The committee refused 660 homes at Broke Hill on 24 September against officer advice, after refusing three of 15 cases since 21 May. Every decision, by meeting.

Sevenoaks District Council’s Development Management Committee, the panel that rules on the district’s larger and more contested planning applications, has decided fifteen of them since 21 May 2026. It granted eleven and refused three. On the fifteenth it had lost the power to decide, because the applicant had appealed first, so it told the Planning Inspectorate it would have refused.

This page is the running record of those decisions, newest meeting first, taken from the committee’s own minutes. The latest meeting, on Thursday 24 September, refused up to 660 homes on the former Broke Hill golf course at Halstead, against its officers’ advice; its minutes are not yet published, so it is reported separately below and not in the count of fifteen.

The record since May

Chart of Sevenoaks Development Management Committee decisions from 21 May to 3 September 2026: 21 May one granted and two refused, 2 June one refused, 18 June four granted, 9 July two granted and one advisory refusal, 13 August cancelled, 3 September four granted. Totals: 15 applications decided, 11 granted, 3 refused, 1 advisory refusal
Graphic by Sevenoaks Online, from the committee's minutes.
Share this chartFacebookWhatsAppX

Two Tree Preservation Orders were also confirmed in that period and are not counted above, because an order protects a tree rather than deciding a scheme. The 13 August meeting was cancelled. (Development Management Committee meetings)

3 September: four granted, three of them without debate

The committee’s most recent meeting cleared everything in front of it, and three of the five items never reached a discussion. Under Part 7.3(e) of the council’s constitution, an item with no public speaker against it and no councillor asking to reserve it is voted through as a block. That is how a Tree Preservation Order, a Seal conservation area scheme and a new dwelling in the Green Belt were all decided on 3 September. (Minutes, 3 September 2026)

Granted without debate: an agricultural worker’s home at Underriver (26/00805/FUL). Land south east of Broadhoath Wood, Rooks Hill, gets an agricultural worker’s dwelling with solar panels, a driveway and post and rail fencing. Councillor Thornton had referred it to the committee arguing the site is not grey belt, that it sits in the National Landscape, and questioning the legitimacy of the agricultural tenancy. None of that was aired: with nobody booked to speak against it, the item went through on the block vote.

Granted without debate: Lulworth, School Lane, Seal (24/02297/HOUSE). A retaining wall, electric gates, a retained rear patio, a glass balustrade and outbuilding works, referred by Councillor Thornton over the Seal conservation area and neighbouring listed buildings. Conditions require samples of the stone and mortar and the design of the gates to be approved before either is built, and ban lighting on them without further consent.

Confirmed without debate: a Tree Preservation Order (TPO/04/2026). An order protecting a group of five mature oaks was confirmed without amendment, despite an objection.

Granted after debate: six replacement garages at Halstead (25/01753/FUL). Six garages in woodland north of 4 to 7 Fort Road are to be demolished and six built on land west of 41 Fort Road. Councillor Grint referred it on Green Belt grounds. Members worried about the ancient woodland, were told the tree officer was satisfied the trees were protected, and were reminded that amenity is not a Green Belt consideration. Officers confirmed the lawful use stays residential storage, so turning the garages into anything else would need a fresh application.

Granted after debate: up to seven homes at Kemsing (26/01327/PIP). Permission in principle for between one and seven homes behind Childsbridge House, Childsbridge Lane. The item was before the committee for one reason: the applicant is a Sevenoaks district councillor. The chairman, Councillor Reay, declared he was a ward member and reserved the right to use his casting vote. Half the site is agricultural; the other half already holds a lawful development certificate.

9 July: two granted, and a refusal the committee was not allowed to make

Granted: 22 Shoreham Lane, Riverhead (25/03481/HOUSE). Extensions, a loft conversion, solar panels and a new garage, called in by Councillor Clack over overdevelopment and a garage forward of the building line. Members accepted that a 3 metre hedge would screen the 2.6 metre garage from the street.

Granted: two homes at Badgers Mount (26/00546/OUT). Outline permission, all matters reserved, to demolish two buildings at Perran, Charles Road, and build two detached houses. The site sits outside the village confines, in both the Green Belt and the National Landscape, but already had prior approval for one dwelling.

Refused in principle: stables at Underriver (26/00135/FUL). The applicant had already appealed against non-determination, so the committee no longer had the power to decide. It voted instead to tell the Planning Inspectorate what it would have done, which was refuse, on the grounds that an isolated stable block would harm the landscape character, scenic beauty and tranquillity of the National Landscape. Our fuller account of that meeting is here.

18 June: 135 homes at Edenbridge, and a warning about deferral

The 18 June meeting granted all four applications before it. Full write-up: Sevenoaks planning committee, 18 June.

Granted: up to 135 homes at Edenbridge (25/03241/OUT). Land south of Phillippines Close, half of it affordable housing, with a Section 106 agreement to be completed by 30 October 2026. Before the vote the council’s legal adviser told members in terms that deferring the decision to wait for the next stage of the Local Plan would be a material error of law, a misdirection under national policy and a failure of the authority’s statutory duty, exposing the council to appeal costs and a possible judicial review. Officers added that the council cannot resist grey belt sites on NPPF grounds alone until it can show it is delivering at least 75 per cent of its housing target. Our report on the decision.

Granted: eight Traveller pitches at Farningham (25/02418/FUL). A change of use at Farningham Hill Stud, London Road, for eight pitches housing ten adults and three children, with acoustic fencing against the M20 and A20. Members were told new guidance requires another 192 Gypsy and Traveller pitches across the district. Our report.

Granted: up to nine homes at Ash (26/00992/PIP). Permission in principle at Church End, Ash Road, for between one and nine dwellings, referred by Councillor Manston over Green Belt, sustainability and infrastructure.

Granted: extensions at Halstead (25/03421/HOUSE). A garage, extensions and a new chimney at Mapledene, Otford Lane, with the swimming pool removed. Members added a condition stripping out permitted development rights so nothing further can be built without a fresh application.

2 June: the solar farm refused, 14 votes to none

The committee refused a photovoltaic solar farm on land south of Idleigh Court Road and east of Hartley Bottom Road, New Ash Green (24/03422/FUL), a scheme it had already deferred in January. Five members stood to force a recorded vote: nobody backed the officer recommendation to grant, fourteen voted against it and three abstained. The refusal cites harm to landscape character and to designated and non-designated heritage assets, which members judged was not outweighed by the renewable energy benefit. Our full account: New Ash Green solar farm refused. (Minutes, 2 June 2026)

21 May: two refusals

Refused: five flats off St James Road, Sevenoaks (25/00978/FUL). Demolishing a garage for five apartments behind 26 St James Road was turned down for harm to the character of the area and loss of light to neighbours.

Refused: two homes at Bessels Green (25/03541/FUL). Two detached houses on land west of Tippuk, Packhorse Road. Members found the second house incongruous and unduly prominent in the National Landscape.

Granted: 84 Oakhill Road, Sevenoaks (25/03547/HOUSE). Facade changes, internal remodelling and a garage conversion at Chenies, with obscured glazing required on one first-floor window.

Confirmed: a Tree Preservation Order at Westerham (TPO/01/2026). A mature beech at 16A Granville Road. (Minutes, 21 May 2026)

What the pattern shows

Three things run through the four months.

The first is housing land supply. The council can show 3.59 years of supply against the five years national policy requires, and that shortfall is the reason officers keep recommending approval for schemes in the Green Belt that would once have been refused on principle. The legal advice at Edenbridge made the position blunt: councillors cannot hold a decision back until the Local Plan catches up.

The second is that refusals here are about landscape, not housing numbers. Both May refusals, the June solar farm and the July advice to the inspector all turned on visual harm to the Kent Downs National Landscape or to heritage assets, not on the principle of development.

The third is how little of this is debated. On 3 September three of five items were decided in a single block vote with no discussion at all, which is what the constitution provides for when nobody has registered to speak against. Registering as a speaker is therefore the difference between an application being argued in public and being nodded through.

24 September: 660 homes at Broke Hill refused

The committee met on Thursday 24 September with one item: 25/02129/OUT, outline permission for up to 660 homes, a retirement village of up to 150 units, a care home, a primary school, a local centre and a country park on the former Broke Hill Golf Club, Halstead, which had drawn 1,369 letters of objection. Officers recommended approval. Three members voted for that and it fell; a motion to refuse, on the grounds that the site is not grey belt and that no very special circumstances outweigh the Green Belt harm, was then carried by a majority. It was not a recorded vote and the counts against were not read out. (Agenda, 24 September 2026; council recording of the meeting)

The council has to refer the decision to the Secretary of State, who has 21 days to decide whether to call it in, before a refusal notice can be issued. The full account: Broke Hill golf course: 660 homes refused, officers overruled.

How to follow a decision yourself

  • Check any application by reference or postcode. Every application, its documents, the officer’s report and the decision sit on the council’s Public Access portal. Search the references above or your own road.
  • Comment within the consultation window. You get 21 days from the consultation start. Our guide to Sevenoaks planning applications explains what counts as a valid objection and what does not.
  • Register to speak. The council allows one speaker for an application and one against, on a first come, first served basis, and you must ask by 5pm on the day of the meeting, on 01732 227000. If nobody registers against an item, it can be decided without debate. (Request to speak on a planning application)
  • Know who decides what. The council receives about 2,500 applications a year and roughly nine in ten are settled by the Chief Planning Officer under delegated powers. Only the larger or more contested ones reach this committee, which meets about every three weeks. (Advice on speaking on planning applications)

The committee’s agendas, officer reports and minutes are published on the council’s meeting system. Its remaining 2026 meetings are 15 October and 12 November. We update this page after each one.

Sources

Chart by Sevenoaks Online from the committee’s published minutes.