To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 June 2022, as a correct record.

Resolved: that the tabled minutes of the meeting held on 8 June 2022 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Councillor Purves declared that she was the ward member in respect of item 4.1 - 22/00859/FUL - Garage Block North of 32, Bethel Road, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 3UE (minute 11) but would remain open-minded.

Councillor Raikes declared that applications had been considered through Sevenoaks Town Council Planning Committee which he chaired in respect of item 4.1 - 22/00859/FUL - Garage Block North of 32, Bethel Road, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 3UE (minute 11) and item 4.3 - 22/00613/FUL - 73 Bradbourne Vale Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3DN (minute 12) but would remain open minded.

Councillor Hogarth declared similarly that applications had been considered through Sevenoaks Town Council Planning Committee on which he was a Member in respect of item 4.1 - 22/00859/FUL - Garage Block North of 32, Bethel Road, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 3UE (minute 11) and item 4.3 - 22/00613/FUL - 73 Bradbourne Vale Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3DN (minute 12) but would remain open minded.

CHANGE IN ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS

The Chairman, with the committee’s agreement, brought forward consideration of item 4.2 - 22/00376/FUL - Meadowside, Beesfield Lane, Farningham Dartford Kent DA4 0BZ (minute 9).

Erection of a bungalow on an infill plot with dormers on the rear elevation and velux windows on the front elevation to accommodate rooms in the roof. Alterations to windows.

Member’s attention was brought to the late observations sheet which altered the Officers recommendation as follows: during Committee briefing it was agreed that a site inspection would be carried out on the morning of Committee. Unfortunately, notification advising Members of the site inspection did not provide the usual period of notice, as it was only sent during that morning. Prior to commencement of the site inspection, it was concluded that Members had not been given sufficient opportunity to attend the site to view the application proposals. Because of this, Members may not have been aware of the site inspection and/or been unable to attend at short notice. For this reason, the site inspection was cancelled.

It was Officer’s recommendation that the item be deferred to the next Development Control Committee in order to allow the site inspection to be undertaken following full notification to Members. Therefore there was no Officer presentation of the report and no public speaking took place.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the item be deferred as per the late observations sheet. The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: that the item be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee to allow the site inspection to be undertaken following full notification to Members.

It was accepted that all Councillors had been lobbied in respect of item 4.2 22/00376/FUL – Meadowside, Beesfield Lane, Farningham Dartford, Kent, TN13 3DN (minute 9).

Demolition of existing garages to be replaced with a proposed two-storey detached dwelling with carport and associated landscaping.

The proposal sought planning permission for Demolition of existing garages to be replaced with a proposed two-storey detached dwelling with carport and associated landscaping.

The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Clayton and Councillor Purves on grounds of impact on the conservation area.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the officer regarding the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties and the distances between amenities. It was confirmed that the development passed the relevant light test and Members were referred to paragraphs 54 and 56 of the report. 

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the application regarding loss of light and privacy to neighbouring properties and over development.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1)            The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2)               The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details: PD02 RevB and PD 03 Rev B.

For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3)               No development including any works of demolition or preparation works prior to building operations shall take place on site until a Construction Transport Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall include: (a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors, (b) loading and unloading of plant and materials, (c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development, (d) hours of operation.

In the interest of highway safety.

4)               No development shall be carried out on the land until full details of soft landscaping and proposed boundary details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Those details shall include:

·         planting plans (identifying existing planting, plants to be retained and new planting);

·         details of boundary heights and materials. All soft landscaping shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following the first occupation of any part of the development.

To preserve the visual appearance of the area as supported by EN1 and EN4 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

5)               Within six months of works commencing, details of how the development will enhance biodiversity will be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. This will include a native species-only landscape scheme. The approved details will be implemented and thereafter retained.

To ensure the development results in a net gain in biodiversity in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Proposed replacement detached dwelling with associated garage, parking and landscaping. New outbuilding.

The proposal sought planning permission for proposed replacement detached dwelling with associated garage, parking and landscaping. New outbuilding.

The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Canet, in line with the Town Council reasons for refusal, which were that the large block garage and single storey outbuildings in the garden would constitute overdevelopment of the site, that the design is not in keeping with the Residential Area Character Assessment and on the loss of amenity to no.71.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the officer regarding the drawings and elevations of the proposed development and the size of the garage and driveway. It was also clarified that the hedge at the front of the site would remain.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the application and whether the design of the building was in keeping and harmonious with the residential area. Concern was raised that the modern design was incongruous with the 1930s and 1950s character. This included the material, which should reflect brick and paint rather than glass and steel.

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

It was moved and duly seconded that planning permission be refused by reason of the scale of the house and outbuildings, the proposals wouldrepresent an overdevelopment of the site and because of the design, style anduse of materials for the dwelling the proposals would be at odds with theestablished character of the area. As such the proposals would be contrary toSP1 of the Council’s Core Strategy, policy EN1 of the Council’s Allocations andDevelopment Management Plan and guidance contained within the SevenoaksResidential Character Area Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.

The motion was put to the vote and it was:

Resolved: That planning permission be refused contrary to recommendation for the following reasons

By reason of the scale of the house and outbuildings, the proposals wouldrepresent an overdevelopment of the site and because of the design, style anduse of materials for the dwelling the proposals would be at odds with theestablished character of the area. As such the proposals would be contrary toSP1 of the Council’s Core Strategy, policy EN1 of the Council’s Allocations andDevelopment Management Plan and guidance contained within the SevenoaksResidential Character Area Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.