Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Conversion of lower ground floor storage into two bedroom apartment.  New steps leading to flat entrance and existing steps extended to communal garden. New lightwell to front and rear of property.

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member Councillor Russell Mellor were received at the meeting. Councillor Mellor objected to the application for the following reasons:-

·  the site was unsuitable for human habitation;

·  ingress and egress was located to the rear of the property and there was insufficient room for cars to pass through; and

·  the proposals would result in a cramped and over-intensive development

On the grounds that there were no highways objections and there was little difference between this application and a previous application granted at appeal, Councillor Terry moved that permission be granted. The Chairman seconded the motion.

Councillor Onslow considered the current application proposed a larger development than the studio flat previously allowed at appeal. The deletion of windows would darken the unit and converting to a two bedroom dwelling would increase occupation. The development would result in low standard accommodation. For the reasons highlighted above, Councillor Onslow moved that the application be refused on the grounds of over-development and over-occupation. Councillor Michael seconded the motion.

The Development Management Area Team Leader (West) reported that the current proposal covered the same floor space as the previously proposed studio flat.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reason:-

1.  The proposal would result in an over intensive use and an overdevelopment of the site leading to harm to the amenities and character of the area and living conditions of the future occupants contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019.

Members resolved to refuse this application contrary to the Assistant Director of Planning’s recommendation on the grounds that the development was excessive in size and scale; overdeveloped the site, was out of keeping with the character of the area and would result in harmful living conditions for future occupants.