Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 February 2013.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 14 February 2013 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

No declarations of interest or predetermination were made.

Cllr. Ms. Lowe declared that she had been lobbied in respect of item Item 4.2 - SE/11/02868/CONVAR - 2 And 3 St Edith Court, St Ediths Road, Kemsing  TN15 6JQ.

Cllr. Mrs. Parkin declared that she had been lobbied in respect of Item 4.3 - SE/12/03238/HOUSE - 8 Small Grains, Fawkham  DA3 8NT.

All Councillors except Cllr. Mrs. Parkin declared that they had been lobbied in respect of item 4.4 - SE/12/02852/HOUSE - Dorminton, Stonehouse Road, Halstead  TN14 7HN.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Change of use of part of the Pharmacy to Dentist facility

The proposal was for the change of use of part of the existing pharmacy to a dentist facility. Associated parking of two additional car parking spaces was proposed on the opposite side of the road to the front of No.6 Main Road. The site was located within the settlement boundary of Hextable.

Officers considered that the proposal failed to comply with KCC Vehicle parking standards by failing to provide any additional off-street parking. The proposal would lead to a significant increase in the amount of required off-street parking in an area where there was already insufficient dedicated off-street provision. It would increase pressure for motorists to park kerb side in an area where parking restrictions applied, to the detriment of highway safety. Further, the proposed parking to the front of No.6 Main Road, Hextable would result in undue noise and activity levels detrimental to the amenities of the immediate surrounding occupiers.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Jeff Haskins

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Austin

Local Member:                      Cllr. Ayres

In response to a question Officers confirmed a legal agreement could ensure that the two parking spaces to be provided opposite would only be for use by the dental practice. If the use of the spaces was limited to staff then this would reduce the impact on No.6 Main Road, as there would be fewer car movements. The two parking spaces to the rear of the site were not part of the application.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to refuse permission be adopted.

Members suggested that the number of expected site users, as calculated by the Highways Officer, was excessive. Each appointment at the dentist’s would take more than 15 minutes. There was adequate parking in the surrounding area, including at the church and the convenience stores, to absorb the change of use.

The Committee noted the comments of the public speakers that the dentist’s would be an important addition to local services.

Members indicated they would be willing to approve the application if all 4 parking spaces were part of the application, parking adjacent to No.6 Main Road was limited to use by dental staff and that the applicants were required to submit a travel plan.

The motion was put to the vote and the Chairman declared the vote to reject permission had been LOST unanimously.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded:

“That authority be delegated to officers to approve the application subject to:

1.         The receipt of a completed Legal Agreement securing the provision and retention of 2 staff car parking spaces within the curtilage of number 6 Main Road and the provision of an additional 2 spaces for customers/patients elsewhere.

2.         A condition be included on the planning permission requiring details of a staff travel plan to be submitted for approval.”

The motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

Pair of detached houses with garages Plots 2 and 3 as approved under application SE/87/2096, without complying with condition 1 which removes permitted development rights.

The proposal was an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for permission for 2 and 3 St. Edith’s  Court, as approved under application SE/87/2096, without condition 1 of that permission. Condition 1 had removed Permitted Development rights and had been imposed in the interest of the residential amenities of the area. The site was within a Conservation Area.

The report advised that the Committee was to consider whether it was appropriate for the properties to continue to be subject to this restriction. Officers considered that there was no longer any justification for retaining Condition 1 as additional restrictions now applied to permitted development in Conservation Areas. Use of Permitted Development rights would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbours’ amenities and would have limited impact on the Conservation Area.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     Graham Palmer

For the Application:            Paul Webster

Parish Representative:       -

Local Member:                    Cllr. Miss. Stack

In light of comments made by the agent for the applicant, that the existing condition was unlawful, the Legal Services Manager was invited to comment. He stated that advice received by the Council was that the condition was lawfully imposed at the reserved matters stage as it did not detract from the original grant of outline permission.

Officers clarified that, as the properties were in a Conservation Area, permitted development did not allow for changes to the roof line, two-storey extensions or garages to the front which were not linked to the dwelling.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted.

Councillors could not see that the merits of the condition had changed significantly since it was first imposed. The changes to the permitted development orders were not sufficient to ameliorate the negative impact of any such development. Members noted the concern of the neighbour, whose property formed part of the application site, that development could affect the character of the area and the light received by his property.

Members did not believe that the condition had been imposed unlawfully.

The motion was put to the vote and the Chairman declared the vote to have been LOST unanimously.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded:

“That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

The removal of the condition removing permitted development rights to extend the dwellings, would result in the ability to extend the properties in a way which would be harmful to the amenities of both occupiers by reason of a perception of an enclosing and overbearing presence due to the bulk and location of an extension along the common boundary contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Local Plan.”

The motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously:

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

The removal of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Erection of a two storey front, side and rear extension. Single storey side and rear extension.

The proposal was for permission for the erection of a single storey and two-storey side and front extension together with a rear two storey and single storey addition. The existing dwelling was a large detached property located on a substantial plot of land. The rear garden of the property was situated partially within the Green Belt.

Officers considered that, on balance, the scale, bulk and design of the extension was considered to be acceptable in terms of its visual appearance. It was considered to have no adverse impact on the amenities of adjacent properties.

It was clarified that on the site plan Glowworm Cottage should be called Dormey Cottage and it should not be within the shown application site. It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held for this application.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:     -

For the Application:            Kelly Gleeson

Parish Representative:       Cllr. Ford

Local Member:                    Cllr. Grint

Officers answered Members’ questions. Whereas the existing dwelling was approximately 29m from The Lilacs, the proposed extension would be 21m away.

It was MOVED by the Vice-Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted.

During debate it was suggested that Dorminton was in a dominant position to The Lilacs due to its higher level; the considerable extension could affect the amenity use of garden at The Lilacs. This impact would be heightened because the swimming pool would be close to the boundary and could create a lot of noise, particularly when the doors were open.

It was noted that the site application was on a large plot and there were already several large houses on the road, which had benefited from extensions and which had swimming pools.

A Member proposed that if the slab level were reduced by 0.5m then there would be less overlooking impact on The Lilacs from the extension. It was also suggested that the wording of proposed condition 5 should be amended firstly to reflect that the application was for an extension and not a complete dwelling, and secondly to add that a timetable for the soft landscaping was to be approved by the Council. Boundary treatment and landscaping could make a considerable difference in making the extension acceptable.

There were no existing plans for where the swimming pool plant room was to be sited. The Committee felt that placing it underground could make a significant difference to the impact on neighbours’ amenities. Members requested that openings to the front be kept closed and the entrance to the pool to be in the south elevation. The Environmental Health Team should be consulted to ensure noise levels were at an acceptable level for the residential area.

The motion was altered to add the conditions proposed on glazing, the entrance, slab levels, siting of the plant room and noise levels. The motion was put to the vote and it was –

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

Proposed first floor rear extension above existing ground floor extension

The proposal was for the creation of a first floor extension above the existing ground floor extension. An existing detached garage was located to the rear of the house, which was not original to the dwelling. There were open fields lying beyond the rear garden. The land lay within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The report stated that strict policies of restraint applied in the Green Belt. The proposed extension was shown to exceed the 50% threshold as stipulated by policy and so the proposal was considered inappropriate development, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet. It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held for this application.

There were no public speakers on this item.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to refuse permission be adopted.

The Local Member explained that, subject to the garage being demolished, there was a clear benefit in the application being approved. Removing the garage would increase the openness of the Green Belt by allowing greater views through the site to the open space behind. Although the extension would cause harm to the Green Belt this would be outweighed by the benefit gained from demolishing the garage.

Officers confirmed the application would have been acceptable if below the 50% threshold. The light implication on neighbouring properties was acceptable.

A Member noted that, although the garage was to be demolished, the residents would retain the right to install a fence, which would again restrict the view to the open fields.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

9 votes in favour of the motion

3 votes against the motion

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

The land lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt where strict policies of restraint apply.  The proposal when taken together with previous development on the land, would cumulatively add to the built form to a degree that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would represent inappropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt. This conflicts with policy H14A of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.