The Chairman advised the meeting would commence at 7.05pm to allow Members time to consider the Late Observations.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 April 2014 as a correct record.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 24 April 2014 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

There were none.

All Members of the Committee declared that they had been lobbied in respect of minute item 6 - SE/13/03596/FUL Former Site of The Farmers, London Road, Sevenoaks, Kent.

There were no public speakers against the following items and no Member reserved the item for debate. Therefore, in accordance with Part 7 3.5(e) of the constitution, the following matter was considered without debate:

Demolition of existing house and erection of new replacement dwelling.

The application was for permission for the demolition of an existing house and the erection of new replacement dwelling. At its meeting on 5 March 2014 the Committee had agreed to approve the development in principle, subject to agreeing the wording of conditions with local ward members. The conditions had been referred back to the Committee for determination.

Members’ attention was brought to the late observations sheet which proposed changes to condition 6 and informative 2 of the recommendation.

Resolved: The list of conditions proposed by officers which is as follows be agreed and the application be approved subject to these conditions:

1)         The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2)         No development shall be carried out on the land until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling including the balcony hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

Reason:  To ensure that the appearance of the development enhances the character and appearance of the dwelling as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

3)         No building, enclosure or swimming pool, other than those shown on the approved plans, shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, despite the provisions of any Development Order.

Reason:  To ensure that any such proposal is considered on its merits having regard to the openness of the Green Belt, the character of the landscape and the principle of this development, that was approved based on very special circumstances as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

4)         No extension or external alterations shall be carried out to the dwelling hereby approved, despite the provisions of any Development Order.

Reason:  To ensure that any such proposal is considered on its merits having regard to the openness of the Green Belt, the character of the landscape and the principle of this development, that was approved based on very special circumstances as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

5)         No development shall take place until details of the: existing levels of the land; any proposed slab and finished floor levels and any changes in levels have been submitted for approval.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  To maintain the visual appearance of the area as supported by EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

6)         No development shall be carried out on the land until a scheme of soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.  Those details shall include:-planting plans (identifying new planting);-a schedule of new plants (noting species, size of stock at time of planting and proposed number/densities); and-a programme of implementation and maintenance. In addition the scheme shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Demolition of the former Birchwood Primary School, and the construction of 65 No. dwellings with associated infrastructure provision. Additional information received 28 March 2014.

The Committee was advised that the item had been withdrawn from the agenda because the applicant had withdrawn the planning application.

Construction of a residential led mixed use scheme comprising 39 flats (5x one bed and 34 x two bed), 4x retail (A1/A2) units and car parking, service yard, landscaping and associated works.

The proposal was for the construction of a residential led mixed use scheme comprising 39 flats (5 no. one bed and 34 no. two bed), 4 no. retail (A1/A2) units and car parking, service yard, landscaping and associated works. The application had been referred to Development Control Committee by Councillor Fleming on the grounds of overdevelopment, uninspiring design, and lack of affordable housing.

Members’ attention was brought to further information contained within the late observations sheet, but did not propose any amendments or changes to the recommendation before the Committee.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Helen Locking

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Fleming

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers. Members asked what the difference in height was between the proposal and the extant permission SE/10/03271 granted on appeal. Members were referred to the report. At its highest the proposal was 2.5m above the existing permission (but would be recessed) then would move to 6m higher where the increase was from 3 to 5 storeys. The proposal would step down to be the same height and then lower at its eastern boundary.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to completion of a S106 agreement to secure affordable housing within a 2 month period be adopted.

Members noted the comments of the Highways Authority and did not feel that these had been appropriately dealt with by the applicants.

It was suggested that the design was a substantial change from the extant permission as the peak would be higher and most of the length of the building on London Road would be substantially higher. The design was considered out of keeping with the majority of buildings in the area and another Member indicated that the area was historically characterised by low-rise Victorian design. The site was a principal gateway to a market town. The proposal failed to add to the quality of the area and did not respect the character of the area.

The motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that planning permission be refused on grounds that the building would have an overbearing impact due to excessive bulk, height and scale, that it would be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and that it would fail to respond positively to the character of the local area.

Members indicated that the development could create a “canyon” effect along London Road.

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

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that:

1          the  excessive bulk and height of the proposed development would have an overbearing impact on the street scene in a prominent gateway position into Sevenoaks, and the design would fail to respond positively to the local character of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Cllr. Brown entered the Chamber.

Removal of conditions 3 (Residency), 4 (Occupation restriction) and 6 (Siting) of planning permission SE/07/02075/FUL - Change of Use to residential, stationing of two mobile homes (with associated mobility ramps), two touring caravans, a car port and associated hardstanding (Resubmission of SE/06/02550/FUL). In order to add/amend the names given for residency and occupation and new block plan submitted.

The proposal was for the removal of conditions 3 (Residency), 4 (Occupation restriction) and 6 (Siting) of planning permission SE/07/02075/FUL which had been for the change of use to residential, stationing of two mobile homes (with associated mobility ramps), two touring caravans, a car port and associated hardstanding (Resubmission of SE/06/02550/FUL).

The application was referred to the Committee as the officer's recommendation was at variance to the Town Council's. Councillor Brookbank had also requested that members consider the departure from the Green Belt policy and the “very special circumstances”.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Angus Murdoch

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Searles

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers. Officers explained that there were no outstanding enforcement actions against the applicants for the site.

The Case Officer advised that condition 6 was not now to be altered. The applicants had accepted the Officer’s recommendation that alteration to that condition be refused.

A Member noted that condition 3 of the original permission gave Mr Dibsdall and his residential dependents permission to live on site because he was intended to be carer for the applicant, Mr Clarke. However Mr Dibsdall had found the caring onerous and had not moved on site. The Member sought evidence on the suitability of Mr and Mrs Clarke’s daughters who were proposed to be new carers.

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

Members raised concerns at the number of people who  would be given permission to reside on the site. The agent for the applicant confirmed there would be 4 adults under this permission. Members noted there could be many dependents. Officers clarified that the proposed condition 2 meant that the land was to be restored to its former condition once no longer required by either Mr or Mrs Clarke; carers and their dependents would have to leave the land at that point.

In response to a question, the agent for the applicant confirmed that Mr Clarke required full-time care around-the-clock.

The motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the item be deferred to enable the applicant to put before the Committee information concerning the care needs on site and the suitability of the daughters as carers.

The motion was put to the vote and it was –

Resolved: That consideration of the application be deferred for further information on the justification for both Sharon Clarke Jnr and Lucy Clarke needing to be on site permanently to provide care with their children and whether they would be suitable as carers.

Erection of 5 bedroom detached dwelling with integral garage

The proposal was for the erection of a 5 bedroom detached dwelling with integral garage. The application was referred to the Committee since the Officer's recommendation was at variance to the view of Sevenoaks Town Council and at the request of Councillor Raikes who shared the concerns of the Town Council.

Members’ attention was brought to further information contained within the late observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Peter Hadley

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      Cllr. Fleming

The local Member drew attention to the concerns raised by the Highways Authority and that there had been no response from the Authority confirming that they were satisfied. These concerns were the possible substandard visibility from the eastern access, uncertainty as to the intended splays and some confusion that vegetation below 1m was to be removed.

The agent for the applicant confirmed that the plan should refer to removal of vegetation over 1m. The case officer added that the eastern access was outside of the red line marking the application site. Highways matters had not been raised as an objection in SE/10/02641, a similar proposal which had only been refused by the Inspector on grounds of lack of affordable housing contribution.

Members were asked to note the tabled representation from Cllr Raikes in the late observations sheet. Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that consideration of the application be deferred to allow officers to seek a clarification from the Highways Authority on the matters raised and whether their concerns had been satisfied.

The motion was put to the vote and it was –

Resolved: That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED to allow officers to seek a clarification from the Highways Authority on the matters raised and whether their concerns had been satisfied.

Retention of Signage associated with existing surface pay and display car park.

The proposal sought advertisement consent for the retention of signage associated with an existing surface pay and display car park. This application was limited to the display of 19 non-illuminated signs of varying size and design, although there were in excess of 40 signs displayed throughout the site, the others being without consent. The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Fittock to consider the impact of the advertisements on amenity and public safety.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Searles

Local Member:                      Cllr. Fittock

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers. Members asked the relevance of the signs as the payment machine itself did not have planning consent. The case officer advised that no enforcement action had been taken against the placing of the payment machine but the applicant had said they would submit a planning application for it by 1 June 2014.

In response to a question, Officers confirmed that the signs had been installed without prior consultation.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that consideration of the application be deferred to allow the application for advertising consent to be considered at the same meeting as planning permission for the ticket machine.

The motion was put to the vote and it was –

Resolved: That consideration of the application for advertising consent be DEFERRED to allow the application for advertising consent to be considered at the same meeting as planning permission for the ticket machine.