Agenda item

Description of application - Single storey side extension.

CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

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 including one from Petts Wood Residents’ Association.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop referred to the history of Petts Wood being an Area of Special Residential Character where a greater degree of separation between residential properties was required and in his view Policy H10 of the Unitary Development Plan (Provision of sight line) should be considered. Councillor Fawthrop said that Councillor Douglas Auld and Tony Owen, his fellow Ward Members, were all in agreement that if a Certificate of Lawfulness for a Proposed Development were authorised the development would have a detrimental impact on the rhythm of the street scene.

The Chief Planner’s representative advised Members that the Permitted Development rights granted by the Government enabled householders to undertake extensions without planning permission, provided the conditions and limitations set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 1995) were met. The Chief Planner’s representative further advised Members that the element for consideration related to an extension beyond the rear wall and should not take into account the amenity of neighbours and Members should make a decision made on legal merits only.

The Director of Corporate Services representative emphasised to Members they should consider the legality of the matter and not the planning merits and that if there was no evidence to the contrary, the Council was obliged to grant a Certificate of Lawfulness where the applicant has complied with all the criteria for the General Permitted Development Order.

Councillor Fawthrop referred Members and Officers to the case law of Chisnell v London Borough of Richmond 2005 and suggested they should familiarise themselves with it.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration, to seek clarification from the London Borough of Bromley’s Legal Department with regard to case law, including (Chisnell) v LB Richmond (Newman J) (2005) EWHC 134, and to clarify the scope of the Local Planning Authorities considerations to determine a certificate of lawfulness, to include The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013.