The Officers referred Members to the report which advised that the proposal was for approval of the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of the main house replacing a previously demolished annexe building. The dwelling would be L-shaped, with the front elevation facing a northerly direction and with an integral garage projecting to the front of the property. Access to the new house would continue to be from the entrance to the site, adjacent to 31 Serpentine Road, and along a driveway which ran along the northern boundary.

The proposal was unamended from the last time it was presented to the Committee. The Committee was directed to the details, as set out in the report, of the application for judicial review of the Development Control Committee’s resolution on 17 February 2011 to grant planning permission SE/10/02793/FUL. The members were reminded that the Council had reached a settlement with the Claimant and that the planning application was before them for redetermination.

Officers considered that the principle of the development was acceptable. In addition the proposed house would preserve the character and appearance of the area and neighbouring amenity. Therefore the proposal was considered to be in accordance with the development plan.

It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held for this application and Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:         Rachel Wray

For the Application:                Louise Wesson

Parish Representative:          Cllr. Mrs. Walshe

Local Member:                        -

In response to a question Officers clarified that the National Planning Policy Framework stated that local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies against inappropriate development of gardens. However the National Planning Policy Framework did not consider all development of gardens, by definition, as inappropriate.

The Chairman advised that due regard ought to be given to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Some Members believed that the proposed dwelling was excessively larger than the chalet granted permission under application SE/09/01132. Members were concerned that the size and scale of the proposed dwelling would not be appropriate and that there would be an adverse impact on amenities. They drew attention to views of the development from Serpentine Court and also Kennedy Gardens from where the development would be more prominent since the high hedge adjoining the boundary had been removed. Additionally the rear balcony would create unacceptable overlooking of the neighbouring properties. These Members considered that the proposed development would, to an unacceptable extent, have a greater impact than the approved scheme in overlooking adjoining properties.

The Local Member agreed with the views of the Town Council representative that the mansard roof and painted render finish would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission, subject to conditions, be adopted.

It was proposed that there be additional conditions for the bathroom window overlooking 4 Serpentine Court to be opaque, together with other windows as to be agreed between Officers and the Local Member. These amendments to the motion were agreed.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

6 votes in favour of the motion

7 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was then MOVED and duly seconded:

“That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1)         The form of the proposed dwelling, on account of its inappropriate height, scale, siting, design and materials, would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. This conflicts with policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2)         The proposal would create an undesirable form of development in that it would harm the residential amenities enjoyed by the residents of 4 & 5 Serpentine Court and the residents of 67, 76, 77, 78 & 79 Kennedy Gardens, both by the loss of privacy and overlooking caused by the first floor bedroom windows and the proposed balcony. This conflicts with policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

7 votes in favour of the motion

4 votes against the motion

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1)         The form of the proposed dwelling, on account of its inappropriate height, scale, siting, design and materials, would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. This conflicts with policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2)         The proposal would create an undesirable form of development in that it would harm the residential amenities enjoyed by the residents of 4 & 5 Serpentine Court and the residents of 67, 76, 77, 78 & 79 Kennedy Gardens, both by the loss of privacy and overlooking caused by the first floor bedroom windows and the proposed balcony. This conflicts with policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Cllr. Brown entered the meeting during the debate and therefore did not participate in the debate or voting.