To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 November 2015 as a correct record.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee held on 12 November 2015 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr. Ball declared for minute item 67 - SE/14/03793/FUL Birchwood County Primary School, Russett Way, Swanley  BR8 7TP that he was a Member of Swanley Town Council who had considered the matter but that he would remain open minded.

Cllr. Hogg declared for minute item 67 - SE/14/03793/FUL Birchwood County Primary School, Russett Way, Swanley  BR8 7TP that he was a Member of Swanley Town Council who had considered the matter but that he would remain open minded.

Cllr. Parkin declared for minute item 67 - SE/14/03793/FUL Birchwood County Primary School, Russett Way, Swanley  BR8 7TP that as Deputy Portfolio Holder for Housing & Health she would take no part in the debate or the voting thereon.

Cllrs. Clark, Edwards-Winser, Hogg, Mrs. Hunter, Layland, Parkin, Purves, Miss. Stack and Thornton declared that they had been lobbied in respect of minute item 68 - SE/14/03793/FUL Birchwood County Primary School, Russett Way, Swanley  BR8 7TP.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Demolition of the former Birchwood Primary School, and the construction of 65 No. dwellings with associated infrastructure provision. As amplified by additional survey results and amended plans received 11th May 2015.

The proposal sought permission for the demolition of the former Birchwood Primary School and the construction of 65 no. dwellings with associated infrastructure provision as amplified by additional survey results and amended plans received 11 May 2015. The application was referred to the Committee at the discretion of the Chief Planning Officer.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet which proposed an additional condition under recommendation A and an amendment to recommendation B.

The Chairman advised that he had invited the Ward Members for Hextable to speak as the Local Member, even though the development was not in their ward, due to the impact the development could have on their ward. The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:          Angela George

For the Application:                  Ian Mitchell

Parish Representative:                        -

Local Member:                          Cllr. Mrs. Morris

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, as amended by the late observation sheet, to grant planning permission be agreed.

There were concerns that the development would have a detrimental effect on the Green Belt including the strip of open space separating Swanley from Hextable. Members noted that the footprint of the development went beyond the footprint of the existing buildings on site.

Members discussed the limited public transport and that the development was isolated from the centre of Swanley. There was also concern that Leydenhatch Lane was narrow and would be inappropriate for accessing public transport, especially for elderly people or those who used wheelchairs.

The motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved by the Vice Chairman and duly seconded that the application be refused. The development would be inappropriate development harmful to the Green Belt, eroding its openness and detracting from the settings of Swanley and Hextable. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure affordable housing and open space provision in perpetuity, the very special circumstances failed to overcome the harm to the Green Belt. The development would also not be economically, socially or environmentally sustainable in line with paragraphs 6 to 10 of the NPPF. Two informatives to be added to explain firstly that the development could be considered by the owner on the footprint of the existing school buildings and secondly that the application was debated in the context of the upcoming proposals for a Swanley Masterplan.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)    The proposed development of the site for 65 dwellings with associated infrastructure provision represents inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. The proposals are therefore unacceptable in principle. Furthermore, by virtue of the scale, design, degree of development on the site and loss of open space, the proposals would be harmful to the purposes of the Green Belt, would significantly erode the openness of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Enlargement of existing front extension at Ground Floor and First Floor.

The proposal sought planning permission for the enlargement of an existing front extension at ground floor and first floor. The application was referred to the Committee by Cllr. Lake who considered that the proposal was identical to that approved in 2009 by the Committee with the exception that an ungainly second floor window and roof lights were now omitted.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:          -

For the Application:                  Christopher Rayner

Parish Representative:                        -

Local Member:                          Cllr. Lake

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to refuse planning permission be agreed.

Members discussed the impact the proposal would have on the listed building and its form and how the tests for a planning application had changed since the site was previously considered in 2009.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)        The proposed extension would be harmful to the special interest of the designated heritage asset in the form of the grade 2 listed building (LB/G2/50/1540) as it would overwhelm the simple linear form of the original building adding considerable bulk to the principal elevation and would further obscure parts of the original building. . As such the proposed extension enlargement would be contrary to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN4 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

2)        The land lies within the Metropolitan 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. As such it is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy GB1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and the Development in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document.

Enlargement of existing front extension at ground floor and first floor.

The proposal sought listed building consent for the enlargement of an existing front extension at ground floor and first floor. The application was referred to the Committee by Cllr. Lake who considered that the proposal was identical to that approved in 2009 by the Committee with the exception that an ungainly second floor window and roof lights were now omitted.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers, Officers confirmed that the recommendation within the report should be to refuse listed building consent rather than planning permission.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, as amended, to refuse listed building consent be agreed.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That listed building consent be refused for the following reason:

1)        The proposed extension would be harmful to the special interest of the designated heritage asset in the form of the grade 2 listed building (LB/G2/50/1540) as it would overwhelm the simple linear form of the original building adding considerable bulk to the principal elevation and would further obscure parts of the original building. . As such the proposed extension enlargement would be contrary to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EN4 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.