Seven four-bedroom homes at 335 Shipbourne Road, Tonbridge

What was proposed

The application sought seven four-bedroom homes: two pairs of semi-detached houses at the front and three detached houses at the rear.

“Erection of 2 pairs of semi-detached 4 bed dwellings and three detached 4 bed dwellings to the rear. An amalgamation of four existing planning consents…”

“Description of Proposal: The application seeks planning permission to amalgamate three extant planning consents, and a minor amendment, into one single planning permission. The previously approved schemes the subject of this current application involve the construction of 2 pairs of semi-detached 4 bed dwellings to the site frontage and one pair of detached 4 bed dwellings and associated car ports to the rear of the site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site forms part of a former residential garden in Tonbridge, enclosed by housing and rear gardens, with varied nearby bungalow and chalet designs.

“Part 1 Public 3. The Site: The site lies on the eastern side of Shipbourne Road in the built confines of Tonbridge. The site forms part of the residential garden of bungalows that have since been demolished. The site is enclosed on two sides by residential development and the rear gardens of properties fronting White Cottage Road and Thorpe Avenue.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two members of the public and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee in person.

Members’ concerns

Members expressed significant concern about overdevelopment, poor design, bin collection safety, neighbouring impacts and unresolved protected-oak issues.

“After careful consideration of the points raised by the speakers and the submitted details and conditions set out in the main and supplementary reports of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health, Members expressed significant concern in respect of overdevelopment and poor design of the proposed scheme, practicality and safety of bin storage and kerbside collection on bin collection days given proximity to a busy pedestrian crossing, harmful impact on…”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse the application was supported unanimously by the committee.

“It was proposed by Councillor A Mehmet, seconded by Councillor K Tunstall, that the application be refused, which was supported by the Committee unanimously.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was refused because the extra dwelling was considered cramped, harmful to neighbours and insufficiently protective of a nearby protected oak tree.

“RESOLVED: that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“The proposed development would, by reason of the provision of an additional dwelling and resulting overdevelopment, involve greater encroachment within the Root Protection Area and branch spread of the Oak tree of special amenity value standing at the neighbouring property to the south of the application site and included within a Tree Preservation Order than for the previous scheme, and will generate increased future pressures for additional tree works as a result of the…”

Minutes