consequences of the new builds without benefiting from the income. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and more concrete and roads, will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding, with no plans for the improvement of flood defences. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and, given so much build activity is going on across all Green Belt, additional efforts should be made to protect it rather than destroy even more of it. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge and its services. I would be interested to know what measures are being proposed to help Tonbridge pay for the additional costs of meeting the additional demand, particularly as it will come very quickly. | |
DLP_5160 | Abigail Grundon | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1). I have lived here in Tonbridge for over 25 years and raised my family here. I commute daily to London and have found that during the last 5 years of my commute, most journeys I have to stand in a crowded train to and from London.This will only get worse. Car journeys are taking longer too and there has been a significant increase in traffic in the town during that period of time too. This too will only get worse. Our infrastructure is not designed to deal with this current overload, yet alone the proposed 2,800 additional dwellings. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will have a very severe and detrimental effect to not only the residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge but also to our wildlife and beautiful and precious countryside. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Please do not destroy what already exists here but doing what you are proposing to do. | |
DLP_5165 | Michaela Blewett | I live in East Peckham as a self employed driving instructor and so I am in the proposed development area 6 days a week. The congestion is horrendous and so I feel pationate that this will only get worse with the proposed developments. My Husband works in London and so has to commute from Tonbridge 5 days a week. Sadly the train service from Paddock Wood is already at full stretch and can only be made even more unbearable with the huge number of extra commuters that these new developments will bring. Please add my contact details to your consultation database so that I can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). The proposed garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings can only cause horrendous harm to residents of the Parish of Capel,Tonbridge and the surrounding villages. The virtual grid lock on the B2017 can only become worse during the morning and evening rush hour. The traffic volumes are already totally unacceptable between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road. This will be exasperated with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school, which will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. A crazy idea for a school location requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site!! Tonbridge Station is already lacking in suitable affordable parking for commuters. Tonbridge just can’t cope with the increase in volume of traffic. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Sadly Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not a viable option. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. Another big concern is that the increased pressure on local Health services and amenities. Common sense says that residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town due to the closeness of the town. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. I am very concerned that flood risks will hugely increase for the area and surrounding villages. As a resident of East Peckham we have seen the devastating effect of flooding.Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement can never satisfy its underlying principles as the two proposed halves are split by the railway line. It fills me with terror to think how much destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland will have to occur to cary out the plan. THIS IS A GREEN BELT AREA AND MUST BE PROTECTED. Surely the development of Green Belt land can only be on “exceptional circumstances” ??. Please explain why TWBC cannot use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan and so why have they taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776?? All this despite having exceptionally strong grounds to lower this number based on the large area of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. The process only included Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) AFTER the Issues and Options Process in 2017, and so didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. How on earth can the draft Local Plan be complete enough to be ready for public consultation, especially when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan?? Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. The plan must be re-written to protect Green Belt land within the borough. We are also extremely concerned for the future as you refer to "Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations.” I can only conclude from this that this is just the tip of the iceberg with more and more housing being added at an alarming rate, to this “garden settlement” in the next five year reviews of future Local Plans, ultimately creating a monster of a city totally dwarfing Tunbridge Wells town centre. It is very clear that TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows and polluting a rural area. Why is this development not on brownfield sites? Surely it needs to be placed in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south? | |
DLP_5169 | Mr and Mrs Da Ve | We have been residents in Tudeley for 4 years. Previously we lived in the Tonbridge town area for 5 years. I work in Bromley for the Metropolitan Police Service. My wife is currently on maternity leave from her job as a Safeguarding Manager. Both as you can imagine are stressful jobs, and so having a peaceful home to retreat to, is extremely important to us. Our reasons for moving to the Tudeley were to start a family and to be away from a busy town. Tudeley was the perfect place due to the beautiful green space and its small but friendly community. We dreamed about starting a family in a rural setting, where our children could attend a nice local village school and reap the vast benefits of accessing the countryside. We are therefore objecting to the local plan for the following reasons: Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. It is incomprehensible why you would build a secondary school that has no access by foot or train. It would be pertinent for someone from the planning team to visit this proposed area during term time rush hour to see just how busy this area already is, before adding hundreds of more cars on to the roads as a result of these plans. On particularly busy days, the traffic can be at a standstill from The Schools at Somerhill to beyond Turmeric Gold restaurant. In point 6 of the strategy for Capel Parish you state that strategic transport links will be provided between Tonbridge, Tudeley Village, Five Oak Green and every other town you are seeking to link in as one. Yet to date, there is no plan of how this to be done. Living where we do on Crockhurst Street, it would be impossible for you to widen the roads or add cycle/bus lanes without ruining more green belt land, or needing to potentially demolish a number of houses. This is such a crucial part of the overall plans, and needs much more detailed clarity to determine what is feasible, or not. It is also beyond belief that the plans will cater for the extent of services that will be required to service the new housing developments. The strain on nearby services such as GPs, dentists, the hospital, social care services and other health services (such as mental health provision) is already very apparent. The majority of residents in the proposed Tudeley Village site would no doubt mostly access TMBC services due to proximity, yet the residents' council tax payments would go to TWBC. This suggests to us having worked and working in the public sector, that further services will not be funded and developed. There is very little in the plan (point 4 of the Capel strategic plan) that helps to reassure us otherwise. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. We believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge as already previously stated. It appears that the plans for Tudeley Village are an easy option for TWBC. One land owner offering a lot of land and at the same time offering to develop it. But being an easy option for TWBC isn't a good enough reason in our view to destroy so much of our green belt and AONB, and negatively change the local communities beyond recognition. | |
DLP_5170 | Caroline White | My family and I live in South Tonbridge and we work locally. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. I dread to think what could happen. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. There is no provision for a primary school and yet South Tonbridge has only just had a new school after years of cramming extra classes in to the existing primaries and there being no vacancies. There are also houses to be built by Tonbridge council, please identify where the extra children will be accommodated,as in the previous 2 developments, actually in Tunbridge Wells, they have attached primary provision. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. ‘Exceptional circumstance ‘ doesn’t include executive homes! | |
DLP_5173 | Lesley Probert | I am writing to you as a resident of Paddock Wood, frequenter of Tonbridge and all the surrounding villages, mother of 3 girls, one of which is at Weald of Kent School. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Paddock Wood and Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Paddock Wood and Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Paddock Wood and Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Paddock Wood, Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food and the natural environment for wildlife. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. Please consider these issues with due care and attention. | |
DLP_5178 | Sarah Marchant | I have lived in Five Oak Green my entire life, that is 38 years. The surrounding countryside has meant not just a space for safe recreation, exploration and relaxation, but a working environment too. My work as a stock photographer has led to me photographing everything from the macro of rolling landscapes and agricultural land to the micro details of the diverse flora and fauna in this area. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I wish to make it clear that this is not a simple case of “NIMBYism”, as I’m sure cynics could regard my objections – and indeed those of the hundreds of people in the area who have been attending the Save Capel meetings and displaying posters, car stickers and banners in support of the campaign. I understand the need for new development, but it should be done in a sustainable, sensitive way. This sudden, crass onslaught of development over Green Belt land is neither of those things. What happened to Green Belt land acting as protection between developments, to keep corridors of nature, “lungs” for the land? The proposed development in Tudeley and East Capel isn’t far from merging Tonbridge, Tudeley, Five Oak Green and Paddock Wood into one enormous settlement. There could surely be more use of brown field sites, as well as proposals for pockets of development, rather than one whole new town, slap bang in the middle of Green Belt land and on the outskirts of the AONB. I agree with Save Capel that creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There doesn’t seem to have been much basic thought given beyond the convenience of one landowner offering a huge swathe of their land. Aside from the more detailed concerns about the environment, infrastructure and so on, there are pretty basic indicators that mass development on the suggested farm fields would be a terrible idea. For example, the field that runs down opposite Somerhill, along Tudeley Road to the roundabout with the A26, already regularly floods. The roads next to it and below it are usually wet at any time of year – and slippery and icy in the winter. Yet the suggestion is to place a school development on this land, with no thought to the impact on flooding and drainage. Open ground will be concreted over and trees, which draw up tonnes of water through their roots, chopped down. Another example of a basic flaw in the plan would be surrounding All Saints’ Church and its world-famous Chagall stained glass windows with a modern residential development. Currently the church sits next to a few cottages, barn conversions and an oast house conversion. A beautiful snapshot of the Garden of England. Beyond the church lies a public footpath, rolling farm fields, trees, hedgerows and a view all the way to Hadlow Tower (which can also be seen from the road). The church and its windows draw visitors from across the globe and has been a compulsory stopping point when taking friends from overseas on a tour of my home area. Preservation of this piece of history should include preservation of its environment too. There’s a proposal for roads and a bike path across the landscape. This isn’t the flat landscape of Norfolk, so if you want a usable bike path that’s not too vertiginous, you’re not going to be using the land sensitively. The only way to make a bike path accessible is to carve it into terrain to even out its gradient, thus destroying the medieval landscape. Quite aside from the disruption caused in the construction phase, there will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017 as these thousands of houses become inhabited – the new residents bringing with them their cars and need to commute, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road make a mockery of the proposal of a new 6 form entry senior school near Somerhill. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, with a main line railway running right through the middle of it and a high-pressure gas pipeline running below it. How that can be even considered viable for a moment is beyond me. If the pipeline needs attending too, it's not a matter of digging up a field and compensating the landowner, it's a matter of excavating school grounds and relocating hundreds of staff and students – and that's assuming a controlled situation; an emergency could be disastrous. Quite aside from the additional danger of putting adolescents right next to the railway, there’s also the high level of sound pollution right on the doorstep of the classrooms. Add in the further traffic that this school would generate, right by the Schools at Somerhill and right by the commuter routes of Tudeley Road and the A26, this part of the proposal isn't remotely practicable. Network Rail has confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. People living in Tudeley would therefore use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will require more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult than it presently is. Most people living in the proposed new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. It's hard to imagine a great increase in bus use, when current settlements are only served by hourly buses. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. It is not surprising that Tonbridge & Malling council has serious concerns about the proposals in the Local Plan. The cost to Tonbridge-based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is so much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change on the area and its residents. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. It is generally understood that covering open land with houses and roads increases the risk of flooding and decreases opportunities for draining and evaporation. Five Oak Green already has its own flooding concerns – check the height of the doorsteps in Ellis Close if you’d like a visual reminder of this – and decreasing opportunities for drainage in the surrounding landscape is a thoughtless idea. The Medway will flood more often and cause increased flood risk not just in my village, but in Tudeley, Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. In currently relatively sparsely-populated land, where clusters of houses line the roads, light and sound pollution is low. Throw in a couple of thousand residences (along with possible compulsory purchase orders for existing residents in long-established residences) and a secondary school and there will be a huge increase in air, light and noise pollution that will not just affect the tranquillity of Capel, but also spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Once again, the protection and breathing space for man and beast offered by the Green Belt is kicked to the side with apparently no thought. Placing such a heavy burden of development in just one rural area must be reconsidered. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much new housing in Capel Parish in a large block like this will require the destruction of existing woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland. There is simply no other way to fit 2,800 houses on to this area. The landscape and natural world within it will be irrevocably changed. Recently, on my way from Five Oak Green to Tonbridge, I came to a halt in my car to let a pheasant cross the road. It was a beautiful sight and it happened right by the George and Dragon pub, with the bird heading to safety into one of the fields slated for development. The parish currently has 950 houses and so the sheer number of new houses being placed together is difficult to comprehend. The idea that all this land is being offered by one landowner – which, stunningly, then talks about developing the land too if the Local Plan goes ahead in its current form – rings alarm bells. Where is the opportunity for other landowners to offer areas of land for development? The ease of dealing with one landowner and one great block of land should not outweigh the value of reducing the density of the development across the borough and of allowing other landowners the benefit of a slice of the business. The housing need calculated by the government can be reduced where it would require development of Green Belt land, unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. With brownfield sites available locally and the strong local objection to such a massive development, I would like to see TWBC use this argument of being unable to build on Green Belt land to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from the Local Plan. TWBC should be looking to protect what is within its borough, not sacrificing a chunk of it. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I believe that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect the environmentally and socially valuable Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long-term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five-year review of future Local Plans. It seems likely based on this that TWBC wants to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until the land from Tonbridge to Paddock Wood becomes one great conurbation, larger than Tunbridge Wells town centre. While there is a mention of affordable housing and social housing in the Local Plan leaflet, there is no suggestion of the proportion of houses built to answer such need. All too often new development is undertaken to reap the highest profits and not with any regard as to whom it could benefit – see the two large new build houses in the middle of Five Oak Green, which have been standing empty for more than 12 months. It is incomprehensible why TWBC is placing such a huge new development in one parish, rather than working with multiple landowners to provide sensitive areas of development to extend existing settlements in a sustainable manner, and using existing brownfield sites, in order to spread the impact of development across the borough. There is no sense of proportion in the Local Plan as it stands. | |
DLP_5181 | Jane Tennant | I have lived in the beautiful Kent countryside, surrounded by green belt land for over twenty years, which we hope will continue to be protected as required by the National Planning policy. The Postern was built in 1757 and is a grade II listed building and the garden is classified as a ‘formal garden monument’. We have lived and farmed apples here for over 20 years. I would be grateful if you would add my details to your database, so that I can be kept informed of future consultations on Planning Policy. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council. I am writing to object to ‘The Strategy for Capel Parish’ (Policy STR/CA1). I will do this in two sections. Firstly, the objection to the proposed school on the land to the South of Postern Lane (sites 454 and 447) and secondly to the proposed ‘Garden Settlement’ at Tudeley. Objection to the proposed school to the south of Postern Lane (sites 454 and 447). Green Belt If the proposed school is developed it would breach the barrier formed by the A26 which separates Tonbridge from the Green Belt. This would allow Tonbridge to sprawl into the open countryside east of the town. One of the stated reasons for the Green Belt is ‘to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas’, such as Tonbridge. Traffic Traffic on the local roads is already at overcapacity, particularly at peak times in the mornings. The traffic on the B2017 is extremely heavy in the mornings and afternoons, often resulting in cars taking a short cut along Postern Lane. There seems to have been no sensible consideration about getting staff, pupils and support staff to the proposed school, without further burdening the already over congested roads. There is little public transport and the station is a 30 minute walk along busy roads with few footpaths. One cannot imagine how children would reach the school except by car causing further traffic jams. Flood Risk Part of both sites are included in ‘flood zone 3’, which suggests a high probability of flooding. There have been a number of occasions over the years when the stream has flooded to the south of the land. The new school would significantly increase the run-off from buildings and tarmac, adding to the flood risk and causing further problems. Agricultural Land Both sites are designated Grade 2, which indicates high quality agricultural land, which should be used for farming, and also is the home to a number of rare species in the hedges and woodland. Heritage Assets There are nine listed buildings close to the site 447 and the site has many historic connections. Position of the Proposed School The site for the school is split by the railway line, which is hardly a sensible arrangement for a large secondary school. There are already 5 secondary schools in Tonbridge and 2 primary schools. The proposed school is sited some distance from the area it is supposed to serve, which cannot make sense, given the major problems of accessibility and transport to the school along what is already an extremely busy and congested road. Considering all of the above reasons, this is not a sensible place for a new school. Objections to the proposed ‘Garden Settlement at Tudeley’. Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 houses will significantly impact the residents of Capel and Tonbridge. There will be a large increase in traffic on the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion, especially in the mornings and evenings. The new residents of Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting on already packed commuter trains and parking near the station is already very difficult. There will be an increased pressure on health services in Tonbridge. Large parts of the development will occur on the Medway flood plain, which is likely to make the Medway flood more often and accelerate run off, making major flooding more likely in Tudeley, Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding, which will cause significant problems. There will inevitably be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will impact Tunbridge Well and also Tonbridge and Malling. Many people visit All Saints Church at Tudeley each year with its beautiful Marc Chagall windows and set in the stunning Kent countryside and if this plan goes ahead, this area will be surrounded by houses. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of so much Green Belt land including woodland, hedgerows, meadows and farmland as well as the wildlife and rare species which live there. The Green Belt should be protected so that it can remain rural with good agricultural land, which can be used to provide food. It should not be built on when there are other brown field sites, which are suitable. Planning guidelines state that Green Belt sites should only be used for building in ‘exceptional circumstances’. How is this ‘exceptional circumstances’ when there are brown field sites available? TWBC is already providing more housing than is necessary in the draft Local Plan and the population growth is slowing. This cannot be necessary. The plan preparation process did not include Tudeley (sites CA1 CA2) until after the Options Process in 2017, therefore the largest housing area in the plan did not go through most of the plan preparation process. Therefore there was no detailed Green Belt Study, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. Protecting Green Belt land was a main priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. TWBC is using Capel to put their housing needs on green fields and meadows and polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough to make it accessible north and south. The developments at Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place a huge burden and pressure on Tonbridge, which seems unacceptable. | |
DLP_5186 | Anne Waddingham | I am a resident of Golden Green, not far from the proposed new housing development at Tudeley (Policy STR/CA1). I have lived here for 22 years. One of the crucial deciding factors in my decision to buy here was the fact that my house was built on the brownfield site of an old factory and no countryside was destroyed. I walk extensively in the countryside around Golden Green and am particularly concerned with promoting biodiversity, being a member of several conservation organisations. I have won two Silver Awards for my wildlife garden in the Kent Wildlife Trust’s Wildlife Garden annual awards. I have also conducted breeding bird surveys locally for the British Trust for Ornithology for the past 13 years. I understand that my comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). 1. Green Belt destruction and effect on biodiversity. Creating a ‘garden settlement’ at Tudeley of 2800 dwellings will cause immense habitat destruction. Green Belt woodland, hedgerows, meadows and farmland must be protected. Flora and fauna that is very special to the area will be destroyed or displaced, including rare species. We are very fortunate in this area to still have turtle doves, nightingales and cuckoos, species that are declining at an alarming rate. (See State of Nature 2019 report https://nbn.org.uk/stateofnature2019/). Urbanisation, including road building, is identified as one of the main drivers of declines. 2. Mental health and access to nature. It has been acknowledged by the government, mental health charities and the scientific community that engaging with nature is beneficial to people with mental ill-health and it can contribute to a reduction in levels of anxiety, stress, and depression. As our countryside disappears under concrete, where will they go? Many don’t have the means or ability to travel extended distances to national parks or country parks. 3. Increased flood risk. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and increase flood risk not only in Tudeley but also in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. Flood risk mitigation and ‘betterment’ could have disastrous consequences for all, as the measures being looked at are based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. 4. More pollution will be inevitable – air quality will be degraded, noise and light pollution will increase. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars and the traffic congestion in and around Tonbridge will become totally unacceptable. The proposed new senior school will exacerbate the problem. 5. Overcrowded trains. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and the increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station – already the busiest station in the South East outside London - will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. 6. Lack/cost of infrastructure. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. The necessary infrastructure is currently lacking and would take some time to catch up – as was demonstrated when Kings Hill was developed. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. 7. Housing needs. The housing need calculated by the government is based on erroneous and out-of-date calculations. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing and does not take into account the likely effect of Brexit. 8. Finally, on a warm day last summer, I sat in the churchyard of All Saint’s Church in Tudeley. The peace and quiet and the wonderful bucolic views were a balm to the soul. When it’s surrounded by houses and busy roads, who will count the cost of what we have lost? | |
DLP_5193 | Lynton Wright | My wife and I moved to E.Peckham in 2001.At this time traffic was manageable on the village roads and the speeds of vehicles acceptable. Now however the traffic has increased at least three fold and speeding is a regular occurrence For example traffic along Hale streed is heavier than on the A228 EP bypass and Church road / Hale Street is a rat run from Tonbridge to the motorways. Our proposed development of about 70 houses along Church road ( which is not mentioned in your letter) will cause an increase in traffic through the village. Thousands of houses in Paddock wood and Tudely will just make matters worse, each house owning on average 2 vehicles. In my humble opinion the road infrastructure will have to be reassessed otherwise the three towns/villages will seize up New schools, parking facilities, shopping centres are all inadequate now so thousands of new people in the area is going to cause major problems and will cost millions . I would like to see the latest proposals for how this massive influx is going to me managed. | |
DLP_5195 | Sarah Jones | I have lived in Tudeley for 25 years in the beautiful Somerhill Park. My children were born here and attended local schools in Tudeley, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. As a family we have made the most of the wonderful environment that we live in. My daughter and I used to keep horses in a field near our house and we thoroughly enjoyed riding them along the toll paths from Tudeley towards Hadlow. We have a dog which the whole family enjoys walking with on the local foot paths, our favourite being; from Tudelely Church, through Bank Farm, across Sherenden Road to the George and Dragon Pub. I have had a number of jobs, one based at Kings Hill which meant I have spent 9 years commuting from Tudeley to Kings Hill via Hartlake Road. I have therefore experienced the flooding problems that Hartlake Road has, first hand. Currently I work from home but often have the need to take the train to London which I do from Tonbridge. I also use Tonbridge for shopping and my GP and Dentist are based in Tonbridge. I am outlining the above to show that that I am fully qualified to scrutinize Policy STR/CA1 and the effects that it will have both on TWBC and TMBC. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF - Feb 2019) states that use of Green Belt (GB) for housing development should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The policy continues by stating the five purposes of GB as follows:
The proposed Tudeley New Town (AL/CA1) and Secondary School (AL/CA2) developments are being built entirely on GB and in addition, further areas of GB will needed to provide the necessary infrastructure. I do not believe that provision of these developments constitutes exceptional circumstances and there are alternative sites that can be used that are outside of GB and AONB. One may argue that the dualling of the A21 was wrong as it destroyed areas of AONB. I believe that this was justified as there is an important need to provide an efficient road system to Pembury Hospital for the use of emergency vehicles. In this circumstance I believe that utilising AONB can be considered as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ I am writing to object to Policy STR/CA1 in particular to the proposed development of the Tudeley settlement (AL\CA1) and the Secondary School (AL/CA2) for the following reasons: 1. Utilisation of Green Belt and the effect on the surrounding area As I have already stated that AL/CA1 and AL/CA2 are entirely GB and border ANOB as well as an area of Garden of Special Historic Interest, Somerhill Park. It will goes without saying the development of the Tudeley settlement and the Secondary School will destroy the GB for ever. Furthermore these developments will cause a massive scar on the landscape which will be seen from miles around by surrounding villages. In addition the developments will be in full view from the historic Tudeley church with its rare Chagall windows that directly borders AL/CA1, Somerhill House, a Grade II Jacobian house and the Hadlow Tower. Many local walks such as Tunbridge Wells Circular Walk and Medway Valley Walk will either border the development and/or have direct viewing of it for significant distances. I do not believe that all brownfield sites have been fully utilised for housing development and definitely not all green field sites. I notice in the Strategy Housing and TWBC Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) site ref: 144, Horsmonden , approx. 50 hectres (622 – 1,243 houses) was proposed for development. Despite not being GB or ANOB this site was rejected for development for the following reason: ‘This would be a very large scale strategic allocation that would be disproportionate to the size of the settlement with concern about the landscape and heritage’. I do not understand rationale behind this statement considering that TWBC is suggesting the development of the Tudeley settlement which will destroy 600 acres of GB. There are approximately 2600 residents in Horsmonden PC and 2500 residents in Capel PC which includes only around 100 residents in Tudeley. Considering this, how can Policy STR/CA1 justify building 4 300 houses in a Parish the size of Capel and what is worse 2, 800 of these houses will be in the tiny village of Tudeley. As I mentioned before AL/CA1 and AL/CA2 are solely utilising GB containing ancient woodland and listed buildings and are in close proximately to 3 historic sites, Tudeley church, Somerhill House and Hadlow Tower. Considering the above, I would say AL/CA1 and AL/CA2 would be ‘ a VERY large scale strategic allocation that would be EXTREMELY disproportionate to the size of the settlement with MAJOR concerns about the landscape and heritage’ therefore these sites should be rejected for development. In addition, I understand that Blantyre Prison, a 54 acre site was offered up for development. It is not GB or ANOB and the NPPF justifies the protection of GB to in order to encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land - so why was this site not considered further? The NPPF states that GB should be protected to prevent unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and neighbouring towns merging into one another and in addition it should be protected to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Currently when one leaves Tonbridge via B2017 from the Woodgate Way roundabout and one leaves the urban environment and enters countryside, there is clear division. One then comes to Tudeley and leaves Tudeley, drive through countryside to Five Oak Green, there are definite divisions between each settlement and the countryside. The development of the new School and the Tudeley settlement will mean that the countryside between Tonbridge and Tudeley, and Tudeley and Five Oak Green will be destroyed – there will be urban sprawl all the way along the B2017 from Tonbridge to Five Oak Green from Five Oak Green to Paddock Wood In addition, the NPPF states the purpose of GB is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. As mentioned above the historic Tudeley church is the only church in the world to have all twelve windows decorated by the great Russian artist Marc Chargall. The east window being a memorial tribute to Sarah d’ Avigdor- Goldsmid which will look directly out on the Tudeley settlement, today it looks out on beautiful countryside which is part of the Goldsmid estate. Somerhill House a fine Jacobean grade II listed house will look directly onto the new School and from the top floor windows of the house the Tudeley settlement will be in view. 2. Impact on air quality and health and wellbeing The development of the Tudeley settlement and the new School will no doubt have a negative impact on air quality. Vast numbers of trees and plants will be destroyed which will mean the environment’s ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will be greatly reduced. In addition there will be a massive increase in pollution released into the atmosphere due to the increase in traffic etc. Destroying 600 acres of GB will definitely have a detrimental effect on the local population’s health and wellbeing. There are many beautiful walks through CA1 which are enjoyed by people living in and around Tudeley and far beyond. While walking around this countryside, a wide variety of wide life can be viewed including a number of rare species such as owls (tawny, barn and little) etc. In addition, on an evening stroll there are numerous bats (brown long eared, common pipistrelle). The development of the Tudeley settlement and new School will destroy the wildlife and its habitat for ever. In addition CA1 currently provides wonderful countryside for horse riding which I plus many other people who stable their horses at Bank Farm are able to enjoy and this will all be destroyed. Furthermore the livery stables at Bank Farm and the newly built facilities will be destroyed and together with the livelihoods of those who run the stables. There are currently a number of tenant farmers who farm land located in CA1. With the development of the Tudeley settlement, not only will these farmers lose their businesses but the production of local food and produce will be jeopardised. In fact a large percentage of AL/CA1 GB is farmland graded from ALC 2 “Very Good Quality” to ALC 3 “Good” and is currently well utilised for food production. I believe it would be far better to utilise lower grade or non-farming land for housing development. 3. Increase risk of flooding Large parts of the Tudeley development will be on the Medway floodplain and no flood risk assessment has been conducted to actually define what risks are and what mitigation actions will be required and costed into STR/CA1 given accelerating climate change. As mentioned above my daughter and I used to frequently ride our horses on the Toll ride located in CA1 and along Sherenden Road. Over many winters there have been times that Sherenden Road has been flooded especially under the railway bridge and the Toll ride has been too wet to ride on. Hartlake Road is regularly closed due to flooding and this was recognised by TWBC when they refused a planning application put forward by the Poachers Pub on Hartlake Road on a number of issues, one being flood risk. Covering CA1 with tarmac and houses is only going to make the flooding situation worse. 4. Infrastructure The policy STR/CA1 gives no detail on the required infrastructure to ensure that the Tudeley development and the new school are sustainable and I believe that viability assessments for the developments have not been carried out. The B2017 is not able to cope with the current weight of traffic. At certain times traffic queues from beyond the Hartlake Road turn to the Woodgate roundabout so the road in its current state would certainly not cope with the potential addition of 7000 cars from the proposed Tudeley and Capel developments. In addition, there will be extra traffic caused by the new school. There are railway stations at Tonbridge and Paddock Wood and as these stations are only a few minutes apart, it is unlikely that an additional one will be built for the Tudeley settlement. This will mean the residents of the Tudeley settlement will be driving to Tonbridge to catch the train which will massively increase the burden of traffic on the B2017 especially during the peak times. Neither the Draft Local Plan nor the Infrastructure Delivery Plan gives details of an updated road system for the developments beyond putting a roundabout in the middle of a junction which is gridlocked in all directions. Then there is the question of the railway line splitting both the new school and the Tudeley settlement in two with very limited options for crossing the railway line. The local draft plan states that the layout and design of the development is to be of the highest quality, with exceptional permeability. I would beg to disagree with this statement. Currently there are 2 railway crossing that join North and South parts of the Tudeley settlement 1) A single track bridge over the railway line on Hartlake Road. 2) A single tracked road going under railway line on Sherenden Road which is often flooded. I believe that Network Rail is not prepared to build further crossings and the existing crossings are not adequate therefor this would result in a divided community. The railway line runs straight through the site for the new school and there are no details of how this will be overcome allowing children to cross the railway line safely. This is completely unacceptable and I believe that having a railway line running through a school is a huge health and safety risk. There are also no details on access to the north site of the plot for the new school. As I understand if Network Rail fails to provide additional railway line crossings, there are no mitigation actions planned, therefore in my eyes if this issue is not resolved, the Tudeley settlement and the new school are not viable developments. 5. Lopsided plan and the effects on Tonbridge The Tudeley settlement is right on the border of TMBC boundary and is on Tonbridge’s door step. The Garden Communities prospectus – Ministry of Housing August 2018 states: ‘We are particularly interested in proposals which demonstrate collaboration across local authority boundaries’. The draft plan refers to CA1/ AL as a ‘Garden Village’ and I believe that plans for the development of this Garden Community has not been discussed with TMBC until far too late. The residents of the new developments will be paying their council tax to TWBC but will using TMBC facilities which will add a huge amount of additional stress to the already overburdened infrastructure and services in Tonbridge. Currently the traffic in Tonbridge is terrible and is often gridlocked; improvements to road system within Tonbridge are severely hampered by the railway line and the River Medway. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan offers to upgrade the B2017 and the roundabout at A26 Woodgate Way/B2017 Tudeley Road to increase capacity at the junction. These improvements will only make matters worse as increasing the traffic flow into Tonbridge will only add to the bottle neck within Tonbridge. The health and support services in Tonbridge are currently severely stretched. The GP surgeries are not accepting any new patients and for existing patients, there is often a long wait to get a Doctor’s appointment. STR/CA1 states “Provision shall be made for appropriate health facilities, or contributions towards such facilities” but until a commitment to this from a suitable organisation is in place it is only words and the burden will remain with Tonbridge. A large majority of the Tudeley settlement residents will be commuting from Tonbridge and commuter trains from Tonbridge are at full capacity with no planned upgrades. To add to the problem, there are plans for large scale commuter developments down the line in Marden and Staplehurst. There is already limited parking at Tonbridge station and this is only going to get worse with increased numbers of commuters. Creating a school on outskirts of Tonbridge (AL/CA2) will mean that Tonbridge is one of the most ‘Secondary school dense’ towns in the region and the proposed school will only add to the current traffic chaos in Tonbridge at school pick up and drop off time. 6. Housing Needs I do not believe that the proposed Tudeley and East Capel developments will meet the local housing needs for TWBC. There will be 4000 houses within a small area, at one end of Borough and therefore not be considering the needs throughout the borough. It seems to me that these houses will not be affordable houses as the density housing suggest for the Tudeley site is between 15 – 30 houses per hectare and normal density for affordable housing is 30- 50 houses per hectare. I therefore believe that this development will be providing executive commuter houses and not affordable housing for people who work within the borough. I have spoken to a number of young professionals who work in Tunbridge Wells but commute from Eastbourne or Robertsbridge because they cannot afford to live in or near to Tunbridge Wells. Another point is that TWBC is relying on one Landowner to provide and development a high proportion of the Borough’s future housing stock and there seems no migration plan in place which in itself seems very risky. 7. Local Plan Process. The plan preparation process failed to include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017 therefore the largest housing area in the plan did not go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach and only 18% of respondents gave option 5 (new freestanding settlement) as the most preferred approach. I believe the whole planning process is flawed and does not reflect wishes of the majority of the population in the borough. | |
DLP_5269 | Tunbridge Wells Friends of the Earth | Policy Number: STR/CA 1 The Strategy for Capel Parish Object to point 9 “Tudeley Village and land at Capel and Paddock Wood will both require the release of Green Belt land.” General objection to all new development in Green Belt. | |
DLP_5275 | Rachel Smith | I am a resident of Paddock Wood and have lived in 3 homes within the town over a period of around 30 years. I am writing to OBJECT to the strategies for both Paddock Wood (Policy STR/PW1) and Capel Parish (Policy STR/CA1). OBJECTIONS TO THE STRATEGY FOR CAPEL PARISH (POLICY STR/CA1) I challenge the need for so many houses to be built over the plan period of 2016-2036. The Office for National Statistics estimates borough population growth of 13,952 people, and with an average house occupancy rate of 2.35 people (117,140 people living in 49,880 houses), the need is for 5,937 houses (of varying sizes). TWBC must challenge the government on the number genuinely needed in the borough. Flooding: Land identified for development to the west of Paddock Wood in the parish of Capel lies within Flood zones 2 & 3 (https://beta.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/26499/Surface-Water-Management-Plan-Apprendix-A-Maps-2012.pdf) We do not yet know the impact of the additional 900+ homes already planned for Paddock Wood so to propose development of this land seems very short sighted. No doubt huge amounts of developers' money would have to be spent on flood mitigation, diverting funds from other essential infrastructure The following words are not my own but I concur with the views expressed: ‘Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary into Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge.’ I do not feel that it is appropriate to build on Green Belt land when brownfield sites could be further utilised. | |
DLP_5276 | Howard Rogers | This my response to the Regulation 18 consultation of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Local Plan. I reply as a Tonbridge & Malling Borough Councillor, a representative of the residents of the Ward of East Peckham, Hadlow and Golden Green and as a resident of Hartlake Road. My opinions of the TWBC Local Plan draft are in general embodied in the formal response made by TMBC. In addition I wish to make the following observations specifically in relation to proposals for Capel and Tudeley.. The plan fails to challenge the standard method for determining the housing need. The plan does not demonstrate that TWBC has widened its search for housing sites beyond those sites yielded in the voluntary Call for Sites. The plan does not sufficiently demonstrate its Duty to Co-operate with neighbouring LAs. The plan has failed to address the impact on traffic flows in a north/South direction and specifically the consequences of rat running via Hartlake Road is not addressed. The plan has not taken into account the cumulative effect of flood risk in relation to other development and in particular the Stonecastle quarry proposals permitted by KCC. | |
DLP_5280 | Michael Claxton | I am a resident in south Tonbridge (Kings Road) and regularly walk to Tudely and its environs, enjoying its historic church, its isolated position and the delightful unspoiled countryside. I also cycle to Tudeley and beyond to Paddock Wood on the narrow roads on which I presently feel safe and untroubled by heavy dangerous traffic, free to appreciate the open views on both sides. I also use the very narrow and twisting Vauxhall Lane on my bicycle or on foot and delight in the farmland and animal grazing areas on both sides, a few minute from where we live (which would be impacted badly by the Mabledon development). Before moving to Tonbridge many years ago, we searched long and hard for a suitable location near the green belted land and the destruction of these areas would radically degrade our quality of life. I am therefore writing firstly to object to “The strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1 + CA2). .I have outlined above the potential destruction of the natural environment in these areas and its visual impact. Compounding and adding to this are the effects on traffic congestion and parking requirements. The congestion around south Tonbridge is increasing year on year and expanding further out along the roads. This is already serious and would become catastrophic if these plans, including the school and the huge housing projects are realised. The impact on Tonbridge services and infrastructure is unimaginable. Flooding in this wide area can only increase in future years with the combined effects of global warming and large scale land developments as proposed. All in all the proposals cannot be considered sensitive development of green belt areas. I would encourage you to look seriously for brown field sites in the TW area in preference to spoiling forever the natural environment and history of these lands between Tonbridge and Paddock Wood. | |
DLP_5284 | Margaret Nimmo | Personal Background I have lived in Capel Parish for almost 25 years with my husband and our two children, who were raised here and attended local schools. As a family, we participated in many activities around the village, including walking, cycling and sports. I enjoy retirement in the village, and I am an active member of Capel Cricket Club Ladies' Team. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). There several key points which I would like to address in relation to this objection. Housing type / housing density - Almost 3,000 house will be built on land which is currently designated as Green Belt, supposedly protected. The plan will require the Green Belt to be downgraded and destroyed in order to construct this development. Furthermore, the destruction of Green Belt land would have to be justified also by a high level of housing density to reduce the impact on the irreversible loss of the valuable natural landscape. Insufficient housing density is one of the grounds for refusal of a Local Plan. Local roads and transport - Existing local public transport is poor, with infrequent buses only operating a limited service. Para 138 NPPF states that: “Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. Extra cars will use the local roads, with further congestion on roads that are already badly congested at peak times. With a new 6th form school planned near the existing Somerhill School, congestion on the surrounding roads at peak times will become very problematic, and is very likely to have an impact on local businesses. Whilst a new road is proposed between Five Oak Green and Capel, this would also be in Green Belt land, resulting in yet more destruction of the natural environment. If the route under discussion is chosen, this new road will divide the villages of Capel and Five Oak Green, separating the two communities and thus acting as a barrier to our community life. Also, it is likely that this road will impinge onto Sychem Lane, which has already suffered greatly from unreasonably large HGVs using the lane. Following complaints by residents about these large HGVs, a Public Inquiry was held by The Traffic Commissioner for the South East. This Inquiry was successful in gaining restrictions on vehicle access and operating times at a local builders' storage yard. It is very likely that residents would once again have to resort to raising representations against operators who used this new road as a route to and from their operating centres. The roundabout at the Colt’s Hill end of Alders Road will encourage ease of access onto the proposed Colt’s Hill bypass, thus driving traffic down Alders Road and potentially along Sychem Lane at peak times, rather than along the proposed new road south of Five Oak Green. Additionally, the proposed Colts Hill bypass is in both Greenbelt and AONB land. Hospital capacity / Medical care- A new town with the proposed number of new homes in Capel will put much more pressure on the services at the Kent & Sussex hospital at Pembury. Adequate medical centres, fully and professionally staffed, will be necessary to support the greatly increased size of the local community. Clarification is needed to assure the local residents that enough has been done to assess and plan for the extra demand. It is critical that the capacity of the hospital and medical centres are well enabled to cope. Extra funding will be necessary for this, in order to cope with the increased local population, and it is not clear where the funding would come from. Flooding / Water supply - parts of Capel parish have long suffered from flooding. The proposed new town is in close proximity to the natural flood plain of the Medway. Runoff downstream is a further likely consequence. There is a risk that flooding could well impact Yalding, which already suffers regularly in times of heavy rain. The whole of the South East is prone to water shortage; the reservoir at Bewl Water frequently suffers low levels in summer. There is likely to be serious pressure on demand at low rainfall, critical periods in the year, when the extra demand from the new villages and 4,000 extra homes comes on stream. Natural environment - the destruction of the greenfield land will adversely impact the natural environment and wildlife in the area. Care must be taken to protect the RSPB nature reserve at Tudeley Woods on Half Moon Lane, which is within one mile from the proposed new town in Tudeley. Loss of habitat and a reduction in the number of species would be unacceptable. Air quality, light and noise pollution / Wellbeing - the extra housing, cars, street lighting and all that goes with a new town will lead to increased levels of pollutants in the air, resulting in poorer air quality. The carbon footprint will unquestionably increase, and this will be a contributor to climate change. In addition, noise and light pollution will increase in what is currently a rural, Green Belt area. The quality of the environment in Capel will be irreparably damaged and changed for the worse, forever. It is hard to imagine that this is consistent with a desire for betterment of the parish, and it is certainly a total destruction of the existing local way of life. Personal wellbeing is greatly enhanced by green, open space to be enjoyed for posterity by everyone. With the current and growing awareness of mental health issues, protection of the Green Belt is essential to the health and wellbeing of every member of the local community. Architectural heritage - the historic church at Tudeley is located beside where the proposed new housing development will be sited. Tudeley Church has windows designed under a commission to Marc Chagall, the world-renowned artist. Tudeley is internationally famous as the only church in the world with stained glass windows designed by Chagall, within its setting in the green fields of Kent. This precious architectural heritage will deteriorate when the surrounding fields are destroyed and the church is surrounded on three sides by the new town at Tudeley. What assessment has there been on this historic site and the other listed buildings in the parish and its surroundings? Sustainability assessment - according to the TWBC Sustainability Assessment, the housing objective is compatible with only 5 out of the 19 sustainability objectives. Further, it is incompatible with 9 of those objectives. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I contend that this draft Local Plan and the concept of the new town to be built on Green Belt land in Capel has been poorly thought through. It is an expedient solution towards meeting government-imposed targets, rather than addressing true local needs. Further, there can be no justification for the destruction of Green Belt land and for ignoring the long-established precedents to protect the Green Belt. | |
DLP_5285 | Natarajan Kannan | My background: I am an Organic Farmer and an Engineer in Telecom Technologies from India and staying and contributing in London and South East since 2001 through our Telecom Consulting businesses to several large organisations such as Vodafone, Telefonica O2, Lloyds Banking Group, SSE, EDF Energy, British Gas and several other small to medium companies to enhance their Customer and Employees Experience with measurements. In addition to our technology business, we are seriously perusing and built a few successful and sustainable Organic and Natural Farms in India, China and Myanmar since 2008. We utilise Zero Budget Natural Farming( ZBNF) which simply means Self-reliance Agriculture production model whereby 100% of required inputs such as natural fertiliser(s), pesticide(s), fungicide(s) etc. are prepared and applied within the farm. This system is all about working with the nature and preserve the greenbelt area to support local economy with local good food production capability. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) . Key alternate to Housing plan in Capel Parish / Tudely area are as follows: We visited Capel Area and conducted an initial survey for its suitability to Organic Food Production and related natural processing in the proposed 400 acres around Tudeley in October 2019. In our expert opinion, it is certainly possible to plan, build and run a successful / Sustainable Organic Food Production and natural processing facility around Capel. This will surely contribute more to the green belt environment. I am happy to furnish and present further detailed proposal and plans for the 400 acres of Grade 2 and Grade 3 lands Organic Food Facility Zone in Tudely area in future. Other few points to object “The Strategy for Capel Parish” are as follows: Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows). The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. In summary, both STR/CA1 and STR/PW1 proposals are not supporting the sustainable Green Belt recommended by Rural England policies. Alternatively, these arable lands can surely be utilised for Organic and Natural Food production facility that are sustainable and great value to local community and local food fulfilment(s). | |
DLP_5287 | Janet Penfold | I really do not see how our local area will cope with these 4,000 new homes to be built on prime agricultural land in our beautiful green belt. Where are all these people going to work, 8,000 cars+ on our windy country roads, with poor bus service and in between two stations, cars would have to be used to get anywhere. The houses will not be affordable but large family homes and there are already some of these in Five Oak Green that have been empty for a year or more. There are hundreds of new homes being built in Paddock Wood although it seems building has stopped due to lack of interests. All these homes and not enough GPs, schools etc. The drains in Five Oak Green are unable to cope with heavy rain and only last night due to heavy rain householders were complaining of water in the toilet bowl steadily rising. We are meant to be planting thousands of trees to help the environment, so why are they all going to be cut down for these houses? | |
DLP_5290 | Lee Cashman | I am a father of three young children who has lived in Tudeley for five years and been a resident of Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells for the last twenty years. I was disgusted when I saw the scale of the proposed development within this rural and protected landscape. My own property has had past modest planning applications by previous owners rejected 'due to the rural and open nature of the landscape'. And yet the same planners are proposing to build 2800 new houses within the same rural and open landscape. I genuinely don’t understand that. Both Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells suffer from increased congestion and limited access roads into the town centres. I appreciate that at busy times Tunbridge Wells traffic backs up to the A21 via the Pembury Road, to Southborough via A26 and up through the North Farm Industrial Area to the A21. Therefore the Councillors are loathed to increase this congestion by developing more housing in Tunbridge Wells. Unfortunately, what they have failed to acknowledge is that Tonbridge suffers from exactly the same problem due to residential and commercial development within the Cannon Lane area. My daughter attends primary school in North Tonbridge and routes either via B2017 or Hartlake Road and Hadlow Road are both backed up and stationary 2 miles from the town centre. There are simply too many cars for the current infrastructure of both town centres. When I leave for work at 7:45am in the mornings it can sometimes take me 20 minutes to do what is at most a 3 minute journey. I am very concerned that this development may be particularly attractive to Tunbridge Wells Council as it will leave Tunbridge Wells completely unaffected whilst completely destroying many acres of beautiful, historic and valuable Kent country side that will be gone forever, leaving Tonbridge town and its residents with additional traffic, pollution, demands for already stretched services and facilities such as emergency services, healthcare and education, train overcrowding, increased flood risks, huge reduction in local open spaces nature and wildlife and general air quality. In short Tonbridge gets all of the significant disadvantages and none of the increased revenue generated by council tax paid by the new residents. I am genuinely at a COMPLETE loss of how to explain to my children how this type of development can even be considered. As a nation we talk about the importance of Climate change, environmental sustainability, reducing pollution, eating food grown locally, safeguarding the wildlife and plants so important to our ecosystem and our responsibility to do so and yet our Council's local plan is contrary to all of this. As a point of reference it is clear that there are brownfield sites available within the borough to build new houses on. I also feel strongly that many families I encounter have relocated from London in search of a better quality of life and are attracted to the area by Tonbridge's excellent commuter links. By placing a development of this scale within 3 miles of Tonbridge mainline station in beautiful countryside more and more families from outside the borough will be attracted to move here. This will absolutely not help the local population. I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. As referenced above, people living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking and more people from outside the borough will be attracted to the area by the prospect of new housing within easy reach of London. This is detrimental to the local population as housing will command premium prices due to location and be out of reach financially for local people. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. This situation is only set to get worse as Tonbridge and Malling Council have their own housing targets to meet. The plan is simply not sustainable and Tonbridge's infrastructure will not cope which is hugely detrimental to local residents and the local environment. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. The land is based on clay and currently the surface water runs off the fields onto the B2O17 in Tudeley often causing hazardous driving conditions. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected for future generations to enjoy. My children love drawing wild orchids, catching newts and identifying wild birds by their calls. It will completely spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food as it has done for centuries. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5299 | Hugh and Lindsey Rayner | I was brought up in Tudeley, attended school in Tonbridge and was married in 2004 at All Saints Church, Tudeley. I am aghast at the ill-prepared and poorly conceived plans being submitted regarding the "Garden" Development. There is no infrastructure whatsoever for the further 2800 dwellings planned, with poor roads, a railway slicing straight down the middle (with no usable bridging points for traffic of any real size), and a school planned in an absurdly unsafe location for anyone to consider placing their child there Having lived and travelled around the area for a good 30 years, i am very aware of the lie of the land and the environment. Not only do a high proportion of the dwellings lie on the Medway floodplain, but the Hartlake Road which will be the direct back-route to Tonbridge, floods regularly to a good depth and is thus often impassable. Add the massively increased traffic volume and you will have all of the ingredients for either a logjam, or damage to an already easily-damaged road surface. obviously air pollution volumes will increase substantially, with the removal of vegetation increasingly the release of CO2 and carbon elements to the atmosphere, rather than locking them in. That the land is designated Green Belt land on top of this just adds to the fact that it should not be considered for such a development, especially in light of the onward march of climate change. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5302 | Paul & Lynne Bournazian | We live in Tudeley, very close to the proposed Tudeley Garden Village development. We have lived here for nearly 20 years and chose Tudeley for its rural setting and the belief that any future development would be handled responsibly and sympathetically, and that the vital green belt would be respected.
As we have said, there is clearly a need to build more housing (with a high proportion being affordable), but surely this should be as evenly spread throughout the borough as possible. We think that you are going for the easy option in Tudeley and Paddock Wood by concentrating a large proportion of the borough’s obligations into one small area. So, you are effectively destroying one small community whilst avoiding possible conflict and difficult discussions in most of the other parts of the borough. Is it just a bit too easy to be dealing with one landowner who is willing to sell and make a vast amount of money? We believe that you have serious responsibilities as councillors to consider the needs of all parts of the borough, and understand the long term impact on your decisions. You must listen to the opinions of the people whose lives are affected by your decisions and consider alternatives in the face strong opposition. The growth in the housing requirement is gradual, and should not be addressed by aggressive knee jerk reactions which may well be based on outdated assumptions. | |
DLP_5303 | Kay Groves | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1) for the following reasons: There is a distinct omission in your proposals with regard to understanding the waste infrastructure within the Borough of Tunbridge Wells, but also with regard to the impact on neighbouring authorities. North Farm Transfer Station is at capacity and cannot receive any more tonnage than the current intake of household waste. Kent County Council Waste Management will be able to confirm that waste infrastructure in Kent is already of a grave concern to the Waste Disposal Authority with regard to the number of housing developments being planned/built in the County and the lack of full consideration with regard to waste management being a key public service. The significant development within the TWBC area will undoubtably put pressure on the waste services provided by KCC in this area. KCC as the Waste Disposal Authority provides a Waste Transfer Station (WTS) at North Farm for the receipt of kerbside waste collected by WCAs (both TWBC and some of T&M BC). There is also a co-located Household Waste Recycling Centre for residents to dispose of household waste. Both of these facilities are strategic, serving not only the whole of TWBC area but also serves residents from adjoining Districts. The tonnage of kerbside waste these new developments will produce has not been fully considered, both with regard to collections, but more importantly disposal infrastructure. Waste Collection Vehicles cannot travel large distances if they are to complete their rounds within a reasonable daily timeframe and therefore, consideration of how to receive, bulk and onward haul significant additional tonnage at a local tipping facility and the placement of more local HWRC facilities must be part of the plan. Without increasing waste infrastructure, KCC would not be able to take in any more tonnage collected by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, and therefore be unable to fulfil its statutory duty as Waste Disposal Authority which means the waste would have to be refused. Strict permitting and Planning restrictions govern waste facilities with regard to capacity and waste levels. Subsequently, the consequences may mean waste is not collected from the kerbside, breaching the Environmental Protection Act and damaging human health. Local Plan Document
Infrastructure Delivery Plan Document
Furthermore, on another but very relevant point is that on the 5th August 2019, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council declared a “climate emergency” where it was accepted that the Council needed to do more to protect the environment through environmental and sustainability impacts in Council services, with the Local Plan being one area which will contribute to reducing carbon emissions. The Council is acting inconsistently by declaring a Climate Emergency but failing to prevent development on Green Belt countryside and open spaces which provide vital mitigation for climate change and putting forward large swathes of Green Belt/open space land for housebuilding despite professed commitment to environmental protection. By protecting green spaces, the Council could be making a hugely important contribution to people’s health and well-being as well as maintaining essential eco-systems and providing wildlife corridors. London Green Belt Council has stated the following in relation to London and the Home Counties: “Green spaces help to mitigate climate change because carbon is absorbed by vegetation and held long-term in soils emissions. They also help us adapt to climate change by absorbing rainwater and cooling our towns and cities. The more green space we lose, the more we are at risk from flooding and rising temperatures, two of the predicted effects of climate change. “District and borough councils are absolutely right to recognise the seriousness of climate change and to acknowledge the role that local government can play in tackling the climate crisis, but if they do not also pledge to defend the Green Belt and countryside from development then they are failing in their duty to protect our communities and environment.” The LGBC is calling on all local authorities to state categorically that climate change mitigation requires the protection of Green Belt countryside and open spaces, and to agree to block developers’ proposals for building on Green Belt land” Central government has tree planting targets, air quality targets and climate change targets that will be passed to Local councils to help deliver their pledge to the people - the Local Plan cannot be put in place in isolation without recognising this conflict, as well as the crisis we are facing globally. I object to my Council producing plans that are in direct conflict with their own and Central Government’s commitment to mitigating climate change, as well as failing to consider fully how waste will be managed for thousands of new homes. You have an opportunity to be seen as the leading Authority in proposing intelligent and sensitive developments that don’t wreck our environment, our health and our well-being; please listen to your residents. | |
DLP_5306 | Patricia Townend | I am writing to object to the proposal to build 2800 new houses in Tudeley and Capel parishes. I live near the Pembury Road in South Tonbridge, and I feel that the proposal to build so many houses on Green Belt land so near to Tonbridge will be detrimental to the residents of Tonbridge since these new residents will be using Tonbridge’s roads and transport facilities rather than those of Tunbridge Wells, which will be in receipt of their Council Tax. In addition, at a time when the adverse results of new build on flood plains across the country have become all too apparent, local authorities ought to be using all their resources to concentrate housing on existing brown field sites, to minimise environmental impacts. | |
DLP_5307 | Alison Martin | I live in Paddock Wood with my family. We enjoy the countryside daily with our children and dogs; the greenbelt land that is supposed to be the lungs of the city of London, and surrounding towns. Just today a report was issued stating how many children would die due to poor air quality in London and the South East due to the increase in housing. I object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge and Paddock Wood. There will be a significant increase in traffic, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists already. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider impact of climate change. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary into Tonbridge and Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saints Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The garden settlement at Tudeley will never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points won’t tie the two halves of the settlement so never satisfy garden settlement principles. The arrogance of TWBC astounds me, what has to happen to make you listen? | |
DLP_5331 | Nick and Hilary Andrews | We are writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1) and to the inclusion of land in East Capel in “The Strategy for Paddock Wood” (Policy STR/PW1-1 & PW1-2). Our property is an old house, set within an acre of land surrounded by PW1-2 fields. Our children were born and brought up in this house and attended primary and secondary schools locally. Whetsted is a small hamlet, on the outskirts of Five Oak Green; a vibrant village with a hugely strong community, a true neighbourly structure with a village fete and procession (since Victorian times), Gardeners shows, youth organisations, sports and social clubs and a widely used village hall for various functions and clubs. One of us works full time in London so uses Paddock Wood station 5 days a week mostly getting to the station by bicycle. The other works in Kent and the South East, travelling by car and train to London. Please add our contact details to your consultation database so that we can be kept informed of all future consultations on Planning Policy documents. We understand that our comments will be published by the Borough Council, including on its website. The Local Plan It is worth noting that the whole plan has been produced by TWBC over many months, at significant cost to the tax payer, produced in secret with Non Disclosure Agreements applied and yet its contents include many factual inaccuracies and certain reports and details upon which it has been based and with assumptions missing. It is amateur in its execution. The TWBC method of delivery to the tax paying public does not conform to their statutory duty as detailed in the seven principles (and elsewhere) in the TWBC Code of Conduct http://democracy.tunbridgewells.gov.uk/meetings/documents/s42969/Part%205%20-%20Codes%20and%20Protocols%20-%20April%202019.pdf. That can be deemed to be because TWBC do not want dissent, challenge or proper discussion. It is odd that the combined plan of CA 1 and PW1 were not the original preferred options but suddenly became so and the plan was therefore rushed by TWBC. It is also odd that the construction companies were granted options to acquire the land in both sites before the Plan was made known to the public (TWBC should also be aware of the insider trading rules for any listed company granted an option and implemented its suitable measures to ensure this could not have happened). The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Transport It is apparent that the proposed garden village and the East Capel site for circa 4500 houses (approximately 13,500 new residents with likely 2 cars per household making circa 9,000 additional vehicles in the two proposed sites) is ill thought through. The majority of the proposed housing will be to create dormitory towns for people to work elsewhere, be it London by train or in neighbouring towns by car. The type of house proposed is not being built for the local workforce who could bicycle, walk, bus to work and so two cars per family is likely to be the norm. Two cars per family unit is at the low end of the number of car movements being created. The sheer volume of additional traffic that will need to move through the sites to their places of work and leisure will simply destroy the existing Parish of Capel making one major conurbation of Paddock Wood, Five Oak Green and almost joining Tonbridge. Its impact on the irreplaceable Green Belt will be wholly destructive both from the local point of view but for miles around as it is visible from the North Downs and the surrounding countryside that overlooks it. The input of new roads will not alleviate the traffic that will need to either drive to Tonbridge or Paddock Wood station (carparks at capacity already) or to Tunbridge Wells or Tonbridge for shopping. Road links into both are at capacity and both towns suffer from standstill traffic jams at all times. Dumping the traffic onto neighbouring towns is causing additional problems. Proposed schools and other infrastructure being added will also increase traffic problems. The impact on the neighbouring Borough councils is equally horrendous with the main thoroughfare to Tonbridge being overloaded and blocked for most of the time at peak times (Five Oak Green Road, Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Cannon Lane). There is no capacity for further vehicles through Tonbridge or to Tunbridge Wells. People living in the Tudeley garden settlement will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services and will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station and further afield in Tonbridge residential streets will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable and so will not be built in this plan. Most people living in the proposed sites will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. Other sites with bus and cycles initiatives have found they simply do not work for volumes of people and they fail. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will be a burden carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Tonbridge is already experiencing the problem of commuters driving to the railway but having to park elsewhere (either for cost or space issues). Yardley Park is a prime example with some of the residential streets being used for commuter parking despite it being circa a mile from the station. Yardley Park itself is now used for parking for commuters who drive there and park to catch coaches to London. Using this as an example of the unintended consequence of such an enormous influx of housing, Paddock Wood will be turned into one large carpark with all residential streets used for commuter parking. The problem in Tonbridge will exacerbate from what it is now and similar issues for areas around Tunbridge Wells stations. The garden settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. The proposed sites are either bordered by a train line or the line cuts through it. This is a two line track, one up/one down to London and Dover. This train line is at capacity for the number of trains that run upon it. Paddock Wood has two trains an hour to London outside of peak times and during peak times there are three. Peak trains are full already and out of peak are often full too. Any large influx of commuters from Paddock Wood will increase the volume to ensure that peak trains are standing only from this station (which happens already). Bear in mind that large new sites further down the line are being built and each of those are proposing that commuters use the self same trains to get to London. That influx of “down the line” potential commuters from the new sites has not been factored in the Plan. Other sites, not necessarily in station stop villages (eg Horsmonden), are also proposed where the nearest stations are on this railway line. Paddock Wood station is one of them. An influx of hundreds, if not more cars into Paddock Wood, will have to park on the residential streets (generally narrow) to the detriment of the existing residents and any potential visitors to Paddock Wood. Floodrisk We have lived on the very edge of site PW1-2 for nearly 30 years and know the area very well. Our house is old and built on the only slight rise in elevation of land in East Capel and has not flooded during these years. However, the risk of flooding of our property has noticeably increased during this time; our garden and lower lying land nearest PW1-2 floods on a regular basis every time there is heavy rainfall. The farmland in PW 1-2 is surrounded by large and significant ditches that have been there for years to drain the land for agricultural purposes. They have generally worked assuming the ditches towards the Medway are kept clear. Flood water soaks or drains towards the Medway. PW1 is a floodplain (the whole site is). The fields in PW 1-2 are waterlogged in the winter with three fields in particular being perma-flooded during a typical wet winter. There is very recent evidence (that has been ignored in the plan) that this area floods and insurance for local properties has risen significantly. We also note that a mortgage application for a property in Maidstone Road, Paddock Wood (near Baxalls) was declined due to it being a flood risk. Therefore simply building and hoping that mortgages are attainable is nonsensical – each mortgage application will need to advise the lender they are in flood plains/areas of flood risk and floods have occurred regularly, (to not advise the mortgage lender is of course fraudulent and renders any insurance payout as nil). Insurance premiums and cover for residents currently in the area who have experienced flooding, is substantial if available. Some properties currently very near the proposed plan area have been required to build dykes, reservoirs and pumping stations simply to obtain insurance cover. Large parts of the proposed developments will be on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that do not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but we believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will increase flooding not only in Capel but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. The concept of flood run off water has not been satisfactorily evidenced. Water has to go somewhere and quickly; covering the land to stop it absorbing water speeds the run off towards the Medway, the natural drain for the whole area. Whatever plans there are for flood prevention will not be sufficient without sacrificing either the houses proposed on PW1/CA1 or those downstream at Yalding and ultimately Maidstone. Again, a problem that has been dumped on a neighbouring council. Flooding is a problem that does not just disappear and will get progressively worse with rising water levels/climate change. We are of course pleased that the TWBC Head of Planning verbally “guaranteed” on behalf of TWBC at the May 2019 meeting of residents of Capel that no residence in the proposed sites will flood; this is a contingent liability that TWBC will have to manage through their balance sheet in terms of provisioning for future flood risk. In the PW1 Area, the current water table is approximately 18inches below the ground level, this is typical for the time of year and it rises rapidly in time of heavy rain. That water table is closer to the surface in some of the fields. Certainly this accounts for the waterlogged fields that have water lying in them now (at time of writing) despite the winter not yet starting. The B2017 Badsell Road to the East of the A228 is regularly flooded (as was the case on the 11th November 2019 at 6.30am). A neighbouring council (Nettlestead) recently declined a new property building application on the basis that it was likely to flood and would need to be built with the ground floor at least 2 meters above current ground level – that proposed property is in the run off area near the Medway which would drain the flood waters from the Tudeley/West Paddock Wood sites. That council knows the implication of future flood risk. Agricultural Land and the Environment There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Land PW1-2 is a good site for stargazers and astronomers as there is currently little light pollution. This will undoubtedly lost if the proposed development goes ahead. Light pollution will also have a negative effect on the nocturnal wildlife (some of which are protected by law). The Plan has incorrect data as the quality of the agricultural land in PW1 and is not the lowest grade of land. This is simply wrong on behalf of the planning department of TWBC and must therefore call into question other factual errors upon which decisions could be made in this plan. Heritage and Ecology Both sites, together, form part of the best preserved medieval farm land which is visible from the higher surrounds both to the south and north of the proposed sites and in area of Green Belt. Running across PW1-2 are the well preserved remains of an ancient drovers road that used to criss cross the old woodlands of the weald. It is potentially the best preserved such road in the area. It is also a wild life haven. It is lined at the western end by 30 oak trees and at the eastern end where the road itself is not well delineated (towards Baxalls) by a similar number of oaks. Furthermore, there is part of the last remaining oak woodland from the ancient forests in PW1-2; these have been undisturbed for hundreds of years and should remain as a precious and rare ecological habitat. We are aware that TWBC attitude to old oak trees is that they are capable (at significant cost) of moving them and their attempts to do this in other areas of development has ended in woeful failure as the trees died. If the oak trees die, are moved, cut down, we lose one of the richest habitats for wildlife where each oak tree can support many hundreds of different species that are important to our ecology. These lines of old trees provide the natural space for a variety of birds and mammals to thrive. The local Bat Conservation group have recorded five or six species of bats in the two parts of this line of trees. These trees are therefore protected in law by being bat roosts and the pathways where the bats have been recorded feeding are also protected in law. This has not been taken into account with the proposed carpet development devastation of PW1. Furthermore the wildlife that have been recorded in the fields and trees in PW1 include Buzzard For which it is noted, a good number are protected species. The exact nesting sites of some of the birds are well known and the oak trees alongside the above mentioned drovers road, are primary amongst them. Tudeley Woods is also an area of untouched wildlife with ancient oaks supporting many indigenous species. Consequently, building on PW1 and on CA1, on green belt, will destroy a significant habitat for such indigenous species of wildlife. The previous methods of TWBC in respect of wildlife is that wildlife will “transfer” to a different habitat if a development goes ahead. This is simply nonsensical as habitats are unique to the wildlife residents and they do not move, they die out and very quickly. TWBC allude to the fact that wildlife will simply seek similar specific habitats (such as old oaks, indigenous woods and hedges etc) and survive. Tragically, this ineptitude has been seen in their past record causing the destruction of the wildlife they were “protecting” – it cannot be allowed to happen again. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. Recent research shows the importance of hedgerows rather than fences for wildlife; this has not been included within the plan and should be made mandatory. Putting housing alongside Tudeley church in CA1 will require the windows to be screened from the outside to protect them from the higher risk of accident, vandalism, and theft (refer to recent press reports of stained glass stolen to order). As mentioned in the first paragraph of this objection, the community of Capel Parish is vibrant, inclusive, and cohesive. The proposed developments included for Capel Parish in this local plan will simply destroy this community. Employment The Plan envisages creating employment opportunities by building the facilities. This has not been defined as to what is proposed to be built but whether it is warehousing or office blocks, neither create local jobs meaning they will not be accessible by bicycles, walking, scooters or even buses. Workers drive to work rather than live locally/travel to work by bus/bicycle. This will create yet more incoming traffic from surrounding areas whilst residents will also be leaving the area to their jobs, schools leisure facilities. The volume of car, van and lorry journeys will increase exponentially the pollution, air quality, noise levels, and so on. Housing The numbers of proposed houses has been calculated incorrectly using old data and with incorrect projections based on wrong assumptions. The housing needs calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. We would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan does provide, particularly in PW1 with housing that could be built within any housing estate in the country and takes no account of the local and traditional style of houses. Estates of this nature are monotonous and as have been seen in the large construction company builds, usually of poor quality with cheap materials (noting that new houses are not subject to the Sale of Goods Act so post sale problems are covered by NBC warranties). The requirements to build as much living space in each property means that additional storage of household items will require secure storage sites to be built (as can be seen by the increasing rise of this industry providing prefabricated sheds of significant size to provide storage). These will need to be placed somewhere creating yet more traffic journeys, ugly eyesores and more pollution etc. The affordability nature of the houses has not been defined as to what will be built. They are certainly not proposed to be properties for first time buyers of social housing so the majority will be standard housing. This reinforces the fact that they will be built as dormitory’s rather than creating any sort of village or social aspects to them. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. We think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge and Maidstone . Brownfield Sites The plan has not considered existing brownfield sites in the borough, the potential for alternative types of build (ie zpods), empty properties in and around the towns etc. The figures by TWBC as “needs” does not make sense with government guidance and have not been satisfactorily justified by TWBC. Infrastructure The plan has not shown where and how fresh water will come from to be used in either site (a new reservoir will be needed), where the sewage farm will be located (Tonbridge is at capacity) power supplies originate from (can the existing National Grid infrastructure in the surrounding areas support the influx), telephony including mobile masts need to be provided, police station and so on. To locate a school on the boundary of Tonbridge where the access road is the primary bypass for vehicles from the west of Tonbridge to the east of Tonbridge will create gridlock beyond the current traffic jams. Having children crossing there will be a tragedy waiting to happen, let alone the increase in accidents. Greenbelt This land is Green Belt land and should only be built upon if an “exceptional circumstance” exists. TWBC’s own assessments in their Sustainability Appraisal show that Paddock Wood can expand and meet most of the plan’s aims without using the Green Belt land at East Capel. The comment above about coalescence and the creation of a conurbation from Paddock Wood right across to Tonbridge is very relevant here, as is the land’s use as a flood plain. Building here, even with flood risk mitigation and “betterment” could have disastrous consequences for all, as the measures being looked at are based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Bribery and Corruption Act 2010 It is also worth reminding the TWBC and its CEO of their obligations under the 2010 Bribery & Corruption Act and to ensure that any suspicion of such criminal activities are reported to the authorities appropriately and whistleblowers suitably protected. The property and construction business is generally considered high risk under this legislation. The CEO and Cabinet Members must be able to justify to us, the taxpayers, that they have very strong and robust systems and controls to ensure that there is a zero tolerance to bribery and corruption. Any such issues of impropriety in this area within TWBC should be brought to the attention of any Inspector in the future review of this plan. | |
DLP_5333 | Mrs Susan Purton | Tudley "Garden Village" It would seem that the choice of Capel as the area designated to receive the bulk of the new housing was not planned by the council in any meaningful way but was based entirely on one land owner coming forward to offer one large single area which I believe the Council felt would be an "easier" option, and is not based on any sound belief that this area was in any other way suitable for the development of what is in effect a small town. Green Belt I strongly object to the use of Green Belt land for this purpose and indeed the council itself rejected recent proposals for small scale development at The Poacher and Partridge as out of character and inappropriate in the setting which it is now proposing to build 2,800 new homes. The need for land for farming will only become more acute in the future and the lose of valuable good farming land is unacceptable. Flood risk In this time of Climate Emergency it seems extremely risky to be proposing such a large development in what is the flood plain of the river Medway. Extreme weather events are becoming more usual with various parts of the country having a month's worth of rain falling in a day in recent months. It is vital that the flood plains are recognised as an essential means of allowing for such extreme weather events to occur without threat to life and property. Over developments in these areas risk unpredictable outcomes for neighbouring areas. Infrastructure As this area has none everything will need to be establishes from scratch at great cost. The railway bisects the area, preventing easy movement across the proposed site, the one single track bridge under the line is unable to cope with any more traffic. New roads will be required with all the damage to wildlife and additional traffic will swamp the existing local road network with additional journeys to schools, stations, and local employment. The local sewers are unable to cope with any additional use. Effect on local area As there are limited opportunities for employment in the immediate area I believe that potential purchasers would be commuting either to local larger towns or London, causing the local road system to become completely overwhelmed and the rail network which is already running at near capacity to be overwhelmed. There are currently over 100 houses available to buy in this area and I do not feel that there is the need for extra housing in this area at present. The rural nature of this mainly agricultural area would be total changed with the loss of wildlife habitats, loss of farming land, noise and pollution from so many additional people and vehicles and the new roads that they will require. Affordable housing I have no confidence that the type of housing will fulfil the needs of the local population. Time and again the promises of affordable housing made at the start of developments is not realised as developers "run out of cash" and consequently greatly reduce the promised numbers. Alternatives I believe that Tunbridge Wells Council is not planning to meet the needs of its local population through this plan. The businesses in the town will not benefit from the additional trade which will go to Tonbridge. The town of Tonbridge will suffer from hugh pressure on its amenities, station, library, leisure services, schools, doctors etc. with no benefit from additional council tax income which of course will all go to Tunbridge Wells. New building should be accessible to Tunbridge Wells with easy transport links to the town and more use of the land along the A21 corridor should be considered with the council using compulsory purchase where needed and not simply waiting to see which opportunistic landowner is willing to make large amounts of money from offering to develop inappropriately large schemes in totally impractical places. | |
DLP_5334 | Michael J Purton | My name is Michael Purton, I live with my wife in the oldest house in Five Oak Green, being Thistles which is half a 600 year old Grade 2* Listed Wealden Hall House situated, within Moat Farm off Whetsted Road. I am a professional classical recording producer and often work at home, planning my various projects and carrying out the post-production editing work in my small studio. We are part of the Borough of Tunbridge Wells, although our address says Tonbridge. I am writing to object most strongly to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s extraordinary ‘plan’ to build 2,800 houses on beautiful Green Belt land near the border with Tonbridge, in Tudeley and Capel. This ‘plan’ appears to have come about because a local landowner has offered up land for the Borough to build houses, a neat way for the Borough to acquire regular income through Council Tax but a very poor way for local businesses and indeed residents to benefit as most trade would inevitably go to Tonbridge. Indeed it could be argued that the additional Council Tax raised by this development should go to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council as it would be their facilities mainly to be used by the new population. Apart from being on Green Belt land, this ill-conceived and opportunistic ‘plan’ fails on the following criteria:
In a nutshell, this is an ill-conceived plan which has come about through TWBC being offered an easy plot of land by a local landowner who has no interest in the local community. TWBC should not be building on the Green Belt and should not be planning developments which will not benefit the local community (certain businesses excepted). I trust that this appalling scheme will eventually be rejected when the enormity of the effects of such a decision is appreciated. | |
DLP_5335 | Jane Kellett | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I have lived in Golden Green for over thirty two years. I wish to register my horror at the plans to develop the land as designated by the Local Plan. The impact on Tonbridge and the surrounding countryside will be extremely detrimental to the area in many ways. The area affected is very beautiful; a relief and resource for people needing to escape the trials of work and life. The farmland planned to be built over is largely designated Grade 1 Agricultural Land. Soil is a resource that we will need more of in the future, and it is something that cannot be "made". Worldwide this is a dwindling resource which should be protected, perhaps even more rigorously than even a lovely landscape, although of course, it is flourishing crops that provide much of the beauty. What we have is rare and should be treasured. Weight of traffic is another problem. Even if the roads to Tonbridge are improved there will still be an increased weight on the surrounding lanes as people try to find their way around congestion, making walking or cycling in the countryside even more dangerous than now. Tonbridge will be the town to bear the extra volume of traffic, with yet another senior school planned on its border. Tonbridge has six senior schools already. Do we need another one effectively added to that number? And should Tunbridge Wells Council be the people to decide that? Flooding has always been an issue in the Medway Basin, and it is well known that new housing adds to the risk. This is something that is impossible to predict with any certainty, especially as weather patterns are becoming more unpredictable. Concreting over large areas of land here must be wrong. There must be brownfield sites which should all be exhausted before the countryside is torn up. It is probably a bit more fiddly for planners, but it is the right way to go. The current plan is simply so wrong it looks as if someone is having a laugh at our expense. | |
DLP_5336 | Ian and Dawn Davis | We have lived on Colts Hill, part of the Capel parish for over 20 years. I work in Rusthall and my husband works near Heathrow. We are writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). Building nearly 3,000 homes on Green Belt land will have a devastating effect on the Capel parish and surrounding area -
Creating a garden settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic between 7.45am to 9am on Woodgate Way, Vale Road and Pembury Road coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road. This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. We believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. We would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. We think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. We think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5339 | Colin Hussey | My name is Colin Robert Tarver HUSSEY,and I am aged 62, and the owner/occupier of XXX, Hadlow Road, Tonbridge, Kent XXX in Medway ward [TWBC: House number and postcode redacted]. I was raised and schooled in Tonbridge and have been resident here on a continual basis since 1962. I wish to draw your attention to my comments upon the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan, but more especially to the proposed developments in respect to a new Secondary School at Tudeley Lane (B2017) and Woodgate Way (Tonbridge) and 2800 homes on 600 acres of agricultural land commonly known as 'Tudeley New Town' subject to STR/CA1 and also to East Capel subject to STR/PW1. My primary objections to these proposed developments are because the said developments are planned to be built on designated Green Belt land, on prime Agricultural land, on designated Flood Plain, lack of road infrastructure and Housing Need. First and foremost these proposed developments are supposed to be part of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan, and whilst I accept that the villages of Tudeley, Capel, Five Oak Green, and the town of Paddock all fall within the boundary of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, the main settlement which will adversely be affected by these developments is Tonbridge itself. Whilst I accept that there is indeed a national housing shortage which needs to be addressed, and that each council area has to build a specific number of new homes in their area, including within the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, that need should be evenly built across the Borough, and not concentrated in one specific area, and one that is nowhere to the town of Tunbrdge Wells itself. Personally I am not convinced by central government inspired housing targets, this should be driven by local need, and is there a need to build this amount of housing. However we are where we are, but some common sense surely has to be applied to these plans which seems to be severely lacking in this particular case. As I understand it, the creation of the Green Belt policy in the late 1940's was designed amongst things to prevent unrestricted urban sprawl of large built up areas, and to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. If these plans are allowed to proceed it will result in a continuous ribbon development between Tonbridge and Paddock Wood, which rather defeats the object of the Green Belt. Surely the quality of life of the existing residents of these villages and the small town of Paddock Wood and Tonbridge itself has to be taken into consideration. The building of 2800 homes will surely equate to a population growth of anything between 5,600 and 11,200 persons assuming that between to two and four people live in each house. When one considers that the average household now owns two motor vehicles each, potentially there could a further 5,600 extra car movements per day on the present road infrastructure, and lets face it as it currently stands the road that traverses the development area is of 'B' road classification. When one considers the fact that Tonbridge has been a dormitory commuter town for some considerable years now, where a considerable number of residents travel daily up to London to work, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the residents of these proposed developments at Tudeley and Capel will do likewise. The lack of parking is already an issue and likely to exacerbated by these proposed developments which are in close proximity to Tonbridge, not to mention the already trains which are already running to full capacity. I assume that the land on which these proposed developments are to be built is just confined to residential development and not for employment use. if that is the case the majority of these residents will be driving into Tonbridge on already unsuitable roads into a town which is already at saturation point in terms of road use. I also assume that they will also be doing their daily or weekly shopping within Tonbridge town centre where there are presently 4 plus supermarkets. I live on Hadlow Road (A26) which already experiences heavy traffic throughout the day from about 06.00 am to 9.00 pm. Rush hour traffic queues already extend from the HadlowRoad/Cannon Lane junction to way beyond the roundabout junction with Woodgate Way and sometimes as far as Sovereign Way. This will only worsen if these developments get the green light. Tonbridge High Street is already clogged with traffic throughout the day during the week but worse at weekends, even though some pressure is alleviated by the presence of the Cannon Lane mini bypass. Everything including the lack of parking places will be made that much worse if these developments get the go ahead. Also the proposed development of a Secondary School in Tudeley Lane junction with Woodgate Way is the most inappropriate location in my opinion. One assumes that the majority of the pupils attending the school if built, will travel by train as do quite a number who attend schools in Tonbridge. The distance however between Tonbridge Railway Station and the proposed new school is quite considerable and getting there by foot will entail a fair amount of danger to those attempting it, due to the nature of the very busy roads. If the pupils were to travel by car again we are talking about extra congestion on an already over burdened road network. The other objection that I have to these specific developments is that they are to be built on prime agricultural land. Whilst I appreciate the land is not Grade 1 they are nevertheless a mixture of Grade 2 and Grade, and it is important that the land is retained for agricultural purposes. We simply cannot go on building on agricultural land no matter grade it might be, especially in a country like ours which has a rapidly expanding population largely due to our continuing membership of the European Union with free movement of peoples etc. If we do then we will surely come to a point in the not too distant future where we wont be able to feed our own population. Apart from this, Tudeley, Five Oak Green Green and Capel is part of an area which is of outstanding natural beauty which needs to be conserved for future generations. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. Where possible these type of developments need to be concentrated on brownfield sites not on the Green Belt. One last point, I have read somewhere recently that Kent County Council might be willing to share costs with the developer insofar as infrastructure costs are concerned. Most definitely not. the local taxpayer should not have to accept this burden in part or otherwise. Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act needs to be rigidly enforced here, whereby the developer(s) should burden the whole cost of infrastructure works. | |
DLP_5345 | Deborah Slater | I write, as a resident of Tonbridge, to express concern about the proposed plans to extend Capel village . The impact on the town of Tonbridge and its inhabitants will be detrimental as will the impact on Greenbelt land. The infrastructure of Tonbridge will be unable to cope with the increased traffic and the concomitant pollution will have an adverse effect. The proposed destruction of woodland and wildlife habitats is contrary to all current thinking about sustainability and the importance of the natural environment. I would ask you to reconsider the plans with regard to all.of the above. | |
DLP_5346 | Deborah Marsh | Everything about the proposed development has been said already. Thousands of new houses ( affordable?) a new school, businesses and shops is NOT a ‘garden village’ . It’s a town and there is not enough infrastructure to support it without tearing up the countryside, mostly Green Belt. Not to mention a flood plain which will be even more of a problem with thousands of acres built on! There’s a sign after the Somerhill roundabout which says ‘Love where you Live ‘. TWBC. Yes, I and thousands of Capel residents DO love where we live, which is why we are protesting VERY loudly about these proposals which will change where we live FOREVER. We certainly won’t love where we live if this development goes ahead! | |
DLP_5348 | Gary Deadman | I wish to convey my anger and disappointment at the proposal to build effectively a large town on our countryside. Small and historic communities will just be wiped off the map. We have become just a line on a map and the communities that have been established up over hundreds of years have been sold to the highest bidder. I live in Tudeley and it has been a real joy to share the beautiful views and wildlife that have surrounded me. In that time I have seen various building projects creep into the area. This has been detrimental to an increase in traffic, pollution, rubbish and overall quality of life living here. The proposal will only bring more misery and negatively change the surrounding area forever. The status of Kent being the Garden of England is now on the endangered list and it goes without saying that the abundant wildlife from badgers, foxes, owls, newts etc that I have been privileged to see will all disappear. It is a nonsense to believe that calling it a 'Garden Village' will be a replacement to what will be lost. We are told that our land has limited harvesting seasons before biodiversity collapses, yet we are happy to destroy our food larder at will. I do not see any benefit in building homes for what will in the main be used as an over spill for London. I also do not understand how a local authority can support a project that drives straight through any protection the countryside has (i.e ANOB, Listed Buidling Status etc). I would invite Greg Clarke and any official to come and stand in my garden and see what will be destroyed! Please note that I will not be supporting any councillor or MP who does not oppose this reckless plan. At what point does this stop? Will it be when Kent is under a sea of concrete? | |
DLP_5356 | Nick Stevens | I am writing to you as a local resident having lived here for 48 years. I am also the Footpath Observer For The Ramblers Association in the parish of Capel and represent the Tunbridge Wells branch. I wish to record my horror and dismay at such a poorly though out plan. I find it amazing that given the support of the experts you have used that so many simple errors have been made. The parish of Capel is mainly in the green belt and provides about 900 homes and has a wide range of public footpaths which raise the spirits of locals and visitors through its rural landscapes, wildlife, environment and heritage. Capel already provides approximately 900 homes and considerable employment. Its madness to propose the destruction of such a precious resource when the overwhelming opinion of the people of Kent would be to protect it and ensure that it will be available for our grandchildren. The numbers of homes you propose is not sustainable for several blindingly obvious reasons. Water! The most pressing being a shortage of water for the South East. Then there is the problem of too much water! I have lived here long enough to see serious flooding occurring to many of the planed development areas of Tudeley , Capel and Five Oak. They suffer with all the misery that goes with living on a floodplain. Yet you are willing to wish it on others! There are many brownfield sites available but TWBC seem reluctant to accept the challenge of a multi site approach. I accept that it would be more difficult and involve more work than the offer of enriching one ‘Large Landowner’, with little experience of managing such a development. At present there is a national awakening to the environmental damage caused by cars. We, in the hamlet of Capel, see daily car rat runs, traffic jams and frequent accidents on roads which are totally inadequate. The homes you are proposing will increase these problems. Most of the workers who might live in your proposed homes will be car users and are going increase the air pollution and traffic so that movement will grind to a halt. They are going to need more car parks so that they can stand in critically crowded trains all the way to London. Are you sure you want future generations to blame this crazy scheme on you and TWBC? I request that you think again and withdraw this ill thought out proposal which is unsustainable and detrimental to residents and businesses in this wonderful rural parish of Capel. I look forwards to your early response in this matter. | |
DLP_5357 | Neil MacAskill | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). I live in Tonbridge, and have for decades – and I feel that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council are making a decision that will effect me and my home town detrimentally, far more than it will effect themselves or their Borough Creating a settlement at Tudeley of 2,800 dwellings will cause immense harm to residents of the Parish of Capel and to residents of Tonbridge. There will be a significant increase in traffic in to Tonbridge from the B2017, exacerbating the extreme traffic congestion that exists on this road every morning. The already unacceptable levels of traffic coincide with the site of a proposed new 6 form entry senior school. This proposed school will be on the border with Tonbridge, split by a main line railway and alongside a heavily used road.This appears to be a terrible site for a school, surrounded by heavy traffic and requiring children to cross a busy train line to access both sides of the site. People living in Tudeley will use Tonbridge Station for commuting and Tonbridge town services that will need more parking. The increase in traffic will be more than Tonbridge can cope with. Its roads are already full at peak times and can’t be made wider in most places. The increased numbers of passengers on already packed commuter trains from Tonbridge Station will be unsustainable. Parking in and around Tonbridge Station will be even more difficult. Network Rail have confirmed that a station at Tudeley is not viable at present and so will not be built in this plan period. Most people living in the new garden settlements will drive privately owned cars, despite initiatives to encourage bus and bicycle use. The costs of infrastructure on the Tonbridge & Malling side of the boundary will have to be carried by Tonbridge & Malling residents whilst Tunbridge Wells will receive council tax from the residents in the new dwellings. The cost to Tonbridge based businesses due to traffic issues may drive businesses from the area. There will be an increase in pressure on Tonbridge health services, amenities and car parking as residents from the new garden settlement at Tudeley will use Tonbridge as their local town, not Tunbridge Wells, because Tonbridge is much closer. Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) The settlement at Tudeley can never be one settlement as it is divided by a railway line that has very narrow, weak crossings. Putting in larger crossings at frequent points across the railway may be possible but it won’t tie the two halves of the settlement together enough to make it one settlement, so it will never satisfy garden settlement principles. Creating so much housing in Capel Parish will require the destruction of woodland, hedgerows, meadows, and farmland that is Green Belt land and should be protected. It will spoil the landscape and kill wildlife that is very special to the area, including rare species. This area should remain rural with agricultural land that can be used to provide food. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. It seems TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and upscaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Earlier in the plan (in 4.40) you refer to Tudeley Village securing a long term option for the borough to deliver the needs of future generations. It is clear from this statement that you intend to add more and more housing to this “garden settlement” in each five year review of future Local Plans. I think that TWBC want to fill Tudeley and East Capel with housing until they coalesce with Tonbridge to the West and Paddock Wood to the East, ultimately creating a massive conurbation that will dwarf Tunbridge Wells town centre. TWBC is using Capel to dump their housing needs on green fields and meadows, polluting a rural area rather than spreading development across the borough on brownfield sites or placing the garden settlement in the middle of the borough, to make it accessible north and south. The developments in Tudeley and East Capel are unsustainable and place huge pressure on Tonbridge. | |
DLP_5359 | Hilary Retamales | How can you even consider violating this land? I am pretty certain that it is within the Green Belt which, I was told as a child growing up in this area, is sacred. Indeed, contacts of my husband in Latin America are overwhelmed with admiration at such a concept. How can you justify the rape and sacking of this beautiful area, let alone find the infrastructure to accommodate all the demands of such an invasion? Capel and Tudeley are rural areas and are served by narrow lanes. Only yesterday I was forced into a huge pothole by a 4 x 4, thus incurring almost £200 worth of damage to my car. I cannot begin to imagine the damage and chaos which even more of these monsters (and other vehicles) will cause to our network of country roads. Also, what about the extra demand for extra water, gas and electricity? Let alone the railways. Why do you not tell our (dreadful) government that there are other areas of this benighted country which could better absorb this constant demand for extra housing? As it is, the S.E. is going to develop into one enormous conurbation with London as its hub. | |
DLP_5366 | Nathalie Lawrence | This is a ridiculous proposal which needs to be reconsidered as Tonbridge will not be able to cope with increased traffic and pressure on public services. | |
DLP_5367 | Davina Burden | I am opposed to this development due to the increased traffic in an already overcrowded area, the additional burden on public transport and the increased potential of flooding in a region that already has a strong history of suffering from this. Please reconsider the plan to proceed. | |
DLP_5372 | Kate Webber | I was very surprised by the announcements earlier this year regards both the plans to escavate and quarry in the Hartlake Road area and then the further plans for the garden town in Tudeley and then East Capel. I live in Golden Green. We deliberately moved out of Tunbridge Wells some years ago because we can decided that the traffic was ridiculous. It would frequently be quicker for me to get back from Essex on the M25 including across the QE2 bridge than navigate from one side of Tunbridge Wells to the centre. I have lived around the area for much of my life, growing up in Crowborough. As a child, Tunbridge Wells was always busy on the limited roads in and out of the town. Now it's significantly worse. The housing plans will now export such traffic issues to the edge of your borough, to Tudeley and Capel. From the plans for another 4,000 houses and let's be generous 6-8,000 cars, highways are once again appear to be treated as a separate entity, which is a mistake as past experience must surely indicate. Kings Hill is not a good comparison here. Kings Hill was always a brown field site, an old airfield. Further the roads in the area are considerably better providing access to major arterial routes. I do feel that Tonbridge and Malling Council made more complete decisions when considering a new garden town on that site. As well as the highways, the remaining local infrastructure will not be sufficient to cope with the additional demand: - The trains are already packed from Tonbridge. There is insufficient parking past 7.45am and further demand will result in clogged residential streets. There are not enough seats for the return journey from London Bridge and I frequently stand. This will have a significant impact on the ability of the local train service to cope, with more packed carriages and the congestion at London Bridge will mean that more trains cannot be accomodated - The flooding risk will now be significantly increased. By concreting over the countryside, the impact will be water running down to the flood plains in Hartlake Road, which will already be needed for Hildenborough and Tonbridge - not least because so many more houses have been added to the riverside in that area. There are also plans to quarry the gravel from the floodplains, where will all the water go? The know that the weather is changing, the rain is more torrential and sudden. We've seen flooding in Hildenborough within the last decade alone, not to mention the issues in Yalding. - There is to be a plan for a new senior school, but in a place where walking will be hazardous and result in more traffic. Regardless the key demand is for more grammar places, which does not appear to be - It is difficult to get a doctors appointment with a fortnight, the additional demand on doctors and other heath professionals are not being managed and fall to the edge of your borough and therefore will fall to others to sort - Tonbridge is busy as well, it's difficult to park at weekends to shop etc. There doesn't appear to be any joined up thinking on how people will shop, park etc., in these plans. Essentially all of the day to day activities from schools to parking to trains, will be pushed onto Tonbridge. For which presumably they will receive no council tax in return, just the hassle. And then there is the vandalism of the countryside; the green lungs of our ever increasingly urban and indoor lifestyle. You are proposing to build over beautiful countryside with concrete, brick etc, some of the most beautiful countryside in the local area. After a week of working in the city, rushing about as a taxi for our daughter on busy, narrow lanes etc., one of the huge joys of living here is that we are able to breathe, to walk, to enjoy nature. To walk by the river and look up and just see green. Green is the colour that our species loves above all. This plan destroys that. And once destroyed it can never be returned. Agricultural land, the beauty of the landscape as the seasons change, that's all gone forever. Overall, there is so much local opposition to these plans. I've never seen the local community so upset and with the feeling that they are being pushed into something that they cannot control and that their voice counts for nothing. This all seems to have been decided behind closed doors well in advance, regardless on the impact on the local countryside, local community or the local roads. And that feels a shame, a real shame. | |
DLP_5373 | Peter and Stephanie Chapman | I am writing to object to “The Strategy for Capel Parish” (Policy STR/CA1). This grotesque plan to create a “garden town” (NOT a village) divided by a railway line, in the middle of stunning Kent countryside is wrong on so many levels. This is such lazy planning on the part of TWBC. How easy to pick one huge greenbelt plot (from one landowner) right on the edge of the Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells border, that will affect Tonbridge hugely whilst Tunbridge Wells will be completely unaffected. I go from Capel to Tonbridge every morning and evening. The roads, especially during rush hour, are jammed up, particularly the B2017 and A26. Thousands more cars will multiply the problem many times. TWBC can put in as many bus/cycle lanes as they want, 99% of people will never use them!!. These will be expensive housing -every family will have 2/3 cars. “Discourage private car use “ is part of the policy: Pure FANTASY! People will have cars they will all use them.!! “Oh yes its raining today I’ll take the bike to work today not the Audi Q7 SUV ” Yeah right.! An express bus lane into Tonbridge? And where do all the cars/buses go when they reach Tonbridge? Join the jams that already exist today. Tonbridge is a medieval market down already gridlocked. Are new “garden villages” supposed to be near railway stations? This is miles from Tonbridge station. Infrastructure: There is nothing whatsoever in place in Tudeley. No railway station, few buses, no doctors/dentists , no schools, no heavy mains water/sewage supply. A huge new school? Right by an already jammed roundabout on the B2017? How do you think all these pupils will get there? BY CAR! This will be right on the corner of the already gridlocked A26/B2017 roundabout. Thousands of idling cars today- another 4000 cars idling every rush hour? Air quality will be terrible for our children! No railway station for MILES. Crazy. Do the existing residents whose lives will destroyed have no say? They will have to put up with years of construction traffic, noise, and ultimately thousand of homes/cars that will see the rural way of life enjoyed by the hamlets of Capel and Tudeley destroyed forever. Commuters: These houses will attract buyers from outside the area, many from London to live in “the countryside” Many will want to commute.. Car parking near Tonbridge station is already full up, and Network Rail confirm trains from Tonbridge are at “near full capacity” at rush hour. Where will all these commuters/cars go? Green belt: Where is the “exceptional circumstances” to destroy green belt? The green belt is the lungs of any town. Destroying prime Kent countryside, unchanged for hundreds of years, will mean it is gone for ever. This “garden town” will turn in to Tonbridge urban sprawl, eventually joining Tonbridge to Paddock Wood.No doubt TWBC will put in new shops, retail parks etc just turning it into an extension of Tonbridge. The plan preparation process didn’t include Tudeley (sites CA1 and CA2) until after the Issues and Options Process in 2017. This means that the largest housing area in the plan didn’t go through most of the plan preparation process. There is no detailed Green Belt Study for these sites, no Landscape Assessment, no Biodiversity Assessment. I think that this version of the draft Local Plan isn’t complete enough to be ready for public consultation when the land for such a big proportion of the housing hasn’t had the same level of assessment as the rest of the plan. The Issues and Options process led to most people (60%) wanting a growth corridor led approach. Less than half wanted a garden settlement and that was when they didn’t know the garden settlement would involve destruction of Green Belt. Protecting Green Belt was a key priority for people who participated in the Issues and Options consultation. I think that the plan should be re-written to implement a growth corridor led approach and to protect Green Belt land within the borough. Tonbridge will be affected NOT Tunbridge wells: All these new residents will gravitate to Tonbridge not Tunbridge Wells for their needs, including Doctors, dentists. Tonbridge is a medieval market tow that is already choked to bursting point. No new “bus Lanes/Cycle lanes will change the fact that Tonbridge is FULL and choked up! Housing needs: Why is TWBC accepting arbitrary targets set by national government? Why are they planning to build more houses than they need to? The A21 corridor is much more suitable for housing as the new A21 is already there and there is lots of blighted land along the A21 corridor that could be used. Again lazy planning. TWBC went for the easy option of one landowner rather than having to deal with numerous individual landowners. I believe that housing need calculated by the government can be reduced if it requires development of Green Belt land unless “exceptional circumstances” exist. I would like to see TWBC use this argument to remove the garden settlement at Tudeley from this plan. TWBC is already providing more than their housing need figure in the draft Local Plan. TWBC has taken the housing need figure of 13,560 given to them by government and up scaled it to 14,776 despite having strong grounds to lower it due to the large amount of Green Belt and AONB land in the borough. Taking 1,216 (the upscale) from the 2,800 planned for Tudeley and then asking the government to allow the housing need to fall by 1,584 to factor in the lack of “exceptional circumstances” for building on Green Belt land, would be a much better approach. Recent ONS figures show that population growth in the borough is slowing, making this proposed approach honest and relevant. Developers: Hadlow estate (the landowner) wants to oversee the development? What right do Hadlow estate have to be involved once they have sold the land? Their existing estate is poorly run and poorly maintained. Just because they are “landed gentry” should not give them any right to influence how the development procedes. Or do us poor ordinary residents just “tug our forelock” and defer to the better judgement of inherited wealth?! Flooding: I grew up in Tudeley, over winter it floods. It is a flood plain! Mitigating this will be very difficult and costly. W Large parts of the developments will occur on the Medway floodplain with flood risk assessments based on old data that does not fully consider the impact of climate change. Flood mitigation measures may help, but I believe that flood risks will increase. Covering farmed fields with houses and roads will make the Medway flood more often and cause increased flood risk not only in Tudeley but in Golden Green, East Peckham, Tonbridge and Yalding. There will be an increase in air, light and noise pollution that will spread across the boundary in to Tonbridge & Malling and create a visual scar across the landscape. Views from Tonbridge to the Low and High Weald will be impaired, including the setting of historic assets like All Saint’s Church in Tudeley and the Hadlow Tower. The church at Tudeley may end up being surrounded by houses, bus lanes and sit next to a busy road in sight of a big roundabout. That will cause great harm to its value as a heritage asset of world renown (due to the complete set of Marc Chagall windows) Where will the displaced water go? Someone else’s land?? Wildlife: This is stunning Kent countryside teaming with nature and wildlife. This development is just TWO MILES from the RSPB reserve in Half Moon Lane. Capel and Tudeley is teaming with birds no often seen in suburban gardens. From a personal point of view in our garden/neighbouring fields in Capel we get birds on the UK “Red list”: Starling At best these birds will be displaced, at worst their habitat destroyed forever, their numbers forced into an ever decreasing spiral of decline. Kent needs its birds, destroying their habitat forever is not progress? Bio diversity gain? No a huge Bio diversity net loss! Thousands of new homes means thousands of new cats. Say no more, further bird destruction. Other Comments: In conclusion : I grew up I this stunning part of Kent. I want my children and grandchildren to have then right to enjoy it as it has been for hundreds of years, not living in a choked suburban sprawl in-between Paddock wood and Tonbridge. This is not the right place for a “garden town” (note NOT a “garden Village”) It will destroy virgin Kent countryside forever and change the character and lives irreparably for the worse for residents. Local residents will get no benefit (there is already pretty much full employment here) Tonbridge and its infrastructure simply cannot take thousand of new homes, cars, or people. | |