Front extension and garage at 23 Hilbert Road, Royal Tunbridge Wells

What was proposed

The application proposed a single-storey front extension, a garage, and changes to the parking area and access.

“The dwellinghouse has a porch and a bay window on the front elevation and a front gable projects from the main dwellinghouse, with a hipped and gable tiled roof. To the north is a shed and rear garden. The property has an existing parking area for off-road parking. This application includes an extension of the parking area and the…”

Officer report

The site

The site is a detached house set below the highway, with a sloping front garden, hedges, existing parking and an access.

“The site is a detached dwellinghouse situated within the Limits to Built Development in Tunbridge Wells. The property is set back from the highway and sits at a lower ground level than the highway. The front garden features a lawned area which slopes downwards from the front, with hedging to the northern boundary and a shorter section to the east. There is a break in the boundary hedge for the existing access.”

Officer report

Officers recommended approval

Officers found the extension and garage would fit the house and street scene and would not harm residential or visual amenity.

“Policy H11 of the Local Plan controls extensions, alterations, outbuildings to dwellings and sets out they must be compatible in character and appearance with the main dwelling and its settings in terms of design, siting, layout, size, mass, height, form, external finishing materials and detailing. In the street scene, there are already properties with garages and alterations and there is sufficient space for the proposed garage building on this corner plot.”

“In terms of the garage, although sited 2.21m forward of the front elevation, being single-storey it will ensure a subservience is maintained. The materials match those of the existing property and this will blend into the site and wider street scene. Due to the ground levels, it will be 3.83m in height towards the front and 4.35m at the rear. However, the northern boundary, that adjoins King George V Hill benefits from extensive hedging and a close board fence.”

Officer report

Public response

Site notices were displayed, but no public comments were received and no consultees were recorded.

“Site notices were displayed outside the property on 03/07/2026, expired on 24/07/2026 and no comments have been received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

No speakers registered to address the committee, while the planning officer presented the report and visual material.

Committee discussion

Members raised no questions or debate and were satisfied that the report covered the relevant planning considerations.

“- There were no questions or debate raised.”

“Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Barrass, seconded by Councillor Digby and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was granted subject to a three-year timeframe, approved plans and stated informatives.

“RESOLVED – That application PLA356/26 be granted subject to conditions (that may be subject to amendment or additional conditions prior to the decision being issued):”

“Informatives 1. KCC Highways works 2. Access and hardstanding permitted development…”

Minutes