To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 December 2017, as a correct record.

Resolved: That the minutes of the Development Control Committee held on 14 December 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Councillor Edwards-Winser declared for Minute 68 - 17/03306/HOUSE – 12 Orchard Road, Otford, Kent TN14 4LG that he was a member of the Parish Council and the local Member but remained open minded.

Councillor Brown declared for Minute 66 – 17/02386/MMA – Ragstones, 1 The Vine, Sevenoaks Kent, TN13 3SY that his Mother in Law lived in a neighbouring road to the property.

There were none.

The Committee considered the following planning applications.

Minor material amendment to application SE/15/02253/FUL for the demolition of existing building and erection of 6 new build apartments with undercroft parking and associated landscaping and visitor parking to show modification of the north roof slope at third floor level to create an inverted terrace, frame less balustrade.

The proposal sought permission for a minor material amendment to application SE/15/02253/FUL for the demolition of existing building and erection of 6 new build apartments with undercroft parking and associated landscaping and visitor parking to show modification of the north roof slope at third floor level to create an inverted terrace, frame less balustrade.  The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Fleming who had concerns regarding the impact of the development on residential amenity of Belmont.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the amendments in the late observation sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:   -

For the Application:          Karen Clark (Agent)

Parish Representative:      -

Local Member:                 Councillor Fleming

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers.

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

Members discussed the proposed conditions for obscured glazing and discussed whether the inverted recessed roof terrace would be viewable and imposing.

The motion to grant planning permission 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 the time limit imposed on application SE/15/02253/FUL.

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: P20G, P22N, P30M, P71L, P72Q, P73P, P74L, P92A, P93D, P94A, P901A

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

3)    The details contained within the Construction Method Statement as approved under application SE/16/01415/DETAIL shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

To protect the amenities of the locality

4)    Prior to occupation of the development, the landscaping details as shown on approved plan P20G and P22N shall be implemented, and shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

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

5)    If within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, any of the trees or plants that form part of the approved details of soft landscaping die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased then they shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

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

6)    The development shall be carried out using the materials approved under application SE/16/01492/DETAIL.

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

7)    The foul and surface water drainage shall be completed in accordance with the details approved under application reference SE/16/01439/DETAIL.

To avoid overload of any existing drainage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Extension of existing patio.

The proposal sought planning permission for the extension of existing patio. The application was referred to the Development Control Committee by Councillor Lake because the patio and fence would be intrusive and not in keeping with the surrounding area.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers. The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:   Mr. Anthony Vickers
For the Application:          Oliver Leeson
Parish Representative:      Colin Strachen-Brown
Local Member:                 Councillor Lake

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers.

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

Members discussed whether the patio and fence would be overbearing on the neighbouring property and if this affected their amenity land.

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

Councillor Thornton moved and it was duly seconded that planning permission be refused on the grounds of EN2 due to the unacceptable loss of privacy and overbearing on the neighbouring property.

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for the following reason

The extended patio area results in an unacceptable loss of privacy and overlooking of 8 Wyndham Avenue, and the higher fence panels would be overbearing on the occupiers of 8 Wyndham Avenue. As such the development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy EN2 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and the Sevenoaks Residential Extensions SPD.

Erection of a two storey side, single storey front & rear extensions. Landscaping works.

The proposal sought permission for the erection of a two storey side, single storey front and rear extensions and landscaping works. The application was referred to Development Control Committee as Councillor Lowe stated that the application does not meet The Sevenoaks Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 4.20, the proposed extension was not subservient either on the roof line or being set back from the original building and there was no planning regulation for precedents.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet which did not amend the recommendation.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:   -
For the Application:          -
Parish Representative:      Martin Whitehead
Local Member:                 Councillor Lowe

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers. In response questions, Members were advised that the neighbouring properties side extensions were set back to the rear. Most of the dwellings were in line with each other.  Officers also advised that the Supplementary Planning Document was there for guidance as to what equated to good quality design but were not Development Plan Policies.

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

Members’ discussed whether the proposal was subservient to the main dwelling and whether appropriate weight had been given to the SPD. It was discussed whether,* the development would give the appearance of terracing in the street scene due to the 1m gap not being maintained.

The motion to grant planning permission was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved by Councillor Thornton and duly seconded that the application should be refused as the development would not be subservient to the main dwelling or maintain a 1m gap and would result in a terracing effect contrary to EN1.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for the following reasons

The proposal would result in a terracing effect and a harmful impact on the streetscene.  The proposed extension would not be subservient to the main dwelling or maintain a one metre gap to the boundary.  As such the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and the Sevenoaks Residential Extensions SPD.