Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more


  • Comment
A planning battle over where to site Tunbridge Wells' new hospital, to ...
A planning battle over where to site Tunbridge Wells' new hospital, to

replace its current two outdated facilities, has moved to London's High


Property developers, Kilmartin Properties (TW) Ltd, who were refused

planning permission for a hospital on land at Knights Park, are challenging

Tunbridge Wells BC's decision to instead give the go-ahead to the local NHS Trust's plan to rebuild on the current Pembury Hospital site.

Both Edinburgh-based developer Kilmartin Properties (TW) Ltd and Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust applied for planning permission for a 595-bed

hospital to replace the two current out-of-date facilities.

The local council granted permission for the trust's development, which will also include a Mental Health Unit and associated staff accommodation, in April, but refused Kilmartin's application.

However, Kilmartin is asking Mr Justice Harrison to overturn that decision

and order the council to think again.

It claims that, as the NHS Trust site is in the metropolitan green belt and

an area of outstanding natural beauty, and its development will involve an

8,000 square metre increase in the building footprint and buildings of up to six or seven storeys, its decision was wrong.

It says its site, next to a leisure development and a proposed park-and-ride site, is in the town's 'rural fringe' earmarked for future developmnt, and is large enough to accommodate the hospital with the mental health unit and staff accommodation in buildings of up to only three or four storeys.

It claims that, when the trust was granted permission, the council failed in its decision-making process to consider the alternative site proposal it had put forward.

It argues that the council had a duty to consider its rival scheme in the

circumstances, as the NHS plan had the inevitable adverse effects of loss of green belt land and the impact of higher buildings, while its scheme had a clear pubic convenience or advantage.

The hearing continues.


  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.