Five apartments at Land Rear Of 26 St James Road, Sevenoaks

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a garage and building five apartments with access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

“- 25/00978/FUL Revised expiry date 22 May 2026 Proposal: Demolition of existing garage. Erection of 5no. apartments with access, cycle parking and associated landscaping. Associated works. Location: Land Rear Of 26 St James Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3NQ Ward(s): Sevenoaks Town & St Johns Item for decision The application has been referred to Development Management Committee as land within the red line is within Sevenoaks District Council Ownership.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council recommended refusal, the flood authority sought further groundwater safeguards, and highways, environmental health, trees and ecology gave qualified responses.

“Sevenoaks Town Council 19 ‘Sevenoaks Town Council recommended refusal on the grounds that the proposed development would be cramped and overdeveloped, particularly at three storeys’ Lead Local Flood Authority – (summarised) 18 Given the uncertainty surrounding the potential impacts of this development, and the influence of previous consents on the neighbouring site, the LLFA views that the current level of information is insufficient to demonstrate that flood risk will not…”

“KCC Highways 21 Does not warrant involvement, standard guidance. Environmental Health 22 Raise no objection subject to the following comments: • Noise Assessment – Noise levels would achieve relevant standard. Concerns regarding screening of roof terrace.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker spoke against the application and a town representative spoke for it.

Members’ discussion

Members focused on harm to the existing neighbouring permission and poor screening between the two properties, while recognising the site’s sustainable location.

“Against the Application: - For the Application: Neal Thompson Town Representatives: Chloe Gustard Local Members: - Members asked questions of clarification of the officer. The concerns over neighbouring amenity related to the existing permission on the neighbouring site. The site was a sustainable location, in an urban area, with opportunities to cycle or take public transport, meaning a car-free development was appropriate.”

“Members discussed the report. They considered that the application would lead to unacceptable harm to the to the pre-existing permission on the neighbouring site, with poor screening between the two properties.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was refused because the building would be overbearing and harmful to character and would cause harmful loss of light to neighbouring occupiers.

“Resolved: That planning permission be REFUSED on the following grounds:”

“1) The proposed building by reason of its size, scale, bulk, massing, design, materials and associated intensification in the use of the plot would represent an unduly prominent, overbearing and cramped form of development, harmful to the character of the area to a degree that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposals.”

Minutes