Meeting Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received, noted, and accepted from Cllr Compton, Cllr McArthur, Cllr McGregor, Cllr Read and Cllr Todd.

It was noted that Cllr Sumner was absent.

None.

A member of the public spoke with regard to item 5.1 on the Agenda and said that nothing in the latest application had changed their views set out in their letters to Sevenoaks District Council (SDC) of 18 December 2022 and 26 January 2023.and wished to add that the Urban Development Officer’s Report was self-contradictory and ignorant of the clearance of vegetation and trees on the site during midSeptember, casting doubt over the Officer’s familiarity of the site. They then referred to a letter from Southern Water dated 20 January 2023 which they said stated in effect that the existing drainage system could not cope with more surface or foul water. The Member of public felt that the outlined planning permission for three house should therefore not have been granted and said that this and Southern Water’s letter had made them feel that the whole application had been rushed in an attempt to secure permission before the Government’s announced intention took effect to relax planning guidance. They felt that the applicant was relying on the absence of a local plan and consequent ‘presumption in favour As about 30% of the Developer’s Planning Statement was making this marginal case. In summary the member of public stated that the application was excessive, exploitive, inappropriate, and detrimental to the locale, would lead to overspill parking comprising road safety, failed totally to consider the inadequacy of the surface and foul drain networks and attempted to pre-empt planning changes.

A letter had been received by another member of public also on item 5.1 of the Agenda. This had been read by members and referred to at the meeting and is shown below:

Planning permission for this site 21/02786/OUT was given on 6 December 2021 for 3 houses 6 parking spaces subject to several conditions which SDC included to enhance biodiversity and protect the street scene. The development should be carried out in accord with approved plans and Canopy Consultancy Arboriculture Report 21-1248, August 2021.

I should like Sevenoaks Planners and Tree Officers to pay particular attention to ensure their original intentions in approving the 2021 application are met. In particular that any ‘loss of mature trees that contribute to street scene would be resisted’ (as stated in Tree Officer’s Comments to 2021 application) and that the root protection areas (RPAs) approved in 2021 are maintained, also any changes to hard surfaces within RPA are minimised.

There seem to be differences between the approved 2021 arboriculture report and the trees that now remain after site clearance.

1. The 2021 Canopy Consultancy Arboriculture Report 21-1248, August listed 35 trees in total plus seven groups on the site (Table pp 9 and 10). Of these it was proposed to remove 25 trees (21 to allow development, 4 for arboriculturally reasons).
2. Para 4.2 (page 5) of the 2021 report listed several trees to be retained including. T2, T3, T4, T9 and T14.
3. The Tree Protection Plan 21-1248-TPP-‘circled’ ten trees including five along the street in blue and/or grey.
4. The site was cleared in Autumn 2022.
5. The subsequent 2022 Canopy Consultancy Arboriculture Report 21-1248, October lists (page 10) just six trees on site after site clearance. These are circled in blue (5) or grey (1) on the 2022 Tree Protection Plan 21-1248-TPP A.
6. Of these six, Para 4.2 (2022) states that five ‘will be affected by the construction of hard surfaces’ namely trees T1, T2, T9, T14 and T15. Only T27 now seems unaffected. T2, T9 and T14 grow along the street and contribute much to the street scene. Note that T3 and T4 in earlier 2021 list (see point 2 above) no longer appear to be on the 2022 retained list nor on the 2022 Tree Protection Diagram.

IN SUMMARY

While I find it difficult to see how a site clearance can lead to greater diversity, the developer’s proposed, comprehensive replanting scheme (PETROW HARLEY 975-01) is to be welcomed especially if this can be shown to improve biodiversity, though many of the new plants seem to be quite low (many initially under 1 metre high). Sevenoaks Council’s original conditions for 21/02786/OUT (3 houses) imposed on 6 December 2021 sought ‘to preserve visual appearance of the area and biodiversity as supported by Core Strategy SP11’ (condition 10). Also to protect street scene/character of area (visual amenity of locality, condition 11, Policy EN1) and to protect retained trees during and after construction (condition 11). Planning consent (6 Dec 2021) Condition 3 stated that ‘the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter.’ However, there is no guarantee that new occupants will retain plants. Moreover, as 5 of the 6 proposed properties face adjacent walls or face North, there may be temptation for new occupants to create more light by cutting back retained trees/new plants. Perhaps TPOs could be considered for remaining street trees.

Comments on the application by KCC Ecology on 19 January 2023 state: ‘The site may have contained suitable habitat for protected/notable species and the site clearance works may have resulted in a breach of wildlife legislation. The extent of vegetation cleared on this site must only be carried out after advice from an ecological consultant.’

Given KCC Ecology’s comments, the differences between the 2021 (approved) and trees listed in 2022 Arboriculture reports, the seeming absence of trees T3 and T4 following site clearance, I should like Edenbridge Councillors to urge Sevenoaks Planners and Tree Officers to ensure their original intentions in approving the 2021 application can still be met.

Resolved: the minutes of the Planning and Transportation Committee held on 23rd January 2023 be duly signed by the Committee Chairman as a true and accurate record of the meeting;

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

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

Members also commented 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

Members also wished to add that neighbours are concerned by the felling of mature trees and hedgerows on the site, which had been the habitat of protected bird and wildlife species.

Recommendation: Members supported this application

Recommendation: Members objected to this application.

Recommendation: Members objected to this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members supported this application.

Recommendation: Members made no further comments.

Recommendation: Members made no further comments.

Recommendation: Members Supported this application.

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

Noted

None