Agenda and minutes

Development Control Committee - Tuesday 7 January 2014 7.30 pm

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Lisa Thornley  020 8461 7566

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Katy Boughey and Eric Bosshard.




No declarations of interest were received.




RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.



In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Tuesday 31 January 2013.



Although no questions were received by members of the public, Committee Member Councillor Papworth asked the following:-


'Why did the Chairman decline my request for an emergency item for tonight's agenda to discuss the illegal religious service that took place at 25 Church Road on New Year’s Eve?'


The Chairman responded as follows:-


'Officers from planning and licensing attended the event on 31 December 2013.


We will need their considered report and legal advice before receiving a recommendation on action going forward. This development does raise some important issues and whatever the outcome, we need to be properly advised. On past trends, the next event will be some weeks/months away so I would suggest that officers promptly prepare a report for a Plans Sub-Committee in the near future e.g. 6 February.'


Following this, Councillor Papworth asked the Chairman to indicate what action he thought would be appropriate to take in the event that activities were deemed to fall outside legal planning permission.  The Chairman said he did not wish to speculate until the report was forthcoming.


Councillor Jackson reported that an item in regard to a change of use at the premises had previously been considered at the Plans 2 Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 October 2013.  At that time, Members resolved that it was not expedient to take enforcement action however, the premises should continue to be monitored.  Councillor Jackson considered enforcement action should now be taken if unlawful use was established.




(12/03084/TPO) - 10 Crab Hill, Beckenham pdf icon PDF 16 KB

Additional documents:


Members considered the following planning application report:-


Item No.


Description of Application


(page 11)

Copers Cope

(12/03084/TPO) – Fell one oak tree (T.1) in front garden SUBJECT TO TPO 2459 at 10 Crab Hill, Beckenham, BR3 5HE.


Oral representations were received from Mr Clive Lees of the Ravensbourne Valley Preservation Society.  Speaking on behalf of the owner of 10 Crab Hill, Mr Lees submitted the following points in objection to the felling of the tree:-


This application had been deferred on two occasions.  In June 2012, Members deferred in order to explore the possibility of a root barrier.  The Quaife report confirmed that a root barrier would be effective, a letter from Crawfords confirmed they were happy to proceed with one and MWA (the applicant), visited the site and confirmed that a root barrier could be installed.  This would be an effective solution and the loss adjusters and MWA were happy to proceed with it. Therefore, Mr Lees could see no reason why the TPO should be lifted.


At the second Sub-Committee meeting in September 2012, Members noted that experts considered the measurement of the movement of the property to be technically incorrect and that the proper solution would be underpinning.  The Committee deferred making a decision in order that an independent report could be commissioned to review how the movement of the property had been measured.  It was, therefore, very disappointing to note that the Quaife report made no reference to the very issue that Members wished it to.


The fundamental evidence had not changed.  There had been three separate investigations of the roots found in the boreholes (‘BH’).  In the first, dated January 2012 by Richardson’s, all the roots recovered from both boreholes were either unidentifiable or dead.  In the second, again by Richardson’s, dated July 2012, no confirmed oak roots were found in BH1 and all the roots that were found were dead anyway.  DNA analysis confirmed that the roots in BH1 were not related to T1.  BH1 was located next to the bay window.  If all the roots were dead in this vicinity and not shown to be related to T1, then what was causing the subsidence within the vicinity?  Additionally, what was causing the subsidence at the rear of the property, much further away from the tree?


During the same investigation, (July 2012), two oak roots were found in BH2 (next to the garage) but could only be described as ‘alive recently’.  Only one root from BH2 was confirmed by DNA as belonging to T1.  All of the above amounted to very slim evidence.  Quaife made no acknowledgement of the impact of very dry weather (confirmed by the Met Office) or that every older property in the immediate area had required underpinning.  Notwithstanding the evidence (or lack of it), as mentioned earlier, the loss adjuster and MWA had indicated that they were willing to proceed with a root barrier.


Mr Lees requested that the application to fell the tree be refused.


Oral representations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38a




Report DRR 14/005


Members considered whether the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation be requested to confirm the making of a ‘non-immediate’ (12 month) Article 4 Direction to restrict specific permitted development rights for commercial frontages and forecourts in Station Square, Petts Wood in order to preserve the character of the Station Square conservation area by allowing the Council to consider each proposal on its merits.


A map outlining the area concerned was circulated to Members.


Councillor Fawthrop thanked the Chairman for allowing the report to be considered by Members and also thanked the Deputy Development Control Manager for providing the report.  He informed Members that the recommendations set out in the report were supported by all three Ward Councillors.  Councillor Fawthrop drew attention to the implementation of a 12 month delay before the Direction came into effect.  He moved in favour of the recommendations as he wished to protect the visual amenity and historical value of the area under consideration.


Councillor Auld reported that during recent years, a number of businesses in the area had proceeded to erect boundary walls which had caused problems that were difficult to resolve.  He seconded the motion in favour of the recommendations.


RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation be recommended to confirm a non-immediate (12 month) Article 4 Direction withdrawing permitted development rights in Station Square, Petts Wood, Conservation Area in respect of the following Parts of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended):


(i)  Part 2 Class A: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure; and


(ii)  Part 4, Class B: Temporary uses and moveable structures associated with such uses.





Additional documents:


Report DRR 14/003


Members considered whether the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation be requested to confirm the making of an Article 4 Direction to remove certain classes of permitted development from an area of land between Cudham Lane North and Snag Lane as there was concern that sub-division of this land into small plots could undermine the open character and visual amenities of the area due to indiscriminate development including fencing, structures, temporary uses of land and stationing of caravans.


Councillor Scoates welcomed the implementation of the Direction as a significant amount of land banks were currently buying up agricultural ground then partitioning the land to sell as individual plots.  He moved in favour of the recommendations. 


Referring to a similar problem in regard to the partitioning of cemetery ground located adjacent to her Ward, Councillor Mrs Manning seconded the motion on the grounds that open land should remain so.


It was reported that a letter in support of the recommendations had been received from the Green Street Green Village Society.


RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation be recommended to confirm that an Article 4 Direction be made on land between Cudham Lane North and Snag Lane to remove permitted development rights for the following classes of development:


(i)  erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure (Class A or Part 2);


(ii)  formation, laying out and construction of means of access (Class B of Part 2);


(iii)  provision of temporary buildings, etc (Class A of Part 4);


(iv)  temporary uses of land for any purpose for not more than 28 days per year (Class B of Part 4); and


(v)  use of land as a caravan site (Class A of Part 5).





This report will also be considered by the Executive for decision at their meeting on 15 January 2014.  Accordingly, the report is provided to Members under separate cover.  Members are requested to bring their copy of the report with them if attending either the current Development Control meeting or the Executive meeting.

Additional documents:


Report DRR14/002


Members were requested to endorse Appendix 1 of the report as the consultative ‘Draft Policies and Designations’ stage in the preparation of Bromley’s Local Plan.  Following approval from the Executive, this document would form the basis of consultation with residents, partner organisations and the wider community, scheduled for early 2014.


Member comments, questions and suggestions together with officer responses (where applicable) are set out below.


Member Comments, Questions and Suggestions

Officer Responses

It should be noted within the document that Site L: Former DHSS Building at Bromley South had been sold to the Education Funding Agency for the purpose of establishing a Free School.  This site had been previously earmarked within the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan as a site for mixed office and residential use.


Page 115 – Conservation Areas.  Unlike the draft policy on Locally Listed Buildings, no reference is made to the Council having a policy of considering applications for Conservation Areas in the future.

Reference to potential new Conservation Areas could be made although this would be dealt with under a separate process.  Areas of Special Residential Character are considered through the Local Plan process.  The proposed continuation of Policy BE14 – Trees located within Conservation Areas, was omitted in error from the document.


Page 43 - Housing Supply:  There is potential here for non-conformity with the GLA.  470 additional homes per annum over a 15 year period is the correct one for Bromley.  The Council should continue to fight for this.


Page 83 - Parking:  Whilst there is potential for non-conformity with the GLA, the minimum standard for Bromley is justified.  Flexibility should be maintained for parking in Outer London. 


Page 56 - Conversion of non-residential buildings to residential:  That additional reference be made to not adding undue parking and highway pressures on the area.

Noted and additional clause to be included.

Page 100 - The Green Belt: This should highlight that the surrounding edge of Green Belt land is the most vulnerable because once that is developed, the remainder of the land then becomes vulnerable.

The Draft Policy on page 103 of the report refers to land adjoining Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.  The Draft Policy on page 100 protects all Green Belt land however, supporting text could be supplemented.

Page 54 - Side Space Policy: The 1m side space which applied to buildings consisting of two or more storeys should also apply to one storey buildings.

The Side Space Policy was introduced to stop a terracing effect from appearing however, there are other policies which refer to layout and character of the area more generally which provides protection.

Applying side space policy to one storey would need to be considered in more detail and separately to this consultation.

Page 96 - Development and Trees:  The final sentence should be amended to read:- 'When trees have to be felled, the Council will seek suitable replanting of native species.'

Will be amended to read as suggested.

Page 97  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.