One chalet-style dwelling at 4 Mill Lane, Sibertswold

What was proposed

The application sought a 1.5-storey chalet-style dwelling with one parking space, garden space, bicycle and refuse storage, and accessible accommodation.

“The dwelling would be located to the front of the site, with 1 off-street parking space to its north-western side, external amenity space to its rear and a shed containing bicycle parking and refuse storage with a verandah and solar panels.”

“The accommodation would comprise a living room, kitchen/diner, bedroom and wet room to the ground floor, with two bedrooms and a bathroom to the first floor. The application is submitted on the basis that the dwelling would be accessible, having a ground floor bathroom and bedroom and a low-gradient access ramp to the front door. The internal accommodation would total 117 metres squared.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site lies within Shepherdswell’s settlement boundary and conservation area, beside a public right of way forming part of the North Downs Way.

“The site previously formed part of the red line application site area for planning permission ref: DOV/19/00721, pursuant to which four semi-detached homes have been built on the land to the immediate north-east of the application site. The area was shown on the approved site layout plan as an area of grass with hedge or tree planting to the southern boundary of the site, to the south-west of plot 1.”

“In terms of relevant planning and environmental constraints, the site is within the settlement boundaries of Shepherdswell and within Shepherdswell Conservation Area. The site adjoins Public Right of Way ER77 to the south which forms part of the North Downs Way route and is within an Archaeological Notification Area.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found the dwelling poorly designed and harmful to the conservation area, neighbouring living conditions and privacy, with inadequate parking.

“Due to the close proximity of the new dwelling to surrounding dwellings the proposal would result in an uneasy relationship causing harm to residential amenity through overbearing development to 4 and 4A Mill Lane as well as to the prospective residents of the proposed dwelling as well as a loss of privacy from harmful overlooking to the private garden of the new dwelling. The proposal also fails to provide adequate parking for a 3-bedroom dwelling in a rural location.”

“The proposal’s location, scale and relationship with neighbouring buildings would produce unacceptable living conditions causing harm to residential amenity through overbearing development to the occupants of nos.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The parish council objected overdevelopment, conservation and street-scene harm, effects on the North Downs Way, and inadequate parking; other consultees raised no objection or had no comments.

“Shepherdswell Parish Council: Objects to the application on the grounds that: - The proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site - Negative impact on the Conservation Area and street scene as the previous application was subject to a revision to pull back the semi-detached houses from the road, whereas this would be adjacent - The North Downs Way would be negatively affected, as the building would overshadow and obscure the footpath - The design provides inadequate…”

“Kent County Council Public Rights of Way Service: No comments to make on the application…”

Officer report

What was said to members

The applicant’s written response referred to older people’s housing, the site’s location, traditional design, conservation-area fit and separation distances.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application for harm to visual amenity and the conservation area, unacceptable living conditions and insufficient parking.

“(i) The proposal, by virtue of its design, siting and scale, would constitute poor design, producing a visually jarring and incongruous development which does not respond well to the grain or character and appearance of surrounding development, resulting in harm to visual amenity.”

“(ii) The proposal’s location, scale and relationship with neighbouring buildings would produce unacceptable living conditions causing harm to residential amenity through overbearing development to the occupants of 4 and 4a Mill Lane and to the prospective residents of the proposed dwelling, and a loss of privacy from harmful overlooking to prospective residents of the proposed dwelling from the first floor windows of 2 Mill…”

Minutes