Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Rosalind Upperton  020 8313 4745

Items
Note No. Item

24.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Decision:

Apologies:  Cllrs Douglas Auld and Charles Joel

 

Substitutes:  Cllrs Simon Fawthrop and Tony Owen

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Douglas Auld and Charles Joel and Councillors Simon Fawthrop and Tony Owen attended as their substitutes respectively.

25.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Decision:

NONE

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest reported.

26.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 22 FEBRUARY 2018 pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Decision:

CONFIRMED

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2018 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

 

27.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Section 1

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

Cray Valley West

27.1

(18/01095/RECON) - Poverest Primary School, Tillingbourne Green, Orpington, BR5 2JD pdf icon PDF 102 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

Minutes:

Description of application – Proposed variation of condition 14 of application ref: 15/05633/REG3 to allow the partial use of the building as previously permitted prior to the completion of all of the car parking spaces.

 

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.

 

Section 2

(Applications meriting special consideration)

Copers Cope Conservation Area

27.2

(17/02754/FULL1) - 210 High Street, Beckenham, BR3 1EN pdf icon PDF 96 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Installation of a new shopfront (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).

 

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

 

Copers Cope Conservation Area

27.3

(17/5646) - 8 Chancery Lane Beckenham BR3 6NR pdf icon PDF 104 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Change of use of part of ground floor premises from office (B1)/shop(A1) to form 2 bedroom dwellinghouse (Class C3) in association with existing flat at ground and first floor level.

 

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

The Chairman and Councillor Alexa Michael supported the application as the premises had been empty for two years without offer and the proposed development would not change the appearance of the conservation area.

 

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 two further conditions to read:-

“3.  No external changes shall be carried to the shopfront unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: : In order to comply with Policy S5, S10 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan to provide visual interest to the front of the premises and avoid an undesirable visual break in the shopping frontage.

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 interest of the amenities of nearby residential properties and to prevent an overdevelopment of the site and to accord with Policies BE1, BE11 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

 

Section 3

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

Chislehurst Conservation Area

27.4

(18/00018/ADV) - Queen Mary House, Manor Park Road, Chislehurst, BR7 5PY pdf icon PDF 85 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application - Proposed hoarding, freestanding sign boards and flags.

 

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

 

The Chairman referred to the history of the site and although she appreciated the applicant’s need to advertise she said the local residents objected to the proposed visual intrusion.

 

Councillors Simon Fawthrop and Michael agreed with the Chairman.  Their view was that the proposed hoarding, sign boards and flags were excessive and should not be permitted in a conservation area.  Councillor Onslow agreed and suggested the applicant advertise through various other means available.

 

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

1.  The proposed signs due to their size and location would be in conflict with Policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan and Draft Local Plan Policy 102, being out of character with the surrounding area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene in this Conservation Area.

 

Shortlands

27.5

(18/00458/FULL6) - 7 Bushey Way, Beckenham, BR3 6TA pdf icon PDF 85 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Loft extension to include rear dormer and rooflights.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  A letter of support from the neighbour had been received and circulated to Members. 

 

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 an amendment to Condition 4 to read:-

“4.  Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the proposed

window(s) in the second floor east 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 in accordance as such.

REASON: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residential properties

and to accord with Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

 

Plaistow and Sundridge

27.6

(18/00501/FULL1) - Garages Adjacent 19 Howard Road, Bromley, BR1 3QJ pdf icon PDF 113 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing garage block and erection of 2 x 1bed apartments with associated parking.

 

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.

 

Petts Wood and Knoll

27.7

(18/00805/OUT) - 80 Crescent Drive, Petts Wood, Orpington, BR5 1BD pdf icon PDF 125 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application - Erection of detached bungalow OUTLINE APPLICATION.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. An email had been received from the agent in support of the application and circulated to Members.  It was reported that on page 94 of the Chief Planner’s report the last paragraph under the heading, ‘Conclusion’ should be amended to read, “Having regard to the above it is considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not impact harmfully on the character of the area.  It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.”

 

Councillor Fawthrop referred to previous planning inspectors’ reports and comments.  In his view the proposed development would have an impact on the street scene, be out of character and out of keeping in the area and he objected to the application.  He emphasised the potential impact on traffic and road safety in the area and referred to his and also to Councillor Owen’s local knowledge.

 

The Chief Planner’s representative advised Members the application was outline and they should only take into consideration the principle of development. He reminded Members that Highways had raised no objection and that the Council may be open to costs if the applicant appealed a decision on highway grounds.

 

Councillor Owen also had traffic concerns as Crescent Drive was a bus route and it was also used for parking for Petts Wood station.  Councillor Michael also objected to the application and highlighted the affect it would have on the amenity of neighbours and in her opinion the proposed development was inappropriate at this location.

 

Councillor William Huntington-Thresher was concerned at the loss of a valuable crossover that could be used for parking and also the lack of detail regarding scale and massing.

 

Councillor Kevin Brooks supported the application.

 

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

1.  The proposal would, by reason of its character, nature and principle of residential unit in this location, represent the introduction of a conspicuous and unacceptable form of development that would be out of keeping and harmful to the character, spatial standards and form along with existing views to the rear of the site and detrimental impact to highway safety, thereby contrary to Policies BE1, H7 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policies 37, 4 and 32 of the Draft Local Plan The London Plan, and the Paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

 

Chislehurst

27.8

(18/00917/FULL6) - 85 Holmdale Road, Chislehurst, BR7 6BY pdf icon PDF 77 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

PERMISSION

 

Minutes:

Description of application – First floor side and single storey front extensions and part conversion of garage to habitable room.

 

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.

 

Section 4

(Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

Orpington

27.9

(18/00006/OUT)- 14 Knoll Rise, Orpington, BR6 0DD pdf icon PDF 193 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Proposed outline development in respect of access, appearance, layout and scale for the demolition of 14-20 Knoll Rise and the erection of a part three, part four and part five-storey building to contain 58 flats with associate parking, access and amenity areas.

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 23 April 2018 and that further objections to the application had been received together with comments from Environmental Health. 

 

Ward Member, Councillor Huntington-Thresher objected to the application on a number of aspects, scale, mass, being over-prominent and the general disturbance of privacy and outlook. He reminded Members that Vincent Close was a partial service road to Orpington High Street shops that generated noise and that daytime parking had not be taken into consideration.  Also evidence of bats and reptiles had been found on the site that should be preserved.

 

The Chief Planner’s representative referred Members to the comments from Highways in the Chief Planner’s report.

 

Councillor Fawthrop’s view was that suburban family housing was in short supply and the proposed development would be a back garden development. He respected Councillor Huntington-Thresher’s local knowledge of the area and reminded Members that the local residents had previously voted for it to become an area of special residential character which had not met the requirements of the Council but nevertheless the area had character.

 

Councillor Owen had called in the application as the proposed development would be out of keeping in a residential area.  He had highway and road safety concerns due to Post Office traffic movements in and out of Vincent Close. He also referred to the presence of underground streams in the vicinity of the Tesco site.

 

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

1.  The development, as proposed, would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, out of character with, overly prominent and harmful to the visual amenities of the area and suburban character of the wider locale which this site is considered to contribute positively to as a result of its size, scale and massing contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, policies 4 and 37 of the Draft Local Plan and policies 3.4 and Table 3.2, 7.4 and 7.15 of the London Plan and the Mayor's Housing SPG.

2.  The proposed development fails to provide a satisfactory standard of

living accommodation for future occupiers by virtue of the substandard

layout of internal communal space, extent of north facing single aspect

units, poor outlook from habitable rooms, transient pedestrian and

vehicular movements within close proximity to amenity and habitable

areas and loss of privacy as a result of the access, height and location of

the raised deck area contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary

Development Plan, policies 4 and 37 of the Draft Local Plan and policies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.9

Clock House

27.10

(18/00200/FULL1) - 11 Wheathill Road, Penge, SE20 7XQ pdf icon PDF 86 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

REFUSED

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Conversion of existing single dwelling into four flats (1 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 beds), single storey rear extension, rear dormer and three velux windows in the front roofslope, provision of onsite car parking , cycle parking and associated paving and landscaping.

 

An email had been received from the agent in support of the application and circulated to Members.  It was reported that revised documents had been received on 17 April 2018. 

 

The Chairman referred to the long history of the site and the three previous applications that had been refused and the current application at appeal.  The reason for refusal had been the principle of the loss of a family home into four flats.

 

Councillor Brooks’ ward was adjacent to Clock House Ward and he had communicated with the Ward Members and they all objected to the application due to their local knowledge that family homes were required and should be retained.

 

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

 

28.

CONTRAVENTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES

29.

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

Bickley

29.1

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 2640 at 34 Mavelstone Road, Bromley BR1 2PB pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Decision:

CONFIRMED

Minutes:

Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 2640 at 34 Mavelstone Road, Bromley, BR1 2PB

 

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 2640 relating to one oak treebe confirmed WITHOUT MODIFICATION, as recommended, in the report of the Chief Planner.

 

30.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (VARIATION) ORDER 2006 AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

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.

 

Original Text: