Redevelopment of the mixed-use site to provide 29 dwellings; 22 new houses and flats in three separate blocks and 7 houses and flats by way of converting and/or partial rebuilding the existing Mill House, Mill Cottage and Mill Building with 45 associated car parking spaces and new centrally located access road.

The proposal was for the redevelopment of the mixed-use site to provide 29 dwellings; 22 new houses and flats in three separate blocks and 7 houses and flats by way of converting and/or partial rebuilding the existing Mill House, Mill Cottage and Mill Building with 45 associated car parking spaces and new centrally located access road. 

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:     Keith Hilson

For the Application:            Rob Ranson

Parish Representative:       Cllr. Canet

Local Member:                    -

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.

Concern was expressed at the density of the site, especially Block E, and lack of affordable housing which fell below policy requirement. Officers advised that the policy allowed viability to be taken into account and the applicant had submitted a detailed viability appraisal report which had been forwarded to the Council’s consultants who had accepted the findings.  It was hard to say whether decreasing or increasing density would make the development more viable as there were many factors to be taken into consideration. 

In response to questions, Officers advised that the developer could only be asked to not make the current drainage situation worse, not fix an existing problem. 

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

5 votes in favour of the motion

9 votes against the motion

The Chairman declared the motion to be LOST. It was MOVED by Cllr. Miss Thornton and was duly seconded:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

‘The proposed development, by virtue of the scale, design, bulk and height of Block E, would have an unacceptable and dominating impact upon the street scene and upon the setting of the adjacent mill building recognized as a local landmark feature and an “undesignated” heritage asset. This would be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and Policies SP1 and SP7 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

The proposed development, by virtue of the scale, mass and height of Block E, would have an unacceptable overbearing impact upon the outlook and the living conditions of the properties opposite the site on Mill Lane, contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

In the absence of a completed S106 agreement, the proposal would fail to make suitable provision for affordable housing on the site, nor would it contribute towards identified infrastructure improvements. This would be contrary to policies SP3 and SP9 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing.’

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

9 votes in favour of the motion

3 votes against the motion

It was therefore

Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:‘The proposed development, by virtue of the scale, design, bulk and height of Block E, would have an unacceptable and dominating impact upon the street scene and upon the setting of the adjacent mill building recognized as a local landmark feature and an “undesignated” heritage asset. This would be contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan and Policies SP1 and SP7 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

The proposed development, by virtue of the scale, mass and height of Block E, would have an unacceptable overbearing impact upon the outlook and the living conditions of the properties opposite the site on Mill Lane, contrary to Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan.

In the absence of a completed S106 agreement, the proposal would fail to make suitable provision for affordable housing on the site, nor would it contribute towards identified infrastructure improvements. This would be contrary to policies SP3 and SP9 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Affordable Housing.’