The proposal sought planning permission to demolish an existing dwelling on site and erect 6 2-bed residential units in two separate buildings. Building A would be erected on the site of the existing bungalow at no. 6 Beckets Field and would be attached in part to the existing unit at no. 5. It would accommodate 4 2-bed apartments arranged over three floors, would measure just over 8m in height and had twin gabled features. Building B would be located on the site of an existing block of garages used by residents of Beckets Field. The building would be arranged over two floors with the first floor accommodation in the roofspace, with a similar gable design to building A. This building would accommodate 2 2-bed dwellings.

The existing turning circle would be redesigned, with a communal grassed area and a new parking and turning layout. In total the existing and proposed units would be provided with 25 parking spaces, arranged in various locations around the site.

The site was completely within the Metropolitan Green Belt and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The boundary of the Penshurst Conservation Area was sited immediately to the north of Beckets Field.

The report advised that the proposal would result in little or no harm to the openness of the Green Belt and landscape character of the AONB. However, the scheme would have a significant localised impact upon the character and appearance of the area and upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, through the scale, height and design of the buildings proposed. The applicants had not provided a completed section 106 agreement for provision of affordable housing.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations which included correspondence from the applicant attaching a draft legal agreement. 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:       Norman Furnell

For the Application:              Jeremy Leathers

Parish Representative:         John Cass

Local Member:                      -

A Member asked the applicant whether they had any objection to adding a screen to the walkway for building A, adjacent to no. 5, in order to reduce overlooking. The applicant had no objection. The Case Officer advised this had not been pursued with the applicant as it would require a screen of at least 1.8m which, in addition to the proposed built form, could be more oppressive to neighbours.

The Case Officer responded to Members’ questions. The Rural Needs Survey was self-contained within the parish. A Visual Impact Survey had not been requested as the proposal had less impact on the AONB when compared to the Forge Field application as it was within the built form of the village.

The Committee acknowledged the strong need for affordable housing in the area. However a number of Members considered that there would be unacceptable overlooking from building A, which was twice the height of the neighbouring bungalow, and from the walkway. Additionally, the lack of gardens for the apartments would result in a poor quality of life for the residents. They were also concerned by the parking arrangements as 2 spaces would be unacceptably close to nos. 7 and 8 and the tandem space appeared impractical.

It was suggested that the additional properties would appear crammed in on the site

Following consideration and a decision on  item 4.2 SE/11/02258/FUL - Land SW of Forge Garage, High Street, Penshurst  TN11 8BU, it was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, as amended by the Late Observations Sheet, to refuse permission be adopted.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

11 votes in favour of the motion

3 votes against the motion

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

The scale, height and design of the proposed development would be out of keeping with surrounding buildings and would harmful to the established character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and Policies SP1 and SP4 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

The scale, height and siting of the development would result in an unacceptable loss of light, privacy and outlook to existing bungalows at Nos. 3, 4 and 5 Beckets Field, which would harm the living conditions of occupants of these properties. In addition the siting of the two parking spaces to the front of the existing dwellings at 7 and 8 Beckets Field would harm the living conditions of occupants of these properties through loss of outlook, increased noise and disturbance, and ease of access to these properties. This would be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and SP4 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

In the absence of a S106 agreement, the development would fail to secure the delivery of the units as local needs affordable housing, contrary to Policy SP4 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

The identified local need for housing would be met through the planning permission granted at Forge Field under SE/11/02258. In the absence of any further identified need for rural housing, the proposal would lead to an overprovision of such housing, contrary to Policy SP4 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.