Agenda item

REFUSED

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).