Present:
(AN) - Archie Norman, MP for Tunbridge Wells
(RB) - Roy Bullock, Cllr Kent County Council - Tunbridge Wells Centre
(LP) - Leonard Price, Cllr Tunbridge Wells - Culverden Ward
(BK) - Barbara Kyriakou, Secretary to MP Archie Norman
(AM) - Arthur Mann, Land Director, CALA Homes (South) Ltd
(PM) - Peter Morse, Chairman, The Telephone House Neighbours Association
(AT) - Annemarie Topliss, Secretary THNA
(DB) - Daniel Bech, Committee Member, THNA
(KW) - Kevin Wilkinson, Committee Member, THNA and host
(KM) - Katharina Mahler, THNA
apologies:
Malcolm Baker, Construction Director, CALA Homes

AN opened the meeting by inviting AM to introduce CALA Homes.

AM went briefly through the history of the company mentioning their history as PLC and the recent management buyout. Bank of Scotland has an interest in the company and financed the buyout. AM informed about present activities and that he judged the company medium but progressive. (AM distributed corporate brochures)

AN explained to AM that he, as MP for TW, supported not only the residents, but the many constituents who felt that the development was not suitable for this area of the town. AN mentioned the negative effects like overbearing, massing, scale, loss of privacy, parking, traffic and the unfavourable setting in the Conservation Area. AN said neither the developer, councillors, nor residents were happy with the scheme.

AN advised CALA Homes to look at the Post Office Development as comparison, which fits very well into this corner of the town and which is seen by many as beneficial to the Conservation Area.

AN made AM aware of the torturous history of the planning applications and that communication between officers, elected councillors and residents had completely failed. AN informed AM that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council held an Internal Inquiry into the handling of the case, so that a similar situation would not occur again.

AM confirmed Architect Sutters will be the architect of the project. DB asked if AM is aware of Sutters evidence at the Public Inquiry. AM said he was not aware of it.
LP explained that Sutters said at the Inquiry that the development scheme design was by officers. LP said that the scheme was rejected unanimously by the planning committee. RB said that a first similar application by Crest was condemned by a junior officer to be a pastiche and officers rejected this application. PM said Ken Munday of Crest Homes told him after the refusal of the first application, that officers wanted something modern like the Eiffel tower for TW fit for the next millennium.
AM concluded the camel was redrawn.

KM asked if AM knew that Crest Homes would have seen a possibility to build only 25 units on the site [representing a density of 82 per hectare which is well above PPG3 30-50 units, but more acceptable than the proposed 43 flats = 140 units per hectare].
AM said he was not aware of this. KM said this statement was filed by Architect Sutters at the Public Inquiry and promised to send copies of documents.

• Vide:

  Minutes of meeting of 4th February 2000 submitted by Sutters

• Vide:

  Crest Homes 18th February 2000 file note of a telephone conversation with Mr Alan Legg, Conservation Strategy Officer of TWBC - to be found in Sutters documents for the Public Inquiry

AM said the 43 units were confirmed by the Local Plan. RB said that these figures are filed in the Draft Local Plan, which is not full material consideration and which the Inspector misled himself to take into account.

LP asked DB if CALA is aware of the many discrepancies in documents submitted by Crest. DB showed AM the example of Schatunowski’s light study, where incorrect drawings were presented at the Public Inquiry. AM thought it was strange that apparently the Inspector had not realised the errors. DB informed that the Inspector used the incorrect information in his decisions [ 3 houses Nos. 34-38 are overshadowed, instead of 8 houses, Nos. 30-44]
LP said Crest sought planning consent with the idea in mind that anything is better than the present Telephone House - unfortunately the Inspector made his decision in the same way.
AN advised AM to think over the facts presented to him.

DB said that CALA could consider filing a different planning application. AM thought this was not foreseen. DB said that in the case of a new submission the underlying application is not voided. AM said recessing the buildings on York Road would change the volume of the development. DB advised that affordable housing could be relaxed and that the Draft Local Plan contains a clause [6.38].

RB advised that on the actual planning permission changes can be made and plans can be modified to a degree. RB proposed that he and LP could facilitate a meeting with councillors and officers, if needed, with the Chief Executive.

PM summarised what is supported by THNA and their objections. (PM distributed these notes)
The speeches of AN, councillors and residents at the Public Inquiry were presented in a folder to AM. PM advised that the speeches contain not only the details of objections, but mistakes in the design as well.

PM recommended to visit the Association’s Internet site: http://uk.geocities.com/telephonehouse.
PM said that he is hopeful because CALA want to engage in a dialogue and it will be in the interest of all parties if CALA see the possibility to review the plans which nobody in TW finds acceptable.

LP recommended that CALA should talk to residents first before going the official way.

AT invited AM to look from her house to the Telephone House site, so that he could understand the worries of those living opposite the development with regard to loss of privacy and their rights of light. PM said it might be a good idea to show AM the area surrounding the development.

AN thanked all participants.

At the end of the meeting Arthur Mann received copies of THNA members' speeches (Public Inquiry May 2001) to explain residents' concerns for the development of Telephone House.