Agenda, decisions and minutes

None

There were no apologies for absence.

None

There were no declarations of interest.

Confirmed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd February 2022 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

DEFERRED

Description of Application: Details of conditions submitted in relation to planning permission ref: 17/02468/FULL1: Condition 24—Community Use Agreement.

The Development Management Area Team Leader (Victoria Wood) commenced with a brief outline of the application and the details of the proposed community use agreement. There were no external floodlights and so activities would be constrained by the hours of daylight. All car parking on site would be available for the community users. She explained that the Community Use Agreement had been supported by Sports England and that no technical objections had been received. The Development Management Area Team Leader concluded by stating that it was recommended that the condition be discharged.

Oral representations in support and in objection to the application were received on the night.

Ward Councillor Kira Gabbert asked Jill Wyman (Chief Operating Officer for Bullers Wood School) what the outcome was of recent negotiations with residents. Councillor Gabbert expressed the view that with 128 objections it seemed that the agreement was not balanced as was claimed. Ms Wyman responded that the discussions were held as late as the Sunday before the meeting and that there were still unresolved issues that she had offered to take back to the Trust Board. She said that the issues raised were issues that had been raised previously.

Councillor Gabbert asked if more time was required for discussions with local residents. Ms Wyman responded that she was always happy to take back the concerns of local residents to the Trust Board and other stakeholders. She did not agree that more time was required for further discussions as all of the concerns being raised had been raised in the past.

The Leader and Ward Councillor Colin Smith spoke at the meeting. Councillor Smith stated that he had come to speak to support residents for a deferral of the application to allow more time for a conciliatory position to be reached via further dialogue. He mentioned that in the planning report there was reference to three other school sites where similar user agreements to the one being sought by the school had been granted. He expressed the view that such a comparison was inappropriate as each planning application had to be considered on its own merits. Councillor Smith requested that the application be deferred to allow more time for conciliatory talks to continue. 

The Chairman pointed out that all options were open to Members in terms of voting, but if the application was deferred then a notice could be sought seeking that the Council make a decision within a specified time period which was normally 14 days. The Development Management Area Team Leader confirmed that this was the case and the 14 day period would be based on when the request letter was submitted to the Council. If this decision could not then be determined at a planning committee due to time constraints, then it would need to be made under delegated powers.

Ward Councillor Kira Gabbert moved for Deferral.

The Deferral was seconded by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.1

REFUSED

Amended plans and description: Demolition of the existing dwellings (No.76A and 76B The Avenue), erection of a five storey building to provide 18 flats (comprising 10 - one bed and 8 - two bed), provision of 18 parking spaces with cycle and bin storage and hard and soft landscaping.

An introduction to the application was provided by Jessica Lai—Senior Planner. This was classed as a major planning application and the recommendation was that permission be granted, subject to planning conditions and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement. She said that the site was not located in a conservation area and that there were no heritage issues that had been identified.

Members noted that there had been an update from the Energy Officer.

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

Oral objections to the application were received from Ward Councillor Michael Tickner and he requested that the application be refused.

The Chairman moved that the application be refused and this was seconded by Cllr Bance. 

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

The proposed development, by reason of its design, height, scale, massing, siting, relationship with its surrounding area and close proximity to the boundary with No. 76C The Avenue would represent over-development, out of keeping and character with its surrounding area. The proposal would also fail to fully demonstrate the development would not have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring amenities in terms of outlook, enclosure and overshadowing and contrary to Policies 4 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan and Policy D3 of the London Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of Application: Construction of three storey residential building comprising six flats (1 no one bedroom, 3 no. two bedroom and 2 no. three bedroom) with associated cycle and car parking, refuse storage and landscaping. (REVISED DRAWINGS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED 9/12/21 and 20/12/21. REVISED DESCRIPTION TO REFLECT AMENDED SIZE OF FLATS - NO. OF BEDROOMS)

This application was introduced by the Development Management Area Team Leader (Andy Lambert). The recommendation was for permission and the application had been called in by a Councillor. 

There had been a late objection from a nearby resident.

An oral representation in support of the application was received at the meeting.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ward Councillor Kevin Kennedy-Brooks. Councillor Kennedy-Brooks and Ward Councillor Kathy Bance moved that the application be Deferred.

The Development Management Area Team Leader commented that consideration had been applied to amenity and privacy issues and it had been concluded that these issues were acceptable and should not mitigate against the application being permitted. He also commented that the application had to be considered on its own merits. 

Councillor Sharma moved that permission be granted and this was seconded by the Chairman. 

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 Assistant Director of Planning.

REFUSED

Description of Application: Relocation of general waste materials store to Land Opposite Econ House (from Land at The Chalk Pit, Old Maidstone Road), together with retention of existing buildings and activities on Land Opposite Econ House.

The Development Manager Area Team Leader (Victoria Wood) provided a brief update on this application and it was noted that the application was considered to be an inappropriate use of the Green Belt.

Late representations in support of the application were circulated from the applicant’s agent.

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

The Chairman moved that the application be refused and this was seconded by Cllr Joel. 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations RESOLVED the permission be REFUSED as recommended for the reasons set out in the report of the assistant director of planning.

REFUSED

Description of Application: Demolition of  an existing two storey dwelling house and the construction of a 3 storey building, including accommodation in the roof space comprising of five apartment units with associated parking, community space and cycle storage for 14 bikes.

This application was recommended for permission.

An introduction to the application was provided by the Development Management Area Team Leader (Andy Lambert). He mentioned that the application was called in by a Ward Councillor. He said that the Highways Department was happy with the number of parking spaces included in the application. He mentioned that further local objections had been received since the compilation of the report. 

The Committee noted that a late objection and correspondence from the agent had been received suggesting an amendment if Members were so minded.

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

Written objections from Ward Councillor Michael Rutherford were received and circulated to Members. He had indicated that the application was out of scale with the surrounding area.

Oral representations from visiting Ward Councillor William Harmer in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

The Chairman noted that there had been a considerable number of objections to the application. She felt that this application was not suitable for the site due to its size, scale and generally being out of keeping with the current street scene. She moved to refuse the application and this was seconded by Cllr Gabbert. 

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

The proposal, by reason of the bulk, size and massing of the flatted development would be out of scale and character with the distinctive qualities of the surrounding residential area and would be detrimental tothe visual amenities of the area and the street scene, thereby contrary to Policies 4 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan and Policy D3 of the London Plan.

PERMISSION

Description of Application: Retention of replacement shopfront (Retrospective Application).

The Development Management Area Team Leader (Andy Lambert) introduced the application. The application sat in the Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area and had been called in by a Councillor. This was a retrospective application for a new shop front with bi-folding doors. It was noted that the Conservation Officer and the Advisory Panel did not raise any objections to the application.

The Chairman moved that the application be permitted and this was seconded by Cllr Joel.

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.

.

Resolved to contest the Appeal.

The Chairman moved to contest the appeal and this was seconded by Cllr Sharma.

Members resolved to contest the appeal on the following grounds:

GROUND 1 AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

The proposal by reason of increase in the number of pitches and associated development including hardstanding on the site results in an overdevelopment harmful to the amenities of neighbouring residents, including by reason of visual impact, contrary to Policies 12 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.

GROUND 2 DELETED.