To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 February 2019, as a correct record.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee held on 7 February 2019 be approved and signed as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Councillor Raikes declared that for Minute 66 – 18/03829/FUL – 17 Eardley Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1XX, he had previously considered the matters when discussed by Sevenoaks Town Council, but that he remained open minded.

Councillor Clark declared that for Minute 68 – 18/03395/FUL – North Lodge, Ash Road, Ash, TN15 7HR, that he knew the trustees of the Almshouses next to the site being considered and had spoken to the Parish Council about the application and would not vote on the matter.

All Councillors declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 65 18/00928/FUL – Land South of Trotts Cottage, Trotts Lane, Westerham, Kent, TN16 1SD.

Councillor Raikes declared that for Minute 66 – 18/03829/FUL – 17 Eardley Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 1XX that he had been lobbied.

The Committee considered the following applications:

The proposal sought permission of the erection of one 1 bedroom bungalow, parking and garden space.

The application had been referred to the Development Control Committee by Councillors Maskell and Esler due to the impact to the character of the area in accordance with policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Council's Allocation and Development Management Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and supplementary agenda.

The Legal Officer informed Members that since this application came to Committee in January 2019, which advised the Planning Inspectorate that the Committee would have granted planning permission, the appeal had been withdrawn. He advised that Members should consider the application on what was in front of them during this meeting. He reported that applications for the site had previously been invalidated and there remained outstanding concerns regarding the accuracy of the red line boundary. Officers were of the opinion that it had sufficient information to determine the application.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:    Ray Bushell

For the Application:          Colin Sharpe

Parish Representatives:     Councillor Le Bretton

Local Member:                  Councillor Maskell

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers. The Vice Chairman queried whether the boundary dispute included the driveway or built form. The Planning Officer advised that these would not encroach on land boundaries, nor soft landscaping which would be focussed on the front of the plot. She also advised Members that site ownership would be a civil matter rather than a planning matter. Members queried whether the AONB boundary was over other sites in the area. The site, with most of Westerham, was part of the Kent Downs AONB.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation within the supplementary agenda be agreed.

Members debated the application. The Vice Chairman cited that she sympathised with the neighbours over the boundary issue, but believed this was a civil matter rather than a planning matter. She advised that this was a central town location and there had been plenty of development in the area.

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 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: S18/6535/01, 17815PL101 C, 17815PL102 B.

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

 3)  No development shall be carried out above damp proof course level of the   hereby approved dwelling until details of the materials to be used in the      construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted have    been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.      The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The proposal sought permission for change of use of part ground floor and all of first floor from ancillary use to ancillary and bed and breakfast accommodation.

The application had been referred to the Development Control Committee by Councillor Fleming because he felt that the proposed use of the Coach House for guest accommodation would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:    Helen O’Sullivan

For the Application:          Lisa Hatch

Parish Representatives:     Councillor Edward Parson

Local Member:                  Councillor Graham Clack

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers. The Vice Chairman questioned what part of the site was being used for Bed & Breakfast. The Planning Officer advised that it was just the Store Room which would be retained for ancillary use only, while the rest of the coach house would be used for bed and breakfast accommodation.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation within the report as altered by the late observations be agreed.

Members debated the application. Members noted that the current ancillary use could have a greater impact than bed and breakfast accommodation, if used regularly. It was noted that guests currently seldom arrived with more than one vehicle.

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 carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details: CH/EFP/092018/002/1, CH/EFE/092018/003/1, CH/EFE/092018/004/1, CH/ESP/092018/005/1, CH/EGP/092018/001/1 - Date Stamped 21.12.18.

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

2)       Within one month of this permission, one car parking space on the existing driveway of 17 Eardley Road shall be made available for the parking of paying guests staying in The Coach House at all times.

To prevent further pressures to on street parking in the surrounding area.

3)       The Coach House shall be used solely as additional living accommodation in connection with the existing dwelling and for paid guest accommodation only.

In the interests of the residential amenities of the area.

4)       The first floor window on the front elevation and the first floor window on the side (west) elevation shall be permanently obscure glazed.

In the interests of the residential amenities of the area.

5)       No windows or rooflights shall be inserted in The Coach House at first-floor level or in its roof, unless details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

In the interests of the residential amenities of the area.

4.55pm 14 March 2019 – Please note the application has been withdrawn.

The application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

The proposal sought permission for the demolition of existing detached garage and outbuilding.  Erection of two three-bedroomed, two-storey, semi-detached houses with new vehicular access to Ash Road.  Creation of replacement vehicular access to the existing house.

The application had been referred to Development Control Committee by Councillor Clark on the grounds that the scale, width, bulk and design would result in a cramped overdevelopment on this site and that the design would adversely affect the appearance and character of the street scene.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:    Pam Connell

For the Application:          Graham Simpkin

Parish Representatives:     Councillor John Kelly

Local Member:                  -

Members asked questions of clarification from speakers and Officers. In response to a question regarding ownership of the hedge, Mr Simpkin advised that the hedge was part of the grounds owned by the occupier. In response to another question, the Planning Officer advised that there would be two new entrances, but these would be further away from the crossroads and almshouses. A Member queried why the development had been refused planning permission twice before. The Planning Officer advised that this was due to the scale height, bulk and the closeness to the boundary edge. He advised one of the applications also failed the 25 degree test. A Member questioned whether the new application was smaller. The Planning Officer advised that the height was the same, the width was the same but the depth was greater.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation within the report as altered by the late observations be agreed.

Members debated the application. It was noted that light to the almshouse was currently affected by the size of the hedge on the boundary. Concern was raised that behind the hedge the built development would be greater, due to the increase in depth of the proposal when compared to the previous applications. The catslide roof would only give an illusion of less bulk.

It was noted that New Ash Green was designed as a village in the countryside, with Ash Road as one of the green corridors. The proposal would remove some of the hedging and greenery from the site. The greater depth of the proposal meant a larger elevation and some greater impact than previous applications.

Members discussed whether an additional condition over the height of the hedge could be added and whether this would make a difference to neighbouring properties. Officers noted that Sevenoaks District Council did not have details about the precise impact the hedge currently had.

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

It was moved by the Councillor Bosley and duly seconded by Councillor Edwards-Winser that planning permission be refused on the grounds of the application not overcoming the problems from the previous applications.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

The proposal sought permission for a proposed double storey side extension, to replace existing garage including the removal of existing chimney; proposed single storey front extension with balcony above to replace existing entrance porch with balcony above. Proposed bay window to replace existing bay window to the front. Proposed first floor side extension above utility room. Proposed single storey rear extension, addition of two dormers to the existing bedrooms to the rear. Proposed garden wall with gate to the side. Associated fenestration, roof windows and sun tunnels. Additional driveway access from existing dropped kerb with additional parking. Patio and landscaping works.

The application had been referred to the Development Control Committee by Councillor London due to the proposal: resulting in an over development on the site; would result in a terracing effect; and would not meet the 1 metre guidance in accordance with Policy EN 1 of the Sevenoaks District Council's Allocations and Development Management Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:    -

For the Application:          Vic Wynn

Parish Representatives:     Councillor Andy Clark

Local Member:                  -

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers. It was queried why in paragraph 16 it mentioned a 2m gap between properties but it paragraph 17 it said the development would not retain at least 2m. The Principal Planner advised guidance indicated that there should be a 1m gap on either side of the boundary lines. This would not be achieved, but there would be a 2m gap at first floor level between the dwellings.

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

Members debated the application. It was noted that the proposal brought development away from its current proximity to the boundary. The proposal would not have a terracing effect, would improve the design and there had not been objections from neighbours.

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)   Unless the District Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing prior to the construction of the development, the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match though 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: P-00 00, P-01 03, P-02 03, P-03 01, P-04 01, P-05 02, P-06 03, P-07 01, P-08 01, P-09 02, P-10 02,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.