To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 December 2020, as a correct record.

Resolved:  That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee held on the 17 December 2020, be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

Cllr Brown declared that for Minute 141 – 20/02646/MMA 95 Dartford Road, Sevenoaks  Kent TN13 3TF, the public speaker against was his sister in law, and he would therefore not take part in the debate or voting thereon.

Cllr Hogarth declared that for Minute 141 – 20/02646/MMA 95 Dartford Road, Sevenoaks  Kent TN13 3TF, he had previously considered the matter when discussed by Sevenoaks Town Council, but would remain open minded.

Councillors Raikes declared for Minute 141 – 20/02646/MMA 95 Dartford Road, Sevenoaks  Kent TN13 3TF, that he had previously considered the matter when discussed by Sevenoaks Town Council and that he knew the public speaker against, but would remain open minded.

All Councillors present, except Councillor Hudson, declared that they had been lobbied in respect of Minute 141 – 20/02646/MMA 95 Dartford Road, Sevenoaks Kent TN13 3TF.

In addition, Councillor Coleman declared that she had been lobbied in respect of Minute 139 – 20/026463/FUL Leigh Flood Storage Area, River Medway, Kent; and

Councillor Williamson declared that he had been lobbied in respect of Minute 140 – 20/02389/LDCEX Land North of Hunters Retreat, Shoreham Lane, Halstead, Kent, TN147BY.

RESERVED PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered the following planning applications:

Proposed flood mitigation improvements to facilitate the Leigh Flood Storage Area (FSA) expansion scheme. Improvements to Leigh and Cattle Arch embankments to include: partial raising of embankments; installation of 300mm high wave return wall; creation of pumping station platform area; erection of new fencing and gates and other associated works that include culvert, eel pass, temporary access and compound areas.

The proposal sought planning permission for flood mitigation improvements to facilitate the Leigh Flood Storage Area (FSA) expansion scheme. Improvements to Leigh and Cattle Arch embankments to include: partial raising of embankments; installation of 300mm high wave return wall; creation of pumping station platform area; erection of new fencing and gates and other associated works that include culvert, eel pass, temporary access and compound areas. The application had been referred to Development Control Committee as it was considered significant by the Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Planning & Regulatory Officer.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:              Kevin Storey

For the Application:                    Tim Connell

Parish Representative:                Leigh Parish Councillor Richard Britain

Local Member:                           -

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers which centred around the risk of flooding and use of the flood barrier and biodiversity works.  It was noted that increasing the maximum stored water level required a separate permission from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Committee was only considering the impact of the flood mitigation engineering works required to facilitate the increased flood water storage, along with the impact of those works within the immediate vicinity and wider implications.  The application was to assist with increased flood water storage levels and flood modelling as shown in the application, demonstrated that the development would not increase the flood water depth level within Rogues Hill, Penshurst, nor would any residential property in Leigh be affected.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the application.

          Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

 1)  The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 2)  No works (including site clearance or preparation) shall commence on the development hereby permitted until final design and construction drawings and method statements in relation to works in the vicinity of the A21 Medway Bridge have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (who shall consult with Highways England). The construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and statements unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (who shall consult with Highways England). At the end of the construction period, a full set of as built drawings and associated documentation shall be provided to Highways England.

To ensure that the A21 Trunk Road continues to be an effective part of the national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 and to satisfy the reasonable requirements of road safety.

 3)  If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

Certificate of lawfulness for the use of the land for the storage of roll-on/ roll-off bins and skips and porta cabin for more than 10 years; and the erection of a building in excess of 4 years.

The proposal sought a certificate of lawfulness for the use of the land for the storage of roll-on/ roll-off bins and skips and porta cabin for more than 10 years; and the erection of a building in excess of 4 years.

The application had been referred to Development Control Committee by Councillor Grint for the Committee to consider whether the evidence available justified the grant of the Lawful Development Certificate.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:              Mandy Akin

For the Application:                    -

Parish Representative:                Parish Councillor Jean Peel

Local Member:                           Councillor Grint

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers.  The Legal Officer responded to technical questions on the evidence required; the weight of different forms of evidence such as verbal and statutory declarations; and the balance of probability referred to in the National Planning Practice Guidance.  It was for Members to decide whether the Applicant had proven and satisfied the Committee, and up to Members what weight they afforded to the evidence before them.  It was noted that there was not a statutory duty to consult yet the Council had done so.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the matter be put to debate.  There was some concern that residents would not have been aware that statutory declarations could be given greater weight.  With this in mind it was moved by Councillor Reay and duly seconded that the item be deferred for more information and evidence to be received.

Upon discussion the mover of the motion with the agreement of the seconder withdrew the motion to defer, as there was a strong indication that other Members thought there was sufficient evidence before them to make a decision.

The Chairman moved that the item be refused and it was duly seconded. Upon clarification and discussion he amended his motion to refuse on the grounds that, on the balance of probability, the Applicant had failed to provide sufficient and clear evidence that the land had been used continuously for the storage of roll on/ roll off bins and skips including porta cabin and that the erection of a building on the site, was lawful.

The Democratic Services Officer gave advice as to what motion was being considered. The seconder withdrew.  The Chairman did not require a seconder however the motion was duly seconded by another.

The motion to refuse was put to the vote and it was

         Resolved: That the lawful development certificate be refused on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to provide sufficient clear and unambiguous evidence to demonstrate that, on the balance of probability, the land had been used continuously for the storage of roll on/ roll off bins and skips including porta cabin and that the erection of a building on the site was lawful.

At 9.24 p.m. the Chairman adjourned the Committee for the convenience of Members and Officers. The meeting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Minor material amendment to 19/00116/FUL

The proposal sought approval of a minor material amendment to 19/00116/FUL. The application had been referred to Development Control Committee by Councillor Fleming on the grounds that the change was significant, not in keeping with the main roofline and had a harmful impact on the character of the area.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Against the Application:              Zara Milner-Pearce

For the Application:                    -

Parish Representative:                Town Councillor Keith Bonin

Local Member:                           Councillor Fleming

Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and officers. It was clarified that the parking and footprint of the dwellings would remain as previously approved, and that both properties would have permitted development rights, including boundary enclosures.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendations within the report be agreed.

Members discussed the application, in particular the effect of the roof profile on the street scene, bulk and overshadowing.  Members also considered the affect of the application in light of the requirement that a proposal affecting a heritage asset or its setting would be permitted where that development conserved or enhanced the character, appearance and setting of the asset.

The motion was put to the vote and failed.

Reasons for refusal were debated, the Chairman moved that the application be refused on the grounds of the impact of the bulk and form on the street scene (EN1) and the impact on the designated heritage asset (EN4), which was duly seconded. 

The motion was put to the vote and it was

          Resolved: That planning permission be refused (EN1 and EN4) with delegated authority granted to the Deputy Chief Executive and Chief Officer Planning & Regulatory Services to draft the formal wording after consultation with local Members.

(Having declared an interest, Councillor Brown did not take part in the debate or voting thereon.)

Conversion of redundant agricultural Buildings to form 9 new residential units. Demolition of outbuildings. Landscaping works with new access and access alterations.

The proposal had been before the Committee on 13 February 2020 (Minute 64) where it had been agreed subject to a legal agreement to secure the contribution to affordable housing for either: an onsite policy compliant provision; or a payment in lieu of affordable housing for provision of affordable housing elsewhere, calculated in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD 2011.  In the event that, using all reasonable endeavours, the legal agreement referred to was not completed within 4 months of the meeting, the Chief Planning Officer was authorised to refuse the application for failure to make a contribution to affordable housing, contrary to policy SP3 of the Core Strategy.

A financial contribution of £450,000 had now been secured but due to the delay in securing the contribution, the application was back before Committee for consideration.

The proposal sought planning permission for conversion of redundant agricultural Buildings to form 9 new residential units; demolition of outbuildings; and landscaping works with new access and access alterations.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers. 

There was an Officer presentation but no speakers.

Concern was expressed that the decision made in February 2020 had not been adhered to as it was some time over the four month expiration period and the application should therefore have been refused.  It was advised that due to the difficulties encountered due to lockdowns etc as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a management decision had been made to continue with the negotiations and bring the application back to committee with the contribution secured.

It was moved by the Chairman and duly seconded that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

      Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to the Section 106 agreement to secure the contribution to affordable housing, and subject to the following conditions

 1)  The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

In pursuance of section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 2)  Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order) no enlargement, improvement or other alteration permitted by Class A, B, D or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended), or any enclosure other than those approved shall be permitted by Class A of Part 2  of the 2015 Order (as amended) shall be carried out or made to the dwellings and development hereby approved without the grant of a further planning permission by the local planning authority.

To preserve the special landscape character of the AONB and to protect residential amenity, to comply with policies EN2 and EN5 of the ADMP.

 3)  No development shall take place until details of tree protection measures for all retained trees have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.