Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies:  Cllrs John Ince and Samaris Huntington-Thresher

Substitutes:  Cllrs Charles Joel and Russell Jackson

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Ince and Samaris Huntington-Thresher and Councillors Charles Joel and Russell Jackson attended as their substitutes.

Item 4.12 Cllr Douglas Auld – Prejudicial Interest;  he left the chamber for the debate and vote.

Councillor Douglas Auld declared a prejudicial interest in Item 4.12; he left the chamber for the debate and vote.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2012 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

(Applications meriting special consideration)

PERMSSION

Description of application – Single storey side and two storey rear extensions and roof alterations.

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 – Entrance gates and columns (max height 2.275m) to Forest Drive (at junction with Westerham Road).

Oral representations in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Ruth Bennett, were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 17 December 2012.  Comments from Keston Park (1975) Limited were reported together with comments in support of the application from the Agent.  It was noted that on page 23 of the Chief Planner’s report, paragraph 4, the first sentence should be amended to read, “Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a loss of amenity to local residents or impact detrimentally upon the character of the Conservation Area.”

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

1.  The proposed gates would, by reason of their siting, width and means of operation, be likely to result in large vehicles making unsafe manoeuvres on Westerham Road presenting a road safety hazard which would be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic on this London Distributor Route, contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

(Councillor Charles Joel recorded his vote against the motion to refuse permission.)

PERMISSION

Description of application – Change of use from light industrial use (Class B1) to tyre retailing and fitting place (Sui Generis) RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

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.

CONSENT

Description of application amended to read, “2 non illuminated signs”.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the condition set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:-

“2. The existing signage shall be removed from the building by 28^th February 2013.

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the street scene and to comply with Policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

PERMISSION

Description of application – Part one/two and three storey rear extension providing ancillary storage space for shop unit. Creation of self-contained one bedroom and two bedroom flats and a dormer extension to form additional accommodation for existing self-contained flat.

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 – Change of use of ground floor retail unit (Class A1) at 211-213 High Street to restaurant (Class A3) and installation of extract duct to rear elevation.

Oral representations 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 with an amendment to condition 3.

“3.  The ceilings and walls between the ground floor and the upper floors of the premises and the adjacent properties shall be so adapted as to achieve a reasonable resistance to airborne sound and heat transference as far as is practical having regard to existing construction.  These works shall be implemented before the use hereby permitted commences in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority, and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy S9 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure a satisfactory standard of amenity for adjacent properties.”

REFUSED

Description of application - Single storey rear extension.

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

1.  The proposed extension would, by reason of its size and siting, give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupiers of No. 5 Gossington Close, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application amended to read, “Retention of detached two storey block with accommodation in the roof space comprising 3 two bedroom flats and 2 one bedroom flats with new vehicular access and 5 car parking spaces and bin store to rear) - retrospective application.”

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, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a single storey 3 bedroom detached dwelling with accommodation in the roofspace.

Oral representations in support of the application were received 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.

DEFERRED

Description of application – Raised garden terrace at rear with walls and steps. RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

Oral representations in objection to 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 for the case officer to re-visit the site to measure the height of the decking and to take photographs to show the impact on the neighbouring property.

DEFERRED

Description of application – Front boundary wall with railings, brick piers and sliding gates.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that comments from residents in support of the application had been received.

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 height of the wall and railings, to be no higher than 1.5 metres maximum.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Two storey front, side and rear extension and elevational alterations together with formation of rear terrace.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the neighbour supported the application.

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 an amendment to condition 2 to read:-

“2.  Details of a scheme of landscaping, which shall include heavy stock planting on the boundary adjacent to High Linden, Orchard Road, 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, to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development.”

REFUSED

Description of application – Single storey side and rear extension.

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

1.  The proposed rear extension would, by reason of its height, roof form and proximity to the boundary, result in an unneighbourly development that would materially worsen the living conditions of the occupiers of No 363 Southborough Lane. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application amended to read, “Side extension, alterations to existing basement, landscaping and elevational alterations.

Oral representations in support of the application 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 set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:-

“8.  Before the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted, the existing single storey detached garage identified as building B on drawing reference HW291 P002 shall be removed and the resulting debris removed from the land.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy G4 of the Unitary DevelopmentPlan and in the interests of the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt.”

REFUSED

Description of application – First floor rear extension.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Colin Smith who spoke on behalf of his two fellow Ward Members for Bickley Ward, 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 reasons:-

1.  The dwelling has already been substantially enlarged and the proposed first floor rear extension would, by reason of its size, siting and proximity to the flank boundary, result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site and be harmful to the character and spatial standards of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2.  The proposal would be overdominant and would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling at No 17 might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect in view of its size and depth and rearward projection, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Erection of detached two storey 3 bedroom house to rear of 15 Paddocks Close with vehicular access from Alma Barn Mews and pedestrian access to Chelsfield Lane.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Lydia Buttinger, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  Comments from Councillor William Huntington-Thresher in objection to the application were reported together with comments from the Tree Officer.

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

1.  The proposed dwelling by reason of its design and layout would result in unacceptable overlooking to the gardens of 14, 15 and 16 Paddocks Close, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2.  The proposed intensification of use of the existing access to Alma Barn Mews is unacceptable with regard to highway safety as it does not benefit from adequate sightlines, contrary to standards in the ‘Manual for Streets’ and consequently Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.  The insertion of a new dwelling in the garden of No. 15 Paddocks Close would constitute a cramped overdevelopment poorly related to the neighbouring properties and harmful to the character and amenities of the area, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

REFUSED

Description of application – Part one/two storey front, side and rear extension and elevational alterations.

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

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

1.  The proposed extension would, by reason of its proximity to the flank boundary, constitute a cramped form of development resulting in harm to the visual amenities of the street scene and the retrograde lowering of the spatial standards of the area and the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character, thereby contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan

PERMISSION

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

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.

CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT GRANTED

Description of application – Rear dormer extension CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

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

Members having considered the report, objections and representions, RESOLVED that A CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Part one/two storey front, side and rear extension and rear dormer.

It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 20 December 2012.

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 with a further condition to read:-

“5.  Details of the windows (including rooflights and dormers where appropriate) including their materials, method of opening and drawings showing sections through mullions, transoms and glazing bars and sills, arches, lintels and reveals (including dimension of any recess) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced.  The windows shall be installed 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 appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area.”

PERMISSION

Description of application – Part single/two storey side extensions.

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application – First floor side extension.

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 – Part one/two storey rear extension.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Reg Adams, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was noted that on page 139 of the Chief Planner’s report, line 10, “No. 95” should be deleted and “No. 9” inserted. 

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

1.  The proposed extension would, by reason of its height, depth and the proximity to boundaries, result in the overdevelopment of the host property, out of character with surrounding development and detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining property at No. 9 Forster Road, contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Single storey side extension.

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.

APPROVED

Description of application – Variation of condition 18 of planning permission reference 11/02100/FULL1 granted on appeal (reference APP/G5180/A/11/2167690) to allow installation of structures, plant, equipment or machinery on the roofs of the buildings with the Council's written approval.

Oral representations in objection to and 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.  It was reported that further objections to the application had been received together with comments from the Agent.

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 – Part one/two storey side and rear extension and elevational alterations.

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

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.

(Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

DEFERRED TO BE RECONSIDERED ON LIST 2

Description of application – Part one/two storey front extension and conversion of garage to habitable room.

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 decision, to seek a reduction in the depth of projection, and to  be consideration on Section 2 of the agenda of a future meeting of the Plans Sub-Committee.

CONFIRMED

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 2496 relating to one maple treebe confirmed, as recommended, in the report of the Chief Planner.

CONFIRMED

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 2492 relating to a tree of heavenbe 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.

The Chairman moved that the attached report, not included in the published agenda, be considered a matter of urgency on the following grounds:

The statutory time period for the determination of the application has elapsed.  The Section 106 Agreement previously authorised by Members has been agreed and the developers have asked that the permission be issued.  The report advises that there is a need to add an additional condition to the permission when issued.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended.