An “already ugly” building is set to get “even more imposing” after plans for a new floor were approved.

Mountfield Court in Tunbridge Wells is set to be extended upwards with six extra flats, despite 67 letters of objection from neighbours and the public to the scheme.

Revised plans for the extension to the Grove Hill Road block were submitted to the borough council in July after a previous suggestion for two more storeys was recommended for refusal by council officers.

At a meeting of the authority’s planning committee on Wednesday (December 4), the agent for developers Tunbridge Airspace Ltd, Alex Richards, told members the addition “would provide visual interest and result in an aesthetic improvement.”

Mr Richards described the scheme as “a contemporary extension to Mountfield Court,” and planning officers recommended members vote to approve the plans.

But residents were not as enthusiastic.

Among the opponents was the Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society, whose spokesman Peter Lewis said: “This is a speculative and generic proposal.

“The society’s view is that the proposals are inappropriate in scale, materials and details and they do not improve the existing building.”

The extra floor will consist of four one-bedroom flats, and two two-bedroom flats, none of which will be designated as affordable housing. The plans also feature the installation of solar panels.

But neighbour and professional architect Robert Dawson told the committee the one-bedroom flats “will be unaffordable to single people on the average income in Tunbridge Wells and will likely be sold to two adults.”

“Doubling the occupants will create unsustainable pressure on parking infrastructure,” he added.

Cllr Corinna Keefe (Lib Dem), who represents the area and called-in the decision for scrutiny, also slated the mix of flats.

She said: “We are under pressure not only from national home building targets but also from a shortage of local housing which suits a modern family’s needs.

“From my own experience, admittedly anecdotal, I can say there always seem to be one-bed flats available in Tunbridge Wells, but finding anything larger is much more difficult.”

The brick-built property, originally intended as council flats, dates from the mid-20th century, but is surrounded by traditional Victorian properties and is close to Calverley Park.

The building sits in a conservation area where planning rules are meant to favour the preservation of the locale’s character.

Councillors were similarly unimpressed by the application, with Cllr Hugo Pound (Lab) saying it would be “wholly inappropriate.”

Find out about planning applications and other public notices in your area by visiting PublicNoticePortal.uk

But a planning officer responded: “It could actually improve the character of that building and conservation area overall, rather than make it any worse, so it’s a rather subjective discussion.”

Cllr Ellen Neville (TWA) expressed similar sentiments, saying: “The proposals, I do believe, enhance the building and make it a bit less of its time,” eliciting laughs from neighbours in attendance.

“As far as the look of the building goes - I don’t think anything could make it worse than it is,” said Cllr Brendan Le Page (Lib Dem).

“I’d like to have words with the planning officers from 1960 who said they could build that because they're all over Tunbridge Wells, those monstrosities.”

However, council officers stressed the need for legitimate planning grounds to refuse the plans, which members could not provide.

Before it was voted through, Cllr Alex Britcher-Allan, (Lab), said: “It’s not good enough, It’s not what we should be striving for as a borough.”

The application was approved with four votes in favour, two against, and one abstention.

Speaking after the decision was made, neighbour Jill Dawson said: “We’re really disappointed.

“They’re absolutely tiny – not suitable for two people but the price point they're going to be sold at is not affordable for a single person so we all know there’s going to be people living there, basically in tiny bedsits.”

Jim Kedge of nearby Mountfield Gardens added: “It’s already an ugly building and this is going to make it worse – it’ll make it more imposing than it was before.

“This is a retrograde step – I don’t know what the point of having a conservation area is if you’re going to allow this sort of development.”