Agenda, decisions and minutes

ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT

All Members were present.

Item 4.13  Cllr Eric Bosshard had been granted an unconditional dispensation by the Urgency Committee on 29 May 2013 so that he could represent the interests of people living in the area of the application site.

Following a request from Cllr Bosshard, an Urgency Committee considered his request to be allowed to address the meeting with regard to Item 4.13 where he had a pecuniary interest as a neighbouring resident. That Urgency Committee granted Cllr Bosshard an unconditional dispensation so that he could continue to represent the interests of people living in the area.

No other declarations of interest were reported.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 April 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

PERMISSION

Description of application - Change of use from care home for the elderly (Class C2) to short term accommodation for the homeless (sui generis) with refuse store and car and cycle parking.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Councillor Robert Evans, the Portfolio Holder for Care Services, in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor John Ince, were also received at the meeting.  It was reported that if permission were granted that the Housing Division had agreed that homeless people and families from the Cray Valley Wards would be given preference to the proposed accommodation wherever possible.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with three further conditions to read:-

“3. No more than 93 occupants shall be accommodated at Belle Grove 100 Mickleham Road at any one time without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

4.  Details of the proposed management and occupancy arrangements for the development, including any contractual requirements, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the premises shall subsequently be operated in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

5.  The landscaping details, which shall include details of screen planting along the boundary with Goose Green Close shall be submitted to and  subsequently approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in the first planting season following the occupation of the buildings or the substantial completion of the development whichever is the sooner.  Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be  replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species to those originally planted.

REASON:  In order to comply with Policy BE1 and C1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development and in the interest of the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.”

(Applications meriting special consideration)

PERMISSION

Description of application - Change of use of part of ground and whole of first floor from business (class B1) to specialised martial arts teaching and gym (class D1) together with elevational alterations.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Raised garden terrace at rear with walls and steps. RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED

Description of application - Conversion of commercial building to provide one 5 bedroom dwelling.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

The contents of a letter from the agent dated 30 May 2013 was reported.  Councillor Simon Fawthrop stated that the value of a property was determined by how much a purchaser was prepared to pay.

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

1.  In the absence of evidence to demonstrate full and proper marketing of the site the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of commercial premises, thereby contrary to EMP5 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application - Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two 2 bedroom and one 1 bedroom dwelling with 3 car parking spaces.

It was noted that on page 37 of the Chief Planner’s report the first sentence under the heading, ‘Proposal’ should be amended to read, “Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing bungalow and to erect two 2 bedroom and one 1 bedroom houses”.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED

Description of application – Change of use of ground floor from office (use class B1) to a private members club (sui generis). Formation of new entrance to Elmfield Road and the installation of new ventilation and extract system.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that further objections to the application had been received.  It was also reported that on page 50 of the Chief Planner’s report, that paragraph 3 should be amended to read, “Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed would represent the loss of needed office space in the Bromley Town Centre Area, thus contrary to the objectives of policies EMP3, EMP5 of the Unitary Development Plan and policy IA2 of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan. It was also reported that further objections to the application had been received. 

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

1.  The site is located in a Business Improvement Area as designated in the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan and the change of use of the ground floor to a private members club (sui generis), would by reason of the undesirable loss of office space (Class B1), be detrimental to the Council’s aim to safeguard a supply of land in the Borough to provide for growth and development of business and industry, contrary to Policies IA2 and BTC5 of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan and EMP3 and EMP5 of the Unitary Development Plan. 

PERMISSION

Description of application - Use of detached building as office (Class B1).

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the deletion of Condition 1.

REFUSED

Description of application - Single storey rear extension and roof alterations incorporating increase of roof height, half hip and rear dormer extensions.

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

1.  The proposed extension would, by reason of the depth of its rearward projection, have a detrimental effect on the Area of Special Residential Character and on the daylighting of the adjoining house and the prospect which the occupants of that dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application - Change of use of land from equestrian centre to residential and erection of 2 pairs of two storey two bedroom houses with associated car parking.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the Fire Access and Building Inspector was satisfied there was adequate fire appliance access.

Cllr Simon Fawthrop said that in his opinion the site was not developable in principle, as it would affect the residential amenity.

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

1.  The proposal would, by reason of its design and excessive bulk and scale, result in an overdevelopment of the site, detrimental to the visual amenities, spatial standards and character of the area, contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Single storey rear extension.

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

1.  The rear garden at this property is restricted in size and the proposed extension would, by reason of its excessive projection and close proximity to the boundary, result in an overdevelopment of the site and be seriously detrimental to the prospect of the adjoining property, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – First floor side and rear extension.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was noted that on page 75 of the Chief Planner’s report that the first bullet point within paragraph 5 should be amended to read,

·  “reduction in the width of the first floor side element as it relates to the latter third of the original dwelling (1.05m x 3.88m).” 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Two storey side and single storey rear extensions.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition:-

“6.  A side space of no less than 0.85m shall be provided between the first floor flank wall of the extension hereby permitted and the flank boundary of the property.

REASON:  In  order to comply with Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

REFUSED

Description of application – Change of use of premises from dwelling house with care provided (class C3) to care supported residential accommodation (class C2).

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillors Eric Bosshard and Ian F Payne, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop said that if this application were to be permitted it would be an over intensification, out of keeping in a family residential area and not conveniently located to local services, shops and amenities.

The differences between Class C3 (dwellinghouses) and Class C2 (residential institutions) and  the range of uses permissible within Class C2 were explained.  It was noted that Highways Division had no formal objection to the application.

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

1.  The change of use from dwelling house with care provided (Class C3) to care supported residential accommodation (Class C2) would result in over-intensive use of the site, inconveniently located from public services which would be out of keeping with the residential character of the area resulting in increased noise and disturbance thereby detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, contrary to Policies BE1, H4 and C6 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Change of use of part of existing outbuilding from car parking to purpose ancillary to the main residential use including elevational alterations (MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO APPEAL PERMISSION 09/00145/FULL2).

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Simon Fawthrop was concerned that Members had no influence on the Planning Inspectorate’s decision as to how appeals were dealt with and in his opinion this case, if subject to an appeal, would be suitable for the fast track procedure.

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

1.  The proposed development would result in the undesirable loss of covered parking within the curtilage of the dwelling and would be likely to lead to open parking, harmful to the openness and character of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Change of use of 2 agricultural buildings to provide 4 stables, feed room, tack room and associated storage and change of use of land for the private keeping of horses. Change of use of part of agricultural building for car parking for existing residential use at Petleys Farm and re cladding of buildings.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Councillor Simon Fawthrop was concerned that Members had no influence on the Planning Inspectorate’s decision as to how appeals were dealt with and in his opinion this case, if subject to an appeal, would be suitable for the fast track procedure.

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

1.  The proposed conversion of two agricultural buildings to stables and change of use of land to the keeping of horses would result in an over-intensive equestrian use of this agricultural site thereby detrimental to the character of the Green Belt and Conservation Area, contrary to Policies G1, BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Two storey side and rear extension with three front dormers.

Comments from Ward Member, Councillor David McBride, and a letter from the neighbour in objection to the application were reported.  Reference was also made to the previous appeal decision and the Inspector’s comments on the planning issues.

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

1.  The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site with insufficient car parking, inadequate side space and amenity space to be provided thereby detrimental to the of amenities of neighbouring properties, contrary to Policies H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop wished his vote for refusal to be recorded.

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

PERMISSION

Description of application – First floor side extension.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED

Description of application – Part one/two storey side and rear and single storey front extensions, roof alterations to incorporate rear dormers and elevational alterations.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  Members wished to record that their local knowledge of the character of the area was relevant to this planning application.

It was reported that there were two different side space measurements referred to in the Chief Planner’s report based on earlier drawings and that the updated measurement was 1.16 metres.  Ward Member, Councillor Julian Grainger, stated that he was acquainted with the objector, being a resident of the area, but that he had had no communication with him since a Jubilee Party celebration in 2012.

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

1.  The proposed development would, by reason of the inadequate side space to be provided in an area where higher spatial standards are considered to exist, result in a retrograde lowering of spatial standards detrimental to the established character of the area, contrary to Policies BE1 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Construction of canopy to create covered area for the loading, unloading and sorting of parcels from delivery vehicles in relation to Units 6, 7 8 & 9.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:-

“6.  The canopy hereby permitted must be open sided on both flank elevations.

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, in line with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – 4 two bedroom two storey terrace dwellings and 1 two bedroom chalet bungalow with 8 car parking spaces and associated outbuildings and landscaping.

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

It was reported that further objections to the application had been received.

Ward Member Councillor Kate Lymer made representations as set out in Appendix A to these Minutes.

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

1.  The proposal constitutes a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the type and nature of units proposed and if permitted would establish an undesirable pattern for similar piecemeal infilling in the area, out of character with the pattern of surrounding development and resulting in an over-intensive use of the site and a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is at present development, harmful to the visual amenities and character of the area and therefore contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.5 of the London Plan.

(Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

REFUSED

Description of application – Demolition of former public convenience building, change of use of land to retail (class A1), and erection of a two storey retail building.

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

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED

Description of application – Erection of detached two storey 3 bedroom house to rear of 15 Paddocks Close with vehicular access from Alma Barn Mews and pedestrian access to Chelsfield Lane.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor William Huntington-Thresher, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 15 May 2013. Members were of the opinion that the site line issue should not be under estimated in this instance.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further reason to read:-

3.  The proposal would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site and unacceptable form of backland development contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.5 of the London Plan.