It was with utter dismay that members of the Telephone House Neighbours Association heard of the decision made by a Government Planning Inspector concerning development plans for Telephone House. This decision [ 3 July 2001 ] upholds the appeal made by Crest Nicholson, the site's developers and overturns a rejection of the plans, in a decision made at a local level by the elected councillors of the Western Area Planning Committee. Twice, over a two year [ 1999 - 2001 ] period, very similar plans have been rejected by TWBC, however it appears the final decision does not rest with those who are democratically elected; instead responsibility rests with a Civil Servant answerable to no one, least of all residents of Tunbridge Wells.

The ramifications of such a decision appear enormous. Developers now can use a precedent to develop what they like, where they like, knowing that the views of local people and their elected Councillors count for nothing. It seems no matter how well founded points are made, opposing developments with legal facts, logic and common sense will be pointless.

The Government Inspector has allowed the development of a site that will take density levels to new records. At 140 units per hectare this exceeds all comparable developments within Tunbridge Wells.

Residents will also find it difficult to understand how Inspector Malcolm Lewis decided to take into account the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan Review - Deposit Copy; a document that was not material consideration at the time of the Public Inquiry.

At the draft stage of this policy document and prior to coming into the public domain, the Telephone House Neighbours Association had written to all Councillors asking them to delete Policy H6(a) - Telephone House (contained within the Local Plan Review) at their extraordinary Council Meeting on 23rd May, 2001. At this Council meeting, Rodney Stone, Chief Executive of TWBC, confirmed to David Wakefield, Councillor of Culverden Ward, that the inspector could not and would not take into account the Draft Local Plan Review. How was it then that the emerging Deposit Copy became a substantial piece of evidence for the Inspector to base his decision?

It certainly is ironic that Policy H6(a) allows for virtually the same type of scheme that the Western Area Planning Committee refused planning permission to Crest Nicholson/BT on 18 October 2000.

The Inspector refers twice to this specific policy in his report and quotes it in his reasons to allow the appeal. What a shame that elected Councillors chose to ignore the request made by the Telephone House Neighbours Association and as a result have reversed decisions they made earlier to refuse planning permission.

One cannot imagine that Inspector Malcolm Lewis would have had such an easy decision making process had our elected representatives stood up against civil servant officers and not followed their advice.

Such inconsistent thinking defies belief and leaves Councillors with only one option if they truly value their political integrity and really want to represen tthe views of the very people who elected them. Quite simply, Councillors must use their power to remove Section H6(a) from the Local Plan and lead TWBC to challenge Inspector Malcolm Lewis' decision by applying to the High Court within the specified time limit (14 Aug. 2001).

Finally, the Telephone House Neighbours Association would like to thank the hundreds of people who wrote to us and encouraged us with our cause. Sadly, it appears this vast effort has been in vain.
So much for democracy.

July 2001
Peter Morse

Continue to read about the Re-development of Telephone House

The re-development of the Telephone House, York Road / Church Road, Tunbridge Wells

For more information on the Telephone House Debacle