Redevelopment of site comprising of the demolition of existing vacant industrial building and the erection of 36 affordable residential units, 50 car parking spaces, associated highways and landscaping works.

The application sought permission to demolish the existing industrial premises and erect 36 residential units. The units would consist of 21 two storey dwellings (2 and 3 beds) arranged in three terraced blocks and a three storey building containing 15 (1 and 2 bed) flats. The application has been made on the basis that all the units would be affordable dwellings on a shared ownership basis.

The application was referred to the Committee by Councillors Scholey and McGregor for failure to create an inclusive development, for setting a precedent for the piecemeal loss of a significant area of employment land in Edenbridge and for artificially avoiding CIL payment despite the impact on local infrastructure and the need to deliver social, recreational and cultural facilities.

Members’ attention was brought to the late observation sheet, which did not amend the recommendation in the report.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from officers. In response to questions about noise, Officers advised that the possible change from B2 to B8 use had been brought the Environmental Health Officer’s attention and was taken into account in their comments. Although the noise assessment had not been carried out with BS4142:2014, the Environmental Health Officer had stated that noise concerns could be overcome with a recommended condition.

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

Members were concerned at the amenity standards of future residents, noting that there were industrial buildings to the south and west, a railway to the north and there would be heavy vehicles accessing these sites. These would create unacceptable noise and air pollution, which could only be ameliorated through unacceptable enclosure of the dwellings.

Members discussed the safety in the access road, noting that the width of the footway on the west side of the access road would be narrower than would be accepted by Kent Highways if adopted.

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

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that planning permission be refused on the grounds of concerns for the air quality for future residents, unacceptable noise disturbance, the loss of allocated employment land, the failure to provide an inclusive development due to the single type of affordable housing tenure provided throughout the development and the concerns for pedestrian safety through the access road.

Members noted the concerns of Edenbridge Town Council, who had stated that use of the employment land had received many enquiries, but few offers because of the price. The site was suitable for redevelopment to maintain it as employment land.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

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

1)     The proposal will result in an unacceptable living environment to future occupants due to noise disturbance from the adjacent employment sites. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EN2 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

2)   In the absence of an air quality assessment and the site's relationship with adjacent employment uses and traffic movements, the Council is not satisfied that a suitable air quality environment will exist for future occupants. As such the proposal is contrary to policy SP2 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

3)   The proposal will result in the loss of protected business land. As such the proposal is contrary to policy SP8 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy

4)   The proposal does not provide any social rented affordable units within the scheme. As such the proposal is contrary to policy SP3 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

5)   The proposal would result in a poor environment and safety for pedestrians in walking along the access road and along footways through the industrial estate, due to the pedestrians having to endure HGV and other service vehicles crossing the footways. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.