Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 October 2012

It was noted that Cllr. Walshe had been present at the meeting of the Development Control Committee on 25 October 2012.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 25 October 2012, as amended, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr. Miss. Thornton declared that she intended to speak on item 4.6 SE/12/02106/FUL - Land East of the White House, Blakes Green Road, Seal, Kent as the Local Member. She withdrew from the room after questions of the speakers.

All Members of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied in respect of item 4.1 SE/12/01611/FUL - 66 London Road, Sevenoaks TN13 1AT.

The Chairman indicated that, with the approval of Members, he would deal first with the tree preservation order at item 5.1 as the Officer concerned was not involved in any other matters on the agenda.

The Committee was informed that the Order related to a maple tree situated at West Cottage, High Street, Leigh. A Tree Preservation Order had been served following a Conservation Area notification to remove it but the owner objected on the grounds that there was only a restricted view of the maple and so was of low amenity value. A neighbour had also objected on the grounds it would become too large for its location and may damage the boundary fence, that the tree prevented sunshine reaching their property and that the tree obstructed views. Finally, as it was not a native species it was not an amenity to the local area.

The Officer considered that the tree could clearly be seen from the public footpath and main highway and its loss would be detrimental to the local amenity. Concerns about light obstruction, obstruction of views or the tree becoming too large could be overcome through pruning works. Although the species was not native it still offered visual amenity to the local area. The tree was approximately 30 years old.

Resolved: That the Tree Preservation Order No. 16 of 2012 be confirmed without amendments.

There were no public speakers against the following items. Therefore, in accordance with Part 7 3.5(e) of the constitution, the following matters were considered en bloc:

Erection of a single storey rear extension

The report advised that the application was for the erection a single storey rear extension to provide suitable ground floor accommodation for an elderly gentleman with a physical disability. The application site lay within the Long Meadow development in Riverhead, Sevenoaks and the application property was sited adjacent to Chipstead Lake.

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 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 dwelling as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

3)      The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 12/1161/01, 12/01161/02

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

The Committee considered the following applications:

Demolition of existing commercial building and the construction of a new two storey retail unit with undercroft parking and the construction of a separate four storey apartment block consisting of 22 one and two bedroom apartments, together with associated car parking, bin stores and cycle areas.

The proposal involved the demolition of all existing buildings on site, changes to existing land levels and redevelopment of the site to accommodate a retail unit and 22 flats.

The two-storey retail unit would face into the Blighs development and would principally be glazed under a dummy-hipped roof. The London Road elevation would consist of a series of staggered building and roof lines again under a dummy hipped roof. A flat-roofed building containing the warehouse and storage area would be sited to the rear and would be serviced by a delivery yard. A basement car park accessed through London Road would provide 51 parking spaces and a further 30 spaces would be provided at ground floor level to the front of the store.

Sited at the junction of London and Pembroke Roads, the residential element consisted of a mixture of 1-bed and 2-bed flats and one 3-bed flat across 4 stories. 40% (9 flats) would be affordable housing. The design was contemporary, with the use of brick, render, and wooden cladding. 22 car parking spaces would be provided at 1 space per unit.

The site lay adjacent to the Sevenoaks High Street Conservation area.

The report advised that Officers considered, on balance, that the economic benefits of the scheme together with the public benefits of improving the town centre shopping choice within Sevenoaks town centre outweighed the adverse impact.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled addendum and Late Observations sheet. The Case Officer was satisfied by the recent amendments to the application and believed they redressed his concerns regarding overlooking and loss of light. The application was fundamentally acceptable in scale and design.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:         Andrew Smith

For the Application:                 Stuart Deering

Parish Representative:            -

Local Member:                         Cllr. Fleming

In response to a question posed by a Member of the Committee the Case Officer confirmed that no detailed wording for draft condition 35 had been shown to Members, due to administrative difficulties but that he would circulate a draft condition at a later point. The Member reserved the right to comment on it.

The distance between the western face of the retail unit and the buildings opposite was between 17m and 20m. Except for the dummy pitched roofs on each side the retail unit would fit within the profile of the structure currently on site. Officers felt the application site was too tight to provide a simple pedestrian access to front of the unit however a condition would be imposed to secure disabled access to the store.

One Member suggested that 3 entrances on London Road could be excessive. He considered that the elimination of the entrance to the surface car park could increase safety.

Noting the comments of the Local Member, some of the Committee emphasised that Marks and Spencer had originally planned 12 town centre stores across the country but this was the only one still going ahead. The application for the store was a sign of confidence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Demolition of the existing dwelling and attached garage

The proposal was for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling and attached garage.

The report advised that the Kippington Road and Oakhill Road CAMP had identified Cavendish House as “a building contributing to character”. As a heritage asset under section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, unless a particular exemption applied, there was a presumption against demolition.

The item had been deferred from the meeting of the Committee on 20 September 2012, together with the application for planning permission, in order for the applicant to produce a full structural survey. Members had believed information on the structural soundness of existing buildings was required before a decision could be made, due to the weight put on this matter by the public speakers.

Officers did notconsider that the submitted information provided an overriding justification to meet the exemption criteria set out in NPPF. They did not accept that all reasonable uses of the site had been lost, nor that it was not possible to use the heritage asset viably in the medium term. Only maintenance and upgrading works, typical for the age of the building, were necessary to upgrade standards of living. The complete loss of the designated heritage asset could not be justified.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Justine Digweed

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Mrs Hunter

Some Members considered that there was no special architectural merit in the existing structure and it did not fit the definition of “arts and crafts”. Reports from the applicant indicated that renovation was uneconomical and unlikely.

Others noted that the conservation area had continued to develop and the proportion of new properties was growing. This was changing the nature of the area. The reports produced by the applicant had only shown that expensive maintenance was required, not that the existing buildings needed to be demolished.

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

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

5 votes in favour of the motion

8 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was MOVED and was duly seconded:

“That Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED as the demolition of the property would not harm or detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and that the proposal was in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN23 of the Local Plan, SP1 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.  Any conditions to be agreed by Officers with local Members.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

8 votes in favour of the motion

3 votes against the motion

Resolved: That Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED as the demolition of the property would not harm or detract from the character and appearance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Demolition of the existing dwelling and attached garage and erection of a detached house and garage

The proposal was for planning permission to demolish the existing dwelling and attached garage and the erection of a detached house and garage.

The item had been deferred from the meeting of the Committee on 20 September 2012, together with the application for Conservation Area Consent, in order for the applicant to produce a full structural survey. Members had believed information on the structural soundness of existing buildings was required before a decision could be made, due to the weight put on this matter by the public speakers.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet. There were no public speakers on the item. Officers advised that in view of the decision on the Conservation Area Consent application there was no longer an objection to the development.

It was suggested the new building could contribute and enhance the local conservation area.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded:

“That planning permission be GRANTED. Any conditions to be agreed by Officers with local Members.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

9 votes in favour of the motion

2 votes against the motion

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED. Any conditions to be agreed by Officers with local Members.

Application to vary conditions 4 (hours of use of the building), 6 (use of the building) and 9 (no amplified music) of SE/05/00972/FUL.

Members were informed that this item had been WITHDRAWN from the agenda.

Erection of wooden shed on existing concrete base for the storage of straw bedding, animal feed and mowing equipment, on agricultural land.  (Retrospective)

The proposal sought retrospective permission for the erection of a wooden shed to be used for the storage of straw bedding, animal feed and mowing equipment. The shed was positioned on an existing concrete base on which a water tank was previously situated.

The site was rural in nature, bordered by mature trees along the eastern and western boundaries, with the surrounding land-uses being agricultural. The nearest residential dwellings were located approximately 70m to the west.

Officers considered that the wooden shed (to be used for agricultural purposes) was appropriate development within the Green Belt and was in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. The shed was no bigger than necessary and was acceptable in terms of design, scale and bulk. Any potentially significant impacts on the amenities of nearby dwellings could be satisfactorily mitigated by way of the conditions imposed.

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:              -

Parish Representative:         Andrew Michaelides

Local Member:                      Cllr. Miss. Thornton

No drainage details had been supplied but there were no such facilities from its previous usage.

The Committee considered the proposal modest when compared to some buildings which could be permitted as agricultural and there were trees nearby to obscure the view. Several Members stated they would have no objection to the proposal if the structure were painted green. They noted that the present site was a working small holding and the shed would be in use.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted together with an additional condition requiring soft landscaping including hedging of indigenous species, not poisonous to livestock and mostly green, and that the walls of the shed be stained green.

The motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously

Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1)      The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:- Block Plan, dated July 2012, stamped 22 August 2012;- Drawing Number EL01, dated 07/08/2012, stamped 9 August 2012;- Drawing Number EL02, dated 03/09/2012, stamped 4 September 2012;- Drawing Number SK03, dated 17/08/2012, stamped 20 August 2012;

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

2)      No external lighting shall be installed on the application site or on the wooden shed.

To protect the amenity of the area and the residential amenities of nearby dwellings as supported by policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan, policies SP1 and LO8 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3)      The wooden structure hereby approved shall be used for agricultural purposes only.

To prevent inappropriate development in the Green Belt as supported by the National Planning Policy Framework.

4)      Within one month of the permission hereby approved, full details of soft landscape  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.