Demolition of 1 buildings & a silo. Change of use of land for the erection of a new crematorium, memorial garden, fencing, landscaping and car parking, together with new entrance gateway off internal access road.

The proposal sought demolition of one building and a silo; change of use of land for the erection of a new crematorium, memorial garden, fencing, landscaping and car parking, together with new entrance gateway off internal access road.  The item had been deferred at the January meeting of the Development Control Committee to allow Officers time to consider the details and implications of the proposed S.106 Obligation. The consultation period for that document was due to expire the day of the meeting of Committee, and in order to ensure that any representations submitted on the final day were considered it was recommended that a decision should not be taken and issued until the day after Committee (28 March 2014).

Members’ attention was brought to further information contained within the late observations sheet, but did not propose any amendments or changes to the recommendation before the Committee.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Mr. E. Firth

For the Application:              Mr. A. Marshall

Parish Representative:         Parish Cllr. T. Brooker

Local Member:                      Cllr. Grint

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.  Cllr. Grint had raised some questions within his address.  In response the Case Officer advised that a Lawful Development Certificate had been provided for the the recycling activities taking place on site; that a section 106 obligation was a legally binding contract; and that the access would be used by both crematorium clientele and the commercial activities on site and whether this would be acceptable would be up to the operator of the crematorium.  Mr. Marshall added that a number of funeral directors and operators had been spoken to and had confirmed that the access arrangements as acceptable.  The proposal had also been deigned so that the public areas faced away from the ‘business’ part of the operation i.e. both areas were separated by a dividing wall.

The Case Officer advised of an error in the report, the word “not” needed to be added before ‘considered’ in paragraph 221 line 6.  The Officer clarified that it was only one building and one silo being removed, and in line with paragraph 15 of the Planning Inspectorate’s appeal decision on Land South of Orchard Barn,  L08 of the Core Strategy should also be cited as a reason for refusal.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation in the report subject to the addition of L08 of the Core Strategy being added as a reason for refusal, be agreed. 

Whilst the need was acknowledged Members did not feel that it outweighed the harmful impact and urbanisation the development would have on the green belt.  It was also pointed out that the building and chimney height was 1m higher than the building refused on appeal at Land South of Orchard Barn.  Flooding concerns from run off were also raised.  Members were concerned that enforcement action should be taken against any un-authorised activities currently taking place on site.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:   That

                      a)          subject to no new issues being raised during the consultation process that authority be delegated to Officers to REFUSE permission for the following reason:

The proposal would have an urbanising effect on the Green Belt. The need for the proposal does not amount to very special circumstances that would clearly outweigh the demonstrable harm to the character and openness of the Green Belt contrary to Policies GB1 and EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan Policy, LO8 of the Sevenoaks District Core Strategy and paragraphs 79, 80, 81, 89 of the NPPF;

                      b)          enforcement action be taken against any un-authorised activities on the site.