The Southborough Environmental Action Movement (SEAM) says it has found multiple errors in the key report by Tunbridge Wells Planning Officers now being considered by councillors on the Tunbridge Wells Planning Committee, who vote on the Hub plans on Wednesday.

Brian Dury (pictured below) of SEAM said: “Having read Tuesday’s report from TWBC Planning Officers to the TWBC Planning Committee, we have found serious errors in the “facts” contained in that report which would invalidate the conclusion of the TWBC Planning Officers to recommend approval of the application. We will discuss the issues in detail before the Committee on Wednesday next week, but we are making you all aware now of some of the errors.”

Meanwhile, the online petition against the current Hub plans that was organised by Mr Dury has now passed 1,200 people. For latest total see here:

http://bit.ly/2eDPwmR

Wednesday’s planning committee meeting at 5pm would normally be the end of the planning process. But because Sport England are maintaining their “outright objection” to the loss of soccer pitches on the Ridgewaye playing fields, the scheme can only be thrown out and not approved on Wednesday.

If Tunbridge Wells Planning Committee supports the application, the scheme will be reviewed in its entirety by central government planners. The civil servants in a unit within the government department dealing with local government (the National Planning Casework Unit) will decide whether to refer the issue to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid (pictured below).  And Mr Javid would then be the person to decide the fate of the scheme and the Royal Victoria Hall.

Update 10am Tuesday 8 November: The number of official objections on the Tunbridge Wells planning website continues to grow and has now reached 230 named individuals or organisations.  There are 34 supporters of the Hub scheme.  Objections make up 87%.  The portal is still open for comments.  You need to email planning@tunbridgewells.gov.uk and give your full name and address and include the application number: 16/06081 hybrid.

In a new submission placed on the Tunbridge Wells Planning Portal, SEAM, declares that factual errors have caused the planning officers to misapply their planning policies.

SEAM highlights Para 10.19 of the officers’ report which refers to the new local SALP Policy AL/S02, which requires efforts are made to consider retaining the Royal Victoria Hall. SEAM argues that: “the demolition of the RVH is a choice made by councillors who have a preference for a new modern building. It is not something that has been forced upon them by the condition of the building. Therefore the planning officers are wrong to accept in 10.23 that “the policy requirement for the applicant to explore opportunities to retain and improve the Royal Victoria Hall has been complied with and the reasons why this option has not been pursued have been clearly explained””.

SEAM also quotes from Para 131 of the National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which says local planning authorities should take account of “the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and….the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality”.

The Planning Officers’ arguments were published at length in an article on this blog on Tuesday and a piece explaining why the Southborough Society supports the Hub was published on Thursday. The following comments in italics are taken directly from the latest SEAM submission opposing the current Hub plans:

A: ERRORS OF FACT

(1) “Iconic Building?”
Para 7.69 written by the TWBC Urban Design Officer says: “It is vitally important to create a sense of place and an identity for Southborough – a design of its time, iconic and stimulating.” The planning officers report contains no evidence that an “iconic” design has been achieved. And the idea that a building, which around 200 members of the public in their comments to planning have argued is wrong in mass, design and shape, can be made “iconic” simply by late variations to the cladding materials – as suggested by the TWBC planning officers – is clearly false.

The evidence provided in public comments from two independent architectural experts make it clear that the proposed design is a standard functional box of no architectural design merit.

Objectors include:
(a) Michael Lees of the Tunbridge Wells architectural practice ARC-ML that specialises in masterplanning with clients from Berlin to Riga to London who says: “The poor quality design that has been submitted should not have got this far…The plan form of the proposed Hub building is gratuitous and gives form to “blocks” and a circular element which do nothing to give an important sense of place and enclosure to the associated public space around the building. Good design does not rely on gimmickry of this type.”

(b) Martin Jameson of London’s Serie architects with (clients in Singapore etc) and lecturer at the Architectural Association in London: “The design is weak. Clumsy massing – two boxes connected by a disc….Architects are now expected to work with existing buildings when taking on public work”.

(2) Southborough’s Character

Para 10.57 of the planning officers’ report contains a fundamental error which underlies much of the reasoning in the report. It says that the Hub building will create a ‘sense of place within an area that currently lacks any coherent townscape character’.

Southborough town centre already has a distinctive local character. The buildings are largely brick built and Victorian and Edwardian. This character is recognised in para 4.5.4 of the TWBC Local Plan which specifically protects the commercial part of London Road because of features of architectural interest which contribute to the character of the local area.

(3) State of Royal Victoria Hall (RVH)

The planning officers’ appraisal states at 10.21 that the applicant has confirmed various issues including the following:
– Royal Victoria Hall has suffered “drains and walls collapsing”
– Various surveys highlighted various problems
– The current building is not flexible
– The seating is screwed down
– The building does not meet fire regulations
These 5 assertions are all incorrect.

No walls of the RVH have collapsed. Southborough Town Council (STC), who own the RVH, have supplied to Cllr Nick Blackwell the Boundary Wall condition report by the company BDR dated 17 April 2013. This clearly shows it is only the boundary wall and not any structural wall of the RVH that has any issues. The Royal Victoria Hall is generally agreed to be structurally sound and recent visitors all say it is in “remarkably good condition”.

According to Cllr Nick Blackwell, the issue with the drains concerns the plumbing of the 1970s toilets in the rebuilt front of the building, which is not structurally part of the main RVH hall. The drain issues will require some investment, but they have not “collapsed”.

The RVH was completely rewired five years ago, as explained in 2011 STC Annual Town Meeting Finance and General purposes committee (F&G) report, written by Cllr Peter Oakford (pictured below) who said: “The Victoria Theatre remains one of your council’s key focus areas and is an asset of our town that continues to thrive. The restoration has continued throughout the year with the re-wire and electrical work now completed at a cost of approximately £70,000, which was funded from reserves. The re-wire has designed to “future proof” the electrical requirements of the hall ensuring it will be ready for new equipment such as a PA and sound system, lighting etc.”

Mr Oakford went on to state in 2011: “A full fire safety audit has been completed; a new fire alarm installed and work is due to start replacing some of the ceilings in the back-up areas with fire proof materials. Some minor building works to the exterior of the building have been highlighted which will be completed this year.”

Cllr Nick Blackwell, who has been a member of the F&G committee on STC for the past two years, states that there has been no survey since 2011 that has identified any further essential works on the RVH demanding a substantial outlay.

The current RVH building has been used for dances, meetings and dinners over the past 116 years and so is clearly flexible.

The seating in place since the 1970s (which was partially screwed down) has already been removed as can be seen in recent photographs. (see below)

The health and safety inspector, David Menzies issued a risk assessment report, approving the new RVH movable seats in November 2014 and in his summary he says “this present arrangement allows STC to clearly demonstrate that they have eliminated the hazard associated with the use of the original folding seats by young children.” The hall was in use with these new seats for the December 2014 pantomime and fully insured with a small increase in premiums.

The building does still meet fire regulations. According to Cllr Blackwell, the RVH was passed by Jeffrey Lloyd of the Kent Fire and Rescue Service in June 2013.

(4) Views of Southborough Residents

Para 10.22 states that : “the local population voted overwhelmingly at the November 2015-January 2016 consultation exercise in favour of a new build”. This is incorrect.

The consultation in November 2015 offered just two design options:
(a) demolish the RVH (with outline plan worked up)
(b) Part demolish the RVH, including removing the balcony and cutting the seating capacity (with outline plan worked up)
(c) Unspecified other (no plan)
The people who wanted to retain a refurbished RVH in tact were not given that as an explicit option and so mainly felt they had been ignored and did not participate. The option to refurbish the RVH had been the most popular single option in the previous consultations.

An expert in consultations all over the world, Ian Gavin, of Water Aid gave evidence on the planning portal that this November 2015 exercise was a “manipulated consultation“.

In addition this wasn’t a “vote” of any sort. It was an event where supporters of the current scheme (Jonathan White and pro-proposal STC members) told any visitors coming through the door that “the better scheme was to completely demolish the RVH”. There was no alternative view available for consultation at the event.

At the official (November 2015) consultation, only 214 people (that is 58 % out of just 369 respondents) supported the RVH complete demolition “new build” option. Focussing on the residents of Southborough and High Brooms, as few as 182 people supported demolition (that is 63% of 289 STC residents). On the other hand, 3,000 people from Southborough and High Brooms signed the petition supporting keeping the RVH open in 2015. Ten times more people responded to the petition in 2015 than the consultation. The online petition in the past week launched by SEAM has made it clear that public views haven’t changed in the past year.

No “vote” took place as claimed in the planning officers’ documents. That would require a town wide referendum with campaign material from all sides sent for residents to consider, something that sadly hasn’t happened. 

(NB all above section in italics is taken directly from the SEAM submission and is NOT endorsed by Southborough News.  The full SEAM submission can be found on the Tunbridge Wells Planning website – search for 16/06081/HYBRID)

The Southborough Society says it now fully supports the Council Hub scheme and has expressed that view clearly to planners, in a reversal of its position of a year ago.

The views of local amenity societies are generally given greater weight in planning reports than comments from individuals, so the stance of the Society will have been important to supporters of the current Hub scheme as it will have helped persuade the planning officers to recommend the Hub should be approved – something that was announced this week.

On the controversial issue of the Royal Victoria Hall, the Society argues its demolition is now inevitable and says: “It is hoped that tribute can be paid to the Royal Victoria Hall that will sadly need to be demolished to make way for the hub, this could be in the form of photos/original programmes/brass plaque.”

The Southborough Society opinion continues: “The promise is of state-of-the-art theatre facilities and hope this is delivered and hope the venue is properly marketed to attract a variety of hirers and performers. Space for the provision of museum displays is sought. Within the cultural centre it is hoped that high quality display cabinets are incorporated into the library space”.

The Chairman of the Southborough Society, Michael Howes (pictured above), previously was a strong supporter of the Royal Victoria Hall being retained.  After a survey of members in 2015 he said in a newsletter to members: “The results of this survey reinforce the Society’s stance that the existing hall should be kept when the Hub is built.”

Of the 82 completed questionnaires that were returned by Southborough Society members in that 2015 survey:

• 51%  said they would prefer the existing building to be retained and renovated
• 21% said they would like the main auditorium kept but incorporated into the new Hub with the possible demolition of parts of the current building.
• 28% said they would prefer total demolition of the existing hall and a new complex built in its place.

Of those that favoured the demolition/rebuild option in this 2015 survey, 83 % wanted the new theatre to be at least as big as the RVH and have at least the same facilities.

Some Southborough Society members have already expressed surprise at the recent switch in the Society’s position, which accepts a complete change in the appearance of the centre of Southborough from the largely Victorian character that makes it still recognisable from the picture of the London Road shown above from 1910.

Michael Howes told members during the summer this year that although he had switched his personal position to support for RVH demolition, the Society would remain  “neutral” in public, as members were too divided for an all-Society view to be formed. It is not clear at what point the public Society position was switched to full support for the Hub.

Some Society members have also queried whether Michael Howes has stuck rigidly to the constitution of the Society (included at the end of this article), which demands that any change in policy be agreed at the Annual General Meeting.  No debate was held at this year’s AGM on whether the Royal Victoria Hall should be retained. Members can demand special Society meetings if 15 members combine to demand a meeting in a letter.

When questioned by Southborough News on these issues, Michael Howes made the following comments:  “Fewer than a third of the Society’s members responded to the questionnaire which suggests that the rest were either neutral or didn’t care. It is therefore wrong of some of our critics to state that we are going against the wishes of our members – statistically this does not stack up. Also, much more detail about the Hub has come to light since the survey. At the time it was widely rumoured that the RVH’s replacement would be a tiny village hall with a stage at one end. January’s public consultation proved this not to be the case – a multi purpose hall is proposed with a larger seating capacity than the current theatre”.

Mr Howes continued by speculating about the alternatives: “It is important to consider the consequences if the Hub application is not approved. It will not be a chance for the RVH to be restored. The three landowners would simply shelve the idea of any community facility and sell the land. The three councils involved in this scheme believe it to be the only viable option and the people campaigning against it run the risk of denying Southborough a chance of rejuvenation at all”.

Mr Howes ended his comments by saying: “The slogan of the Southborough Society is “The civic, heritage and amenity Society for Southborough and High Brooms”. We are not focused purely on history, we have to be forward thinking and consider the amenities of the town as well. We currently have a medical centre which is not adequate to serve the needs of the area plus huge uncertainty about the tenancy of its building, a dilapidated council office with no disabled access, a piece of wasteland which is an eyesore to thousands of passers by each day, no focal point of the town or a town square which could be considered the heart of the community and no museum space for us to show off our rich heritage. All of these issues will be resolved with the creation of the Hub and for me it is a no-brainer”.

Dr Janet Sturgis (pictured above), who is Chair of the Royal Tunbridge Wells Civic Society, told Southborough News on Thursday:  “While of course the Tunbridge Wells Civic Society’s members have views on this issue, we know from experience that our intervention in Southborough matters is not welcomed by the Southborough Society, who feel we ought not to interfere in “their patch”. We are facing our own Cultural Hub proposals, so follow the Southborough case with interest but do not feel it appropriate to intervene.”

Mr Howes has reaffirmed his pro-Hub stance in recent days with a new submission to the planning authority under his own name and he remains active on Facebook, where he engaged in an exchange with Hub critics (see below).  Mr Howes insisted this week that the man who part funded the building of the Royal Victoria Hall in 1900, Sir David Salomons, would now support its demolition.

Mr Howes, Olwyn Kinghorn and her husband Ian Kinghorn are believed to be the main three members of the Southborough Society committee that have taken the lead on the Society’s policy on the Hub. All three feel the “silent majority” of Southborough residents back the current plans, despite the current online petition against the scheme which has now been signed by 1,200 people.  Petition details here:

http://bit.ly/2eDPwmR

This is the constitution of the Southborough Society:

OBJECTS:
The objects of the society shall be:
(a) to encourage high standards of planning, architecture and road development in the area within the jurisdiction of Southborough Town Council
(b) to stimulate interest in and care for the beauty, history and character of the town and its surroundings.
(c) to encourage the preservation, development and improvement of features of general public amenity or historic or architectural interest in the town, the Common and the surrounding countryside including footpaths, bridlepaths and trees
(d) to pursue the aforesaid objects by the purchase of …property…meetings, exhibitions, newsletters etc (edited here)
(e) to raise funds for the furtherance of the work of the society…

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
The society shall elect an Executive Committee to organize and co-ordinate the activities of the Society, to represent the Society and to manage its affairs in such manner as the Executive Committee may from time to time think fit, but subject always to any prior directions of the Society in general meeting… (detail of numbers of executive committee members follows)

MEETINGS:
(a) An annual General Meeting of the Society shall be held each year before the end of July
(b) A special meeting of the Society shall be convened by the Chairman or Secretary within 28 days of the receipt by either of them of a request therefore signed by 15 members of the Society stating the objects of such a meeting
(c) Ordinary meetings of the Society may beheld at such times as the Executive shall determine
(d) 6 members personally present shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Society

The current Southborough Hub plans are set to be approved at a Tunbridge Wells planning committee meeting on Wednesday 9th November amid a new warning that such a decision would signal the end of high quality theatre in town.

The project team at Kent County Council and Southborough Town Council have pushed ahead with their planning application despite the “Southborough Deserves Better” petition signed by more than a thousand residents opposing the current scheme. Link explaining petition here:

http://bit.ly/2eDPwmR

As expected, the professional council planners have recommended the Hub scheme is  approved and it is unlikely that the elected councillors will defy that advice.  However, the objection from Sport England to the loss of part of the Ridgewaye playing fields hasn’t been dropped and that could still mean there’s a chance that next Wednesday’s decision is later overruled by central government planning authorities.

The warnings about the new scheme’s poor facilities came from Tony Egan, who ran the pantomine in Southborough for 30 years.  Mr Egan said: “The Royal Victoria Hall was built to the same standards as the West End theatre. On the Hub plans set to be approved, the facilities of the Royal Victoria Hall are nowhere to be seen.”

Mr Egan continued: “If councillors push through this plan, the days of high quality theatre in Southborough are over. The new Hub hall has no stage, nowhere for scenery or an orchestra and has not enough dressing rooms or toilets for performers to meet legal requirements.  The architects have no idea.  We were promised a refurbished Royal Victoria Hall or a “state of the art” replacement.  We will have neither.  We have been deceived.”

The document that the Councillors next Wednesday will consider before making their decision was published on Tuesday. It was written by the professional planning officers at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (TWBC) and concludes: “These proposals provide the opportunity for the reinvigoration and regeneration of Southborough town centre.”

The picture below shows the first floor plan of the Community Hall showing meeting rooms that would double up as dressing rooms for theatre productions.

The full time planning officers at TWBC will have been in consultation with the Hub project team for many months and so will have already tried to steer the proposal to a form acceptable to current planning regulations.  It is still possible that the officers’ recommendation will be rejected by the elected councillors on the TWBC planning committee when it meets on Wednesday.

In addition, planning law states that if the statutory body, Sport England, are opposed to the scheme, then the planners at Tunbridge Wells won’t get the final say.  Instead a unit within the government department dealing with local government (the National Planning Casework Unit) will decide whether to refer the issue to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid.  And he would then make the final decision.

In a controversial paragraph 10.22, the TWBC planners state that “the local population voted overwhelmingly at the November 2015-January 2016 consultation exercise in favour of a new build”. It is not clear whether the planners were aware that the total number supporting the new build at that consultation was only 181 Southborough people out of just 287 respondents from the town.  The option of refurbishing the Royal Victoria Hall in tact wasn’t included in the choices offered by the council at that stage, despite the earlier petitions signed by thousands of residents arguing for the Victoria Hall to be reopened.

Here are some key sections from the TWBC report on reasons for recommending approval:

• The proposal would result in the demolition of the Royal Victoria Hall, a “non-designated heritage asset” and as such would result in “harm”. However, as required by paragraph 135 of the NPPF, in making a balanced judgement having regard to the significance this heritage asset, it is concluded that the harm resulting from the loss of this building would be outweighed by the public benefits, including the provision of a range of new community facilities as well as new housing to meet identified needs.
• Whilst the proposed maximum provision of 69 dwellings would exceed the expectations of Policy SALP AL/SO2 that approximately 50-60 residential units would be delivered, it is accepted that the site has sufficient capacity to accommodate this number of dwellings and that maximizing the potential for housing delivery accords with national and local development plan policy.
• The traffic movements generated by the development, including service vehicles, can be accommodated without detriment to highway safety and suitable measures (secured by conditions) have been proposed to address the highway impact of the proposals and to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists.
• As an objection to these proposals has been lodged by Sport England, before any planning permission can be granted it will be necessary to refer the application to the National Planning Casework Unit.

In the detailed explanation of the proposal, the TWBC document states:

There are three main components of the proposed hub building:
(1)   theatre/community hall – this is the forward-most “block” fronting London Road. It contains a 350 person capacity theatre/main community hall with associated back of house workshops, storage, toilets, plant room and kitchen; a self contained ground floor retail unit facing London Road; community rooms at first floor level above the retail unit. The community / theatre elements would provide for flexible use that could be hired separately for community groups, events and theatrical productions. This is the tallest part of the building – two storeys on the frontage rising to an equivalent four storey height (similar to the height of the flats at Hythe Close).

(2)    circular shaped central core – as well as providing the main entrance to the
theatre/community space, this would accommodate the replacement Town Council office accommodation, a library and a small café/bar to support the community uses. This space is single storey but with generous (4m to 6m) headroom and a central rooflight. It has a large overhanging canopy that provides space for outdoor seating associated with the café

(3)  medical centre – this two storey element is located furthest from London Road and is accessible either from the central core or through its own entrance.

The document continues in para 2.12:

The Hub is a public building which is intended to be iconic and provide a distinctive character for the regenerated Southborough town centre. The building would be of a contemporary appearance… The proposed external materials for the walls are fibre cement panels and glazing at the lower level, copper cladding and a lightweight translucent polycarbonate cladding material at the upper levels that will provide an opportunity to illuminate the building at night. Amended details have been received which show changes to the external appearance of the building with regard to materials.

The planning document implies there is a planning requirement to explore ways the Royal Victoria Hall could be retained, but goes on to state:

The applicant has confirmed the following:
–    the Royal Victoria Hall maintenance costs have been rising over the past decade and, following a recent insurance claim against the Town Council from a member of the public injured in the hall, along with drains and walls collapsing, the decision was taken by STC to eventually close the facility as they could no longer afford the outlays.
–    At the outset of the project, various surveys were undertaken on the building, including a report on its condition, which highlighted various problems
–    Funding was explored with the Heritage Lottery Fund and Arts Council England to retain the building but both were negative responses.
–    The current building is not flexible, with a racked stage that is unable to be used for any other purpose. The seating is screwed down and the building is not accessible in some areas.
–    The building does not meet current building regulations in terms of acoustic and thermal insulation, HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning), fire regulations, asbestos and other public performance space requirements.
–    There are greater costs associated with the refurbishment of older buildings.

In tandem with the above, consultation was carried out on both options and the local population voted overwhelmingly at the November 2015-January 2016 consultation exercise in favour of a new build.

It is accepted that the above satisfactorily demonstrates that the policy requirement for the applicant to explore opportunities to retain and improve the Royal Victoria Hall has been complied with and the reasons why this option has not been pursued have been clearly explained.

The Hub team’s so far unsuccessful efforts to appease the Sport England objection are outlined in para 2.28:
Since the application was submitted the applicant has clarified that in compensation for the loss of playing pitches from the application site, the following improvements and enhancements would be made to the adjacent playing fields:

• Purpose built and improved sports pavilion facilities (designed with potential to be extend in the longer term),
• Levelling and re-contouring of the existing pitches to the north of the site to create larger playing surfaces thereby allowing the two junior pitches displaced by the application proposals to be re-provided on this adjacent land to ensure no overall loss of pitches,
• If desired and subject to further consultation with the football clubs – 2 further pitches could be created, resulting in a net increase of 2 pitches It is proposed that the works be completed within 18 months of closure of the existing pitches on the Hub site.

The planning officers come down on the side of the Hub team and not Sport England, arguing:

The proposed sports pavilion proposed is a two storey building that has four group changing rooms and two individual changing rooms with hot and cold running water. This is considered to be a substantial improvement over the current temporary use of the former Ridgewaye school building, which does not have any showers. Whilst the pavilion is located in the area of land allocated for sports pitches provision under SALP Policy AL/SO3, this is considered to be acceptable as the pavilion is sited so as not to affect the pitch layout…

The final paragraphs include:

10.93 As further clarified during the course of this application, these proposals will provide tangible benefits to the adjacent playing fields, which in your officers’ opinion outweigh the loss of a relatively small area of playing pitches when compared to that which will remain. The new sports pavilion, improvements to the playing pitch levels in parts of the site to increase of the playable area of the adjacent playing fields will increase the playing capacity and enhance the facilities offered here.

10.94  The design of the proposed Hub building is uncompromisingly modern and is not to everyone’s taste. However, when account is taken of national planning policy on design, the building and the site’s layout has much to commend it. The building has been deliberately designed to be a landmark, signalling the heart of the town centre at all times of the day, including during the evening. The variety of the townscape, particularly on the eastern side of London Road, provides an opportunity to create a distinctive design. Concerns regarding the suitability of the translucent polycarbonate cladding are understood and there will be scope as the fine details of the building’s design progresses to address this.

The electronic petition that was started a week ago under the title “Southborough Deserves Better” calling for the current Hub designs to be scrapped reached 1,000 supporters on Sunday, only a week after its launch.

The evidence of continuing dissatisfaction with the Southborough Town Council project prompted the Priest in Charge at St Thomas’s Church in Pennington Road, Rachel Wilson, to say: “If a thousand people are upset, you cannot ignore it.”

Rachel Wilson put a formal submission supporting the Hub plans in September arguing: “this development has the potential to both support the regeneration of the area and improve community cohesion.” But she told Southborough News on Sunday: “I understand where the objectors are coming from. It is incumbent on the people in power to pay attention.”

The main petition organiser, Brian Dury (pictured below), said: “I am overwhelmed by the level of verbal and written support we have received… I would just like to thank everyone for their support and to ask them to keep on encouraging more signatures and for people to write into the planning department expressing their views. Now is not the time to give up!”

Brian Dury was born in Southborough and has lived in the town all his life. He has been involved in campaigns to save the Ridgewaye Fields from development since 1991.  Before retirement, he was a professional engineer in telecommunications. He is now Chairman of Kent Area of The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and visits schools to encourage students to take up a career in engineering, as a STEM ambassador.

Mr Dury told Southborough News on Sunday: “In just over 8 days we have hit and gone beyond the 1,000 signatures mark and the numbers are still growing. Together with a small army of helpers we have delivered 5,000 leaflets across Southborough and High Brooms. From Bounds Oak Way to Welbeck Avenue and Valley View to Bright Ridge we have received nothing but encouragement.” The petition site is here:

http://bit.ly/2eDPwmR

Strong opinions on both sides of the Hub debate were clearly in evidence when Southborough News spoke to people at random in the town on Sunday afternoon. Mike Lucas of Pennington Road said: “I don’t see any merit in preserving the ugly Victoria Hall…knock it down.”  A resident of Summerhill Avenue said: “I think the Hub plan looks great…we need new facilities…it looks positive.”

By contrast, Paul Funnell of Fernhurst Crescent said he thought money should be spent refurbishing the Royal Victoria Hall and reopening it, not knocking it down. Mr Funnell said his family had been amazed at the high quality of a production they’d seen there, arguing “it was so good in every respect…it felt like an evening out at a London theatre.”

The petition organiser, Brian Dury also told Southborough News that: “There is almost total ignorance about what is going on with the Hub and people are only now just waking up to the fact that within a matter of months the Royal Victoria Hall and council offices will be demolished, leaving a hole in the town like the old cinema site in Tunbridge Wells”.

Mr Dury, who ended his career controlling budgets of more than £ 100 million a year delivering new hardware and software projects, emphasised the financial risks with the current Southborough Hub plan: “I was surprised by the number of people who are asking how much the Hub was going to cost and who is paying. I don’t think many of them are aware that it’s them who are going to pay on their council tax.”

Mr Dury argued: “This is something we are clearly going to have to come back to since there is a complete and utter silence on the subject from Southborough Town Council. I think the public would be shocked to know that no councillor other than Glenn Lester and Peter Oakford could tell you anything about the Hub finances.”

Glenn Lester (pictured above), who represents Southborough Town Council’s interests on the Hub project, has previously argued to Southborough News that the Hub will allow the Council to build a new badly needed medical centre for the local doctors’ surgery.  Mr Lester said: “After 25 years plus of dereliction in the middle of Southborough High Street…I am passionate about giving Southborough back a central hub that will create a heart to our town to enable every member of our town to participate in what we’ve got to offer”.

Although the sample was far too small to be scientific, of 22 people questioned on Sunday afternoon by Southborough News, the results were:
* 14 were against the existing Hub plans to demolish the Royal Victoria Hall
* 4 were in favour of current Council Hub plans put forward by Glenn Lester
* 4 were undecided

Of the 14 opponents, only 4 had signed the electronic petition so far, suggesting that the petition numbers could grow further in the coming days.

The St Thomas’s Priest in Charge, Rachel Wilson, said she would support the idea of a Southborough wide referendum, with a ballot posted to every voter in the town to ask if they were for or against the current scheme.  She said: “a referendum may be the only way that all voices can be heard”.  17 of the 22 people surveyed by Southborough News on Sunday also agreed with the idea of a referendum.

Meanwhile on the Tunbridge Wells Planning Portal, formal objections are up to 191, which is 85 % of comments opposed to the Hub. On Sunday, Ed MacNaughton of Holden Park Road commented that the plans were: “not wanted by those living in the town, yet you don’t appear to want to listen to the majority…It is almost laughable that the theatre is not listed, but the Chinese restaurant next to the site is. It just shows what a mess your planning regulations are in”.

All the comments are available on this link:

More Views 2016

The Planning decision is expected to be made on Wednesday 9th November at 5pm, so residents have very little time left to register their views before documents are prepared for the planning committee at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.

Tunbridge Wells Planning officials have agreed that the heritage value of the Royal Victoria Hall should be taken into account in the forthcoming decision on whether to demolish it – a decision likely to welcomed by groups hoping to save the building.

Previously the Borough Council did not have the ability to give any weight to the loss of the Hall’s heritage value, when looking at the merits of the planning proposal.  However, it seems the new heritage status is unlikely to be a major factor when the planning committee meets in the coming weeks to decide if the 116 year old Hall should be knocked down.

The news emerged as a petition against the current Hub plans continued to gain steady support.  800 people have now signed the electronic petition in the past 6 days.  It was started by veteran local campaigner Brian Dury and is explained here:

http://bit.ly/2eDPwmR

Meanwhile, on Friday afternoon the public comments on the official planning site totalled 189 against the Hub with 33 in favour, so 85 % are now objecting.

The Royal Victoria Hall is not deemed by Historic England to be a building of “national importance”, which means it has no national listing and so there is no compulsion on the planning committee to reject the plans to demolish it.

However, buildings can be recognised on a local level and 15 ordinary residents completed a three page nomination form in recent weeks, proposing the Royal Victoria Hall as a “Local Heritage Asset”.

The conservation officer for Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Mark Stephenson, made the case in a 9 page document just published on the Tunbridge Wells planning website that “The Royal Victoria Hall be considered a Non Designated Heritage Asset for the purposes of this development proposal.”

This status gives the same level of protection to the Hall as if it had gone through the process of being named a “Local Heritage Asset.” Mr Stephenson said this “Local Heritage Asset” category couldn’t be taken forward as there wasn’t enough time to go through the usual 12 week process.

The head of the Tunbridge Wells Planning team, Karen Fossett, Mark Stephenson and another planning official visited the Royal Victoria Hall on 7th October and decided after a hour long tour of the whole building to accept the Conservation Officer’s recommendation to consider the theatre a “non designated heritage asset.”

However, Southborough Town Council, which wants to demolish the 116 year old building, will welcome parts of the Conservation Officer’s report which effectively argues the Hall only just scrapes through the process in which four different categories are considered for a building to qualify for heritage asset status.

The Conservation Officer’s report says: “Given that the building would only meet one criteria in one category, the level of significance as an non designated heritage asset would be substantially less than for a building that met multiple categories and multiple criteria in each. Although some judgement needs to be applied to the importance of each category and each criteria.”

The new designation could help save the Hall in a finely balanced judgement, but if the planning application is viewed by the councillors on the Tunbridge Wells planning committee as having great community benefits and also meets the Borough’s targets for new house building, then they would still be likely to approve the current Hub plan.

A bigger block to the planning proposal is the objection from Sport England.  It emerged on Friday that the Hub team have proposed overcoming that by issuing new plans that mark out extra football pitches on the northern end of the Ridgewaye fields in an area that currently slopes severely and is mainly now used by dog walkers and joggers.

The Conservation Officer’s report included a lengthy debate on the degree of alteration of the Royal Victoria Hall.  It dismissed evidence that 94 per cent of the volume of the Hall (i.e. the inside of theatre itself) is still substantially unaltered.

Mr Stephenson concluded: “This is not, to my mind an appropriate value calculation. Rather, when determining the level of alteration, it is most appropriate to discuss the parts of the building that hold significance and how that has been altered.”

Mr Stephenson concluded: “The form and nature of the existing building can still be readily observed for the most part but much of the finesse has been lost or hidden.”

On balance Mr Stephenson concluded that the Hall should not be disqualified from heritage status due to the degree of alteration.  His report acknowledged that the pitch pine doors, Victorian tiling and banisters, the proscenium arch, panelling and ventilation system remained in tact.

Here is a summary of the key points from Mr Stephenson’s report on the four key categories:
(1) Architectural interest: “While the building in its original form was typical of its period with interesting detail and form, and while its interior design appears well appointed and functionally the building is stated to perform well, there is no strong evidence that the design or construction is of a particularly high quality or includes any particular technological innovation.”

(2) Historic Interest: “It has been suggested that there is a strong connection with the end of World War II in that celebrations where held in the theatre…..However, such celebrations were held throughout the country in village, church and town halls of all types and sizes. While this is a national event of great significance, the connection to this building it is weak and does not confer any particular or unusual heritage merit.”

(3) Social and Economic Development, demonstrating an important cultural role within the local community: “I understand there has been a petition supporting the retention of the theatre, that had a high number of signatures from within the local community and beyond to surrounding communities and theatre companies or organisations. This has not been supplied either with this nomination or as evidence submitted by the public in relation to the current planning application. I am also not aware of the nature of the question upon which the signatories where asked to sign. As such it is difficult to give this matter significant weight….while there is good evidence that the building has significance to some in the local community, how strongly this equates to Heritage significance to the community rather than functional significance is difficult to ascertain from the submissions”.

(4) Townscape Character: “The loss of the original frontage and the removal of the enclosure and street trees resulting in an expanse of hard surface often used for parking have resulted in a more exposed, less accomplished presentation which does not contribute positively to the townscape in this location.”

Mr Stephenson concluded that only category (3) was possibly met.

The Secretary of the football club that uses Southborough’s Ridgewaye fields has said that the latest hub development plans for the area are “very very disappointing.”

Club Secretary Colin Niccolls said that trust between the soccer club and the Hub project team “has evaporated” and he has been “very frustrated” by the way the facilities being offered to the club have been steadily reduced over the past six months.

Sunday 2pm update: Brian Dury of the Southborough Environmental Action Movement (SEAM), which has been campaigning to stop development on the Ridgewaye playing fields since the 1990s, has launched a new electronic public petition against the current Hub scheme.  The petition gained 220 supporters on day one but probably needs around 2,000 supporters to make a difference to the Southborough Councillors who believe most people favour their scheme. See:
http://bit.ly/2eDPwmR

The Tunbridge Wells Youth Football Club motivates more than 500 boys and girls to play football every week. The age range is from 6 to 17 and the vast majority of the younger players are from Southborough itself.

Club Secretary Colin Niccolls, who has lived in Southborough for the past 17 years, says he is amazed that a small group of councillors are pushing forward with an unpopular scheme and “appear not to give two hoots” about what most local people want.

Mr Niccolls also told Southborough News that he understands that the KCC project team are attempting to overcome the Sport England objection to the Hub planning application by promising some major engineering works at the northern end of the Ridgewaye fields.

Mr Niccolls thinks they have a plan to build a retaining wall along the Ridgewaye lane hedges to bank up earth so that more of the fields will be made flat enough to provide replacement soccer pitches for those lost to housing in the Hub scheme.

Mr Niccolls says the plans for 69 housing units will obliterate two mini-pitches and render useless one full sized pitch. However, in the plans issued by KCC, the project team plays down the impact on the football pitches and argues that “The Football Pavilion has been sited to avoid impact on pitch layouts and is orientated on an east west axis in line with Sport England Guidance.”

The Design Statement sent to planners says: “This plan also demonstrates that there is no loss of football pitches within the AL/S03 site. There is still sufficient space for 4 under 7 pitches and two under 16 pitches to marked out on the field. The Football Pavilion and Ground Workers Storage Unit is located within the AL/S03 site boundary, however these facilities are provided to support the use of the open space.” See diagram below:

Mr Niccolls says that initially the club were optimistic that the loss of soccer pitches would be compensated for by a promise from the Hub project team of a large club house that would be a permanent base for decades to come and “do the community justice.”  Early in the process, he said “there was a real opportunity to do something for the community”.

However, Mr Niccolls says that the Hub project team are now only offering the club limited changing rooms in a building joined onto the Council maintenance block.  He said this is “worse in terms of space by a long way” compared with their current facilities and their concerns are being “ignored”.

The project team have stated that the football club are free to apply to the Football Foundation for funding to enhance the planned pavillion.

A key figure in promoting the Hub scheme, Councillor Peter Oakford, told Southborough News that he could not comment until after the planning committee meeting to decide on whether to approve the Hub. Public comments on the Hub are continuing to be published by the Tunbridge Wells Planning website and are still being copied onto this page on this website for ease of reading:

More Views 2016

The soccer club currently use the former sixth form block of the Ridgewaye school and have spent their own funds creating changing rooms there.  This building is planned to be knocked down and replaced by new housing that will pay for the demolition of the Royal Victoria Hall and construction of the new Hub building.

Mr Niccolls stressed the importance of the club to developing a community spirit in the area as it “allows kids to be energetic, to learn to be active and develop team skills”.

The KCC planning application says of the new club house: “The building has been split over two floors to minimise the impact on the open space of the recreation grounds and also to maximise the views from the social space to the field where football matches will take place. By reducing the footprint of the building we have been able to maintain the existing number of pitches in this area of the fields”.

The KCC plan continues: “The pavilion will – like the rest of the hub – use a solid, masonry clad or render finish to the base of the building with a lightweight polycarbonate cladding at first floor to create a lightbox feature to the building”.

The long awaited verdict from the planners at Tunbridge Wells Borough Council on whether to approve the demolition of the 116 year old Royal Victoria Hall and its replacement with the new Southborough Hub appears to have been delayed again.

The agenda for this month’s Planning Committee (next Wednesday 19th October) doesn’t include a vote on the Southborough Hub. So the most likely date for a decision on the Hub is now Wednesday 9th November at 5pm.

Meanwhile, what may be the final photos taken of the Victorian tiling and other features in the backstage areas of the Royal Victoria Hall have been obtained by Southborough News and 20 of the pictures are shown below.

People who want to support or oppose the demolition of the Royal Victoria Hall can still  affect the outcome by commenting officially. You can either do a google search for “Tunbridge Wells planning” and then search their list for “hybrid”, then log in and comment. Or else simply email planning@tunbridgewells.gov.uk and include your full name and address and application number 16/06081/HYBRID.

The delay to the planning vote means local people will have a chance to discuss the scheme with the area’s MP, Greg Clark, who is due to come to Southborough Library for a drop in advice surgery on Saturday 29 October between 11am and 12noon. (His website says no appointment is necessary).

More of the backstage Victorian tiling is shown below:

Many of the Victorian fittings have survived in tact despite the changing fashions of the 20th century, such as the metal rail in front of the balcony below.

The supporters of the Royal Victoria Hall argue that the existing changing rooms (shown below) are still fit for purpose, and are actually larger and more usefully placed than those in the planned replacement Hub community space, where the changing rooms will also double up as the council meeting rooms.

This picture below suggests more of the original style of the building, before the rather bright red recent makeovers. In 1900 apparently all the wood was left unpainted.

At the front of the building, some of the original frontage ornate brick work is still in tact behind the 1970s facade (see below).

During the Second World War, the basement of the Royal Victoria Hall was used as a bomb shelter and these cast iron reinforcements below look to be from that time.

Below is the view from inside the control room at the back of the gallery and then how it looks from the stage.

Supporters of the old building also argue the roof is sound (shown below) and the electrics were completely replaced only a few years ago (new fuse boxes also shown below).

No one could be contacted in Tunbridge Wells planning on Friday to explain the delay to the planning decision but possible reasons for the delay could include:

• Negotiations with Sport England who are objecting to loss of playing fields
• Lower than expected land values from selling the fields after the BREXIT vote meaning the specifications may have to be reduced
• Possible redesign of the new library – removing planned fixtures – so the area can be large enough to meet legal requirements to be used as a theatre foyer as set out in the Theatres Trust consultation response

Although 159 people and organisations have written objections to the current Hub scheme on the Tunbridge Wells planning website, the project team are still convinced most people in Southborough are behind the modern Hub designs.

The theatre groups that used the Royal Victoria Hall until its closure by the council in 2015 maintain the new facilities won’t match the Royal Victoria Hall (more pictures below) and productions in the new planned hall will have to be less ambitious.

As of Sunday 9th October, I have calculated that there were 29 supporters and 158 opponents of the Hub planning application from named individuals or organisations visible on the Tunbridge Wells planning website.  There was one neutral comment. This means 84 per cent of comments were opposed.

The people of Southborough now wait to see what the recommendation to councillors will be from the professional planning officers at Tunbridge Wells.  The date of the decision by councillors is still to be announced. It is expected in the next few weeks.

The full comments are available elsewhere on this blog, but I have summarised them below, with contributors organised in alphabetical order by surname.

SUPPORTERS – 29

Mrs Jean	Allanach	Grimsby	Some of the design is not to my taste
Cllr Bob	Backhouse (Con)	T Wells	RVH is not fit for 21st century while hub will provide a much needed focus for civic purposes
Alan	Collins	Sboro	Hub will provide improved modern facilities
Cllr David	Elliot (Con)	Sboro	Currently mayor of Sboro – will put heart back into town and improve its appearance
Alex	Green (Trinity Theatre)	T Wells	RVH would need significant upgrades to provide a venue of standard area deserves so redevelop
Cllr Nasir	Jamil (Con)	Sboro	We get a brand new state of the art theatre
Jacqueline	Jedrzejewski	Sboro	Hub will be the envy of other towns
Ian	Kinghorn	Sboro	Can’t wait for heart to be put back in town. We need new hall for non-theatre groups as used to happen in RVH
Olwyn	Kinghorn (Southboro Society committee)	Sboro	Loss of RVH offset by exciting community centre We hope for museum space in new hub
Benjamin	Lester	Sboro	Saddening that RVH ends but need sth new
Sarah	Lester	Sboro	Welcome plan to revitalise high street
Cllr Glenn	Lester (Con)	Sboro	Building is wonderful opportunity for Sboro
Cllr Mrs Leah	Markwell (Con)	Sboro	Football players will still have plenty of pitches
David	Marshall	T Wells	I am a patient at St Andrews medical centre and it needs a bigger building
Neil	Maxfield	Sboro	Object to theatre being included
Lindy	Maxfield	Sboro	Hub access is badly planned but supports Hub
Judith	Mitchell	Smarden	Hub will put heart back into Sboro
Gary	Mitchell	Smarden	Owns Sboro shops – Hub is truly visionary
Ms Nikita	Oakford	Sboro	Hub is a wonderful, new & exciting development
Mrs Sharon	Oakford	Sboro	Hub will be great asset & meeting place
Cllr Peter	Oakford (Con)	Sboro	Hub vibrant focal point & fabulous design
Jacqueline	Prance	Sboro	Hub provides much needed focal point
Judy	Rose	Sboro	Sboro in need of a facelift Hub achieves this
Mike	Scott	Sboro	RVH is unloved and underused hall
Mrs Tanya	Shaw (St Andrew’s Medical Centre)	Sboro	Hub will provide a bigger medical centre for our patients
Mrs Shahanara	Uddin	Sboro	Area needs investment for regeneration
Cllr Zulhash	Uddin (Con)	Sboro	Housing should be sympathetic to area
Rachel	Wilson (vicar St Thomas’ Church)	Sboro	Hub has potential to improve social cohesion but residents’ concerns need to be addressed
Jennifer	Wright	Sboro	Wants theatre but worried about parking/noise

NEUTRAL – 1

Simon

Miller

Sboro

Saddened to hear about loss of soccer pitches

OPPONENTS – 158

Sharon	Acton (Sboro Brownies)	Sboro	Our brownie unit have missed panto
Mark	Airey	Paddock Wd	My online petition had 5,000 signatures to save RVH–no mandate to demolish historic RVH
Jon	Alcock	Sboro	Hub is badly designed box– seats don’t face stage
Pauline	Alexander	Sboro	RVH is a Heritage Asset
Steve	Allan	Sboro	RVH has been jewel in the Sboro crown – no need for another community space
Barbara	Anderson	?? *	RVH is a treasure in the community
Sally	Angell	Sboro	I live in Hythe Close – Hub is in my back yard – its design would make me ashamed and embarrassed to live in Sboro
Mrs Teresa	Baldock	Crowborough	RVH is a piece of history – listen to people
Mary	Banks-Murayama	Sboro	Majority of residents want RVH renovated
Ian	Barker	Sboro	RVH is building of great historical interest
Mrs Leonie	Barker	Sboro	Hub is not viable as a hall, let alone a theatre
Margaret	Barnes	Sboro	People in Sboro are horrified at dreadful hub
Joanna	Bell	Sboro	Please don’t destroy this historic venue
Amelia	Bell-Richards	Tonbridge*	Air pollution will worsen for my auntie
Letita	Bell-Richards	Tun Wells	Object to historic heritage being torn down
Keith	Bennett	T Wells	Keep historic amenity given by Salomons
Mrs Judi	Best	T Wells	Preserve RVH as a community historic asset
Gwendoline	Betts	Sboro	Prefer to keep RVH – new build doesn’t fit
Martin	Betts	Sboro	Hub is totally inappropriate in style
Miss Rebecca	Bing	Tonbridge*	RVH is heritage and a great venue; Hub hideous
Richard	Blackwell	Romney Marsh*	Former Sboro mayor who served on council for 31 years. Hub design is “a large plastic lunch box” dropped in the middle of our town.
Mrs Diana C	Blackwell	Romney Marsh*	Hub design is an “eyesore”
Ms Diana	Blackwell	Sboro	Hub design is not in keeping with street scene
Cllr Nicholas	Blackwell (Labour)	Sboro	Was mayor when hub tentatively first agreed, it is untrue that RVH is not fit for purpose – RVH is structurally sound & rewired recently
Cllr Fiona	Brown (Labour)	Sboro	As Head of a Drama college, thinks hub space falls far short of “state of the art” theatre
Tamsin	Brownbridge	T Wells	Hub is a disaster waiting to happen
Sylvia	Browning	Hounslow	We deplore demolition without reason
Laurie	Buckingham	Wadhurst	RVH is a gem of Victoriana
Chloe	Byrne	Sboro	Shocked and appalled at monstrosity
David	Byrne	Sboro	Looks laughably cheap and ugly
Jane	Carden	Sboro	RVH is an iconic landmark
Judy	Cave	Sboro	Hub is expensive modern monstrosity
Mr Leigh	Chatfield	Sboro	Objects due to loss of football pitches
Sophie	Chatfield	Sboro	Preserve RVH for future generations
Sarah	Clark	Cranbrook*	RVH should be renovated
Jeremy	Clarke	Sboro	RVH should be restored as part of hub
Charmain	Clissold-Jones	T Wells	Hub is shoddy design
Ms Dominique	Clothier	Sboro	New modern hub will accelerate decline of Sboro
Mrs Katrina	Clucas	Sboro	Hub is out of character of Sboro buildings
John	Clucas	Sboro	Hub is severely detrimental to local area
John	Cole	Ramsgate	RVH is part of rich architectural tradition
Alastair	Collie	Sboro	Hub is not promised “state of the art” theatre
Dr Arthur	Cottingham	Groombridge*	Hub is crazy thinking
Mrs Wil	Crittenden	Sboro	Hub looks like sea front kiosk
Robert	Darling	T Wells	RVH is an historic building
Angela	Dewar	Sboro	Ugly hub design is extremely distressing
Michael	Di Palma	T Wells	Losing 15% of playing fields not acceptable
Mrs Keren	Dibbens-Wyatt	Sboro	Not enough consultation on library
Jane	Dury	Sboro	Hub building is totally inappropriate
Mrs Rona	Dury	Sboro	Hub design is out of character
Brian	Dury	Sboro	Hub is poor design & out of character in town
Brian	Dury (Southboro Environmental Action Movement- 477 supporters)	Sboro	Hub project team have not listened to concerns. There is no state of the art theatre as was promised. Polycarbonate box is awful. Totally inappropriate. Over development on fields.
Ms Adele	Ebbage	T Wells*	Hub does not reflect the character of Sboro – volunteers have offered to maintain RVH
Tony	Egan	Pembury	New hall in the planned hub lacks many key features of existing RVH; hub will be eyesore
Graham	Ellis	Sboro	Lack of parking and loss of soccer pitch
Mrs Lisa	Everett	T Wells	Cheaper to refurbish RVH than build hub
Max	Figgett	Tun Wells	Hub design clumsy; robbing us of soccer pitches
RJ	Fitz-Gerald	Sboro	I despair and it makes me think long and hard about whether I will continue growing my business in Southborough
John	Francis	Sboro	Loss of soccer pitches for children
Gina	Franks	Speldhurst*	Hub hall/theatre is not fit for purpose
Mr Sascha	Fromeyer	Sboro	Hub will worsen existing traffic problems
Mrs Katharine	Fromeyer	Sboro	Hub would encourage anti-social behaviour
Ian	Gavin	Sboro	Planning process has not been transparent
Hannah	Glenville	Sboro	Will cast shadows over my garden
Matthew	Glenville	Sboro	Traffic problems due to 69 housing units
Sarah	Glover	Devon*	RVH is a fantastic place to perform as I did
Mrs Shelly	Goldring	Soaks	Hub design not in keeping
Lynn	Green	Sboro	Don’t think Sboro needs a theatre
Rhiannon	Grundy	Sboro	Historic theatre cannot be simply demolished
Ken	Hampton	Sboro	Hub theatre has not enough facilities
Brian	Hampton	Sboro	Hub is not a “state of the art” theatre
Mrs E	Harris	T Wells	RVH is an historical jewel
Philip	Harris	Sboro	Loss of parking for allotment holders
Miss Carys	Hatcher	Sboro	Hub is overdevelopment will be an eyesore
Ms Cheryl	Hatcher	Sboro	New housing will overlook my home
Ms Liz	Hatherell	Sboro	Hub is hideously ugly & out of keeping
Wiz	Haynes	Sboro	Noone trusts the council
Anya	Heilpern	Sboro	Hub is incompatible with planning policy EN1 which demands respect for “context of site”
Andy	Hennah	Sboro	Hub is not in keeping with Sboro architecture
Tabitha	Hennah	Sboro	Designs not in keeping with vicinity
Adam	Henry	Sboro	Loss of two 7-side & 11-side soccer pitches
Cllr Diane	Hill (Labour)	Sboro	I was elected to Borough Council in May with 52% of vote after I campaigned to keep RVH
Derek	Holland	Mayfield*	“superb theare” will be lost
Lucy	Ireland	Sboro	RVH is last heritage building on London Road
Paul	Isaacs	Kent	Why lose following of RVH?
Lucy	Jarrett	Pembury	The proscenium arch in RVH is very rare – dreams have been realised within walls of RVH
Trevor	Jary	Surrey	Historical sacrilege & loss to young people
Anna	Jones	Sboro	Refurbishing existing RVH is far better
Sarah	Jones	Sboro	As professional access consultant, plans have poorly written Design & Access Statement
Mrs Susie	Joyce	W Malling*	Hub is a monster that sounds vicious & cruel
Tun Wells	Labour Party	T Wells	Represents 800 members in TW constituency – Hub has little beauty & is not fit for purpose
Southboro & High Brooms	Labour Party (100 members)	Sboro	RVH is town heritage building and should be renovated and modernised sympathetically
Dinah	Lampitt	Battle*	RVH is a magnificent building
Dave	Leech	T Wells	RVH should be restored not destroyed
Jacky	Leman	Matfield	Hub is totally out of character for Sboro
Joanna	Lewin	T Wells	Save the RVH
Alain	Lewis	Sboro	Modernising RVH is cheaper than new build
Peter	Lewtas	T Wells	Hub is cultural vandalism – RVH is historic
William	MacDougal	Sboro	Poor quality hub – theatre design faulty
John	Manthorpe	Uckfield	RVH should be cherished
Coral	Martin	Sboro	My sons play football at Ridgewaye fields
Miss Eloise	Martin	Sboro	Wants to keep library & beautiful historic RVH
Ms Claire	Martin	Sboro	Hub fills me with dread – restore RVH instead
Ross	McPherson	Staplehurst*	Reconsider this preposterous plan
Miss Catherine	Meade	Sboro	Hub design is completely out of keeping
Richard	Millett	Hildenboro	Hub makes me question my decision to move to Sboro – after BREXIT, TWEXIT moment?
Melanie	Morris	Sboro	Hub will be an embarrassment to us all
Mrs Lindsey	Morris	Tonbridge	RVH is much loved & historic building
Cllr Graham	Munn (Labour)	Sboro	Polycarbonate cladding will look shoddy –bats live around buildings to be demolished
Merlyn	Neve	Sboro	RVH could be refurbished and modernised
Paul	Newton	Sboro	Loss of football pitches and green space
Will	Northcote	Sboro	Loss of 3 soccer pitches unnecessary – council could instead use funds from sale of Speldhurst allotments – Hub is worst of modern architecture
Enrique	Novella	Sboro	Highly unlikely that hub theatre will work
Eleanor	O’Shea	Sboro	Restore RVH to its original splendour
Dominic	Offord	Sboro	RVH is piece of British cultural history -my child cried when heard council were bulldozing it
Rebecca	Offord	Sboro	Hub will be less economically viable than RVH
Andrew	Perkins	T Wells	Loss of soccer pitches
Kathleen	Perkins	T Wells	Loss of football pitches
Helen	Phillimore	T Wells	Not all can afford the Assembly Hall prices
John	Phillimore	T Wells	This is an historic town – keep history
William	Phillimore	T Wells	Save the RVH
Andrew	Phillimore	T Wells	Enjoyed productions at RVH
David	Podbury	T Wells	Hub design not in keeping
Robert	Podbury	T Wells	Hub design not in keeping, more pollution
Mrs Saffron	Prentis	Sboro	RVH should be restored to former glory
Mrs Eryl	Rayner	T Wells	Hub hall seats at right angles won’t work
David	Rayner	T Wells	As a retired architect I am astonished by the lack of quality in hub plans – should modernise the RVH at much lower cost than a new build
Cllr Jason	Reeves (Labour)	Sboro	RVH has local heritage & cultural value
Mrs Mary	Richards	Sboro	Unacceptable to lose the green space
Douglas	Richards	Sboro	I totally object due to loss of green space
Alan	Round	T Wells	Proposed Hub does not respect character of town RVH clearly has local historic interest
Mrs Holly	Rowden	Sboro	Historic building being replaced by monstrosity
Nick	Shaw	Stonegate*	RVH is a unique facility for artist & audience
Mrs Marion	Short	Sboro	RVH is much loved – hub is not theatre
Matt	Spink	Sboro	Will have houses built behind my home
Annette	Stevens	Tonbridge*	Pse don’t knock down lovely little theatre
Chris	Steward	Sboro	Hub more suited to an airport terminal
Mandy	Strong	T Wells	Please don’t known down RVH
Tom	Sullivan	T Wells	Loss of football pitches & smaller pavilion
Donna	Swallow	Sboro	Hub not an environmental design & pollution
Michael	Swallow	Sboro	Plan designed by a secretive cabal
Andrew	Swann (Chairman LAMPS theatre group)	T Wells	Short sighted and selfish to rob your society of such a unique and historic place as RVH
Michael	Taylor	Sboro	RVH belongs here – it is the town’s hub
Susan	Taylor	Sboro	Introduce new facilities without destroying RVH
Suzanne	Terrasse	Sboro	Demolishing RVH for a hall is ludicrous
Andy	Thomson	T Wells	Hub denies chance of children to play sport
Scott	Towner	Sboro	RVH should stay
Miss Marion	Townsend	Sboro	Hub design is truly ghastly out of character
Mrs Norah	Traquair	T Wells	Hub not in keeping with the local area
Susan	Trusler	Tun Wells	Strongly object to loss of playing fields
Sylvia	Villa	T Wells	RVH is small jewel worth saving
Mrs Lisa	Ward	Sboro	Hub will look ridiculous in Sboro
Mat	Waugh	T Wells	Town square is unconvincing
Hugo	Webber	Sboro	Preserve RVH, hub contravenes planning policy
Ms Diane	Williams	Sboro	Design of the hub is an “eyesore”
Peter	Williamson	Sboro	RVH is important piece of Sboro heritage. Hub is unfit for purpose & laughable white elephant
Brian	Wood	Sboro	Totally out of keeping with historic character
Anya	Wood	Sboro	Hub will have a detrimental effect on town

Sboro includes High Brooms;

*comment indicates they still use or have used Southbrough facilities

(Con) or (Labour) means they have been elected to Southborough Town, Tunbridge Wells Borough or Kent County Council.

Full comments at:

Views 2016

More Views 2016

 

In an intervention that has angered members of the Southborough theatre community, the Executive Director of Tunbridge Wells Trinity Theatre, Alex Green, has said the Royal Victoria Hall should be demolished.

The Trinity Theatre has received hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money in recent decades to convert a church into a theatre. It employs full time staff and relies on around 200 volunteers to offer a mix of amateur and professional shows. It now gets £45,000 a year from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, but Arts Council and Kent County Council funding has stopped.

The Trinity Theatre’s intervention came in a formal letter on the Tunbridge Wells planning website.

Executive Director Alex Green said: “As a venue operator, I believe the current facilities (at Royal Victoria Hall) would need significant upgrades to provide a venue of the standard the area deserves. Combined with the repair/maintenance and health and safety requirements there is a strong argument for a comprehensive redevelopment of the venue.”

He continued: “An entirely new build would provide the opportunity for the flexibility required to give exciting opportunities for the Southborough community. I am aware of the concerns regarding the suitability of the plans (e.g. dressing rooms and bar).If unlimited funds were available I would support the development of enhanced plans. However I believe that the plans are workable and with such a project a degree of compromise is needed.”

Mr Green indicated he accepted the assurances from the project team at Kent County Council, concluding: “In terms of the facilities, my understanding is that there are plans and budgets allocated for final fitting out of the technical spaces and that the venue should end up with a high quality theatre performance space. Additionally their intention to install sky lights and retractable seating should also allow the space to double up as a large high quality hall which could be used for artistic and community purposes.”

Reacting to Mr Green’s comments, Tony Egan, who ran the pantomime productions at Southborough’s Royal Victoria Hall for 30 years, said: “I feel very angry that Mr Green has tried to intervene with no real substance to his comments.”

Mr Egan continued: “Mr Green is wrong about the Hall needing major changes.  As far as we are aware, he has never produced a production or performed in the Royal Victoria Hall.”

Mr Green spoke to Southborough News on Thursday and confirmed that he had been dealing with the finance and logistics at Trinity for the past six years and had attended performances at the Royal Victoria Hall, but had never performed or produced a  show there.

He said he hoped the community would get behind theatre activities in Southborough whatever happened in terms of the way forward.  He said he believed more work had gone on “behind the scenes” by the Kent County Council project team on working out how to make the new hall/theatre space in the Southborough Hub viable.

Meanwhile, over the past fortnight, support for the option of refurbishment of the Royal Victoria Hall has continued to pour in from many of the Hall’s former users, such as the amateur theatre group, LAMPS, which first performed at the Royal Victoria Hall in 1955.

In an earlier submission to the planning website, the Chairman of the LAMPS, Andrew Swann, declared of the Royal Victoria Hall: “It’s a wonderful venue, both in terms of its social history, location and its size. I speak on behalf of a huge number of people that have performed there as part of LAMPS, who would not have met one another and had such fabulous memories of such a wonderful venue.”

Mr Swann concluded: “I must write that I cannot really describe how strongly I disagree with the destruction of the RVH – I feel it is short sighted and selfish of you all to rob your society of such a unique place, and I thoroughly hope that when you foolishly push through this course of action, that one day you will look back and regret every decision you make here today. Sadly it will be too late then, as we now stare down the barrel of a pen striking the order to demolish our cultural heritage”.

And in a comment added on Thursday to the Tunbridge Wells planning portal, the former Southborough pantomime producer of 30 years, Tony Egan rejected the Trinity Theatre Executive Director’s arguments.  Tony Egan said: “Will the new theatre in the Hub which he is supporting have the facilities of the existing hall, a raked stage? a fly tower? backstage space with entrances to both sides of the stage for performers? back stage toilet facilities for both male & female performers? dressing room facilities for principals? dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for juvenile performer? front of house curtains? Large vehicular access to a scene dock door? None of these items are on the current proposal for the Hub designated theatre/performing space. But they are all at the Royal Victoria Hall which is to be demolished! The RVH is flexible and can be used for other than theatre events as it has in the past with good and enthusiastic management”.

The Conservative councillors who’ve battled to develop the multi-million pound project to demolish the Royal Victoria Hall and build a “new heart” for Southborough say they are determined to push ahead with their plans despite continuing opposition.

Earlier this week, a key statutory consultee, Sport England, said it was making an “outright objection” due to the loss of soccer pitches in the Ridgewaye playing fields. This could lead to the government quashing the scheme whatever the Tunbridge Wells planning committee decides in a few weeks time.

In comments on Friday to Southborough News, the Hub’s project leader at Southborough Town Council, Glenn Lester, said: “Sport England have a default setting of objecting to the loss of any open space, but we believe that the benefits out way the loss.  There is always a compromise.”

Mr Lester believes the planners will be ‘mindful’ of the objection but ultimately will take a ‘common sense’ approach and give the go-ahead.

Mr Lester also referred to some of the other objectors who have made their feelings known in the past week: “This is purely a left wing political attempt to scupper Southborough’s future for its own political gain. The cost of which will be borne by the residents of Southborough for years to come.”

85 per cent of public comments appearing on the Tunbridge Wells planning website are from people objecting to the scheme.  As of Monday morning (3rd October 2016), there were 148 public objections, compared with only 26 messages of support. But Mr Lester still believes the silent majority of people in Southborough are supporting him.

You can study all the public comments on this blog in a much more easy to read format than on the Tunbridge Wells planning website. See:

More Views 2016

Mr Lester continued: “When we live with a dilapidated hall, Council offices, no football pavilion and a doctors that is not fit for modern local medical provision and an outdated Library and our High Street dead through lack of a new vibrant heart, we will just have to look no further than the Labour Group in Southborough for the reasons why.”