House extensions and outbuildings at 22 Shoreham Lane, Riverhead

What was proposed

The application proposed extensive alterations, extensions, a loft conversion, solar panels, a new garage, a garden room and landscaping.

“Proposal: Removal of chimney, conversion of existing garage, demolition of rear extension. Rear extensions, part first floor side extension, loft conversion, solar panels, new garage and new garden room. Alterations to fenestration and associated landscaping. Location: 22 Shoreham Lane, Riverhead, Kent TN13 3DT”

Officer report

Site and surroundings

The site is a detached dwelling in a residential area where homes are generally sizeable, detached and set on narrow plots.

“1 The site comprises of a detached dwelling located along Shoreham Lane within the Parish of Riverhead. Shoreham Lane is a residential area within the urban confines of Sevenoaks, where dwellings are predominantly detached and somewhat sizeable although are sited on narrow plots.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would accord with planning policy and would not harm the area or neighbouring amenity.

“39 Overall, in considering the proposal cumulatively, the proposed additions and alterations, whilst sizeable, would not detract from or harm the character of area in accordance with Policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan.”

“51 Overall, I consider that the proposal would not result in any significant loss of neighbouring amenity which would warrant refusal of the application. The proposal complies with Policy EN2 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan, and with the relevant guidance.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while the tree and drainage consultees raised no objection subject to tree protection, landscaping and drainage requirements.

“10 Tree Officer – No objection - In response to my original comments dated 19 January 2026, which requested further information regarding potential impacts to on and off- site trees and appropriate mitigation measures, the applicant has now supplied a comprehensive Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement, and Tree Protection Plan.”

“- Implementation of the AMS & TPP: All works to proceed in full accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan; no variations without prior written approval of the LPA. Tree protection measures: Protective fencing and ground protection to be installed prior to commencement and retained in situ until completion of all construction and landscaping works.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Twenty-three objection letters raised concerns including overdevelopment, loss of light and privacy, the front garage, visual impact, trees, drainage and the garden room.

“Loss of light. • Overlooking / loss of privacy. • Clarity regarding first floor side extension. • Lack of clarity in the submitted documents (i.e. as presented as fragmented elements). • Increase in building depth, total footprint, upper-storey, roof-level and roof bulk; and enclosure and spatial loading along the rear and flank of the site.”

“Impact upon private amenity space through loss of vegetation. • Surface water drainage. • Concern regarding noise from plant room. • Overbearing outbuilding in regard to properties on Uplands Way / garden room would replace the outlook entirely. Request for cross sections showing the true height. • Concern and log of excavation / works being carried out.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a speaker against the application, a speaker for it and the local member, and members questioned officers.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the rear extension minor, the unchanged house width limiting overdevelopment, the hedge screening the garage and the dormers consistent with the area.

“It was moved by the Chairman that the recommendations within the report, as amended by the Late Observations, be agreed.”

“Members debated the proposal. They noted that the backwards extension was minor and the building would not increase in width, which limited the extent to which the site could be considered overdeveloped. They further noted that the hedge would screen the garage from the street scene, and neighbouring properties had similar dormers, keeping the proposal in line with the general character of the local area.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions covering commencement, approved plans, materials, tree protection, arboricultural works, landscaping and the front hedge.

“Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.”

“4) Prior to commencement of any works on site, protective fencing and ground protection as shown in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement by Hedges Trees Consultants Ltd (dated 11th of February 2026) shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the approved details, until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been moved from the site.”

Minutes