The Bromley Council Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 convened to discuss several planning applications, ultimately approving proposals for a pavilion and public conveniences at Queens Mead Recreation Ground, alterations to Mottingham Library and a rear extension at 48 Park Avenue, Orpington. However, the committee refused an application for an internally illuminated advertisement at a bus shelter outside 137 to 139, High Street, Beckenham.

Bus Shelter Advertisement - 137-139 High Street, Beckenham

The Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 refused an application for an internally illuminated sequential advertisement at a bus shelter outside 137 to 139 High Street, Beckenham. Councillor Michael Tickner called in the application due to concerns that advertisement hoardings, especially when illuminated and/or rotating, in this position on the public footway distract drivers and obstruct the sightlines of pedestrians, including those waiting for a bus, and that the application is contrary to Conservation Area regulations which require preservation or enhancement of the historic High Street.

The proposed advertisement unit was to measure 2.1m in height, 1.34m in width, and 0.25m in depth, with illumination maintained and regulated in line with the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) March 2023 guidance.

Although Transport for London (TfL) raised no objections, subject to conditions, the committee ultimately decided to refuse the application.

Queens Mead Recreation Ground - Pavilion and Public Conveniences

The Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 approved a planning application for the part change of use of a pavilion (storerooms) for a takeaway café and enlarged window for serving hatch, with elevational alterations including security shutters and repainting external walls at Queens Mead Recreation Ground.

The applicant, Brian Bourne, stated that the mobile business has been operating in the park for over five years, and the proposal would provide a more consistent space for the business.

The committee noted that 42 letters of support had been received for the application, and no objections.

The Environment Agency raised no objection to the submitted planning application.

Sport England raised no objection to the application because it is considered to meet exception 2 of Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and to accord with Paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024.

The Metropolitan Police Secure by Design representative asked that the applicant ensures that no cash is kept on the premises during hours of closure, with signage to this effect displayed.

The Heritage Conservation Officer said that technically the security shutter may be against conservation policy however if vandalism is an issue in the park, then that might be justification, and on balance raised no objections.

Mottingham Library - Window and Door Replacement

The Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 approved a planning application for the replacement of external windows and doors of mixed types (timber / uPVC / aluminium) with uPVC double glazed units, and replacement of timber shiplap cladding and soffits with uPVC at Mottingham Library.

The Royal Borough of Greenwich raised no objection.

The Conservation Officer said that there are some heritage concerns about the use of plastic windows here however the justification in terms of limited visual impact and as a public building is perhaps fairly strong to overcome any harm, and that these particular windows in the library are quite a specific modern design and the use of UPVC would not clash visually with other more traditional timber windows.

48 Park Avenue, Orpington - First Floor Rear Extension

The Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 approved a planning application for a first floor rear extension, and elevational alterations at 48 Park Avenue, Orpington.

Councillor Pauline Tunnicliffe called in the application due to a neighbour objection.

One objection was received, stating that the proposed development would significantly reduce the natural daylight through the east facing window in neighbouring property, infringe on right to light and claim under Prescription Act, and will block view of sky completely contravene the Vertical Sky Component (VSC).

The applicant, Julian Foster, supplied shadow studies in support of the scheme, which concluded that there would be no detrimental impact on the neighbouring windows because of the extension.