The Chairman opened the meeting and immediately adjourned in order to allow Members additional reading time to consider the Late Observation papers tabled by Officers. The meeting reconvened at 7.07 p.m.

The Chairman explained that, with the agreement of the Members, the order of the agenda would be amended in order that items 4.1 - SE/13/00134/FUL - Land at Station Road and Fircroft Way, Edenbridge TN8 6HQ and 4.2 – SE/13/00935/FUL - Land at North West Junction with St Johns Way, Station Road, Edenbridge TN8 6EB could be considered at the same time, as had been done at the meeting on 8 August 2013.  Item 4.1 would be introduced by Officers, who would be followed by the public speakers and questions. The same process would then be carried out for item 4.2. A debate would then be held and a decision made on item 4.1 followed by a debate then decision on item 4.2.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 30 January 2014 as a correct record.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 30 January 2014 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Councillor Miss. Stack declared that she knew the Agent of item 4.3 SE/13/03560/FUL – The Old Chapel, 185 London Road, Dunton Green, Sevenoaks, TN13 2TB, from attending local networking events.

Councillor McGarvey advised that he knew the applicant and objectors as it was a small village for item 4.4 SE/13/03831/HOUSE – White Gables, High Street, Farningham, Dartford DA4 0DB and that it had been discussed at the Parish Council, but he had not take part in the debate or vote and had therefore not predetermined the application.

Councillors Cooke and Miss. Thornton declared interests in item 4.5 SE/13/03361/FUL – Derelict Oast House, Oast Farm, Lydens Lane, Hever.  Councillor Cooke was involved in a dispute and Councillor Miss. Thornton was a long standing acquaintance of the applicants.  Neither would take part in the debate or vote on this item.

All Members of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 113, SE/13/0134/FUL – Land at Stations Road & Fircroft Way Edenbridge, TN8 6HQ and Minute 114, SE/13/00935 – Land north west of junction with St Johns Way, Station Road, Edenbridge, TN8 6EB.

Councillors Clark, Dickens and Miss. Thornton declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 114 , SE/13/03560/FUL – The Old Chapel, 185 London Road, Dunton Green, Sevenoaks TN13 2TB.

Councillors Clark, Mrs. Davison, Dickens, McGarvey, Piper and Underwood declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 115, SE/13/03831/HOUSE – White Gables, High Street, Farningham, Dartford DA4 0DB.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of food store, along with car parking, recycling centre, servicing arrangements, junction improvements, access and landscaping. Erection of petrol filling station.

The Committee had previously resolved to grant permission for this application on 8 August 2013 subject to the completion of an acceptable unilateral undertaking within three months of the meeting and as per conditions to be agreed in consultation with the local Members.  Due to the size of the proposed floorspace, the application was referred to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to decide whether the Secretary of State wished to call it in.  The DCLG confirmed by letter dated 19th December 2013 that the Secretary of State did not wish to call in the application, however because the planning obligation attached to 13/00134/FUL had not been completed within the three month deadline resolved by committee, the application was now back before the Committee in the form of an update report.  A signed planning obligation had now been received and the report sought confirmation that the Committee wished to update their previous resolution and grant permission for the development.  The conditions had been agreed with Local Members and were set out in the report.  The report also considered the implications of the sale of the Coop store in the town centre to Waitrose.  Members’ attention was brought to the late observations sheet which set out the findings of the Council’s retail advisor GVA in response to a letter of objection from Waitrose; a letter received from Sainsburys in response to the objection; a letter from Tescos and Officer comments.  The late observations sheet did not propose any amendments or changes to the recommendations before the Committee.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Rupert Simpson

For the Application:              Peter Kingham

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Davison

Local Member:                      Cllr. Scholey

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.  The Committee then heard the Officer presentation and speakers for application SE/13/00935/FUL (see Minute 113) before moving to debate.

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

It was confirmed that the store was classed as an ‘out of centre’ store not an ‘out of town’ store.  Members had due regard to the advice given by the GVA and discussed the potential benefits and detrimental impacts allowing the application would have on the town centre.  It was noted that the local Chamber of Commerce was in complete support of the application.  Most Members were in agreement that it was not a question of branding but which application would bring the most benefit to the area and fulfil community needs;and a question of better location, site and access.  A Member pointed out that the Committee had already agreed this application and it had only had to return to Committee for consideration due to the time delay over the s.106 planning obligation.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site as a foodstore with vehicular access improvement, widening of public footway, extension of public cycleway, servicing, car parking areas and landscaping.

It was noted that the application was deferred from the Committee meeting held on 8 August 2013 in order to await any decision of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on application SE/13/00134/FUL.  Permission was sought for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a Tesco food store with the main vehicular access for customers on St Johns Way. The access was originally shown from Station Road but had been altered following a Highways objection.  A unilateral undertaking had been proposed which made a number of provisions which were material to consideration of the planning application as they directly related to the impact of the development proposal. Members’ attention was brought to the late observations sheet which set out some late comments but did not propose any amendments or changes to the recommendations before the Committee.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Stuart McGregor

For the Application:              Richard Williams

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Davison

Local Member:                      Cllr. Scholey

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.  The Committee then debated SE/13/00134/FUL (see Minute 112) and took a decision on that application before moving to debate this application.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to refuse permission, be agreed.

Members again had due regard to the advice given by GVA, and took into account the impact of the decision taken to approve the Sainsburys application (see Minute 112 above).  Some Members were also concerned with potential traffic issuesand the site’s location.  Councillor Mrs. Davison moved an additional reason for refusal, which was duly seconded, on the grounds of the disruption to the nearby residential properties by noise, lighting and general disturbance.  She was keen that associated traffic movements be included.  On advice of the Acting Development Control Manager she agreed that this would be covered by EN1. 

The amendment to the motion (to include additional grounds for refusal) was put to the vote and was carried.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons

                 a)               the capacity for out of centre retail provision would be met through the planning permission resolved to be granted at land at Station Road and Fircroft Way under SE/13/00134/FUL. In the absence of capacity for any further out of town retail provision without detriment to the vitality and viability of the town centre, the proposal was considered to have a detrimental impact on Edenbridge town centre contrary to polices LO6 of the Core Strategy, EB1 of the Local Plan, and the NPPF;

                 b)               the proposed development, including associated traffic movements, would cause an unacceptable level of disturbance detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents contrary to Saved Local Plan policy EN1.

At 9.00 p.m. the Chairman adjourned the Committee for the convenience of Members and Officers. The meeting resumed at 9.10 p.m.

At 9.00 p.m. the Chairman adjourned the Committee for the convenience of Members and Officers. The meeting resumed at 9.10 p.m.

Planning Application re-submission for proposed external alterations to an existing single storey chapel to include the construction of 3 no. new roof dormers, infill portion of kitchen, remodelling of the entrance lobby with a new front single storey extension, new high level window to the main frontage and new perimeter fencing.

The proposal was an amended resubmission which sought planning permission for proposed external alterations to an existing single storey chapel to include the construction of 3 no. new roof dormers, infill portion of kitchen, remodelling of the entrance lobby with a new front single storey extension, new high level window to the main frontage and new perimeter fencing.  The application had been called to Development Control Committee by Councillor Brown to consider the impact of the proposal on the street scene and on parking.  Members’ attention was brought to the late observations sheet which proposed amendments to Conditions 4 & 5.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Nicholas Appleby

Parish Representative:         Freda England

            Local Member:                       -

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers. 

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded, that the recommendation in the report to grant permission subject to conditions contained in the report and amended in the late observations sheet, be agreed.  It was noted that the previously refused application had included a mezzanine floor and had Kent Highways had objected on that basis, this application did not apply for a mezzanine floor and the conditions proposed prevented development of any additional floor space.  The property was Class D1 of the Use Class order and a nursery also fell under this category which meant that permission was not required for the proposed use..  The question of number of children attending fell outside of the planning remit. 

Members questioned the need for dormer windows if there were no mezzanine floor, and did not like the loss of the original frontage and its potential impact on the street scene.  It was also felt that the fence height requested was too intrusive so close to the highway.  The local Member speaking as a member of the Committee was concerned by traffic movements as raised with the previous application.

The motion was put to the vote and lost.

In response to questions the Acting Development Control Manager advised against including highways and traffic issues in any grounds for refusal.

The Chairman moved, and it was duly seconded, that the application be refused on the grounds that the extensions and alterations, including the proposed dormers, and the alteration to the door and the fence would have an adverse impact on the street scene.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That by virtue of the scale, setting and design of the dormer windows, entrance lobby and fencing the proposal would result in a form of development that would appear detrimental to the character of the existing building and be an incongruous feature within the wider street scene.  This was not in accordance with policies EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan, SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Demolition of conservatory and detached single garage, erection of a single storey rear extension and two storey side extension.

The proposal sought permission for demolition of conservatory and detached single garage, erection of a single storey rear extension and two storey side extension.  It was a resubmission of a scheme previously refused at committee contrary to the officer’s recommendation (planning reference SE/13/13/00628/HOUSE refers). The application had been taken to appeal and withdrawn.  The proposal was the same as the previously refused scheme and had been considered against Section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to establish if there were grounds to refuse to accept the application.  It had been found that the Local Authority could not decline to entertain the application in this instance, as the local authority had to have also refused more than one similar application within a two year period.  The officer assessment and recommendation was also the same as previously except that it responded to new points raised in the consultation replies.  The application was called to Committee by Councillor McGarvey due to the concerns that the proposal may result in an overdevelopment of the cramped site, and that the proposal may affect the amenities of existing neighbours and future occupants of the site and on the grounds of highway safety.

Members’ attention was brought to the late observations sheet which commented on a further representation received, and did not propose any amendments or changes to the recommendations before the Committee.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Mr B Roberts

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      -           

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.  A Member asked whether there was a condition for soft landscaping, the Case Officer response that there was not but it could be added.

At 10.27 p.m. it was moved by Cllr. Miss. Thornton and duly seconded that, in accordance with rule 16.1 of Part 2 of the Constitution, Members extend the meeting beyond 10.30 p.m. to enable the Committee to complete the business on the agenda. The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That the meeting be extended past 10.30 p.m. to enable the Committee to complete the business on the agenda.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendations in the report to grant permission subject to conditions, be agreed. 

Members were disappointed that this had come before Committee again and felt that the previous reasons for refusal still stood as stated in the report including conflict with policy LO8 of the Core Strategy.

The motion was put to the the vote and lost.

The Chairman moved, and it was duly seconded that the application be refused for the previous reasons listed at paragraph 22 of the report and including LO8 of the Core Strategy.  The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  By virtue of its size, bulk and position the proposal would result in a cramped form of development within the site which would be detrimental to the character of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Restoration and conversion of a former Oast House to a single residential dwelling with associated garden access and parking.

The proposal sought permission for restoration and conversion of a former Oast House to a single residential dwelling with associated garden access and parking.  The application followed the refusal of permission for a similar proposal that was not accompanied by a legal agreement setting out an acceptable financial contribution towards an affordable housing provision. The application was therefore refused solely on the basis that it failed to comply with policy SP3 of the Core Strategy. The applicant had now agreed an appropriate level for a contribution and had completed a legal agreement containing the agreed contribution.  Members’ attention was brought to the late observations sheet which commented on the previous reason for refusal and did not propose any amendments or changes to the recommendations before the Committee.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Jane Horibin

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Scholey

Local Member:                      Cllr. Davison

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.  In response to questions the Case Officer advised that the scale, size and amount of work was more than the policy permitted but there were special circumstances. If the applicant separated the proposal out, proposed the alteration of the building to restore the oast house and once completed applied to convert the building to a residential use it was unlikely that the Council would have grounds to prevent this from occurring in this instance. He was therefore of the opinion that the conflict within the policy should not prevent the current application.  The applicant had also put forward a number of other very special circumstances that mainly involved the restoration of the curtilage listed building, which should be given material weight. The building was curtilage listed, due to its historic link to the listed farmhouse to the south-east of the site, and so was a designated heritage asset. As such there was a duty on the Council to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building. It was also the case that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.  In response to a further question he did advise that a condition could be placed requiring detailing of foundations to be submitted.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendations in the report to grant permission subject to conditions, be agreed. Members discussed the merits of the application in the light of relevant policy.

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)    No development shall be carried out on the land until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the reconstructed oast house hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.