JOINT EASTERN AND WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MONDAY 3 SEPTEMBER 2012 REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION

APPLICANT

CONTACT ADDRESS

REFERENCE

DATE VALID

LOCATION

GRID REFERENCE

PROPOSAL

DATE OF APPLICATION

MAIDSTONE AND TUNBRIDGE WELLS NHS TRUST (David Hicken Associates Planning Eclipse House Eclipse Park Sittingbourne Road Maidstone Kent ME14 3EN)

TW/11/01740 21/06/11

Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Pembury Hospital Tonbridge Road PEMBURY PE 561471/141407

Removal of Condition 29 of TW/10/02250 for the redevelopment of the existing Pembury Hospital for 512 bed, approx 65,500msq district general hospital, 984 car parking spaces, improvements to the public highway, new site access, servicing, landscaping and associated works/plant equipment and replacement with Planning Obligation to secure an amended bus service to service to the hospital. 13/06/11

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE 1.01 The application site lies outside of the Limits to Built Development and within the

Metropolitan Green Belt. It is situated adjacent to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is a Major Development Site as defined by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

1.02 The site is occupied by the Tunbridge Wells Hospital, which was granted permission

under reference TW/07/02595. This development is now complete and has been open since September 2011. Two additional car parks have also been provided in addition to this permission. These are located at a higher level than the hospital. One car park is located to the south west of the site and lies adjacent to the Listed Chapel. The other car park is located to the north east of the site.

1.03 The application site, previously Pembury Hospital, provided for a number of outpatient

facilities and also the maternity unit. The main hospital Kent and Sussex, which carried out the main services for the Trust was located close to Tunbridge Wells Town Centre and was within walking distance of a number of modes of transport. The main hospital and all its functions and facilities have now moved over to the new hospital at the application site. This site is over 2 miles away from the Town Centre, in a more remote location and not near a variety of transport nodes.

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.01 Planning permission is sought to remove condition 29 of the original planning permission

that was amended under planning application TW/10/02250 and currently requires the following:

“No part of phase 1(B) of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as a Bus Plan to facilitate access to the site by buses, to include the following matters, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and has been implemented and the new services have been in operation for at least 21 days. The bus plan shall include:

(a) A regular bus services for staff, patients and visitors to the hospital.

(b) The services shall provide, as a minimum, the following:

(i) A service to and from Tunbridge Wells town centre, calling at Pembury

Road, Tunbridge Wells Station, High Brooms and Longfield Road, at an average frequency of 3 buses per hour,

(ii) A service to and from Tonbridge town centre, calling at Tonbridge Station

and Tonbridge High Street, including Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green at an average frequency of 2 buses per hour,

(iii) A service to and from Crowborough town centre, calling at Tunbridge Wells

station, at a frequency of 1 bus per hour, and

(iv) A service to and from Maidstone Town Centre, calling at Paddock Wood, Maidstone East Station, Maidstone High Street and Maidstone Hospital, at a frequency of 1 bus per hour.

(c) All services shall operate between 0600hrs and 2300hrs on every day throughout

the year. (Frequencies may be reduced on Public Holidays.)

(d) Details of routes, stops and service frequencies.

(e) The start of the services shall coincide with the opening of phase 1 (B) of the development and will run for a period of at least 5 years thereafter.

(f) The Bus Plan shall provide for monitoring and annual review of the effectiveness

of the services and for variation thereof, subject to written agreement with the Local Planning Authority.

Has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority, in consultation with the Highway Agency and Kent County Council.

Reason: To provide suitable traffic management policies which aim to reduce the use of the private car in accordance with Policy TP1 of the Local Plan”.

2.02 The main reason for this condition was for the NHS Trust to establish viable bus services

to the hospital. In the early stages, bus services are rarely viable and the applicant was requested to help these services build up so at the end of the 5 year period they were likely to become viable and remain so.

2.03 It is proposed to replace this condition with a Section 106 Legal Agreement which seeks

to secure the following:

That the NHS Trust will provide funding sufficient to ensure the continuing operation of the Bus Services.

This provision will continue until the first of the following occurs:

- The expiry of 5 years from the Opening Date of the Hospital (19.09.11); - The date upon which the Owner has provided funding in accordance with this

agreement totalling not less than two million one hundred thousand pounds (£2,100,000)] which shall include such sums of money as have already paid by the Owner to Kent County Council and Arriva Southern Counties during the period between the Opening Date of the Hospital and the date of `this permission if granted; or

- The Bus Services becoming financially viable such that they generate sufficient revenue from ticket sales to the public to no longer require subsidy.

2.04 These commitments are put forward in the Legal Agreement provided that the total

Financial Contributions paid by the NHS Trust towards bus service provision does not exceed £2,100,000. It has been confirmed that since the opening of the hospital in September 2011 over £522,000 has been invested in providing bus services and in addition significant contributions have been made to the voluntary sector in the outlying areas where the Trust have made funds available for the next three years.

2.05 The proposed S106 legal agreement aims to secure an improvement in the provision of

buses to serve the following routes:

­ Route 1 – Tunbridge Wells Hospital to Tunbridge Wells Town Centre ­ Route 2 – Tunbridge Wells Hospital to Tonbridge Town Centre

2.06 The application also provides details of the routes, stops and service frequencies for

these routes. This includes:

Bus Route Stops Times

217 T Wells Station, T Wells High Street, Hospital, Weald of Kent School and Tonbridge Town Centre.

Monday-Friday -0644–2010 Saturday – 0746 - 1940 No Sundays

208,209,278 Henwood Green, Pembury Camden Arms, T Wells Town Centre, Sherwood, Hospital, Hill View School, Weald of Kent School, Goldsmid Road, Tonbridge Town Centre, Cage Green, Higham Wood, Golden Green, East Peckam.

Monday-Friday -0600–2309 Saturdays – 0815 - 2259 Sundays – 0811 - 2315

2.07 This means that the following routes laid out in the original condition would no longer be

secured:

(i) A service including Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green at an average frequency of 2 buses per hour,

(ii) A service to and from Crowborough town centre, calling at Tunbridge Wells

station, at a frequency of 1 bus per hour, and (iii) A service to and from Maidstone Town Centre, calling at Paddock Wood,

Maidstone East Station, Maidstone High Street and Maidstone Hospital, at a frequency of 1 bus per hour.

2.08 To support this application, the applicant, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

have provided the following information:

A Viability Statement.

Details of the bus services proposed including routes and frequencies.

Hospital Staff address maps.

Bus passenger demand analysis.

A draft Legal Agreement. 2.09 As part of their submission the applicants also make clear that the viability report, along

with KCC and independent operators, conclude that the provision of a bus service running from the hospital to Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green would be unviable. To address this and to accord with the requirements of condition 29, the Trust has set up a funding structure to help support the Voluntary Sector which serves the outer lying areas to assist in accessibility to the hospital. The draft S106 legal agreement has been amended since submission of the application to include this commitment.

2.10 In addition to this, it is also important to note, that whilst the provision of the Bus Services

is being resolved, the NHS have been providing funding for a number of bus services identified by Kent County Council. These have been operational since the full opening of the hospital in September 2011.

2.11 Furthermore whilst this application relates to the removal of condition 29 and its

replacement with a Legal Agreement, it does in effect grant a whole new planning application for the hospital development.

(Note – This means that the Local Planning Authority is technically required to reiterate all

the conditions that relate to the original permission for the Hospital in the decision notice for this application should it be granted).

2.12 The application is being presented to the Joint Planning Committee in accordance

with the scheme of delegation as the condition was placed on the original ) and amended applications (TW/07/02595 and TW/10/2250 respectively) by the Committee.

3.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

Planning permission has been approved for the following: 3.01 TW/02/00333 – Outline (means of access and siting not reserved) – General Hospital,

Mental Health Unit, associated staff accommodation, car parking and associated junction improvements.

This permission was subject to a legal agreement which secured the submission of a Green Travel Plan,, the allocation of car parking spaces, measures to facilitate access to the to the site by bus and a review of services. Of particular note is that, the Trust’s financial commitment to provision of bus services was limited to the annual sum of £323,000 for a five year period which was to be increased in line with the Retail Price Index. (Note – In 2002, over 5 years this agreement would have resulted in a minimum total of £1,615,000. This figure which has now been indexed would result in a total of £2,090,000. Hence the current offered contributions of £2.1 million).

3.02 Reserved matters were not submitted in pursuance of this application. Instead the following full planning application was submitted in 2007.

3.03 TW/07/02595 -Redevelopment of the existing Pembury Hospital for 512 bed, approx

65,500msq district general hospital, 984 car park spaces. In order to provide suitable traffic management policies, which aimed to reduce the use of

the private car, a condition, no.29, was imposed. This required the provision of the routes as set out in para, 2.01 above, prior to the occupation of the hospital which were to endure for a period of at least five years. It is important to note that the current details on viability were not available at that stage.

3.04 TW/10/02250: Variation of Conditions (28) and (29) of planning permission

TW/07/02595/FULMJ – Redevelopment of existing Pembury Hospital for 512 bed, approx 65,000msq district general hospital, 984 car parking spaces, improvements to the public highway, new site access, servicing, landscaping and associated works/plant equipment.

This application sought to change the timing of the provision of bus routes in condition 29 as it was not considered reasonable that the full provision of bus services should be in place before the Kent and Sussex Hospital had been closed and moved to the Pembury site. This amendment did not suggest any changes to the routes and is set out in full in paragraph 2.01 of the report.

3.05 TW/11/00001/FULMJ - Extension/enlargement of 2 car parks approved under application

TW/07/2595/FULMJ to provide 100 extra car parking spaces.

4.0 POLICIES 4.01 National Policies

- National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012 (NPPF). 4.02 South East Plan 2009 - Policy SP5 – Green Belts. - Policy CC1 – Sustainable Development. - Policy T1 – Transport – Manage and Invest. - Policy T5 – Travel Plans and Advice.

- Policy NRM1 – Sustainable water resources and ground water quality. - Policy NRM2 – Water Quality. - Policy NRM5 – Conservation and improvement of biodiversity. - Policy NRM7 – Woodlands. - Policy NRM9 – Air Quality. - Policy NRM11 – Development design for energy efficiency. - Policy NRM16 – Renewable Energy Development Criteria.

- Policy C4 – Landscape and Countryside Management. - Policy BE6 – Management of the Historic Environment. - Policy S2 – Promoting Sustainable Health Services. 4.03 Tunbridge Wells Borough Core Strategy 2010

- Core Policy 1: Delivery of Development. - Core Policy 2: Green Belt. - Core Policy 3: Transport Infrastructure. - Core Policy 4: Environment. - Core Policy 14: Development in the villages and rural areas.

4.04 Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006

­ Policy MGB1 – Metropolitan Green Belt. ­ Policy MGB2 – Major Developed Sites in Green Belt. ­ Policy EN1 – Development Control Criteria. ­ Policy EN10 – Archaeological Sites. ­ Policy EN15 – Statutory Local Nature Reserves and other non-statutory Nature

Conservation Sites. ­ Policy EN16 – Protection of groundwater and other watercourses. ­ Policy EN25 – Development control criteria for all development proposals affecting

the rural landscape. ­ Policy TP1 – Major development requiring Transport Assessments and a Travel Plan. ­ Policy TP4 – Access to the road network. ­ Policy TP5 – Vehicle Parking Standards. ­ Policy TP9 – Cycle Parking.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS External Bodies Pembury Parish Council 5.01 12/07/2011 – Neutral – but ask that the Section 106 subsidy amount must be adequate to

provide a bus service for the areas of greatest need. Kent County Council (KCC) 5.02 29/03/2012 – Consider that some of the services specified in condition 29 are unlikely to

be commercially sustainable at the end of the funding period and therefore do not represent good value for money.

KCC have acted for agents for the NHS Trust in securing interim bus service

enhancements since the new hospital opened in 2011. These provide high frequency links to the hospital from Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge and are fully funded by the NHS. Discounted fares have been introduced to make the services more attractive and multi operator ticketing allows easy interchange for those coming from other areas. KCC consider that these services represent the most appropriate form of public transport provision to the hospital, have the potential to become commercially sustainable over the funding period and therefore should continue to operate with full financial support from the NHS Trust. The County Council has confirmed that it cannot and will not bear any financial liability for these services. There is therefore a requirement for the proposed S106 legal agreement to provide for open ended funding for the services for a full five year period.

KCC therefore raise no objection to the application subject to the following:

“The NHS Trust fully funding the continued operation of the current ‘interim service enhancements’ for a period of at least five years including the continuation of the discounted fares and multi-operator through ticketing currently in place, and the marketing of the services to patients, visitors and staff. This must include the underwriting of any potential shortfall in revenue from the services.

The NHS Trust separately providing funding for community Transport Organisations to allow their development, such that they are able to provide enhanced services to the hospital from rural areas, particularly those covered by Condition 29”.

5.03 This issue was discussed at the Joint Transportation Board on Monday 27th February

2012 and formed the basis for the comments made by KCC.

5.04 KCC have confirmed that they have been acting as agent for the operation of e enhanced and subsidised services on behalf of the NHS Trust for the following: “... the routes currently operating to and from the hospital that make up the bulk of the frequent service are:

­ 6/6a – provides a service from Maidstone to Tunbridge Wells via the hospital.

­ 208 – provides a service from Five Oak Green to Pembury Stone Court Lane via

Tonbridge and the hospital.

­ 209 – provides services between the hospital and Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge.

­ 217 – provides a service between Tunbridge Well and Tonbridge (and north Tonbridge) via the hospital.

­ 278 – provides the Sunday service between the hospital, Tunbridge Wells and

Tonbridge.

­ 297 – provides a two hourly service from Tunbridge Wells to Ashford via the hospital.

The above combine to provide a roughly ten minute frequency between the hospital and Tunbridge Wells, a fifteen minute frequency between the hospital and Tonbridge and a half hourly frequency between the hospital and Maidstone.

Of the above, the NHS funding is currently paying for:

­ 209 – full service ­ 217 – service between Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge via the hospital ­ 278 – full service

In addition some funding is required for marketing and to allow tickets to be accepted across different operators' services”. Highways Agency

5.05 23/06/2011 – No objection. It is important that good public transport is maintained to

reduce the impact on A21 and they note the study carried out to assess where staff and visitors are likely to travel form.

East Sussex County Council

5.06 01/05/2012 – Support the comments made in Kent County Council’s formal response to

the application. It is important that the hospital access requirements of East Sussex residents are catered for. In recognising that direct services will not be financially sustainable, it is imperative that the interim service enhancements are continued to allow bus service users easy and cost effective transfer between buses at Tunbridge Wells town centre. This will require the availability of multi operator tickets to be accepted on the bus service enhancements so that the bus passengers can travel with the minimum cost penalty to them in having to transfer between buses. Request that this aspect is incorporated in the planning requirement.

In addition, consider that there should be an obligation on the NHS Trust to appropriately

publicise the availability of the bus service enhancements to those wishing to access the site.

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

5.07 23/06/2011 – raise strong objections to the application for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal fails o provide bus services to Pembury Hospital from the Hadlow, Borough Green and West Malling areas which is considered unacceptable in that it will not provide adequate transport options for residents of the Borough of Tonbridge and Malling who need to access the hospital.

2. In any event the bus service position should be renewed at a reasonable time

following the opening of the Hospital to ensure that patient and staff usage is properly assessed. Any conclusion reached now is premature as the impact of the opening of the redeveloped Hospital has not taken effect on the residents of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council.

Maidstone Borough Council 5.08 11/05/2012 – Raise no objection. Wealden District Council 5.09 04/05/2012 – Raise no objection. Sevenoaks District Council 5.10 08/05/2012 – No Objection. Platt Parish Council 5.11 01/05/2012 – Wish to strongly object to the variation to the condition. The Parish is in the

Malling area of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and there is no public transport for local residents to get to Pembury. The proposal does not include transport to this area. They will have to rely on volunteers. It is not acceptable that the Trust did not budget for this.

Birling Parish Council

5.12 02/08/2011 – Concerned to hear that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council were considering

withdrawing some of the funding to provide transport to Pembury Hospital from West Malling, Borough Green and Hadlow.

Mereworth Parish Council 5.13 21/07/2011 – Consider that it is vital to have a good bus service for older people to this

hospital. The bus service is very important to Mereworth where there are many older people who may not be able to drive to visit friends at the hospital. It is a very serious concern and members feel that, as a bus service was a condition, it should be honoured.

Internal Environmental Services 5.14 14/07/2011 – Have assessed the proposal in terms of air quality and sustainability and

have no objection. 5.15 03/05/2012 – Have assessed the additional information in terms of air quality and have no

objection.

Planning Policy 5.16 13/07/2012 – Because of the proximity of the site to Tesco’s development, careful

consideration should be given to how best to use the proposed S106 monies to ensure that bus services are enhanced in the area.

Other

Kent Link 5.17 26/04/2012 – have grave concerns that any reduction in transport services to and from

the new hospital that have been agreed under the original terms and conditions of the planning permission should be resisted. The main reason being the great inconvenience and demonstrably harmful effect that the new proposals would have on patients and indeed the general public accessing services and visiting the hospital.

Hadlow Medical Centre 5.18 22/11/2011 – Express strong concern and objections as their patients inform them that

they have difficulty in getting to Pembury Hospital and the amended proposal will not provide adequate transport options for residents of the Borough of Tonbridge and Malling. The bus service should be reviewed at a reasonable time following the opening of the hospital to ensure that patient and staff need is properly assessed.

Individuals

5.19 35 copies of the same letter have been received from residents of East Malling. They are concerned that the Hospital Trust are breaking their promise to provide transport to the new Pembury Hospital. Travelling into Maidstone to pick up the bus service is a long and expensive journey. They call on the Hospital Trust to keep their promises to local people and provide the area with either a convenient bus route or a community car service.

5.20 3 individual letters have been received from local residents who raise the following

concerns:

The original permission was given to ensure that patients, staff and visitors would not be disadvantaged by the new location and therefore permission should only be granted providing services such as dial-a-ride would be available for the same terms of the buses.

That the proposed amendments are rejected as the Trust should not be allowed to alter what they got permission for. The Trust chose the less accessible location and it is the more vulnerable that will be affected.

At the very least an independent study of the impact on traffic and parking needs should be undertaken and published before any decision on this matter is made.

5.21 Cllr Alice Hohler – KCC Member for Tonbridge 27/02/2012 – feels strongly that residents in Tonbridge should have fair transport access

to the new hospital. Whilst she understands that the provision of half hourly bus services to these villages would not be viable she asks that voluntary sector minibuses or cars be used to meet the need. Any financial and reputational risk should be taken by the NHS Trust.

6.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS 6.01 Application Form; Supporting Information Validation Checklist for applications

TW/07/02595 and TW/11/01740. 6.02 Letters dated 30/07/07 (2); 22/08/07; 23/08/07; 8/09/07; 26/09/07; 03/10/07. 6.03 E-mails from Dha Planning dated 3rd August 2010, 13th April 2012,

Letters from Dha Planning dated 9th July, 17th August 2010, 13th June 2011, 6.04 Copy of Letter from Kent County Council dated 29th March 2012.

Bus Timetables for routes 217, 208/209/278. Viability Statement dated February 2012 Hospital staff address maps Bus Route Passenger demand analysis Copy of decision notice for TW/07/02595

6.05 Planning Application Document – 3rd August 2007.

Landscape and Woodland Management Plan July 2007. (inc. Green Roof Design (Urban Land studio), Pond Layout (Urban Land Studio), Internal Courtyards (Urban Land Studio), Courtyard spaces 1,2,3 and 4 (Urban Land Studio)). Planning Statement July 2007. Tree Survey Schedule – 26th July 2007. Tree Survey – DG_93142 Photos – View from A21 bridge x 2, view from Tunbridge Road x 2, Environmental Statement (13946/ENV/R08); (including - Envirocheck – Agency and Hydrological – Groundwater Vulnerability – Slice A, Envirocheck –Ordnance Survey Plan, Envirocheck – Sensitive Lands Uses, Envirocheck – Agency and Hydrological – Source Protection Zones – Slice A Site Plan Development).

6.06 Environmental Statement Non Technical Summary; Environmental Statement Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment; Heritage Impact Assessment (13946/ENV/R01); Ecological Impact Assessment (13946/ENV/R03); Local Air Quality Assessment (13946/ENV/R04); Flood Risk Assessment (13946/ENV/R05); Contaminated Land Desk Study (13946/ENV/R06); Waste and Resource Management Assessment (13946/ENV/R07); Environmental Statement Figures (13946/ENV/R09); Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Transport Assessment (14137/TR/R01B); Renewable Energy Assessment all received on 30/07/07.

6.07 Renewable Energy Contribution; Typical car park light; Typical pathway light; Typical 6m

wide Road light; Typical Dual Carriageway light; Landscape Management Plan L_TUW_REP_9000_003 Supplementary Information; Travel Plan Coordinator Job Description; External Services Lighting Layout DSSR_TUW_LO_6300_0001; Cycle Parking LSK008 all received on 20/09/07.

6.08 Code of Construction Practice received 27/09/07

6.09 Vegetation Survey, Phase II Bat Survey; Dormouse Survey; Section 278 Works General

Arrangement plans Sheet 1 14137-GE-S278-001 Rev A; Section 278 Works General Arrangement plans Sheet 2 14137-GE-S278-001 Rev A; Section 278 Works General Arrangement plans Sheet 3 14137-GE-S278-001 Rev A; Sandhill Car Park L_TUW_LO_9000_0023; Additional information on the planters positioned on the MSCP all received 08/10/07

6.10 Helicopter Flight Path text and plan dated September 2007; Maidstone and Tunbridge

Wells NHS Trust Framework Travel Plan dated 15/08/07. 6.11 Drg No: L_TUW_L0_9000_0000; 7.0 APPRAISAL 7.01 The main changes proposed under the current application are:

that the following bus routes as laid out in the original planning permission, would not be secured:

(i) A service including Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green at an average

frequency of 2 buses per hour,

(ii) A service to and from Crowborough town centre, calling at Tunbridge Wells station, at a frequency of 1 bus per hour, and

(iii) A service to and from Maidstone Town Centre, calling at Paddock Wood, Maidstone

East Station, Maidstone High Street and Maidstone Hospital, at a frequency of 1 bus per hour.

A fixed contribution of £2.1m will be provided to fund the services for a period of up to five years, until the sum has been expended, or until the services become viable and no longer require subsidising, whichever occurs the soonest

7.02 In determining this application it is important to consider whether the proposed S 106 legal agreement complies with relevant policies and legislation in particular with reference to the NPPF and The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011.

7.03 KCC have confirmed, as set out in paragraph 5.02 – 5.04 of this report, that they consider

that the additions to the services between Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells, Five Oak Green to Pembury Stone Court Lane via Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells to Ashford via the Hospital, which are being funded by the Trust, result in an adequate bus services. KCC could continue to act as agent and therefore be responsible for the commissioning and management of these services as well as the ongoing provision of discounted fares and multi operator ticketing subject to the Trust committing to provide full funding for a five year period dating from September 2011. Subject to this unlimited funding KCC would also guarantee that passengers from Crowborough for example would be able to transfer between buses at Tunbridge Wells with the minimum cost penalty as requested by East Sussex County Council and the enhancement of services from Tunbridge Wells Town Centre which help to enhance this route, making it easier and quicker for residents of Crowborough to change buses and access the hospital. With these services which are already in place it is considered that the frequency of routes ii) and iii) are adequate to meet the requirements of condition 29.

7.04 The provisions of the proposed Legal Agreement mean that no service would be provided

for the route between Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green. The applicant has submitted a viability statement dated February 2012 which provides evidence gathered since the opening of the hospital, which was not available at the time of granting the original planning permission, to justify this omission. This includes the following:

Data for Tunbridge Wells Hospital showing that very few patient and staff are located in these areas.

Detailed figures showing that staff and patients in these areas are 1.67 times more likely to travel to Maidstone Hospital rather than Tunbridge Wells

It is only residents from Hadlow and not Borough Green or West Malling who have shifted their hospital habits from Maidstone to Tunbridge Wells since the new hospital opened – figures show a less than 5% overall change

The greatest shift has been by in-patients from West Malling where there has been a 25% shift from Tunbridge Wells to Maidstone hospital

The mode share for travel by bus for staff is shown to be no more than 5%

Using the staff details for bus travel combined with patient and visitor numbers based on national statistics at 7% (there is no locally available data) a “highest case” estimate of bus travel demand has been calculated to predict the level of bus journeys per annum from Borough Green, Hadlow and West Malling (including Kings Hill). This gives a total annual bus demand of circa 2300 passenger journeys.

To meet the requirements of the current condition to provide 2 buses per hour between 6am and 11pm is estimated that the service would cost over £4 million for the required five year period.

Assuming an average fare of £4 per passenger and taking into account the amount of revenue that would be received, the applicant has shown that the subsidised cost per passenger for a return journey from these areas would be about £345.

The Trust recognises that the new hospital may attract new patients. However, even with an increase of 10,000 patients and 10,000 visitors per annum from Borough Green, Hadlow and West Malling, the subsidy per return passenger trip on this route would be about £212.

The applicant contends that to provide this bus service would clearly fail to provide value for money and would not result in a sustainable service.

In addition the applicant has submitted a letter from Arriva which states that in their professional opinion the service to these locations, at the frequencies and times conditioned would not be viable and sustainable at any time, Of particular note is the Arriva comment which states that in their opinion, “revenue would not rise to anywhere near those levels and service would not be commercial at any point in 5 years.”

The applicants also states that these areas are served by buses that connect to services to the hospital.

7.05 From the information provided it is clear that when compared to other areas, very few

passengers (staff, visitors and patients) are located in Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green. In light of this information the NHS Trust have over the past year worked with officers at KCC to support the bus routes to the hospital which have the potential to become commercially sustainable during and beyond the funding period of five years. These are the routes laid out in paragraph 5.04 of the report.

7.06 It is the view of officers that whilst the loss of the service to Hadlow, West Malling and

Borough Green is regrettable, the applicant has provided adequate information to show that these services are not viable and would result in an unreasonable cost to the applicant. It should be noted however that the Tonbridge section of this route is regarded as viable and has been included in the new routes. Annexe E from DoE Circular 11/95, "The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions" advises that conditions should only be imposed where they satisfy all of the tests described in paragraphs 14 – 42. In brief, these explain that conditions should be; necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Whilst the condition may meet some of the tests, it is clear that a cost to the applicant of £4 million pounds, where the price per passenger journey has the potential to be over £300 is unreasonable and therefore fails to meet the test of the circular. In addition to this, customers coming from these areas can travel by bus to the hospital but would need to change either at Maidstone or Tonbridge to the hospital. The removal of this route would therefore not prevent them from getting to the Tunbridge Wells Hospital by bus. As indicated by Arriva these services are unlikely to be commercial at any point over the 5 years and would be unlikely to continue after this time period. The Trust have stated that that the application as drafted with capped subsidy figure of £2.1m or funding for a 5 year period, whichever is the sooner, is a reasonable approach which is much more likely to meet the relevant tests of reasonableness. They consider that services to and from the hospital have been improved greatly with the only omission being part of a service that is wholly unviable (with even the most optimistic predictions showing a cost of over £200 per passenger per trip), not likely to ever become a viable service, and in their investigations one which the private bus firms would not entertain taking on.

7.07 Furthermore, the Trust recognises that for many areas a scheduled bus service is

unviable and impractical. In order to improve access to healthcare for those living in these areas the Trust has introduced a fund to improve demand responsive transport. Under the scheme voluntary transport providers have the opportunity to bid for funding for infrastructure enhancements that will enable them to provide an improved service to patients in West Kent. The draft S106 legal agreement makes provision for funding that will last for three years with the first year’s funding having now been allocated. Seven West Kent-based voluntary transport providers received financial support for 2012/13.

7.08 KCC confirmed at the Joint Transport Board (JTB) on 27th February 2012 that they

consider that the services listed in paragraph 5.02 – 5.04 provide the best use of the money available. These services are already in place and have been funded by the NHS Trust for nearly a year. In light of the above and due to the support of KCC for the NHS Trust to fund the more viable routes, the removal of the proposed route through Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green is justified. Information has been sought from KCC as to how the supported routes are currently being used and if received will be at the committee meeting.

7.09 At the JTB meeting KCC officers commented that in their best estimate of their liability,

the final net cost to provide the services (as laid out in paragraph 5.02 – 5.04 of this report) would be in the region of £2.7 million but this would depend on revenue levels going forward. Subsequently KCC officers have confirmed that as the actual sum that will be required to fund these routes cannot be guaranteed and to ensure that there would be no financial risk to KCC they would not continue to work with the Trust to provide the routes unless the S106 agreement committed to an unlimited sum to cover the five year period. As noted in paragraph 2.03 of this report the NHS propose to make payments either to a total of £2.1 million or support these services for five years. The Trust has confirmed that as a public body they cannot commit to an open ended financial investment especially when the money is coming from frontline services.

7.09 Whilst it is acknowledged that that the fixed sum offered by the NHS Trust does not

accord with the requirements of KCC the £2.1 million contribution was arrived at by the Trust based on the original Legal Agreement of 2002 and is the sum that was budgeted in the finance arrangement for the development of the hospital. The Trust has confirmed that there is no further money available. The final cost of providing the services identified as having potential to become viable for a five year period can only be estimated and would depend on revenue levels going forward and the success of marketing. To date KCC have only undertaken limited marketing of the services that are being provided, due, they state, to their current temporary nature. Additional marketing would be undertaken should they agree to continue to work with the Trust to secure ongoing provision. It is likely that effective marketing would result in increased usage and hence revenue.

7.10 Revenue would also be expected to increase once the current staff bus service which

runs between the former Kent and Sussex hospital and the new site has stopped. The Trust has confirmed that the extant contract to provide staff buses ends on 30th September 2012 and will not continue should this permission be granted resulting in staff usage of the services rising.

7.11 In assessing whether the replacement of the condition with a Section 106 Legal

Agreement is acceptable regard must be given to the National Planning Policy Framework which states that planning obligations (such as Section 106 agreements) should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms,

directly related to the development and

fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. These same tests are set out in legislation, namely the Community Infrastructure Levy (amendments) Regulations 2011

7.12 It is the view of officers that the provision of bus services to serve the hospital is necessary to make the development acceptable as it ensures that the use of the private car is reduced, which is supported in planning policy. It is also directly related to the development as the provision of the new hospital in a more isolated location than the Kent and Sussex has led to the need for this provision. The key issues to consider in the determination of this application are therefore:

whether the proposal to replace the bus routes currently in the planning condition with those that have been evaluated by KCC and the Trust as being the most viable and to deliver the best improvement for people travelling to and from the new hospital is reasonable. These are the routes that are deemed by KCC, who have experience in commissioning and managing bus service to be those that have the highest chance of being commercially sustainable in the longer term.

Whether the requirement by KCC to provide the full and unquantified subsidy (i.e. on an open ended basis) necessary to enable the services to run for the five year period specified in condition 29 is reasonable

These two issues will be considered.

7.13 Of the routes required by condition 29, the Hadlow, West Malling and Borough Green part of the Tonbridge route in particular has been tested by the Trust for viability and KCC have agreed that this is wholly unviable as the rate of subsidy would be between £345 based on current usage and over £200 per passenger per return trip if the significant increases in passenger numbers referred to above could be achieved. It should be noted that the Tonbridge section of this route is regarded as viable and has been included in the routes to be secured under the proposed agreement. For this and the other reasons already set out in this report, officers consider the services currently operating and proposed under the agreement to be continued accords with the reason for the imposing of the condition and meets the legislative test of reasonableness.

7.14 On the second issue, the requirement for open ended funding by the Trust to cover a full five year period, officers are not satisfied that the reasonableness test is met. KCC have confirmed that unless the agreement makes provision for this they will cease to act as agent for the Trust in procuring and managing the services. The Trust has acknowledged that the bus services as they stand at present require funding to enable them to operate, advertise them, meet the running costs shortfall and help make them viable as soon as possible but for the reasons already set out cannot increase the level of subsidy offered to ensure the full five years can be covered. KCC have been requested to justify the requirement for the five year period of funding, but the evidence provided in the form of reference to other agreements securing funding for bus services is not considered to do this as the developments to which they relate are not comparable and the agreed funding mechanisms are not open ended.

7.15 In an email dated 27.07.12 KCC officers noted that underwriting of the service for 4 years from the opening of the hospital option would be acceptable subject to there being no limitation on the level of funding in order to protect their position in terms of liability. In the absence of any substantive reason for the five year period, or indeed the four year period, consideration needs to be focussed on the reasonableness of the fixed sum of £2.1m that the Trust has offered and the ability of the Trust to deliver the services in the absence of KCC support and for a period of time sufficient to demonstrate whether viability can be established.

7.16 The sum that the Trust has provided in the past year to operate the current bus services is in the region of £520,000. If there was no change to the revenue generated and /or costs incurred in operating the services it is agreed that the £2.1m would last for about 42 months. There are a number of factors which are likely to help make the routes more viable in the coming months and these include proper advertising of the services, knowledge from the passengers that these are more permanent services and not just temporary, and also the closing of the free staff bus from the former Kent and Sussex site. These will all assist in increasing revenues and therefore improve the likelihood of the services becoming viable and continuing in the longer term. Under these circumstances the period that the £2.1m will fund would be extended. Should revenue not rise then the services will not become viable and would cease to operate when the funding has run out regardless of whether this is within 3.5 or 5 years. As there is no policy requirement for a set period of funding and in the absence of evidence to establish what period of time is appropriate to demonstrate viability or otherwise for a hospital and a form of development that was not opened on a phased basis it is not considered that there are grounds to refuse the current proposal on the basis of the fixed funding sum

7.17 The Trust fund one of the routes directly through the operator Arriva and the rest through KCC as the agent. It is evident therefore that the bus service requirement of the Trust can operate with or without the involvement of KCC and the Section 106 has been worded to reflect this. However, the Trust have noted that they are not bus service procurement experts and, unlike KCC, this is not their area of expertise.

7.13 In light of this information, it is considered that the replacement of condition 29 with a

Section 106 Legal Agreement securing the provision of the most viable and appropriate routes to serve the Tunbridge Wells Hospital for up to 5 years is acceptable. The reason given for the condition was that the applicant (NHS Trust) provided sufficient traffic management policies which aim to reduce the use of the private car. As the NHS Trust has worked with KCC to ensure an appropriate form of transport provision it is considered that the reason for the condition is still met. Whilst it is regrettable to remove the provision of the bus route to the more remote areas it has been demonstrated that to do so would be unviable. It is also accepted that the funding secured by the legal agreement does not meet with KCC’s requirement but on the basis of the information available and the likelihood of increases in revenue resulting from changes that would occur if the ongoing provision of services beyond the end of the current contract can be confirmed it is considered that the £2.1m will provide subsidy for a period in excess of 42 months. It should also be borne in mind that if the predicted increases in passenger numbers do not occur, leading to a decrease in revenue, the services will not become viable and are unlikely to operate in the long term.

7.14 In light of the above, it is considered that the removal of condition 29 and its replacement with a Legal Agreement should be approved subject to provision of an acceptable Legal Agreement to secure the provision of sufficient finding to ensure the continuing operation of the Bus Services.

8.0 SUMMARY

The following is a summary of the main reasons for the recommendation:

The proposal makes provision for sufficient access to the development by a range of transport modes

What will be secured by the Section 106 Agreement accords with the requirements and the reason for Condition 29.

The proposal is consistent with policies and legislation in regard to the use of the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Other issues raised by consultees have been assessed and there are not any which would warrant refusal of the application

RECOMMENDATION – (I) THE APPLICANT BE INFORMED THAT THE COMMITTEE IS MINDED TO GRANT PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET OUT BELOW AND THE COMPLETION OF A PLANNING OBLIGATION WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THIS COMMITTEE TO SECURE THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF BUS SERVICES 209, 217 AND 278 AS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH 2.06 FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO FIVE YEARS FROM 19.09.12 AND FUNDING TO IMPROVE DEMAND RESPONSIVE TRANSPORT TO THOSE AREAS WHERE A SCHEDULED BUS SERVICE IS UNVIABLE. THE EXACT TERMS TO BE AGREED WITH THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES II) IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO ENTER INTO THE LEGAL AGREEMENT, THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL BE AUTHORISED TO REFUSE PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1) The proposal without the funding to ensure the continuing operation of bus services would

not reduce the use of the private car to the development. The proposal would therefore not be sustainable and would be contrary to the aims of Policy TP1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 which seek to ensure that development is sustainable and that the transport infrastructure to serve the development is adequate.

(Note: Refusing this application does not mean that permission for the new hospital is rescinded, but that the original permission including Condition 29 would still stand).

Conditions: (Please note:

Condition numbers have been kept the same as approval TW/07/02595 for clarity.

Conditions that have been complied with but still have implications are set out in full below:

Conditions that have been complied and have been discharged are noted here for clarity in italics and place no further requirement on the developer.)

(1) No time limit condition is required as the works have now commenced. (2) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning authority the development shall

be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the character and amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995, no development shall be carried out within Class C2 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of that Order (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), without prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the character and amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

Design

(4) The development shall use materials as details approved under references

TW/08/00966/SUB, TW08/02289/SUB, TW08/03420/SUB, TW/09/00881/SUB, TW/09/02419/SUB, TW/09/02868/SUB, TW/09/03289/SUB, TW/10/00466/SUB and TW/10/03161/SUB.

Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(5) The car park boundary wall fronting Tonbridge Road shall be carried out in accordance

with details approved under references TW/08/01005/SUB and TW/08/03593/SUB.

Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(6) The entrance canopy, bus stops, parking and circulation piazza and adjacent areas shall

be carried out in accordance with details approved under reference TW/09/01735/SUB, TW09/02472/SUB, TW/10/00187/SUB and 10/01435/SUB.

Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(7) The service yard, Facilities Management, Biomass and oil storage areas shall be carried

out in accordance with the details approved under references TW/09/03853/SUB, TW/10/01366/SUB and TW/10/03063/SUB.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(8) No fans, louvers, ducts, meter boxes or other similar apparatus shall be installed

externally without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the residential and visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(9) The lighting strategy shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved under

TW/08/04037/SUB. The development shall be implemented and thereafter operated in accordance with the approved lighting strategy.

Reason: to minimise light pollution and protect the landscape character of the locality in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN8 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(10) Energy Conservation within the development shall be carried out in accordance with

details approved under TW/09/03184/SUB. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development which meets the needs of current and future generations in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(11) Water conservation within the development shall be carried out in accordance with the

details approved under TW/08/01050/SUB.

Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

Built/cultural heritage

(12) Within 1 year of this application being permitted, a Listed Building Management Plan for

the Listed Chapel shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Plan shall be generally in accordance with the Heritage Impact Assessment dated 26 July 2007 and received on 30 July 2007. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the preservation of the building and its immediate environs in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(13) This condition required an archaeological watching brief programme and specification to

be submitted and that a watching brief was arranged during development. These details were submitted, approved and complied with under TW/ 08/00887/SUB, TW/08/01377/SUB and TW/10/01922/SUB.

(14) This condition required an archaeological survey and photographic record of the work

house to be submitted and approved in writing prior to the demolition of the workhouse. The details were submitted and approved under TW/ 08/00890/SUB, TW/10/00707/SUB and TW/11/02394/SUB

Mitigating Environmental Impacts (15) The contaminated land remediation shall be carried out in accordance with the details

approved under references TW/08/00889/SUB, TW/08/01924/SUB and TW/09/00064/SUB for a, b and c.

d) The approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality

assured scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution of Controlled Waters in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006 and National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(16) If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at

the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA for details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters in accordance with Policy EN16 of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006.

(17) All soil, vent and waste pipes, except for the terminations, shall be constructed within the

building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.

(18) Any plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning) or ducting system to be

used in pursuance of this permission shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted under TW/ 08/03121/SUB and TW/09/00563/SUB and shall be retained and operated so that the noise generated at the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property shall not exceed the following Noise Rating Curve:

• Daytime (07:00 – 23:00) hrs – the background noise level (LA90 1 hour) at any

residential façade • Night-time (23:00 – 07:00) hrs – 5dB below the background noise level (LA90

5mins) at any residential façade

as defined by BS8233:1999 Sound insulation and noise reduction for Building Code of Practice and the Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers (CIBSE) Environmental Design Guide 1999, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details of any further scheme shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to first use and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006.

(19) The development shall be constructed in accordance with the Scheme of Construction

Practice/Construction Environmental Management Plan approved under reference TW/08/00884.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area, air quality, water resources and ecology during the construction phase in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(20) This condition required a scheme to provide monitoring of Air Quality to be submitted and

approved in writing prior to above ground construction of the building. The details were submitted and approved under TW/ 08/01036/SUB.

(21) Within 3 months of the permission being granted an acoustic report demonstrating

compliance with the predicted levels submitted during the application process shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any further mitigation work required resulting from the report should be implemented within a timescale determined by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the transmission of noise and vibration into any neighbouring premises to protect amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.

(22) This condition sought to control the hours of demolition or construction works. As

construction has now been completed this condition is no longer necessary. (23) No waste materials shall be burnt upon the land within the application site unless

otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the locality and in the interests of the protection of the atmospheric environment in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.

(24) Suitable provision shall be made and maintained at all times when the premises are in

use for ventilating fumes or other effluvia and for the handling, storage and disposal of all waste materials and refuse. This provision shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved under application TW/ 11/00109/SUB, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The ensure that the development would not be detrimental to amenity in the absence of such matters being satisfactorily dealt with in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(25) The method of piling foundations shall be carried out in accordance with details approved

under reference TW/08/00521.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006

(26) The demolition of all the existing buildings (except the Listed Chapel) shall be carried out

in accordance with details approved under reference TW/09/03180.

Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenities in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

Transport (27) Within 1 year of this permission being granted the applicant shall submit a scheme for

amending the operation of the traffic signals at the A228/Tonbridge Road junction, provision of a cycle way from the hospital to the A228/Tonbridge Road junction and details of the new traffic signal controlled junction at the entrance to the hospital. These details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed time table.

Reason: To increase the capacity of the junction to mitigate the impact of the development on the local highway network in accordance with Policy TP4 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(28) Within 6 months of this permission being granted the applicant shall submit in

consultation with the Highway Agency and Kent County Council a Green Travel Plan, such plan to include:

(a) Employment of a Travel Plan Coordinator.

(b) Provision of measures to encourage the use of public transport, cycling and car

sharing.

(c) Provision of initiatives to reduce car use and parking demand.

(d) Details of proposals for the allocation of parking spaces between user groups and the management of car parking.

(e) Specific targets for modal split of trips to the site by staff, patients and visitors.

(f) Provision for annual monitoring of the targets.

(g) Provision for the review of the number of bicycle parking spaces provided with the

intention of providing additional spaced in accordance with the monitored demand.

(h) Provision for the plan to be varied, by agreement with the Borough Council in consultation with the County Council, in the light of the results of monitoring provision for additional investment in Travel Plan initiative in the event that the agreed targets are not met.

The Scheme shall be generally in accordance with the Framework Travel Plan version SJBPVB-3.4 dated 15/08/07 and the Travel Plan Coordinator Job Description received 20/09/07. The operation of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Green Travel Plan.

Reason: To provide suitable traffic management policies which aim to reduce the use of the private car in accordance with Policy TP1 of Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(29) This condition is now replaced by a Legal Agreement (Subject to the determination of this

application). (30) This condition sought to ensure that no building shall be occupied until that part of the

service road which provides access to it has been constructed in accordance with approved details. Details pursuant to this condition were submitted under TW/09/00124/SUB and the access is now in place.

(31) Within 3 months of this permission being granted details of the turning facilities provided

within the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained free from any obstruction.

Reason: In order that a vehicle may enter and leave the site in a forward direction and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TP4 of Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(32) The footpaths, vehicle parking, cycle parking, loading, off-loading, turning space and bus

stops shall be carried out in accordance with details approved under references TW/09/03302/SUB, TW/09/03515/SUB, TW/10/01439/SUB and TW/10/01595/SUB before the use is commenced or the premises occupied and shall be retained for the use staff, patients and visitors to, the premises, and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order), shall be carried out on that area of land or in such a position as to preclude its use unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking, loading, off-loading and turning of vehicles is likely to lead to such activities inconvenient to other road users and detrimental to amenity in accordance to Policy TP5 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(33) This condition required details of the precautions to be taken during the progress of the

works to guard against the deposit of mud and similar substances on the public highway. Whilst no details have been submitted, the construction phase is now over and this condition is therefore no longer required.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

Landscaping and Trees

(34) The hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with details approved

under reference TW/09/01288/SUB and TW/10/03691/SUB.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(35) The landscape scheme phasing shall be carried out in accordance with details approved

under reference TW/09/01288/SUB. The approved landscape scheme shall thereafter be retained to the Authority's satisfaction for a period of 10 years after the opening of the hospital. Any trees or plants which, within this period, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of the same species, size and number as previously approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(36) The Landscape and Woodland Management Plan and Ecological Management Plan shall

be implemented and maintained in accordance with details approved under TW/08/00734/SUB and 09/03421/SUB. The measures set out in the Woodland Management Plan and Ecological Management Plan shall be implemented during the construction phase of the development and for a period of 10 years following the commencement of operation of the hospital. The Local Planning Authority shall agree any alterations to the approved plans in writing.

Reason: To mitigate the impact of the development on the landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to mitigate the impact of the development on the ecology of the locality in accordance with Policies EN25 of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(37) The details of any further site boundaries shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

the Local Planning Authority, prior to the enclosure being erected and shall be erected in accordance with the approved details. The approved boundary treatment submitted under application TW/10/01690/SUB and TW/10/03488/SUB shall be erected in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2006.

(38) The approved development shall be carried out in such a manner as to avoid damage to

the existing trees, including their root systems, and other planting to be retained by observing the following:

(a) All trees to be preserved shall be marked on site and protected during any

operation on site by temporary fencing in accordance with BS 5837:2005 or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such tree protection measures shall remain throughout the period of construction;

(b) No fires shall be lit within the spread of branches of the trees and other vegetation;

(c) No materials or equipment shall be stored within the spread of the branches of the

trees and other vegetation;

(d) No roots over 50mm diameter shall be cut, and no buildings, roads or other engineering operations shall be constructed or carried out within the spread of the branches of the trees and other vegetation;

(e) Ground levels within the spread of the branches of the trees and other vegetation

shall not be raised or lowered in relation to the existing ground level, except as may be otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Local Plan.

(39) Japanese Knotweed Removal shall be carried out in accordance with details approved

under reference TW/08/00759.

Reason: To demonstrate how the Japanese Knotweed on site will be eradicated to prevent it being spread on or off site in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN15 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

Waste, sewage and water (40) The facilities for storage and handling of waste, to include the segregation of clinical/non-

clinical waste and the provision of facilities for recycling shall be carried out in accordance with details approved under reference TW/08/00883/SUB and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(41) The land drainage, disposal of foul and surface waters shall be carried out in accordance

with details approved under reference TW/08/00522/SUB.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to minimise flood risk in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(42) The site surface water drainage strategy shall be implemented and maintained in

accordance with details approved under reference TW/08/00524/SUB.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN16 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006.

(43) The provision of bird boxes and mitigation proposals shall be carried out in accordance

with details approved under reference TW/08/00761/SUB and TW/09/00717/SUB.

Reason: This is to mitigate impacts on existing breeding bird populations and enhance the site for Swifts and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(44) The bat mitigation strategy shall be carried out in accordance with details approved under

references TW/08/00763/SUB and TW/08/03940/SUB.

Reason: This is to mitigate impacts on existing bat populations and enhance the site for bats and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(45) The dormice mitigation strategy shall be carried out in accordance with details approved

under reference TW/ 08/00764/SUB.

Reason: This is to mitigate impacts on existing dormice populations and enhance the site for dormice and in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2006 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

(46) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following

approved plans:

A-ACH-0250-L4-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-L5-001 P-04; A-CAR-0250-LM-001 P-03, A-CAR-0250-LM-002 P-03, A-CAR-0250-EM-001 P-02, A-ACH-0250-SN-001 P-02; A-ACH-0250-SN-003 P-03; A-ACH-0250-SM-001 P-02; A-ACH-0250-SE-001 P-02; A-ACH-0250-P3-001 P-03; Site Location Plan; A-ACH-0250-EM-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-EW-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-EE-001 P-04; A-ACH-0250-P2-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-P1-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-LO-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-L1-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-L2-001 P-03; A-ACH-0250-L3-001 P-03; A-ACH-0010-DE-003 P-01; A-ACH-0010-DE-002 P-02; A-ACH-0050-EE-001 P-01; A-ACH-0050-EW-001 P-01; A-ACH-0050-EN-001 P-01; A-ACH-0010-DE-001 P-02; A-ACH-0250-SE-003 P-02; A-ACH-0250-SS-001 P-02; A-ACH-0250-SS-003 P-03; L_TUW_L0_9000_0001; L_TUW_L0_9000_0002; L_TUW_L0_9000_0003; L_TUW_L0_9000_0004; L_TUW_L0_9000_0005; L_TUW_L0_9000_0007; L_TUW_L0_9000_0010; L_TUW_L0_9000_0011; L_TUW_L0_9000_0012; L_TUW_L0_9000_0013; L_TUW_L0_9000_0014; L_TUW_L0_9000_0015 Rev 01; L_TUW_L5_9000_0016; L_TUW_L5_9000_0018; 14137-GE-S278-001 Rev A; 13946/GE/SK401; 13946/GE/SK402; 13946/GE/SK403; 13946/GE/SK404; 13946/GE/SK405; P-TUW-0500-ML-020 Rev P1; P-TUW-0500-ML-010 Rev P1 all received 30/07/07.

Reason: to clarify which plans area proved.

Informatives: (1) The applicant is advised that under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior

written consent of the Environment Agency is normally required for any discharge of sewage of effluent into controlled waters, and may be required for the discharge of surface water to such controlled waters. Details can be obtained from the Environment Agency, Orchard House, Endeavour Park, London Road, Addington, West Malling, Kent ME19 5SH. Tel: (08708) 506506.

(2) The applicant is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team, Environmental

Services, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Town Hall, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS. Tel: (01892) 526121. E-mail: info@tunbridgewells.gov.uk to determine if an Authorisation under Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is required for this process. Any person operating a Prescribed Process without such an Authorisation is liable to prosecution.

(3) The applicant is advised to contact Natural England, The Countryside Management

Centre, Coldharbour Farm, Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5DB. Tel: (01233) 812525. E-mail kent@naturalengland.org.uk., and obtain any necessary licences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 prior to the commencement of any works.

(4) If the trees are in a neighbouring property then you will need the permission of the owners

to carry out any works to them. If that work involves any crossing of the boundary you are advised to get the permission in writing. Without the permission of the owners, you are entitled only to cut back branches as far as the property boundary.

(5) You are advised that this permission is subject to a Legal Agreement under Section 106

of The Town and Country Planning Act.

Reference: CJP/SM4 NB For full details of all papers submitted with this application please refer to the relevant

Public Access pages on the council’s website.

The conditions set out in the report may be subject to such reasonable change as is necessary to ensure accuracy and enforceability.