20 homes and demolition at Benhall Mill Depot, Royal Tunbridge Wells

The site

The site is a 0.55-hectare former cemetery maintenance depot with dilapidated buildings, boundary walls, nearby homes and heritage assets.

“The south-east boundary is formed by a 1.5m brick wall which separates the rear gardens of the residential properties on Cypress Grove. There was a line of trees with TPOs in the rear gardens of properties on Cypress Grove, adjoining the site but these trees were removed a while ago. A line of Leylandii trees form the south-west site boundary with the cemetery. There is also a redundant access (5-bar gate) from the cemetery to the southern corner of the site.”

“The front boundary wall, the brick workshop (attached to the front boundary wall) and the lodge located close to the cemetery entrance, (outside the site) are considered to be non-designated heritage assets. However, the brick workshop wall has lesser historic importance than that of the other non-designated assets. The chapel in the centre of the cemetery located 108m away from the site is Grade II listed.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A previous nine-home outline scheme was refused because the site could accommodate more homes, while a depot replacement permission was not implemented.

“Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a single-storey depot building; parking; hard and soft landscaping Granted 21/10/21 21/01637/OUT”

“Outline Planning Application (All Matters Reserved except access) - Demolition of existing buildings and construction of nine dwellings with associated parking and landscaping Refused 15/12/21 25/03050/DEMRQ”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the proposal sustainable development on previously developed land, with housing benefits outweighing modest heritage and cemetery-setting harm.

“As of April 2025 the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing supply (5.60yr), the supporting text at para. 4.14 states non-allocated / windfall sites are not identified in the Local Plan can be a reliable source of supply in line with general policies. Policy STR1 of the LP also promotes the effective use of previously developed (brownfield) land and new development within the LBD where proposals accord other relevant policies of the LP.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, fire, drainage, archaeology, conservation, environmental health and other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or contributions.

“Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board (IDB), 19.02.2026 No consent is required. Initially, raised concerns on 06.06.2025 over the lack of evidence for the viability of the proposed dispose of surface water via infiltration and recommended that ground water investigation is carried out to determine infiltration potential, followed by testing in line with BRE Digest 365 standards.”

“MidKent Environmental Health, 09.06.2025 No objection. In summary, following comments and recommendation: • Houses adjacent to road (Units 6-16) need some acoustic glazing/vents. • Provision for EV travel plan is needed for air quality. • The site is close to potential contaminate land. • A street lighting scheme should take note and refer to The Institute of Lighting Professionals. Guidance Note 01/21.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Four local or cemetery representatives spoke against the proposal, while two council property officers spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members discussed burial legislation, previous exhumations, archaeological safeguards, the outline nature of the scheme, highway works and affordable housing.

“- Whilst the law allowed for development on burial grounds or cemeteries subject to certain conditions, this was dependent on whether the land was consecrated. - The planning system did not require burial legislation to be fully complied with for granting planning permission. However, it was a legal requirement that no development could lawfully take place until the relevant burial legislation had been complied with.”

“- Should any remains be discovered, this would be dealt with under separate legislation to planning legislation. - Small site highway works were proposed and would require Section 278 agreements. Speed limits were covered under this agreement and would be reviewed during this process as to whether the limit on Benhall Mill Road would change.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee unanimously voted to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation and an additional informative.

“- It was proposed to include an informative within the recommendation as had been outlined by the Head of Planning and Legal Officer.”

“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 Darrah, seconded by Councillor Kent and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation, including the additional informative:”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to the plans, conditions, informatives, a legal agreement, financial contributions, affordable housing and biodiversity obligations.

“RESOLVED – That application PLA283/25 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report and subject to the completion of…”

“I. A legal agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in a form agreed by the Head of Legal Partnerships and the Head of Planning to secure the following (subject to minor alterations, projects and recalculation as necessary by the Head of Planning):”

Minutes