LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY TOWN PLANNING RENEWAL … · • Replacement double-glazed uPVC windows and aluminium doors • roof lantern • yellow, powder-coated, steel-framed, curved

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

TOWN PLANNING RENEWAL AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Committee (SC) on 9th July 2009 REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER SECTION ‘1’ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley

_____________________

1. Application No : 09/01169/DEEM3 Ward: Clock House

Address : 2 Hayne Road Beckenham Kent BR3 4HY

Conservation Area:NO

OS Grid Ref: E: 536846 N: 169822

Applicant : Bromley Council (Ms Sarah Hudson) Objections : NO Description of Development: Replacement doors and windows, installation of roof lantern, erection of 2 canopies and replacement boundary fences to Blakeney Road and Hayne Road. Proposal

• Replacement double-glazed uPVC windows and aluminium doors • roof lantern • yellow, powder-coated, steel-framed, curved canopy with PVC coating to

the main entrance of the building, approximately 3.6m high

2

• yellow, powder-coated, steel framed, curved canopy with PVC coating to the south-western elevation of the building, approximately 3m high and 25.5m long.

• 2.4m high timber/metal boundary fences along the north-eastern Blakeney Road boundary and north-western boundary with the adjacent site.

Location The site is a part one/two storey building located on the corner of Hayne Road and Blakeney Road with main access from Hayne Road. The building was previously a school and is currently under temporary occupation by a security company. The surrounding area is predominantly residential comprising flats and detached dwellings. Comments from Local Residents No comments received to date. Any comments received shall be reported verbally at the meeting. Comments from Consultees No comments received to date. Any comments received shall be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan applies to the development and should be given due consideration. This policy seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design, safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and protect the visual amenities of the area. Policy C5 relates to facilities for vulnerable groups. The Council will permit proposals meeting the requirements for vulnerable groups, except where it can be demonstrated that such development would have a significant adverse effect on residential amenity. Policy C7 relates to extensions to existing educational and pre-school facilities. They will be permitted provided that they are located so as to maximise access by means other than the car. Policy ER12 relates to development in flood risk areas and seeks to restrict development which would increase flood risk in those areas.

3

Policy NE7 seeks to protect tress of environmental importance and visual amenity from potential harm from development. Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan seeks to ensure that proposals would not have a detrimental impact on road safety. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character and appearance of the host building and area in general as well as the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. With regard to the canopies, the one on the south-west elevation shall measure approximately 25.5m long and approximately 3m high. In terms of the impact it would have on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential buildings, the canopy would be in close proximity to Ashton Court and there is a nearby ground floor flank window on this building which faces the application site, however, it is not directly opposite the site of the proposed canopy. There is substantial green boundary screening along the rest of the boundary which would further shield the development from the view of the occupiers in Ashton Court. As such it is considered that the canopy would not have a significant impact on residential amenity. The second canopy, sited at the front of the building, would be a lot smaller in comparison to the proposed side canopy and, given the siting of the building which is set back from the highway by around 10m, it is not considered that it would have a significant impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. In terms of the design of the canopies and their effect on the host building, it is considered that the host building does not have any significant architectural merit and the canopies would not have a detrimental impact on its character or appearance. The replacement windows should be considered on their merits on terms of impact on the host building and visual impact, when full details are received. The replacement fence along the Blakeney Road boundary would replace an existing timber fence with chainlink fencing above, which has a total height of approximately 2.8m. It is considered that the proposed fence would be a visual improvement to what is currently there and would significantly improve the Blakeney Road elevation. With regard to the replacement fence along the north west boundary of the site, there is substantial separation between the site of the fence and Broadwater

4

Cottage. As such it does not appear that the fence would impact the occupiers of this dwelling nor have a detrimental impact on their amenities. Having had regard to the above it was considered that the proposals are acceptable in that they would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the host building, or the area in general, nor would they have a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 09/01169, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 15.06.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials

ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACC03 Details of windows

ACC03R Reason C03 Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development C5 Facilities for vulnerable groups C7 Educational and pre-school facilities ER12 Controlling development in flood risk areas NE7 Development and Trees T18 Road Safety The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the relationship of development to adjacent property (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (e) the relationship of the development to trees to be retained (f) the safety of pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent highway

5

and having regard to all other matters raised and neighbours concerns.

6

Reference: 09/01169/DEEM3 Address: 2 Hayne Road Beckenham Kent BR3 4HY Proposal: Replacement doors and windows, installation of roof lantern, erection of 2

canopies and replacement boundary fences to Blakeney Road and Hayne Road.

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Bromley. Lic. No: 100017661

7

_____________________

2. Application No : 09/01429/FULL1 Ward: Orpington

Address : Burwood Avalon Road Orpington Kent BR6 9BD


OS Grid Ref: E: 547509 N: 165568

Applicant : Burwood School Objections : NO Description of Development: Single storey open sided extension with tented canopy roof to provide external skills learning area Proposal An external skills learning area for bricklaying is proposed at the rear of the school building. It will comprise a 12m x 6m concrete base with a 1.8m high polyester coated powder fence and a double tented canopy above. The school has adopted Council supported measures to enhance skills learning, in particular relating to the construction industry and skills such as bricklaying, carpentry and decorating. The skills learning area would allow some of the existing school accommodation to be adapted for teaching carpentry and decorating skills. The skills area will not provide additional teaching opportunities but will enhance the existing class allocations. Location The single storey school building and adjacent Avalon Centre lie within a large area of designated Urban Open Space which is also occupied by the Blenheim Road schools to the north. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by a mixture of two-storey residential houses. Comments from Local Residents Nearby residents were notified of the application and no representations were received.

8

Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered primarily with regard to the following policies: UDP BE1 Design of New Development G8 Urban Open Space London Plan 4B.1 Design Principles for a Compact City 4B.8 Respect local context and communities. Conclusions The location of the skills learning area is such that there will be no undue harm to the character and residential amenities of the area. It can be considered that the harm to the openness of the Urban Open Space is offset by the educational benefits of the proposal. The proposal is therefore be considered acceptable. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years Reasons for granting planning permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan: UDP BE1 Design of New Development G8 Urban Open Space. London Plan 4B.1 Design Principles for a Compact City 4B.8 Respect local context and communities. The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:

9

(a) the impact of the development on Urban Open Space (b) the character of the development in the surrounding area (c) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (d) the safety and security of buildings and the spaces around them (e) accessibility to buildings (f) the design policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raised.

10

Reference: 09/01429/FULL1 Address: Burwood Avalon Road Orpington Kent BR6 9BD Proposal: Single storey open sided extension with tented canopy roof to provide

external skills learning area


11

SECTION ‘2’ - Applications meriting special consideration

_____________________

3. Application No : 08/04226/FULL1 Ward : Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : Bromley Football Club Hayes Lane Bromley BR2 9EF


OS Grid Ref: E: 540673 N: 167603

Applicant : Bromley Football Club Objections: YES Description of Development: All weather sports pitch and 3 five-a-side and 1 seven-a-side pitches with boundary fencing, floodlighting illumination and 2m high earth bund to western boundary. AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED. This application has previously been reported to Members of the Plans Sub-Committee on two occasions. Initially heard at the meeting held on 14th May, the application was deferred pending receipt of Environmental health comments regarding the proposed floodlighting and the submission of additional information concerning parking provision and demand on the site. Most recently, the application was reported to Members at the meeting held on 11th June, however amended plans and additional information was submitted after the report had been written, and accordingly Members deferred the application again for this information to be fully considered and in order that an updated report could be prepared. The updated report is to be found below. Proposal It is proposed to construct a full-size all weather sports pitch to the south of the existing football ground measuring approx. 96m x 68.6m, along with 3 five-a-side pitches each measuring approx. 20m x 30m to the north of the full-size pitch and one seven-a-side pitch measuring approx. 30m x 40m to the west. The pitches would feature boundary fencing of approx. 6m in height, and floodlighting

12

illumination with columns to a maximum height of 10m. In addition, a 2m high earth bund is proposed to the west of the proposed pitches, along with intensive screen planting. Amended plans were received on 29th May and 5th June which indicated a reduction in the total number of pitches proposed by 1 5-a-side and 1 7-a-side pitches, and a revised layout/siting for the remaining pitches, allowing the line of oak trees to the western side of the application site to be retained. As a result of the revised siting however, it was proposed to remove 6 oak trees to the southern side of the application site, adjacent to the boundary with Norman Park. Further amendments have been made by plans received on 18th June which show a reduction in the size of the proposed full-size pitch, to be in accordance with the minimum standards as set by the Football Association (FA). As a result, it is anticipated that the majority of the trees to the south of the pitch (which were previously proposed to be removed) can be retained. The application is accompanied by a noise assessment report, an arboricultural survey, a transport note and technical information in respect of the floodlighting. In addition, details of attendance figures at recent matches have been provided. Information submitted in support of the application indicates that the all-weather pitch will be used as a year-round training facility for Bromley FC, and in addition to allow the further development of the Bromley FC in the community programme, being available for local organisations and teams when not required by the club. The existing changing and club-house facilities at the main club will be utilised. Location The application site is located on the eastern side of Hayes Lane, and is located to the south and east of the existing facilities at Bromley FC, which comprise a full size football pitch and associated stands/terraces and social facilities, and all-weather five-a-side pitches. The site falls within designated Green Belt land. At present, the site is used as a paddock and for the grazing of horses. Fisher’s Wood, a designated Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC) lies to the east of the application site. Comments from Local Residents Nearby residents were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• extension of existing site by over 150% over Green Belt land • light pollution • noise pollution

13

• increase in traffic • increased demand for parking on Hayes Lane and harm to conditions of

road safety • overspill parking to Norman Park • increase in litter • no public benefit to scheme • affect outlook of the area • visually intrusive • encroachment on wildlife habitat • development of green field land to detriment of wildlife and local

community • lack of pedestrian crossing for those using public transport • badger setts in close proximity to site • cumulative effect of light and noise pollution from existing pitches coupled

with proposed development • loss of land for grazing • loss of trees • concern that no ecology statement has been submitted, along with

concern for possible effect of lighting on bats • no ground level details, or level of proposed pitches • possibility of litter on pitches • exacerbate existing floodlighting columns • deer seen in vicinity of application site • no benefit to community • use of Green Belt land for commercial gain

One local resident had been approached by the applicant and stated that he and local residents preferred the amended scheme (plans received 29th May and 5th June) to the original scheme as the pitches would be further away, however continues to object. Letters of support are on file in the form of a petition in favour of youth football facilities and the application, together with letters from:

• Bromley School Sport Partnership • Kelsey Park Sports College • Hawes Down Junior School

Comments from Consultees The Environment Agency raises no objection to the proposal, and recommends that a condition is imposed concerning surface water drainage. From the Highways perspective it is considered that the parking demand for the individual elements of the proposal is likely to be accommodated on site. It is

14

advised however that issues may arise in the event that the application relating to the social club use (refused under ref. 08/03581) were to be allowed, and accordingly it is suggested that any grant of permission be conditioned in order that the proposed facilities are not used at the same time as the main stadium. From the Environmental Health perspective, no technical objections are raised in terms of noise pollution and with regard to the proposed floodlighting. With regard to Trees, it is advised that the reduced size of the full-size pitch would represent an improvement in respect of the Trees. It appears likely that one tree would need to be removed, close to the boundary with Fisher’s Wood, however the loss of this one tree would not significantly open up views into the site and the integrity of the line of oaks would be retained. Some pruning works would be required to those trees to remain. Standard conditions are recommended. With regard to wildlife/ecology issues, it has been advised that it would be preferable for all trees to be retained on the site, and indeed enhanced by further native tree planting. It is advised that there is a danger that urban features such as hardstanding and pitches at the existing football club, health club and Norman Park will coalesce, and by keeping the trees a system of wildlife corridors can be retained. The possible effect of the proposed lighting on bats has also been mentioned. Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan: BE1 Design of New Development. T3 Parking T18 Road Safety NE7 Development and Trees G1 The Green Belt L1 Outdoor Recreation and Leisure ER8 Noise Pollution ER10 Light Pollution National guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2 ‘Green Belts’ is of relevance in this case. Planning History There is extensive planning history at the site. Recent applications of relevance include:

15

04/02404 – Planning permission granted for part one/two storey rear extension to spectator stand to provide changing facilities. 05/01997 – Planning permission granted for provision of a 5-a-side all weather synthetic grass football pitch with perimeter fencing and floodlighting, provision of synthetic grass covering to existing hard surface 5-a-side football pitch with replacement fencing and floodlighting. 08/03581 – Planning permission refused for the part change of use from football club with ancillary social facilities to football club and social club. Conclusions The main issues for consideration in this case can be summarised as follows:

• the appropriateness of the proposed use within the Green Belt context and the impact of the development on its open and rural character

• the impact of the proposed development to the amenities of neighbouring residents through light and noise pollution and visual impact

• whether the proposal will result in increased parking demand on-street in the vicinity to the detriment of conditions of road safety

• the impact of the proposed development on trees and wildlife With regard to the appropriateness of the proposed use within the Green Belt context, PPG 2 advises that once designated, Green Belt land has a positive role to play in fulfilling objectives which include the provision of opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas. The proposal, which would provide improved facilities for Bromley FC in the continued use of the site for outdoor sport and recreation by the club itself and local organisations, may be considered to meet with this objective and may not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. However, PPG 2 further advises that the visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design. In this case, the development involves a substantial increase in hard surfacing on the site, boundary fencing of approx. 6m in height, floodlighting columns and a 2m high earth bund. While the proposed use may not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, the potential for the associated development to harm the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt will warrant careful consideration, and indeed Members should be aware that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. However, Members will note that the application site is located on the western edge of the Green Belt, close to existing built development and the existing facilities at Bromley FC, and accordingly may consider that the proposal would

16

not result in significant harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. In addition, it may be considered that the retained trees along with the proposed earth bund and intensive planting would screen the pitches and associated fencing and floodlighting columns to a degree, reducing the potential impact on the visual amenities of the Green Belt and the area generally. With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring residents, Members will note the amended plans which now show a greater minimum separation to the residential properties on Hayes Lane, and indeed may consider that this separation, when coupled with the screening measures proposed as outlined in the previous paragraph may serve to reduce any potential visual impact and harm to the amenities of the occupiers of these properties. With regard to the potential for noise pollution to impact on residential amenities, Members will be aware that the application has been accompanied by a noise assessment report, which concludes that the proposed pitches are acceptable. The report has been viewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer who concurs with the findings of the report. In terms of light pollution, comments received from the Environmental Health Officer indicate that the floodlighting to the all-weather pitches would be acceptable in terms of light spillage, and accordingly no objections have been raised. Should Members be minded to grant permission the hours of use for the pitches and the floodlighting could be controlled by way of a condition which may help to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents. The applicant’s agent states that the Football Association (FA) has confirmed that it would want to use the proposed pitches as part of its sponsored training and coaching courses, and has advised that its minimum requirements in relation to hours of use are as follows:

• 9.00am – 10.30pm Monday – Friday • 9.00am – 9.00pm Saturday & Sunday

It is advised that the floodlighting would only need to be used in winter months from 4.00pm – 10.30pm Monday to Friday and 4.00pm – 9.00pm on Saturday and Sunday. With regard to the impact of the proposed development on trees, Members will note the amended plans which may now allow all but one of the oak trees previously under threat to be retained. The tree which it is proposed to be removed lies to the south-eastern corner of the site, close to Fisher’s Wood and Norman Park. As such, Members may agree with the Tree Officer’s comments that this would not significantly open up views to the site and that the integrity of the line of oaks would be retained, and that on balance, the impact to trees may be acceptable in this case. The existing trees could be safeguarded by way of condition to ensure that work will not harm their future well being.

17

With regard to the impact of the proposal to wildlife and ecology, Members will need to consider the potential impact of the additional hard surfacing and the floodlighting on the site having regard to the adjacent SINC and wildlife in the vicinity, however will note that in light of the amended plans all but one of the trees will be retained on the application site, and indeed that additional planting is proposed to the western boundary. Finally, with regard to the potential impact of the proposed development to on-street parking demand and conditions of road safety, Members will note that the proposal is considered to be acceptable from the Highways perspective, however that issues may arise from the cumulative effects of the facilities at Bromley FC. Accordingly it is suggested that any grant of planning permission be conditioned in order that the facilities are not used in conjunction with the main stadium. Members may agree therefore that the proposal is acceptable with regard to the Highway perspective and that the development should not result in an undue increase in demand for parking on-street, to the detriment of conditions of road safety. However careful consideration will need to be given to the appropriateness of conditioning any grant of permission as suggested since the existing facilities at Bromley FC fall outside of the application site although within the control of the applicant. In conclusion, Members will need to weigh up the benefits of the proposed all-weather pitch and five and seven-a-side pitches to the local community, against the potential impact to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt as a result of the pitches and the associated development. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/04226, 08/03581, 05/01997 and 04/02404, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 22.04.2009 29.05.2009 05.06.2009 RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op.

ACB01R Reason B01 3 ACB18 Trees-Arboricultural Method Statement

ACB18R Reason B18 4 ACB19 Trees - App'ment of Arboricultural Super 9am 11pm

ACB19R Reason B19 BE1 5 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt

18

ACD02R Reason D02 6 ACJ23 Details of floodlights

ACJ23R J23 Reason 7 The all weather pitches hereby permitted shall not be used before 9.00am

or after 10.30pm Monday to Friday, nor before 9.00am or after 9.00pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interests of the amenities of the area.

8 The floodlighting hereby permitted shall only be switched on between 4.00pm and 10.30pm Monday to Friday, and between 4.00pm and 9.00pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the Green Belt and nearby residential properties.

9 Details of a scheme of landscaping, which shall include the materials of paved areas and other hard surfaces, along with details of the earth bund, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the first occupation of the buildings or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally planted.

9 ACA04R A04 Reason 10 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the

site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system.

Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking T18 Road Safety NE7 Development and Trees G1 Green Belt L1 Outdoor Recreation

19

ER8 Noise Pollution ER10 Light Pollution PPG 2 The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties (b) the character of the development in the surrounding area (c) the impact of the development to the open character and visual amenities

of the Green Belt, including trees on the application site (d) the appropriate use of the Green Belt for outdoor sporting facilities (e) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (f) the outlook of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (g) the provision of additional sporting facilities for the benefit of the local

community (h) the impact to on-street parking demand in the area and on conditions of

road safety (i) comments received during the consultation period of the application (j) the urban design policies of the Unitary Development Plan (k) drainage and flood risk and having regard to all other matters raised. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer

to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason – to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.

2 The Groundwater Regulations 1998 require that substances falling within List 1 (the most toxic and persistent substances) must not enter groundwater and the entry of substances in List 2 (less toxic but nevertheless polluting substances) must be limited so as to avoid pollution. It is an offence under these regulations to dispose or tip for the purpose of disposal any of these substances where they might result in a

20

discharge to groundwater unless authorised. Such an offence would be treated as contravening s85 of the Water Resources Act 1991.

3 New or amended regulations are expected in 2009 to enact additional requirements arising from the Water Framework Directive and its Daughter Directive on Groundwater. These will have similar requirements but will refer to hazardous pollutants instead of (but approximately equivalent to) List 1. Requirements to limit pollution will be widened to all other pollutants rather than just those in List 2.

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the

following grounds are suggested: 1 The proposal would result in harm to the openness and visual amenities of

the Green Belt by reason of the excessive height of the boundary fencing and floodlighting columns and the amount of hard surfacing, and would therefore constitute inappropriate development, contrary to Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan and national planning guidance in the form of PPG 2.

21

Reference: 08/04226/FULL1 Address: Bromley Football Club Hayes Lane Bromley BR2 9EF Proposal: All weather sports pitch and 3 five-a-side and 1 seven-a-side pitches with

boundary fencing, floodlighting illumination and 2m high earth bund to western boundary. AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED.


22

23

_____________________

4. Application No : 09/00328/OUT Ward : Crystal Palace

Address : Garage Compound Trenholme Close London


OS Grid Ref: E: 534767 N: 170244

Applicant : UPNA Ltd Objections: YES Description of Development: Demolition of existing garages and erection of 3 storey block comprising of 6 two bedroom flats and part three storey/single storey block comprising 1 two bedroom flats and 9 garages. OUTLINE APPLICATION Proposal This application was deferred without prejudice from Plans-Sub Committee 2 on 14th May 2009 to allow the applicant to Members’ request for a reduction in the height of the building and to look at side space. Members will note that the Applicant has submitted revised drawings (dated 2nd June 2009) which show the deletion of the fourth storey and therefore a reduction of 2 flats, from a total of 9 flats to 7 flats. The Agent has submitted a supporting statement (dated 2nd June 2009) addressing the issues raised. The comments provided are summarised below, with a copy of the additional information available on file for Members to view:

• 3rd floor has been removed due to comments raised by the ward Member on behalf of his constituents

• meeting was previously held with Broomleigh residents representative • Policy H9 states “the retention of space around residential buildings is

essential to ensure adequate separation and to safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents. It is important to prevent cramped appearance and unrelated terracing from occurring. It is also necessary to protect the high spatial standards and level of visual amenity”

• proposal extends to boundary as stated in report

24

• proposal is offset from next building by 6m and 8m of green space separating each building

• proposal does not form either a cramped appearance or terracing in this instance

• situation can be maintained permanently as landscaped area- Council owned land

• proposal retains spatial and visual amenity with 8m separation as well as safeguarding privacy and amenity of residents

• 3 and 4 storey buildings surround the application site with less separation to what is proposed

• proposal has windows facing private garden and railway • density- for minor developments density matrix does not apply. However

density for 7 units equates to 118.6 units/ hectare • still regarded that 4 storeys is acceptable but due to reasons above

scheme has been reduced to 3 storeys due to the Committee’s comments The previous report including an update of representations received is repeated below for Members’ consideration. Outline permission is sought for the Access, Layout and Scale of the proposed development. It is proposed to demolish the existing blocks of garages on the site, and construct a new residential development. Permission is now sought for two separate blocks. 1 x three storeys in height comprising 6 two bedroom flats, and 1 x part single storey/ part three storeys in height comprising 1 split-level two bedroom flat on the upper floors and 9 linked car-ports at single storey level. An amenity area is proposed to the rear of the larger block The development will be built up to both side boundaries Location

• the site is located at the end of Trenholme Terrace, adjacent to Trenholme Close

• the site currently comprises 24 disused garages • the surrounding area is residential • to the north east of the site (Trenholme Close) comprises two storey

houses • to the south west of the site (Trenholme Terrace) are several 4 storey

blocks comprising of maisonette properties • the site is in an area of PTAL 2

25

• the application site is located at the bottom of Trenholme Terrace which slopes downwards from Trenholme Road

Comments from Local Residents At the time of writing the report, one letter of objection had been received from a local resident. A copy of this letter is available on file and is summarised as follows:

• Trenholme Close is already narrow- additional traffic will be problematic • danger to local children playing in street • insufficient space for residential waste • insufficient space for recyclable waste • noise pollution- new residents using estate to get to local amenities • is there any guarantee that Trenholme Terrace gardens/ balconies would

not be overlooked? • car park for Trenholme Terrace not big enough to accommodate further

cars- overflow from new developments residents and visitors • bad idea to let garage space become house • already overpopulated

Any other comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. Comments from Consultees The Metropolitan Police do not raise objections to the scheme, but make recommendations to meet ‘Secure By Design’ requirements. The Council’s drainage division do not raise objections to the proposal. Thames Water does not raise objections to the application. Environmental Health (Housing) do not raise objection to the application. Environmental Health (Pollution) does not raise objections to the proposal, subject to the implementation of recommendations contained within the revised noise assessment. The Highways Planning division requested that the garage layout be revised, and following plans received on 16/04/09 no objections have been raised to the proposal. Network Rail does not raise objections to the scheme.

26

Planning Considerations In considering the application the main policies are H1, H7, H9, BE1, T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. These concern the housing supply density and design of new housing/new development, the provision of adequate car parking and new accesses and road safety. Policy H1 (v) seeks to make most effective use of land in accordance with the density/location matrix in Table 4.2. Policy H7 aims to ensure that new residential development respects the existing built and natural environment, is of appropriate density and respects the spatial standards of the area as well as amenities adjacent occupiers, and allows adequate light penetration into and between buildings. Regarding the proposed density and amount of development proposed (Policy H7-Housing Density and Design) the proposal in an suburban area along a transport corridor (Table 4.2 of the UDP- density/location matrix). The density equates to approximately 118.64 units/hectare, falling outside the ranges of 50-80u/ha set out in the matrix (if that interpretation is accepted). Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy T3 seeks to ensure that off street parking provisions for new development are to approved standards. Policy T18 requires that issues of road safety are considered in determining planning applications. Government guidance in the form of PPS3 “Housing” generally encourages higher density developments in appropriate locations, while emphasising the role of good design and layout to achieve the objectives of making the best use of previously developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas, but without compromising the quality of the environment. Central Government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance 24 “Planning and Noise” introduces the concept of Noise Exposure Categories (NECs) ranging from A (noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting permission) – D (planning permission should normally be refused), to help local planning authorities in their consideration of applications for residential development near transport-related noise sources. The site is with Noise Exposure Category B. Planning History There is no recent planning history at the site.

27

Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether this type of development is acceptable in principle in this location, the likely impact of the proposed scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, having particular regard to the density, layout and design of the proposed scheme. It is not considered that flats in this location would be unacceptable in principle. In terms of form and scale, the proposed development would have a comparable height with the adjoining block in Trenholme Terrace. Due to the topography of Trenholme Terrace, it is considered that the built development may not appear unduly prominent within the streetscene. The proposed four storey block does not maintain the minimum 1m separation to the southern boundary. However in this case, the resultant development will extend up to the boundary adjoining an area of open land, and it may be considered that an exception to side space policy H9 can be made as no terracing effect would occur. While it is recognised that the development would result in large site coverage, regard should be given to the existing site conditions which comprise total site coverage with buildings and hard surfaces, and the proposed provision of soft landscaping and amenity space. Accordingly, Members may concur that the development would provide a satisfactory environment for future occupiers. With regard to the impact of the proposed building on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties, the development is set at reasonable distances away from adjoining properties. The larger block will be adjacent to the maisonettes in Trenholme Terrace and there are no side windows to these properties. As the application is for outline permission, the flank windows and the internal layout of the proposed flats is not shown. However, careful design at details pursuant stage would ensure that minimal overlooking would occur by siting the main windows to the front and rear elevations. There is a proposed first floor terraced area to the ‘duplex’ flat above the carports which, subject to details of balcony screening being submitted, is considered acceptable. The density equates to approximately 118.64 units/hectare, falling outside the ranges of 50-80u/ha set out in the matrix (if that interpretation is accepted). However, the surrounding area appears to be a mixture of housing types, including other flatted developments, the high density of the scheme may not be considered out of character with the built form of the area. A total of 9 car parking spaces are proposed which appears to accord with the Council’s standards. It is recognised that the proposal would result in a loss of parking spaces on the site as a result of the demolition of the existing garages,

28

however Members may wish to note that no objections have been raised from the Highways perspective with regard to the number of spaces proposed. It terms of access onto the site, concerns were initially raised by the Highways division with regard to the proposed garages resulting in the parking of vehicles at the front to the detriment of highway safety. However, revised plans dated 16th April 2009 show the garage doors to be removed and open style carports proposed and this amendment is considered acceptable. If Members are satisfied with the design and setting of the development, the outstanding issue is the noise from the adjacent railway. The Council’s Environmental Health division do not raise objections to the proposal, and a condition is suggested requesting that a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from rail noise be submitted for approval. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 09/00328, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 09.04.2009 16.04.2009 24.04.2009 02.06.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA02 Details req. pursuant outline permission appearance and

landscaping ACA02R Reason A02

2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01

3 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03

4 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02

5 ACK09 Soil survey - contaminated land ACK09R K09 reason

6 ACH04 Size of parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04

7 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22

8 ACH32 Highway Drainage ACH32R Reason H32

9 ACI15 Protection from traffic noise (1 insert) rail ACI15R I15 reason

10 ACI21 Secured By Design ACI21R I21 reason

11 ACI24 Details of means of screening-balconies

29

ACI24R Reason I24R 12 The carports/ garages hereby permitted shall not have doors fitted and or

to remain open and shall be permanently maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of pedestrian and vehicular safety and to prevent

obstruction of the highway. Reason for granting permission: In granting permission, the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of Unitary Development Plan: H1 Housing supply H7 Housing density BE1 Design of new development T3 Parking T18 Road safety The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the relationship of the development to the adjacent properties (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (g) the safety of pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent highway (h) the safety and security of building and the spaces around them (i) accessibility to the building (j) the housing policies of the development plan (k) the urban design policies of the development plan (l) the transport policies of the development plan (m) the neighbour concerns raised during the consultation process and having regard to all other matters raised. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI10 Consult Land Charges/Street Numbering 2 The applicant is advised that prior to the commencement of any works on

the site, developers must contact Network Rail to inform them of their intention to commence works, This must be undertaken a minimum of 6 weeks prior to the proposed date of commencement. It is useful for Network Rail to consult drivers, maintenance and signallers of development adjacent to the railway.

30

3 Any demolition or refurbishment works must not be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railways, or the stability of adjoining Network Rail structures. This is to ensure that the railway is protected.

31

Reference: 09/00328/OUT Address: Garage Compound Trenholme Close London Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and erection of 3 storey block comprising of

6 two bedroom flats and part three storey/single storey block comprising 1 two bedroom flats and 9 garages. OUTLINE APPLICATION


32

33

_____________________

5. Application No : 09/00346/FULL1 Ward : Penge And Cator

Address : Cator Park Pavilion Aldersmead Road Beckenham Kent

Conservation Area: Aldersmead Road

OS Grid Ref: E: 536298 N: 170144

Applicant : Cator Park Montessori Pre-school (Mr R Baxter)

Objections: YES

Description of Development: Timber decking and canopies to side and rear RETROPSPECTIVE APPLICATION Proposal The application seeks retrospective planning permission for two areas of raised timber decking with two canopies above within the cartilage of the pavilion site, to the northern and eastern sides of the pavilion. The decking measures a maximum of 39cm high. The canopies are green and white in colour and of a plastic appearance. They measure 2.2m high to the eaves and 3.2m high to the top. Location The application site is within Cator Park, adjacent to Aldersmead Road. The building that the application relates to is a children’s pre-school. The site is within the Aldersmead Road conservation area and on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and forms part of the Green Chain.

34

Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• beauty of park being spoilt by what used to be a small playschool. • it is slowly taking over park and what used to be a quiet street. • road has become dangerous with cars parked on both sides. • building was originally a pubic convenience, something that is badly

needed in the park. • additions are inappropriate. • the various changes to the outside of the nursery have had a detrimental

impact on the park, the street and the conservation area. • the recent changes have made the nursery grounds very prominent and

visible from a wide area in both the park and the street. • previously the grounds and building blended with the park. • now there are a number of ugly and poorly designed additions and a

mixture of fencing and other materials, which alter the character of the area and detract from pleasant appearance of the park and road.

• disabled access could have been achieved with a much smaller ramp • a temporary metal ramp has to be attached to allow access to the park

side • canopies are of poor design and quality. • canopies very large and high and are clearly visible from the park and

street as they exceed 4m in height. • higher than roof of building and detract from the building and the

surrounding area. • changes are not sympathetic or in keeping with the park or street in a

conservation area. • poor design and quality and use a number of different materials not

evident elsewhere in the park. • no evidence of large areas of decking or canopies being used in other

Bromley Parks. • out of character with surrounding grassed landscape of park. • the gazebos are of a poor design and very large, clearly visible from a

large area of the park and street and impact negatively on the street scene.

• changes seem to be a way of extending the existing building by providing permanent outdoor covered areas for classrooms.

• the raised decking is attracting vermin. • canopies are not fit for long-term use in a conservation area. • no objection if they were in place over spring/summer to provide shade. • could this set a precedent?

The comments in support can be summarised as follows:

35

• canopies are extremely important to protect the children from the sun and

decked areas allow versatility of use when they go outside. • nursery and its surrounding add to beauty of park. • cannot see how decking detracts from the area and area is surrounded by

greenery. • building and play area is sympathetic with the park and blends in well with

the surroundings. • changed made to building add to the character and positive effect on the

park. • additions are an improvement to the building.

Please note that the full texts of the above objections are available on file ref. 09/00346. Any further comments received shall be reported verbally at the meeting. Comments from Consultees From a Heritage and urban Design viewpoint there are no objections. From a ‘parks’ perspective, there is support for the retention of the gazebo, decking and Astroturf. APCA raised objections to the application. The local ward councillor supports the application. Planning Considerations Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan applies to the development and should be given due consideration. This policy seeks to ensure a satisfactory standard of design, safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and protect the visual amenities of the area. Policy BE11 applies to proposals for new development within Conservation Areas and seeks to protect and enhance the character or appearance of the area. Policy C7 Educational and Pre-School Facilities sets out the Councils requirements for development relating to this type of use. In regards to facilities within the Green belt of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) it says that educational facilities are not appropriate uses in the Green Belt and proposals for new buildings or extensions associated with educational uses will therefore have to show that very special circumstances exist.

36

Policy G2 sets out the Council’s requirements for development proposals within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Permission will not be given for any development which is classed as inappropriate. Policy G7 applies to development proposals which fall within South East London’s Green Chain. Proposals will be required to respect and not harm the character or function of the Green Chain Walk. Planning History n/a Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it has on the character of the MOL, in particular its open nature and visual amenities, and the impact that it has on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties and visual amenities of the Aldersmead Road conservation area. Within MOL permission will generally not be given for inappropriate development. Policy G2 of the UDP states that development is considered inappropriate unless it is for, amongst other things, “essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries and other uses of land which preserve the openness of the MOL and do not conflict with the purpose of including land in it;” (p.85). Furthermore, other operations within MOL will be inappropriate unless they maintain the openness and do not conflict with the purpose of including land in MOL. The Council will resist development which would be injurious to the openness and visual amenity of the MOL within or conspicuous from the MOL which might be visually detrimental by reasons of scale, siting, materials or design. Policy G7 of the UDP sets out the Councils requirement for development relating to the South East London Green Chain. Development is expected to respect and not harm the character or function of the Green Chain and the Green Chain Walk. “Measures to protect this designated area are to include the use of suitable screening, landscaping or in appropriate areas the planting of native vegetation...” (p.89). The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the above policies, national and regional planning guidance, all other material planning considerations including any objections, other representations and relevant planning history on the site were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal. The decking and canopies are located to the northern and eastern sides of the nursery building. The building itself is a fairly prominent feature within the park,

37

however, its materials and colour scheme, together with the intermittent hedge screening around the boundary of the site, make it appear fairly in keeping with the park setting. The main concern is whether or not the canopies and decking conflict with the openness and visual amenities of the park. In this instance, it is considered that the scale and ‘open’ design of the canopies in relation to the size of the main building does not result in them being visually obtrusive or overdominant in this setting and, given their temporary appearance, are not considered to be an inappropriate extension. However, members will need to consider whether this temporary style of development is acceptable at this Conservation Area location. Furthermore, the decking is set at a relatively low height and natural timber in colour so that it does not appear incongruous in relation to the park setting and the existing development at the site. Concerns have been raised over the boundary treatments and deteriorating state of the hedge around the site, however, it is considered that this does not reasonably relate to the development in question and any landscaping condition imposed may be unreasonable in this instance. On balance, given the size, siting and design of the decking and canopies, it is considered that they are not significantly injurious to the open nature of the MOL, do not significantly harm the character and function of the Green Chain Walk and do not have a significant impact on the visual amenities of the conservation area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 09/00346, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 06.04.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas G2 Metropolitan Open Land G7 South East London Green Chain The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the character of the development in the surrounding area (b) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

38

properties (c) the preservation or enhancement of the conservation area (d) the recreational open space policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raised.

39

Reference: 09/00346/FULL1 Address: Cator Park Pavilion Aldersmead Road Beckenham Kent Proposal: Timber decking and canopies to side and rear RETROPSPECTIVE

APPLICATION


40

41

_____________________

6. Application No : 09/00594/FULL6 Ward : Darwin

Address : Buckhurst Farm Buckhurst Road Westerham Kent TN16 2HS


OS Grid Ref: E: 544054 N: 158103

Applicant : Mr Kelvin Wilson And Mrs J Gibbs Objections: YES Description of Development: Single storey front and rear extensions. Enlargement of roof structure incorporating front and rear dormers. Insertion of additional windows Proposal This proposal is for single storey front and rear extensions. Enlargement of roof structure incorporating front and rear dormers and the insertion of additional windows. The additions can be summarised as follows;

• the ground floor will be extended at the front by ~1.8 x 3m to provide a new porch and by ~1.8 x 4.2m at the rear to provide an open loggia;

• at first floor level there will be the addition of 6 dormers (3 at the front and 3 at the rear) and first floor addition over the ground floor open loggia. This will provide 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms.

The application site is located to the east of Buckhurst Road, the site is within the Green Belt, Kent North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and adjacent to a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and one representation was received from the neighbouring property which can be summarised as follows:

42

• loss of privacy from the 2 windows shown in the first floor northern elevation.

Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan: BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space G4 Green Belt NE11 Kent North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Planning History There is a long planning history at the site relating to piggery units, kennels and cattery. The domestic planning history relating to the site is listed below:

• OUDC 5310A – Permission – Replacement dwelling – to replace original house demolished by enemy action

• OUDC 7572 – Permission – Utility room • 90/02232/FUL – Permission- Siting of a mobile home. • 92/01958/EUC – Permission – Certificate of Lawfulness for use of land for

stationing of caravan for residential purposes. • 05/03287/OUT – Refused - Demolition of existing dwelling and

outbuildings and erection of two detached dwellings with integral garages and associated residential curtilages. (OUTLINE)

• 08/03203/FULL1 – Permission - Formation of sand school for private use. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are whether the proposed development would constitute appropriate development within the Green Belt and AONB, and the effect that it would have on the visual amenity and openness of the area. This property has been previously extended to provide a utility area (under ref: OUDC 7572). Combined with the previous extension there would be an increase in floor area of approximately 14% which is in excess of the 10% net increase of the original dwelling house within the Green Belt, therefore is contrary to Policy G4. However, the proposed development is contained within the existing built development of the house, and therefore may not be considered to impact upon the open character of the Green Belt. The alterations to roof will add some bulk to the southern elevation; however the ridge will not be increased and will mirror the existing roof design of the northern elevation.

43

Given the size and location of the extension it is not considered to have any impact on the neighbouring properties. Concern has been expressed from the neighbouring property in terms of loss of privacy with the insertion of two windows at first floor in the northern elevation to bedroom 1. However, the neighbouring property is located approximately 55m away, therefore given this separation any impact will be minimal and not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal on this basis. Having had regard to the above it is considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable and will not be harmful to the character, visual amenities and openness of the Green Belt. The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the above policies, national and regional planning guidance, all other material planning considerations including any objections, other representations and relevant planning history on the site were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal. as amended by documents received on 19.05.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC08 Satisfactory materials (all surfaces)

ACC08R Reason C08 3 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the first floor northern

elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1

4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space G4 Green Belt NE11 Kent North Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

44

Reference: 09/00594/FULL6 Address: Buckhurst Farm Buckhurst Road Westerham Kent TN16 2HS Proposal: Single storey front and rear extensions. Enlargement of roof structure

incorporating front and rear dormers. Insertion of additional windows


45

_____________________

7. Application No : 09/00618/FULL6 Ward : Bromley Town

Address : 10 Madeira Avenue Bromley BR1 4AY


OS Grid Ref: E: 539589 N: 169772

Applicant : Mr Plamen Konov Objections: YES Description of Development: Addition of second floor/single storey side and rear extensions. Balconies and railings to front and rear together with elevational alterations Proposal It is proposed to construct a new second floor and a single storey side and rear extension with balconies and railing proposed to the front and rear. Proposed elevational alterations include the repositioning of the chimney breast and existing windows, a new glazed railing to the perimeter of the existing balcony area at the front and new windows and doors to the side elevations. The basement extension accommodates a new gym and playroom. The ground floor extensions accommodate a new dining and utility room. The first floor incorporates 2 new bedrooms and a bathroom. The average height of the existing property is around 6.3m measured from ground level. The proposed addition of a second floor would increase the average height of the dwelling to around 8.7m, an increase of around 2.4m. Two additional balconies are proposed one on the side of the property at 1st floor level from bedroom 5 overlooking the existing garden area. Another at the front of the property at 2nd floor level from the master bedroom towards the northern boundary. Location

46

The application site is situated at the south eastern end of Madeira Avenue Bromley, the plot rises steeply from the highway level towards the rear and comprises of a two storey dwelling located some distance back from the road with varying roof heights, front terraces and steps leading to the dwelling. At highway level there is a steep slope up towards a single garage. The area is residential in character with the existing property being located predominantly towards the rear of 12- 18 Madeira Avenue. Comments from Local Residents The building already has a basement, ground and first floor and a large garden to the side. The increase in roof height is unacceptable causing loss of outlook and privacy. The development would cause loss of light The development would create an imposing structure out of character with the area and existing house. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered primarily with regard to the following policies: BE1 General Design H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether the current proposals would result in an overdevelopment of the site, whether they would adequately protect the amenities of adjacent residents in terms of light, privacy and outlook, whether the proposal would significantly harm the spatial standards of the locality and be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and street scene in general. Policies H8 and H9 draws attention to the need to respect the character, appearance and spatial standards of the surrounding area. The area around the site is predominantly residential and the buildings in the area are of a variety of styles and scale. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal results in a significant increase in the height of the building, it should be noted that in terms of the character of the area, the host property is set back from the road and appears to be screened be existing vegetation.

47

To minimise potential overlooking to the properties located towards the rear boundary of the site, appropriate conditions can be imposed on any subsequent approval to ensure these windows are obscure. Members will therefore need to consider whether the layout of the site leaves adequate separation between buildings together with existing tree and boundary screening that is to remain. No balconies are proposed to the rear of the property with the new windows located at the rear serving bathrooms and a landing area. In respect of the two new balconies, the 2nd floor balcony to the front of the property is located some 14.7 metres from the front boundary of the site and would be effectively screened by existing boundary vegetation within the application site and within the rear gardens of 12 – 18 Madeira Avenue. The first floor balcony to bedroom 5 would overlook the existing large garden area towards the side of the property. The proposed extensions represent a significant increase in the height of the existing building; however there are significant changes in ground level. It is noted that the site is highly unusual in location as can be seen from the submitted plans and ordnance survey extract. The site has a similarly individual relationship to others. It is clear that there will be an impact on nearby properties as a result of this proposal and a judgement needs to be made about whether the impact is unduly harmful. However, Members will need to consider whether this relationship is satisfactory. Considering these concerns and the concerns raised by local residents this application is presented on list 2 of the agenda. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 09/00618, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs


ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) on the north eastern elevation

ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8 4 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) north eastern

extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8

Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following

48

policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent property; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties; (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; and having regard to all other matters raised.

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested:

1 The proposed extension would, by reason of its size and bulk have a

detrimental effect on the amenities of the surrounding residential properties and the prospect which the occupants of those properties might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policy H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed extension by reason of its size, height and bulk would

appear over dominant and harmful to the character and appearance of the area and detrimental to the appearance of the existing building and therefore contrary to Policies BE1, and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan

49

Reference: 09/00618/FULL6 Address: 10 Madeira Avenue Bromley BR1 4AY Proposal: Addition of second floor/single storey side and rear extensions. Balconies

and railings to front and rear together with elevational alterations


50

51

_____________________

8. Application No : 09/00654/FULL6 Ward : Kelsey And Eden Park

Address : 26 Manor Way Beckenham Kent BR3 3LJ

Conservation Area: Manor Way Beckenham

OS Grid Ref: E: 537405 N: 169172

Applicant : Richard Porritt Objections: YES Description of Development: Part one/two storey rear extension Proposal It is proposed to construct a part one/two storey rear extension to the host property. The extension will project with a maximum depth of approx. 3.6m, along with a single storey bay window element which will project by an additional 1.4m. The extension will feature a ‘twin gable’ roof design. A perimeter pitch roof over the existing garage is also proposed. Amended plans have been received, which indicate that the extension will be finished in facing brickwork and pebble dashed render. The amended plans also show that a single storey extension behind the existing garage is now no longer proposed. Location The host property is located on the western side of Manor Way, close to the junction with Greenways and opposite Kelsey Park. The plot is approx. 14m in width and approx. 72m in depth. The host property is one a locally listed pair of detached properties by Frances Hooper, and falls within the Manor Way Conservation Area. Comments from Local Residents

52

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. Comments were received which can be summarised as follows:

• restriction of daylight and sunlight • restriction of outlook or aspect • overshadowing • extension too bulky and not subservient • adverse effect on character of houses in CA and locally listed buildings • loss of light and aspect • loss of amenity • overdevelopment • loss of harmony • will set a precedent • contrary to CA SPG and impact on locally listed building

Comments from Consultees The application was inspected by the Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) who consider that the proposal would detract from the original design and the high quality 3D composition. APCA were also concerned at the loss of spatial quality. From the Heritage and Urban Design (HUD) point of view it is considered that the proposal would be unlikely to detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and that with regard to the impact on the locally listed host property it would be desirable for the materials to be used for the external surfaces to match those of the existing property and the adjacent property with which it is paired. Planning Considerations The main planning policies of relevance in this case are: BE1 Design of New Development BE10 Locally Listed Buildings BE11 Conservation Areas H8 Residential Extensions The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for the Manor Way Conservation Area is also of relevance in this case. Planning History There is no recent planning history of relevance to this application. Conclusions

53

The main issues for consideration in this case are the impact of the proposed extensions to the amenities of neighbouring residents and the character, appearance and spatial qualities of the Manor Way Conservation Area. A further consideration is the impact of the extension to the character and special local interest of the locally listed host building. The proposed rear extension would not be visible from the street and as such may not result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The design of the proposed rear extension repeats that of the existing rear elevation, featuring a twin gable design and rear bay window at ground floor level, and will be partly finished in pebble-dashed render as per the existing rear elevation to the host property and to the adjacent property at No. 24 with which it is paired. Having regard to these points, it may be considered that the extension is sympathetic to the character, appearance and special local interest of the building. The proposed pitched roof over the existing garage is considered to be modest in scale and may not significantly alter the character and appearance of the host property or significantly impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. With regard to the impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residents, Members will need to carefully consider the depth of the rear extension having regard to any potential loss of light, prospect or outlook and the concerns raised by the immediate neighbours. However, Members may note that a separation of approx. 2.25m will be maintained to the northern flank boundary, with an additional separation maintained beyond the boundary to the nearest windows in the rear elevation of No. 24 Manor Way. This distance may serve to reduce any potential loss of light and prospect or outlook. In addition, a separation in excess of approx. 4.5m will be maintained to the southern flank boundary, which again may serve to reduce any potential impact on amenity to the adjacent property at No. 28 Manor Way. No windows are proposed to the first floor flank elevations of the extension and as such it may be considered that significant overlooking or loss of privacy would not occur. On balance, Members may agree that the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, that it would be sympathetic to the character, appearance and special local interest of the host property and would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 09/00654, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 18.06.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

54

Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces)

ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) first floor flank extension

ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE10 Locally Listed Buildings BE11 Conservation Areas H8 Residential Extensions The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties (c) the preservation of the character and appearance of the Conservation

Area (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (e) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (f) comments received during the consultation period of the application (g) the sympathetic design of the development having regard to the character,

appearance and special local interest of the locally listed host building and having regard to all other matters raised.

55

Reference: 09/00654/FULL6 Address: 26 Manor Way Beckenham Kent BR3 3LJ Proposal: Part one/two storey rear extension


56

57

_____________________

9. Application No : 09/00738/FULL1 Ward : Farnborough And Crofton

Address : J Sainsbury Plc Pallant Way Orpington Kent BR6 8NZ


OS Grid Ref: E: 543169 N: 165005

Applicant : Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd Objections: YES Description of Development: New car park layout barrier entry control system and associated landscaping. Proposal This planning application seeks permission for a new car park barrier and entry control system to the Sainsbury's car park in Pallant Way, Locksbottom. The proposed barrier system will be installed in two locations, the first at the entrance to the largest part of the car park to the north east of the store accessed from Pallant Way immediately behind and to the east of the petrol filling station (PFS) (identified in the application as car park 1). The second location is the access to the smaller part of the car park to the north west of the store accessed from further along Pallant Way to the south of the PFS (identified in the application as car park 2). The proposal will effectively segregate the two areas of the car park whereas at present it is understood that it is possible to drive from one part into the other. A proposed variable message sign will indicate the number of spaces available in each part to avoid motorists entering any part of the car park if it is full. The proposal is stated to be required to overcome existing operational problems with the car park and it is stated that it will prevent unneccesary re-circulation of vehicles which currently occurs. The new system will involve charging for parking at £2.50 per hour with customers spending more than £5.00 in store being entitled to 2 hours free parking. Parking for more than 2 hours would be charged at a penal rate to discourage long term parking. The layout will provide for 536 spaces. The

58

technical note submitted with the application concludes that the peak entry and exit flows and parking demand will be accommodated with this scheme, and that the proposal will not impact upon the operation of the car park or the highway network. Location The car park currently provides a total of 568 parking spaces of which 25 are for the disabled and 20 for parent/child use. Car park 1 includes 100 spaces used by staff and visitors to the Princess Royal Hospital adjacent, managed via a permit system. Access to the service yard is also gained through car park 1. It is alleged that the car park currently suffers problems with visitors exceeding the maximum stay and difficulties with customers having the correct coinage for the pay and display machines. Comments from Local Residents Several letters of objection have been received from local residents which include the following concerns:

• rights of way to residential properties at 347-361 Crofton Road should be retained

• car park fees have just been increased by 50% • no detail of how fees will be collected • separation of the two areas of the car park will make circulation more

difficult • barriers should be erected to prevent the current abuse of exit routes

Comments from Consultees Transport for London raise no objection although they do request that the use of the barriers be monitored for six months following implementation to ensure that queuing cars do not block the A232 (Crofton Road). The Crime Prevention Officer requests that a condition requiring the car park to meet the 'Safe Parking' status should be imposed. Cleansing state that access to the recycling containers should be retained. The Council's Highway Engineer does have concerns regarding the proposal, as the current car park does not have any impact on the highway and the proposed scheme has the potential to have an impact. Discussions have taken place with the applicant regarding these concerns. The concerns relate to the need for the system, the potential impact upon the highway through queueing and the allocation of spaces for Princess Royal Hospital and the operational details of this arrangement. In summary it is requested that the applicant enter a s106

59

agreement to monitor the new system for a period of 6 months to include the Christmas period, and if the outcome of this monitoring shows problems to discuss with the Council amendments to the scheme to overcome any such problems. It has also been requested that the written agreement of the hospital be sought and this will be updated verbally. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies BE1 (Design) and T18 (Road Safety) of the Unitary Development Plan. Planning History The most relevant planning history for the site is summarised below The supermarket and car park (car park 2) were originally permitted in 1979 under outline ref. 78/01362 and detailed permission ref. 79/03166. This permission was granted subject to the a s106 legal agreement which required (amongst other stipulations) the landowner to construct and maintain, for as long as the land is occupied by a supermarket, a car park for no less than 210 vehicles (amended to 195 by a variation) available for use by the public during all reasonable hours and to consult the Council in relation to any proposals to charge the public for the use of such facilities or any further proposals to vary such charge. It also required the maintaining of free access for the owners and occupiers of properties known as 403-427 (odd) Crofton Road, the Police Station and the White Lion Public House. Application ref. 91/01255 was granted for an extension to the supermarket with additional car parking (the formation of car park 1). This also included a s106 legal agreement which reiterated the terms of the original agreement and added clauses to provide free access to 347-361 (odd) Crofton Road and to provide no less than 514 car parking spaces to be made available for use by the public as long as the supermarket remains at the site, and if the hospital site adjacent is redeveloped for a non-hospital use, the number of spaces can be reduced to 393. The agreement also requires the owner to make regulations for the proper management of the car parking spaces and control of traffic subject to the Council's approval. Minor amendments have been made to the car parking provision since but essentially the provision has remained as provided in the two applications set out above. Conclusions The primary issues to be considered with regard to this application are the impact of the proposals upon highway safety and the operation of the car park.

60

Concerns regarding access to the rear of properties in Crofton Road are addressed by the s106 legal agreements attached to permissions refs. 78/01362 and 91/01255 which require free access to provided to 347-361 and 403-427 (odd) Crofton Lane. These agreements will remain effective, but in any event the agent has clarified in an email of 2nd June 2009 that all parties who are currently entitled to access via the car park will be provided with permits to allow such access if the proposal is implemented. It is further confirmed that the visitors to the hospital who are entitled to park in the car park will enter as normal and then be provided with a permit to display and an exit ticket by the hospital. The 100 spaces for the hospital will also be controlled by attendants patrolling the remainder of the car park. Detailed explanation has been given regarding the reasons behind this proposal and although the Highway Engineer and Transport for London have some reservations about the scheme neither formally object and it is considered that permission could be granted on the basis of suitable conditions and a s106 legal agreement requiring monitoring of the scheme for 6 months and any changes to be agreed following the outcome of monitoring. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT and the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 Details of all of the proposed car park barriers and gates, including their

method of operation and appearance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The barriers shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the proper management of the car park and to provide a satisfactory visual appearance for the development to accord with Polices BE1 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development T18 Road Safety INFORMATIVE(S)

61

1 The applicant is reminded that the requirements of the s106 legal agreements attached to planning permissions 78/01362 and 91/02155 remain effective and must be complied with where relevant.

62

Reference: 09/00738/FULL1 Address: J Sainsbury Plc Pallant Way Orpington Kent BR6 8NZ Proposal: New car park layout barrier entry control system and associated

landscaping.


63

_____________________

10. Application No : 09/00946/FULL6 Ward : Kelsey And Eden Park

Address : 51 Manor Way Beckenham Kent BR3 3LN

Conservation Area: Manor Way Beckenham

OS Grid Ref: E: 537589 N: 168594

Applicant : G Hansra Objections: NO Description of Development: Demolition of existing garage and part one/two storey front/side/rear extension incorporating front and side roof dormers, ground/first floor side extension with integral garage, single storey rear extensions and elevational alterations Proposal It is proposed to demolish the existing garage to the northern side of the host dwelling, and to construct a ground/first floor side extension with an integral garage to the northern flank, along with a part one/two storey front/side/rear extension incorporating front and side roofs dormers to the southern side of the property. In addition, two single storey rear extensions are proposed together with elevational alterations. The proposed side extensions will both feature a catslide roof design, while the proposed two storey elements to the front and side will feature tile-hung gables. The proposed side extension to the north will have a maximum width of approx. 3.6m, with a side space of approx. 1m maintained to the northern flank boundary. The proposed side extension to the south will have a maximum width of approx. 8.6m, with a minimum side space of approx. 3m maintained to the southern flank boundary. The proposed single storey rear extensions will have maximum depths of approx. 4.3m and approx. 1.4m respectively. The deeper of the two extensions will feature a roof lantern. Amended plans have been received (dated 9th June) showing the removal of a balcony at first floor level to the rear of the dwelling. Location

64

The application site is located on the eastern side of Manor Way, Beckenham. The site measures approx. 30m in width, and has a depth of approx. 82m. The site falls within the Manor Way Conservation Area. Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. Two letters of support were received in response. Comments from Consultees The application was inspected by the Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) who consider that the proposal would be in conflict with the principles set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the area relating to spatial quality and subservience to host buildings. From the Heritage and Urban Design (HUD) perspective, it is considered that the proposed extensions would dominate the house and present an overly wide street elevation, and that the development of the incremental side spaces which contribute to the arts and crafts character of the area could lead to a regimented appearance lacking spacious quality. Planning Considerations The main planning policies of relevance in this case are: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for the Manor Way Conservation Area is also of relevance in this case. Planning History Under ref. 06/02775, planning permission was refused for a 1.87m high front boundary brick wall with pillars/coping stones and gates. The reasons for refusal were as follows:

‘The proposal, by reason of its height and prominent location, would be harmful to the appearance and character of this part of the Manor Way Conservation Area, contrary to Policies BE7 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Manor Way Conservation Area.’

65

‘The proposal, by reason of its height and location, will obstruct visibility for pedestrians, resulting in an adverse impact on road safety, contrary to Policies T6 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.’

Conclusions The main issues for consideration in this case are the impact of the proposed extensions to the amenities of neighbouring residents and on the visual amenities of the street scene, the character and appearance and spatial qualities of the Manor Way Conservation Area. It is considered that the proposed extensions would be unlikely to impact significantly on the amenities of neighbouring residents. The proposed side extension to the north would feature a catslide roof at first floor level which may serve to mitigate any potential loss of light, outlook or prospect to the neighbouring property at No. 49 Manor Way, while the side extension to the south would be set a reasonable distance from the neighbouring property at No. 53, and as such may not result in significant harm. The deeper of the proposed single storey rear extensions would again be set a reasonable distance from No. 49 and as such may not result in significant harm. With regard to the impact of the proposed extensions on the visual amenities of the street scene, Members will note the substantial increase in the width of the host property and the closure of the visual gaps currently maintained to the sides of the property. In particular, the proposed side extension to the south of the property would result in a significant reduction in the side space currently maintained between the flank elevation and boundary, which may be considered to harm the visual amenities of the street scene, and indeed result in a detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, having particular regard to its spatial standards. The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for the Manor Way Conservation Area identifies a spacious and informal character, with varying degrees of side space maintained throughout the area. In particular, the SPG refers to the considerable changes in the development density along Manor Way which contributes to the informal, village like atmosphere that was strived for by Arts and Crafts Architects. The host property is one of several on Manor Way which is set within a generous plot and features a very wide separation between one side of the host property and the flank boundary. It is considered that these spaces contribute to the informal character identified within the SPG and as such that their loss should be resisted in order to preserve the character and spatial standards of the Conservation Area. It is noted that some properties in the vicinity feature much narrower separations to the flank boundaries, however these also may be considered to contribute to the informal character of the Conservation Area.

66

In light of the above, Members may agree that the proposed extensions would result in the overdevelopment of this site, and would seriously compromise the spacious and informal character of the Manor Way Conservation Area, which proposals for new development must preserve or enhance. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/02775 and 09/00946, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 09.06.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposal would result in the overdevelopment of the site and in the

loss of a prominent open section of garden frontage within the streetscene important to the village like atmosphere that was strived for by Arts and Crafts architects of the area and the resultant character of the locality as identified in Supplementary Planning Guidance, detrimental to the character and appearance of the Manor Way Conservation Area and contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

67

Reference: 09/00946/FULL6 Address: 51 Manor Way Beckenham Kent BR3 3LN Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and part one/two storey front/side/rear

extension incorporating front and side roof dormers, ground/first floor side extension with integral garage, single storey rear extensions and elevational alterations


68

69

_____________________

11. Application No : 09/01004/FULL6 Ward : West Wickham

Address : 63 Barnfield Wood Road Beckenham Kent BR3 6ST


OS Grid Ref: E: 538949 N: 167494

Applicant : Mr Jon Tickle Objections: NO Description of Development: Part one/two storey side/rear extension and roof alterations to form accommodation in roof space Proposal The current proposal constitutes a part one/two storey side/rear extension, a new pitched roof above an existing ground floor bay window at the rear of the property and roof alterations to form accommodation within the roof space, however no roof dormer extensions are proposed but rooflights are proposed – one at the front, two at the rear and one on either side of the roof. The flank wall of the proposed two storey side extension is to be located 1.2m away from the property boundary. Within this flank wall there will be three windows at first floor, serving from front to rear a bathroom, the landing and a secondary window for a bedroom. At ground floor level there will be two doors in the flank wall providing side access to the garage and the utility room, and one window either side of the door serving the utility room. The front elevation of the two storey extension will project no further forward than the front elevation of the main dwellinghouse, not including the existing bay window which projects further forward. The eaves height of the two storey side extension will match the eaves height of the main dwellinghouse, however the roof will be approximately 0.4m lower than the main ridge height of the original roof.

70

The proposed single storey rear extension will project 2m in depth at the deepest point and 0.9m in depth at the shallowest point, and the flank elevation of this element of the extension will be in line with the flank elevation of the two storey side extension. The roof over the proposed single storey rear extension will be pitched and will measure approximately 2.4m in height from the ground level to the eaves, and approximately 3.65m in height to the ridge. There is also a new pitched roof to be located above an existing bay window at ground floor which serves the dining room. The eaves of this pitched roof will match the height of the eaves of the proposed single storey rear extension, however the main ridge height will be lower, at approximately 3.2m in height from ground floor level. Location The property is a detached two storey dwellinghouse, located on the south eastern side of Barnfield Wood Road. The application property is located within the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character. This area was built sporadically between the 1920’s and 1950’s and due to the hedges, walls, and front gardens, has the character of a garden estate. The area comprises almost exclusively of large detached two storey family houses on generous plots, and the area as a whole represents a coherent, continuous and easily identifiable area which has maintained its character and unity intact. The majority of the properties along the same side of the road as the application property are two storey detached properties and some benefit from existing planning permissions. The majority of properties on the opposite side of Barnfield Wood Road are semi-detached and again some benefit from the approval of planning permission. Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received. Comments from Consultees No internal consults were made regarding this application. Planning Considerations

71

The proposal falls to be considered under Policies BE1, H8, H9 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan. Planning History There does not appear to be any relevant planning history at this property. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that the proposal would have on the area of special residential character that the property is located within and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. The application property is located within the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character and the area as a whole represents a coherent, continuous and easily identifiable area which has maintained its character and unity intact. As such, it is important to ensure that the current proposal will not be out of keeping with the character of the area and the surrounding properties. There are a number of properties along the road that benefit from planning permission for similar schemes of two storey side extensions, some more recent than others. A first floor side extension set back from the front of the property was permitted at No. 52 Barnfield Wood Road, under ref. 86/02892, however this was before the ASRC was designated. Most recently, an application at No. 54 Barnfield Wood Road was granted permission by Plans Sub Committee 2 for a two storey side extension with front porch canopy under ref. 07/01393. This proposal retained a separation between the flank wall of the two storey side extension and the property boundary of 1 metre, which is 0.2m less than the separation proposed under the current application at No. 63. The flank wall of the proposed two storey side extension will be located a minimum of 1.2m away from the property boundary, and should this be considered acceptable, a standard planning condition can be applied to any decision granted to ensure that this separation is retained once built so that this is complied with. However Policy H10 which relates to ASRCs does state that proposals within these areas should respect and complement the established and individual qualities of the individual areas. As such it is important to identify whether the proposed 1.2m side space is appropriate or whether a greater separation should be required. The ridge height of the two storey side extension is to be lower than the ridge height of the roof of the original dwellinghouse, which could be considered to be subservient to the main dwellinghouse and in line with other extensions visible along the road.

72

The proposed single storey rear extension is considered to be acceptable as the proposed rearward projection at a maximum depth will be 2 metres which should not have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of the residents of the neighbouring property. Whilst there are windows to be located in the first floor flank wall of the proposed two storey side extension, it is considered that as these serve a bathroom, a landing, and one is a secondary window for a bedroom, these windows can have a standard planning condition attached to them to ensure that the glass is obscure in order to prevent direct overlooking and loss of privacy for the residents of the neighbouring property. Accordingly, Members Views are requested on this matter to ascertain whether the proposal is acceptable in the manner proposed by reason of the impact it will have upon the host dwellinghouse and whether it is in keeping with other development along the road that has previously been granted permission and is subsequently worthy of permission being granted, or whether the proposal is considered unduly harmful to the character of the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character by reason of limited separation between the flank wall of the proposed side extension and the property boundary. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 86/02892, 07/01393 and 09/01004, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs


ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI10 Side space (1 insert) 1.2 metres north eastern

flank ACI10R Reason I10

4 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the first floor flank elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8

5 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank two storey side extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8

In granting permission the local planning authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

73

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relationship of the development to the adjacent properties; (c) the character of development in the Park Langley Area of Special

Residential Character; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties; (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (g) the housing policies of the development plan; (h) and having regard to all other matters raised including concerns from

neighbours. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI07 1 metre side space

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested:

1 The proposed two storey side extension, by reason of its minimal

separation from the property boundary, would materially detract from the attractive appearance and spacious character of the area which is identified as being within the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character, contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

74

Reference: 09/01004/FULL6 Address: 63 Barnfield Wood Road Beckenham Kent BR3 6ST Proposal: Part one/two storey side/rear extension and roof alterations to form

accommodation in roof space


75

_____________________

12. Application No : 09/01026/FULL1 Ward : Chislehurst

Address : The Coach House Timber Close Chislehurst Kent BR7 5PA

Conservation Area: Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 543345 N: 169487

Applicant : Windmill Chase Objections: YES Description of Development: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 detached part one/two storey three bedroom dwellings, one with front balcony, and 4 car parking spaces Joint report with application ref. 09/01025 Proposal It is proposed to demolish the existing bungalow on this site and erect 2 detached three bedroom dwellings, with parking provided at a lower level to the front of the buildings. The northern dwelling would have a small front balcony An arboricultural report has been submitted to support the proposals, along with separate design and access statements. Location This site is roughly triangular in shape, and is located on the northern side of Timber Close which is a small cul-de-sac containing three storey town houses. It measures 0.1437ha in area and is occupied by a bungalow. The site slopes down from north-east to south-west towards Timber Close, and is bounded to the north-east by Nos.1 and 3 Oakleigh Park Avenue, and to the north-west by Nos. 28-38 Woodclyffe Drive. The site lies within Chislehurst Conservation Area, but the existing building is neither statutorily nor locally listed.

76

Comments from Local Residents A number of local objections have been received to the proposals, including one from The Chislehurst Society, and the concerns raised can be summarised as follows:

• overdevelopment of the site • the revised scheme will still result in loss of light, outlook and privacy to

Woodclyffe Drive properties • side window of the northern house facing Woodclyffe Drive should be

obscure glazed to prevent overlooking • design and materials used are out of keeping with the surrounding area • overlooking of Timber Close and Woodclyffe Drive properties from front

balcony of dwelling 1 • loss of light and privacy to Oakleigh Park Avenue properties to the rear • plans are inaccurate in terms of site levels in relation to Woodclyffe Drive

properties • further accommodation could be provided in the roof of dwelling 2 • detrimental impact on trees in the conservation area • possible loss of trees at the front of the site, leading to overlooking of

Timber Close properties • proposals will still impinge on tree root protection areas • leylandii trees along part of the northern boundary are overgrown and

should be replaced • possible damage to trees outside the site during construction works • increased traffic and general activity in the vicinity • noise and disturbance during construction works • detrimental impact on Chislehurst Conservation Area.

Comments from Consultees The Council’s highways engineer considers that manoeuvring from the southern dwelling would be tight, and could lead to reversing onto Timber Close, but given that it is a cul-de-sac, no concerns are raised. The access should ideally be wider (4.1m instead of 3.2m) in order to allow vehicles to pass, but as it serves only two dwellings, no objections are raised. With regard to tree issues, this revised scheme has improved the relationship between the dwellings and the 4 mature trees in the rear gardens of Nos.1 and 3 Oakleigh Park Avenue, which was of previous concern, and no objections are now raised. No objections are raised by the Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas. No concerns are raised in principle by the Council’s drainage engineer, subject to the imposition of standard conditions D03 (restricting the surface water outlet to a

77

100mm diameter pipe) and D04 (details of the disposal of foul water to be submitted as there are no public foul sewers near the site). Thames Water raises no objections in principle. The designated area for refuse storage close to the site entrance is considered acceptable. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered primarily with regard to the following policies: UDP: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas H7 Housing Density & Design) H9 Side Space T3 Parking London Plan: 3A.1 Increasing London’s supply of housing 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.7 Renewable Energy PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing Planning History Outline permission was refused in 1987 (ref.86/03435) for 2 detached houses on this site, on grounds relating to the unsatisfactory and over-intensive sub-division of the plot which was considered to be detrimental to the privacy and prospect of neighbouring properties. Permission was more recently refused in November 2008 (ref.08/03360) for the demolition of the existing dwelling, and the erection of two dwellings, each with a balcony and basement garage, on the following grounds:

The proposal would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the size of dwellings and the amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces, resulting in limited amenity space to serve the dwellings, and would be out of character with this part of Chislehurst Conservation Area, thereby contrary to Policies H7, H9, BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

78

The proposed dwellings, by reason of their size, height and close proximity to the side and rear boundaries, would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of adjoining properties might expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and loss of privacy and light, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposals, by reason of the close proximity to 4 mature trees in the rear gardens of Nos.1 and 3 Oakleigh Park Avenue which are considered to make an important contribution to the visual amenities of this part of Chislehurst Conservation Area, are likely to result in post-development pressure for pruning or the removal of these trees, detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and thereby contrary to Policy BE14 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Conservation Area Consent was also refused for the demolition of the existing dwelling (ref. 08/03367) on the grounds of prematurity in the absence of a suitable replacement scheme. An appeal was lodged against the refusals on 8th June, although the agent has confirmed that should planning permission and Conservation Area Consent be granted for the current revised scheme, the appeals will be withdrawn. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of Chislehurst Conservation Area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties, and on mature trees within and close to the site. The proposals have been revised in the following main ways:

• dwellings are set further back from rear boundaries (dwelling 1 - separation increased from 6m to 8m, dwelling 2 – separation increased from 1.6m to 4.9m) to reduce the impact on the mature trees in the rear gardens of Nos.1 and 3 Oakleigh Park Avenue

• dwelling 1 is moved 1.2m further away from the side boundary adjacent to Woodclyffe Drive properties so that the side wall is in line with the existing bungalow

• the height of the dwellings has been reduced (dwelling 1 – maximum height reduced from 7.8m to 7.1m, dwelling 2 – maximum height reduced from 9.4m to 7.8m)

• reduction in the footprint of dwelling 2 by 13sq.m. • basement garages are removed and replaced with surface parking • reduction in the size of the driveway.

79

The reduced size of the dwellings and deletion of the garages, along with the overall reduction in the amount of site coverage by built development and hard surfacing, and resultant increase in amenity area for each dwelling, now results in a more satisfactory form of development on the site, which would not, on balance, appear out of character with the surrounding area, nor be harmful to Chislehurst Conservation Area. With regard to the impact on neighbouring properties, the proposed dwellings have been reduced in height and moved further away from the side and rear boundaries with Woodclyffe Drive and Oakleigh Park Avenue than previously proposed. Although the dwelling closest to Woodclyffe Drive would be approximately 3m higher than the existing bungalow, the eaves height would be only marginally higher, whilst most of the additional height would be in the form of a hipped roof. The windows in the north-western flank elevation facing Woodclyffe Drive properties would be to the stairwell, and could be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking of these dwellings and their rear gardens. This dwelling would also have a balcony at the front, and although the submitted plans suggest that it would be largely screened from neighbouring properties by trees at the front and side, these may not always be in existence, and Members may consider that a balcony screen should be provided on its northern side to prevent overlooking of Woodclyffe Drive properties. The proposed dwellings would now be situated a reasonable distance away from properties in both Timber Close and Oakleigh Park Avenue and with their sensitive design would not cause undue harm to those residents. Although the proposals would have a more dominant impact on the outlook from neighbouring properties, in particular from the rear of Nos.28-38 Woodclyffe Drive, Members may consider, on balance, that this would not be to such an extent as to warrant a refusal. In respect of tree issues, the revised scheme has adequately addressed the concerns raised previously regarding the impact on 4 mature trees in the rear gardens of Nos.1 and 3 Oakleigh Park Avenue, and the proposals are not now considered to have a detrimental impact on trees. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/03360, 08/03367, 09/1025 and 09/01026, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions:

80

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years

2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04

3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07

4 ACB18 Trees-Arboricultural Method Statement ACB18R Reason B18


6 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03

7 ACD03 Restricted 100mm outlet (drainage) ACD03R Reason D03

8 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt ACD04R Reason D04

9 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03

10 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16

11 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18

12 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E ACI03R Reason I03

13 ACI11 Obscure glaz'g/details of opening (1 in) in the north west flank elevation of the northern dwelling ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1

14 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank dwellings ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert)

15 ACI21 Secured By Design ACI21R I21 reason

16 ACI24 Details of means of screening-balconies ACI24R Reason I24R

17 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason


Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space

81

T3 Parking The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the visual impact on the street scene (b) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential

properties (c) the relationship of the development to trees (d) the conservation policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raise, including neighbours concerns.

82

Reference: 09/01026/FULL1 Address: The Coach House Timber Close Chislehurst Kent BR7 5PA Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2 detached part one/two

storey three bedroom dwellings, one with front balcony, and 4 car parking spaces


83

_____________________

13. Application No : 09/01025/CAC Ward : Chislehurst

Address : The Coach House Timber Close Chislehurst Kent BR7 5PA

Conservation Area: Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 543345 N: 169487

Applicant : Windmill Chase Objections: YES Description of Development: Demolition of existing dwelling CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT Joint report with application ref. 09/01026 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT subject to the following conditions: 1 ACG01 Comm.of dev-Listed Building and Con.Area

ACG01R Reason G01 Reasons for granting conservation area consent: In granting permission, the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the visual impact on the street scene (b) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential

properties (c) the relationship of the development to trees (d) the conservation policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raise, including neighbours concerns.

84

Reference: 09/01025/CAC Address: The Coach House Timber Close Chislehurst Kent BR7 5PA Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT


85

_____________________

14. Application No : 09/01087/FULL1 Ward : Bromley Common And Keston

Address : 4 Forest Ridge Keston Kent BR2 6EQ

Conservation Area: Keston Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 542341 N: 164511

Applicant : Mr Polyviou Objections: YES Description of Development: Replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral garage and accommodation in the roofspace. Proposal It is proposed to construct a replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral garage and accommodation in the roofspace. An application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling has been submitted under ref. 09/01088 and is to be found on this agenda. Measurements taken from the drawings submitted indicate that the dwelling will have a ridge height of approx. 8.5m. A minimum side space of approx. 1.8m will be maintained between the western flank wall and boundary, increasing to 2.25m at the rear. A minimum side space of approx. 3m will be maintained between the eastern flank wall and boundary, increasing to approx. 3.96m at the rear. The dwelling will have modest roof dormers to the front and rear roof slopes, feature a central gable design to the front elevation and an integral double garage adjacent to the eastern site boundary. The dwelling will be finished in facing brickwork and plain tiles. Location The application site measures approx. 0.12ha and is located on the southern side of Forest Ridge, close to the junction with Forest Drive. The site falls within the Keston Park Conservation Area.

86

Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• proposed building greater than existing building and previous grant of permission

• loss of light • overshadowing • development inappropriate for plot • out of character • overview of adjacent properties • overlooking • impact to trees • oversize development one of largest properties in section of road • building too large • building line moving forward exacerbates overlooking

Comments from Consultees The Environment Agency was notified of the application and raise no objection to the proposal. The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) were notified of the application and objected, considering the proposal “too high and bulky with an institutional design, out of character with other properties new and old”. Highways raised no objection to the proposal. Thames Water raises no objections to the proposal with regard to water and sewerage infrastructure. With regard to Trees, standard conditions are recommended. It is also considered that the pine adjacent to the existing drive should be retained. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that this tree will be retained as part of the proposal. Environmental Health recommend that should permission be granted, standard Condition K09 (concerning contaminated soil) should be imposed. Planning Considerations The main planning policies of relevance in this case are: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas

87

BE14 Trees in Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas H7 Housing Density and Design Planning History Under ref. 08/00432, planning permission was granted for a replacement five bedroom dwelling with an internal garage. An application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling was granted under ref. 08/00902 Under ref. 08/02708, a planning application was submitted for a replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral garage and accommodation in the roofspace. This application was withdrawn prior to determination. Most recently under ref. 09/00209, an application was submitted for a replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral garage and accommodation in the roof space. This was accompanied by an application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling under ref. 09/00211. The applications were due to be reported to Members of the Plans Sub-Committee at the meeting held on 2nd April but were withdrawn from consideration in light of late comments received from the Environment Agency, advising that the siting of the proposed dwelling within 5m of the Ravensbourne ditch was unacceptable. Conclusions The principle of replacing the existing dwelling on this site was established with the grant of planning permission under ref. 08/00432. Members must consider therefore whether the substantially revised replacement dwelling now under consideration is appropriate, having regard to the character and appearance of the Keston Park Conservation Area and the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. The proposed dwelling currently under consideration would have an increased ridge height when compared to the previously approved scheme, and would contain accommodation within the roofspace. This is not considered to be out of scale with other dwellings in the vicinity, although it is noted that the adjacent dwelling at No. 2 Forest Ridge is a bungalow. In terms of its architectural style, again it is considered that the proposal would not be out of character with this part of Forest Ridge which displays a mix of dwellings of varying architectural styles and merit. In respect of side space, the separation that would be afforded to the western boundary is, at a minimum of approx. 3m considered to be acceptable having regard to the Conservation Area setting. The minimum space that would be maintained to the eastern boundary at ground floor level is notably less at

88

approx. 1.8m, however it should be noted that the first floor of the dwelling would be set in, affording a separation of approx. 3.28m and therefore maintaining the spatial standards visually within the street scene. It is noted that the dwelling would be set relatively far back within the plot; however Members will note that this is reflective of the siting of the existing dwelling. With regard to the impact to neighbouring residents, it is noted that the proposal would result in an increase in the amount and bulk of the built development on the site; however Members will be aware that planning permission has already been granted for a two storey dwelling under ref. 08/00432. Given the separation from neighbouring dwellings however, it is not considered that this proposal would have a significant impact in terms of the daylighting to or prospect and outlook from neighbouring dwellings. It is noted that roof dormers are now proposed at second floor level; however it is not considered that these would result in a significant degree of overlooking or loss of privacy so as to warrant the refusal of the application. On balance, Members may agree that the proposed dwelling is acceptable. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/00432, 08/00902, 08/02708, 09/00209, 09/00211, 09/01087 and 09/01088, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details

ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted

ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op.

ACB01R Reason B01 5 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing

ACB02R Reason B02 6 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires

ACB03R Reason B03 7 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains

ACB04R Reason B04 8 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces)


ACC03R Reason C03 10 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

89

Reason: In order to prevent the overdevelopment of the site. 11 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the first floor flank elevations

and roofslopes ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1

12 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) first floor flank dwelling ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1

Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas BE14 Trees in Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas H7 Housing Density and Design The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (e) comments received during the consultation period of the application (f) the preservation or enhancement of the Conservation Area (g) the urban design policies of the Unitary Development Plan (h) the urban conservation policies of the Unitary Development Plan and having regard to all other matters raised. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 Under the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws

1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any works in, over, under or within 8m landward of a main river, irrespective of any permission granted.

90

Reference: 09/01087/FULL1 Address: 4 Forest Ridge Keston Kent BR2 6EQ Proposal: Replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral

garage and accommodation in the roofspace.


91

_____________________

15. Application No : 09/01088/CAC Ward : Bromley Common And Keston

Address : 4 Forest Ridge Keston Kent BR2 6EQ

Conservation Area: Keston Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 542341 N: 164511

Applicant : Mr Polyviou Objections: NO Description of Development: Demolition of existing dwelling CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT Proposal It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling on site. A planning application for a replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral garage and accommodation in the roofspace has been submitted under ref. 09/01087 and is to be found on this agenda. Location The application site measures approx. 0.12ha and is located on the southern side of Forest Ridge, close to the junction with Forest Drive. The site falls within the Keston Park Conservation Area. Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and, at the time of writing the report no representations had been received. Comments from Consultees The application was inspected by the Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) who do not consider the proposed replacement dwelling to be satisfactory and accordingly object to the demolition of the existing dwelling on site.

92

Environmental Health suggests an informative with regard to demolition. Planning Considerations The main planning policies of relevance to this application is as follows: BE11 Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas Planning History Under ref. 08/00432, planning permission was granted for a replacement five bedroom dwelling with an internal garage. An application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling was granted under ref. 08/00902. Under ref. 08/02708, a planning application was submitted for a replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral garage and accommodation in the roofspace. This application was withdrawn prior to determination. Most recently under ref. 09/00209, an application was submitted for a replacement two storey detached six bedroom dwelling with integral garage and accommodation in the roof space. This was accompanied by an application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing dwelling under ref. 09/00211. The applications were due to be reported to Members of the Plans Sub-Committee at the meeting held on 2nd April but were withdrawn from consideration in light of late comments received from the Environment Agency, advising that the siting of the proposed dwelling within 5m of the Ravensbourne ditch was unacceptable. Conclusions The principle of the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site was established under ref. 08/00902. The replacement dwelling now proposed is considered to be acceptable on balance, and accordingly it is considered that the demolition of the existing building, which is considered to make a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the Keston Park Conservation Area, should not be resisted. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/00432, 08/00902, 08/02708, 09/00209, 09/00211, 09/01087 and 09/01088, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT subject to the following conditions:

93

1 ACG01 Comm.of dev-Listed Building and Con.Area ACG01R Reason G01

In granting consent the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE11 Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the preservation or enhancement of the Conservation Area (b) the urban design policies of the Unitary Development Plan (c) the urban conservation policies of the Unitary Development Plan (d) the replacement dwelling is considered to be suitable and having regard to all other matters raised. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 Before the use commences, the applicant is advised to contact the

pollution team of Environmental Health and Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

94

Reference: 09/01088/CAC Address: 4 Forest Ridge Keston Kent BR2 6EQ Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling

CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT


95

_____________________ 16. Application No : 09/01324/FULL6 Ward :

Farnborough And Crofton

Address : Smallhythe Wood Way Orpington Kent BR6 8LS

Conservation Area: Farnborough Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 543376 N: 165743

Applicant : Mr Ian Morgan Objections: YES Description of Development: Two storey rear extension Proposal This proposal relates to a part one/two storey rear extension. The extension will project 6.0m at ground floor level and a maximum of 4.0m at first floor level. However, the first floor element nearest to the boundary with ‘The Paddocks’ located to the south of the site would project 3.5m. The roofspace above the property would be enlarged above the proposed extensions. An existing conservatory which projects up to 4.5m at ground floor level will be demolished. Location The application site is located within the Farnborough Park Conservation Area fronting Wood Way. Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• little difference between this and an earlier proposal

96

• application property has already been extended considerably from its original size

• first floor of “Smallhythe” already extends well beyond the neighbouring dwelling

• loss of prospect from “The Paddocks” • harmful visual impact resulting from the extension • concerns regarding impact of proposal on structure of property at “The

Paddocks” A number of photographs have been submitted by the objectors to illustrate their points which are available on file to view. Comments from Consultees Under application ref. 08/01408 for a similar scheme, objections were raised by APCA on the grounds of overdevelopment and with regard to the architectural merit of the scheme. No objection has been raised by the Heritage & Urban Design on the basis that the development will be concentrated at the rear of the dwelling and that the extension would be confined to the rear elevation with an insignificant impact on the streetscape. Planning Considerations Policies BE1, H8 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design; to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties; and to protect the overall character of conservation areas. Planning History Under application ref. 08/01408 planning permission for a similar scheme was refused on the following grounds:

"The proposal would be overdominant and would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of the adjoining property “The Paddocks” might reasonably expect to be able continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect in view of its size and depth of rearward projection, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan".

"The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the amount of site coverage by the bulk of the proposed extension which would detract from the character of the building and would harm the

97

character and appearance of this part of the Farnborough Park Conservation Area, contrary to Policies BE1, BE11 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan".

Application ref. 08/01408 was effectively resubmitted in early 2009 under ref. 09/00617. However this was withdrawn to enable modifications to be made to the scheme. In contrast to the current application, under application ref. 09/00617 it was proposed that the entire first floor extension would project 4.0m (and not be reduced to 3.5m nearest to the boundary with ‘The Paddocks’ located to the south of the site which is now proposed). Under planning ref. 05/04244 permission was granted for a single storey rear extension in place of the existing conservatory. A 6.0 metre rearward projection was proposed. Conclusions The main considerations in this case relate to the impact of the first floor element, particularly with regard to the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling at “The Paddocks”, and whether the proposal harms the character and appearance of this part of the Farnborough Park Conservation Area. It will also be necessary to consider whether the proposed reduction in the projection of the first floor rear extension nearest to the boundary with ‘The Paddocks’ (in comparison to application ref. 08/01408) will be sufficient to overcome an earlier refusal relating to its visual impact and effect on the prospect of that neighbouring property. Given that the Council has previously agreed to the principle of a ground floor extension projecting 6.0m at the application property on the basis that this element will have minimal impact upon residential amenity and is well scaled in proportion to the host building, this ground floor element is considered acceptable. Presently, the two storey element of the application dwelling already projects 3m further rearward than the neighbouring dwelling at “The Paddocks” at first floor level and appears somewhat dominant. Whilst a separation of approximately 7.5m will be maintained between the flank walls of either property, given the visual dominance of the existing southern flank wall of the application dwelling as viewed from the neighbouring side, it is considered that an additional 3.5m rearward projection at first floor level will appear unduly dominant and visually intrusive (although it is accepted that this is a marginal improvement on the 4.0m projection previously proposed). Members will note that under the 2008 application permission was also refused on the basis that the proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the amount of site coverage by the bulk of the proposed extension which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation

98

Area. Consideration should be made as to whether this ground should be maintained in this application since the proposal will be largely hidden from the streetscene. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file refs: 08/01408, 09/00617 and 09/01324, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposal would be overdominant and would be detrimental to the

amenities that the occupiers of the adjoining property “The Paddocks” might reasonably expect to be able continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect in view of its size and depth of rearward projection, contrary to Policies H8, BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site by reason

of the amount of site coverage by the bulk of the proposed extension which would detract from the character of the building and would harm the character and appearance of this part of the Farnborough Park Conservation Area, contrary to Policies BE1, BE11 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

99

Reference: 09/01324/FULL6 Address: Smallhythe Wood Way Orpington Kent BR6 8LS Proposal: Two storey rear extension


100

101

SECTION ‘3’ – Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT


Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 176 - 178 Petts Wood Road Petts Wood Orpington Kent BR5 1LG

Conservation Area: Station Square Petts Wood

OS Grid Ref:

E: 544512 N: 167760

Applicant : Mr Omar Mallem Objections : NO Description of Development: Retention of part of existing single storey rear extension with addition of new pitched roof. PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION Proposal The application premises comprises a double-fronted restaurant fronting Petts Wood Road. This proposal relates to the part retention of an unauthorised single storey rear extension together with the addition of a pitched roof. The single storey rear extension (which houses a dry food and cold store) would be reduced in depth from approximately 9.5m to 4.8m whilst a mansard roof will be added above it. This extension projects beyond an existing extension which was permitted under application ref. 99/02905 and which projects approximately 10m beyond the original building. Furthermore, a garage located to the rear of the site (and adjoining the rear extension) will be demolished in order to provide an additional open area to the rear of the site. Upon completion of the proposed works a maximum separation of approximately 11m will be maintained between the restaurant premises and a service lane located to the rear. A new ventilation system will be added which will partially be housed within the new mansard roof (to be built above the retained rear extension) and will also

102

partially be located above the authorised single storey rear extension. A ventilation duct rising approximately 1.7m above the proposed mansard roof. A screening board and railing will be added either side of the ducting where this is located above the rear extension to reduce its prominence. This proposal only relates to the rear of the premises, which back on to a rear service lane and residential gardens in Kingsway, and is not visible from surrounding roads. An enforcement notice requiring the demolition of the unauthorised rear extensions and the removal of existing ventilation ducting has already been authorised. However, enforcement proceedings are in abeyance pending the outcome of this application. Location The appeal site comprises two properties in use as a restaurant with residential accommodation above. It forms part of a 1930’s neo-Tudor style retail parade which forms part of the Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area and which serves the surrounding residential estate. The plan form, elevations and many of the original shop fronts have remained intact giving this Conservation Area its cohesive and distinctive character and appearance. Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received. Comments from Consultees No technical objections have been raised by Environmental Health. However, a condition relating to the installation of a kitchen extract flue has been suggested. The conservation officer declined to comment on this application. Planning Considerations Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design; to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties; and to protect the overall character of conservation areas. Policy ER9 regarding ventilation is also relevant. This policy seeks to reduce potential noise and small nuisance through the installation of effective ventilation systems.

103

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area is also relevant. This recognises that the rear curtilages of properties in the conservation area have little impact on the character of the area as a whole. The existing plan form is seen as limiting the layout of new development with new extensions only considered acceptable on the rear elevations and expected to have matching materials, and be subservient in scale to the host property. It also suggests rear garages should remain detached. Planning History There is a considerable planning history relating to the site which includes the following: 99/01556 This application sought permission for a single storey rear extension together with an external staircase leading to a first floor flat, a new shop front and the formation of a terrace on front forecourt. This proposal was refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and an unacceptable increase in intensity of use. 99/02905 A subsequent application was granted for a single storey rear extension, together with an external staircase to a first floor flat, a new shopfront and the formation of terrace on the front forecourt. The details to this were revised by planning permission ref. 02/01860 to include a 1.8m high privacy screen. Numerous conditions were attached to this permission, including the submission of detailed plans of the appearance of and the equipment comprising a ventilation system to include measures to alleviate fumes and odours to be approved by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority and implemented thereafter. The details were to be approved before the use permitted commenced. However, no details were received and an enforcement notice was issued. 07/00738 Planning permission was sought to replace the unauthorised ventilation ducting located above the second floor rear gable with ventilation units to be located above the flat roof of the single storey rear extension. A 1500mm high screen was also proposed as part of the scheme in order to part screen elements of the system. However this scheme remained undetermined as a result of the refusal by the Council to refuse application ref. 07/00738. This application has subsequently been withdrawn. 07/01037

104

This retrospective application originally sought to retain the covered rear store, rear fence and the removal of a storage container and the demolition of the existing garage. This application was refused on the following grounds:

"The retention of the covered rear store would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The retention of the covered rear store would amount to an overdevelopment of the site, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan".

It should be noted that the storage container has since been removed. An appeal was subsequently submitted in respect of this application. However, this was dismissed and, in her appeal statement, the Planning Inspector made the following points:

"In spite of the variety of outbuildings, open storage and parking areas to the rear of this parade of shops, I consider that the rear store would seriously detract from the original open character to the rear of the appeal site. I have also noted the representations regarding the loss of the rear garden area which traditionally served the flats above. No doubt this open character contributed to the special qualities that led to the designation of the area as an example of a ‘1930’s garden suburb’. Although the rear store would be largely screened from general public gaze, this does not mean that the design and scale of appeal scheme would not affect the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

I consider that the collection of ill-matched buildings, structures and enclosures represented by the appeal scheme would, in terms of scale, design and materials, detract in a material way from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, especially when compared with the original building. The quality in terms of design and use of materials is wholly at variance with the objectives of Policy BE11 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2006 and the advice in the SPG. Thus I conclude on this first issue that the appeal scheme seriously detracts from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Moreover, the rear store together with the retention of the existing garage and storage container result in almost 100% site coverage. I saw that the cumulative impact of this scale of development left insufficient on-site provision for servicing, with vehicles having to park in the rear service lane, blocking access to properties further along the parade and the domestic garage to No 168. The combined bulk and scale of the appeal scheme would, in my view, represent an unacceptable increase in density

105

of development contrary to the advice in the SPG relating to the need for extensions to be subservient to the host property.

Accordingly, I have concluded that the size, scale, design and materials of the appeal scheme and the resultant overdevelopment of the site would fail to preserve the character and appearance of Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area. This is contrary to the objectives of Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan 2006 and the advice in the SPG. These seek to ensure that the design and layout of new development is of a high standard, and respects the existing pattern of development and spaces in the conservation area".

However, the Inspector raised no objection to the proposal in relation to neighbouring amenity, considering that the ‘scheme and the rear store in particular, would [not] result in any additional loss of privacy or overlooking, over and above that already experienced.’ Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The main objections raised by the Planning Inspector in her appeal decision letter are summarised below:

• the loss of the rear garden area whose open character contributed to the special qualities that led to the designation of the area as an example of a ‘1930’s garden suburb’;

• the collection of ill-matched buildings, structures and enclosures represented by the appeal scheme would, in terms of scale, design and materials, detract in a material way from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area;

• the rear store together with the retention of the existing garage and storage container result in almost 100% site coverage;

• the cumulative impact of this scale of development left insufficient on-site provision for servicing, with vehicles having to park in the rear service lane, blocking access to properties further along the lane;

• the size, scale, design and materials of the appeal scheme and the resultant overdevelopment of the site would fail to preserve the character and appearance of Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area

In considering the current scheme it is noted that this proposal would effectively reinstate an open area to rear of the premises. Combined with the removal of the existing unauthorised structure, as well the rear garage, the overall appearance of the site would be improved, thereby enhancing the character and appearance of the wider Conservation Area. In comparison to earlier applications, including

106

the 1999 permitted scheme, the detached garage will be removed which will open up the site adjoining the rear service lane. This will also enable vehicles to enter the site without blocking access to properties further along the lane. The design of the rear extension with its proposed mansard roof is considered acceptable with regard to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. The mansard roof will also serve to partly obscure the lawful rear extension (built immediately to the rear of the original buildings) which is characterised by its high parapet wall. As such the rear extensions will appear more characteristic of each other which will accord with the character and appearance of Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area. With regard to the ventilation unit, it is considered that this scheme will result in a wholesale improvement on the existing situation. Presently, the rear gable roof of the host building is dominated by ventilation ducts which rise above the rear second floor dormers. By locating these units above or within the ground floor extensions the appearance of the host building will be reinstated to its original form and the overall appearance of this parade will be improved, as viewed from the rear service lane and from surrounding residential properties. On balance, Members may consider that this proposal seeks to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, without detriment to the visual amenities of the area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 99/01556, 99/02905, 07/00738, 07/01037 and 09/00604, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 21.05.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 Prior to work commencing on the proposed works, the existing ventilation

ducting shall be removed, and the existing garage and rear element of the unauthorised rear extension (as shown in Drawing No 176/01 Revision A) shall be demolished, and all rubble removed from site. All such works shall be completed by 30th October 2009.

Reason: To prevent an overdevelopment of the site and in the interest of the visual amenities of the Conservation Area, and to accord with Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans approved under this planning permission unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The authorised works shall be completed by 30th January 2010.

107

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the Conservation Area, and to accord with Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The kitchen extract flue shall be fitted with an accelerator or similar device and details of this shall be submitted to an approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced.

Reason: In order to reduce the small and noise impact of the works on surrounding development, and to comply with Policy ER9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 ACA05 Landscaping scheme - implementation ACA05R Reason A05

5 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07


Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas ER9 Ventilation T3 Parking The development is considered satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the Conservation Area; (b) the relation of the development to the adjacent property; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties; (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties and having regard to all other matters raised.

108

Reference: 09/00604/FULL1 Address: 176 - 178 Petts Wood Road Petts Wood Orpington Kent BR5 1LG Proposal: Retention of part of existing single storey rear extension with addition of

new pitched roof. PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION


109

_____________________ 18.

Application No : 09/00801/FULL1 Ward :

Penge And Cator

Address : 74 High Street Penge London SE20 7HB

Conservation Area: Penge High Street

OS Grid Ref:

E: 535346 N: 170348

Applicant : Mr A Ghafar Objections : YES Description of Development: Single storey rear extension and part 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor extensions to provide 3 two bedroom flats. Proposal It is proposed to construct a single storey rear extension with a part 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor extension above. At ground floor this would provide an additional storage area for the retail unit. On the upper floors the extension would accommodate 3 additional two bedroom flats. The single storey rear extension already has the benefit of planning permission approved in March 2009 but has not yet been constructed. Location The application site is located towards the northern end of Penge High Street in an area with a mixture of uses. The existing property consists of a three storey Victorian mid terraced building currently used as a public house with 3 residential flats above. The terrace is composed of differing styled buildings which vary in height from three to four storeys. The site has a size of around 0.05 hectares with the space to the rear of the building forming the garden area for the public house. Towards the south of the site is a relatively new housing development known as Parkside Close with Nos. 19 and 18 being located towards the rear southern boundary of the application site. Towards the east are further commercial units with yards to the rear forming storage areas. The surrounding properties fronting the High Street are in commercial use.

110

Comments from Local Residents The scope of the new proposals, together with the existing permitted extensions fails to preserve or enhance the conservation area. A local Ward Councillor has expressed concerns about the potential impact on the current parking situation as a result of the increase in residential property. Comments from Consultees The conservation Advisory Panel raised objections to the proposal stating that the front and rear elevation should be retained. The loss of original features being replaced with an over dominant extension harms the character and appearance of the conservation area. In terms of drainage issues, the site is in an area where restrictions on the rate of surface water discharge are required. To ensure this occurs a standard condition should be imposed on any approval. With regards to highway planning issues, the application included a parking stress survey. Given the relatively small nature of the likely impact this development would have, no technical objections are raised. With regards to heritage and urban design issues, no objections are raised subject to standard conditions regarding materials. From an environmental health perspective, no technical objections are raised subject to conditions regarding contaminated land and noise mitigation measures. Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that conservation area. The proposal therefore falls to be considered primarily with regard to the following policies: BE1 General Design BE11 Conservation Areas H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design T1 Transport Demand T3 Parking ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development ER13 Foul and Surface Water Discharges From Development

111

London Plan 3A.3 Maximising the Potential Of Sites 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.8 Respect local context and communities Government guidance, and that contained within the London Plan, require Councils to maximise the best use of urban land where appropriate when considering new residential developments, but also to retain development that makes a positive contribution to an area. Planning History Under planning application ref. 83/03166, planning permission was granted on 27th February 1984 for a single storey rear extension and alterations to the front elevation. Under planning application ref. 09/00257, planning permission was granted on 16th March 2009 for a single storey rear extension and the installation of a new shop front. Conclusions The principle planning issues in this case relate to the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the street scene in general; the impact of the proposals on the living conditions and amenities of the neighbouring residents and the standard of accommodation for the future occupiers of the proposed flats. In terms of the amenity of the local residents, the proposal maintains adequate distances between the surrounding properties and appears to have a minimal impact on the immediate neighbours, given the general pattern of development in the area and the amount of commercial premises within the immediate vicinity. Paragraph 4.55 of the Unitary Development Plan states that accommodation above shops can be an important potential source of additional housing, this requires a flexible approach to planning standards, particularly regarding density, car parking, amenity space and overlooking. The internal layout provides an acceptable residential environment within the constraints of the existing building and the proposed extensions to it. Since the previously withdrawn application where concerns were expressed regarding car parking provision the applicant has conducted a full parking stress assessment which now satisfies the requirements of the Council’s Highway Planning Division.

112

The proposal helps to maintain the vitality and viability of the parade providing much needed residential accommodation close to an existing town centre without compromising the character and appearance of the area. The conversion from a public house into a retail unit has not yet taken place; however under current government legislation this can be carried out as permitted development and does not require the benefit of a formal planning application. The proposed extension is of an acceptable design and scale relating appropriately to the existing building and adjacent properties and is compliant with policy with regards to the design and appearance. It is noted that similar properties nearby have residential accommodation above the existing commercial units at ground floor. Accordingly, on balance, the proposal when taking into account the extensions proposed would appear to be acceptable without resulting in unduly harmful detriment to the local residential and visual amenities of the area or, highway safety in general. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 83/03166 and 09/00257, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 18.06.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs



ACC03R Reason C03 4 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt

ACD02R Reason D02 5 The rear storage area at ground floor shall be used for purposes ancillary

to the retail unit fronting Penge High Street and shall not be severed to form a separate unit.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenities and to comply with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.


7 Prior to works commencing, the applicant shall submit a PPG24 Noise Study to the Local Planning Authority which gives the Noise Exposure Category as well as glazing and other measures for mitigating the effect of the noise future occupiers of the building. The building shall not be

113

occupied until a scheme of noise mitigation measures has been approved by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenities to address transportation noise and to comply with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Reasons for permission In granting permission the local planning authority had regard to the following policies of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T1 Transport Demand T3 Parking T18 Road Safety ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development ER13 Foul and Surface Water Discharges from Development The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent property (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (g) the relationship of the development to trees to be retained (h) the safety of pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent highway (i) accessibility to buildings (j) the housing policies of the development plan (k) the urban design policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raised. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI10 Consult Land Charges/Street Numbering

114

Reference: 09/00801/FULL1 Address: 74 High Street Penge London SE20 7HB Proposal: Single storey rear extension and part 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor extensions to

provide 3 two bedroom flats.


115


Farnborough And Crofton

Address : 14 Masefield View Orpington Kent BR6 8PH


OS Grid Ref:

E: 544235 N: 165299

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Killalea Objections : YES Description of Development: Side dormer Proposal It is proposed to construct one side roof dormer along the north western roof slope of this detached property. Additional habitable accommodation would be provided within the existing roof area. The property is characterised by a gable roof located above main two storey element above which the dormer would be erected. The dormer would be inset by approximately 1.9m from the front. It would measure 3.59m in width and 2.2m in height, whilst it would project 4.78m in depth. The dormer would contain 2 obscure windows and include tile hang finish so as to match the host dwelling. Two additional skylights would be opposite on the opposite side of the roof. The applicant has also submitted various photographs showing various front and rear dormers which have been added to houses in the vicinity. Location The application dwelling is located within a modern housing estate comprising linked-detached and semi detached houses mainly built in the 1970s and 1980s. Comments from Local Residents

116

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and a number of representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• unsatisfactory design • development out of character with the surrounding area • dormers at Nos. 37 and 39 Masefield Avenue formed part of the original

dwellings and were not added later • loss of privacy • size of development would exceed permitted development allowance • unbalance the appearance of the dwelling • set a precedent for similar development in the area • loss of light and privacy

Any further comments will be reported verbally at the meeting. Comments from Consultees Not applicable Planning Considerations Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design which complements the qualities of the surrounding area; and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties. Planning History Under application ref. 07/01998, a planning application to erect two side dormers was refused on the following grounds:

"The proposed roof dormer extensions would result in a 'top heavy' visual appearance inadequately separated from both flank boundaries contrary to Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and be detrimental to the visual amenities of and existing limited spatial standards of the street scene".

Conclusions The main issue in this case is the impact of the proposal on the local residential and visual amenity. However, as Members will be aware, since October 2008 the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order has been revised. This has meant that individual alterations or extensions to dwellinghouses are considered on an individual basis and not in terms of their cumulative floor area.

117

In this case, the proposed extension complies with all of the provisions within Class B of Schedule 2 of the GPDO, except condition c(ii) regarding the installation of obscure glazed fixed-shut windows on windows on a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse. As such this proposal is subject to planning permission. With regard to the impact on residential amenity, the proposed windows on the dormer would not directly face any neighbouring window or overlook any neighbouring room due to their position. In terms of the impact of the dormer on the visual amenities of the streetscene, Members may consider (notwithstanding the provisions of the GPDO) that given its set back position and more limited size, the proposed extension will appear more subservient in relation to the host dwelling and less prominent within the streetscene. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/01998 and 08/00911, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs


ACC04R Reason C04 Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions The development is considered satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relation of the development to the adjacent property; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties; (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties and having regard to all other matters raised.

118

Reference: 08/00911/FULL6 Address: 14 Masefield View Orpington Kent BR6 8PH Proposal: Side dormer


119


Bromley Common And Keston

Address : Land R/o 70/72 Pope Road Bromley


OS Grid Ref:

E: 541909 N: 167866

Applicant : Ms N Cracker Objections : YES Description of Development: 2 semi-detached three bedroom houses with car parking space and access to Union Road (rear of 66, 68, 70 and 72 Pope Road) Proposal Full planning permission is sought for two 2 storey semi-detached three bedroom properties each with a car parking space . The dwellings will front Union Road. A maximum distance of 3.4m is to be retained between the front elevation of the proposed properties and the boundary with Union Road, with a minimum and maximum distance of 3.8m and 5.0m between the flank wall of the dwellings and the boundary shared with the properties along Pope Road, and a distance between 1.6 and 4.5m is proposed to the boundary with No. 3 Union Road. The proposed garden length varies from approximately 9.7m (at the north western corner of the property closest to Pope Road) to 10.8 at a maximum distance. Location The application site is located on the south-western side of Union Road, opposite number 2 Brooklyn Road, at the rear of Nos. 66, 68, 70 and 72 Pope Road and adjacent to 3 Union Road. The site is located in a residential area, with the immediate area along Pope Road and Union Road being characterised by two storey terraced properties and Brooklyn Road characterised predominantly by two storey semi-detached properties.

120

Comments from Local Residents

• houses are not consistent with the character of the existing houses • three bedroom houses will have a family and have two cars • the houses would limit the outlook of properties in Pope Road • lead to loss of privacy, and the open aspect of properties in Pope Road. • overlooking of properties in Pope Road, Union Road, Pear Tree Close and

Brooklyn Road. • the design does not match the Edwardian/Victorian properties in Union

Road • the agent claims that this is a resubmission of the 2002 application, it is

materially different • this proposal is wider and the 2 storey design will be domineering to

properties in Pope Road • parking problems would be exacerbated • overlooking for neighbouring properties • loss of amenity for neighbouring properties • overshadowing for neighbouring properties • it is back land development • it would result in an over-development in an already densely populated

area • the development would result in overlooking and privacy issues • the design is not cohesive with other architecture in the area • measurements of the architects plans/drawings are suspect • the back gardens are to small for a three bed room house • the pavement alongside the garden of 72 Pope Road is a popular

pedestrian route • a tree is situated on the pavement in front of the development

Comments from Consultees From a Highways point of view there are no objections to the proposal. Thames water did not have any objections the application Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies BE1, H7, H9, T3, T11 and T18 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2006). It also falls to be considered under Policies 3A.1 (Increasing London’s Supply Of Housing), 3A.2 (Borough Housing Targets), 3A.3 (Maximising The Potential of Sites), 4.A3 (Sustainable Design and Construction), 4B.1 (Design Principles For a Compact City), 4B.8 (Respect Local Context and Communities) of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004).

121

Policy H7 and BE1 requires the scale and form of new residential development to be in keeping with the surrounding area, be of a high standard of design and to adequately safeguard the privacy and amenities of adjoining occupiers. Policy H9 draws attention to the need to respect the spatial standards of the surrounding area and retain satisfactory standards of separation between existing properties. Policy T3, requires off street parking provision in accordance with the parking standards set out in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2006) Policy T11 states that any new access created as a result of a development should not create a road safety hazard or interfere with the free flow of traffic on roads where the needs of through traffic should take precedence. Policy T18 draws attention to the need to ensure any proposal does not have an adverse effect on road safety. Policies 3A.3, 4A.3, and 4B.1 of the London Plan relate to ensure high quality design within the London Boroughs. They state that all new development should maximise the potential of sites and fulfil the criteria for good sustainable, urban design whilst respecting the natural environment and built heritage. Policy 4B.8 of the London Plan relates to the protection of London’s environment and local context. This states that local distinctiveness should be respected by all proposals and preserve or enhance the social, physical, cultural, historical and environmental characteristics of an area. Government guidance in the form of PPS3 “Housing” generally encourages higher density developments in appropriate locations, while emphasising the role of good design and layout to achieve the objectives of making the best use of previously developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas, but without compromising the quality of the environment. Planning History Under ref. 02/01739, permission was refused for an outline application for 2 semi-detached dwellings each with attached garage and access to Union Road (R/o 66, 68, 70 and 72 Pope Road). The application was refused on the following ground:

“The proposed development would constitute a cramped over-development of the site and would have an undesirable impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties and on the character of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to Policies H.2 and E.1 of the adopted

122

Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6 and BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).”

The applicant lodged an appeal, and The Planning Inspectorate allowed the appeal. Under ref. 07/02136, permission was refused for 4 three storey three bedroom terraced houses with integral garages and access from Union Road and land to the rear of Nos. 66/68/70 and 72 Pope Road and adjacent to No 3 Union Road. The application was refused on the following ground:

“The proposals would result in a cramped over-development of the site, out of character with the surrounding area, and detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of loss of privacy and outlook, thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

Under ref. 08/00912, permission was refused for 3 three terraced houses with integral garages with access from Union Road and land to the rear of Nos. 66/68/70 and 72 Pope Road and adjacent to No 3 Union Road. The application was refused on the following ground:

“The proposal would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the surrounding area, and detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of loss of privacy and outlook, thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan”.

Conclusions The main issues surrounding this application are whether this type of development of semi-detached houses is acceptable in this location, the likely impact of the proposed scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, having particular regard to the density, layout and design of the proposed scheme. The characteristics of the area are predominantly that of terraced and semi detached properties. Policy BE1 highlights the need for proposals to be of a high standard of design and layout complementing the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings. It is noted that the principle of development on this site has already been accepted by way of the appeal decision concerning the 2002 application for 2 semi-detached dwellings each with attached garage (ref. 02/01739). Accordingly, this appeal decision and the other applications at the site are material

123

considerations that have to be taken into account in the process of this application. Central Government Advice Planning Policy regarding housing, (PPS3) seeks more efficient use of land but at the same time not comprising the quality of the environment. This application needs to be assessed in the light of this guidance and is also material to whether the development is acceptable at this site. On this basis, consideration must be made as to whether the proposals are acceptable at this site and whether the development fits within its environment. Furthermore, an assessment needs to be made as to whether the development would protect the amenities of the properties of the area, especially of those properties adjacent to the access of the site. The plans indicate that there would appear to be reasonable separation between the proposals and the adjacent existing residential properties. On this basis the proposal would appear to be compatible with the existing residential character of the area, the relationships appear to be in line with local design advice for new development. The density proposed is in the region of 42 dwellings per hectare, which appears to be within the guide line of policy H7 and the London Plan. The current scheme now proposes a pair of semi-detached three bedroom houses each with a car parking space as opposed to the previous two applications, which were submitted and refused for terraced houses. Objections have been received from neighbours regarding the impact the proposal will have on the adjacent properties in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, out of character and overdevelopment of the site due the position and close proximity of the property in relation to the adjacent dwellings. It should be noted that the appeal inspector for application ref. 02/01739 pair of semi detached dwellings, stated “that the scale and form of the development would be in keeping with the area”, “the remaining gardens of Nos. 66-70 would still provide adequate amenity space for the occupiers”. “Although the garden of no; 164 would be overlooked more than at present, this would not create unacceptable living conditions. For similar reasons, it is considered that there would be no unacceptable overlooking of any other property”. The design of the 2 semi-detached houses with bay windows is considered to be in keeping with the properties within the area, which is made up of terraced and semi detached properties. The scheme appears to have been designed in order to minimise the impact of the dwellings on the adjoining sites, the rear elevation has one window to the first floor, and the windows in the flank walls of the

124

property will have be obscure glazed. The amenity space provided for the two new properties is considered acceptable. In this case it is clear that there will be some impact on nearby properties as a result of this proposal and a judgement needs to be made about whether the impact is unduly harmful. Accordingly, Members will need to consider taking into account local objections whether this proposal is satisfactory Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 02/01739, 07/02136, 08/00912 and 09/00983, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs


ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt

ACD02R Reason D02 4 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application

ACH03R Reason H03 5 ACH09 Restriction on height to front and flank

ACH09R Reason H09 6 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted

ACH18R Reason H18 7 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the residents of neighbouring

properties and in order to comply with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

8 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank development ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1

9 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the proposed fixed window at first floor level in the flank elevation shall be obscure glazed in accordance with details submitted to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and details of any openings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall subsequently be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details. In the interests of the privacy of adjoining properties and openings should be at high level. ACI11R Reason I11 (1 insert) BE1 and H7

10 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the residents of adjacent properties

and to comply with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

125


12 No loose materials shall be used for surfacing of the parking area hereby permitted. ACH17R Reason H17

13 Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan: UDP BE1 Design of New Development H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T11 New Accesses T18 Road Safety London Plan 3A.1 Increasing London’s supply of housing 3A.2 Borough housing targets 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.8 Respect local context and communities The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the character of the development in the surrounding area (c) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (d) the safety of pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent highway (e) the safety and security of buildings and the spaces around them (f) accessibility to buildings (g) the design policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raised. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 You should seek engineering advice from the Environmental Services

Department at the Civic Centre with regards to reinstatement of any damage to the highway. Please contact Richard Harries of Street Services on 020 8313 4926.

126

2 You should consult Street Naming and Numbering/Address Management at the Civic Centre on 0208313 4742, email [email protected] regarding Street Naming and Numbering.

3 You are advised that it is an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 to obstruct "the free passage along the highway" (which includes the footway i.e. the pavement). This means that vehicles parked on the forecourt should not overhang the footway and therefore you should ensure that any vehicle is parked wholly within the site.

4 You should contact extension 4621 (020 8313 4621 direct line) at the Environmental Services Department at the Civic Centre with regard to the laying out of the crossover(s) and/or reinstatement of the existing crossover(s) as footway. A fee is payable for the estimate for the work which is refundable when the crossover (or other work) is carried out. A form to apply for an estimate for the work can be obtained by telephoning the Highways Customer Services Desk on the above number.

127

Reference: 09/00983/FULL1 Address: Land R/o 70/72 Pope Road Bromley Proposal: 2 semi-detached three bedroom houses with car parking space and access

to Union Road (rear of 66, 68, 70 and 72 Pope Road)


128

129


Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : Dreadnought Cottage Baston Road Bromley BR2 7BU

Conservation Area: Bromley Hayes and Keston Commons

OS Grid Ref:

E: 540768 N: 165577

Applicant : Mr John Dalton Objections : NO Description of Development: Single storey rear extension Proposal Single storey rear extension to the rear north elevation and a roof light to the front elevation. The extension which replaces the existing conservatory is approximately 18 sq m. The additional extension measures 7.16 sq m. Location The property is sited off Baston Road access is via an unmade road which runs parallel with the adjacent Redgate Drive. This road serves two properties Dreadnought Cottage and Pleasant View situated in an area of established woodland. Dreadnought Cottage is a single storey crescent shaped building and is Locally Listed. The property falls within the Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area, and the Green Belt. Comments from Local Residents No comments have been received at the time of writing this report

130

Comments from Consultees Heritage and Urban design has no objections to the proposal Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas BE10 Locally Listed Buildings BE16 Ancient Monuments and Archaeology G1 Green Belt G4 Extension in the Green Belt H8 Residential Extensions Planning History Previous applications for extensions to the property include the following: 85/02558 Single storey extension granted permission. 89/02059 Attached carport - permission and 04/02100 Partial recladding and timber boarding - permission. 08/03460 Single storey rear extension was refused for the following reason:

“The property is situated within the Green Belt and has been the subject of a number of significant previous extensions. The cumulative impact of the proposed extension and earlier works would result in a disproportionate development, by more that 10% over that of the original dwelling house, contrary to Policy G4 of the Unitary Development Plan regarding development, alterations or conversions in the Green Belt. The proposed extension would by virtue of its size and location, have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity and openness of the area, contrary to Policy G4 of the Unitary Development Plan, alterations and conversions in the Green Belt”.

Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area including the Green Belt and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. The history shows that extensions have already been carried out to the property, as a single storey extension and attached carport has previously been granted

131

permission. The current proposal is for a single storey rear extension to rebuild the conservatory within its existing footprint, and an extension to provide a corridor to enabling internal improvements to the existing bedroom areas. The proposed extension will be finished in a timber, cladding, a zinc roof with roof light and aluminium windows and doors. The rear extension will face towards Redgate Drive, the property is not overlooked and the garden and immediate area consists of established planting of hedges and trees. Although the extension is of a modern design it will not detract from the character of the host building, and it would not impact detrimentally on the character of the Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area or harm the openness of the Green Belt. Although the property is a Listed Building the proposed roof light will lay within the slope of the exiting roof to the front elevation of the building, and would not be considered detrimental to the property. In this case, even though the proposal technically exceeds Policy G4(i), by increasing the original floor space, it is considered that on balance the proposal complies with part (ii) and (iii) of Policy G4. This is due to the nature of the extension. It is considered that the extension will not comprise the character of visual amenities of the Green Belt, will not lead to a significant detrimental change to the original dwellinghouse or reduce openness. It is considered that the impact on the surrounding residential properties would not be unduly harmful to the adjacent amenities given the siting of the proposed extension and distance from adjoining neighbours. Accordingly it is considered that taking into account of the previous extensions, this extension located as it is within the confines of the existing property, would not harm the visual amenities or the open or rural character of the locality nor result in a significant detrimental change in the overall form or character of the original dwelling. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 09/01033 and 08/03460, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 11.05.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years

132


Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas BE10 Locally Listed Buildings BE16 Ancient Monuments and Archaeology G1 Green Belt G4 Extension in the Green Belt H8 Residential Extensions The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the character of the development in the surrounding area (b) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (c) the safety and security of buildings and the spaces around them (d) the character of visual amenities of the Green Belt (e) the design policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raised.

133

Reference: 09/01033/FULL6 Address: Dreadnought Cottage Baston Road Bromley BR2 7BU Proposal: Single storey rear extension


134

135


Shortlands

Address : 42 Kingswood Avenue Bromley BR2 0NY


OS Grid Ref:

E: 539173 N: 168216

Applicant : Asprey Homes Limited Objections : YES Description of Development: Demolition of No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and erection of 3 four bedroom detached houses with integral garage. 1 four bedroom detached house with attached garage. 2 four bedroom detached houses with attached double garage. 1 four bedroom detached house with detached double garage and 2 three bedroom detached houses with integral garages plus associated car parking and estate road on land at No 42 Kingswood Avenue and land rear of Nos 51-63 South Hill Road (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 16.6.09) Proposal The current application proposes the demolition of No. 42 Kingswood Avenue, erection of 9 units comprising of 3 four bedroom detached dwellings with integral garages, 1 four bedroom detached house with attached garage, 2 four bedroom detached houses with attached double garage, 1 four bedroom detached house with detached double garage and 2 three bedroom detached houses with integral garages plus associated car parking and estate road. The 9 houses will be laid out in a cul-de-sac format. The rear gardens range from 9m to 11m in length. The flank walls of Plots 3 and 9 will be sited 2.29m and 1.42m respectively from the boundaries adjoining the rear gardens of properties fronting South Hill Road. The application is accompanied by an updated ecological assessment and tree survey. Car parking spaces are provided at the front of the houses with integral garages. A detached double garage is located at the side of plot 2 towards the northern boundary of the site.

136

During the course of the application a revised site plan was submitted on the 16th June 2009 following consultations with local residents. The revised plan indicated the removal of entrance gates and a rumble strip previously shown to the front of the site. Location The application site is 0.428 hectares in size and would be created from the severed parts of rear gardens of Nos. 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61 and 63 South Hill Road, a series of three pairs of semi-detached houses and one semi-detached house, and would include the demolition of the detached property at No. 42 Kingswood Avenue in order to create an access road through the site of the house and its garden plot. Topographically South Hill Road and Kingswood Avenue slope downhill from the south to the north. At the top of the hill is a series of ponds set within woodland (Kingswood Glen) and a public footpath passes through this area and connects the two roads. The properties in South Hill Road, on its western side, are predominantly two storey semi-detached houses of a uniform postwar design and have rear gardens between 60-63m long which back onto the rear gardens of Nos. 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54 and 56 Kingswood Avenue. The houses in Kingswood Avenue have been laid out in a regular detached pattern and are of two storey height with rear gardens generally about 32m in length. Tree Preservation Order No. 2088 protecting 13 oak trees growing in the rear gardens of Nos. 38, 40, 46, 50, 54, 56, 58, 62 and 64 Kingswood Avenue was confirmed as an opposed order on the 11 November 2005. Kingsood Glen, about 40m to the south of the application site, is designated as a Grade II Site of Importance for Nature Conservation in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The designation is based on the presence of a small area of probably ancient woodland and populations of amphibians including great crested newts in and around the ponds. Comments from Local Residents Numerous letters of objection have been received from local residents, including Shortlands Residents’ Association, in response to public consultation. The concerns raised are as follows:

• the proposal represents an inappropriate and unacceptable form of backland development

• the plot sizes are insufficient resulting in a cramped overdevelopment of the site

• the proposal will involve the loss of established gardens

137

• the proposal, due to their three storey height and appearance, appear excessive and out of scale and character with the adjoining houses

• the proposal will result in overlooking, loss of privacy and amenity to adjoining properties

• the proposal will involve the loss of existing trees (including the loss of trees prior to the submission of a planning application) and impact on the trees protected under TPO 2088

• the number of car parking spaces to serve the houses is inadequate and will result in an increase in traffic congestion and parking on nearby roads

• the access road will be un-neighbourly in terms of associated noise and general disturbance and is of insufficient width to accommodate emergency vehicles

• the proposal will have an adverse impact on the wildlife habitat, (including endangered species) and Kingswood Glen

• the proximity of the site to Highfield School will adversely affect the safety of children

• the proposal will overload the drainage and sewage system as well as local infrastructure

• the proposal will involve the potential for flooding given the interference with the natural pond and underground river in the vicinity

• there is the potential risk of subsidence and structural damage to adjacent properties from the construction vehicles

• the proposal will involve an undue amount of noise, disturbance and heavy traffic during the period of construction

• the proposal will set an undesirable precedent for this type of development in the area

• the proposal will result in the loss of property values in the locality • whilst the new style of houses may be an improvement on the approved

scheme in terms of design and layout, there are reduced parking facilities • the current scheme has increased the ridge heights of some of the

dwellings resulting in a more cramped appearance • the increased height could lead to rooms in the roof at a later date • the increased height further results in loss of privacy • the redesign of plot 3 has a negative impact on 65 South Hill Road by

virtue of the breakfast room being on the boundary side of the house whereas in the previous design there was simply a conservatory on the far side of the house

• plot 1 increases the ridge height from the approved 8.856 metres to 9 metres with a footprint increase of 33%

• plot 3 has an increase of 16% in terms of its footprint • plot 4 has increased its footprint by 34% • plot 6 has increased the ridge height from 8.052m to 8.8m

Letters of support have been received from some residents who state:

138

• the revised scheme is an improved design with more room for additional landscaping

• the removal of the parking area and the addition of extra garages is an improvement and there is more space around the houses with an improved layout.

Comments from Consultees In terms of environmental health issues, any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. In terms of drainage issues a condition should be imposed on any approval to ensure the details of the surface water and foul water drainage systems are submitted prior to the commencement of development. With regards to flooding the Environment Agency raises no objections. With regards to ecological and nature conservation issues a updated ecological assessment has been submitted and any comments on this will be reported verbally at the meeting. In the light of the Inspectors conclusions on previous cases, it is likely that these matters can be appropriately dealt with by conditions such as those suggested by the Inspector. No technical highways objections are raised subject to conditions regarding vehicular access, lighting and other highway safety issues. With regards to trees and landscaping issues no objections are raised subject to conditions to ensure the protection of trees. In terms of trees and landscaping issues, an updated tree survey has been conducted and any comments received in relation to this will be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered primarily with regard to the following policies: H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing density and Design T3 Parking T6 Pedestrians T11 New Accesses T12 Residential Roads T18 Road Safety BE1 Design of New Development NE3 Development and Nature Conservation Sites

139

NE7 Development and trees London Plan 3A.3 Maximising the Potential Of Sites 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.8 Respect local context and communities Government guidance, and that contained within the London Plan, require Councils to maximise the best use of urban land where appropriate when considering new residential developments, but also to retain development that makes a positive contribution to an area. Planning History There is a fairly extensive planning history relating to the site. The planning history relevant to this application is as follows; Under application ref. 05/02817, permission was refused for the demolition of No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and the erection of 14 two/three storey houses with car parking spaces, integral garages and estate road. Planning permission refused on 15/12/05. An appeal was lodged against the Council’s decision but was subsequently withdrawn. The proposal was considered to result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site and an unsatisfactory form of backland development. It was also considered harmful to residential amenities. Under planning application ref. 06/00785, planning permission was refused for the demolition of No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and erection of 5 two/three storey four bedroom detached houses and 3 two/three storey four bedroom semi-detached houses and 3 two storey three bedroom semi-detached houses with integral garages and car parking spaces and estate road at No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and land rear of Nos. 51-63 South Hill Road. A subsequent appeal was dismissed as cramped overdevelopment harmful to the character of the area. Under planning application ref. 06/00786, planning permission was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal for the demolition of No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and erection of 9 two/three storey four bedroom detached houses with integral garages and car parking spaces and estate road at No. 42 kingswood Avenue and land rear of Nos. 51-63 South Hill Road. The proposal was considered harmful to the character and appearance of the area due to the height of the dwellings and the gable ends of the roof design of a number of the dwellings. Under planning application ref. 07/02184, planning permission was allowed at appeal for the demolition of No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and erection of 5 four

140

bedroom detached houses with attached garages and two detached four bedroom houses with detached garage buildings and 2 five bedroom detached houses with attached garage. Plus associated car parking and estate road on land at No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and land rear of Nos. 51-63 South Hill Road. Conclusions The principal planning issues in this case relate to whether the amendments made to the approved development impact on the character and appearance of the area and the street scene in general; whether they harm the living conditions and amenities of the neighbouring residents; and whether the standard of accommodation for the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings is acceptable. The Inspectors main issues on the previous scheme were the effect on character and appearance on the area and the effect on living conditions of neighbours On the first issue the Inspector concluded that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would comply with the UDP. On the second issue the Inspector concluded that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of adjacent dwelling in respect of noise, disturbance or outlook. In terms of the amenity of the local residents, the proposal maintains adequate distances between the surrounding properties and appears to have a minimal impact on the immediate neighbours, given the general pattern of development in the area and the layout of the approved scheme. The layout accords generally with the consented scheme with some of the proposed dwellings slightly smaller than those in the approved scheme. The approved application included 7 four bedroom and 2 five bedroom houses. The current application consists of 7 four bedroom and 2 three bedroom houses with plots 6 and 7 being the three bedroom units. The positioning of the houses in the application proposal is such that there is unlikely to be any further significant impact in terms of loss of amenity to surrounding residents to that which was considered acceptable by the appeal Inspector. The approved scheme involved a parking area towards the northern boundary of the site. The current proposal no longer includes this and all parking is now accommodated within the curtilages of individual houses. Car parking for Plot 1 has been made integral and as a result of this the detached garage adjacent to the boundary of houses in Kingswood Avenue has been repositioned towards the north of the site and provides parking for plot 2. The service parking spaces to the front of Plots 6 and 7 has also been removed. With regards to design, the current proposal involves variations to the front elevations with projecting gables, varying roof designs and a range of different

141

house types, some of which have increased in height. All trees shown to be retained in the previous scheme continue to be retained. Highway and access considerations remain the same. PPS3 ‘Housing’ seeks more efficient use of land whilst at the same time not compromising the quality of the environment. The application is clearly a case that needs to be assessed in the light of this guidance and the allowed appeal decision. In this case it is clear that there will be some impact on nearby properties as a result of this proposal. Notwithstanding the fact that the design has changed, as has the mix of units and the footprint and height of a number of the units, a judgement needs to be made about whether the impact is now unduly harmful in the light of the Inspectors comments previously. Accordingly Members will need to consider, taking into account local objections and the allowed appeal decision, whether this proposal is satisfactory. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/02817, 06/00785, 06/00786 and 07/02184, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 16.06.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details

ACA04R Reason A04 3 No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials, height and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development.

4 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing ACB02R Reason B02

5 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires ACB03R Reason B03

6 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains ACB04R Reason B04

142

7 ACB12 Tree - details of excav. for foundations ACB12R Reason B12


9 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02


11 Before any part of the development is first occupied, the bend outside Plot 1 shall be provided with forward visibility splays and there shall be no obstruction to visibility in excess of 1m in height within these splays except for any trees agreed by the local planning authority, and they shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan and to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction, in the interest of pedestrian and vehicular safety.

12 Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted a street lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings and shall be thereafter retained.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of pedestrian and vehicular safety.

13 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16

14 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18

15 ACH27 Arrangements for construction period ACH27R Reason H27

16 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29

17 ACH32 Highway Drainage ACH32R Reason H32

18 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary

Development Plan and in the interests of the amenities of the adjacent properties.

19 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason

20 Before the development hereby permitted first commences, the location of the storage of materials, machinery and equipment, and site huts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once approved these details shall be implemented and maintained as such for the duration of the development works.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

143

21 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of the location and means of excavation of soakaways, trenches, and pipelines for services or drains shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the excavations shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy ER13 of the Unitary Development Plan.

22 Before any work is commenced, details of the depth, extent and means of excavation of the foundations, along with the method of their construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the excavations and foundations shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.


23 The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until a scheme to make provision for wildlife on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy NE3 of the Unitary Development Plan and in order to safeguard the interests and well-being of Great Crested Newts on (or adjacent to) the site which are specifically protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

24 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the first floor flank windows shall be obscure glazed and shall subsequently be permanently retained as such.


25 The development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the application site and the development. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of security and crime prevention and to accord with Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

26 Details of a scheme incorporating energy efficiency measures to be used in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any work is commenced. The approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to seek to achieve compliance with the Mayor of London's Energy Strategy and to comply with Policy 4A.7 of The London Plan and the aims of Policy ER4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

27 Details of the gates to be placed at the access to the site from Kingswood Avenue shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local

144

planning authority prior to the commencement of the development and the gates shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of pedestrian and vehicular safety.

Reasons for granting permission: In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: H1 Housing supply H7 Housing density and design T3 Parking T6 Pedestrians T11 New Accesses T12 Residential Roads T18 Road Safety BE1 Design of new development NE3 Nature Conservation and Development NE7 Development and Trees The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following: (a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent property (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (g) the relationship of the development to trees to be retained (h) the safety of pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent highway (i) accessibility to buildings (j) the housing policies of the development plan (k) the urban design policies of the development plan and having regard to all other matters raised. INFORMATIVE(S) 1 Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted drawing no. 818/5/01,

the development shall not include a rumble strip at the entrance to the site.

145

Reference: 09/01048/FULL1 Address: 51 South Hill Road Bromley BR2 0RL Proposal: Demolition of No. 42 Kingswood Avenue and erection of 3 four bedroom

detached houses with integral garage. 1 four bedroom detached house with attached garage. 2 four bedroom detached houses with attached double garage. 1 four bedroom detached house with detached double garage and 2 three bedroom detached houses with integral garages plus associated car parking and estate road on land at No 42 Kingswood Avenue and land rear of Nos 51-63 South Hill Road (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED 16.6.09)

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may

146

lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. London Borough of Bromley. Lic. No: 100017661

147

SECTION 4 – Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS


Biggin Hill

Address : 32 Hillcrest Road Biggin Hill Westerham Kent TN16 3TY


OS Grid Ref: E: 541685 N: 159098

Applicant : Mr K Allen Objections : YES Description of Development: Two tier rear decking area with associated access staircases and peripheral balustrading (Part Retrospective). Proposal The application seeks part retrospective permission for the erection two tier decking area with associated access staircases and peripheral balustrading to the rear of 32 Hillcrest Road supported on scaffolding. This application follows the recent refusal under ref. 08/00025 which now proposes amendments to the existing unauthorised decking as follows

• the rear decking has increased in rearward projection from ~8.1m to ~9.3m;

• the width of the decking has been reduced from ~13.75m at the maximum width to ~11.3m;

• on the northern elevation adjacent to No. 30a the decking and balustrade is stepped in design and has a maximum height of ~2m, this is a reduction in ~1m (as scaled from the submitted plans).

• on the southern elevation adjacent to No. 34, the decking and balustrade is also stepped in design, with a maximum height of ~3m closest to the host dwelling (which is the same as the previously refused scheme)

148

reducing to ~1.8m (reduced from ~2.5m ) at the rear of the decking (as scaled from the submitted plans).

Location The site lies in a residential area on the west side of Hillcrest Road. The property is a detached residential dwelling on steeply sloping ground which falls away to the rear boundary in Merryhills Close. Comments from Local Residents Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring properties in particular with regard to visual impact, overlooking and privacy;

• the proposed decking is not significantly different from the current structure and will overlooking the bedrooms and gardens of the neighbouring properties;

• overlooking to residents at Merryhills Close; • concerns over the safety of the structure and how the new decking will be

constructed if permission is granted; • has no objections to decking if it was significantly smaller and lower lying,

more in keeping with the area and less visual impact and did not result in overlooking neighbouring properties.

Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions Planning History Under ref. 90/01404 an application for a four storey block for a nursing home was refused. Under ref. 98/00686 permission was granted for a detached two/three storey 5 bedroom house Under ref. 08/00025 permission was refused for the erection of two tier rear decking area with associated access staircases and peripheral balustrading RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. The application was refused on the following ground;

149

The development due to its height, design and siting is harmful to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers by reason of visual impact, loss of privacy and overlooking, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 on the Unitary Development Plan. Following the refusal of this application at Plans Sub Committee on the 7th February 2008, Members at the meeting authorised enforcement action to secure the removal of the decking/wooden balustrade supported on metal scaffolding with wooden posts. In April 2008 an enforcement notice was issued for the breach of planning control that has occurred. Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal of planning permission (AP/08/00144/S78) and an appeal in respect of the enforcement notice (appeal ref. AP/08/00180). In his decision letter dated 26/11/08 the Inspector considered both the planning and enforcement appeals. The Inspector was of the opinion that the development significantly harms the living conditions of neighbouring residents by way of visual impact, overlooking and loss of privacy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8. As such the planning appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld, allowing the appellant until the 26th December 2008 to comply with the terms of the enforcement notice. It should also be noted by Members that permission was granted at appeal under planning ref. 07/04414 for the erection of 2 three bedroom terraced dwellings adjoining No. 26 Merryhills Close with integral/attached garages, associated off street parking/erection of detached garage adjacent No. 28 Merryhills Close. This site is located at the bottom of the garden of No. 32 Hillcrest Road. Conclusions The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to visual impact, overlooking and privacy. At present timber decking has been erected at the rear of the house across the full width of the plot such that access to the major part of the garden, which lies behind the decking, cannot be obtained safely or easily. When the Inspector considered the 08/00025 application he had particular regard to the size and siting of the rear decking, in particular its considerable depth, its full plot width, its height with respect to the host building and neighbouring properties, its proximity to the adjoining properties, its lack of screening and the materials of construction, and considered that it resulted in a visual impact and a

150

degree of overlooking and loss of privacy that are materially harmful for neighbouring residents. This current proposal includes four different changes in level with a hot tub on the southern side. The gardens along Hillcrest slope steeply to the south-west, resulting in noticeable changes in levels between properties which may lead to loss of privacy. The rear garden of No. 30a has no decking area and already sits at a lower level than the neighbouring property No. 32. It should be noted that due to these changes, the bedrooms are located at the bottom of the property and the main living rooms at the top. Therefore from the proposed decking area there are concerns about overlooking into the bedrooms as well as the garden areas. There is no natural screening to the boundaries of this rear garden which allows for a degree of overlooking from the raised decking area onto the patio area at no.30a, 34 and those properties in Merryhills Close. It is proposed however to introduce shrubs around the decking, however this alone is not considered sufficient to overcome the other concerns raised. Having had regard to the above it may be considered by Members that the proposed alterations to the decking have not fully addressed the previous refusal ground or the Inspectors concerns and would result in a detrimental impact in terms of visual impact, degree of overlooking and loss of privacy that are materially harmful for neighbouring residents. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/00025, AP/08/00144/S78, AP/08/00180 and 09/00581, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1 The development due to its height, design and siting is harmful to the

amenities of the adjoining occupiers by reason of visual impact, loss of privacy and overlooking, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 on the Unitary Development Plan.

Further Recommendation: Enforcement action to be continued for the removal of the decking and balustrade.

151

Reference: 09/00581/FULL6 Address: 32 Hillcrest Road Biggin Hill Westerham Kent TN16 3TY Proposal: Two tier rear decking area with associated access staircases and

peripheral balustrading (Part Retrospective).


152

153

_____________________ 24. Application No : 09/00664/OUT Ward :

Plaistow And Sundridge

Address : 25 Scotts Road Bromley BR1 3QD


OS Grid Ref: E: 540066 N: 170025

Applicant : SE Living Limited Objections : YES Description of Development: Redevelopment of commercial premises at Nos. 24/ 24a/ 25 Scotts Road with part two/ three storey block and three storey block comprising 16 one bedroom/ 15 two bedroom/ 12 three bedroom/ 3 four bedroom flats with access from Scotts Road to 10 car parking spaces and from Mooreland Road to 18 car parking spaces Proposal 3 three storey blocks comprising 46 flats are proposed, the schedule of accommodation being as foollows: Ground floor First Floor Second Floor Block A 5 x 1 bed 5 x 1 bed 3 x 1 bed Block B 4 x 3 bed 4 x 3 bed 4 x 3 bed 1 x 4 bed 1 x 4 bed 1 x 4 bed Block C 1 x1 bed 1 x 1 bed 1 x 1 bed 5 x 2 bed 5 x 2 bed 5 x 2 bed Access and layout are for approval at this stage. The applicant has submitted indicative elevation plans and the buildings will be of traditional design and feature pitched tiled roofs and a mixture of brickwork and rendering. There will be external amenity areas around the blocks and some of

154

the flats will benefit from balconies whilst 2 flats in Block A flats will have screened terraces. The scheme would comprise 100% affordable housing and Blocks A and B would be social rented whilst Block C will be intermediate housing. The application is accompanied by a geotechnical and geo-environmental desktop study which recommends further investigative works but states that remediation measures can be taken to address any contamination on the site. A preliminary energy assessment and energy efficiency measures statement has been submitted which sets out how the development will achieve a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The applicants have submitted a Car Parking Demand Calculation to justify the proposed car parking provision. The applicants have submitted a Design and Access Statement which includes details of pre-application community consultation and details of unsuccessful marketing of the site for business uses. Location The application site is currently occupied by a mixture of one and two storey light industrial buildings in, some of which have fallen into some disrepair. It is accessed via Scotts Road and between 28 and 30 Mooreland Road. Surrounding development predominantly comprises Victorian style terraced housing and there are business units fronting Farwig Lane to the south and southwest of the site. Comments from Local Residents Nearby residents were notified of the application and representations were received, which can be summarised as follows:

• inadequate parking • increased traffic and demand for on-street parking • detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety • increased noise and disturbance • light pollution from vehicle headlights • pollution from vehicles waiting at gates • overlooking / loss of privacy • loss of light and outlook • heavy lorries would damage infrastructure below Mooreland Road • Mooreland Road access is unsuitable • there is no right of way to the site from Mooreland Road

155

• Mooreland Road is too narrow for construction traffic, servicing, etc • Mooreland Road houses vulnerable to land movement • increased anti-social behaviour if a cut-through between Mooreland Road

and Howard Road is created • out of character • overdevelopment • Beulah packaging have an interest in the development • existing buildings have been allowed to run down.

Comments from Consultees There are no objections from the Council’s in-house drainage consultant. In terms of highways, the site is within a moderate Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) area and the car parking proposed is inadequate. The development is likely to result in an undue increase in on-street parking demand in the vicinity and in manoeuvring and reversing prejudicial to the free flow of traffic potentially detrimental to road safety. There are no objections from an Environmental Health point of view. The Metropolitan Policy Crime Prevention Design Adviser has raised concerns over permeability around the blocks, the location and amount of car parking and the location of the cycle parking. Bromley Primary Care Trust have commented that existing primary care infrastructure capacity is limited and they would seek Section 106 contributions to enhance local healthcare provision. There are no objections to the proposal in terms of sustainable development and renewable energy. There are no objections in terms of housing. The Council’s Local Economy and Regeneration Team have objected to the application, which is made against a context of a potential shortage of employment land for the Borough as a whole. It is considered that allowing the application is likely to create an undesirable precedent for the loss of further sites in business areas. Given the relationship of the site with the surrounding area it is considered that a Class B1 use would be suitable, for example offices or business incubator units. Further responses to consultations, including trees comments, will be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations

156

Planning permission was refused under ref. 00/01275 for 7 two bedroom terraced houses and 14 car parking spaces at No. 25 Scotts Road. The grounds of refusal related to overdevelopment and the impact of the use of a proposed access from Mooreland Road. A subsequent appeal was dismissed after the Inspector concluded that the proposal would be an overdevelopment and would result in dangerous vehicle manoeuvres. Regarding to a vehicular access from Mooreland Road, the Inspector stated that:

‘access to this block of three houses is proposed to be from Mooreland Road utilising an existing right of way between two houses. Mooreland Road is a quiet cul-de-sac of attractive Victorian cottages built at the back of the footway. A substantial increase in traffic using it to gain access to the appeal site, especially heavy demolition and construction traffic, would be likely to cause a good deal of disturbance and inconvenience to residents there. However, bearing in mind that a smaller number of car movements to and from the present factory occur here each day I do not believe that the traffic generated by three houses on the appeal site would be likely to noticeably change the living conditions of existing residents.’

Outline planning permission was granted under ref. 01/02045 for 4 semi-detached and one detached house with 6 garages and 4 car parking spaces at 25 Scotts Road. Two of the houses would have been accessed via Mooreland Road. The permission was never implemented. The proposal falls to be considered primarily with regard to the following policies: UDP T1 Transport Demand T2 Assessment of Transport Effects T3 Parking T5 Access for People with Restricted Mobility T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety H1 Housing Supply H2 Affordable Housing H5 Accessible Housing H7 Housing Density and Design EMP4 Business Areas EMP5 Development Outside Business Areas ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development ER7 Contaminated Land ER13 Foul and Surface Water Discharged from Development.

157

London Plan 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 3D.13 Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4A.4 Energy Assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4A.14 Sustainable Drainage 4B.1 Design Principles for a Compact City 4B.8 Respect local context and communities. Policy EMP4 of the Unitary Development Plan states that designated business areas are only suitable for Class B1, B2 and B8 use. The subtext at Paragraph 10.18 states that ‘the Business Areas consist largely of land with established light industrial and warehousing uses. The Council wishes to safeguard a supply of such land in the Borough to provide for the growth and development of business and industry. Consequently, proposals in the Business Areas for uses not within Use Classes B1 to B8 will not normally be permitted.’ Bromley Primary Care Trust are seeking Section 106 monies to address the impact of the proposal on primary healthcare and there will also be implications in terms of education provision. In view of recent appeal decisions it is not considered appropriate to seek Section 106 monies in respect of healthcare and education until a Supplementary Planning Document on planning obligations has been adopted by the Council. In response to the comments of the Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser the applicant has indicated that they will address security concerns at the reserved matters stage. The proposal equates to a residential density of 114 dwellings per hectare. Conclusions The main issues to be considered in this case are the acceptability of a residential use in a designated business area and the impact of the proposal on the character and the residential amenities of the area as well as the highways implications. Nos. 24 and 24A Scotts Road lie within a designated business area and Policy EMP4 of the UDP indicates that residential redevelopment of the site would be inappropriate. Pragmatically it could be considered that a residential use would prove more neighbourly than potential alternative uses of the site. However, Policy EMP4 is unambiguous and must also be considered against a backdrop of

158

a shortage of business sites in the borough. The applicant has submitted evidence to demonstrate that the site has been unsuccessfully marketed for business use, however the policy does not make provision for demonstrating a lack of demand for business use. It would appear that the access to the site from Mooreland Road would be subject to some intensification in its use, although there may be potential for this if a business use were to continue on the site. Members will note the comments of the Inspector concerning this access when considering a proposal for three houses and are requested to carefully consider whether the proposal will result in an unacceptable intensification of the use of the access harmful to the residential amenities of the occupants on Nos. 28 and 30 Mooreland Road. In terms of impact on character from the amount of development, the surrounding area is developed to quite a high density and the site is in a sustainable location close to public transport and the town centre. There is currently a substantial amount of site coverage with unattractive buildings and it may therefore be considered that the amount of development proposed is not unacceptable in character terms. In terms of the impact on residential amenity from the siting of the blocks, it may be considered that the arrangement of the flats will prevent unacceptable overlooking of nearby dwellings. However, Members are requested to carefully consider the relationship of Block A with dwellings fronting Howard Road and of Block B with the rear gardens of Whites Cottages. The proposal is unacceptable in terms of the amount of car parking provision and this is likely to have an adverse impact on the free flow of traffic and potentially highway safety in the vicinity. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1 Part of the site is located in a Business Area in the Unitary Development

Plan and the proposal would be contrary to Policy EMP4 which seeks to safeguard a supply of business land in the Borough to provide for the growth and development of business and industry.

2 The proposed development is lacking in adequate on-site car parking

provision and is likely to result in an undue increase in on-street parking demand in the vicinity and in manoeuvring and reversing prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and potentially detrimental to road safety, contrary to Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

159

Reference: 09/00664/OUT Address: 24 Scotts Road Bromley BR1 3QD Proposal: Redevelopment of commercial premises at Nos. 24/ 24a/ 25 Scotts Road

with part two/ three storey block and three storey block comprising 16 one bedroom/ 15 two bedroom/ 12 three bedroom/ 3 four bedroom flats with access from Scotts Road to 10 car parking spaces and from Mooreland Road to 18 car parking spaces


LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY TOWN PLANNING RENEWAL … · • Replacement double-glazed uPVC windows and aluminium doors • roof lantern • yellow, powder-coated, steel-framed, curved

Documents