The application has seen a groundswell of objection
The hugely-controversial plan to build 184 homes on the grounds of Tunbridge Wells Rugby Football Club (TWRFC) – which would see the club relocate into East Sussex – is days away from being voted on by planning chiefs. The application for land in the High Weald National Landscape from Esquire Developments will go before planning chiefs at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) next Wednesday (January 14).
The borough is being consulted as an “adjoining authority” to Wealden District Council (WDC). Tunbridge Wells planning officers recommend councillors object to the application for 184 homes, including affordable housing, at St Mark’s Recreation Ground off Frant Road, which is mostly rugby pitches, cricket squares and a clubhouse, as well as on land off Bayham Road.
The application also includes use of farmland to the east of the rec, with access planned within Tunbridge Wells. TWRFC would relocate down the road – and into the East Sussex border – to Chase Farm in Bunny Lane, where it is proposed to build a new rugby clubhouse with parking; a 3G artificial pitch; three senior rugby pitches; two junior and minis rugby pitches; a new cricket pavilion; two cricket pitches; and five padel courts, with parking and floodlighting.
A new access would be built from Bunny Lane. Parts of both sites are within an aquifer protection zone: an aquifer is an underground layer of porous rock, sand, or gravel that acts like a natural underground sponge to store water.
And St Mark’s Recreation Ground is protected under council Local Plan policy as an area of “open space, sport and recreation”, said the report. The application to WDC has seen a groundswell of objection, as has the Esquire Development’s “overarching masterplan” into which they fit.
This includes a proposal for 178 homes on land on the other side of Frant Road, at Pinewood Farm. Ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, which the public can watch online or attend in person, the report sets out how much money the council would be asking for through developer contributions, should the plans be approved.
There are 11 amounts totalling £1,555,362, towards everything from parks and recreation grounds, and children’s services. The amount for Kent Highways would be calculated at a later stage.
The application for TWRFC’s site says the housing mix would be split between one-bedroom flats, and 2, 3, 4 and 5-bedroom houses. There would be 30 one-bed flats; 4 two-bed flats; 47 two-bed houses; 48 three-bed houses; 10 three -or four-bed houses (self-build); 31 four-bed houses; and 14 five-bed houses.
There would be 52 homes for affordable rent, and 13 for shared ownership. There would be new vehicle access from Frant Road and Bayham Road.
The report said Tunbridge Wells had received five objections, with reasons given including: a failure to address current/future needs; impact on water table; infrastructure has no more capacity; and ancient woodland and wildlife at risk.
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s (TWBC) main points of objection:
- Due to the application’s site boundary at land off Frant Road/Bayham Road crossing into land within Tunbridge Wells Borough. This means the proposed vehicular access onto Bayham Road, and the proposed pedestrian access onto Frant Road, cannot be lawfully permitted by WDC and can only be permitted by TWBC in consultation with KCC Highways.
- Another application, relating to biodiversity net gain land, which falls in Tunbridge Wells Borough, is “clearly linked” to the wider cross-boundary development proposals. Because of this, TWBC is saying it should have received the identical application for the homes on the rugby club as Wealden, as that was in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance. Therefore, TWBC currently considers the application invalid.
- TWBC objects in principle to the application due to the net loss of sports facilities within TWBC land.
- It also said there is a strip of land on the application, between the rugby club site and the biodiversity net gain land, which is not covered by either application. As such, it looks as though there is no provision for vehicle access likely needed for maintenance.
The report said: “While ultimately a matter for WDC to consider, TWBC is of the view that the development likely constitutes major development in the High Weald National Landscape, as per National Planning Policy Framework, at paragraph 190. This view is based on TWBC’s own work in assessing major development, and the nature and scale of proposed development and the degree to which the sports development is set away from the existing development, and the fact that all the proposed development brings the settlement down the slope away from the ridgeline.
“While also a matter for WDC, it is not readily apparent whether the applicant has sought to comply with the statutory duty in relation to protected landscapes.” The Weald Green Alliance said: “All the national sporting bodies – the experts who are supposed to judge whether a move like this is sensible – have all formally objected to Esquire’s proposals. Sport England: two statutory objections. RFU: major drainage and design concerns. ECB/Kent Cricket: objection due to pitch damage at St Mark’s. Football Foundation/Kent FA: objection for the same reasons.
“These organisations rarely object so strongly – and almost never all at once. Their message is essentially: Esquire’s plan risks damaging existing pitches, offers no guaranteed replacement, and the relocation site may simply not work.”
Get more news from KentLive straight to your inbox for free HERE
