To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 July 2021, as a correct record.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 22 July 2021, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr Raikes declared for Minute 21 – 21/02502/PAC – 160 London Road, Sevenoaks, KENT, TN13 2JA that as a Member of Sevenoaks Town Council he had looked at the application previously but would remain open minded.

All Members except from Cllrs Ball, P. Darrington, Layland and Hudson declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 22- 20/03660/FUL - Chevening House, Chevening Road, Chevening KENT TN14 6HG.

Cllr Coleman and Cllr Osborne – Jackson declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 24 - 21/01214/FUL - Land Behind Barns East Of, Winkhurst Green Road, Ide Hill Kent TN14 6LD.

Cllr Coleman and Cllr Raikes declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 25 - 21/01756/FUL - Mobile Home At, Robertsons Nursery, Goldsel Road Swanley KENT BR8 8BF.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Prior Approval for a change of use from Offices (Class B1 (a)) to Dwellinghouses (Class C3). This application is made under Class O of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

The proposal sought prior approval for a change of use from Officers (Class B1 (a)) to Dwellinghouses (Class C3). This application was made under Class O of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Fleming on the grounds of lack of natural lighting for the proposed residential units.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and late observation sheet which detailed additional information from Highways England. Following the additional information the recommendation had been changed, and was recommended for refusal.  The Case Officer reported verbally the end of the email from Highways England, which was not included in the late observations.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer.

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

Members discussed the application.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That prior approval be refused for the following reason

In the absence of adequate information surrounding the use of the parking spaces, the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the highways impacts of the development were acceptable.

Chevening Estate Parkland enhancement, including construction of landscaped mounds, new planting, surface water drainage and public access.

The proposal sought planning permission for Chevening Estate Parkland enhancement, including construction of landscaped mounds, new planting, surface water drainage and public access. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr London on the grounds of significant adverse impact on AONB landscape and also inadequate traffic plans for the large numbers of lorries planned for over 5 years.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers which centred around the purpose of the parkland enhancements, public access and the benefit to the residents of the local area. Members were also advised that condition 13 detailed the number of vehicle movements and it was confirmed that the maximum of 200 was to account for 100 vehicles into the site and those 100 out, resulting in 200 maximum movements.

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

Members discussed the application and expressed concern with regards to the impact of the lorry movements on residents in the local areas. The Committee considered the location of Chevening House already situated within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that some believed that the M25 could not be seen or heard from inside the House. They considered the impact of the development on the Green Belt and concern was raised that it would not be in keeping with the open historic landscape and would give an artificial scale and appearance, which did not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved and duly seconded that planning permission be refused as the proposal would not preserve the openness of the green belt and would be inappropriate development, and that very special circumstances did not exist.

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused on the following grounds

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt by definition, and would be harmful to openness and character of the Green Belt, contrary to the NPPF.

At 9.18pm the Chairman adjourned the Committee for the convenience of Members and officers. The meeting resumed at 9.25pm.

Building operations relating to Lawful Development Certificate 20/02590/LDCPR, erection of fencing and entrance gates

The proposal sought planning permission for building operations relating to Lawful Development Certificate 20/02590/LDCPR, erection of fencing and entrance gates.  The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Williamson so that the implications on the openness of the Green Belt, impact on public right of way, highways conditions and viability could be discussed.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer.

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

Members discussed the application noting in particular, the lack of details on the fence including its position, the gates and cladding.

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

It was moved, and duly seconded that consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting in order to obtain clarity on the details of the gates, the fences and the location of the hedging across the site.

Resolved:  That the item be deferred to allow the applicant to provide clarity on the details of the gates, the fences and the location of the hedging across the site.

Temporary consent for the retention of existing containers including re siting of 6 no. containers and removal from the site of 4 no. containers as amplified by amended site plan received 19 May 2021.

The proposal sought planning permission for the temporary consent for the retention of existing containers including the re-siting of 6 no. containers and removal from the site of 4. No containers as amplified by amended site plan received 19 May 2021. The application had been referred to the Committee as the applicant was a staff member.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer.

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

Members discussed the application.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons

The proposal represents inappropriate development, which would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and in conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, contrary to the aims of the NPPF.

The proposals would be harmful to, and at odds with, the rural character of the area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to policy EN1 and EN5 of the Sevenoaks ADMP and the aims of the NPPF.

The proposals, through being at odds with the rural and tranquil character of the area, would cause harm to the amenities of nearby residential occupiers, contrary to policy EN2 of the Sevenoaks ADMP.

Construction of a stable block and an associated path.

The proposal sought planning permission for the construction of a stable block and an associated path. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Waterton on the basis that the very special circumstances surrounding the site and situation outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

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

Members discussed the application and expressed concern about the stable block being a permanent structure in the Green Belt.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy LT2 of the ADMP. The very special circumstances submitted do not clearly outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Stable block comprising 3 No loose boxes, hay store and tack/feed store.

The proposal sought planning permission for a stable block comprising of 3 loose boxes, hay store and tack/feed store. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Waterton on the basis that the very special circumstances submitted with the application would benefit the openness of the Green Belt and the character of the landscape. In addition to this, the Parish Council did not object to the application.

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 moved by the Chairman from the chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policies GB3 and LT2 of the ADMP. The very special circumstances submitted did not clearly outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt.