Conversion of the existing barn into a single independent dwelling with associated landscaping.

The proposal was for conversion of the existing barn into a single independent dwelling with associated landscaping.

The application was referred to the Committee by Cllr. Miss Thornton to consider the objections raised by the Parish Council, in particular whether the building was of substantial construction and capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction that would detract from the original character.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and the late observation sheet which proposed an additional condition.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:        Juliet Simpson

For the Application:               Ian Hudson

Parish Representative:          Sam Kirkaldy

Local Member:                       Cllr Hogarth

Members asked questions of clarification from the Speakers and Officers.

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

Members discussed the impact that the proposal would have on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Committee noted that the Kent AONB Board had raised concerns with the proposal.  Members expressed concern that the proposal did nothing to preserve and enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Members expressed concern that it would not be possible for the barn conversion to be undertaken without major or complete reconstruction.  The Committee was also concerned about the impact on the Green Belt.

The motion to grant planning permission was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved and duly seconded that planning permission be refused as the proposal would result in the urbanization of the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The development by virtue of the residential paraphernalia associated with it, the light pollution, the increase in vehicle movements and the introduction of necessary utilities would fail to preserve and enhance the natural beauty and character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It would also result in an isolated development in a remote rural location contrary to the aims of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It was also suggested that reference be made to the Underriver Village Design statement.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

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

The proposed development would result in the urbanization of the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The development by virtue of the residential paraphernalia associated with it, the light pollution, the increase in vehicle movements and the introduction of necessary utilities would fail to preserve and enhance the natural beauty and character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It would result in an isolated development in a remote rural location contrary to the aims of paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies SP1 and L08 of the Sevenoaks Core Strategy and EN1 and EN5 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan. It would also fail to meet the aims of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It would also be contrary to the aims of the Underriver Village Design Statement which seeks to protect the landscape from harm and in particular to protect views along and from the Greensand Way.

Informative:

1.      Whilst it is noted that Kent Highway Services raised no objection to the proposal, members of the planning committee with local knowledge raised concerns in regard to the impact of the proposed development and the increase in traffic on highway safety on this fragile, narrow, steep, rural cul-de-sac lane, popular with many walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

2.      Whilst it is noted that the applicants submitted a structural report in support of their application, members of the Planning Committee did raise concerns as to whether the information submitted in the structural report was robust enough and they were therefore not confident as to whether they could make a conclusion on this application as to whether it consisted of a conversion of the building or a substantial redevelopment of the structure. They were therefore concerned as to whether the proposal complied with Paragraph 90 of the NPPF which allows the re-use of buildings within the Green Belt provided they are of a permanent and substantial construction and also whether it complies with the Guidance laid out in The Council’s Draft Supplementary Planning Document: Development in the Green Belt where it states, in converting buildings in the Green Belt that the Council would wish to see at least 75% of the original structure maintained to protect its character.