Agenda item

22/00152/HOUSE - Greenacre, Castle Hill, Hartley Longfield Kent DA3 7BL

Proposed part two storey, part single storey rear extension with roof light. Alterations to fenestration.


The proposal sought planning permission for a proposed part two storey, part single storey rear extension with roof light. Alterations to fenestration.


The application had been referred to the Committee by Councillor Perry Cole on the grounds that the revised/amended plans did not appear to deflect from the original plans sufficiently to mitigate the concerns expressed by the Conservation Officer.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and late observation sheet which did not amend the recommendation The Chairman thanked those that attended the site visit that had taken place at the listed neighbouring property.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:

James Gaywood

For the Application:

Barry Mullen

Parish Representative:


Local Members:

Cllr Perry Cole

In the interest of transparency, Members recognised that the objector was ex-district Cllr Gaywood with whom some Members had been well acquainted. Members would keep an open-mind and consider the proposals as per the agenda papers and late-observations.

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officer.

The Officer confirmed that the proposed development would be shielded from view by a high hedge from the listed property’s private amenity space. The Officer also advised that he found the impact of the proposals on visibility to be sufficiently negligible as to not affect the setting of the listed building.

The Chairman moved from the Chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the application. Some concern was raised as to the bulk, scale and form of the proposed development and its effect on the listed property adjacent. Members discussed the effect the proposal could have on the street scene and the setting of the listed building, as well as the scale of the development within the domestic curtilage.

It was moved and duly seconded that the applicant’s Permitted Development rights be removed. The amendment was put to the vote and agreed.

Discussion continued on the substantive motion.

The substantive 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)      The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those indicated upon the approved plans and the submitted application form.

To ensure that the appearance of the development is in harmony with the existing character of the area as supported by Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.

3)     The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 7408-P-01 REV B, 7408-P-03 REV B, 7408-P-02 REV B.

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

4)     Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting those orders), no development falling within Classes A, AA, B or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be carried out or made to the dwelling without the grant of planning permission by the local planning authority.

In order to protect the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt and setting of the adjacent Listed Building in accordance with policies GB1 & EN4 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan

(Having made a declaration of predetermination, Cllr Perry Cole did not take part in the debate or on voting thereon.)


Supporting documents:


Back to top