To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 June 2023, as a correct record.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the meeting held 22 June 2023 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr. Varley declared that for Minute 19 – 23/01182/HOUSE - Humbugs, 31 Hartslands Road, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 3TN, he had previously considered the matter when discussed by Sevenoaks Town Council, but that he remained open minded.

Cllr. Skinner declared that for Minute 19 – 23/01182/HOUSE - Humbugs, 31 Hartslands Road, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 3TN, he had previously considered the matter when discussed by Sevenoaks Town Council, but that he remained open minded.

Cllr.Purves declared that for Minute 19 – 23/01182/HOUSE - Humbugs, 31 Hartslands Road, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 3TN, she was a Ward Member for the area, but that she remained open minded.

All Councillors declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 17 - 22/03313/FUL - Oast House Nursery, Ash Road, Ash Sevenoaks Kent TN15 7HJ.

Extend and subdivide existing dwelling into two separate dwellings and erection of 1 dwelling to the rear, with associated landscaping.

The proposal sought planning permission to extend and subdivide an existing dwelling into two separate dwellings, and the erection of 1 dwelling to the rear, with associated landscaping. The proposal had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Cole, on the grounds that it constituted over-development of the site; the loss of amenity to immediate and wider neighbourhood; and failure to adhere to Policy H3 - residential sub-division into smaller units.

Member’s attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification of the speakers and the Officer. Vehicles would not be able to park on the road and would need to use the parking provided by the development, which was within the policy requirement. The Highways Authority did not provide a formal response, but did not raise any concerns regarding access or turning space for cars. The use of the restricted byway by vehicles was an existing situation, and the net increase of two dwellings would not have a significant additional impact. The access was sufficiently wide to allow emergency vehicles access to all the dwellings. The Planning Inspector’s judgement from 2006 predated the neighbouring annexe and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which emphasised the most efficient use of land.

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

Members discussed the application. There was concern at overdevelopment of the site and the impact that vehicle movements would have on neighbouring amenity at Cheslyne. They further considered the most efficient use of land.

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

It was moved and duly seconded that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the extension and subdivision of the existing house, by reason of its bulk and scale, would result in harm to the character of the area, and that the proposed vehicular access would result in loss of amenity for neighbours.

The motion was put to the vote and it was:

Resolved: That planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

a)      The proposed extension and subdivision of the existing house, by reason of its consequence bulk and scale, would result in a form of development harmful to the character of the area, contrary to policies EN1 and H3 of the Council’s Allocations and Development Management Plan.

b)     By reason of the proximity to Cheslyne, the proposed vehicular access would result in levels of noise and disturbance detrimental to the amenities presently enjoyed by the occupiers of this property, contrary to policy EN2 of the Council’s Allocations and Development Management Plan.   

Clearance of existing nursery facilities and erection of 18 homes with associated parking and landscaping incorporating Oast House.

The proposal sought the clearance of existing nursery facilities and the erection of 18 homes with associated parking and landscaping incorporating Oast House. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Manston to consider its impact upon the Metropolitan Green Belt and local community.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet, which amended the recommendation.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification of the speakers and the officer.

They were advised that the application was initially submitted with an off-site affordable housing contribution of over £250,000, but that this had been reallocated as an education contribution, as current policy dictated that infrastructure provision was a higher priority than affordable housing. Kent County Council had accepted the proposed pedestrian crossing following a road safety audit. The parking provision for the site exceeded both national and local requirements, and storage for bicycles would be provided. On-site levels would be submitted before the development could commence, to address the changes in ground levels across the site. There would be a degree of overlooking into the garden area of a neighbouring dwelling, but there were no direct views into windows, and the boundary trees would be retained to provide screening. Conditions could be imposed to require further planting to reinforce this. The biodiversity management site would be secured to be development-free for 30 years through the Section 106 agreement, and a management plan would be made to ensure it was maintained. The site constituted previously developed land, as it previously had mixed uses, and was not solely used for agricultural purposes.

It was moved by the Chairman that the recommendations within the report, as amended within the late observations, be agreed.

Members discussed the application. They expressed concern regarding the infrastructure available within Ash to support the site, as it would increase the population of the area by nearly 20%. They discussed the density and design of the application, its height and bulk, and its impact on the character of the area and the openness of the Green Belt. It was noted that density of the site, when the Oast House was excluded, was high for the village. The street would have an urban effect in a rural area. There was concern that it was a significant development for the area and was not only a small infill.

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

It was moved and duly seconded that the application be refused, on the grounds that the proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green Belt and would result in a development that is materially larger in scale, massing than the existing development that would cause substantial harm by significantly eroding its openness, contrary to paragraph 149(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LO8  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Removal of condition 6 (no fencing or other means of enclosure) of 21/00106/FUL for sand school, parking area and tree planting.

The proposal sought the removal of condition 6 (no fencing or other means of enclosure) of 21/00106/FUL for sand school, parking area and tree planting. The application was referred to the Committee by Councillor Hogarth out of concern regarding the harm to the Metropolitan Green Belt. 

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations, which altered the recommendations.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification of the speakers and the officer.

Members were advised that the removal of the condition would return permitted development rights for the area. An informative could be provided encouraging that any fence be visually open, but this would not be enforceable. Conditioning the type of fence that could be constructed if the condition were removed, would be overly prescriptive.

It was moved by the Chairman that the recommendations within the report, as amended within the late observations, be agreed.

Members discussed the application, with attention to the potential harm to the openness of the Green Belt should a closed fence be constructed.

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

It was moved and duly seconded that the application be refused, on the grounds that the removal of the condition would enable the erection of fencing or other means of enclosure which could be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to paragraphs 138 and 149b of the National Planning Policy Framework and that an informative be added that should a planning application for a fence with a visually  open design, such as a post-and-rail fence, be submitted, the Committee would look upon it favourably.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: that application to remove Condition 6 of planning permission 21/00106/FUL be refused on the following grounds:

The removal of the condition would enable the erection of fencing or other means of enclosure which could be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to paragraphs 138 and 149(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:

Should a planning application for a fence with a visually open design, such as post and rail, be submitted, the Committee would look upon it favourably.

Erection of single storey rear extension and associated works.

The application sought the erection of single storey rear extension and associated works. The application had been referred to the Committee by Cllr Clayton out of concern over the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the neighbouring properties.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification of the speakers and the officer.

It was clarified that the extension pitched away from the adjacent garden, which limited it from dominating neighbouring properties.

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

Members discussed the application with a focus on the scale, massing, and height of the extension. They further discussed the impact of the development on the conservation area, noting that the conservation officer did not object to the proposal. They further noted that the windows of the extension did not overlook neighbouring windows.

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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details: Site Location Plan, Proposed Block Plan (SP1413-23-BlockPlan), Proposed Plans and Elevations (SP1413-23-PL03), Application Form.

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

3)     The development hereby permitted shall be constructed entirely of the materials as detailed on the schedule of materials on the planning application form.

To secure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of the visual amenities and character of the locality in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

4)     Within three months of the solar photovoltaic panels being no longer in use/decommissioned, the panels together with associated ancillary equipment and apparatus shall be removed in its entirety from the application site and the roof made good.

To maintain the character and integrity of both the building and the Conservation Area as supported by policies EN1 and EN4 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.