Retrospective summerhouse at Allens Oast, East Peckham, Tonbridge

“Erection of a summerhouse (Retrospective)”

“Description of Proposal: The proposal seeks retrospective permission for the erection of a summerhouse outbuilding. The proposal is similar to an approved summerhouse outbuilding (under ref: 24/00446/PA), however this proposal has a small projection to the rear. The main summerhouse outbuilding is 6m wide and 4.2m deep. The rear projection measures 2.5m by 1.5m and contains a toilet, sink and shower.”

“Part 1 Public on the amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties having regard to the policy context outlined above.’ This assessment has not changed, as the additional 3.75m² rear projection does not have any windows, and is no taller than the eaves of the approved summerhouse. The separation distances to Strettitt Place and other neighbours remain similar to the previously approved outbuilding.”

“Given the modest scale and the design of the addition it is considered that the proposal would not result in harm to the significance of the adjacent listed building nor would the impact be sufficiently different from that previously approved. As such the proposal is not considered to result in harm to the setting of the neighbouring listed building and would be in accordance with the NPPF and S66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.”

“Consultees: East Peckham Parish Council: The Council opposes and has concerns around how it encroaches on the privacy of neighbours. TMBC need to take this to area planning. Conservation officer: Raised no objection stating that "The permitted Summerhouse and the unauthorized addition feature in glimpsed, south-westerly views from the listed building.”

“Part 1 Public Does not want the summerhouse to become habitable accommodation. Various non-material planning considerations have been raised such as the location of drainpipes, foul drainage and fascia boards. Private rep: Objection due to its size and design. Concerns about it becoming self- contained accommodation in the Green Belt, as well as its impact on the listed building 6.”

“On the grounds of Member’s continued concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the adjacent Grade II listed building, wider heritage impacts and landscaping, it was proposed by Councillor S Hudson and seconded by Councillor M Boughton, that retrospective permission be refused, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the following reason:”

“(1) That the unauthorised erection of a summerhouse outbuilding with flat roofed projection further towards the Grade 2 Listed building at Strettitt Place was contrary to Policies CP24 (design), S66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservations Areas) Act 1990 and 213A of the NPPF and created additional harm to the setting of the historic asset.”

“Following a formal vote, the proposal was carried with seven Members voting in favour and two Members voting against. One Member abstained from voting. On the grounds that the above refusal reason was not considered could be substantiated at any appeal and there was likely to be a risk of significant costs being awarded against the Council at any appeal, the vote taken was a recommendation only in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure Rule 15.24, Part 4 Rules of…”

“RECOMMENDED*: That consideration of the planning application stand ADJOURNED with the recommendation to refuse the planning application being referred for determination by Council in accordance with Council and Committee Procedure rule 15.24, Part 4 (Rules) of the Constitution.”