Tunbridge Wells Borough Council has completed its submission version of the Local Plan.

Councillors agreed at an extraordinary meeting of the full council that the latest version of the plan should go out to a final period of public consultation, known as Regulation 19, and for it then to be sent on to the Government's planning inspectorate for examination.

The decision is a huge disappointment to many residents in the Paddock Wood and Capel areas of the borough, where more than 50% of the new homes which are to be built in the borough over the next 18 years are to be placed.

In particular, the approved plan includes the proposal for a new 2,800-home Garden Village at Tudeley on part of the Hadlow Estate. The Save Capel group fought to the end to persuade the council to build at Castle Hill, at the other end of the parish, instead, but to no avail.

Although residents will now again have a chance to make representations about the plan during the Regulation 19 consultation, which will run from March 26 till May 21, it means they are now effectively making representations to the Government's planning inspector not the council and must seek to persuade him (or her) that the plan is unsound.

A number of public speakers were allowed to address the full council Zoom meeting.

Dave Lovell from Save Capel warned the adopted plan would create an "urban sprawl" joining Tudeley, Capel and Paddock Wood together. He said the plan had failed to take into account the Covid pandemic and the changes to businesses and accommodation that would follow. He said: "We need a plan for the post-Covid world. We need a plan that respects public opinion and doesn't strike fear into the hearts of so many people."

John Hurst said the plan had failed to take into account new planning advice from the Government, with Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, saying in December that councils had misinterpreted the situation and that the housing figure generated by the Government's demand formula was merely a starting point and not a target, after which boroughs should consider the planning constraints they may face.

He said Mr Jenrick had "put responsibility on house numbers back to local councils."

Hugh Patterson, of Capel Parish Council, was critical that the borough was planning to conduct the Regulation 19 consultation during the Covid pandemic, when people would not be able to visit libraries or council offices to view the plans. He said: "Not everyone has access to the Internet."

Sue Lovell from the Stop Over Development in Paddock Wood campaign said the borough was "riding roughshod" over the wishes of the town. She was particularly concerned that the borough was moving ahead prematurely with no masterplan for Paddock Wood available and no programme of mitigation to deal with the flooding and sewage problems that were sure to result.

However, not all the speakers were against adoption.

Cllr Matt Richards, of Horsmonden Parish Council, urged the council to approve the plan. "Rejection," he said, "Would abdicate any future responsibility for planning."

Bidborough Parish Council and the Tunbridge Wells Town Forum also urged acceptance, saying not to do so "would simply allow developers to go over our heads."

During the debate councillors fell into three groups: those who wanted the submission process adjourned while aspects of the plan were revised.

Those who thought it important to press ahead with the plan as it was and those who had some reservations about the plan, but didn't want to vote against it.

Cllr David Haywood (Tunbridge Wells Alliance) attempted to move a motion that the discussion be adjourned to a later date, but his motion was not accepted by the Mayor, Cllr Joy Podbury (Con), who was chairing the debate.

Cllr Haywood said that a number of key component parts of the Local Plan were missing or not yet completed, including the Paddock Wood masterplan and flood appraisal.

He said other key documents had been held in a secure folder, to which councillors had to be granted access by officers, and up till 4pm that day, many councillors had still not accessed the documents.

He said: "I am concerned about the sudden rush to approve this. We are not up against any formal deadline. We should not be rushed into a blinkered box-ticking exercise.

"We are not currently in a position to make an informed decision."

He was supported by Cllr Marguerita Moreton (Lib Dem) who said that post-Covid it was likely a number of commercial businesses would close and their premises might be converted to residential accommodation. She wanted a pause so that an assessment could be made of how that might reduce the need for housing elsewhere.

Cllr Dr Linda Hall (Con) said: "We are being asked to vote for a plan many of whose documents we have not been able to read because they have still not been uploaded to the website.

"We cannot make sound judgements without seeing all the evidence."

But the allegations were not accepted by Stephen Baughen, the council's head of planning. He said the details had been available to most members since December 18. He said: "Members have all the information before them to make a decision."

Cllr Alan McDermott (Con), the leader of the council, urged acceptance of the plan.

He said it would bring huge economic benefits to the town, and detractors would still have the opportunity to make their case during the Regulation 19 consultation.

He was supported by Cllr Matthew Bailey (Con) who represents Paddock Wood. He said the borough was well aware of concerns over flooding and sewage in his town and was acting to mitigate those.

The new plan would also bring advantages: an increase in the proportion of affordable housing required, up from 35% to 40%. a new sports hub, a new GP surgery, two new primary schools and Mascalls Academy secondary school to be expanded to take an extra two forms of entry.

Cllr Jane March (Con) also spoke of the advantages the plan would bring, among them the provision of high speed broadband for the rural areas. She also welcomed a specific town centre management plan to revitalise Tunbridge Wells itself.

Cllr Alain Lewis (Lab) said that although there were aspects of the plan he didn't like, he would support it. He was particularly keen that the plan increased the level of affordable housing on new sites to 40%.

Cllr Peter Lidstone (Lib Dem) said: "It is the hardest decision to make."

He said: "We are handcuffed by Government policy. The risk of voting against it is that we end up with a worse outcome."

Cllr Trevor Poile (Lib Dem) said that although housing allocations tended to dominate the discussion, "there is much more to it than that." He cited new policy standards, and a new emphasis on active travel plans and a policy to provide electric car charging points as three reasons to support the plan.

After nearly two and a half hours of debate, a motion to accept the plane for submission to the next stage was passed by 30 votes to six, with nine abstentions.

The meeting can be watched on the borough council's website here.

The voting was as follows:

IN FAVOUR

Bob Backhouse (Con)

Matthew Bailey (Con)

Godfrey Bland (Con)

Ben Chaplelard (Lib Dem)

Barbara Cobbold (Con)

Tom Dawlings (Con)

Mark Ellis (Lib Dem)

Luke Everitt (Lab)

Andy Fairweather (Con)

Sarah Hamilton (Con)

Andrew Hickey (Lib Dem)

Dianne Hill (Lab)

Alain Lewis (Lab)

Peter Lidstone (Lib Dem)

Jane March (Con)

Alan McDermot (Con)

Marguerita Morton (Lib Dem)

Barry Noakes (Con)

Joy Podbury (Con)

Trevor Poile (Lib Dem)

Hugo Pound (Lab)

James Rands (Lib Dem)

David Reilly (Con)

James Scholes (Con)

David Scott (Con)

Joe Simmons (Con)

Julia Soyke (Con)

Julian Stanyer (Con)

Patrick Thomson (Con)

Chris Woodward (Con)

AGAINST

Rodney Atkins (Ind)

Dave Funnell (Lib Dem)

Sean Holden (Con)

Carol Mackonachie (Con)

Frank Williams (Con)

Lucy Willis (Tunbridge Wells Alliance)

ABSTAINED

Christian Atwood (Con)

Paul Barrington-King (Con)

Becki Bruneau (Con)

Linda Hall (Con)

David Hayward (Tunbridge Wells Alliance)

Beverley Palmer (Con)

Nicholas Pope (Tunbridge Wells Alliance)

Justine Rutland (Lib Dem)

Nancy Warne (Tunbridge Wells Alliance)

Two councillors were absent.

Read more: All the latest news from Tunbridge Wells

Read more: All the latest news from Weald