Prior to commencing with the formal business of the meeting, the Chairman proposed five minutes reading time for all those present to read through the minutes of the previous meeting which had been tabled.

The agenda had envisaged that the minutes for the meeting on 18 October 2012 would not be available until the meeting on 22 November 2012. As they had already been published the Chairman proposed that they be considered at the instant meeting instead. Copies of the minutes were tabled for Members of the Committee.

Officers agreed to update Cllr. Scholey on whether the movement of the post box was covered by the conditions applied to the permission for minute item 80, Land SW of Forge Garage, Highstreet, Penshurst.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 18 October 2012 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllrs. Brookbank and Underwood declared in respect of item 3.2 SE/12/01617/FUL - Cold Harbour Farm, Wood Street, Swanley Kent BR8 7PA that they were also members of Swanley Town Council which had already considered the matter.

All Member of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied in respect of item 3.1 SE/12/02319/CONVAR - The Wheatsheaf , High Street, Kemsing Sevenoaks TN15 6NA.

The Committee considered the following applications:

Variation of condition 8 (wheel washing facilities) and condition 12 (drawing numbers) of SE/12/00765/FUL to allow revised garage design and location and approval of wheelwashing facilities

The proposal sought variation of conditions 8 (wheelwashing facilities) and 12 (drawing numbers) of planning application ref SE/12/00765/FUL to revise the design and siting of the garage block approved and approve wheelwashing facilities. The permission related to the erection of three houses with rear garaging and forecourt with ancillary landscaping and a new footway.

The garage as previously approved would comprise a block of three single-width garages sited broadly at right angles to the rear boundary of Well Cottage towards the rear of the site.  It would be set back from the boundary with Well Cottage by between 5-7m. The scheme now proposed increasing the depth of the garage block by 3m by adding secure storage areas at the rear of each garage. The garages would therefore be 2-4m from the boundary with Well Cottage rather than the previous 5-7m. The eves height would rise to 2.5m at the front of the garage but would be only 1.8m to the rear. The ridge height would rise by 0.16m.

The report advised that the development would preserve those trees on the site which were important to the visual amenities of the locality, the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. Any potentially significant impact on the amenities of nearby dwellings could be satisfactorily mitigated by way of the conditions imposed.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Ritch Sibthorpe

For the Application:              Graham Norton

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Miss. Stack

It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held for this application.

In response to a question Officers confirmed that the neighbouring wall was listed as it was connected to Rose Cottage. The public speaker against the application presumed that this wall was owned by the applicant. Where the area was most open the wall was 2.7m tall from the side of the application site.

Permitted Development rights had been removed from the site and so the owners would have no automatic right to install a shed.

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

Concerns were raised regarding the impact of the garages on the conservation area, on the listed wall and on neighbouring amenity. It was suggested that the increased height could make the garages visible from the neighbouring properties, especially if some of the boundary foliage were lost.

Other Members suggested it was unlikely the extension to the garage could be seen from next door because the wall was sufficiently high and the garage roof sloped away from the adjoining properties..

One Member noted that the increased storage area could benefit the site as it would reduce the number of objects left in the open.

The motion was put to the vote and there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Change of use of South Barn from equestrian use to B1 business use (retrospective)

The proposal was for the retrospective change of use of South Barn from equestrian use to B1 Business Use to allow an existing business (testing oil samples), which was owned by the new owner of Coldharbour Farm and operated out of the Blue Chalet Industrial Estate in West Kingsdown, to move to the site.

It was reported that a change of use to a B1 use had already taken place and that since May 2008 a wine import and export business had operated from the building.

The existing access would be used for the site. Sufficient car parking would be provided for 11 cars with sufficient turning space within the site to enable access to the highway in a forward direction.

The report stated that the change of use sought and the impact upon the surrounding area was compliant with policies seeking to protect the area. The scale, location and design of the development would respect the context of the site and preserve the visual amenities of the locality, the traffic movements generated by the development could be accommodated without detriment to highway safety and the development was considered to be appropriate development within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Searles

In response to a question Officers explained that although they proposed a condition to regulate the hours of commercial use they did not intend a condition to deal explicitly with emergency deliveries. Officers had been informed by the applicant that emergency deliveries would occur “every now and then”. If such deliveries were rare then it was unlikely enforcement action would be taken.

The number of car parking spaces to be provided was based on the floorspace of the building. Hardstanding for parking was already partly present but would be resurfaced and would be permeable. Officers considered the likelihood of water pollution from the business to be small; the quantities of oil tested would be small and there would be no external storage of it.

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

Some Members believed the change of use itself would have little impact as an isolated change, though they noted there had been a series of changes on the site over previous years. As there would be a reduction in HGV use and traffic would only be between 9am and 6pm on weekdays it was believed that there would be little increased harm through traffic. It was suggested the wooden cladding and new windows could enhance the site. A Member welcomed the increased employment on the site.

The Local Member, who sat on the Committee, considered that the use was not appropriate for the Green Belt but was turning a previously agricultural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Erection of metal fencing around perimeter of site

The proposal was for permission to install metal fencing along the north, south and east boundaries of the site. It would measure 2m in height and would incorporate vertical repeats. Permitted development rights to erect, construct, maintain improve or alter a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure on the land had previously been removed.

The application site was located within the Green Belt. There were several trees protected by TPOs located on the boundaries of the site.

The report advised that there was a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that the proposal was contrary to the definition of appropriate development found in the National Planning Policy Framework. Due to the design and height of the proposed fence it would cause harm to the openness and visual amenities of the surrounding Green Belt and the character of the surrounding countryside. No very special circumstances had been provided that clearly overcame the harm caused. Further, insufficient information had been presented to demonstrate the proposal would have no adverse impact on the protected trees that surround the site.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Mrs. Dibsdall

Officers advised that the neighbouring field had unlimited B8 use. Members noted the comments of the Local Member and were concerned by the poor condition of the shipping containers in the adjoining field. They also noted the health and safety dangers which could arise, particularly from children trespassing on the site.

Officers were unable to place a condition on vegetation around the fence but the Local Member had assured the Committee that the Parish Council intended to provide boundary hedging.

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

Members of the Committee suggested that a metal fence could seem inappropriate on the site and may make it appear more urban. If the nearby containers were to be removed at some future point then the fence could seem excessive for enclosing the property. Even if the fence were 2m in height the containers in the neighbouring field would still be visible.

Other Members of the Committee proposed that the fence had relatively little impact when compared to the containers in the adjoining field. The special circumstances of the case could overcome the harm caused.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

13 votes in favour of the motion

2 votes against 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 by way of its height, solid appearance and design. No very special circumstances have been put forward that clearly outweigh the harm in principle and the harm to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.