Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies:  Cllr Douglas Auld

Substitute:  Cllr Simon Fawthrop

Apologies:  Cllr Terence Nathan

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Douglas Auld and Councillor Simon Fawthrop attended as his substitute.

An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Terence Nathan.

Item 4.2 Cllr Charles Joel, non-pecuniary interest

Councillor Charles Joel declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 4.2 as he was acquainted with the applicant and her husband. Councillor Joel did not take part in the discussion or vote.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2017 be confirmed.

REFUSED

Description of application – Single storey extension to annexe building with access ramp and change to site boundary.

The Chief Planner reported that a letter from the Headteacher in support of the application, an email in objection to the application and a letter from the Chairman of Chelsfield Village Society, Councillor Melanie Stevens, had been received and circulated to Members.  The Tree Officer had made an additional site inspection following concerns from local residents.

Ward Member, Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher, referred to previous applications that had been granted permission (references 14/03336 and 16/05292) and the site being within the Green Belt and also in a Conservation Area.  Chelsfield Primary School had removed the tree and cleared the site and in her view, shown disregard to the Conservation Area, neighbours’ amenities and taken advantage of the planning process for a larger application.

Councillor Tony Owen objected to the application and referred to the November 2014 permission for a similar outbuilding for essential learning space which had still not been implemented and in his view, essential need was not a strong enough reason to overcome green belt considerations.

Councillor Charles Joel supported the application.

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

1.  The proposed extension, by reason of its size and siting, would be harmful to the character of the Chelsfield Conservation Area, and is considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and therefore by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. The substantial level of harm that would arise from the development by way of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, is not clearly outweighed by any educational or other benefits that would arise. Very special circumstances therefore do not exist. As such the proposal is not sustainable development and is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and Policies 7.8 and 7.16 of the London Plan (2015) and G1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

A motion for refusal was proposed by Councillor Huntington-Thresher and seconded by Councillor Fawthrop. The vote for refusal was 4:4.

The Chairman used her casting vote for refusal

PERMISSION

Description of application – Single storey detached timber building for storage and extension to existing 2 metre high palisade fence.

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 with an additional condition and two Informatives to read:-

“4. The building hereby permitted shall only be used for storage and for the duration that Petts Wood Runners is in existence and should the Club cease to require the building it shall be removed from the site and the land reinstated to its former condition.

REASON: To enable the Council to reconsider the situation in the event of a change of user in the interest of the amenities of the area, to comply with Policies BE1 and G8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE 1: The applicant is advised to contact the Safer Neighbourhood team regarding security of the building.

INFORMATIVE 2:  The applicant is advised of the sensitive nature of the site given its designation as Urban Open Space and as such any further development on the site would need to be considered carefully in light of the relevant planning policies at the time of submission.”

REFUSED

Description of application – Part 1/2 storey front/side/rear extensions to include elevational alterations. Roof alterations to form habitable space incorporating side dormers and rooflight.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  The Chief Planner reported that a further letter of support had been received and circulated to Members.  On page 24, line16 of the Chief Planner’s report the words, ‘dining room’ were deleted as this was not part of the application.

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.

REFUSED

Description of application - Use of land for private Gypsy and Traveller caravan site comprising 1 pitch accommodating one mobile home and one touring caravan. (Revision to planning application ref. 10/02059/FULL2 allowed at appeal comprising removal of existing mobile home and its replacement with twin mobile home unit in a re-sited position within the site with associated slab and access ramps, without compliance with

Condition 5).

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. 

Councillor Scoates referred to the planning history of the site from agriculture land to its current use within the Green Belt and to paragraph 2 of the late representation from Cudham Residents’ Association and in his view, the proposed mobile home resembled a large chalet bungalow appearing to be of bricks and mortar and no very special circumstances had been demonstrated.

He also referred to the Inspector’s comments at a previous appeal and in particular the harm to the Green Belt. 

In reply to a question from Councillor Fawthrop regarding very special circumstances, the applicant said she had a personal planning permission to live on the land in a mobile home and her very special circumstances were to provide a larger adapted mobile home for health reasons.

The Chief Planner’s representative confirmed that a late representation had been received from Cudham Residents’ Association and circulated to Members.

Councillor Bob Evans confirmed the site had been allocated in the draft Local Plan as a traveller site in the Green Belt.

The Chairman and Councillors Joel and Boughey objected to the application and were surprised at the Chief Planner’s recommendation for permission as the report referred to inappropriate development and harm in the Green Belt.

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

1.  The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would by reason of its scale and siting result in harm to the openness and rural character of the Green Belt, constituting an undesirable form of urbanised development and resulting in an intensification of the existing use of the site.  No very special circumstances have been demonstrated and the proposal would be contrary to Policies G1, BE1 and H6 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 7.16 of the London Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (2015).

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 8 flats (2x3 bed, 4x2 bed and 2x1 bed) associated parking and landscaping.

Revised plans showing private amenity space with screening for ground floor units.

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

The Chief Planner reported that late correspondence from the applicant’s agent and further objections to the application had been received and circulated to Members.  In reply to a Member the Chief Planner gave a definition of amenity space and a further discussion took place.

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 a further condition to read:-

“18. The proposed windows in the first and second floor western flank elevations hereby permitted, shall be obscure glazed to a minimum of Pilkington privacy Level 3 and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed within 3 months of the date of this decision, and the windows shall subsequently be permanently retained in accordance as such.

REASON: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residential properties and to accord with Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

REFUSED

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 two storey buildings with basements and accommodation in roof space, each comprising 3 no. two bedroom flats (6 flats in total) including formation of lightwells, associated landscaping, cycle and car parking and formation of vehicular access.

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.  Correspondence from Councillor Mellor had been received and circulated to Members. 

Councillor Mellor referred to the previous planning history of this site and objected to a flatted development in the conservation area which could set a precedent on grounds of mass, height, bulk and impact on the local amenities  and would be an over development of the site where family homes were sought.

Councillor Fawthropwas disappointed with the report and, in his opinion, the report should have been a members view as opposed to officer recommendation report.

Councillor Michael had visited the site and in her view the site was developable for two detached houses.

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

1.  The proposals, by reason of the size, height, bulk and massing of the buildings, would result in an overdevelopment of the site and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Downs Hill Conservation Area, thereby contrary to Policies BE1, BE11 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.5 of the London Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application - Part one/two storey rear and single storey 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 GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further condition to read:-

“5.  Before any work is commenced details of parking spaces and/or garages and sufficient turning space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall be completed before the commencement of the use of the land or building hereby permitted and shall thereafter be kept available for such use.  No development whether permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) or not, shall be carried out on the land or garages indicated or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to the said land or garages. 

REASON: In order to comply with Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan and to avoid development without adequate parking or garage provision, which is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and would be detrimental to amenities and prejudicial to road safety.”

DEFERRED

Description of application – The demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a part one/two-storey side/rear extension to create a new 1 bedroom dwelling.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration,

TO SEEK FURTHER DETAILS OF THE OCCUPANCY OF THE HOUSE OF MULTIPLE OCCUPATION AND ASSOCIATED CAR OWNERSHIP.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Construction of a part one/two storey business unit (Use Class B1).

It was reported that no objections to the application had been received.

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 a further condition to read:-

“5.  Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development is to commence until revised details for the north-eastern boundary adjacent to the residential unit at Land to the rear of 28 to 30 Chatterton Road showing adequate separation between the proposed development and the existing windows in the flank wall of the residential unit at Land to the rear of 28 to 30 Chatterton Road have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved revised details.

REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of the residential unit at Land to the rear of 28 to 30 Chatterton Road.”

REFUSED

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a three storey terrace comprising 2 three bedroom and 1 four bedroom houses with integral garages, access onto Madeira Avenue and associated landscaping OUTLINE APPLICATION.

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

Councillor Rutherford objected to the substantial increase in footprint and poor design which was out of keeping in the local area.

Councillor Joel had visited the site and he and the Chairman considered the application to be an overdevelopment of the site.

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

1.  The proposal would represent a cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be out of character with the prevailing pattern of development and relate poorly to its immediate surroundings, therefore harmful to the visual amenities of the streetscene and the character of the area. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan (2006), Policy 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan and Section 7 of the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).

PERMISSION

Description of application – Single storey rear extension. Infill porch extension with flat roof canopy above and insertion of door to side elevation with glass canopy above.

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.

REFUSED

Description of application – Roof alterations to incorporate hip to gable extension, side and rear dormers and first floor rear extension.

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.

REFUSED

Description of application – Roof alterations to incorporate front/side dormer.

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.

REFUSED

Description of application – The installation of one illuminated fascia and projecting sign.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  The Chief Planner’s representative confirmed that the host building was locally listed.

The Chairman said that the proposed sign was oversized and would not fit in with the host dwelling and town conservation area.

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

1.  The proposed advertisements, by reason of their scale, design and number, would result in a prominent over-proliferation of advertisements which fails to respect the scale, character and appearance of the locally listed host building, and wider Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area contrary to Policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

REFUSED AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED

Description of application – Installation of new shop front with metal shutter and retractable awning.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  The Chief Planner’s representative confirmed that the host building was locally listed.

The Chairman commented that the shopfront was not inkeeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area and did not provide legislative access.

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

1.  The design of the replacement shopfront does not provide accessible access and fails to respect or complement the character, appearance, proportions and rhythm of the existing locally listed building and would not therefore preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, being contrary to Chapters 7 & 12 of the NPPF; Policies 7.2, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016) and Policies BE1, BE10, BE11 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006).

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to SECURE THE REMOVAL OF THE UNLAWFUL PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

INFORMATIVE:  You are advised that enforcement action has been authorised in respect of some or all of the development subject of this planning decision and you should contact the Planning Investigation Team on 020 8461 7730 or by email to planninginvestigation@bromley.gov.uk to discuss what you need to do to avoid formal action by the Council.

REFUSED AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED

Description of application – Roof alterations to incorporate side/rear dormer and rooflights RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

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

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to SECURE THE REMOVAL OF THE UNLAWFUL PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

INFORMATIVE:  You are advised that enforcement action has been authorised in respect of some or all of the development subject of this planning decision and you should contact the Planning Investigation Team on 020 8461 7730 or by email to planninginvestigation@bromley.gov.uk to discuss what you need to do to avoid formal action by the Council.