Sevenoaks councillors went against their own officers on 9 July, saying a stable block at Underriver should be refused for harming the National Landscape. Two homes at Badgers Mount and a house at Riverhead were granted.

Sevenoaks councillors have gone against their own planning officers and concluded that a stable block at Underriver should be refused, telling the Planning Inspectorate the building would harm the Kent Downs National Landscape. The Development Management Committee took the decision at its meeting on Thursday 9 July, where it also granted two homes on green belt land at Badgers Mount and approved a heavily altered house at Riverhead that had drawn 23 objection letters. The draft minutes have now been published. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

All three schemes had been called in for a public vote by a ward councillor, and officers had recommended every one for approval. We previewed the agenda before the meeting. Two of the three went the way officers advised. The third did not.

Decisions of the Sevenoaks Development Management Committee on 9 July 2026: house alterations at 22 Shoreham Lane, Riverhead (25/03481/HOUSE) granted; two homes at Perran, Charles Road, Badgers Mount (26/00546/OUT) granted; stable block at Underriver House Road, Underriver (26/00135/FUL) would refuse, against officer advice
Chart by Sevenoaks Online.

Underriver stables: the committee breaks with its officers

The application, 26/00135/FUL, sought permission for a stable block on land surrounding The Stables, Underriver House Road. Cllr Thornton called it in over the impact on the openness of the green belt and possible harm to the National Landscape. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

The case had an unusual footing. The applicant had already appealed against the council’s non-determination of the application, which hands the final decision to the Planning Inspectorate. The Chairman told members they were therefore only being asked what they would have recommended had the decision still been theirs. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

Officers set out a detailed defence of the scheme. Members were told the size of ponies using the stable would be controlled through the height of the building, and that because ponies were already grazing the site, a stable would give them better shelter and so benefit animal welfare. Conditions had been drafted to manage manure and stop runoff reaching the nearby stream. Officers also walked members through earlier appeal decisions at the site: a larger stable set further back had been dismissed on appeal, while this building was significantly smaller in footprint and height, less isolated, partly screened from the road by landscaping, and characteristic of the rural countryside. A separate appeal, for a private dog walking facility, had been dismissed because of the traffic and boundary fencing a commercial use would bring, neither of which applied here. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

The committee split. Some members accepted the stables were modestly sized and not isolated within the site, and considered that this would conserve both the character of the National Landscape and the openness of the green belt. Others took the view that landscaping would screen the building from the road but not from other angles and distances, and that the proposal would not conserve or enhance the National Landscape. The Chairman’s motion to agree the officer recommendation, as amended by the late observations, was put to the vote and lost. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

Members then resolved to advise the Planning Inspectorate that, but for the appeal, their recommendation would have been refusal. Their stated ground was that the proposal, “due to the isolated nature of the site, would be harmful in landscape character and appearance to the National Landscape, particularly in wider views”, and that it failed to conserve or enhance the landscape character, scenic beauty and tranquillity of the landscape, contrary to policies EN5 and LT2 of the Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

The committee heard from Miles Hayard against the application and Rob Jarman for it. Cllr Fettes-Neame spoke as a town representative, and Cllr Thornton’s submission was read out by Cllr Grint. Cllr Haslam declared that he was Chairman of Seal Parish Council but said he remained open minded. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

Because the appeal against non-determination is already lodged, the committee’s view is advice, not a refusal. The inspector decides.

Badgers Mount: outline permission for two homes, with 15 conditions

The Perran site on Charles Road, Badgers Mount, sits outside the urban confines of the village, in both the National Landscape and the green belt, though among other houses. Application 26/00546/OUT proposed demolishing two buildings and building two detached dwellings, with all matters reserved. Cllr Grint had called it in over overdevelopment and green belt impact. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

Members were told there was already an existing prior approval for a single dwelling on the site with all matters reserved, so the question in front of them was effectively the impact of a second home. They debated the efficient use of land in a residential area against that green belt impact, and granted outline permission subject to 15 conditions. Mr Hinton spoke for the application; nobody spoke against. Cllr Marshall declared that he was a ward member for the area but remained open minded. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

The conditions are unusually heavy for two houses, and they say a good deal about the site. Nothing can be built until an Ancient Woodland Management Plan covering invasive species control, access restrictions and habitat enhancement has been approved. A construction management plan must cover everything from wheel washing to biodiversity protection zones and the hours ecologists need to be on site. External lighting is banned unless the council approves the details first, expressly to protect the dark skies of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A foul and surface water drainage strategy must be agreed with the water undertaker and the Environment Agency. Both homes must be built as self-build or custom build dwellings under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, counting towards the district’s self-build requirement, and each needs an electric vehicle charging point before it can be occupied. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

An outline grant settles only the principle. Layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping all return as a reserved matters application before anything is built.

Riverhead: the garage in front of the building line is approved

At 22 Shoreham Lane, Riverhead, application 25/03481/HOUSE covered removing a chimney, converting the garage, demolishing a rear extension, new rear and part first floor side extensions, a loft conversion, solar panels, a new garage, a garden room and changes to the windows. Cllr Clack called it in over overdevelopment, an overbearing impact on neighbours and the garage sitting forward of the building line. Thirteen of the fourteen members present declared they had been lobbied about it, which is a fair measure of how strongly Shoreham Lane felt. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

Officers confirmed the garage would be the only one in the locality positioned forward of its property, and that this went against the council’s normal guidance. Their answer was screening: the garage is 2.6m tall with a flat roof, and the 3m hedge in front of it would hide it from the street. A grass verge would encircle the garage. Officers also told members the council has no specific planning policy against extending houses to the rear, and that the house had never been extended before. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

Members accepted the case. They noted the rear extension was minor and the house would not get wider, which limited how far the site could be called overdeveloped, and that neighbouring properties had similar dormers, keeping the scheme in line with the character of the area. Permission was granted with six conditions. One of them locks in the screening the whole decision rests on: the existing front boundary hedge on the west elevation must be maintained at no less than 3 metres in height. Caroline Davies spoke against the application and Pete Hadley for it. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

What it means for residents

The Underriver vote is the one worth watching. It is a reminder that an officer recommendation is not a decision, and that a committee will occasionally reject one, though in this instance the rejection has limited force: the applicant’s appeal against non-determination means the Planning Inspectorate makes the final call, and the committee’s refusal grounds are simply evidence the inspector will weigh. If you objected to that scheme, the place to make your case now is the appeal, not the council.

The pattern across the other two cases is one that recurs across the district. Both sites sit in the green belt or National Landscape, both were approved, and in both the council leaned on screening, conditions and context rather than the designation itself to justify a grant. The council’s inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply continues to tilt these judgements towards approval, which is exactly what the new Local Plan is meant to resolve; that consultation runs until 17 September.

For neighbours of the Badgers Mount plot, the reserved matters application is the next chance to comment on what the houses actually look like and where they sit. For anyone near Shoreham Lane, the hedge condition is enforceable: if the hedge comes down below 3 metres, that is a breach of planning control the council can act on.

You can read the full minutes, track any of these references or comment on a live case by searching the reference on the council’s Public Access planning portal. Our guide to tracking Sevenoaks planning applications explains how to search by street and set up alerts for your own address.

The committee sat from 7pm and finished at 9.06pm, chaired by Cllr Reay. Apologies were received from Cllrs Ball, Barker, P. Darrington, Granville and Silander. (Sevenoaks District Council, draft minutes, Development Management Committee, 9 July 2026)

Sources

Image: A field of buttercups near Underriver by N Chadwick, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Geograph. Chart by Sevenoaks Online.