Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Rosalind Upperton  020 8313 4745

Items
Note No. Item

25.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Decision:

All present

Minutes:

All Members were present.

26.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Decision:

Councillor Julian Benington declared a non-pecuniary interest in Items 4.1 and 4.2 as a Trustee of the Biggin Hill Memorial Museum Trust

Minutes:

Ward Member, Councillor Julian Benington, declared a non-pecuniary interest in Items 4.1 and 4.2 as a Trustee of the Biggin Hill Memorial Museum Trust

27.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 2 MARCH 2017 pdf icon PDF 161 KB

Decision:

Confirmed

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2017 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

 

28.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Section 1

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

Biggin Hill Conservation Area

28.1

(17/00728/FULL1) - St Georges RAF Chapel, Main Road, Biggin Hill, TN16 3EJ. pdf icon PDF 205 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Proposed Memorial Museum (Use Class D1) with ancillary café/ shop (Use Class A1/A3) with associated car parking, landscaping and alterations to the access points, demolition of modern annex building at St Georges Chapel and minor alterations to the listed building.

 

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received

 

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Julian Benington in support of the application were received at the meeting. He said that the proposed development was an attractive design, built for purpose that would enhance and frame the Memorial Chapel and the eaves had been designed to be level with the Memorial Chapel to create one building. It was Councillor Benington’s view that the Annexe built in 1990 was no longer required. 

The consecrated Memorial Garden would be retained and walled and some trees would also be retained and a new tree planted

The site occupied by the Air Training Corps would be unaffected but it was proposed that the gate to their site would be used for vehicle access for occasional special events.  A viable business plan was in place and would take the Chapel forward for the next hundred years and longer. He reported that Patron, Randolph Churchill, The Arch Deacon, Dr Paul Wright, The Head of Darwin Voluntary Trust and The Bishop of Rochester all supported the application. Councillor Melanie Stevens was present at the meeting and Councillor Benington said that she also supported the application.

Councillor Benington pointed out that on page 17 of the Chief Planner’s report, line 10 the words, ‘Aircraft Association’ should read, ‘Air Crew Association’.

 

The Chief Planner’s representativereported that in excess of forty objections, four letters of support and a petition had been received since the agenda had been published which had been summarised and circulated to Members. A further late objection with photographs attached had been received from Downe Residents’ Association and the London Borough of Bromley Residents’ Federation and circulated to Members.

 

Councillor Richard Scoates objected to the application and acknowledged that the proposed development currently fell within the Green

Belt, but on the Council’s adoption of the draft Local Plan, the site would be taken out of Green Belt. Permission had been granted for application 14/02136/FULL1 for the construction of a museum with integral cafeteria in July 2014 where very special circumstances had overcome Green Belt polices.  Councillor Scoates had parking concerns and he hoped that informal arrangements with the Air Training Corps could be formally agreed to accommodate future traffic demand.

 

Councillor Scoates said that the applicant had said that the Heritage Centre was required to ensure the longevity of the Memorial Chapel but, in his opinion, this was incorrect as it was the Memorial Chapel that would ensure the longevity of a potential Heritage Centre. When the Ministry of Defence relinquished the Memorial Chapel, they did so with an endowment that, if invested wisely, would cover current expenditure of £40-50,000 a year. Councillor Scoates did not take issue with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.1

Biggin Hill Conservation Area

28.2

(17/00736/LBC) - St George's RAF Chapel, Main Road, Biggin Hill, TN16 3EJ pdf icon PDF 150 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT GRANTED

Minutes:

Description of application – Listed Building Consent - Proposed Memorial Museum (Use Class D2) with ancillary café/ shop (Use Class A1/A3) with associated car parking, landscaping and alterations to the access points, demolition of modern annex building at St Georges Chapel and minor alterations to the listed building.

 

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received. 

 

The Chief Planner’s representativereported that in excess of forty objections, four letters of support and a petition had been received since the agenda had been published which had been summarised and circulated to Members. A further late objection with photographs attached had been received from Downe Residents’ Association and the London Borough of Bromley Residents’ Federation and circulated to Members. Suggested conditions had also been circulated to Members.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that LISTED BUILDING CONSENT be GRANTED as recommended subject to the following conditions:-

“1.  The works hereby granted consent shall be commenced within 5 years of the date of this decision notice.

REASON: Section 18, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.  The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans approved under this planning permission unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON:  In order to comply with Policy BE1 and BE8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

3.  Sample panels of facing brickwork showing the proposed  colour, texture, facebond and pointing shall be provided on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced and  the sample panels shall be retained on site until the work is completed. The facing brickwork of the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the approved sample panels.

REASON:  In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area.

4.  Details of the windows (including rooflights and dormers where appropriate) including their materials, method of opening and drawings showing sections through mullions, transoms and glazing bars and sills, arches, lintels and reveals (including dimension of any recess) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced.  The windows shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

REASON:  In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area.

5.  Before any work is undertaken in pursuance of the consent, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of such steps to be taken and such works to be carried out as shall, during the progress of works permitted by this consent, secure the safety and stability of that part of the building which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.2

Section 2

(Applications meriting special consideration)

Bromley Town

28.3

(16/05119/MATAMD) - Multistorey Car Park, Simpsons Road, Shortlands, Bromley, BR1 1DS pdf icon PDF 255 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

DEFERRED

Minutes:

Description of application – Section 73 application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment with mixed use scheme comprising multi-screen cinema, 200 flats, 130 bedroom hotel, Class A3 units (restaurant and cafe) including 1 unit for flexible Class A1 (retail shop), Class A3 (restaurant and cafe) or Class A4 (drinking establishment), basement car parking, associated access arrangements (including bus parking), public realm works and ancillary development. Minor Material Amendment to application 13/01094/MATAMD to include elevational changes, reduction in residents car parking, internal layout changes, amendments to facade and roof detailing, re-alignment of (Core A) rear building line, commercial elevation changes, balcony adjustments and treatment of link bridge.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.

 

The Chief Planner’s representative reported that on page 52 of the Chief Planner’s report that the fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page should be amended to read, “Moats are taking 62 units, 46No. S106 and 16 additional units within Core D. Five wheelchair units and 10 additional car parking spaces will serve these 62 units in Core D, with the remaining 71 parking spaces allocated amongst the 138 general market apartments equating to a ratio of 0.51 spaces for each private residential apartment.”

Also, on page 53, paragraph 6 was amended to read, “Policy: No policy objections given that there is to be an increase in affordable units by 16

over that as previously approved. Should permission be granted the legal agreement should be amended to include an updated schedule of accommodation.”

 

It was reported that the Environment Agency had no further objections to the application.”

 

The original scheme was approved at Plans Sub-Committee 1 on 15 March 2012 and Councillor Nicky Dykes was concerned at potential loss of parking, a reduction in wheelchair units and amenity space and referred to a recent appeal decision which acknowledged that balcony windows gave the perception of overlooking and suggested obscured glazing.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration to seek an increase in car parking spaces and details of obscure glazing to limit concerns of potential overlooking. 

 

Farnborough and Crofton

28.4

(17/00149/OUT) - 132 Crofton Road, Orpington BR6 8JD pdf icon PDF 123 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application - Demolition of existing dwelling and detached garage and erection of detached two storey building with accommodation in roof comprising 7 two bedroom flats with vehicular access from Crofton Lane to serve 9 car parking spaces, refuse store and cycle store (OUTLINE).

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received. 

 

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Charles Joel, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  He spoke on behalf of Crofton Residents’ Association, Crofton Place and Sparrows Drive Residents’ Association and local residents. He referred to the third paragraph on page 84 of the Chief Planner’s report under the heading, ‘Comments from Consultees’. Councillor Joel said this misled Members as it should have referred to an access to an unused garage.  The Chief Planner’s report stated that refuse collection vehicles would reverse onto the site and he was concerned that a potential overspill of parking onto the site may lead drivers to reverse onto Crofton Lane also.  Previous applications had been refused and planning appeals dismissed and in Councillor Joel’s opinion those reasons for refusal and dismissal had not been overcome or addressed.

 

The Chief Planner’s representative reported that the recommendation on the Chief Planner’s report had been amended to, ‘Refuse’, following receipt of the planning appeal decision received after publication of the agenda relating to application DC/1602147/OUT dated 14 March 2017 and revised comments from Highways Division were circulated to Members.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed development, by reason of its size, bulk and layout would appear incongruous and out of character with the surrounding area and would be ultimately harmful to the character of locality, contrary to Policies BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance No 1 and 2, London Plan Policies 3.4, 3.5 7.4 and 7.6 (2016) and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2.  The proposals would result in an increase in vehicular movements to and from the site in close proximity to the junction of Crofton Lane and Crofton Road, which is considered to have a detrimental impact on road safety, thereby contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

Chislehurst Conservation Area

28.5

(17-00555/FULL1) - 18 Greatwood, Chislehurst, BR7 5HU pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of single storey side extension and erection of a three storey three bedroom end of terrace house with associated vehicle access, parking spaces, landscaping and single storey rear extension to No. 18.

 

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  A statement of objections and a letter of support had been received and circulated to Members. Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Katy Boughey, in objection to the application were read and circulated to Members. 

 

In Councillors Russell Mellor and Neil Reddin’s opinions the proposed development was backland/garden development and would be against the Unitary Development Policy. Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher agreed with Councillors Mellor and Reddin and in her view one parking space would be insufficient.

 

Councillor Michael Turner and Peter Dean supported the application and referred to the second paragraph on page 103 of the Chief Planner’s report that stated, ‘the provision of a new residential house on the land was acceptable in principle’.

 

The Chief Planner’s representative confirmed that the tree nearest to the proposed development would be one metre away.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

1.  The proposed development would appear as an overbearing, incongruous and harmful form of development on this prominent corner plot that would fail to complement the cohesive pattern and layout of development in the area, harmful to the Chislehurst Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), 3.4, 3.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2015) and Policies BE1, BE11 H1, H7, H8, H9, H10 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

 

(Councillor Peter Dean asked for his vote against refusal to be recorded.)

 

Section 3

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

Shortlands

28.6

(16/05835/FULL6) - 76A Elwill Way, Beckenham, BR3 6RZ pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

 

Minutes:

Description of application – First floor side extension.

 

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

 

Hayes and Coney Hall

28.7

(17/00474/FULL1) - 53 Kechill Gardens, Hayes, Bromley, BR2 7NB pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

DEFERRED

Minutes:

Description of application - Erection of one x two storey, 3-bed attached dwelling (amendments to planning permission reference 16/01129 (allowed on appeal) to include amendment to roofline, additional ground floor window and single storey rear extension).

 

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration,

to seek alterations to the proposed ground floor flank window in the southern elevation.

 

West Wickham

28.8

(17/00545/FULL6) - 20 Ravenswood Avenue, West Wickham, BR4 0PW pdf icon PDF 71 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Single storey detached outbuilding incidental to main dwelling. (Retrospective Application).

 

A replacement plan had been published and circulated to Members. It was reported that further objections to the application had been received and a further late objection to the application had been received and circulated to Members.

 

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

1. The proposal would, by reason of its size, scale and bulk, constitute in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to the visual amenities of neighbouring residents, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006), Supplementary Planning Guidance No 1 and 2, London Plan Policies 7.4 and 7.6 (2015) and the objectives of the NPPF (2012).

 

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to seek the removal of the outbuilding.

 

 

Section 4

(Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

29.

CONTRAVENTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES

30.

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

THE ATTACHED PLAN IS A REPLACEMENT PLAN FOR ITEM 4.8 - 20 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE, WEST WICKHAM.

Consideration now can be given to the following:

S31

REPLACEMENT PLAN ITEM 4.8, 20 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE, WEST WICKHAM pdf icon PDF 263 KB

 

Original Text: