Including any interests not already registered

Cllr. Williamson clarified that in relation to minute item 35, SE/14/01679/FUL - Land South Of Roxburgh, Pound Lane, Knockholt TN14 7NA, he had been at school with the resident for no. 7 Bond Close and had played cricket with him 19 years ago.

There were none.

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Erection of 2 storey house with garage and associated parking, and access from Bond Close.

The Chairman announced that he would not act as Chairman for the present item as he was a local Member for the item and intended to speak on the item during debate. With the agreement of the meeting he called on the Vice-Chairman, Cllr. Miss. Thornton, to chair the item.

(Cllr. Miss. Thornton in the Chair)

The proposal was for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling house with an attached single storey garage and associated parking, and access from Bond Close. The application had been referred to the Committee at the request of Councillor Williamson to consider the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area in relation to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Local Plan.

Members’ attention was brought to further information contained within the late observations sheet, which amended recommended condition 2.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:       Tony Slinn

For the Application:              Ian Wyatt

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Mrs. Jones

Local Member:                      Cllr. Grint

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers. The new development would have a height of 7.4m to the ridge and 5.3m to the eaves compared to 8m and 5.5m for no.8 Bond Close. Officers confirmed there was a landscaping condition which could protect trees on site. The Legal Services Manager confirmed to Members that despite the boundary contention, the Council had been told that all appropriate notices had been served and when he looked at the legal title as part of the Section 106 obligation it appeared that the applicant was correct. Although the Council had been informed part of the boiler house at no.8 may be removed, the Council had no control over this as it did not form part of the application site.

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.

Members noted that the site constituted previously undeveloped back garden. It was thought that the proposal was out of proportion with the plot in height size and mass. It would be detrimental to the defined streetscene as it would be the same size as the only other dwelling that was noticeably out of keeping. It would be overbearing and would affect the outlook and visual amenity of the kitchen at no.7 Bond Close.

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 as The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site by virtue of the dwelling’s size, scale, bulk and mass and would appear cramped form of development, out of character with the established pattern of development in the locality contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

The motion was put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

The erection of a single storey extension and insertion of an eyebrow window within the existing thatched roof.

The proposal was for the erection of a single storey extension and insertion of an eyebrow window within the existing thatched roof. The site was outside the confines of Kemsing and was in the Green Belt. The application was referred to the Committee by Councillor Miss. Stack to debate the applicant’s case for very special circumstances and whether it outweighed the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. Members’ were referred to the Case Officer’s report.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Michael Dade

Parish Representative:         -

Local Member:                      -

Members asked questions of clarification from the Officers. In response to a question, the Case Officer advised she did not believe, on the balance of probability, that there was a reasonable likelihood of the applicants carrying out their fallback position under Permitted Development rights, which constituted the applicant’s very special circumstances. No lawful development certificates had been applied for or granted on site including for the fallback position.

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

Members said that if the proposal were not granted permission then it was likely the applicant could build out their fallback proposal under permitted development. The present proposal was preferable, in terms of impact, to the development that fallback proposal.

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

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that planning permission be granted subject to the removal of Permitted Development rights for extensions and outbuildings and such other conditions as to be decided by the Case Officer in consultation with the local Members.

Members thought that the height, bulk and scale of the development, if approved, would be the most the site could hold and that further extensions or outbuildings would have a cumulative effect such as to be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to the removal of Permitted Development rights for extensions and outbuildings and such other conditions as to be decided by the Chief Planning Officer in consultation with the local Members.