The proposal sought permission for the demolition of the existing garage, erection of a part two storey part first floor extension to the side of the property and the construction of a glazed link leading to a two storey structure. The application also sought permission to re-clad the first floor. The site was within the Village of Otford Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Officers considered that the glazed link represented an inappropriate addition to the building to the detriment of its design, character and appearance. The proposed development would also result an uninterrupted built form across most of the application site and this would result in the site appearing cramped, contrary to the established spatial character of Greenhill Road.

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:       Graeme Mair

For the Application:              Steve Herbert

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Edwards-Winser

In response to a question Officers confirmed the main dwelling and garage would have footprints of 153m² and 79 m² respectively. Due to its angle the structure would be between 1m and 3m from the boundary fence with no. 53 Greenhill Road. The applicant clarified that he did not intend to remove foliage from that boundary.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the application be refused on two grounds. The first was that the proposed glazed link by reason of its overall design and materials failed acceptably to integrate with or relate to the character and design of the existing building. The second was that the proposed glazed link and two storey structure would create an uninterrupted extension of the built form across almost the entire width of the application site which when coupled with the overall size, scale and bulk of the two storey structure would represent a cramped and incongruous form of development.

Following a proposal from a Member of the Committee the motion was altered so that the second reason for  refusal also include that due to its height, bulk and mass the development would have an adverse impact onto the visual amenity of the residents of no. 53.

A Member of the Committee noted that most of the properties in the area had built form across the width of the plot. Additionally Otford Parish Council had not objected to the proposal in principle. Several Members considered the link to be a positive addition to the site.

Other Members of the Committee noted the comments from the neighbour at no. 53 that the size of the property could seem dominating and overbearing due to the slope of the site.

The amended motion to refuse permission was put to the vote and there voted –

7 votes in favour of the motion

8 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was MOVED and was duly seconded:

“That planning permission be GRANTED with Officers given  delegated authority to agree  appropriate conditions including details of hedgerow treatment”.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

8 votes in favour of the motion

7 votes against the motion

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED with Officers given  delegated authority to agree  appropriate conditions including details of hedgerow treatment.