Pair of detached houses with garages Plots 2 and 3 as approved under application SE/87/2096, without complying with condition 1 which removes permitted development rights.

The proposal was an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for permission for 2 and 3 St. Edith’s  Court, as approved under application SE/87/2096, without condition 1 of that permission. Condition 1 had removed Permitted Development rights and had been imposed in the interest of the residential amenities of the area. The site was within a Conservation Area.

The report advised that the Committee was to consider whether it was appropriate for the properties to continue to be subject to this restriction. Officers considered that there was no longer any justification for retaining Condition 1 as additional restrictions now applied to permitted development in Conservation Areas. Use of Permitted Development rights would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbours’ amenities and would have limited impact on the Conservation Area.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     Graham Palmer

For the Application:            Paul Webster

Parish Representative:       -

Local Member:                    Cllr. Miss. Stack

In light of comments made by the agent for the applicant, that the existing condition was unlawful, the Legal Services Manager was invited to comment. He stated that advice received by the Council was that the condition was lawfully imposed at the reserved matters stage as it did not detract from the original grant of outline permission.

Officers clarified that, as the properties were in a Conservation Area, permitted development did not allow for changes to the roof line, two-storey extensions or garages to the front which were not linked to the dwelling.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted.

Councillors could not see that the merits of the condition had changed significantly since it was first imposed. The changes to the permitted development orders were not sufficient to ameliorate the negative impact of any such development. Members noted the concern of the neighbour, whose property formed part of the application site, that development could affect the character of the area and the light received by his property.

Members did not believe that the condition had been imposed unlawfully.

The motion was put to the vote and the Chairman declared the vote to have been LOST unanimously.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded:

“That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

The removal of the condition removing permitted development rights to extend the dwellings, would result in the ability to extend the properties in a way which would be harmful to the amenities of both occupiers by reason of a perception of an enclosing and overbearing presence due to the bulk and location of an extension along the common boundary contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Local Plan.”

The motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously:

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

The removal of the condition removing permitted development rights to extend the dwellings, would result in the ability to extend the properties in a way which would be harmful to the amenities of both occupiers by reason of a perception of an enclosing and overbearing presence due to the bulk and location of an extension along the common boundary contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Local Plan.