The proposal sought permission for the demolition of existing detached garage and outbuilding.  Erection of two three-bedroomed, two-storey, semi-detached houses with new vehicular access to Ash Road.  Creation of replacement vehicular access to the existing house.

The application had been referred to Development Control Committee by Councillor Clark on the grounds that the scale, width, bulk and design would result in a cramped overdevelopment on this site and that the design would adversely affect the appearance and character of the street scene.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:    Pam Connell

For the Application:          Graham Simpkin

Parish Representatives:     Councillor John Kelly

Local Member:                  -

Members asked questions of clarification from speakers and Officers. In response to a question regarding ownership of the hedge, Mr Simpkin advised that the hedge was part of the grounds owned by the occupier. In response to another question, the Planning Officer advised that there would be two new entrances, but these would be further away from the crossroads and almshouses. A Member queried why the development had been refused planning permission twice before. The Planning Officer advised that this was due to the scale height, bulk and the closeness to the boundary edge. He advised one of the applications also failed the 25 degree test. A Member questioned whether the new application was smaller. The Planning Officer advised that the height was the same, the width was the same but the depth was greater.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation within the report as altered by the late observations be agreed.

Members debated the application. It was noted that light to the almshouse was currently affected by the size of the hedge on the boundary. Concern was raised that behind the hedge the built development would be greater, due to the increase in depth of the proposal when compared to the previous applications. The catslide roof would only give an illusion of less bulk.

It was noted that New Ash Green was designed as a village in the countryside, with Ash Road as one of the green corridors. The proposal would remove some of the hedging and greenery from the site. The greater depth of the proposal meant a larger elevation and some greater impact than previous applications.

Members discussed whether an additional condition over the height of the hedge could be added and whether this would make a difference to neighbouring properties. Officers noted that Sevenoaks District Council did not have details about the precise impact the hedge currently had.

The motion to grant planning permission was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved by the Councillor Bosley and duly seconded by Councillor Edwards-Winser that planning permission be refused on the grounds of the application not overcoming the problems from the previous applications.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the proposed erection of a pair of dwellings, by reason of their siting, scale, width, height, bulk and design would represent a cramped over development of the site which would adversely affect the appearance and character of the street scene.

This conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework policy SP1 of the Sevenoaks District Core Strategy and policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Council Allocations and Development Management Plan.