Outline application for the demolition of public house and erection of block comprising 8 no. one-bedroom units with all matters reserved

The proposal was an outline application for planning permission with all matters reserved. It was intended to demolish the public house and construct a two and three storey residential building, including accommodation in the roof space, comprising of 8 one bedroom units. Submitted elevation drawings had been submitted for illustrative purposes only. There would be no on-site parking provision.

The site was primarily neighboured by two-storey residential and commercial properties to the rear and to the north and by a petrol station to the south.

Another application on site had been submitted and was rejected at the meeting of the Committee held on 14 February 2013. The case officer stated that since that application the height and bulk of the proposal had been decreased, the design altered to be more in keeping with the area, there would only be one rear window (comparable to the existing building), a section 106 agreement had been made and parking permits had been provided for a year in St John’s car park.

Officers considered that the proposed outline development would not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene, would have no adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring residents and would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              -

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Raikes

Local Member:                      Cllr. Fleming

Following comments from a Member, Officers advised that condition 16 should only refer to the plans in so far as they set a limit on the size of development.

It was MOVED by the Chairman and was duly seconded that the recommendation in the report, with a duly amended condition 16, to grant permission subject to conditions be adopted.

A Member of the Committee who lived in a road which was near to the application site advised that residents of the new development would not be able to park in the road near to the site as parking was already occupied by those who worked in the hospital and those who used the nearby laundry and surgery.

It was felt inappropriate to have residents walk from St John’s car park to the site given the distance and that it was a busy main road. Some felt that the St James’s car park would also be too far away. The one-year permit was not considered a long term solution. It was strongly felt that there was a need for on-site parking.

It was suggested that the existing public house did not require as many as 12 parking spaces. The buses in the area were each only once per hour and did not run either past 6pm or on Sundays. Bat & Ball Railway station was not considered safe after daylight hours. The comments from Kent County Council Highways wrongly assumed that permits were available for the nearer St James’s car park.

The proposal was considered an overdevelopment of the site with very little amenity space available. The bulk, height and scale of the development were considered contrary to the Residential Character Area Assessment.

A further alteration was agreed to condition 5 to reflect the application was outline only The motion was put and the Chairman declared the motion to be LOST.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that planning permission be refused. This was on the grounds that the proposed development was overintensive, it lacked on-site parking, lacked sufficient amenity space for residents and the bulk, height and scale would be out of keeping with the Victorian streetscene. An informative should be added to state that St John’s car park would not be suitable.

The motion was put to the vote and it was –

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

The bulk, scale and intensive form of development proposed would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the locality and the streetscene.  As such the proposal is contrary to policies EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan 2000, SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy 2011 and the Sevenoaks Residential Character Area Assessment SPD 2012.

The proposal would result inadequate amenity space for future residents.  As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan 2000.

The insufficient provision of on site parking facilities for residents of the proposed flats would lead to additional parking onto roads in an area which already has high level of on street parking. This would be detrimental to the amenities of local residents in the surrounding area as it would reduce the availability of parking for them and would lead to harm to the safety of existing road users due to areas being over-parked. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan 2000.

Informative

The applicant to be advised that the Committee did not feel St. John’s car park would provide appropriate parking for the development. It would be too far away and along a main road. The permits would only last one year.