Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Samaris Huntington Thresher and Councillor Simon Fawthrop attended as substitute.  

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Samaris Huntington Thresher and Councillor Simon Fawthrop attended as substitute.  

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

Confirmed.

The minutes of the meetings held on 10^th June 2021 and on 5^th August 2021 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Permission.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report which was for the  demolition of an existing detached single storey garage building and the erection of a replacement detached garage building with accommodation in the roof--containing one self-contained one bedroom residential unit (Class C3), together with associated car parking, cycle and refuse stores and landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that no updates had been received with respect to the application.

Councillor Kira Gabbert motioned for permission to be granted and this was seconded by the Chairman.

Permission to grant the application was unanimous.

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 Assistant Director for Planning and Building Control.

Deferred.

The Development Manager Area Team Leader gave a brief outline of the application which was for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement five bedroom detached dwelling with integral garage. He explained that the previous application had been refused and had now been amended, but the recommendation was still for refusal.

Oral representations in support were received from the applicant’s agent.

A written statement was read out on behalf of Ward Councillor and Committee Member Charles Joel—moving that the application be permitted.This is added as appendix to the minutes.

Councillor Katy Boughey seconded the motion for approval.

Councillor Sharma said that he was surprised at the recommendation for refusal from the officers as the proposed building to be demolished was not a listed building. He was also in favour of granting permission.

Councillor Fawthrop took a more cautious approach and pointed out that no conditions had been outlined for permission if this was what Members were minded to do. He suggested that a deferral may be the best option so that conditions could be established. 

The Chairman said that if Members were minded to grant permission then the planning grounds for this would need to be stated. It may be possible to ask officers to deal with the conditions under delegated powers. They would need to provide reasons for making a decision that was contrary to the officers’ recommendations.

Councillor Harris supported permission to demolish and rebuild.

Cllr Owen and Cllr Bance thought that a deferral would be the best option.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to allow time for Members to examine the Inspector’s report and to ask the applicant to look again at design in terms of the size of the roof and side space.

Permission

The Principal Planner introduced this report, which was for a part single, part double rear extension, single storey front extension, loft conversion of existing and new hipped roof space, including new dormer to the rear. Alteration of existing roof pitch to increase habitable loft space.

Oral representations were heard in objection and in support of the application.

The Chairman moved for permission which was seconded by Councillor Christine Harris.

Councillors Simon Fawthrop and Kira Gabbert supported permission but with additional conditions.

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 the addition of further conditions to read as follows:

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 building, structure, extension, enlargement or alteration permitted by Class A, B, C, D or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended), 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.

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 change of use of any kind permitted by Class L (Houses of Multiple Occupation) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order (as amended), shall be undertaken within the curtilage of the dwelling without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Council to consider future development at the site in the interest of local amenity, in accordance with Policies 9 and 37 of the Council's Local Plan (2019). 

7. 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% native plant species of home grown stock (where possible) and no invasive species

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

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

(ii) There shall be no excavation or raising or lowering of levels within the prescribed root protection area of retained trees unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

(iii) Any new tree(s) that die(s), are/is removed or become(s) severely damaged or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.1

Permission

The Development Manager Area Team Leader introduced this report. The application was for a front porch, single storey side/rear extension with light lantern and elevational alterations.

With the caveat that a non-severance condition should be added, there was unanimous support to grant permission for the application.

Members having considered the report, objections and representatives, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report of the Chief Planner with condition 4 amended to read as follows:

4. The bicycle store and additional accommodation shall be used only by members of the household occupying the dwelling 263 Crescent Drive, Petts Wood and shall not be severed to form a separate self-contained unit.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies 6, 7 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan, to ensure that the accommodation is not used separately and un-associated with the main dwelling and so as to prevent an unsatisfactory sub-division into two dwellings.

The following Informative was added:

The applicant should seek advice on other consents which may be required such as Building Regulations and from Thames Water.

Proposed Use

The Principal Planner introduced the application which was for a proposed loft conversion to include side dormer extensions and roof alterations to the rear. Officers had recommended that the Lawful Development Certificate be granted.

Oral representations in support of the application were heard.

The Committee discussed whether or not this matter had needed to be brought to the Committee, or could have been dealt with under delegated powers.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that A CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BE GRANTED as recommended.

Resolved as recommended.

28 Bruce Grove, Orpington, BR6 0HF.

The Committee resolved not to contest the Appeal as recommended.

(Report to follow)

Resolved not to contest the planning appeal as recommended.

Resolved not to contest the planning appeal as recommended.

The details of the minutes for this item will be noted in the Part 2/Confidential minutes as this item was deemed to be a confidential report.

What members will need to appreciate in this case is that the replacement of the existing dwelling is of similar design in character, mass details and materials and reflects the traditional image and compliments the prestigious housing estate.

For those members who have not had the opportunity to make a site visit can I point out that's over a number of years there are sites where dwellings have been rebuilt and in a number of cases with large extensions that have been added with the number currently under construction.

There is a mention of the existing bn S shaped, then if you look at the existing plan on page 47 it can be seen that a single and two Storey extensions have been added to the dwelling. Sadly, there are no photographs included in the report showing the unsightly elements that have changed the original character of the house.

Members should disregard the refusal under town planning application reference 19/02682, as the proposal before us has been modified to address matters.  In item 5 on page 50 the APCA make the comment, ‘This new proposal is an improvement on the previous proposal’. Then under assessment item 7.2.10 on page 58 it states, ‘ In general the design of the new dwelling is considered to be an improvement on the dwelling proposed under the 2019 application.’ Then as the new building would be 0.2m higher than the existing dwelling it would also be commensurate to its surroundings.

There is a general comment regarding the catwalk roof slope and the impact on Marchurst and it can be seen from the proposed front elevation on page 59 that the lower portion at gutter level can be interpreted as being a single story level. I have been informed that the owners of Marchurst have no objections to the proposals. There are a large number of dwellings throughout Farnborough Park Estate that have cat walk roofs, some with dormer windows. Then again throughout the estate there are a large number of dwellings with different shapes and sizes, some designs being arts and craft character, some modern and contemporary and again symmetrical and unsymmetrical.

Members we have the benefit to judge applications on their merits and I'm moving this application for approval