Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Gemmell Smith, Cllr M McArthur, Cllr Mc Gregor, Cllr Read and Cllr Todd.

None

A member of the public handed Cllrs a letter which commented on the Urban Design Comments, stating that under Context that where the proposed development is located there is a different character from the majority of Ridge Way which has ‘a looser urban grain with larger more spacious plots and piecemeal development’.

Under Massing it said that ‘the proportions of the proposed development are larger than the immediate neighbours however as this part of the street offers piecemeal development with more variation in scale, this is not considered detrimental to the street’.

Under Density the document states incorrectly that Ridge Way is ‘urban’ the definition of which is ‘situated in a city or town and deprived of rural character. The member of public said that this was misleading, and it should have been described as ‘Suburban’ meaning ‘residential district lying on or near outskirts of town’

The member of public said the statements in Streetscape ‘a large quantity of mature trees lining the site and Nature ‘existing site currently offers wild dense vegetation’ were incorrect as many of the mature trees and all of the wild dense vegetation had been removed by the developer during midSeptember 2022.

They went on to say that the SUDS report stated that maintaining the SUDS would be the responsibility of the owner, although lack of maintenance would not impact on the owner but would affect the properties downstream. They said that the SUDS report did not demonstrate a satisfactory means of preventing the greatly increased run-off of surface water caused by adding a significant further burden on a system that did not cope with the run-off now. The member of public summarised by saying that the report did nothing to demonstrate a satisfactory means of preventing the greatly increased run-off that would result from the development adding a significant burden on the existing system which already did not cope with the run-off.

A second member of public said that the urban Design document stated that ‘semi-detached properties were out of character in Ridge Way at that point’ and that there were ‘no three storey houses in the street’. The member of public said that hedges on the boundaries would make it unsafe for cars to exit the property. They stated that the SUDS report stated that the owner of the surface water pipe should be reviewed. House owners had spoken to Southern Water who claimed that they did not own it. A third member of public stated that Southern Water have accepted responsibility for the foul water sewer under the statutory requirement of 2011 Water Industry Regulations (Transfer Regulations). The surface water was being utilised by both Southern Water under the Transfer Regulations and KSS Highways for draining the public highway of ridge Way. As yet Southern Water had not accepted the responsibility under the Transfer Agreement. The member of public said that there was frequent flooding outside numbers 9 and 12 Ridge Way which suggested problems on the shared system from that point up to the outfall by the railway line to the south, and that the developer had not investigated the suitability of this existing outfall and if proven insufficient a new outfall would be required to accommodate additional surface water run-off from the site. Southern Water acknowledge vesting of the foul sewer under the Transfer Agreement and would refer conditions to Sevenoaks District Council (SDC). They went on to say that the SDC Urban Design Officer had described the location as urban development classifying it as ‘looser urban grain’ and despite agreeing with the Character Assessment, SDC immediately support this development purely on the basis of ‘increased density utilises the land efficiently without compromising quality of space or character’. The member of public also said that there was currently a boundary dispute between the developer who was claiming ownership of a strip of land that belonged to an existing resident.

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 12 December 2022 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 9837-9840.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application. Members commented wished to repeat their previous comments:

• Parking is inadequate
• Historical flooding issues on the road. Concern of pond in garden behind
• Foul-water disposal provision is not clear (“provision unknown”)
• Safety around traffic on bend 3 stories presented an Overlooking risk

Members wished to add that this development represented overloading of the site and did not match the local Street Scene or local Character Assessment. The SUDS document refers to the previously approved outline planning permission and has no bearing on this new application. Members agreed to contact the planning officer regarding this. The developer has made inadequate provision for drainage and surface water run-off

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

None

30 JANUARY 2023