To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 June 2022, as a correct record.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting on 30 June 2022 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr McGarvey declared that for Minute 17 - 22/00376/FUL - Meadowside, Beesfield Lane, Farningham, Dartford, Kent, DA4 0BZ he was predetermined and would therefore not take part in the debate or voting thereon.

Councillor Edwards-Winser declared that for Minute 18 - 21/03851/FUL - Land North of Pilgrims Oasts, Station Road, Otford, KENT TN14 5QX he was the Local Member but would remain open minded.

All Councillors declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 17 - 22/00376/FUL - Meadowside, Beesfield Lane, Farningham, Dartford, Kent, DA4 0BZ

Councillors Purves and Osborne- Jackson declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 19 - 22/00893/HOUSE - The Old Bakehouse, Six Bells Lane, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 1JE.

UNRESERVED PLANNING APPLICATIONS

There were no public speakers against the following item and no Member reserved the item for debate, therefore, in accordance with Part 7.3(e) of the constitution the following matter was considered without debate:

Replacement of non-illuminated sign.

The proposal sought planning permission for the replacement of a non-illuminated sign.

The application had been referred to Committee as Sevenoaks District Council was the applicant.

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

The motion was put to the vote and it was

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

1)    No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

2)    No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to: -a - endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military); b - obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or c - hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

3)    Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

4)    Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

5)    Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.

To comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 in the interests of amenity and public safety.

RESERVED PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

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.

The proposal sought planning permission for the 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.

The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr McGarvey and Cllr Carroll due to the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Metropolitan Green Belt, the impact on the character of the area, impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the disregard to the previously approved scheme.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers, late observation sheet and supplementary Agenda which did not amend the recommendation.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer. Questions focused on the bulk and scale of the proposal. The Development Manager advised that the original application had been approved which was a significant material consideration. The proposals differed from the previously approved scheme through the insertion of three rooflights in the front elevation, two dormers in the rear elevation and the alteration to rear/side bi-fold doors. Therefore, these aspects of the scheme were elements most relevant for Members consideration. The Development Manager also advised that Permitted Development rights had been removed during the original application but this did not prevent planning permission from being requested.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the bulk and scale of the proposals and some Members expressed concern. Members also discussed the retrospective nature of the proposal. It was further debated, whether the application made best use of available space.

The Development Manager advised that the only significant difference in the proposals from the original application in terms of bulk and scale was the addition of the rear dormers.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that an additional condition be added to prevent light spillage from the bi-folding doors and windows on the South East corner of the dwelling.

Members discussed the amendment.

The amendment was put to the vote and it was agreed.

Debate continued on the substantive motion.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

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

1)        Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), planning permission shall be required in respect of development to the new dwelling hereby approved falling within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, AA, B, C, D and E, of that Order.

To ensure that development within the permitted Classes in question is not carried out in such a way as to prejudice the appearance of the proposed development or the amenities of future occupants of the development or the occupiers of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Erection of pair of 3 bedroom semi-detached dwellings, parking and associated works.

The proposal sought planning permission for the erection of a pair of 3 bedroom semi-detached dwellings, parking and associated works. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr. Roy in light of concerns that the special rural character of this part of the village, and an area of designated open green space, would be lost as a result of the development, and that the harm arising would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of housing delivery.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer. It was confirmed that the distance from the nearby rail bridge to the site was 30m.

Members asked questions regarding the impact on the nearby woodland and any further felling of trees. The Development Manager advised that the Council’s Arboricultural Officers would consider serving a tree preservation order (TPO) on the adjacent trees.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the impact on the surrounding area and the designated open green spaces. Members discussed the need for small housing and whether the proposals outweighed the impact on the open green space. Some Members expressed concern as to the negative impact of the proposal on the appearance of the village and discussed the road safety implications.

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

The Chairman moved and it was duly seconded that planning permission be refused as the proposals would result in the loss of open space and caused harm to the verdant character and appearance of this part of the village, did not comply with EN1 of the Core Strategy and was out of keeping with the residential character assessment.

The motion was put to the vote and it was:

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused by reason of; the proposals would result in the loss of allocated open space and cause substantial and demonstrable harm to the verdant character and appearance of this part of the village, contrary to policies GI2 and EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and policies SP1, SP10 and L07 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

Conversion of disused outbuildings (washroom and outdoor WC), and an enclosed courtyard into a one bedroom annexe.

The proposal sought planning permission for the Conversion of disused outbuildings (washroom and outdoor WC), and an enclosed courtyard into a one bedroom annexe. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr. Fleming as the proposal was no different to the previously refused/dismissed application and that it would harm this part of the character and appearance of the High Street 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 speakers and officer. Officers confirmed that the inspector did not raise any concerns over the design and appearance of the proposals nor on the impact to neighbours and the Conservation Officer deemed the application acceptable.

Officers confirmed that neighbours were notified and site notice displayed as per the statutory duty.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Some Members expressed concern for the impact on the character and appearance of the area, particularly noting the bulk and elevation of the roof. Members discussed the historic nature of the site.

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

The Chairman moved from the Chair that planning permission be refusedby virtue of the design did not preserve or enhance the surrounding settings. Contrary to policies EN1, EN4 of the Sevenoaks Allocation and Development Management Plan and SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons by virtue of its design, bulk and height of the roof, the proposed annexe building would detrimentally affect the character and appearance of this part of Sevenoaks High Street and fail topreserve or enhance the character and appearance of Sevenoaks High Street Conservation Area and the setting of the curtilage/listed building(s). The development is contrary to Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework, policy SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and policies EN1, EN4 of the Sevenoaks Allocation and Development Management Plan.

Erection of part 3/part 4 storey building containing 8 flats as affordable housing (5 x 1 Bedroom and 3 x 2 Bedroom Flats) with associated cycle/refuse storage.

The proposal sought planning permission for erection of part 3/part 4 storey building containing 8 flats as affordable housing (5 x 1 bedroom and 3 x 2 bedroom flats) with associated cycle/refuse storage. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr. Fleming due to the affects the development would have upon the air quality of neighbouring occupiers and future occupants of the development.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and late observation sheet which amended condition 12.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers. The Environmental Protection Team Leader was also in attendance to answer questions on air quality. Questions focused on the air quality, the affordable housing units and the parking provision for the dwelling.

Officers advised that a Parking stress survey had been undertaken and it was established that requisite parking demand could be accommodated in the on-site parking location.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members expressed concern for the impact on the air quality of the area and its effect on the air quality management area around Bat and Ball Junction. Members discussed the tunneling effect on air pollution created by the development.Members also expressed concern for the lack of parking provision for future occupiers of the dwelling.

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

The Chairman moved from the Chair that planning permission be refused by reason of the proposed development would be a detriment to the air quality of the surrounding area and to the living conditions of existing and future residents, contrary to Policy EN1, EN2 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused by virtue of the proposed development would create a street canyon effect that caused detriment to the air quality of the Bat and Ball Air Quality Management Area and to the living conditions of existing and future residential occupiers in the surrounding area, contrary to Policy EN1, EN2 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It was moved by the Chairman that, in accordance with rule 16.1 Part 2 of the Constitution, Members extend the meeting beyond 10.30 p.m. to enable the Committee to complete all the business on the agenda. The motion was put to the vote and it was agreed.

The meeting was then adjourned for a brief comfort break for the convenience of Members and Officers at 10:17pm. The meeting reconvened at 10:22pm.

Construction of detached two storey dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping.

The proposal sought planning permission for Construction of detached two storey dwelling with associated access, parking and landscaping. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr. Waterton due to concerns about: the harm to the openness of the Green Belt; the development would not be considered infill and would extend the village envelope; the building would not meet the need for level access alternative accommodation suitable for older persons; the development would be more visible from the road; and the development would have a harmful impact on neighbouring properties in relation to loss of light, privacy and outlook.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer.

The Case Officer advised that any trees within the adjacent land would not be harmed by the development and advised that the Inspector considered that the development would represent a logical limited infill to the village. As such, The Inspector had concluded that the proposals would be appropriate development in the Green Belt, in accordance with the NPPF.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the report.  

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 ofthree 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: Drawing No. 20_241 - 01; 105 and 110.

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

3)        No development shall take place above the damp proof course until full details and samples of the materials of the dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details.

To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the existing character of the area as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

4)        Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting those orders), no development falling within Classes A, AA, or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be carried out or made to the dwelling without the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority.

In order to protect the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt in accordance with Policy GB1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

5)        Prior to the first occupation of the development full details of the proposed parking spaces, along with the provision of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Erection of two storey side extension and enlargement of basement.

The proposal sought planning permission for Erection of two storey side extension and enlargement of basement. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Williamson due to whether the proposal was materially larger than the replacement dwelling and potentially contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer. Questions focused on the scale and size of the proposals.

Members were advised that the original building was built before 1948 but had since been demolished and replaced and therefore started as a new planning unit. The Development Manager advised that the re-building of the site as a new larger unit met the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Officers also advised that the property was in the green belt and adjacent to the AONB.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members expressed some concern as to the size of the re-building.

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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building.

To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the existing character of the area as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

3)    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details: E001, P150, P200, P450.

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