Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Lisa Thornley  020 8461 7566

Items
Note No. Item

21.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Decision:

APOLOGY: COUNCILLOR SAMARIS HUNTINGTON-THRESHER

SUBSTITUTE: COUNCILLOR TONY OWEN

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher; Councillor Tony Owen attended as substitute.

22.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Decision:

ITEMS 4.2 AND 4.3 – COUNCILLORS DYKES AND TURNER WHO LEFT THE CHAMBER AND DID NOT TAKE PART IN THE DISCUSSION OR VOTE

Minutes:

As members of the Bromley Conservative Association, Councillors Nicky Dykes and Michael Turner declared a non-pecuniary interest in Items 4.2 and 4.3 and withdrew from the Council Chamber during the discussion and vote of these applications.

23.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 5 JANUARY 2017 pdf icon PDF 120 KB

Decision:

CONFIRMED

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2017 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

 

24.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Section 1

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

Section 2

(Applications meriting special consideration)

Bromley Town Conservation Area

24.1

(16/03132/FULL1) - 124-126 High Street, Bromley, BR1 1DW pdf icon PDF 274 KB

(Report to follow)

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Retention of basement, ground and first floor retail use (Class A1) and change of use of second floor retail use (Class A1) and third floor office use (Class B1) to residential (Class C3), including extension to third floor and construction of fourth floor extension to provide a total of 42 residential units, together with alterations to the sub-basement car park to provide 37 car parking spaces and associated external alterations including provision of additional plant.

 

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

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 with the addition of a further reason to read:-

2  The proposal would result in the loss of the third floor office use and insufficient marketing has taken place to demonstrate that there is no local shortage of office floorspace or evidence of long term vacancy, therefore resulting in an unacceptable loss of commercial use in this location, thereby the proposal is contrary to Policies EMP3 and H12 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policies 2.15 and 4.2 of the London Plan (2015).

 

Chislehurst

24.2

(16/04385/FULL1) - 5 White Horse Hill, Chislehurst, BR7 6DG pdf icon PDF 68 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Three storey rear extension to provide additional ground floor office accommodation and provision of 2 one bedroom flats on first and second floors.

 

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 and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the addition of a further condition to read:-

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 change of use, buildings, structures, alterations, walls or fences of any kind shall be erected or made within the host property, curtilage or extension herby permitted without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  In order to comply with Policies BE1, EMP3 and EMP5 of the Unitary Development Plan and to prevent an overdevelopment of the site and loss of office use.

 

Chislehurst

24.3

(16/04390/FULL1) - 5 White Horse Hill, Chislehurst, BR7 6DG pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Three storey rear extension, change of use of ground floor from office (Class B1) to residential (Class C3) and creation of 2 one bedroom and 1 two bedroom flats on ground, first and second floors.

 

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

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.

 

Plaistow and Sundridge

24.4

(16/04477/LBC) - Sundridge Park Manor, Willoughby Lane, Bromley, BR1 3FZ pdf icon PDF 59 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Change of use of existing Grade 1 listed mansion to 20 residential dwellings, with associated internal/external alterations and partial demolition works, rear extensions, rear car park, cycle parking and refuse/recycling provision, hard and soft landscaping (including removal of some trees), woodland management and associated infrastructure.  LISTED BUILDING CONSENT.

 

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Peter Morgan in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

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

1  In the absence of planning permission for the development of the application site, as proposed under ref 16/04478/FULL1, no justification is seen for the granting of Listed Building Consent for the proposed development and this would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy BE9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

Plaistow and Sundridge

24.5

(16/04478/FULL1) - Sundridge Park Manor, Willoughby Lane, Bromley, BR1 3FZ pdf icon PDF 470 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Change of use of existing Grade 1 listed mansion to 20 residential dwellings, with associated internal/external alterations and partial demolition works, rear extensions, rear car park, cycle parking and refuse/recycling provision, hard and soft landscaping (including removal of some trees), woodland management and associated infrastructure.

 

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Peter Morgan in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Morgan submitted his personal viability assessment of Sundridge Manor which was circulated to Members. 

Whilst the Planning Development Control Manager had no reason to think that Councillor Morgan’s assessment was incorrect, as this was the first time he had seen it, he had no way of confirming the figures.  He informed Members that the Authority used independent viability experts to assess such submissions and the conclusions of the assessment of the applicant’s viability submission were set out in the report.  He also referred to the three previous reasons for refusal and advised Members that should they be minded to refuse this application, reasons one and two could potentially stand whilst reason three (the long-term provision of passing bays) had been resolved and was no longer valid.

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

1  The proposed development of the site is considered to be inappropriate overdevelopment in Metropolitan Open Land due to the construction of new buildings which would have a greater impact on the openness of Metropolitan Open Land and the purpose of including land within it, than the existing development. This inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Metropolitan Open Land. This harm, together with the loss of trees, is not clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development including the heritage benefits to Sundridge Mansion and its setting, the Woodland Management Plan and Housing provision. Very special circumstances do not therefore exist. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012), Policy 7.17 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy G2 of the UDP (2006).

2  The proposed development of the site will require road surfacing and markings, signage and traffic lights in the vicinity of Stable Villas and Sundridge Mansion for road safety purposes, that will be harmful to the setting of the Listed Buildings, contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and to Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2015) and BE8 of the UDP (2006).

 

Darwin

24.6

(16/04600/FULL6) - Gordon House, Berrys Green Road, Berrys Green, Westerham, TN16 3AH pdf icon PDF 186 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Increase and change of roof design to incorporate both side and rear extensions.

 

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

Amendment to report - Members were advised that the third paragraph on page 93 of the report should be deleted.

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

1  The proposal would constitute an inappropriate development in the Green Belt, resulting in significant harm to the visual amenities and openness of the Green Belt by reason of its overdevelopment of the site, bulky and incongruous roof design out of keeping with the character of the area and resulting in disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and the Council sees no very special circumstances which might justify the grant of planning permission, thereby the proposal is contrary to Policies BE1, G1 and G4 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 7.16 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Copers Cope Conservation Area

24.7

(16/05164/FULL1) - 61 The Avenue, Beckenham, BR3 5EE pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 two storey detached dwellings with accommodation in roof space; formation of additional vehicle access.

 

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

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 with the addition of a further condition to read:-

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 change of use permitted by Class L Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order and shall be implemented within either of the dwellings hereby approved without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason:  In order to enable the local planning authority to be able to control the mix of housing type and size in the interests of creating mixed and balanced communities and protecting the amenities of existing and future residents and to comply with Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

Kelsey and Eden Park

24.8

(16/05188/RECON) - Beckenham Town Football Club, Eden Park Avenue, Beckenham, BR3 3JL pdf icon PDF 117 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 16/00326/FULL1 which allowed the replacement and upgrading of lamps and holders of existing floodlights to allow the lights to be used on a Saturday between 3 pm and 6 pm and a Wednesday evening between 7 pm and 10 pm.

 

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

An update outlining further points to be included in the ‘summary of objections’ section of the report was circulated at the meeting.

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

 

Petts Wood and Knoll

24.9

(16/05466/FULL1) - 24 Keswick Road, Orpington, BR6 0EU pdf icon PDF 106 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and detached garage at rear and erection of 2 two storey 4 bedroom semi-detached dwellings with accommodation in roofspace, associated accesses and 4 car parking spaces.

 

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

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

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

1  The proposed semi-detached dwellings, by reason of their size, design and proximity to the side boundary, would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site and an unsatisfactory sub-division of the existing plot, harmful to the street scene and the character of the area in general and contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, adopted SPG1 and SPG2, Policies 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan, the London Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

West Wickham

24.10

(16/05752/FULL6) - 42 Station Road, West Wickham, BR4 0PR pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – formation of a rear hip-to-gable loft conversion and erection of side dormer to create access from downstairs.

 

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

Further correspondence from the applicant’s agents was reported and circulated to Members.

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.

 

Mottingham and Chislehurst North

24.11

(17/00112/TELCOM) - Land at East Side of Mottingham Road Junction with Highcombe Close, Mottingham, London, SE9 4QW pdf icon PDF 128 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PRIOR APPROVAL REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Installation of 10m high telecommunications replica telegraph pole, 1 equipment cabinet at ground level and associated works (56 DAY CONSULTATION BY TELEFONICA UK LTD AND VODAFONE LTD REGARDING THE NEED FOR APPROVAL OF SITING AND APPEARANCE).

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor David Cartwright in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

It was reported that Highways Division raised no objections in relation to safety.

Further correspondence received from the applicant indicated that Eltham College was not considered to be an appropriate alternative site.

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

1  The proposed equipment due to its height, siting and design would be an obtrusive and highly prominent feature in the street scene, out of character and detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the surrounding area contrary to Policies BE1 and BE22 of the Unitary Development Plan .

 

Section 3

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

Bromley Common and Keston

24.12

(16/04459/FULL6) - 5 Barnet Drive, Bromley, BR2 8PG pdf icon PDF 41 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Alterations to the rear elevation to include the removal of the existing pitched roof to the single storey rear extensions and the formation of a balcony at first floor level with associated obscure glass screening and stainless steel balustrading – PART RETROSPECTIVE.

 

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

 

Farnborough and Crofton

24.13

(16/04956/FULL1) - Lubbock House, 1 Northolme Rise, Orpington, BR6 9RF pdf icon PDF 218 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing building and construction of nine 2-storey 4-bedroomed dwellings with accommodation in the roof, within three terraces of three units each, with associated access, car parking and landscaping.

 

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

Comments from the Principal Tree Officer were reported and circulated to Members.  Whilst no objections had been raised, the addition of a further condition in relation to the submitted Tree Protection Plan was advised.

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 condition 4 amended to read:-

‘4  Details of a scheme of landscaping which should include the retention of the Leyland Cypress trees along the South-Eastern boundary with Woodhead Drive, the materials of paved areas and other hard surfaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the first occupation of the buildings or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally planted.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.’

A further condition was added as follows:-

16  The development shall be implemented in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan (TPP) submitted and approved as part of the planning application and under the supervision of a retained arboricultural specialist in order to ensure that the phasing of the development accords with the stages detailed in the method statement and that the correct materials and techniques are employed.

Reason:  To maintain the visual amenity of the area and in order to comply with Policy NE7 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan (adopted July 2006).

 

Clock House

24.14

(16/05289/FULL6) - 66 Tremaine Road, Penge London, SE20 7TZ pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

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

 

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.

 

Kelsey and Eden Park

24.15

(16/05798/FULL6) - 69 Broomfield Road, Beckenham, BR3 3QB pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Part one/two storey side extension to include side dormer, roof alterations to include front and rear rooflights, single storey rear extension and decking to rear.

 

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 and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

 

Copers Cope

24.16

(16/05849/FULL1) - 63 Copers Cope Road, Beckenham, BR3 1NJ pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Change of use from care home (Class C2) to a temporary residential support centre/hostel (sui Generis).

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Stephen Wells in support of the application were received at the meeting.

Comments from the Metropolitan Police had been received requesting the addition of a ‘Secured by Design’ condition.

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 a further condition to read:-

7  The development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet specific needs of the application site and the development. Details of those measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted (excluding demolition) and implemented in accordance with the approved details. The security measures to be implemented in compliance with this condition shall achieve the Secured by Design accreditation awarded by the Metropolitan Police.

REASON: In the interest of security and crime prevention and to accord with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Orpington

24.17

(17/00113/PLUD) - 34 Dyke Drive, Orpington, BR5 4LZ pdf icon PDF 68 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE GRANTED

Minutes:

Description of application – Single storey rear extension.  Lawful Development Certificate (Proposed).

 

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that a LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

 

Section 4

(Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

Orpington

24.18

(16/05062/FULL1) - 23 The Drive, Orpington, BR6 9AR pdf icon PDF 162 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Sub-division of existing plot and construction of 3-bed 2 storey detached dwelling to the rear of no. 23 The Drive, with 2 car parking spaces with access from The Avenue.

 

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

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

 

Plaistow and Sundridge

24.19

(16/05424/FULL6) - 73 Hillcrest Road, Bromley, BR1 4AS pdf icon PDF 67 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing garage to side and erection of two storey side and rear extension with accommodation within the roofspace.

 

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

The Chairman advised Members that although the application breached Planning Policy H9 (side space), it was considered that the proposal would not conflict with the reason for this policy and should not, therefore, be considered as a ground for refusal.

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

 

 

Original Text: