Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Application submitted under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the variation of Condition 3 to DC/16/00572/FULL6 granted for part one/two storey side/rear extension with dormer windows, inset balcony, alterations to detached outbuilding to rear, additional vehicular access, elevational alterations and associated landscaping, to facilitate the addition of a basement, a chimney flue to

the front elevation, 1 x rooflight to the side and internal alterations.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Tony Owen in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  A further submission from the objector had been received and circulated to Members.

Councillor Owen referred to an article in the Evening Standard on 19 July 2017 that highlighted the value of Knoll Reece houses in Petts Wood being ‘top notch’ and said that The London Borough of Bromley did not have a basement policy.  He doubted whether the application was personal and, in his view, it was a developer application and referred to application (16/03728/FULL1) validated on 8 August 2016 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a replacement 5 bedroom detached dwelling that had been withdrawn by the applicant.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop read his representation attached as an Annex to these minutes in which he proposed five grounds of refusal if the application were not permitted.

The Chairman said that the basement aspect of the application was the concern and that a structural survey had been received in support of the application.

Councillor Joel said that if Members were to permit then the applicant needed to consider the importance of professional representation during construction, indemnity insurance, the inclusion of a construction design and management statement, building regulation consents and the Party Wall Act.  He supported the application and referred to other properties in north London that had added basements to properties and to improved underpinning and drilling techniques.

Councillor Keith Onslow objected to the application due to increased density.

Councillor Michael said that each application should be judged on its merits but properties with basements in north London should not be compared with Noel Rees houses and that as application DC/16/00572/FULL6 had already been granted planning permission she objected to the application.

Councillor William Huntington-Thresher referred to the proposed reasons for refusal that Councillor Fawthrop had presented and was concerned that a reason with regard to density was inappropriate. In reply to a question from Councillor Huntington-Thresher the Chief Planner’s representative confirmed that the proposed basement would be approximately three metres from the boundary of the neighbour’s property.

Councillor Kevin Brooks said that many of the reasons for refusal suggested by Councillor Fawthrop had been covered in the permission already granted (DC/16/00572/FULL6) and that if the application were to be refused it should be refused on basement grounds only.

The Chairman agreed with Councillor Huntington-Thresher that the third reason for refusal proposed by Councillor Fawthrop was inappropriate and that if Members refused the application it should not be included and Councillor Joel seconded the motion.  Members voted 3:4 to include the proposed third ground of refusal.

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

1. The application is contrary to Policy H10 Appendix 1 paragraph 1.2(i) in that the development erodes the individual quality and character of the Area of Special Residential Character in that it introduces basement developments into the both the Conservation Area and the Area of Special Residential Character when none currently exist, severely eroding the nature and Character of the area.

2.  The application is contrary to Policy BE11 in that it does not respect or compliment the layout scale, form and materials of existing buildings and spaces, nor does it respect and incorporate the design, existing landscape or other features that contribute to the Character, appearance or historic value of the Chislehurst Road Conservation Area in that there are no basements existing within the conservation area.

3.  The density exceeds that in the surrounding area which would be in breach of Policy H7 table 4.2 and H10 Appendix 1 paragraph 1.2 (ii) residential density shall accord with that existing in the area.

4.  The proposal, by reason of the introduction of a basement, represents a cramped overdevelopment of the site out of character and harmful to the spatial standards of the Chislehurst Road Conservation Area contrary to Policies BE1, BE11, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5.  The part demolition of the dwelling would detract from the character of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policies BE1 and BE12 of the Unitary Development Plan.