104-home redevelopment at Former Hendy Ford, Royal Tunbridge Wells

The site today

The vacant former car dealership occupies two parcels around Culverden Street, with commercial, residential, school, church and public-house surroundings and substantial level changes.

“The application site is located to the north of Royal Tunbridge Wells town centre, close to the junction of Mount Ephraim and London Road (A26). The site is split into two parcels on the eastern and western sides of Culverden Street. It formerly operated as a car dealership, showroom and associated garages and workshops which fronted Mount Ephraim and Culverden Street.”

“To the north is the United Emmanuel Church. To the east are buildings generally characterised by commercial uses at ground floor level and residential uses above, typically three storeys in height, along Grosvenor Road. To the west, on the opposite side of Mount Ephraim are three storey office buildings.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications from 1975 to 2006 concerned changes of use, workshops, shopfronts, a canopy, listed-building consent and facade replacement.

“Change of use from offices to shop and installation of new shopfronts…”

“Listed Building Consent - Demolition of forecourt sales kiosk and canopy Granted 12/03/85 06/00326/FUL Replacement of defective facade, shopfront glazing and frames with new profiled steel cladding to facade and aluminium glazing frames Granted 12/04/06”

Officer report

What consultees said

Consultees raised heritage, parking, drainage, access and affordable-housing matters, while highways and flood officers ultimately raised no objections subject to measures and conditions.

“KCC Flood & Water Management 6.09 Initially raised several points that required clarification and amendment. Removed objection following submission of additional information. Acknowledge that Southern Water’s Level 1 Capacity Check indicates available capacity of 2 l/s into each of two manholes on the combined sewer.”

“KCC Highways 6.10 Parking: • First comments: Kent Parking Standards (2025) requires 1 space per residential unit in the form of a controlled entry parking area. However, a lower provision may be appropriate where effective measures are in place. This site is located in a sustainable area, and so would not object to a lower car provision at this location.”

Officer report

What people said

Eighteen representations raised concerns about parking, highways, heritage, noise, construction, services, design, height, privacy, green space and effects on nearby businesses.

“Impact on neighbouring public house (The George) noise which may impact the business; • Parking, including parking issues elsewhere; • Highway safety issues; • Impact on CA; • Pressure on local services and utilities; • Overdevelopment - number of dwellings and size of the units; • Impact on United Emmanuel church • Noise/disturbance during construction/demolition; • Close to school – traffic and air quality; • Block A, the window surrounds retain the stepped brickwork…”

“Presentation to the Town Centre Working Group in May 2025; • Submission of the scheme to Design South’s Design Review Panel in April 2025; • A meeting with representatives from the Civic Society and Town Forum in August 2025; • A public exhibition (attended by around 50 people) was held at the United Emmanuel Church immediately adjacent to the site, in July 2025. This event was advertised through a leaflet drop to homes immediately surrounding the Site, prior to the event.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Four registered speakers included two objectors, a public-house operator and a resident, and two supporters, the planning agent and an architect.

What members discussed

Members welcomed the homes and design, noted residents’ concerns, discussed parking and highway safety, and encouraged securing an affordable-housing provider.

“Committee Member debate and Officer clarification included:”

“- The development was welcomed to contribute to the Borough’s housing need, particular in the town centre setting. - Concerns from residents were appreciated, and it was hoped that the developers would take into account those concerns relating to noise and construction. - Positive feedback was given regarding the design of the development as well as access via paths.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to approve in line with the officer recommendation was proposed and seconded, and members voted unanimously in favour.

“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 Obasi, seconded by Councillor Pound and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.”

Minutes