Agenda, decisions and minutes

APOLOGY: COUNCILLOR NICKY DYKES

SUBSTITUTE: COUNCILLOR TONY OWEN

APOLOGY: COUNCILLOR RICHARD WILLIAMS

SUBSTITUTE: COUNCILLOR ANGELA WILKINS

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nicky Dykes and Richard Williams; Councillors Tony Owen and Angela Wilkins attended as their respective substitutes.

NONE

No declarations of interest were received.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2017 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

REFUSED

Description of application – Conversion of loft to habitable accommodation together with the construction of two side dormers (one on each side) and one rear dormer with Juliet balcony, alterations to catslide roof and single storey rear, side and front extensions.

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

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

PERMISSION

Description of application – Roof extension forming 1 2B3P unit and alterations to existing mansard and applied rendered coatings and changes to the glazing forming the main entrance.

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

Further written comments in support of the application were received from the agent and circulated to Members. 

The Development Control Manager confirmed that details of the materials listed on page 20 of the report were incorrect.  He also advised Members of changes to conditions 4 and 5 of the recommendations on page 24 of the report.

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 with conditions 4 and 5 amended to read:-

‘4  Details of a surface water drainage system (including storage facilities where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced and the approved system shall be completed before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied and permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy 5.12 of the London Plan.

5  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.’

A further condition was also added as follows:-

12  Details of the means of privacy screening for the balcony(ies) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained as such.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building, the visual amenities of the area and to maintain an acceptable level of privacy and residential amenity in respect of adjoining properties.

REFUSED

Description of application – Removal of Condition 8 of Planning Permission 16/02999/FULL1 for the change of use from a café to hot food takeaway (use Class A5) together with a new shopfront and installation of ventilation ducting to the rear in order to allow a delivery service.

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

Committee Member and Ward Member, Councillor Turner spoke in objection to the application raising serious concerns about traffic and parking issues.  Councillor Buttinger referred to the local knowledge of Ward Councillors as an important element to be relied upon during consideration of all planning applications.

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

1  The proposal would lead to an unacceptable intensification of the existing access within an area of poor visibility close to a junction, which would be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic condition and general safety in the highway, contrary to Policy T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

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

Oral representations in objection to and 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 with the addition of two further conditions to read:-

4  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 that, in view of the nature of the development hereby permitted, the Local Planning Authority may have the opportunity of assessing the impact of any further development and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5  Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, amended plans shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing which shows the removal of the flank facing ground floor window to the kitchen.  The development shall be implemented in accordance with the plans and permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of protecting neighbouring amenity in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Detached triple garage.

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 with the addition of a further two conditions to read:-

6  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 without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that, in view of the nature of the development hereby permitted, the Local Planning Authority may have the opportunity of assessing the impact of any further development and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7  The garage shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling at 13 Acorn Close and only by members of the household occupying the dwelling; and shall not be severed to form a separate self-contained unit or used for any other purpose including residential occupation or commercial purposes.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan, to ensure that the accommodation is not used separately and unassociated with the main dwelling and so as to prevent an unsatisfactory sub-division into two dwellings or for an inappropriate commercial use.

REFUSED

Description of application – First floor side extension.

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

1  The proposal does not comply with the Council’s requirement for minimum 1 metre side space to be maintained to the flank boundary for the full height and depth of the building in respect of two storey development in the absence of which the extension would constitute a cramped, terraced form of development, out of character with the street scene, conducive to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is at present developed and contrary to Policy H9 of the unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application – First floor side 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.

REFUSED

Description of application – Proposed outline application to consider matters of access, layout and scale for the demolition of the existing two storey dwelling house and the erection of a three storey block containing 6 residential units with associated access, parking, refuse storage and cycle storage.

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.

Committee Member and Ward Member, Councillor Fawthrop, reported that the application breached various guidelines set out in the current Unitary Development Plan including:-

-  the character of an ASRC;

-  residential density;

-  spatial standards of new developments;

-  backland development; and

-  front and rear building lines.

A full copy of Councillor Fawthrop’s representation is attached as an Annex to these Minutes.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that ‘Policy BE10’ referred to on various pages of the report, should read ‘Policy H10’.

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 reason 1 amended to read:-

‘1  The proposed development, by reason of its size, bulk and layout would appear incongruous and out of character with the surrounding area and would be harmful to the character and locality of the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character and contrary to the garden suburbs principles in which the area is developed, contrary to Policies BE1, BE10 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance No 1 and 2, London Plan Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 (2015) and the objectives of the NPPF (2012).’

The following reason for refusal was also added:-

5  The proposed density of the development would be unacceptable and unreflective of the prevailing character of development in this Area of Special Residential Character and would therefore be harmful to the character of this protected area, eroding current spatial standards and therefore contrary to Policies BE1, BE10 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance No 1 and 2, London Plan Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 (2015) and the objectives of the NPPF (2012).

REFUSED

Description of application – Proposed outline application to consider matters of access, layout and scale for the demolition of the existing two storey dwelling house and the erection of a three storey block containing 7 residential units with associated access, parking, refuse storage and cycle storage.

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.

Committee Member and Ward Member, Councillor Fawthrop, reported that the application breached various guidelines set out in the current Unitary Development Plan including:-

-  the character of an ASRC;

-  residential density;

-  spatial standards of new developments;

-  backland development; and

-  front and rear building lines.

A full copy of Councillor Fawthrop’s representation is attached as an Annex to these Minutes.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that ‘Policy BE10’ referred to on various pages of the report, should read ‘Policy H10’.

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 reason 1 amended to read:-

‘1  The proposed development, by reason of its size, bulk and layout would appear incongruous and out of character with the surrounding area and would be harmful to the character and locality of the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character and contrary to the garden suburbs principles in which the area is developed, contrary to Policies BE1, BE10 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance No 1 and 2, London Plan Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 (2015) and the objectives of the NPPF (2012).’

The following reason for refusal was also added:-

5  The proposed density of the development would be unacceptable and unreflective of the prevailing character of development in this Area of Special Residential Character and would therefore be harmful to the character of this protected area, eroding current spatial standards and therefore contrary to Policies BE1, BE10 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance No 1 and 2, London Plan Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6 (2015) and the objectives of the NPPF (2012).

DEFERRED (to be considered under Section 2)

Description of application – Retrospective installation of roller shutters.

Oral representations in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Teresa Te in support of the application were received at the meeting.

It was reported that a further 240 letters in support of the application had been received.

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration, to be considered under Section 2 of the agenda.  Should the application be permitted at that meeting, a condition would be added requiring the maintenance and upkeep of the shutters and to remove graffiti should any occur.

REFUSED

Description of application – Fell Oak x 1. SUBJECT TO TPO 1501 (T1).

The Chairman stated he was aware of the possible risk of an insurance claim arising in this matter.

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