Apologies were received from Councillor Suraj Sharma and Councillor Gary Stevens attended as substitute. Apologies were also received from Councillor Samaris Huntington Thresher and Councillor Simon Fawthrop attended as substitute.

Apologies were received from Councillor Suraj Sharma and Councillor Gary Stevens attended as substitute. Apologies were also 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.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30^th September 2021 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30^th September 2021 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

REFUSED

Description of application: Retrospective application for a single storey rear extension to restaurant.

This application sits in the Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area. The recommendation of the planning report was for refusal.

Ward Councillor Tony Owen supported the recommendation for refusal and stated that immediate enforcement action should be initiated. This motion was formerly seconded by Ward Councillor Simon Fawthrop. A Member wondered if there was any method by which a fine could be imposed if a tree had been damaged.

The Tree Officer said that this matter had been on the enforcement radar for some time and that harm had been caused to the tree many years ago. A summary offence had been committed but the 6 month period that the Council had to take any action that could have resulted in fines being levied had expired. The Tree Team were working with the Enforcement Team to encourage enforcement action to remove the structure and it was hoped to get the hard landscaping to a permeable surface as part of this action. 

Recommendation was that the application be refused and that immediate enforcement action be undertaken and Environmental Health be consulted.

PERMISSION

Description of  application--Single storey side and rear extension.

The officer recommendation was for permission.

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

The Development Manager Area Team Leader stated that additional comments and photographs received had been disseminated to Members. He informed Members that the application was located in the Knoll Area of Special Residential Character. He said that it was acknowledged that there was a land ownership issue associated with the application, but clarified that this was not within the remit of the Planning Committee to deal with.

He reminded Members that at the end of the day this application was just for a single storey side extension. This extension was three meters wide and this was a key issue that Members needed to consider.

The Development Manager Area Team Leader informed Members that if they were minded to recommend the removal of the side windows, then they would need to defer and seek permission from the applicant. Retaining the windows with obscure glazing could be dealt with on the night by adding conditions to the recommendation for permission.

Members having considered the report, objections and recommendations, 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. The additional conditions were as follows:

4) Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the two proposed High level  window(s) in the ground floor southern elevation shall be obscure glazed to a minimum of Pilkington privacy Level  4 and the window (s) shall subsequently be permanently retained as such.

Reason: In the interests of protecting residential amenity in accordance with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan

5) Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the remaining window( s) in the ground floor southern elevation shall be obscure glazed to a minimum of Pilkington privacy Level  4 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 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 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.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.2

DEFERRED

Description of application: Single storey rear extension and loft conversion with side and rear rooflights and elevational alterations

Objections had been received.

This application sat in an Area of Special Residential Character and the officer recommendation was that the application be permitted. 

The Principal Planning Officer informed Members that revised plans had been received on 23^rd November 2021. These showed the existing solar panels and the proposed elevation setting out which solar panels would be retained. These plans were available on line and had been circulated prior to the meeting. It was clarified that the removal of the chimney did not require planning permission. Members were also asked to note that no corresponding chimney existed on number 64. The central chimney that was shared by both properties would be retained.  

Ward Councillor Tony Owen pointed out that this application now stood in the Thrift Conservation Area and so would need to be judged by different standards. He also informed Members that the house was put on the market the day before the planning meeting. He motioned that the application be deferred, one of the reasons being that he was opposed to roof lights in a conservation area. A more pressing reason for deferral was that there was no indication on the plans concerning the location of the side vent pipe.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED without prejudice as the site now fell within the newly adopted Thrift Conservation Area and the report needed to be updated to show this. It was also deferred as clarification was required concerning the location of the side vent pipe.      

.

REFUSED

Description of application: Felling of 2 London Plan trees at a wall backing on to 73 Empress Drive.

This application sat in the Chislehurst Conservation Area and the officer recommendation was for refusal.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control.

PERMISSION

Description of application: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement 5 bedroom detached dwelling with integral garage.

This application was part of the Farnborough Park Conservation Area and the officer recommendation was for the application to be refused.

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

The Development Manager Area Team Leader reminded the Committee that this application had come to the Committee previously and was deferred while waiting for revised plans to be received. There was an issue concerning the last cottage in the road and whether or not that would be protected. Members had asked to see a copy of the Inspector’s report which had been provided as part of the meeting papers. The Development Manager Area Team Leader reminded Members that if they were minded to grant permission against the officer’s recommendation, then they would need to provide clear reasons for doing so.

Ward Member Cllr Charles Joel referred Members to the minute annex on page 9 of the agenda pack which was the statement in support of the application that he had submitted at the previous meeting of the Plans 1 Committee. With the Chairman’s permission, Cllr Joel disseminated papers to the Committee which outlined how the applicant (in his view) had amended the design of the application as requested. He moved that in view of these amendments, the application should be permitted. 

The Development Manager Area Team Leader suggested to the Committee that they may need to consider additional conditions if they were minded to grant permission. 

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Members having considered the report, and representations received, resolved that PERMISSION be GRANTED AGAINST OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION.

Accordingly, Members felt that the demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling was acceptable, having a neutral impact on the Conservation Area and in the context of the nearby buildings in the Conservation Area; also that the proposed five bedroom replacement was an acceptable design in terms of its style and size and was not an overdevelopment.

The following conditions were agreed:

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years, beginning with the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans approved under this planning permission unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan and in the interests of visual and residential amenity.

3 (a) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved (excluding any ground clearance or demolition) a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage shall be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

(b) Before the details required to satisfy Part (a) are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.5

TPO AUTHORISED

Description of application: T1 Bay Tree-Fell

The application sat in the Broadlands Way Estate Conservation Area.

This application sat in the Shortlands Ward and had been called in by Ward Councillor Mary Cooke.  

Written representations from Councillor Cooke in favour of issuing TPOs to protect the trees were received and read out at the meeting.

It had been mentioned that one of the options that could be considered was a deferral while a light assessment was undertaken. The Tree Officer pointed out that a deferral would put the tree at risk of being removed automatically. He recommended that a new TPO be authorised immediately if the Committee wanted to protect the tree.

Members having considered the report, objections and recommendations  RESOLVED THAT A NEW TPO BE AUTHORISED.

TPO AUTHORISED

The proposal was for the twisted willow tree in a rear garden to be removed.

This tree was located in the Broadoaks Way Estate Conservation Area.

Ward Councillor Mary Cooke had called in this application and her written representations in support of a TPO were read out at the meeting by the Chairman.

In response to a question the Tree Officer said that it was impossible to calculate how old the tree was without obtaining a core increment sample. The Tree Officer said that the tree was probably about 20 years old and should therefore still have a useful life expectancy. 

Members, having considered the report, objections and submissions RECOMMENDED that a NEW TPO BE AUTHORISED.

TPO CONFIRMED

Description of application: Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 2742

Written objections had been received from an agent.

Ward Councillor Charles Joel spoke in favour of confirming the TPO.

Members, having considered the report, objections and representations, RECOMMENDED that the TPO be CONFIRMED WITHOUT MODIFICATION.  

TPO CONFIRMED

The officer proposal was that the TPO 2736 be confirmed.

This application sat in the Chancery Lane Conservation Area

Written representations in support and in objection to the TPO had been received.

Oral representations in support and in objection to the TPO were heard at the meeting.

Members, having considered the report, objections and representations, RECOMMENDED that the TPO be confirmed.

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 Part 2 minutes of the meeting held on 30^th September 2021 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Part 2 minutes of the meeting held on 30^th September 2021 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Please listen to via Internet Explorer.