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

Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2022, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr Hogarth declared for Minute 38 – 22/01526/FUL – Land South East of Bevan Place, Swanley, Kent BR8 8BH that he sat on the Strategic Programme Board and was aware of many of the aspects of the site, but remained open minded.

Cllr Perry Cole declared for Minute 38 – 22/01526/FUL – Land South East of Bevan Place, Swanley, Kent BR8 8BH, that he was the Kent County Council Member for Swanley and Hextable, but remained open minded.

Cllr Ball declared for Minute 38 – 22/01526/FUL – Land South East of Bevan Place, Swanley, Kent BR8 8BH that he was a Member of Swanley Town Council, but remained open minded.

Cllr P. Darrington declared for Minute 38 – 22/01526/FUL – Land South East of Bevan Place, Swanley, Kent BR8 8BH that he was a Member of Swanley Town Council, but remained open minded.

Cllrs. Perry Cole, P. Darrington, Hogarth, Pett and Williamson declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 38 – 22/01526/FUL – Land South East of Bevan Place, Swanley, Kent BR8 8BH.

Demolition of existing buildings to provide two residential blocks ranging from four to six storeys of 93 residential units, including Class E floor space, and associated highways, landscape and public realm works

The proposal sought planning permission for Demolition of existing buildings to provide two residential blocks ranging from four to six storeys of 93 residential units, including Class E floor space, and associated highways, landscape and public realm works.  The application had been referred to the Committee as Sevenoaks District Council was the applicant.

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. Questions centred around parking, affordable housing viability, replacement trees and landscaping, air quality and drainage. In response to questions Members were advised that traffic management plan, landscaping and drainage were all managed by condition should the application be agreed. Members were advised that the Affordable Housing provision was for the replacement homes that would be demolished. A viability statement had been provided which demonstrated that additional affordable housing was not viable as part of the development.

At 10.28 pm. it was moved from the chair that, in accordance with rule 16.1 of Part 2 of the Constitution, Members extend the meeting beyond 10.30pm to enable the Committee to complete the business on the agenda. The motion was put to vote and it was

Resolved: That the meeting be extended past 10.30pm to enable the Committee to complete the business on the agenda.

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

Members discussed the application giving consideration to the design and whether there was an overbearing impact on the street scene and if it was in keeping with the local area. Some Members expressed that there were some elements they were supportive of but had concerns with the lack of affordable housing, and height and bulk of the design.

The motion was withdrawn by Chairman from the chair. It was moved and duly seconded that the report be deferred.

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

It was moved and duly seconded that planning permission be refused due to its bulk, height, design, scale materials and massing.

Members discussed the motion.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

By virtue of the design, scale, bulk, height, materials and massing, the proposed development would introduce incongruous and visually prominent buildings. The proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the local area. As such the proposal is contrary to policies SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.