Your Councillors

Item 18, Page 108                                                                  Mount Lodge, Church Lane, Bearsted, ME14 4EF


Reference number: 17/502118FULL


●          Bearsted Parish Council are unable to attend 27th July planning committee and have presented written comments instead, which shall be summarised below:



“Bearsted Parish Council recommend refusal on following material planning grounds:


Incorrect site location plan

Application contains location map which is many years out of date - it does not show developments at Nethermount and Little Orchard immediately adjacent to proposed property.


Loss of light, loss of privacy and overshadowing 

Proposed development would cause loss of light, loss of privacy and overshadowing to neighbouring properties, especially 1 Little Orchard. Gardens of immediately adjacent properties are currently not directly overlooked but they would be should this application proceed.


Design and appearance

Proposal is not in keeping with existing street scene and building line is not consistent. Church Lane has semi-rural feel joining 2 conservation areas from Bearsted Green to Holy Cross Church.


Surface water drainage

Application states block paving would be used on all pathways and driveways to 'alleviate water run off'. We believe the opposite would be true and block paving would increase water run-off, especially downhill into Church Lane and adjacent properties down the lane.


Inconsistencies in application 

Clarification need of fence height as it is stated as either 1.8m or 2m in different sections. Is it steps or a slope up to proposed dwelling?



We ask committee to look at this application in detail especially against the correct location map as the one submitted gives a false impression of the location and impact on neighbouring properties. We believe that if this is done correctly then officers will see the impact this proposed development will have on the immediately adjacent properties which are not shown in the location map provided.



●          Officer’s response:



The issues raised regarding residential amenity, design, visual impact and surface water drainage have been addressed in the committee report.  In terms of the details of boundary treatments, this would be addressed through the submission of details as requested under condition 4.


The matter relating to the acceptability of the submitted site location plan has also been addressed in the committee report; and the committee report also confirms that there would be a slope up to the house. 





Recommendation remains unchanged.