The erection of a first floor extension to the north elevation, a one and a half storey extension to the south elevation to provide a garage with accommodation in the roof, part two storey and part single storey extensions to the rear, alterations to the roof and a loft conversion, the addition of a pitched roof dormer window and roof light to the rear roof slope and two pitched roof dormer windows in the front roof slope alterations to the fenestration and a front canopy porch.

The proposal sought permission for the erection of a first floor extension to the north elevation, a one and a half storey extension to the south elevation to provide a garage with accommodation in the roof, part two storey and part single storey extensions to the rear, alterations to the roof and a loft conversion, the addition of a pitched roof dormer window and roof light to the rear roof slope and two pitched roof dormer windows in the front roof slope alterations to the fenestration and a front canopy porch.  The application had been referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Ms. Lowe for reasons cited by the Parish Council which Councillor Ms. Lowe agreed with.

Members attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observations sheet which included an additional condition.  It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Philip Gardener

For the Application:              Richard Owen

Parish Representative:         Martin Whitehead

Local Member:                      Cllr. Ms. Lowe

Members asked questions of clarification from Members and Officers. The Case Officer confirmed there were existing dormer windows in the property. 

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendation in the report to grant planning permission subject to conditions be agreed.

It was brought to Members attention by the Planning Manager that the Otford Village Design Statement had not been adopted and that the application could not be refused on those grounds.  Some Members thought the design was not cohesive with other properties in the area and that it would create an unbalanced street scene with the appearance of terracing, and be a reduction of light into the neighbouring property due to the bulk of the extension. Members discussed whether the design would breach planning guidelines as the road had mixed architectural styles.

The motion was put to the vote and was lost.

It was moved by Cllr. Stack and duly seconded that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the side extension and dormers would have a detrimental impact on the street scene and with the appearance of over development and have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

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

The proposed development, by reason of the addition of dormer windows in the front facing elevation at two storey level would result in an uncharacteristic  form of development which would fail to respect the character and appearance of the existing and neighbouring dwellings and together with the one and a half storey extension to the south elevation  would result in a cramped form of development that will be detrimental to character of the street scene and have an overbearing impact when viewed from the first floor bedroom window in the side elevation  of the neighbouring dwelling Rhylock to the to the detriment of the  amenities of the occupants therein. As such the proposal would be contrary to policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Local Plan and policy SP1 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy