The proposal was for the demolition of the existing property and detached garage and to replace it with a two storey (with further accommodation in the roof space), seven bedroom property. A detached garage was proposed to replace the existing detached garage sited in the south eastern corner of the plot.

The proposed dwelling was 3.3m taller than the current structure but there was significant boundary screening.

Officers considered that, on balance, the proposed replacement dwelling would not detract from the character and appearance of the street scene, or have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Any potentially significant impact on the amenities of nearby dwellings could be satisfactorily mitigated by way of conditions.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:      Angus MacAskill

For the Application:              Fred Robinson

Parish Representative:        -

Local Member:                     Cllr. Mrs. Hunter

In response to questions Officers confirmed the proposal would create a density of between 6 and 7 houses per hectare. The floor levels of the proposed dwelling would be 3m below those of the neighbouring property, Martlets. It would be 31m from Martlets at its nearest point, 35m from the 1^st floor and 37m from the dormer window.

Noting the comments of the neighbour, some Members proposed that, if approved, a condition should be added to protect the roots of the boundary hedge during construction.

Members were concerned that the proposal would be overbearing as it was a small site for the area. The proposed building was considerably taller than the existing bungalow and would cause a significant loss of privacy to neighbours. It would have a significant impact on the outlook and perspective of Martlets, particularly as there could be 5 visible windows.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted together with an additional condition to protect the roots of the boundary hedge during construction. The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

4 votes in favour of the motion

10 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was then MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and duly seconded:

            “That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

The proposal due to its height, scale and bulk would be inappropriate development for this site to the detriment of the local area. The height and scale of the proposal results in an overbearing impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring property Martlets. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan 2000.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

            10 votes in favour of the motion

            4 votes against the motion

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

The proposal due to its height, scale and bulk would be inappropriate development for this site to the detriment of the local area. The height and scale of the proposal results in an overbearing impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring property Martlets. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan 2000.