NEDRA held a public meeting to inform, engage, and empower the local community about significant changes affecting Edenbridge and its surrounding areas. You can watch it here or click through to YouTube. Video timestamps are below.
The meeting brought together key decision-makers and experts to discuss three main themes:
Local Government Reorganisation (LGR)
Panellists, including Cllr Roddy Hogarth, Head of Sevenoaks District Council and Matt Boughton, Head of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council expressed concerns that proposed mergers into larger unitary authorities (minimum 500,000 population) could lead to fewer representatives and marginalise smaller communities like Edenbridge. The fear is that larger authorities might struggle to “be small enough to care” for individual communities, potentially creating “massive inequality” in service delivery among town and parish councils. Rosie Pearson, Chair and co-founder of the Community Planning Alliance added that strategic planning would be “very, very far removed” from local residents.
Increased Housing Targets and the 2040 Local Plan
The core concern is whether the government’s “ridiculous” housing targets for the 2040 plan will be matched by essential infrastructure investment. Cllr Nigel Williams, Portfolio Holder for Development and Infrastructure at Sevenoaks District Council, emphasised that the plan must survive to retain local control over development, preventing “unrestricted planning applications” by “unscrupulous developers”. He stressed that infrastructure (roads, medical, police, water, buses) is “vital” and must be delivered.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
This proposed bill raises concerns about reduced transparency and accountability in planning decisions. Cllr Williams warned of a “democratic deficit” if local Development Management Committees (DMCs) are removed, with decisions potentially made by distant “boards”. Rosie Pearson heavily criticised the “Nature Restoration Fund” within the bill, calling it “worse than greenwashing” and “cash to trash” nature, allowing developers to destroy nature in one place and pay to “restore” it elsewhere with reduced payments.
A consistent message from the panel was the critical importance of community involvement. Residents were urged to be organised, vocal, and “be a nuisance” by attending consultations for the 2040 plan and pushing for necessary infrastructure. The ultimate goal is to ensure any future growth is sustainable, locally driven, and aligned with Edenbridge’s needs and values.
Video Timestamps in Minutes
0:58 – Purpose of the Meeting: The New Edenbridge District Residents Association (NEDRA) explains that this public meeting was organised to inform, engage, and empower the local community. This is in response to significant changes affecting Edenbridge and its surrounding districts, such as the emerging 2040 local plan, proposed council mergers, and concerns about potentially unsustainable development. The aim is to provide residents with direct access to decision-makers and experts, help them understand the implications, ask informed questions, and explore ways to influence outcomes. The meeting also seeks to strengthen collaboration to ensure future growth is sustainable and locally driven.
2:41 – Panel Introductions: The members of the panel are introduced: Cllr Roddy Hogarth – Head of Sevenoaks District Council, Cllr Matt Boughton – Head of Tonbridge & Malling District Council, Rosie Pearson – Chair of the Community Planning Alliance and Cllr Nigel Williams – Portfolio Holder for Development and Infrastructure at Sevenoaks District Council.
6:36 – Moderator Introduction: Alan Smart OBE, the meeting moderator, is introduced.
9:04 – Introduction to First Theme: Local Government Reorganisation: The moderator introduces the first main theme, which concerns local government reorganisation and its potential impact on smaller communities like Edenbridge. Questions are raised about how Edenbridge will fare with the creation of fewer, larger unitary authorities.
17:21 – Discussion on Impact of Proposed Changes on Local Town Council: The panel discusses the potential effects of the proposed changes on local town councils, their retained powers, and their future roles. It is noted that the government’s proposal didn’t specifically mention parish and town councils, implying no direct change for them. However, there are opportunities and challenges for well-run town councils, like Edenbridge, to potentially take on more discretionary services from district or county councils. Conversely, smaller parish councils may not be equipped for this, potentially creating inequality in service delivery across a larger unitary authority.
22:58 – Introduction to Second Theme: Increased Housing Targets and the 2040 Local Plan: The second theme is introduced, focusing on the implications of the Local Plan 2040’s housing targets for Edenbridge, particularly concerning infrastructure and services. Concerns are highlighted that the current approach seems to prioritise quantity over quality, with existing infrastructure and services already strained (e.g., outdated train service, limited leisure amenities, diminished emergency healthcare). The central question is whether Edenbridge can sustain further development without genuine improvements that meet real local needs.
39:52 – Introduction to Third Theme: Planning and Infrastructure Bill: The final section begins with an overview of the proposed Infrastructure and Planning Bill and its potential for significant changes to development approval and delivery. There are concerns that key planning decisions may bypass local communities, leading to reduced transparency and accountability. Critics suggest that measures like the Nature Restoration Fund could weaken environmental protections.
47:38 – Discussion on Consultations: The conversation shifts to the effectiveness and timing of public consultations, addressing concerns that they might occur too late in the process or are merely a ‘tick-box’ exercise. While officers confirm that public input is genuinely considered, an example is given where developer-led consultations often don’t lead to significant changes in plans, highlighting the need for communities to be vocal and persistent.
52:26 – Discussion on Cross-Boundary Complications: A local issue regarding a large solar farm proposal near Edenbridge but in a neighbouring district (Tandridge) is raised. This leads to a discussion on protections against cross-boundary complications. The “duty to cooperate” between councils and “statement of common ground” are mentioned, but it’s acknowledged that these mechanisms don’t always fully resolve issues, especially when developments in one area have significant impacts on a neighbouring one. It is noted that larger strategic planning areas might be seen by the government as a way to address these challenges.
56:22 – End of Panel Discussion and Call to Action: The moderator thanks the panel and encourages attendees to join NEDRA and be vocal in their community, reiterating the panel’s message about the importance of community involvement.
1:02:02 – Question on Supposed Benefits of Changes: An audience member asks about the supposed benefits of the proposed local government reorganisation, beyond political reasons, and whether new councils will be more efficient. Matt Boughton explains that the government sees reorganisation as a solution to the financial problems facing local government, particularly due to rising costs in adult social care, children’s services, temporary accommodation, and special educational needs transport. The rationale is to achieve more growth and strategic opportunities for funding by creating larger, unitary authorities with a single focal point, such as an elected mayor for Kent.
1:04:39 – Question on the 2040 Plan Scope: An audience member asks if the 2040 plan focuses beyond just housing to include industrial areas and solar panel areas, and how to prevent unsuitable developments in Edenbridge. It is affirmed that the 2040 plan does consider a balance, including proportionate industrial and business areas alongside housing. However, there’s a constant “fight” against developers who may try to convert these allocations back into more housing for viability reasons. The importance of the community attending consultations and pushing for infrastructure is reiterated.
1:09:04 – Question on Infrastructure Levy Payments (CIL/Section 106): An audience member asks about the mandated infrastructure levy payments (Section 106 and CIL), where the money goes, and oversight of its spending. It is explained that Section 106 agreements are negotiated, while the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is formulaic. It is stated that CIL often raises “abysmally low” amounts for large-scale infrastructure projects, and past models have been “wholly inadequate,” leading to infrastructure often being delayed or not delivered.
1:17:50 – Question on Pelican Crossing: An audience member raises a local concern about the need for a pelican crossing on the Four Elms Road near the doctors’ surgery, highlighting the difficulty for pedestrians, particularly the elderly, to cross safely. It’s explained that Kent County Council (KCC) has refused due to too many existing crossings in a short distance, a rule described as “mad.” Nigel Williams offers to investigate further.
1:29:17 – Closing Remarks from NEDRA: The meeting concludes with a final thank you from NEDRA, strongly encouraging residents to join and support the organisation to continue their work in informing and empowering the community.