Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kathy Bance M.B.E. and Russell Jackson;  Councillors  John Getgood and Samaris Huntington-Thresher attended as their substitutes respectively.

Description of application – 5 x non-illuminated freestanding signs.

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

Description of application – Part one/two storey front/side and single storey rear extension.

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

Description of application - Part one/two storey side/rear and single storey front extensions.

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

Councillor Simon Fawthrop quoted Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan that required a minimum of 1 metre side space and he requested that this policy should be quoted correctly in future reports.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration, to be considered at a future meeting of Development Control Committee in order for the Committee to assess the implication of planning policy, particularly in regard to side space, on development.

Description of application – Part one/two storey side/rear 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.

WITHDRAWN BY CHIEF PLANNER

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and replacement part two/three storey detached dwelling incorporating integral garage.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 15 May 2014.

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the deletion of condition 5 and a replacement condition to read:-

5.  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the slab levels shown on the approved drawings.

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

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

Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Alexa Michael, in support of the application were reported.

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

Description of application – Removal of condition 4 of permission ref 13/03468 that requires erection of screening along Southern edge of balcony approved under that reference.

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

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling house and erection of replacement detached dwelling with associated parking provision and hard and soft landscaping.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Charles Joel had visited this unique site and complimented the architect on the design.  Members had differing opinions and some were concerned with the quality of design, attractiveness, style, the flat roof and proposed materials in an area of special residential character.

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

1. The proposal results in an unsatisfactory development on this site with little regard for the character of the surrounding Beckenham Place Park Area of Special Residential Character, in terms of the overall design, use of materials, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling, and is thereby contrary to Policies BE1, H7 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan. 

Description of application – Installation of 8 air conditioning units to flank elevation, with enclosure PART RETROSPECTIVE.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor  Peter Morgan,

in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  Comments in objection to the application were reported.  It was reported that the Environmental Health had no objection to the application.

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

1.  The development prejudices the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling currently enjoy by reason of its close proximity and noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Description of application – Single storey side/rear extension.

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

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

Description of application – Part one/two storey side and rear extension, roof alterations incorporating rear dormer extensions, new chimney and front porch (amendment to eaves height for permission 13/02283/FULL6).

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

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

Oral representations in favour of enforcement action being taken were received at the meeting.

The Chief Planner’s representative advised that an application to retain the hard-standing had recently been received.  However the answer to a question indicated that the time limit for taking enforcement action may be imminent and Members accordingly needed to consider whether enforcement action was expedient rather than wait for the application to be determined.

Members having considered the report and representations RESOLVED  that ENFORCEMENT ACTION be AUTHORISED to remove the area of concrete hard standing for the following reasons:-

1.  The hard surface, by reason of its size and location, causes harm to the amenity of the green belt.

2.  The hard surface does not provide adequate drainage for surface water runoff, in the absence of which it will not attenuate runoff at times of heavy rainfall and as such will exacerbate flood risk.

3.  The development is therefore contrary to Policy 4A.14 of the London Plan, BE1and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.