Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Graham Walton  020 8461 7743

Items
Note No. Item

34.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Decision:

APOLOGIES: CLLRS GABBERT & JOEL

SUBSTITUTES: CLLRS FAWTHROP & ONSLOW

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kira Gabbert and Charles Joel, who were replaced by Councillors Simon Fawthrop and Keith Onslow.

35.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Decision:

NONE

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

36.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 10 JUNE 2021

(To follow)

Decision:

MINUTES NOT AVAILABLE

Minutes:

The Sub-Committee noted that the minutes of the last meeting were not yet available and would be presented to the next meeting.

37.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Plaistow and Sundridge

37.1

(19/03728/RECON) - 128b College Road, Bromley BR1 3PF pdf icon PDF 459 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Single storey side infill and first floor extensions to dwelling house with conversion of resultant building including roof space into 4 residential units (1 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed).

 

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

 

The Head of Development Management clarified that the application was for variation of a condition for an application already granted at appeal.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSON BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

Copers Cope

37.2

(21/00292/FULL1) - Highway and Land, Canterbury Close, Beckenham pdf icon PDF 748 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Erection of three storey building, with basement, comprising 5 flats and the laying out of associated parking spaces and amenity space.

 

The Head of Development Control reported that further objections had been received and circulated.

 

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

 

Oral representations from visiting ward member Councillor Stephen Wells were received at the meeting – he objected to the loss of amenity space and stated that this was a bulky overdevelopment of the site, and that the basement element was uncharacteristic for the area. He also referred to the lack of a range of assessments including noise, ecology, construction management and foul water provision. The Chairman read out an email objecting to the application in similar terms from another ward member, Councillor Russell Mellor.

 

The Chairman stated that amenity space was important for the existing dwellings in the Close, and that the proposed development was far too large in comparison with the existing buildings.  She was also concerned about parking, but it was confirmed that there had been no objections from Highways on parking grounds.

 

Councillor Harris commented that although she had originally thought the proposals were a clever use of limited space, having visited the site she realised that this was overdevelopment.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason -

 

The proposed development, by reason of the design, scale and massing of the proposed building, would be a bulky, overdevelopment of a constrained plot of land that appears out of keeping with the character of surrounding development and results in the loss of a valued local amenity space. This is contrary to policies 4 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.

Petts Wood and Knoll

37.3

(21/00533/FULL6) - 3 Nightingale Road, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1BG pdf icon PDF 374 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

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

 

Councillor Tony Owen, a Petts Wood and Knoll ward councillor, stated that the proposals would have severe effects on the neighbouring properties on both sides, particularly to number 5. The proposals were out of keeping and too large for a small semi-detached house. The other ward councillors, Simon Fawthrop and Keith Onslow, also considered that this was overdevelopment.  

 

Councillor Christine Harris reported that she had visited the property and viewed it from the rear. The adjoining properties both had large box extensions and therefore she considered that the application should be allowed.  

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason –

 

The proposed development, by reason of its design and excessive dimensions, would be an overbearing, overdevelopment of the site that appears out of keeping with the character of the area and causes harm to the amenities of nos. 1 and 5 Nightingale Road with particular regards to light and outlook. This is contrary to policies 6 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.

Petts Wood and Knoll

37.4

(21/01034/FULL6) - 8 Greencourt Road, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1QW pdf icon PDF 277 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Proposed first floor side extension and loft conversion with rear dormers.

 

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

 

The Development Management Area Team Leader reported that additional photos had been circulated. 

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSON BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report.    

 

Copers Cope

37.5

(21/01090/FULL6) - 103 Foxgrove Road, Beckenham BR3 5DA pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing side conservatory and erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension. New double height garage with office at first floor.

 

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

 

Oral representations from visiting ward member Councillor Stephen Wells were received at the meeting. The Chairman also read out an email objecting to the application from another ward member, Councillor Russell Mellor.

 

The Development Management Area Team Leader reported that further objections had been received and circulated from the speaker objecting to the proposals.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSON BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following additional questions –

 

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no buildings, structures, alterations, walls or fences of any kind shall be erected or made within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.

 

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no change of use of a building from a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) in the Use Classes Order, to a use falling within Class C4 (houses in multiple occupation) permitted by Class L of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended) shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order to comply with policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

 

8. A full kitchen/cooking facilities shall not be installed within the two story outbuilding hereby permitted.

 

Reason: in the interests of protecting the character of the area and the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan. 

 

10. i) Prior to commencement of above ground works details of treatment of all parts on the site not covered by buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The site shall be landscaped strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season after completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is the sooner. Details shall include:

 

1.  A scaled plan showing all existing vegetation to be retained and trees and plants to be planted which shall include use of a minimum of 30%

2.  Proposed hardstanding and boundary treatment;

3.  A schedule detailing sizes and numbers of all proposed trees/plants;

4.  Sufficient specification to endure successful establishment and survival of new planting.

 

(ii)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.5

Petts Wood and Knoll

37.6

(21/01913/FULL6) - 64 Petts Wood Road, Petts Wood, Orpington BR5 1LD pdf icon PDF 463 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Alterations to previously approved application with reference 15/04422/FULL6 for part one/two storey side/rear extension to include alterations to the first floor layout, increase in height of the first floor rear extension, alterations to roof layout and a loft conversion

 

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

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSON BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report and subject to the following additional conditions –

 

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no buildings, structures, alterations, walls or fences of any kind shall be erected or made within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.

 

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no change of use of a building from a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) in the Use Classes Order, to a use falling within Class C4 (houses in multiple occupation) permitted by Class L of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended) shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order to comply with policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

 

6. Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the proposed window(s) in the eastern 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 as such.

 

Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity in accordance with Policy BE1 of the UDP.

Bromley Town

37.7

(21/03120/RESPA) - Y Buildings, Bromley Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley pdf icon PDF 845 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PRIOR APPROVAL GRANTED

Minutes:

Description of application – Change of use of Class B1(a) office to Class C3 Residential to form 73 residential units. (56 day application for prior approval in respect of transport and highways, contamination, flooding, noise impacts, natural light to habitable rooms under Class O Part 3 of the GPDO.)

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. The Speaker referred to a Court case that in his opinion indicated the issue was whether there was an intimate connection between the old Palace building and the Y buildings. He said the Y buildings were their own planning unit, had a different architectural style and were separated by a clear line of trees.  In response to a question from the Chairman, the speaker confirmed that there was a separate entrance to the Y blocks from a different part of the site and a separate car park which pointed to a physical separation.

 

The Head of Development Management clarified with respect to paragraph 7.3.1 in the report that the proposals did comply with internal space standards.

The report did not cover the other prior approval matters - these were transport and highways impact, contamination risks, flooding risks, impact of noise from commercial premises, and provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. These matters needed to be considered if Members accepted the curtilage point. He also reported that there had been late objections from local residents and the Bromley Civic Society and comments from Highways and Environmental Health.

 

The Sub-Committee’s Legal Advisor informed Members that the issue of whether a building was within a curtilage was a matter of fact and degree for the decision-maker, subject to the normal principles of public law, and the three key factors that had to be taken into account (as set out in the Challenge Fencing case) were physical layout, ownership (past and present) and use or function of the land or buildings, past or present. In response to a question, he advised that three counsel’s opinions had been sought, all of which advised that the Y blocks were within the curtilage of the old Palace.  The decision was one for Councillors to make, but they had to take a decision which was reasonable (as defined in the Wednesbury case.)

 

Councillor Suraj Sharma considered that the fact that there was a separate entrance to the Y blocks from Rafford Way was quite key – users would not use the main entrance, there was also a line of trees separating them from the old Palace, and there had been functional separation for many years. The architectural language of the Y blocks was very different to the old Palace, and he saw ownership as less relevant. He took the view that the Y buildings were outside of the curtilage of the old Palace.

 

Councillor Simon Fawthrop commented that this was a very difficult decision. He did not see the two entrances as meaning there were separate curtilages, but focussed on the degree of separation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.7

Keksey and Eden Park

37.8

(20/02339/FULL1) 94A Wickham Road, Beckenham BR3 6QH pdf icon PDF 194 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

APPEAL NOT CONTESTED

Minutes:

Description of application – Sub-division of the existing duplex apartment into 2 x two bedroom flats and the construction of a rear, second floor dormer extension.

 

The Sub-Committee agreed to consider the report as a matter of urgency as the Appeal Statement detailing the Council’s case was due to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 9th August 2021 (the deadline having already been extended from 2nd August) and there was insufficient time to report to the next Sub-Committee meeting.

 

Members having considered the report RESOLVED NOT TO CONTEST THE APPEAL.

 

38.

CONTRAVENTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES

-

39.

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

-

40.

AUDIO RECORDING OF MEETING - Please note that due to technical issues this recording can only be listened to via Internet Explorer MP3 71 MB

 

Original Text: