Appeal 6002118

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form originally described the proposed development as “erection of two 1-bedroom dwellings.” At some point during the application stage, Sevenoaks District Council (the Council) amended this to “erection of two 1-bedroom dwellings. Parking.” No evidence has been provided by either party to show that the applicant agreed to this revised description to include reference to parking. However, as the amended wording more accurately reflects the development for which permission is sought, and as it does not fundamentally alter the nature of the proposal under appeal, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my use of it. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The Council has brought to my attention a dismissed appeal1 from December 2016, for the redevelopment of land adjacent to [address], for the erection of 6 lock-up garages. I have had regard to this appeal decision only in so far as it is relevant to my assessment of the main issues in this appeal.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on arboricultural and ecological interests, and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The site comprises a narrow, linear parcel of land that forms a landscaped buffer between 99c to [address], a small cul‐de‐sac of approximately eight properties, and the adjacent railway line. 1 APP/G2245/W/16/3158551 – dismissed 22 December 2016

The application form confirms the presence of trees and hedges both within the site and on adjoining land. However, the submission is not supported by a detailed assessment of their condition, nor any analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed development upon these features. In addition, no information has been supplied regarding which trees and hedges are intended to be retained, or the protective measures that would be required to ensure their safeguarding during construction.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) dated March 2025 (PEA) provides limited information about the trees and hedges. It identifies 3 mature trees on the site (T1–T3), two sycamores (T1 and T3) and one pine (T2). It also confirms that the site contains two cherry laurel hedges.

The landscaping on and adjoining the site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the locality by softening the hard edge of the railway line and reinforcing the sense of seclusion and the verdant qualities that define the immediate surroundings.

I note the concerns raised by Council’s Senior Arboriculture and [name] (the [name]) and the advice provided by Kent County Council’s Ecological Advice Service (the Ecologist) at the application stage. The Arb Officer concludes that in absence of an arboricultural survey and impact assessment it is not possible to fully understand the implications of the proposed development on the trees and hedges, and similarly, the Ecologist expresses concern that, given the proximity of the development footprint to trees, their successful retention may not be achievable.

Although the appellant suggests that arboricultural survey work could be secured by a pre-commencement condition, the information sought is fundamental to understanding the value and constraints of the existing trees and hedges. Without it, the effects of the development on these features, and the extent to which their loss could be avoided, cannot be properly assessed and understood.

As such, in the absence of this information, the effects of the proposed development on these features, and consequently its impact on the character and appearance of the area, cannot be properly understood.

The proposed development does include replacement planting along with other landscaping features including a living wall, however, without a clear understanding of the potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing landscaping, the value of that planting and other landscaping cannot be meaningfully assessed. While new planting may offset some losses, the scale and significance of any loss and the consequential impact on the character and appearance of the area remains unknown.

Accordingly, given the limited evidence before me, I cannot determine with confidence how or if the development would adversely affect trees and hedges, nor the likely magnitude of any such impact. As such, it follows that I am unable to conclude whether suitable mitigation measures could be secured to protect the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy EN1 of the Allocations and Development Management Plan - Sevenoaks District Council, 2015 (the ADMP), which insofar as it is relevant requires development to respect the character of the site and its surroundings, to sensitively integrate existing natural features, and to retain green infrastructure where its loss would result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, and would also conflict with Policies C4 and L4 of the Sevenoaks Town Neighbourhood Plan 2038 (the NP), which together require high-quality design that responds to local character and ensures the retention and protection of trees and hedges wherever feasible.

The submitted PEA identifies tree T3 as having potential roost features for multiple bats (PRF-M). The PEA further confirms if T3 would be affected by the proposed development whether by felling or by illumination by artificial lighting further bat survey work would be required.

While a planning condition restricting artificial lighting could be imposed, for the reasons covered above the potential impact of the development on tree T3 is unknown and a planning condition requiring the tree to be retained and protected during construction could not be imposed given the absence of reasonable certainty that such a condition could be complied with.

As such, further bat survey work would likely to be required if the appeal were to be allowed. I note the appellant’s suggestion that such survey work could be secured by way of a pre-commencement.

However, paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological conservation – Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system advises that “It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted.”

Accordingly, following a precautionary approach, based on the limited evidence before me I am not able to satisfactorily conclude that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on Bats in conflict with Policy SP11of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy 2011 (the [name]), which seeks to conserve biodiversity across the council area and ensure no net loss.

The appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area by providing a soft edge to the urban environment and by providing soft and natural screening to the railway line.

The properties immediately surrounding the appeal site sit within spacious plots, set back from the road, with front gardens and parking areas serving each dwelling. This arrangement establishes a distinctly open character and appearance in the immediate locality.

To the northeast of the appeal site, as you approach the main road, a cluster of garages noticeably reduces the sense of openness, introducing a more urban and less verdant character. This contrasts sharply with the greener, more spacious qualities that define the appeal site.

The proposed development would remove the existing soft landscaping that currently screens the site and would introduce built form directly onto the back edge of the road. This would substantially diminish and harm the site’s verdant and open qualities, and although new planting and landscaping is proposed, it would not fully soften the visual impact of the development or compensate for the resulting loss of openness.

Accordingly, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary Policy EN1 of the ADMP, which insofar as it is relevant requires development to respect the character of the site and its surroundings, and would also conflict with Policies C4 of the NP, which requires high-quality design that responds to local character.

A number of additional matters have been raised by interested parties. These include the potential effects of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and future residents, particularly in respect of privacy and noise from the adjacent railway. Based on the evidence before me, including the submitted noise impact assessment, I am satisfied that, subject to the Council’s suggested conditions, the scheme could provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. Furthermore, given the separation distances between the proposed development and neighbouring properties, I conclude that the privacy of existing occupiers of neighbouring properties would not be unacceptably harmed.

Concerns have also been raised regarding access arrangements, particularly in respect of emergency vehicle access. The scheme would reduce the width of the access road to around 3.3 m, which falls below the 3.7 m highlighted by [name] and Rescue (KFR) in their representation at the application stage. However, I note the Council’s evidence that the existing garages at the entrance to [address] already narrow the carriageway to between approximately 3 m and 3.3 m. [name] highlight their preferred standards, they do not object to the proposed development. In light of this, together with the controls available through the building regulations regime and the existing constraints on the road, I am satisfied that acceptable access, including for emergency vehicles, would be maintained.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the proximity of the appeal site to operational railway land. However, subject to the appellant securing the necessary agreements with Network, I am satisfied that the development could proceed acceptably in this respect.

Further concerns have been raised with regard to the presence of a telegraph pole within the site and the implications of the development for this infrastructure. I have no evidence before me to indicate that, if permission were granted, an appropriate solution or replacement could not be achieved.

I have determined that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, to ecological interests, and to trees and hedges. I further find that such harm could not be mitigated through the use of planning conditions. It follows that the proposed development is in conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (5YS), however, no information has been submitted quantifying the shortfall. Notwithstanding, given the failure to demonstrate a 5YS, paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is relevant.

Paragraph 11d of the Framework advises that planning permission should be granted unless i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable location, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The appeal site does not fall within any area subject to specific protective policies set out in the Framework. The delivery of two dwellings at a time of housing undersupply is a benefit of substantial weight, and the social and economic benefits also weigh in favour of the scheme. However, the harms arising from the development, including to the character and appearance of the area, to trees and hedges, and to bats, are considerable. Taken together, I conclude that these adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan when taken as a whole, and no material considerations including the Framework indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.