The proposal was for permission to install metal fencing along the north, south and east boundaries of the site. It would measure 2m in height and would incorporate vertical repeats. Permitted development rights to erect, construct, maintain improve or alter a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure on the land had previously been removed.

The application site was located within the Green Belt. There were several trees protected by TPOs located on the boundaries of the site.

The report advised that there was a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that the proposal was contrary to the definition of appropriate development found in the National Planning Policy Framework. Due to the design and height of the proposed fence it would cause harm to the openness and visual amenities of the surrounding Green Belt and the character of the surrounding countryside. No very special circumstances had been provided that clearly overcame the harm caused. Further, insufficient information had been presented to demonstrate the proposal would have no adverse impact on the protected trees that surround the site.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Mrs. Dibsdall

Officers advised that the neighbouring field had unlimited B8 use. Members noted the comments of the Local Member and were concerned by the poor condition of the shipping containers in the adjoining field. They also noted the health and safety dangers which could arise, particularly from children trespassing on the site.

Officers were unable to place a condition on vegetation around the fence but the Local Member had assured the Committee that the Parish Council intended to provide boundary hedging.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to refuse permission be adopted.

Members of the Committee suggested that a metal fence could seem inappropriate on the site and may make it appear more urban. If the nearby containers were to be removed at some future point then the fence could seem excessive for enclosing the property. Even if the fence were 2m in height the containers in the neighbouring field would still be visible.

Other Members of the Committee proposed that the fence had relatively little impact when compared to the containers in the adjoining field. The special circumstances of the case could overcome the harm caused.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

13 votes in favour of the motion

2 votes against the motion

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

The land lies within the Green Belt where strict policies of restraint apply. The proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green Belt and to its openness by way of its height, solid appearance and design. No very special circumstances have been put forward that clearly outweigh the harm in principle and the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and as such this conflicts with policies SP5 of the South East Plan L08 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposed fence would by virtue of its size and design, represent an alien and intrusive feature which would have an adverse impact on the visual quality of the landscape. The proposed development would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character of the countryside and the open visual appearance of the Green Belt. This conflicts with policy EN1, policies SP1 and L08 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy, policies SP5 and C4 of the South East Plan and the advice and guidance in National Planning Policy Framework.

Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely impact upon the protected trees located on the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. This conflicts with policy EN1, policies SP1 and L08 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy, policies SP5 and C4 of the South East Plan and the advice and guidance in National Planning Policy Framework.

Members advised Officers that they should consider what enforcement action may be appropriate regarding the shipping containers in the adjoining field, which the Members considered potentially dangerous. They suggested this enforcement action could either be by the Council (including planning control) or by other agencies.