Cllr. Walshe clarified that he had given his apologies for the meeting held on 28 July 2011.

Resolved:      That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 28 July 2011, as amended, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Cllrs. Abraham and Ramsay declared personal and prejudicial interests in item 5.01 SE/11/01112/FUL: Meopham Cricket Club, Manor Road, Longfield as dual hatted members of both the District Council and Hartley Parish Council. Hartley Parish Council had a financial interest in the land because Meopham Cricket Club paid rent to the Parish Council for it. Both Members withdrew from the room after they had spoken to the item.

Cllr. Mrs. Parkin declared that, because of comments made before the meeting, a Member was concerned that she had predetermined item 5.01 SE/11/01112/FUL: Meopham Cricket Club, Manor Road, Longfield. Therefore she abstained from talking or voting on the item.

Cllr. Williamson declared a personal interest in item 5.02 – SE/11/01282/FUL: 1 The Stables, Halstead Place, Halstead because he used to live next to Halstead Place.

None

The Chairman ruled that additional information received since the despatch of the agenda be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency by reason of the special circumstances that decisions were required to be made without undue delay and on the basis of the most up?to?date information available.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

5.01 - SE/11/01112/FUL: Meopham Cricket Club, Manor Road, LONGFIELD DA3 8LD

The report advised that the proposal was for the siting of two storage containers on and within an existing recreation ground in the Parish of Hartley. The containers were to be sited adjacent two existing shipping containers near to the southern boundary of the site to form a linear row of containers.

It was noted that the report had been referred to Committee at the request of Cllr. Abraham on the grounds that there was an overriding need for the containers on the site.

Officers stated that the proposal would be inappropriate development, harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green belt and to its openness. The recommendation was for rejection on two grounds. The proposal by virtue of the number of containers, their size and bulk would detract from the character and appearance of the area. There were also no overriding material considerations to overcome the Green Belt Policy objection as no very special circumstances existed.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

            Against the Application:      -

            For the Application:             Tony Wade

            Parish Representative:       Anne Oxtoby

            Local Member:                      Cllrs. Ramsay and Abraham

Members noted the concerns of the Chairman of Meopham Cricket Club and of the Local Members. Several Members considered that the containers were essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. They felt that sufficient changing rooms and a food preparation area were requirements for a cricket ground.

Other Members considered that few of the activities which took part at the cricket ground required any additional facilities, particularly given the proximity to the ground and facilities at Longfield. Members were also concerned that the need for materials and landscaping to be of a high standard had not been met.

Please see minutes of the Committee (22.09.11) for amendments to the above section.

Officers clarified that the containers could not inherit the planning of the pavilion which burnt down in 2001 because the structures were materially different. In response to a question they stated that the total floor area, if additional containers were added, would be larger than the floor space of the pavilion, if the pavilion’s veranda were excluded.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report be adopted. The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

            6 votes in favour of the motion

            6 votes against the motion

In accordance with paragraph 24.2 of Part 2 in the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman used her casting vote in favour of the motion.

            Resolved:      That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

The land lies within the Green Belt where strict policies of restraint apply. The proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green belt and to its openness. This conflicts with policy LO8 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and the aims and objectives of national guidance contained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.