The proposal sought planning permission to erect a detached dwelling and garage within the existing front garden to Woodland Chase. The site was within the built confines of Sevenoaks and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjacent to the Wildernesse Conservation area.

Previously permission had been granted on appeal for the erection of five new dwellings and alterations to garaging to the three dwellings (Godwins, Brackens and Woodland Chase), however that permission had now lapsed.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     Mr. Driessen

For the Application:            Ms Tasker

Parish Representative:       -

Local Member:                    Cllr. Hogarth

In response to a question Officers confirmed that since the appeal decision the definition of previously developed land had changed so that gardens would not fall into the definition. However the new rules did not preclude development on gardens if it did not harm the character of the area. The Inspector had decided that the lapsed permission would not have caused harm to the character of the area. The Inspector had not said the development was acceptable because the land was previously developed.

Members commented that the rear garden was relatively small considering the number of residents that would occupy the new dwelling and the size of other gardens in that road. Additionally they suggested that the proposed dwelling was excessive, bearing in mind the size of the plot. It was suggested that the dwelling would be too close to other properties, especially since an extension had been added to Godwins.

The Local Member, who sits on the Committee, added that, even though it was within the town confines, the area had a distinctive, general feeling of openness. She considered that the property would be too close to the road and out of keeping with the rest of the road. Officers explained that it would be 20m from the road.

Officers further advised that the permission granted on appeal, which included a dwelling on this site, had approved development in principal. Members had to consider whether circumstances had materially changed or whether the relevant policies had changed. Members should be aware that unless these arguments were relied on the Council could lose an appeal and face an order for costs from the other party.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, as amended by the Late Observations Sheet, to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted. The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

6 votes in favour of the motion

8 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

Following a question the Chairman confirmed that the application dwelling was smaller than that in the lapsed permission and that the size of the plot had not changed.

A Member stated that overdevelopment for the size of the plot was the view of most Members.

It was then MOVED and duly seconded:

“That the report be deferred to a future meeting of the Development Control Committee.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

13 votes in favour of the motion

2 votes against the motion

Resolved:        That the report be deferred to a future meeting of the Development Control Committee.

Please see minutes of the Committee (28.06.12) for amendments to the above section.