During the past twelve months, it is recorded that there have been an unusually large number of planning applications in which the sub-committee consider of interest and/or have been drawn to their attention and which have been referred to the Planning Inspectorate at Bristol for determination by an Informal Hearing or Public Inquiry, instead of by the lower key and, until now, more usual, written, representations.

Before describing and commenting on these, it is thought that a brief description of the three types of planning appeal, which are all made through the District Council to Bristol, may be helpful. They all arise as a result of a refusal under officers' delegated powers, a decision by the Development Control Committee or by the Council failing to determine the application within the normally required eight weeks, or, more unusually, against the Conditions imposed on a consent. The type of planning appeal is normally requested by the appellant for agreement of the other two main parties involved and their object is to provide an impartial and objective ruling on the merits or otherwise of the application.

A Written Representation Inquiry, as the name implies, is determined by an Inspector reviewing the appeal documents submitted to Bristol with a visit to the appeal site, sometimes accompanied by the other parties involved, prior to making his/her decision in a report which is issued on behalf of Secretary of State and circulated by request to the interested parties.

An Informal Hearing is normally held in a suitable location in the nearest town and is presided over by an Inspector from Bristol who will have studied the documents submitted and will hear the arguments for and against the granting of the application by the respective parties with contributions from the floor by other interested parties. The Hearing will be followed by a site visit in the presence of all parties before the Inspector returns to Bristol to prepare and circulate his/her report, as above. The degree of informality will depend on the Inspector and the Hearing and site visit can normally be completed in one day.

The Public Inquiry is an extended and more formal version of the Informal Hearing with QC's and/or lawyers presenting the evidence for each party and cross examining witnesses similar to court procedures but not under oath and, including a site visit, tend to take much longer. In the local context, they usually take a number of days but major inquiries can last for years, viz Sizewell Power Station and Terminal Five at Heathrow.

In all cases, if the appeal is to be allowed, the Inspector will include in his/her report, any conditions to be imposed on the approved application which will normally have been discussed and agreed, at least in principle, between the two main parties before the end of the Inquiry. In the unusual event that an applicant in any of the above types of appeal feels aggrieved, arising from a misinterpretation of the law or the improper application of the procedures or handling of the Inquiry, the decision can be challenged in the High Court. It is recalled that this occurred when Tesco sought approval for their superstore at Riverhead at the same time as Sainsbury were successful on the Otford Road some years ago.

The descriptions that follow are of Informal Hearings with one exception, that for Sunrise Senior Living at 64/70 Westerham Road, Bessels Green, being a full Public Inquiry:

April 2007: Kippington Nursing Home, Kippington Grange, Grange Road: a proposal to extend the existing Nursing Home to provide nine extra beds was dismissed as being out-of-scale and intrusive in the street scene.

September 2007: The Railway and Bicycle Public House, London Road, Sevenoaks: a proposal to demolish the existing public house and rebuild with four retail units and twenty four residential units above, with car parking was allowed as the highway grounds for refusal had not been raised at an earlier and successful appeal.

November 2007: South Park Apartments, South Park, Sevenoaks: two proposals for an extension behind the existing surgery, one for five apartments, and two, for five apartments plus a two storey maisonette, were allowed following the Development Control Committee's refusal, overturning both the officers' and site meetings recommendation; the grounds for refusal suggesting that the proposal would be visible from the Green Belt was withdrawn before the Hearing.

December 2007: 35/37 Quakers Hall Lane, Sevenoaks: a revised proposal to demolish the former undertakers' business and replace it by a development of seven apartments was dismissed on the grounds of overdevelopment with a second floor facing on to Cobden Road.

December 2007: a full Public Inquiry lasting five days: Sunrise Senior Living Limited at 64/70 Westerham Road, Bessels Green which was a proposal for the demolition of the four existing dwellings and their re-development to provide a substantial assisted living home for the frail elderly. This was allowed despite it being a very large building, out-of-scale with its surroundings and the opposition by a well organised and prepared group of local residents.

February 2008: Sevenoaks Police Station, Morewood Close, Sevenoaks by Kent Police: a proposal for the demolition of the former police and the erection of fifty nine residential units and about 1 340 sq.m. of office space was dismissed on the grounds of too high a density for the site and its surroundings although the principle of re-development was accepted by the Inspector.

Looking at the outcome of the above appeals, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that while the Development Control Committee were probably right in finding acceptable reasons for refusing most of these applications, despite their officers' recommendations to grant, the two that stand out as having very thin grounds for refusal are The Railway and Bicycle Public House and the South Park Apartments and, on balance, these should probably have been granted in the first instance and saved officers' time and the Council's resources.

At the time of writing, the Public Inquiry into the West Kent Cold Store proposals for the re-development of their site for up to 480 housing units and two relatively small areas for B1 office development has just concluded. Although the proposed change of use from fully commercial to residential with some office space was generally agreed between all parties, there was great concern by the representatives for Dunton Green and Riverhead about the scale of the development and it's likely impact on the future of the villages both in the numbers of houses, some 480 units being added to the existing 900 or so, and the ability of the existing road system to cope with the extra vehicles together with the adequacy of the schools, the other community facilities and the infrastructure. The Society's late contribution shared these concerns and stressed the need for quality in the design of the layout and the dwellings and drew attention to the likely impact on the adjacent Sevenoaks Wildlife Reserve. We have just been notified that the Inspector's report is expected to be issued on or before 19 August 2008.

At the time of writing, there are a further four planning appeals pending, they are:

1. 22 St George's Road, Sevenoaks: a proposal for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement by six new dwellings, two detached and four town houses, and is due to be heard on 3 June 2008 at an Informal Hearing.

2. Kingdom Hall, Cedar Terrace Road, Sevenoaks: two Informal Hearings, one for the demolition of the Hall and its replacement by two one bedroom and three two bedroom flats, and a second for the conversion of the Hall into three one bedroom flats and an attached two bedroom house with associated parking at a Hearing date to be notified. Our objections were raised to the former application but the latter was deemed acceptable but refused by the Council.

3. Land South East of 4 Hawkes place, Sevenoaks: a revised proposal for a new one and a half split level four bedroom dwelling and subject to a further Informal Hearing.

4. 51 High Street, Sevenoaks: two proposals for this town centre site at the entrance to Rockdale, one for eleven dwellings and two for seven dwellings, both with car parking and private access road and at a Hearing and a Public Inquiry respectively (but which we hope can be combined into a single Hearing or Inquiry); date(s) are awaited. Both applications were refused. The decision on the latter was subsequent to an appeal being lodged for non-determination within the required eight weeks. Both proposals are totally unacceptable and out of character, scale and grain with the High Street Conservation Area.

Another major planning development which is literally looming over the horizon is that for Fort Halstead which was initially described in our Autumn Newsletter but which is now the subject of three days of public 'consultation' for the villages most concerned namely, Knockholt and Halstead, Badgers Mount, Shoreham and Otford and Dunton Green, Chevening and Riverhead; Sevenoaks being ignored although representatives from the Society are intending to 'gatecrash' one of the sessions to endeavour to brief themselves on what
is being proposed.

Two applications described in the Spring Newsletter, namely the former BMW Garage and Showroom at 5 Dartford Road was regrettably approved and although perhaps it could be argued to be an 'improvement' on the existing garage, few Council members perhaps appreciated its poor contribution to the Vine Conservation Area and it should have been refused as inappropriate.

The other is the former Caffyns Garage at 166/166A High Street, on which a decision is awaited, hopefully to be refused for the reasons given in the last Newsletter.

There is nothing further to report on progress with the Blighs Meadow Phase Two development on the London Road following Waitrose's withdrawal, but it is understood that the Architecture Centre at Chatham is involved with a new brief which is encouraging. It has been noted that a number of trees on the frontage have been removed and it is good to see numbers 50 and 52 London Road refurbished and back in business.

It is understood that work has started in implementing the controversial Car Parking proposals approved by Council in December 2007 but the writer has not seen any evidence of this, although the scheme should be nearly complete by now. Although it was a difficult and complex issue, it has had a very disappointing outcome and was very badly handled.

Our attention has recently been drawn to the very large house being erected on the large plot of the former The Garden House, behind The Red House, and where it is out-of-scale with its surroundings. Regrettably, this was not picked up in our scrutiny of the Weekly Planning Lists but one does not normally expect the demolition of a single dwelling to be replaced by a new dwelling perhaps some three to four times the size!! This is obviously something to be looked out for in future inspections of the Weekly Lists, especially where Conservation Areas are concerned. We have been surprised to learn that it was not objected to by the Town Council and assume therefore it was approved by the District Council under their delegated powers; both assuming that is was acceptable since it was well screened and would not intrude into the view from the High Street.

Regrettably, it would appear that little or no visible progress is being made on the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework (LDF) since the Briefing to last July's Town Centre Forum reporting on the comments received from the Government for the South East (GOSE) and that it would be ready for further consultation in January/February 2008! We have heard informally/unofficially that it is being worked on and could be available for Public Consultation in September 2008. In the meantime, the planners, officers and members, are having to work on policies from the Kent and Medway Structure Plan of 2006 and the agreed polices saved from the Sevenoaks District Local Plan of 2000 together with government guidance. Since most, if not all, future planning policies in the LDF derive from the Core Strategy, this is clearly a most unsatisfactory situation and one is led to wonder whether this is due to the government continually changing the 'goal posts' or the loss, due to savings, of four members of the Planning Department.

Once again, I am grateful for my colleagues on the sub-committee and on the Executive for their support and encouragement during the past twelve months and to remind members to let us know, in good time, of any planning or other related matters causing them concern.

Frank Marshall
Chairman, Planning Sub-committee