Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

APOLOGY: CLLR BAINBRIDGE

SUBSTITUTE: CLLR ANDREWS

APOLOGY: CLLR ONSLOW

SUBSTITUTE: CLLR BROCK

APOLOGY: CLLR WEBBER

SUBSTITUTE: CLLR IRELAND

APOLOGY: CLLR COLDSPRING-WHITE

APOLOGY: CLLR DEAN

APOLOGY: CLLR JOEL

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Felicity Bainbridge, Keith Onslow and Sam Webber, and Councillors Jonathan Andrews, Mark Brock and Julie Ireland attended as their respective substitutes.

Apologies for absence were also received from Councillors Josh Coldspring-White (who became a member of the Sub-Committee after the agenda had been published), Peter Dean and Charles Joel.

Visiting Member Councillor Mark Smith announced that he was a member of the Chislehurst Society, which had commented in relation to items 4.1 and 4.2.

Visiting Member Councillor Mark Smith announced that he was a member of the Chislehurst Society, which had commented in relation to items 4.1 and 4.2.

CONFIRMED

The minutes of the meeting held on 11^th January 2024 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Partial demolition of existing building. Erection of part two storey building, part first floor extension, with mansard roof, over existing building, and conversion of existing offices to form 4x dwellinghouses and 1x roof flat (total 5 units) with cycle storage, car parking spaces, refuse/recycling storage and landscaping.

The Head of Development Management advised that:

-  planning permission had previously been granted in 2019 for a first floor extension and conversion to form 6 apartments.

-  planning permission had previously been refused for a similar development for five residential units. However, this utilised different facing materials and mansard roof. An appeal against this decision was dismissed, concluding that it would result in harmful impact to the character of the local area and the amenities of the neighbouring property.

-  the current application sought to address the previous concerns by using different materials and a reduced extent of development at roof level.

It was noted that an email in support of the application had been received from Ward Member Councillor Alison Stammers, and circulated to Members.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. The agent gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

-  all units could offer electric vehicle charging points, and they would be happy to have a condition added relating to this.

-  in terms of water harvesting, they would do whatever was possible, depending on any constraints.

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 Assistant Director, Planning and with the addition of further conditions relating to electric vehicle charging points and water harvesting.

REFUSED

Description of application – Construction of a 4 bedroom two storey dwellinghouse including integral open fronted garage and cycle parking to land r/o 54 Lubbock Road.

The Development Management Area Team Leader (East) reported that further representations had been received from the applicant in support of the application. These had been circulated to Members and were tabled at the meeting.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. The following responses were given to Members’ questions:

-  the development would include various eco measures and electric vehicle charging points, which could be conditioned.

-  the proposed dwelling was not considered to be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

-  the statement that the development in the manner proposed was ‘not readily comparable’ to the adjoining sites was a correct reflection.

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

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member Councillor Mark Smith in objection to the application were also received at the meeting. Councillor Smith thanked officers for the very thorough report provided. The applicant was also thanked for allowing him to visit the application site the previous day. It was noted that what the applicant had already done on site in terms of bringing a locally listed building back to life site was appreciated. The issues were that the application was located within a Conservation Area, and it was a locally listed building – if the development was in a different area it may be considered to be acceptable. The original plot had gradually been reduced over the years, and another property on the site would be disproportionate. Councillor Smith said he agreed with some of the comments made in relation to neighbouring properties being overlooked and the impact on the Conservation Area – consideration needed to be given as to how the area would be affected both now and in the future. On balance he felt the application should be refused.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Reduction of height and depth of existing extension.

The Head of Development Management advised of the following:

-  the application had been considered at the meeting of Plans Sub-Committee No. 2 on 8^th February 2024 and was deferred to seek a reduction in the size of the extension. The applicant had declined to make any reductions.

-  planning permission was granted in 2015 for a single storey rear extension. A larger extension was built, which was currently unauthorised and subject to an enforcement notice.

-  the current application sought to reduce the depth by 0.9m to 6.2m, measured from the rear of the conservatory, and reduce the height to 3m with a flat roof. It was considered that the modifications would be sufficient to allow planning permission to be granted.

In response to questions, the Head of Development Management advised that the 6.2m quoted, and included in the annotations on page 71 of the agenda pack, was measured from the rear of the conservatory to the outer wall of the extension. The full extent of the extension measured approximately 11m along the side wall next to the boundary – the reduced depth would bring the application in line with what was permitted in 2015. In terms of the alteration to the height, the 2015 application permitted 3.4m to the top of the ridge – it was now proposed to be 3m to the top of the flat roof, but the height of the eaves would be increased.

With regards to stating a timeframe in which to implement the changes, the Head of Development Management advised that the permission would be restricted to 4 months. It was noted that the enforcement notice was still active, and they could seek to prosecute if the applicant did not comply.

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 Assistant Director, Planning and with the addition of a further informative indicating an intent to prosecute in the event that the changes were not made in the specified timeframe.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Renewal and replacement of cladding, windows, ramp, steps and flat roof.

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

NO REPORTS

NO REPORTS