Demolition of the existing dwelling, and erection of two detached dwellings. Relocation of existing access drive further to the west, and creation of second access drive. Landscaping to the front and rear of the site, to include removal of the existing hedge and construction of a new 0.6m high garden wall with box hedge. Erection of new party fence and permeable paving to accommodate parking at the front.

The proposal was for the demolition of the existing two-storey dwelling, and erection of two detached dwellings with a joint access. There would be hardstanding to the front and a 0.6m high garden fence and hedge on the front boundary.

The site was within the rural settlement confines of Leigh and the Leigh Conservation Area abutted the north-west corner of the site. The existing dwelling was situated to the east of the plot leaving the amenity space to the west.

Officers considered that the proposal was in accordance with the Development Plan and there were no other material considerations to justify refusing permission.

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

For the Application:              Rob Ranson

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Doherty

Local Member:                      Cllr. Mrs. Cook

The local Member confirmed to the Committee that the local housing need was for small family houses.

In response to a question Officers confirmed that the housing density of the development at 37 dwellings per hectare (dph) was higher than Garden Cottages to the south (at 33.3dph).  It also exceeded the figure in Core Strategy Policy SP7 of 30 dph and the figure in the draft Allocations and Development management Plan for the former GSK site of 25 dph.

Officers had not tested the ability for vehicles to enter and exit the proposed development in forward gear by turning on site. The applicant’s agent confirmed that each plot accommodated 2 larger Kent County Council compliant spaces and the intention was that vehicles could turn by reversing into the hardstanding in front of the other dwelling. Some Members were concerned the size of the proposed dwellings meant the occupants may have more than 2 cars each. Additional cars could cause further congestion on Powder Mill Lane.

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

Members considered the development to be too large. Although there was potential for development on site, it would need to be much smaller. The amenity space for each plot would be unacceptably small if children lived there.

Some Members were concerned that the proposal was not in keeping with the Leigh Village Design Statement and that more weight should have been given to it. They would be the only dwellings in the area which would appeared as 3-story buildings. The proposal also failed to respond to the distinctive local character of the area and was not compatible in scale, height, density and site coverage with other buildings in the locality.

The street was characterised by spacious plots. The development would be cramped and overdevelopment.

The motion was amended to include an additional condition that the parking spaces to the front of the proposed dwellings be marked and used for that purpose for perpetuity and for the cars to be able to leave in forward gear.

A Member noted that there were some other properties in the locality with hard surfaces to the front of the dwelling and that there was a mixture of building types in Leigh.

The motion, as amended, was put to the vote and it was LOST.

It was moved by Cllr. Miss. Stack and was duly seconded that planning permission be refused. This was on grounds of conflict with Saved Policy EN1 due to the bulk, height, the urbanising effect and form of the development of the plot. The development would appear out of character with the village street scene contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP1 and the Leigh Village Design Statement.

Members added that the overdevelopment of the site meant that the rear of the properties  would have inadequate residential amenities for future occupants.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

12 votes in favour of the motion

2 votes against the motion

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

The proposal due to its bulk, height and form would result in an over development of the plot contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and the development would also appear out of character with the village street scene and is contrary to Sevenoaks District Core Strategy Policies LO7, SP1 and SP7 and the Leigh Village Design Statement.