5–7 homes at Land West Of 103, Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough

“Permission in Principle for the development of between 5-7 residential dwellings as set out in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) located on Land at Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough. Go to: Recommendation…”

“Description of Proposal: The application seeks ‘permission in principle’ (PiP) for a residential development of between 5 - 7 dwellings on land west of 103 Tonbridge Road Hildenborough. There are two stages to a PiP, the first establishes if a site is suitable in principle, having regard only to whether the ‘location’, ‘use’ and ‘quantum of development’ is acceptable.”

“However, it was acknowledged that neither the Conservation Officer nor the Tree Officer had objected to the proposed development at this stage and that no expert evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the proposed reasons could be substantiated at any appeal.”

“(1) The principle of residential development at this location would result in a harmful erosion of the open setting of the Conservation Area, which contributes positively to its character. The public benefits of 5 – 7 houses would not outweigh this harm and the proposal would also be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area, conflicting with policies CP24 of the TMBC Core Strategy, SQ1 of the Manging Development and the Environment Development Plan document, and…”

“(2) The principle of residential development at this location would result in conflict with footnote 7 policies relating to a designated heritage asset, and is therefore considered to be a strong reason for refusing development, due to the modest public benefits of 5 – 7 houses not outweighing the harm to the setting of the Conservation Area.”

“Following a formal vote, the motion was carried with eight Members voting in favour and five Members voting against. On the grounds that the above refusal reasons were not considered could be substantiated at an appeal and there was likely to be a risk of significant costs being incurred by the Council in defending any appeal (including any potential liability to pay the costs of the appellant in the event of an adverse costs award), the vote taken was a recommendation only…”

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