Check the latest public notices in your area – planning, roads and licensing
Downscaled plans to build a controversial block of flats in a village have been rejected.
The latest application would have seen the construction of a three-storey building containing six flats along Main Road in Sutton-at-Hone, near Dartford.
In March, an application was submitted for a three-storey building consisting of nine flats.
However, villagers slammed the “completely inappropriate” plans, claiming the development would change the character of the area and add to existing parking woes.
In 2024, permission was granted to build three houses on the site, close to the junction with Longmarsh View and the shops parade.
Cllr George Holt (Con) said these original plans were found to “acknowledge the character” of the village.
But, he felt the new proposal for nine flats was “far more intensive” and would alter “both the nature and impact of development on the site”.
Applicants Alder Design & Build Ltd wanted to build seven one-bed flats and two two-bed flats, which would have included nine car parking spaces. In May, that application was withdrawn.
A new application was then submitted for the erection of a revised residential development comprising of six self-contained flats together with associated parking, landscaping, cycle storage, refuse storage and associated works. It was validated by Dartford council on May 21.
The applicants said the proposal followed “ongoing discussions” with the local planning authority regarding the previous application.
However, the council refused these plans yesterday (June 29).
It said the development “would introduce a building of an architectural treatment and massing that would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area”.
The decision letter states: “This harm would be exacerbated by the dominance of hard surfacing to the front of the building, including space for a large amount of prominent car parking, and the lack of sufficient and well-integrated soft landscaping, including tree planting on the frontage with Main Road, which is well-used main road.”
It was also decided that the development would result in inadequate space for off-road car parking and that the configuration of the car parking area is “likely to result in additional pressure for on-street car parking” in an area already impacted by these issues.
The planning statement for the six flats said the revised proposal was “fundamentally different in character and intensity” to the earlier submission and that the reduction in homes would reduce residential activity, lower parking demand and reduce vehicle movement.
When the plans for nine flats were submitted, Kent County Council’s (KCC) highways team stated that while the proposal was for two spaces below the provision required by Dartford council, the site is in a “fairly sustainable location” with bus stops and Farningham Railway Station fairly nearby, as well as Main Road and other nearby residential roads where people can park “if required”.
At the time, Cllr Holt said it was “disappointing” that KCC had given the applicants the green light, calling on it to withdraw its supporting letter, which it did not.
The latest highways, parking and transport statement submitted by the developers stated that during the course of the previous application “significant pressure was applied locally in relation to parking and highways matters, including attempts by elected representatives to challenge or undermine the technical support position reached by Kent Highways.”
It adds: “However, notwithstanding those representations, the statutory highways authority did not revoke or withdraw its position.”
Reacting to the plans being refused this week, Cllr Holt told KentOnline: “It’s a victory for common sense, let’s get on with building the planned three houses.
“I’m hugely grateful to the residents who came together on this”.
The plans submitted earlier this year received almost 70 objections from local residents.
One person said the development would have had a “huge detrimental effect” on the local roads, with another stating: “A building of this scale would appear visually intrusive and detract from the area’s established appearance”.
The newest plans received more than 40 objections, with many residents saying parking was “still going to be a problem” if the flats were built.
One said: “The proposal is out of scale, bulky, and incompatible with the character of the area and street scene which consists of mainly period and some heritage properties.
Another added: “The development includes only nine parking spaces for six flats. In reality, many households now own two vehicles, particularly in village locations where public transport options are limited.
“This proposal is therefore likely to lead to overspill parking on nearby roads, increased congestion, parking disputes, and additional pressure on existing residents.”
