Agenda item

(22/01225/FULL6) - Graylings, Camden Way, Chislehurst, BR7 5HT

Decision:

REFUSED

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of new lower ground, ground & first floor rear extension along with new first floor front extension and erection of detached garage.

The Head of Development Management advised Members that the detached garage, referenced in the description, had been removed from the application.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. The agent had circulated images, and gave the following response to Members’ questions:

·  There was a contemporary house located immediately next door to the property, and all the houses in the cul-de-sac were individually designed. Various contemporary dwellings on Camden Park Road had been approved as replacement properties – therefore the contemporary remodelling of this property was not considered to be out of keeping in the area.

 

Oral representation from visiting Ward Member Councillor Mark Smith in support of the application were also received at the meeting. Councillor Smith said that there was a range of different property designs along Camden Park Road and Camden Way. Most of Chislehurst was within a Conservation Area so applications were often viewed giving consideration as to whether they made a positive contribution to the area. This was subjective; however this application was of a very high quality and, taken alongside other properties in Camden Way, would enhance the area. It was highlighted that no local residents, nor the Chislehurst Society, had objected to the application. The Conservation Area consideration did have to be “filtered” through supplementary planning guidance for this area, which stated the need for caution around mock-Tudor architecture. This property was described as mock-Tudor; however panels were attached instead of beams. Councillor Smith urged the Committee to approve the application in order to enhance the wider area.

 

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

Supporting documents: