The proposal sought re-development of the site to provide a pair of semi-detached, 3 bed houses directly to the rear of Swaylands House, a detached 3 bed house and a small office block located on the northern portion of the site. Some amendments had been made since the application SE/11/01909/FUL which was under appeal for non-determination.

Officers considered that the scale of the proposed buildings was appropriate to their sensitive context, adjacent to the Conservation Area and neighbouring Listed Buildings. The buildings would sit reasonably comfortably within the site and the location within the site would limit the potential noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers.

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

It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held for this application.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

            Against the Application:        -

            For the Application:               Ms. Tasker

            Parish Representative:          Cllr. Hocknell

            Local Member:                       Cllr. Firth

In response to a question Officers confirmed that Council refuse freighters would not be able to access the road to the residential properties. The properties would rely on refuse being collected from the highway or otherwise would need to be subject to a management plan. The Committee noted the comment from the Local Member that emergency vehicles would not have access to the residential site. As there was no space to pass other vehicles then cars may be compelled to reverse onto the A25, which Members felt was dangerous and inappropriate.

Members were concerned about the provision of parking at the site. Brasted already lacked a public car park and there were few spaces to park on the street. It was felt likely the offices could hold as many as 12-18 workers plus visitors but there was only parking for 6.

As the site was overcrowded cars would have little space to manoeuvre through the site. The tandem parking spaces would also be difficult to use.

Several Members stated that they agreed with the principle of development, especially if it was a mixed use site, but they felt the scale of the present proposal was inappropriate.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded:

“That planning permission be REFUSED on grounds of

1)                  The proposals, by reason of their siting, scale, layout, massing and design, would represent a cramped overdevelopment of the site with inadequate arrangements for access, manoeuvring and parking. The proposals would thus fail to have an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring properties and would be harmful to the character and amenities of the area. As such the proposals would be contrary to policies BE6 of the SE Plan, policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and policies SP1 and L07 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

2)         The proposals would lead to a requirement to contribute towards affordable housing provision. In the absence of a completed Section 106 or undertaking to secure an appropriate level of affordable housing provision, the development would be contrary to policy SP3 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy.”

It was put to the vote and there voted -

11 votes in favour of the motion

0 votes against the motion

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

1)         The proposals, by reason of their siting, scale, layout, massing and design, would represent a cramped overdevelopment of the site with inadequate arrangements for access, manoeuvring and parking. The proposals would thus fail to have an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring properties and would be harmful to the character and amenities of the area. As such the proposals would be contrary to policies BE6 of the SE Plan, policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and policies SP1 and L07 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

2)         The proposals would lead to a requirement to contribute towards affordable housing provision. In the absence of a completed Section 106 or undertaking to secure an appropriate level of affordable housing provision, the development would be contrary to policy SP3 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy.

Please see minutes of the Committee (26.07.12) for amendments to the above section.