The creation of a new access, gate and hard surface (Retrospective)

The Chairman announced that he would not act as Chairman for the present item as he was a local Member for the item and intended to speak on the item during debate. With the agreement of the meeting he called on the Vice-Chairman, Cllr. Miss. Thornton, to chair the item.

(Cllr. Miss. Thornton in the Chair)

The proposal was a retrospective application for the creation of a new access, gate and hard surface.

A 4m wide opening had been made in the existing hedge and a type 1 crushed stone surface laid to accommodate the new access. A 5-bar gate had been erected approximately 4 metres into the site with 1.33m high wooden fencing installed from the hedge to the gate.

The site was an irregular parcel of land located on the west side of London Road with no other existing access. It was in the Metropolitan Green Belt, opposite to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a hotel diner.

Officers considered that the gate and fence constituted inappropriate development in principle but there was no additional harm on the openness of the Green Belt, the character of the area, or on highway conditions. Very special circumstances, that it was a low-key form of development providing access to this site whilst maintaining the openness and the visual character of the area, clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.

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

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       -

For the Application:              Mr. Rollings

Parish Representative:         Cllr. Brooker

Local Member:                      -

Members were advised that the track going into the site was subject to a separate planning enforcement investigation and was not relevant to the planning application. Officers felt the use was still in agricultural use. The land no longer had access from Otford Lane since the larger parcel of land had been split.

It was confirmed that the access up to 2m from the road would need to be surfaced with tarmac.

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.

Members identified the land as part of a narrow strip of open Green Belt protecting the district and Sevenoaks from the urban sprawl of London. The rural character of the area was at threat from increasing urbanisation from the nearby Polhill Garden Centre and the diner opposite. Several Members felt the application should be refused in order to protect the Green Belt from encroachment .

It was suggested that very special circumstances had not been identified to outweigh the harm caused.

There was concern the access would not be sufficiently large for vehicles with trailers.

The local Member, on the Committee, expressed concern that the proposal amounted to suburbanisation particularly resulting from the hardstanding adjacent to the road and the pavement . These would detract from the openness and attractiveness of the area.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

6 votes in favour of the motion

6 votes against the motion

In accordance with paragraph 24.2 of Part 2 in the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman used her casting vote against the motion.

It was moved by Cllr. Williamson and was duly seconded that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.             The land lies within the Green Belt where strict policies of restraint apply. The proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green Belt and to its openness. It is not been shown that very special circumstances exist to clearly outweigh the harm in principle and the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and as such this conflicts with policy L08 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 80, 87 and 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.             The proposed gate, fence and hardstanding would have an adverse impact on the visual quality of the landscape and represent a suburbanising  encroachment into the countryside. The proposed development would therefore have a detrimental impact on the countryside and the visual appearance of the Green Belt. This conflicts with policies SP1 and L08 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

.

The motion was put to the vote and there voted –

9 votes in favour of the motion

5 votes against the motion

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.             The land lies within the Green Belt where strict policies of restraint apply. The proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green Belt and to its openness. It is not been shown that very special circumstances exist to clearly outweigh the harm in principle and the harm to the openness of the Green Belt and as such this conflicts with policy L08 of the Core Strategy and paragraphs 80, 87 and 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.             The proposed gate, fence and hardstanding would have an adverse impact on the visual quality of the landscape and represent a suburbanising  encroachment into the countryside. The proposed development would therefore have a detrimental impact on the countryside and the visual appearance of the Green Belt. This conflicts with policies SP1 and L08 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy.

 (Cllr. Williamson resumed the Chair)