Agenda, decisions and minutes

APOLOGY: COUNCILLOR PETER DEAN

SUBSTITUTE: COUNCILLOR NICHOLAS BENNETT JP

APOLOGY: COUNCILLOR KATHY BANCE

SUBSTITUTE: COUNCILLOR KEVIN BROOKS

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kathy Bance and Peter Dean; Councillors Kevin Brooks and Nicholas Bennett JP attended as their respective substitutes.

COUNCILLOR MELANIE STEVENS: ITEM 4.6 - NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST

COUNCILLOR NICHOLAS BENNETT JP: ITEM 4.2 – NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 4.2 – Scotts Park Primary School, as he resided in the local vicinity.

Councillor Melanie Stevens declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 4.6 – Lilly’s Farm, Chelsfield, as she resided in a neighbouring property.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 August 2016 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

PERMISSION

Description amended to read – ‘Temporary use of site as public car park for 57 spaces (including 6 disabled bays) for up to 3 years.’.

Comments from Ward Member Councillor Charles Joel were circulated to Members and a copy is attached as Annex 1 to these Minutes.  The Planning Officer advised Members the application could not be progressed should they be minded to add the conditions suggested by Councillor Joel.

Comments from Tree Officers were reported at the meeting.

The application had been amended by plans received on 13 September 2016.

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 with the deletion of condition 6 and the addition of a further two conditions and an informative to read:-

8  No trees on the site shall be felled, lopped, topped or pruned before or during building operations except with the prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees removed or which die through lopping, topping or pruning shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees of such size and species as may be agreed with the Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy NE7 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure that as many trees as possible are preserved at this stage, in the interest of amenity.

9  Details of any lighting proposed (including the appearance, siting and technical details of the orientation and screening of the lights and the means of construction and layout out of the cabling) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced and the approved scheme shall be implemented before the car park hereby permitted is first used.  Thereafter the approved scheme shall be permanently retained in an efficient working manner and no further lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and ER10 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of amenity and public safety.

Informative

The applicant is encouraged to consider the enhancement of landscaping on the site. 

PERMISSION

Description of application – Variation of Condition 1 of permission 14/03285/RECON granted for erection of a single storey classroom building until 17 October 2018.

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application – The demolition of the existing retail and rear residential units and the building of a new taller infill structure reinstating the existing shop and rear residential unit, whilst introducing a new part 4, part 3, storey residential block incorporating 7 x self-contained flats, accommodating 2 x 3 bedroom, 3 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom flats with internal and external alterations and demolitions.

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

REFUSED

Description of application – change of use from Class C3 (dwellinghouse) to Class C2 (residential institution) to allow use of the property as a children’s home.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Members Councillors Alexa Michael and Stephen Carr in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

Further correspondence from the speaker in objection to the application was received and circulated to Members.  Prior to the meeting, the Planning Officer had e-mailed Members with comments concerning traffic.

Comments from Highways Division were reported at the meeting.

Correspondence from Heritage Hill and Fox Lane Residents’ Association containing a summary of the arguments, illustrative photographs and details of two professional surveys had been received and circulated to Members.  A copy would also be added to the planning files.

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

1  The proposal would have inadequate car parking facilities to provide for the needs of the development and as such the proposal would prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the adjacent highway and increasing the demand for on-street parking on the local roads to the detriment of the amenities of the area contrary to Policies T3 and T18.

2  The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenities that nearby residents might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of general noise and disturbance associated with the use contrary to Policy BE1.

PERMISSION (DELEGATED TO OFFICERS FOR CLARIFICATION ON PDRs)

Description of application – Single storey side extension.

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

The Planning Officer advised that if Members were minded to remove permitted development rights, the applicant may not be able to build the proposed garage which was previously permitted but not completed.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner and for officers to issue under delegated authority, subject to securing a suitably worded condition to remove further Permitted Development Rights, whilst enabling the recently granted Certificate of Lawfulness to be implemented.

REFUSED

Description of application – Variation of Condition 11 of planning permission 15/01024 (allowed at appeal) concerning accordance with the approved plans to enable the construction of basements beneath the permitted dwellings.

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

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

1  The proposed intensification of the previously permitted development by reason of the increase in floorspace would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt resulting in harm to openness and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  No very special circumstances exist to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and the other harm identified and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies G1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 7.16 of the London Plan and Section 9 – Protecting Green Belt Land – of the National Planning Policy Framework.

REFUSED

Description of application – Demolition of existing building and erection of 3 two storey three bedroom terraced houses with accommodation in roof space and associated car parking, cycle and refuse stores and landscaping.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Colin Smith were received at the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that a previously refused application was currently at the appeal stage.

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

Tree Officers raised no objections.

The application was amended by plans received on 6 October 2016.

Members were reminded that the Council did not have an adequate five year Housing Land Supply.

The site plan indicated that individual refuse stores would be allocated to each property. 

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

1  The proposal, as a result of its design, considerable bulk and mass and projection beyond the established front building line, is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site that would be out of character with the streetscene and result in a diminution of spatial standards that would be harmful to the area and would result in overlooking and a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

2  The proposed development, by virtue of the loss of green amenity space, is considered to adversely impact upon the verdant character of the wider locality contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

3  The car parking provided for each dwelling would be insufficient to meet the needs of the development and the proposal would therefore generate an unacceptable increase in the demand for on-street car parking prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety in the highway, contrary to Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor Bennett’s vote against refusal was noted.

REFUSED

Description of application – proposed conversion of building to form three residential apartments comprising 1 x 3 bed, 1 x 2 bed and 1 x studio.  Demolition and re-build of boundary outbuilding, raising of the ridge and new clerestory dormer with elevational alterations and access ramp.

Oral representations in support of 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 – Single storey front and rear extension.

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

1.  The proposal by reason of its siting would result in an overdevelopment of the site and be out of scale and form of adjacent buildings detrimental to the host dwelling, the street scene, character of the area and neighbouring residential amenity thereby contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of Bromley's Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan

PERMISSION

Description of application – roof extensions incorporating dormer windows to front and rear and rooflights to all elevations and part one/two storey side, single storey front, first floor side and rear extensions and conversion of garage to habitable accommodation.

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer, part one/two storey rear extension and porch canopy.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Comments from the applicant and from Ward Member, Mary Cooke,together with a letter from the objector had been received and circulated to Members.

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a replacement two storey 7 bedroom dwelling with additional roofspace and basement accommodation, associated landscaping and parking.

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 and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with two further conditions to read:-

“9.. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no buildings, structures, alterations, walls or fences of any kind shall be erected or made within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to prevent intensification of the site and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of amenity and public safety.

10.  Details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.

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.”

REFUSED

Description of application – Elevational alterations and change of use of middle building from workshop/storage building to include class D1 use to allow use as a place of worship.

A replacement plan was circulated to Members identifying the correct site.  It was reported that Highways Division had no objection to the application.  Ward Member, Councillor Kevin Brooks, objected to the application and referred to his local knowledge of traffic and parking issues in the immediate vicinity.  He also had concerns at the potential loss of office use and noise.

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

1.  The proposal would generate a significant demand for parking which cannot be accommodated within the site, and would therefore result in an unacceptable increase in pressure to on-street car parking which would be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety in the highway and detrimental to the amenities of adjacent residential properties particularly by reason of general noise and disturbance, contrary to Policies T3, T18 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a pair of two storey five bedroom semi-detached dwellings with roofspace accommodation, together with front rooflights and rear dormers, associated parking, additional vehicular access and amenity space.

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

“16. Details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.

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.”

REFUSED

Description of application – erection of storage container (RETROSPECTIVE) with associated increase in height of boundary wall to provide screening.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor David Jefferys, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  In Councillor Jefferys’ opinion the container was out of keeping in the area and children may be attracted to play on its roof and fall in the gap between the wall and the container.  Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Mary Cooke, in objection to the application had been received and circulated to Members. It was noted that the local Residents’ Association also objected to the application.

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

1.  The prefabricated and temporary appearance of the storage container has a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and the quality and distinctiveness of the surrounding predominantly residential area, appearing as an unduly conspicuous and incongruous feature, thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 7.4 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

It was noted that enforcement action for the removal of the container had previously been authorised and Members requested that this be accelerated.

DEFERRED

Description of application – creation of basement, roof alterations to include partial hip to gable and rear dormer, demolition of garage and erection of two storey front/side extension, elevational alterations and terrace with steps to rear.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Judi Ellis, were received at the meeting.  She was not aware of any basements in the area being a quiet road of mainly detached houses with cat slide rooves. She was concerned that the proposed development would cause immense disruption to those living nearby and although she was not opposed to the enhancement of properties, she felt it a step too far to permit the proposed development as it could set a precedent.

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

and a statement received from the Agent had been circulated to Members.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration to seek a reduction in the bulk of the roof of the proposed development and to give further consideration to the forward projection proposed.