To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 January 2024, as a correct record.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the Development Management Committee held on 4 January 2024, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr. Bayley declared for Minute 52 – 23/02002/FUL - 112A Chipstead Lane, Riverhead, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 2AQ, that she was one of the Ward Members, but remained open minded.

Cllrs. Bayley, Esler, Edwards-Winser, Horwood, Hogarth, and Williamson declared for Minute 53 – 23/02918/FUL – The Oast House Kettleshill Farm, St Julians Road Underriver Kent TN15 0RX, that they knew the neighbour, but remained open minded.

Cllr. Hogarth declared for Minute 53 - 23/02918/FUL – The Oast House Kettleshill Farm, St Julians Road Underriver Kent TN15 0RX, that he was one of the Ward Members, and would be speaking on the application and so would not take part in the debate or voting thereon.

All Councillors, except for Councillors Ball, P. Darrington and Varley declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 52 – 23/02002/FUL – 112A Chipstead Lane, Riverhead, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 2AQ.

All Councillors, except for Councillor Esler, declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 53 – 23/02918/FUL – The Oast House, Kettleshill Farm, St Julians Road, Underriver Kent TN15 0RX.

There were no public speakers against the following item and no Member reserved the item for debate, therefore, in accordance with Part 7.3(e) of the constitution the following matter was considered without debate:

Two storey front extension. Loft conversion. Rooflights and fenestration alteration. Roof alterations. Removal of existing chimney and installation of a flue.

The proposal sought planning permission for a two storey front extension. Loft conversion. Rooflights and fenestration alteration. Roof alterations. Removal of existing chimney and installation of a flue. The application had been referred to Committee as the applicant was a District Councillor.

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: S.01 Rev A; P.01 Rev J; P.02 Rev I

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

3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those 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.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Demolish existing single-storey dwelling to provide new residential dwelling, with relocation of dropped kerb.

The proposal sought planning permission for the demolition of existing single-storey dwelling to provide new residential dwelling, with relocation of dropped kerb. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor Clack because of concerns that the proposed works constitute overdevelopment, will cause overshadowing, will cause a severe impact on highways and parking and that the proposal lacks information to ensure the proposal conserves the character of the conservation area.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and late observation sheet which recommended an amendment to condition 1.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers. Questions were centred on the difference between the new proposal application and the one that had been previously refused, the typography of the land and access for parking.

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

Members discussed the application noting that the proposal was within the conservation area, the street scene and whether the number of dormers were in keeping with the surrounding area. Members considered the height, bulk and scale of the development and the impact of overcrowding towards the neighbouring property. Members noted the parking proposals.

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

It was moved by Cllr Horwood and duly seconded that planning permission be refused due to the height, bulk and scale, and being contrary to policies, EN1, EN4, SP1 and being inappropriate in the Conservation Area.

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused on the following grounds

The proposal, due to the layout, siting, design, bulk and scale, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and would also fail to preserve or enhance the adjacent Conservation Area. The dwelling would not be considered to constitute high quality design and would further harm the character and appearance of surrounding area. The proposal is considered contrary to policy SP1 of the Core Strategy, policies EN1 and EN4 of the Allocations and Development Management Plan and paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conversion and extension of Oast house to provide a family dwelling.

The proposal sought planning permission for the conversion and extension of Oast house to provide a family dwelling. The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Hogarth to consider the grounds of heritage and the change to the Past house harming the non-designated heritage asset (NPPF paragraph 209) and the less than substantial harm to the listed building (Kettleshill Farm) through change within its setting (NFFP 208).

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and late observation sheet which did not propose any amendment.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer. Questions focused on the changes to the application had been previously refused.

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

Members discussed the application, noting that the extension would be at the rear of the site and had a grass roof and so there would be no harm to the green belt. Members also discussed the planning balance.

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: 2023-02-OAS-07040 P1, 07050 P1, 07090 P1, 07102 P1, 07103 P, 07200 P1, 07220 P2, 07221 P1, 07310 P1, 07311 P1, 07312 P1, 07313 P1, 07314 P1, 07100 P2, 07101 P3, 07201 P2, 07210 P2 and 07230 P2.

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

3) Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby approved, details of samples of external wall and roof materials and window specifications shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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.

4) Prior to works above damp proof course of the extension, details of hard and soft landscaping, and details of boundary treatments, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All planting, seeding or turfing approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the development or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or diseased in the opinion of the local planning authority, shall be replaced in the next available planting season with others  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Amendment to 22/01496/HOUSE

The proposal sought permission for the minor material amendment to 22/01496/HOUSE. The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Thornton, due to concerns over the impact of the proposed development to the National Landscape (AONB).

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and late observation sheet which amended condition 1.

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. Consideration was given to the change in roof height and the impact on the Conservation Area and the National Landscape. It was noted that the slight reduction in mass did not detract away from the height and its dominant appearance in the area.

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

It was moved and duly seconded that planning permission be refused due to the impact on the AONB, Conservation Area, paragraph 140 of the NPPF, and against policy EN1, EN4, EN5 of the ADMP, and SP1, L08 of the Core strategy

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused on the following grounds

1)The resultant scale and height of the development creates an unduly prominent/incongruous feature that causes harm within Seal Conservation Area and is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Kent Downs National Landscape (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).  This proposal is contrary to Policies EN1, EN4, EN5 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan and policies SP1, LO8 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

2)  The amendments as proposed diminishes the quality of the previously approved scheme contrary to paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework.