Demolition of existing garden building with the retention of its existing facade to facilitate a new dwelling.

The proposal was for the demolition of existing garden building with the retention of its existing façade to facilitate a new dwelling.  The application had been referred to Committee as the Officer’s view was at variance to the response provided by the Town Council and at the request of Councillor Walshe on the grounds of the potential impact on the conservation area.

Members’ attention was brought to the main papers and late observations sheet which proposed amendments to the wording of Condition 8.  It was noted that a Members’ Site Inspection had been held.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:       Mr. Adam Gostling

For the Application:              Mrs. Mary May

Parish Representative:         Mrs. Walshe

Local Member:                      -

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.  The Legal Services Manager informed Members that it was possible for a planning obligation to require both buildings to be used as one dwelling with one building being used ancillary to the other and if in the future the owners wished the two properties to be used as separate dwellings an affordable housing contribution would then be paid.

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

Members discussed whether the development was acceptable on a site which was situated within one conservation area and laid adjacent to another. Concerns were raised that the development was backland development and would have an overbearing impact on neighbours.  Sympathy for the applicants was expressed and some Members thought that the unique design minimised the impact on neighbours and that it could be a heritage asset in the future.

The motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the application be refused on the grounds that the design materials and form failed to preserve or enhance the conservation area and the adjacent listed buildings, that the loss of the open space would be irreversible and the new dwelling would harm the character of the area and the development had an overbearing impact on neighbours, particularly for properties facing Park Lane

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved:  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons

1.        The proposed dwelling by virtue of its design, materials and built form would result in an incongruous development, out of keeping with the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore detract from the character of the Vine Conservation Area and would be contrary to policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Saved Local Plan Policies, policy SP1 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy and policies EN1 and EN4 of the Sevenoaks District Allocations and Development Management Plan.

2.        The proposed development would result in backland development, which would dominate the garden in which it is proposed. If permitted the large property would irreversibly damage the open space between properties in this part of the conservation area and would therefore fail to preserve or enhance its character. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies EN1 and EN23 of the Sevenoaks District Saved Local Plan Policies, policy SP1 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy and policies EN1 and EN4 of the Sevenoaks District Allocations and Development Management Plan.

3.        The proposed development by virtue of its height, size and the proximity to the southern boundary would have an overbearing impact on the residents of 2 and 4 Park Lane. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the amenity and outlook of neighbouring residents and would be contrary to Policy EN1 of Sevenoaks District Saved Local Plan Policies and policy EN2 of the Sevenoaks District Allocations and Development Management Plan.

4.        The proposal would lead to a requirement to contribute towards affordable housing provision. In the absence of a completed Section 106 obligation to secure an appropriate level of affordable housing provision, the development would be contrary to Policy SP3 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy.