Planning Minutes – 1st September 2025

EIASCO

Residents’ comments:

1.

• Concerns on what will happen to the boundary hedges and mature trees. Could a TPO help protect the trees from the developers?
• Wildlife & habitat – Can the town council look into obtaining an independent survey?
• What street lighting mitigations will be in place for the wildlife such as bats in this area.
•   Could Whested woods be purchased by the town council in order to protect it.
• Public information like this usually has to meet a standard of reading principle. Does this include planning applications?

2.

• Lives on Badsell Road, next to the proposed development.
• Flooding is already a major issue that affects my property. Our plot will flood roughly twice every winter.
• Traffic on the road is already grid lock in the morning and afternoon, making it near on impossible to pull out of my drive. This will only get worse with the development.
• There is no pedestrian access on Badsell Road, with more residents needing access, this will become more dangerous
• The ample wildlife and nature in the area will disappear.

3.

• The area is a regularly used dog walking area. This will affect peoples well being and force dog walkers to use the playing fields which already is affected by dog fouling. This causes lots of issues for the sports teams playing on these fields.
• With the current 3 developments in Paddock Wood, I have noticed a lot more foxes in our urban areas such as our gardens. This will only get worse with the suggested development as their habitats are being removed.
• Traffic is already an issue for the town with chronic standstill in the Badsell Road area, this will only get worse with the further cars the development will bring. Causing more exhaust fumes
• Flooding issues in this area already. Further development will intensify the flooding

Cllrs further discussed the application further.

Cllr C Williams proposed, Cllr R Moon seconded:

This application raises significant and unresolved concerns, particularly regarding flooding, infrastructure pressure, and the overall necessity of developing this specific site.

• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that development should not occur in Flood Zones 2 and 3 unless there is an overriding need. With over 1,900 other proposed dwellings in Paddock Wood, the necessity of this particular site is highly questionable.
• The flood risk has been seriously underrepresented in the planning documents, with only a brief paragraph addressing a matter that is of critical importance to the town. Flooding on this site is not isolated — it is directly affected by water flow and surface runoff from surrounding areas.
• Existing issues such as burst water mains and limited access to fresh water already strain local utilities. Additional development will only exacerbate these problems.
• Infrastructure commitments made during previous developments in the town remain unmet. Before any new development is approved, promised infrastructure improvements must be delivered.
• There are ongoing concerns regarding noise, vibration, and air pollution, all of which would increase significantly with this development — further diminishing residents’ quality of life.
• Residents, particularly those living on Allington Road with rear access to the site, will need clear answers about how their rear access will be impacted.
• There is a growing lack of trust that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) is giving proper weight to residents’ concerns, especially when under pressure to meet housing quotas.
• The long-term protection of local natural assets, such as Whested Woods, has not been guaranteed. This must be addressed clearly within the application.
• Additionally, there is scepticism about the delivery of promised affordable housing, a recurring issue in similar past developments.
• The cumulative impact on the town centre, public services, and community cohesion must be carefully considered. Development without simultaneous investment in infrastructure is unsustainable and irresponsible.

Given the above points, the Town Council objects. It is essential that this application (when fully submitted) be reconsidered or refused until these matters are fully addressed in line with national and local planning policy.

Carried unanimously.

FULL

Object on several reasons:

• Loss of valuable amenity space currently used by park home residents, which serves as their only accessible outdoor area.
• The site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. Increasing the number of properties intensifies land use and heightens the risk of flooding. Makes the site over intensive.
• The application provides no details on drainage strategy. Without proper measures, there is a potential risk of foul water contaminating the local watercourse.

Carried unanimously.

FULL

Whilst the Town Council understands works may have been needed to deal with drainage issues in this area, we object to laying nonporous porcelain tiles to the entirety of the garden which may cause a threat of surface water flooding to the surrounding neighbours properties.

Carried unanimously.

FULL

No objection

Carried unanimously.

TPO

Object, due to the absence of a report from the Borough’s tree officer justifying the removal of these trees. Several TPO-protected trees have already been removed from this development, and we urge the developers to preserve as many remaining trees as possible.

Carried unanimously.