To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 September 2013, as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 September were tabled for Members’ consideration.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 17 September 2013 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

There were no declarations of interest or predetermination.

Cllrs. Cooke and Gaywood declared that they had been lobbied in respect of item 4.1 – SE/13/01590/FUL - Land SW of Forge Garage, High Street, Penshurst TN11 8BU.

All Members of the Committee present except for Cllr. Brookbank declared that they had been lobbied in respect of item 4.3 - SE/13/01771/HOUSE - 3 Downs Cottages, Swanley Village Road, Swanley BR8 7NR.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Erection of Six Affordable Dwellings with associated access and landscaping works

The proposal was for the erection of 6 2-bedroom dwellings on the site, built and occupied as local needs affordable housing units. 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 site and Penshurst Village were within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site and surroundings were in the Penshurst Conservation Area. The site was next to Forge Garage, a Grade II listed building, and was near to Star House (Grade II*) and The Birches (Grade II).

There would be a gap of 11.5m between the development and the dwelling to the rear of Forge Garage. There would be parking for 14 vehicles. Access would be from the High Street, existing boundary would be removed with a new hedge planted behind the highways visibility line and an existing telephone box would be relocated further into the site.

The Legal Services Manager advised the Committee that although the application was identical to application SE/11/02258/FUL the present application was to be considered afresh and on the basis of the present report.

The report had identified that the application would result in some limited harm to the character and appearance of the Penshurst Conservation Area and the setting of Forge Garage as a listed building. The statutory test required that special regard be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing these. Some limited harm to the High Weald AONB would also be caused. However given the limited harm identified the Officer did not consider that these outweighed the benefits of providing local needs affordable housing.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Mr. Rees

For the Application:              Mr. Leader

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Cass

Local Member:                      -

The speaker on behalf of the applicants, West Kent Housing, responded to Members’ questions. Only those with a local connection could apply to live in the housing and this would be guaranteed through the signed section 106 obligation with the Council, to be completed. If there were no eligible applicant from Penshurst and Fordcombe then there would be a cascading mechanism to neighbouring parishes. He had not had experience of similar cascading mechanisms ever having to be engaged. He expected demand from local people to remain high as it only provided 6 of the assessed housing need of 11 dwellings. The funding stream from the Housing and Communities Agency for the proposed scheme would end in March 2015 but if necessary the applicants would apply for further funding for the 2015-2018 period. Affordable rent would be set at 80% of the market level and it was expected that those with income up to £30,000 would take up these properties.

Officers confirmed that Permitted Development Rights would be removed. The report had given consideration to alternative sites for development.

It was MOVED by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Part change of use of existing B1/B8 building with ancillary offices to A1 warehouse retail use with ancillary offices

The proposal was for the partial change of use of the existing B1/B8 building with ancillary offices to A1 retail warehouse use with ancillary offices. The proposal related to the retention of 360sqm of ancillary office space, and the loss of 667.5sqm of B1/B8 land to retail floorspace. The site included the provision of 16 existing car parking spaces.

The site was protected employment land, fully occupied in employment use. It was within the Edenbridge town envelope but outside of the town centre.

The report advised that the NPPF required a sequential test to be applied to applications for main town centre uses outside of an existing centre. No sequential test had been undertaken to demonstrate that the retail use could not be accommodated within the town centre. The change of use would represent an unsustainable approach to development. No justification has been submitted to show that there was no reasonable prospect of the site being used for B1 purposes.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Mr. McKay

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Scholey

Local Member:                      Cllr. Scholey

In response to a question Officers confirmed that no information had been received as to proposed internal or external works to the site.

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

It was noted that the site was still a fully occupied employment site and there was no information as to the viability of the businesses there. They also noted no sequential test had been carried out to show that no site in or closer to Edenbridge Town Centre was appropriate for this retail use. Officers clarified that the retail use area would be smaller than those in recent applications for food superstores in the town.

Some concern was raised whether 16 parking spaces would be sufficient once staff had used some of them.

A local Member on the Committee suggested that the application would make best use of a commercial site. The local area was trying hard to keep a vibrant economy. Another Member added that shops in the town centre were often too small and that many units nearby had already changed away from industrial use.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

14 votes in favour of the motion

2 votes against the motion

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

The change of use of the site from employment land to retail provision would represent an unsustainable approach to development. It would result in an out of town centre shopping development to the detriment of the vitality and viability of the Edenbridge town centre. The Applicant has not demonstrated through the sequential test that no town centre site exists to accommodate the proposed use. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 24 – 27 of the NPPF.

The proposal seeks the loss of protected employment land contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

(Cllr. Cooke was not present for the consideration of the remaining item)

Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of a replacement outbuilding

The proposal was for the demolition of an outbuilding and the erection of a replacement outbuilding to the rear of a semi-detached Grade II Listed cottage. Listed building consent had already been granted. Approximately two-thirds of the outbuilding had already fallen down. The site was within the Metropolitan Green Belt and a Conservation Area.

Officers considered that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt with no very special circumstances clearly to outweigh the harm in principle to the Green Belt and any other harm. It had not been demonstrated that the proposed annexe would be incidental to the main dwelling. As an independent unit the proposal would appear disjointed and contrary to the established spatial character and harmful to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. A contribution towards off-site affordable housing had not been secured.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Mr Hargreaves

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      -

Officers responded to Members’ questions. The annexe was not attached to the main dwelling following advice from the Conservation Officer to preserve the integrity of the listed building. The annexe could become independent as there would be parking available and a separate access could be provided to the front. Judgement on whether the annexe was independent was a question of fact and degree.

The applicant’s health had not been advanced as a very special circumstance but Officers were aware and Members could take account of the evidence in front of them.

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

It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held for this application. The Committee expressed great sympathy with the applicant given his health difficulties.

Members noted on the one hand that the structure was not attached to the main dwelling and could be split from it and be independent. On the other hand it was noted the plans did not indicate a kitchen area and it would only be 1m away from the dwelling. Some Members thought a condition could be imposed preventing kitchen facilities being provided.

The building was considered small and although the footprint would be larger than the barn being replaced the height would be less. Given the state of the former barn it was suggested that proposal would enhance the area.

The local Member added that there was a lack of young families within the village. He felt that the development would allow at least one to move in.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

8 votes in favour of the motion

8 votes against the motion

In accordance with paragraph 24.2 of Part 2 in the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman used his second, casting vote in favour of the motion.

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.