Erection of 4 houses (1 semi-detached pair and 2 detached)

The proposal was for the erection of 4 houses (1 semi-detached pair and 2 detached) and the provision of 8 car parking spaces. The proposal was to be set back from Mill Lane with the proposed dwellings sited behind the rear building line of the existing houses and with a courtyard arrangement containing the parking provision to the front.

The site was bounded by residential dwellings with the listed Mill Lane Cottages to the north east and Oxbourne Cottages to the north west. It lay within the Shoreham Mill Lane Conservation Area, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was adjacent to the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Case Officer explained the site history, including the 3 planning appeals. Officers considered that together the history had set defined parameters for development on the site. Since the last appeal decision the design of the proposal had been simplified, including flat roofed dormers, and the height line had been reduced from 9.6m to 7.3m.

Members’ attention was drawn to the tabled Late Observations sheet. 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:       Marina Barnett

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Richard Inness

Local Member:                      Cllr. Edwards-Winser

Following concerns raised by Members, the Kent County Council Highways Engineer explained that at the first appeal KCC had raised an objection concerning access to the site. A demonstration was made at appeal that vehicles could turn around on site, though it was tight. Officers had also pointed out that the narrow access prevented vehicles going in both directions at the same time and raised concerns over sight lines. That appeal had related to a more intensive use of the site but the Inspector had decided access was not a problem. Emergency vehicles could access the site.

Officers considered that the reasons for refusal at previous appeals had been satisfied. At previous appeals Inspectors had set that at upper floor levels a distance of 16m was acceptable to the properties to the rear whereas 14.4m was acceptable at ground level. There were no openings beyond these lines in the present application.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that, also subject to the satisfactory completion of the section 106 obligation for an off-site affordable housing contribution, the recommendation in the report to grant permission subject to conditions as amended by the Late Observations Sheet be adopted.

An alteration to the motion was proposed and duly agreed that two additional conditions be added. One would be for a plan for refuse collection to be approved and the other to remove Permitted Development rights for extensions. It was further agreed that, if approved, Officers reconsider the enforceability of wording for condition 15.

Some Members felt that previous appeal decisions allowed the Committee little leeway but to accept the proposals. Harm would be caused to neighbouring amenity but an Inspector would not consider it unacceptable. Architectural design in the surrounding area was varied. It was suggested that housing of this type was needed in the village.

Significant concern was raised about parking within the site as double spaces were impractical there and turning was mostly feasible only in small vehicles. Members did not want further parking on the High Street which was a risk with the existing proposal and there was also a likelihood vehicles would need to reverse onto the High Street. The Group Manager Planning advised Members that in view of the previous appeal decisions he thought it very unlikely that a refusal on parking and access grounds would be supported on appeal.

It was noted that the present design proposals had not been submitted at a previous appeal and some believed the design to be undesirable. The proposed design would not sufficiently preserve or enhance the Conservation Area and AONB as required by policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

7 votes in favour of the motion

9 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was MOVED and was duly seconded:

“That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.       The scheme fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, or the special character of the AONB contrary to policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and LO8 and SP1 of the Core Strategy.

2.       The scheme fails to provide adequate access and parking arrangements contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.”

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

9 votes in favour of the motion

7 votes against the motion

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.       The scheme fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, or the special character of the AONB contrary to policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and LO8 and SP1 of the Core Strategy.

2.       The scheme fails to provide adequate access and parking arrangements contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.