Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Compton, Cllr Mc Gregor, Cllr Read and Cllr Todd.

Cllrs Layland and McArthur had visited the site and therefore declared a personal interest (non-prejudicial) in item 5.1.

The site developer spoke with regard to item 5.1 of the Agenda and said that the site sat in a shallow basin next to an enclave of six or so dwellings. They stated that barns on site were not suited to modern farming needs. They said that planning permission had been granted for a single dwelling, with the condition that the other barns be removed. The condition was subsequently varied, and demolition work stopped in February 2020. They went to say that since 2020 Claydene Farm in Cowden and Oast Farm at Hever within the district together with other schemes elsewhere had established the principle of farmyard development/redevelopment. They said that whilst it was previously a condition of the planning permission to remove the barns, they were of a permanent and substantial construction, and in planning terms they were buildings. They stated that the scheme would improve the openness of the greenbelt and reduce the footprint by over 25% and volumes by 40% There would be new planting on and off site to conserve the ANOB and that it would be a high quality development. They said that there would be broadly a neutral impact on traffic generation when compared with existing lawful use. They stated that the application represented an opportunity to settle the future of the yard so consolidating farm operations at Lingfield Lodge Farm.

A member of the public spoke with regard to item 5.2 of the Agenda saying that they had lived in their home for 30 years and that during that time a mobile phone mast had been erected and they had had to plant trees to screen the mast from view. They had received the notification letter from Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) stating that the existing mast was to be removed and another erected less than 50 metres from their boundary fence. They wished to object to this partly on the grounds that the new mast would be nearly 70 feet above them, and that masts make a sound that they would be able to hear from their home. They said that the new mast would cast a shadow on their house and garden and would affect the performance of their solar panels. They could see no clear reason why the mast could not remain in the original site or why the original mast was being removed. They said that the application described the site as industrial and rural, with no mention of it being residential. The application also stated that there had been a residents’ consultation, but that there had not been one, and the orange notice had been positioned on the same day that the residents received the letter from SDC, but nothing had been received from the applicant.

A second member of the public spoke with regard to item 5.1 of the Agenda, also on behalf of four of the other members of public attending the meeting, stating that they jointly and individually objected to the proposed development, although not objecting to any form of re-development of the Barns but just to the proposals as submitted. Their main objections were to the appropriateness, scale, and form of the development within the green belt and AONB, and the impact of the transportation load along the private lane, which is the proposed sole access route. They believed the scale and form of development to be excessive and not in keeping with the surrounding hamlet of three detached houses and a single building divided into three cottages. They said that the proposals consist of a mini estate of five four and five bedroom houses. This would more than double the size of the residences when looking at bed numbers. They stated that the scale of development is not reflective of the surrounding housing or area, and the development would have a negative impact on the green belt and AONB. They also wished to object to the development on the grounds of the increased traffic on the private access road. The road is a single lane private track that is in an average but quickly deteriorating condition. The lane is also a Public Right of Way which is very heavily used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders. There are no passing places, the verges are soft grass, making passing impossible during any inclement weather and there is a difficult corner where the lane meets the yard causing safety issues. They said the application as submitted claims that the development would only generate an additional 4 vehicle journeys per day over the current use. They felt that this was clearly wrong and deliberately misleading. The transport statement claims the existing trip generation, is based on estimated usage for redundant farm buildings. This estimate suggests that two return trips per day per barn would be a reasonable assumption noting that these need to be regularly inspected. It is therefore claimed that this generates a total vehicle load of 24 journeys per day. It would be clear to any party that has viewed the site, or the application images, that most of these barns do not generate any vehicle movements at all. If a daily inspection was however required, one return trip for all barns would be sufficient. They said that the barns are clustered and therefore grossing up of the trips is misleading and wrong. They asked why an estimated trip count was used in the report and no measure of actual usage. With respect of the future traffic load on the lane, they said this has been estimated as seven trips per dwelling per day. Which they felt underestimates the potential load. They commented that if you were to consider a 4/5 bedroom house in this location, it would be reasonable to assume that there would be four journeys created from two school runs, at least two journeys created by commuting to work and at least two further journeys created by any deliveries, workmen, visitors, waste removal, or shopping trips. This alone totals eight journeys and exceeds the seven claimed and doesn’t factor in the possibility of driving age children in the house, which would again greatly increase the anticipated load. They felt that the assessment of the existing load was significantly overstated, and the assessment of the future impact is understated. They said that SDC stated in the Pre-Application Advice that the development as presented, would constitute inappropriate development and very special circumstances would be required to outweigh the significant harm to the green belt. They did not believe that any special circumstances have been presented or justified in this case. They further commented that Paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that when considering applications for developments within the AONB, permission should be refused for developments other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. They also did not believe that any exceptional circumstances have been presented or that the development offers any benefits in public interest.

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 9 January 2023 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting; pages 9841-9843.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application.

Members commented that they object to this application on the grounds of the extra parking, traffic volume, density of the materials and the layout and density of the buildings.

Recommendation: Members have been asked for their observations:

Members observed that a 20 metre mast would be intrusive on the landscape when viewed from The Old Manse and would have a severe impact on the loss of amenities in the back garden. There will be other residents close to this new site in the near future. It was noted that a previous application for a mast on the other side of the site had been withdrawn. Members would have liked to be consulted as opposed to being only asked for their observations.

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted