Agenda, decisions and minutes

All Members were present

All Members were present.

None

No declarations of interest were reported.

Confirmed

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2017 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Installation of a gate (max height 2.9m) on path between Naval Walk and EdisonRoad.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Nicky Dykes in support of the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Dykes reported that Bromley Civic Society and Councillors Michael Rutherford and Ellie Harmer supported the application together with Councillor Peter Morgan, Chairman of the Renewal and Recreation Policy, Development and Scrutiny Committee.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

“1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years, beginning with the date of this decision notice.

REASON: Section 91, Town and Country Planning 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 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

3. Details of the materials to be used for the proposed gate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced. The works shall be carried out 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 visual amenities of the area.

4.  An access code system to allow local residents of properties within Edison Road and St Paul’s Square and business owners on Church Road entry and egress through the gate shall be installed and provided to these residents/business owners in accordance with details submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced and shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan Policy 7.2 and in the interest of the amenities of the local residents.”

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three storey building comprising 6 x 2 bed flats with 7 car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. It was reported that if the application were permitted it would not be subject to a Unilateral Undertaking as Condition 26 applied.

Councillor Kathy Bance reported that the Ward Members for Clock House Ward had no objection to the application.

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 an amendment to Condition 14, the removal of Condition 16 and renumbering of subsequent conditions and an additional Informative to read:-

“14.  Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied,

bicycle parking (including covered storage facilities where appropriate) of

2 cycle spaces per unit shall be provided at the site in accordance with

details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority, and the bicycle parking/storage facilities shall be permanently

retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy T7 of the Unitary Development

Plan and Policy 6.9 of the London Plan and in order to provide adequate

bicycle parking facilities at the site in the interest of reducing reliance on private car transport.

INFORMATIVE:  You should consult Street Naming and Numbering/Address Management at the Civic Centre on 020 8313 4742, email address.management@bromley.gov.uk regarding Street Naming and Numbering.

REFUSED

Description of application – Erection of garden room.

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

Councillor Peter Dean referred to the removal of Permitted Development rights in 1997 that prevented large inappropriate developments.  An extension to the house had previously been added and in Councillor Dean’s opinion the proposed development was overdominant and would have a negative impact on neighbouring properties.  Councillor Kate Lymer agreed and said that it would set an unwelcome precedent. 

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

1. The proposal would be overdominant and adversely harmful to the adjacent Metropolitan Open Land and Site of Interest for Nature Conservation, and would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of adjoining properties might reasonably expect to be able continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact, loss of privacy and amenity in view of its size, height, siting and extent of glazing, thereby contrary to Policies BE1, NE2 and G6 of Bromley's Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application - Proposed demolition of existing agricultural building and the erection of a replacement grain/machinery storage building.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was noted that on page 39 of the Chief Planner’s report under the heading, ‘Proposal’, the last sentence should be amended to read, “The wider site comprises 83 hectares of land used for arable farming, and the main buildings associated with the farm form a cluster with one larger barn to the west of the site, located within a 20 metre proximity north of Crockenhill Road.”

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 an amendment to Condition 4 and a further condition to read:-

“4. The building hereby approved shall be used only for the purpose of agriculture, as defined in Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and for no other purpose including for the storage of any gyrocopters, and there shall be no change of use permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that Order.

REASON:  In order to protect the amenity of surrounding neighbours and to avoid inappropriate development within the Green Belt thereby to comply with Policies G1 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7.  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 extensions or alterations to the building permitted by Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended), shall be erected or made to the building hereby permitted without prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan Policy 7.16 and in the interest of the openness and character of the Green Belt.”

REFUSED

Description of application – Change of use of land for siting of caravans for residential use for occupation by Gypsy Travellers with an amenity block, septic tank, hard standing, re-proofing of land and boundary fence. PART RETROSPECTIVE.

Councillor Lydia Buttinger reported there were significant concerns amongst residents with regard to this application as it was prime green belt site and designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and that no very special circumstances existed to warrant an exception to Green Belt Policy.

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Conversion of the property into 5 two bedroom self-contained flats together with the erection of two storey side and rear extensions and roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer extension.

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application - Enlargement of roof to provide first floor accommodation, replacement porch and elevational alterations.

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.

APPROVED

Description of application – Variation of Condition 4 of application ref: 16/02258/FULL3 to read "The rooflights shall be installed in such a manner as to ensure the trees are unaffected by the works and are to be installed from inside the building" and variation of Condition 6 to read "The building is to be used as a health clinic/centre only. The building is to have a maximum of three staff, of which a maximum of two are to be practitioners. Meetings are to be by appointment only. The maximum number of appointments in

any one day is to be 36".

It was reported that a letter of support had been received.  Following a discussion regarding the safety of pedestrians it was agreed that a letter be sent to the Council’s Highways Department in consultation with Councillor Russell Mellor to request highway improvements to provide improved crossing facilities to and from the roundabout.

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.

REFUSED

Description of application – Part two/three storey rear extension comprising extension to ground floor retail unit with 2 two bedroom flats on first and second floors, change of use of retail unit from Class A2 (financial and professional services) to Class A3 (restaurant and cafes) alterations to shopfront and elevational alterations with associated car parking at rear.

The Planning Inspectorate’s Appeal Decision dated 2 March 2016 was circulated to Members.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop said that the bulk, height and siting of the proposed extension was unacceptable and would set a precedent and referred to Paragraph 12 of The Planning Inspectorate’s Appeal Decision.  He did not object to the change of use and would welcome a further application on the site. In his opinion, the report recommendation should have been for ‘Members Views’.

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

1.  The proposed extension by reason of its bulk, size and siting would be overly prominent and incongruous, andconstitute an overdevelopment of the site which is out of character with the locality and would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Station Square Conservation Area and if permitted would set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development within the area, thereby contrary to Policies BE11 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing garage blocks and erection of 2 bedroom single storey dwellinghouse on land at rear of Beau Lodge and the Coach House.

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.

DEFERRED

Description of application – Part one/two storey rear extension with steps.

The Chairman referred to the history of the site contained in the first three paragraphs on page 118 of the Chief Planner’s report and the Planning Inspector had accepted the size of the proposed development but had suggested the pitch of the roof was unacceptable.  Councillor Peter Dean said that if the application were to be refused then the appeal would most likely be lost and supported the application.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration, to SEEK A REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE EXTENSION.