Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 September 2012

The Chairman clarified that since the agenda was published there had been a change to minute item 70, 51 Greenhill Road, Otford. At the beginning of the sixth paragraph on page 98 the wording has been changed to “Following a proposal from a Member of the Committee the motion was altered so that the second reason for refusal also include”.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 20 September 2012, as revised, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Cllr. Cooke declared non-pecuniary interests or predetermination in relation to items 4.1 SE/12/00946/FUL - 1-8 Beckets Field, Penshurst, Tonbridge TN11 8DWand 4.2 SE/11/02258/FUL - Land SW of Forge Garage, High Street, Penshurst, Kent TN11 8BU. He was a member of the Beckets Trust representing Sevenoaks District Council; he had been involved in meetings to discuss the projects with supporters of KPG and the Beckets Trust; he had been involved in meetings to discuss the projects with the Director of Community and Planning Services, the Group Manager – Planning, the Case Officer and Penshurst and Fordcombe Parish Council; and he had been a member of both the Steering Group representing Penshurst and Fordcombe as their Sevenoaks District Councillor and of the Development Group representing Penshurst and Fordcombe as their Sevenoaks District Councillor.

Cllrs. Davison and Scholey declared in respect of item 4.3 SE/11/03288/FUL - 18-19 The Row, Main Road, Edenbridge, Kent TN8 6HU that they were also members of Edenbridge Town Council which had already considered the matter. Cllr. Scholey added that he would be speaking as Local Member and would not be voting on the matter.

All Members of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied in respect of items 4.1 - SE/12/00946/FUL - 1-8 Beckets Field, Penshurst, Tonbridge TN11 8DW and4.2 – SE/11/02258/FUL - Land SW of Forge Garage, High Street, Penshurst, Kent TN11 8BU.

The Chairman explained that, with the agreement of the Members, the order of the agenda would be amended in order that items 4.1 - SE/12/00946/FUL - 1-8 Beckets Field, Penshurst, Tonbridge TN11 8DWand 4.2 – SE/11/02258/FUL - Land SW of Forge Garage, High Street, Penshurst, Kent TN11 8BU could be considered at the same time. Item 4.1 would be introduced by Officers, who would be followed by the public speakers and Members’ consideration of the planning merits. The same process would then be carried out for item 4.2. A decision would then be made on item 4.2 followed by a decision regarding item 4.1.

In response to questions he had received during the previous week the Group Manager – Planning provided advice on the context of those 2 items and how to approach the decisions.

Within this explanation he stated that as the assessment of Becket’s Field was complete Officers thought it was appropriate in the light of legal advice to report back on Forge Field so that both applications could be considered alongside each other. Members were being asked to reconsider the Forge Field application rather than simply re-affirm their previous decision. Members were also advised to  consider the existence of the alternative proposal as relevant to deciding each application. The applications should not be considered as "either/or" but each should be considered on its merits.

In reconsidering the Forge Field application, Members were requested not to forget the decision they have made previously regarding the site but to consider whether there were any planning considerations that could justify Members coming to a different conclusion than when the application was considered previously. These could include consideration of the alternative proposal for Becket’s Field or reassessment of the planning merits of Forge Field.

There were no public speakers against the following item and no Member reserved it for debate. Therefore, in accordance with Part 7 3.5(e) of the constitution, the following matter was considered without debate:

The erection of a two storey side extension, alterations to fenestration including the insertion of a juliet balcony on the first floor

The report advised that the application was for a two storey side extension which would be the height of the existing dwelling and would extend both the front and rear building lines. The roof shape would reflect that of the existing roof. It was also proposed to alter the existing bedroom window on the first floor rear elevation to a floor length window with a Juliet balcony, to serve as an open plan study.

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1)         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2)         The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building.

To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the existing character of the dwelling house as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

3)         The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans; Drawing No.1 Revision A proposed elevations and floor plans received 6 August 2012 and Drawing No.1 Revision A proposed and existing block plans received 6 August 2012.

In the interests of proper planning.

4)         Before the development, including any site clearance works, is begun, tree protection measures in accordance with BS 5837 2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction – Recommendations shall be erected for each tree or group of trees to be retained on this site, or such measures as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority shall be provided. The protection measures shall be retained in position at all times until the completion of the development, and the land so enclosed shall be kept clear of all contractors materials and machinery. The existing soil levels around the boles of the trees shall not be altered.

To ensure that the trees are not damaged during the period of construction in accordance with policies EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Demolition of garages and No. 6 Beckets Field and erection of 4 x 2 bed apartments and 2 x 2 bed houses

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Erection of Six Affordable Dwellings with associated access and landscaping works as amended by revised plans and documents received on 13.03.12

The proposal was to erect 6 2-bedroom dwellings on the site. The dwellings would be two storeys high and split into two blocks of three, arranged side by side with a gap of 2.5 metres between the two blocks. The dwellings have been designed with a ridge height of 9 metres above ground level and would be set into ground level. It would be constructed in brick at ground floor level with decorative tile hanging in bands at first floor level, and a clay tiled roof. A separation distance of 11.5 metres would exist between the dwelling attached to the rear of Forge Garage and the flank wall of the nearest unit.

Existing boundary hedging by the proposed access would be removed and a new hedge planted behind the highways visibility line alongside the access.

The site falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Penshurst Conservation Area. The neighbouring Forge Garage is a Grade II listed building, Penshurst primary school is located opposite the site and slightly further to the west is Star House, a Grade II* listed building.

The report advised that there was some harm arising from the development to the landscape within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to heritage assets. However the degree of harm was limited and greater weight was placed on the benefits of providing local needs affordable housing. The limited harm was not considered overriding in this instance.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet and a late letter on behalf of an objector to the scheme was also supplied to Members at the meeting.

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:       Mike Collin

For the Application:              Mark Leader

Parish Representative:         John Cass

Local Member:                      -

In response to a question, the speaker on behalf of the application confirmed the post box would be set back to assist sight lines but would remain on the forecourt.

Officers confirmed the Environment Agency had agreed flooring levels for the site in order to reduce the likelihood of flooding.

Some Members accepted that there was a clear need for affordable housing in the area but that the proposal would cause some harm to the village.

However it was suggested that the proposal could blend in and look part of the village. The harm to the area had been minimised by setting the properties back, the height of buildings was not dissimilar to the rest of the village, the landscaping would be in keeping and the parking was well sited. It was suggested the quality of life provided by the housing on the site would be good as it provided high quality space for children and the development would be adjacent to both a school and a shop.

Concern was raised at the proposal by some Members when considering the harm to the Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Demolition of existing shop and flat over (18 & 19 The Row) and construction of 4 no. new residential units with 3 parking spaces

The proposal sought permission to demolish the existing building at 18-19 The Row, Main Road. In its place would be erected a two storey building fronting Main Road, containing one 2-bed dwelling and two 1-bed flats. A further 1-bed unit would be provided to the rear, attached to the back of the proposed dwelling. Three parking spaces would be provided to the side of the development.

The existing building was a two storey structure with single storey additions to the side and rear. It consisted of a ground floor shop with a flat above. The Case Officer believed the shop had been vacant for approximately two years. The site was located within the built confines of Edenbridge within a primarily residential area.

The report advised that the development would be unlikely to generate additional levels of traffic or parking requirements when compared to the existing lawful use of the site. The development would also not have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of nearby dwellings and the scale, location and design of the development would respect the context of the site and safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllrs. Mrs. Davison and Scholey

The Local Member, who did not sit on the Committee, was asked why she believed the shop may have closed. She advised that it had lacked investment, had not been in consistent ownership and had suffered when the sub-post office was removed. The Case Officer explained that evidence of business viability had not been requested because of the lack of a policy objection. Several Members voiced concern at the loss of the shop but it was noted, though regrettable, many local shops were closing and there may be no planning reasons for protecting the shop.

It was MOVED by the 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.

Some concern was raised about the scale of the development and that 4 dwellings would be too many for the site. Most significant was the consequential effect on vehicular access to the site and space to turn on the site. It was suggested that vehicles would be unable to turn in the space provided on site and so would need either to reverse into or out of the site onto a main road. This would be dangerous given existing obstructions to sight lines including the walls and parked cars.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

5 votes in favour of the motion

9 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was MOVED and was duly seconded:

“That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal, if permitted, would represent an overdevelopment of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.