Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies:  Councillors Douglas Auld, John Ince and Peter Fookes

Substitutes:  Councillors Simon Fawthrop, Peter Dean and John Getgood

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Douglas Auld, John Ince and Peter Fookes and Councillors Simon Fawthrop, Peter Dean and John Getgood attended as their substitutes respectively.

Item 4.13 – Cllr Mrs Anne Manning, Personal Interest.

Cllr Mrs Anne Manning declared a personal interest in Item 4.13.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 May 2012 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

(Applications meriting special consideration)

DEFERRED

Description of application – Part one/two storey side and single storey rear extensions and pitched roof to existing flat roofed rear extension and conversion of building into 4 one bedroom and 1 two bedroom self-contained units with associated bin store at front.

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 number of units or bedrooms .

PERMISSION

Description of application – Rooflights to front and rear roofslopes, part conversion of garage to habitable accommodation and elevational alterations.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

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

PERMISSION

Description of application – Single storey extensions to hospital, including re building of existing single storey buildings and two storey extension to provide lift access to first floor.

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

REFUSED

Description of application – Repairs, alterations and refurbishment including conversion of outbuilding to bedroom and construction of new entrance lobby between outbuilding and Villa to provide three bedroom residential unit and use of part ground floor and first floor as offices/museum.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Will Harmer, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

It was reported that further objections to the application had been received.  Comments from Highways Division were reported.  Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The introduction of a commercial use in this residential area would be out of keeping and detrimental to the character of the area, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2.  The proposal would result in a harmful impact on the amenities that the residents of the area may reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Repairs, alterations and refurbishment including conversion of outbuilding to bedroom and construction of new entrance lobby between outbuilding and Villa to provide three bedroom residential unit and use of part ground floor and first floor as offices/museum (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT).

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Will Harmer, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

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

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

1.  The granting of Listed Building Consent would be premature in the absence of an associated planning permission, and therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policy BE8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

DEFERRED, IF APPROPRIATE TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

Description of application – Two storey rear and first floor side extensions with pitched roof to front.

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

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to  seek the removal of the walkway and, if appropriate, to be considered under the Chief Planner’s delegated authority.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a two storey four bedroom detached house with integral garage and accommodation in roof space.

It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 19 June 2012.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED

Description of application – Erection of detached two storey four bedroom house with associated car parking and refuse and replacement garage for No. 30 at land rear of 32 Church Avenue.

Oral representations in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

Comments from Ward Member, Stephen Wells, in objection to the application were reported.  It was also reported that a letter of support had been received.

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

1.  The proposal, by reason of its size and siting, would constitute an inappropriate form of backland development within a protected woodland, thereby contrary to Policies BE1, H7 and NE8 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.5 of the London Plan.

2.  The proposed development does not provide adequate servicing of the site, contrary to Policy T17 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application amended to read, “Single storey front/side and rear extension RETROSPECTIVE APPLILCATION”.

  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 for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the deletion of Condition 1 and an additional condition to read:-

“5.  Works should be undertaken in order that the height of the extension is in accordance with the application hereby permitted and this shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans within 2 months of the date of the decision.

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

PERMISSION

Description of application – Installation of 2 telecommunications antennae to north western roof and replacement of 1 existing antenna with 1 shared antenna to south-eastern roof with ancillary development.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Charles Joel, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

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

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

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

REFUSED AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED

Description of application – Retention of fence at rear RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

Oral representations in objection to 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 fencing, by reason of its excessive height, results in a detrimental impact on the amenities of the nearby residential properties, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED for to secure the removal of the sections of fencing that are above 2 metres in height.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Formation of car park with 70 car parking spaces and 4 coach bays with overflow area to provide 34 additional car parking spaces.Chainlink and palisade fencing, 3.9m high lighting columns, security hut and cycle parking. PART RETROSPECTIVE.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  The Chief Planner reported that there had been an on site meeting on 4 July 2012 and that agreement had been reached on most of the outstanding matters.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with three additional reasons to read:-

“7.  The lighting columns hereby permitted shall not operate after 23.00 hours with the exception of 6 occasions annually when the lighting will not operate after midnight.

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

8.  The section of chainlink and palisade fencing that adjoins the Green Chain Walk shall be painted a colour that is to be agreed in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority and shall be permanently maintained as such thereafter.

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

9.  Details of replacement planting where it is necessary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the first occupation of the buildings or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally planted.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development.”

DEFERRED

Description of application – Part one/two storey side/rear extension with juliet balcony, single storey rear extension and roof and elevational alterations.

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 the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to seek a reduction in the rear projection of the rear extension and the setting in of the extension from the flank boundary.

CERTIFICATE GRANTED

Description of application – Detached garage CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Gordon Norrie, were reported at the meeting.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS LAWFUL and that a CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

DEFERRED

Description of application – Single storey rear extension and roof alterations to garage to create summer house with mezzanine floor. single storey link extension between house and garage.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to seek an increase in side space to achieve a 1 metre separation to the flank boundary for the entire length of the development.

REFUSED AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED

Description of application – Pole mounted free-standing non-illuminated sign RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates, in objection to 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 sign, by reason of its excessive size and prominent siting, is harmful to the visual amenities of the area, contrary to Policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to secure the removal of the unauthorised sign.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Two storey side and rear extensions and roof alterations to incorporate rear dormers to provide annexe in roof space.

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

“5.  The additional accommodation shall be used only by members of the household occupying the dwelling at 8 Rodway Road, and shall not be severed to form a separate self-contained unit.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 2 storey 5 bedroom detached dwelling and associated landscaping.

Comments from Ward Member, Catherine Rideout, were reported.

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

PERMISSION

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

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

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and store building and erection of detached single storey 4 bedroom dwelling, formation of new vehicular access and associated landscaping with timber retaining wall.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates, were received at the meeting.

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

(Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

REFUSED

Description of application – Change of use and refurbishment of existing building to include two storey side extension, remodelling of facades, provision of ventilation ducting system, raised terrace and garden area, in order to provide a mixed use building consisting of B1/B8 and A3/A4 use.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

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

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. 

CONFIRMED

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 2461 relating to three oak treesbe confirmed, as recommended, in the report of the Chief Planner.

CONFIRMED

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 2448 relating to one oak treebe confirmed, as recommended, in the report of the Chief Planner.

The Chairman to move that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.