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 following reasons:-

The land lies within the 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 contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Council is not satisfied that the proposed annexe will be incidental to the main property. The size and internal layout of the proposal shows that it is capable of being used as an independent dwelling. It is considered that the use of the proposed building as an independent unit in this back land position in close proximity to the existing and neighbouring dwellings would result in a disjointed form of residential development contrary to the established spatial character and harmful to the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policies CC6 and BE6 of the South East Plan, policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan, policies SP1, LO1 and LO7 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

A contribution towards off-site housing has not been secured and therefore the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of policy SP3 of the Core Strategy and the Councils Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document October 2009.