Issue - meetings

REFUSED

Description of application—Demolition of outbuildings and erection of a detached two storey/five bedroom dwelling on land to the rear of Foxhollow with associated car parking and amenity space.

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

The Committee noted the written submissions that had been received Objecting to the application.

Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Kate Lymer in objection to the application were received at the meeting. She reminded the Committee that the application had been refused previously, and that nothing much had changed since the previous refusal. She described the development as looming over local residents from a great height if approval was granted. She referred to the comments made previously by a planning inspector who described the development as an oppressive presence. She said that there would be a loss of light and privacy for local residents and that the suggested tweaks in the application were not sufficient to warrant permission. In her view the application was an over-development.

Councillor Gabbert agreed with Councillor Lymer and urged refusal.

Councillor Sharma also agreed that the application should be refused.

Councillor Harris said that in her view the application was a very clever use of land and supported the granting of permission for the development. Councillor Bance agreed with the view of Councillor Harris.

The Head of Development Management for Regeneration and Transformation informed Members that the issue of ‘over-development’ was not something that was included in the reasons for the previous refusal.

Councillor Boughey stated that she thought the application was a clever design, and that permission should be granted.

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the following reason:

1.  The proposed development would, by reason of its size, height and close proximity to neighbouring properties in Oakhurst Close, have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties through loss of light, outlook and privacy, thereby contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.