Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apology:  Cllr Robert Evans

Substitute:  Cllr Keith Onslow

Apology:  Cllr Douglas Auld

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Robert Evans and Councillor Keith Onslow attended as his substitute.

Apologies for absence were also received from Councillors Douglas Auld and Alan Collins.

NONE

There were no declarations of interest reported.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 August 2017 be confirmed.

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT SUBJECT TO DIRECTION OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Description of application – Installation of new retaining walls behind the existing north and south retaining walls of the East Courtyard of Crystal Palace Subway. Removal of the trees behind the north retaining wall of the East Courtyard.

It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 28 September 2017 and the Chief Planner’s recommendation was amended to read ‘Grant Listed Building Consent subject to the Direction of the Secretary of State’.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that LISTED BUILDING CONSENT be GRANTED, SUBJECT to any DIRECTION by the SECRETARY of STATE, as recommended, and subject to the condition set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

DEFERRED

Description of application – Change of use of the ground floor to Class D1(Veterinary surgery) and erection of a first/second floor rear extension to provide enlarged residential flat for veterinary surgeon working at the practice.

Oral representations in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Michael Turner, in support of the application were received at the meeting.  An email dated 11 September 2017 and a photograph had been received from the applicant and circulated to Members.  A replacement site plan had also been circulated to Members.

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 size of the extension and to ensure that materials match the host building.

REFUSED AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED

Description of application – Single storey rear extension and decking PART RETROSPECTIVE.

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

The Chairman had visited the site and works to the extension and decking were nearly completed.  The height and depth of the extension impacted on the character of the area and the residential amenities of the occupants of the surrounding properties with the loss of daylight and outlook.  Although Members sympathised with the applicant enforcement action was proposed. 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, 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 seek a REDUCTION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE EXTENSION TO 2.5 METRES.

REFUSED

Description of application - Proposed rear garden annexe to provide living accommodation for a family member, subservient to the main house.

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

Councillor Mellor objected to the application being a backgarden overdevelopment on a greenfield site.  He sympathised with the applicant and the applicant’s offer to supply a solicitor’s letter to confirm  the proposed development was for personal use was rejected.  If the proposed development were built ancillary to the host dwelling it could be severed in future and would be against the Unitary Development Plan and the Proposed Draft Local Plan. 

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

1.  The proposal, by reason of its siting and use, is not considered to represent an ancillary form of accommodation and is capable of being severed and used as a separate dwellinghouse which would result in a cramped form of development, out of character with the area and contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan (2006) and Policy 7 of the Draft Local Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Change of use from single family dwelling to Sui Generis House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Minor material amendment under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to allow variation of Conditions 2 and 18 pursuant to permission ref. 16/05229/FULL1 (granted on the 12.05.2017) for the construction of a four storey residential block comprising 8 two bedroom selfcontained units with 4 car parking spaces, landscaping, cycle and refuse stores to allow for the introduction of rear balconies to Flats 4, 6 & 8, private rear amenity area for Flat 2, internal alterations to main entrance to flats 3-8, alterations to the entrance doors to flats 1 and 2 and heights and sills of the Left elevation corridor windows of flats 3 - 8 and stairwell windows have been altered.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application - Demolition of existing bungalow and construction of 4-bed dwelling with accommodation in the roofspace.

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

It was reported that the third paragraph on page 79 of the Chief Planner’s report should be replaced with the following:-

‘The proposed new dwelling is to be located centrally within the plot and on approximately the same footprint as the original dwelling and the recently approved scheme under ref: 16/02911/FULL1.  The current scheme under ref: 17/02806/FULL1 provides a side space of 1.48m to the eastern boundary and 1.69 (reducing to 1.02m) adjacent to the western boundary, and the angular orientation has been altered to face directly onto Southfield Road (south). The design of the new house would not appear alien to the established layout, pattern and distinctive character and appearance of dwellings in the area.’

The Chief Planner’s representative confirmed that that officer recommendation remained as set out in the report of the Chief Planner. 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT

Description of application – First floor rear extension and elevational alterations.

This application was debated alongside the application for Item 4.12 of this agenda, (17/03240/FULL6) 61 White Horse Hill, Chislehurst.  Members were only prepared to consider granting permission if the proposed works to Numbers 59 and 61 White Horse Hill were built simultaneously which would overcome previous grounds of refusal and it was therefore proposed that the recommendation for both applications should be amended to, ‘Permission, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement’.

Members stressed it was very important that the applicant be strongly informed of the above.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED SUBJECT to the PRIOR COMPLETION of a LEGAL AGREEMENT to SECURE SIMULTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT WITH THAT AT 61 WHITE HORSE HILL, CHISLEHURST (17/03240/FULL6), as recommended, and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the deletion of Condition 5 and the addition of an Informative to read:-

INFORMATIVE 1:  You are advised to contact the following address should the development be sited over or in close proximity to the sewer Thames Water, 1 Kew Bridge, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 0EF, Telephone number

0845 850 2777, Email: developer.services@thameswater.co.uk

REFUSED

Description of application – Demolition of existing residential building, stables with sand schools, flood lighting and office and the provision of 1 no. 4 bedroom house, 2 no. 2 bedroom and 6 1 bedroom dwellings with communal parking and private terraces.

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

Councillor Katy Boughey said that the continued operation due to the size of the stables was not financially viable and both she and Councillor Kevin Brooks supported the application.  Councillor Boughey also referred Members to paragraph 4 on page 106 of the Chief Planner’s report.

Councillor Charles Joel had visited the site located within the green belt and in an area of outstanding natural beauty and, in his opinion, the building could be renovated and in his view, it was part of the heritage of Bromley and the ground given in respect of the earlier application (16/03627/FULL1) also had relevance to this application.

The Chairman and Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher also objected to the application being an inappropriate development in the green belt.

The Chief Planner’s representative advised Members that the application was outline and that the impact on openness could be assessed when the details were received.

Councillor Joel and the Chairman were concerned that if permission were granted then effectively Members would have accepted the principle of change of use of the site.

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

1. The proposal is inappropriate development which in principle and by reason of its size, location, design and siting would have a harmful impact upon the

openness and character of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land

within it, and for which no very special circumstances are considered to exist to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt contrary to Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 7.16 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED NOT TO CONTEST APPEAL

Description of application – Single storey outbuilding to house swimming pool.

The Chief Planner’s representative reported that following publication of the agenda the Planning Inspectorate had written to the Council to confirm that an appeal against the non-determination of the application within the statutory eight week timeframe had been lodged and made valid.  It was therefore necessary for the Sub-Committee to consider whether it wished to contest the appeal or not.  The officer recommendation set out in the published agenda was to grant planning permission and therefore the Chief Planner’s representative recommended that Members resolve not to contest the appeal for the reasons set out in the report.  The recommendation was therefore amended to, ‘Resolve not to Contest Appeal’. 

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED NOT TO CONTEST THE APPEAL as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and garages and erection of detached two storey 6 bedroom dwelling with accommodation in roofspace and integral garage.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that a further objection to the application had been received.  Supplementary information had been received from the applicant and objector and circulated to Members.

The Chief Planner’s representative reported the wording for Conditions 9 and 10 on page 135 of the published agenda had a number of words omitted and the full wording of these conditions was circulated to Members.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with amendments to conditions 9 and 10 to read:-

“9. No windows or doors additional to those shown on the permitted drawing(s) shall at any time be inserted in the first floor flank elevation(s) of the dwelling hereby permitted, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

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

10. Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the proposed window(s) in the first floor flank elevation 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 and the window (s) shall subsequently be permanently retained in accordance as such.

REASON: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties.”

PERMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT

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

Supplementary information had been received from the applicant and circulated to Members.

This application was debated alongside the application for Item 4.8 of this agenda, (17/02900/FULL6) 59 White Horse Hill, Chislehurst.  Members were only prepared to consider granting permission if the proposed works to Numbers 59 and 61 White Horse Hill were built simultaneously which would overcome previous grounds of refusal and it was therefore proposed that the recommendation for both applications should be amended to, ‘Permission, subject to the prior completion of a Legal Agreement.

Members stressed it was very important that the applicant be strongly informed of the above.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED SUBJECT to the PRIOR COMPLETION of a LEGAL AGREEMENT to SECURE SIMULTANEOUS DEVELOPMENT WITH THAT AT 59 WHITE HORSE HILL, CHISLEHURST (17/02900/FULL6), as recommended, and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the deletion of Condition 5 and the addition of an Informative to read:-

INFORMATIVE 1:  You are advised to contact the following address should the development be sited over or in close proximity to the sewer Thames Water, 1 Kew Bridge, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 0EF, Telephone number

0845 850 2777, Email: developer.services@thameswater.co.uk

PERMISSION

Description of application – First floor side and rear extension including 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, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – 3 replacement external fire escape staircases, replacement isolated windows within the 'fire protection zone' and re-covering of rear upper and lower flat roofs with Bauder high performance felt system RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.

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.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2.5 storey building, with accommodation in the roofspace, comprising of nine flats (5x one bedroom; 3x two bedroom; 1x three bedroom apartments), together with associated parking and landscaping.

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