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 5 pm on Wednesday 2 September 2015.
Minutes:
The following three written questions were received from Councillor Peter Fookes, Ward Member for Penge and Cator:-
Question1
Further to my question at the last Full Council meeting, what progress has been made in taking action against the owners of 23 Genoa Road, Penge who have built a massive extension without planning consent?
Chairman’s Response
After a planning investigation into the above property in connection with the unauthorised rear extension, the applicant submitted an application on 13 July 2015 which was invalid and returned on 28 August 2015.
The enforcement officer’s delegated report dated 6 July 2015 was prepared prior to receiving the above retrospective application on 13 July 2015 and is currently with our legal services team. This matter was held in abeyance as an application was submitted to the Council. I understand that the enforcement notice against the unauthorised development is due to be issued this week as a result of the returned invalid application.
Question 2
What action is being taken against the owner of 15 Genoa Road, Penge, who consistently dumps building waste at the front of his property before clearing it up? Can we not issue an untidy site notice?
Chairman’s Response
Section 215 Notices are served when the land in
question is considered to be adversely affecting the amenity of the
area under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended).
The owner of the property has removed the items of rubbish from the front of the property and as a result of doing so removes the need to issue a Notice.
The
planning investigation team has, as a result of these actions,
written to the owners to warn them of the Council’s concerns
and informing them that further action could be considered if it
continues.
Question 3
How many enforcement notices remain outstanding across the
borough?
Chairman’s Response
At this moment in time, there are 39 cases awaiting full compliance with Enforcement Notices served.
Three oral questions were received from members of the Avalon Area Action Group, Orpington.
Mr Bill Miller made the following statement before the questions were raised:-
"The three of us here represent the Avalon Area Action Group which is concerned with Bromley's proposed intensive use of Manorfields as a hostel for the homeless.
The three questions are posed to this Committee to address our concerns about the meeting on 9 June and specifically that:-
· the information contained in the planning officer's 10 page report reviewed was too shallow on which to make an informed decision;
· insufficient consideration was given to the legal challenges of the application; and
· if you follow the official paperwork through, there are discrepancies on precisely what permissions and conditions have been, or should have been granted over the development."
Question1
Can the Members of the DCC please re-read the email sent to them on 12 July and advise whether there is anything in the requested amendments to the minutes which is incorrect, irrespective of whether the DCC would regard these amendments as material or not? If there are inaccuracies, would the Committee please explain what they are.
Chairman’s Response
The AAAG e-mail of 12 July 2015 was sent direct to DCC members and was therefore available to Members on 13th July 2015. The Members of the Committee approved the Minutes that were prepared by the Council. They are not in a position to give separate comment on the e-mail submitted by the AAAG.
Supplementary Question
The question has not been fully answered. If there were any inaccuracies in the document we sent, please explain what they are.
Chairman's Response
The Chairman reaffirmed the Committee were not in a position to comment on the e-mail submitted by the AAAG and there were no inaccuracies in the Committee Minutes which were confirmed by all Members at the previous meeting.
Question 2
The Minutes confirmed that no challenges were made to the barrister's statements. Can the Committee please confirm that they considered the barrister's statements and a) had either satisfied themselves prior to the meeting that the barrister's comments were irrelevant or b) that they decided at the meeting that the allegations did not justify further investigation before a decision was made? And if so which was it?
Chairman’s Response
The oral representation was made direct to the
Committee at the meeting on
9 June 2015 and Members had the opportunity to take that representation and all other planning policy and material planning considerations into account.
Questioner's Statement
This response is completely incongruous; the Committee ignored non-compliance with policy.
Question 3
The planning notification issued by the Planning Officer on 11
June to Alliance Planning refers to permission being granted
'for the development referred to in your application received on
5th March 2015 as amended by documents received on 26 May
2015'. The last document issued by the
Planning Officer and included in the Agenda for 9 June 2015 at page
86 stated : The maximum occupation of the one, two and three
room units within the House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (not the
self-contained units) will be 50 persons (any age).
Therefore is the correct interpretation that permission is only
granted in respect of a maximum occupation of 50 (as the permission
makes no reference to any subsequent documents after 26 May)? and
if so does the application need to be represented at the
Development Control Committee if the Applicant wishes to house a
higher number of occupants?
Chairman’s Response
The planning permission defines the consent that has been granted. This does not set a limit on the number of occupiers. The agenda at page 6 sets out a comment on the application from the Environmental Health/Housing Officer about separate HMO restrictions (these are not town planning matters). An updated Environmental Health/Housing officer comment about HMO restrictions was made and this was reported to the Committee. The actual planning application did not contain a maximum figure.
Supplementary Question
So no maximum limit was set for the application?
Chairman's Response
That is correct.