london borough of bromley town planning renewal and recreation

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

TOWN PLANNING RENEWAL AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Committee (SC) on 19th February 2009 REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER SECTION ‘1’ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley

_____________________ 1. Application No : 08/03363/DEEM3 Ward:

Penge And Cator

Address : Royston Primary School High Street Penge London SE20 7QR

Conservation Area:NO

OS Grid Ref: E: 535805 N: 169952

Applicant : Royston Primary School Objections : NO Description of Development: Replacement windows and fire exit doors to year 1 block. Proposal The application site is located on the north-eastern side of the high street, and is bounded by residential properties to the south-east and north-west, and a mix of residential and retail to the south-west. The site comprises school buildings to the south-west of the site, and playing fields to the north-east. The school building is Locally Listed.

2

Permission is sought to replace the windows and fire exit doors to the Year 1 block with double-glazed white aluminium frames and grey tinted glass. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received. The Council’s Heritage and Urban design point of view no objections are raised. Any further comments will be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations Recently, an application for the replacement of a lantern light above the boys toilets was withdrawn, (ref. 08/02686). Planning permission was granted for a single storey building fronting Kent House Road for a parents and children’s centre, (ref. 07/02124). Planning permission was granted under ref. 07/00797 for an additional window in the south eastern elevation of the main building, and under ref. 07/01311 for cycle shed. Planning permission was granted under ref. 06/01169 for a triangular canopy to cover part of the playground. Under ref. 99/02339 permission was granted for various extensions to the school complex comprising classrooms, library, dining room and kitchen. Under ref. 07/01311 planning permission was granted for two cycle sheds within the school grounds. The main policies relevant to this case are Policies BE1 and BE10 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development. Policy BE10 states that a proposal to alter a locally listed building will be permitted provided that it will be sympathetic to the character, appearance and special local interest of the building and will respect its setting. Conclusions The main considerations in this case are the impact of the proposed replacement windows and doors in respect of the locally listed building and the impact on the wider street scene. The proposed new windows and fire doors are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the locally listed building. No objections have been raised from the Council’s Heritage and Urban design officer and on balance Members may consider the replacements to be acceptable.

3

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/03363, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 21.01.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE10 Locally Listed Buildings

4

Reference: 08/03363/DEEM3 Address: Royston Primary School High Street Penge London SE20 7QR Proposal: Replacement windows and fire exit doors to year 1 block.

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

5

SECTION ‘2’ - Applications meriting special consideration

_____________________ 2. Application No : 08/00336/FULL1 Ward :

Chelsfield And Pratts Bottom

Address : Cookham Hill Farm Skeet Hill Lane Orpington Kent BR5 4HB


OS Grid Ref: E: 548578 N: 165539

Applicant : Mr C Williams Objections: NO Description of Development: Demolition of existing barn / conversion of stable/store/tackroom to four bedroom dwelling / creation of associated residential curtilage and erection of single garage Proposal This application seeks permission for the demolition of an existing barn, the conversion of an existing stable building to a four bedroom dwelling, the construction of a single garage and the creation of an associated residential curtilage. The application has been revised since first submission to include the demolition of an existing large barn in order to balance the potential harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt by the creation of a residential curtilage. A modest single garage is also proposed within the residential curtilage. Access to the site is via an existing entrance from Skeet Hill Lane The supporting case explains that the building is capable of conversion without major or substantial reconstruction and this is supported by a structural survey submitted with the application. It continues to set out how the proposal accords with local and national Green Belt policy regarding conversions. Consultations

6

No local objections have been received. Drainage comment that the application should be referred to the Environment Agency as there are no public foul sewers near to the site, and also that there are no public surface water sewer and surface water will need to be drained to soakaways. Highways were initially concerned regarding any intensification of the use of the access, however following the provision of further information, no objections are raised. The Environment Agency has no objection to the application. Planning Considerations The application falls to be considered with regard to UDP Policies G1 (Green Belt) and BE1 (Design). National guidance in PPG2 (Green Belts) is also relevant. The stables were part of an historic farm building which was extended in 1996 under ref. 96/01820 to include two additional stables, haystore and tack/feed room. Conclusions The proposed conversion falls to be considered with regard primarily to Policy G1 of the UDP. This stipulates that in order for the reuse of a building within the Green Belt to be considered appropriate it must meet the following criteria:

• it will not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the open character of the land;

• use of the land surrounding the building and boundary treatments will not harm the openness of the land or conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt;

• the building is of permanent construction and capable of conversion or re-use without extensive or complete reconstruction;

• the form, bulk and design of the building are in keeping with its surroundings;

• the proposed use does not entail external storage of materials, plant or machinery; and

• the proposed use has no adverse effect on the recreational enjoyment or appearance of the countryside.

The policy continues stating that the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt shall not be injured by any proposals for development within or conspicuous

7

from the Green Belt which might be visually detrimental by reasons of scale, siting, materials or design. The proposal is considered to meet the requirements set out in (vii) to (x), however the formation of a residential curtilage and construction of a garage, albeit modest, will have a greater impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt than the current equestrian use. In order to justify this potential harm, the applicant is proposing to demolish a large barn located adjacent to the open area to the east of the stables. In its place would be the modest garage proposed. It may be considered therefore that as an overall package, the proposal will not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the character of the land and that the use of the immediately surrounding land as residential curtilage, on the basis of suitable control by conditions, may on balance be considered acceptable. The overall design of the building will change very little in order to achieve the residential conversion, and is considered to comply with Policy BE1 regarding design. The proposed single garage appears to be acceptable in appearance subject to suitable materials and also complies with Policy BE3 regarding buildings in rural areas. On balance, Members may consider that the overall proposal will not result in an increase in harm to the openness or character of the Green Belt subject to suitable controls over the demolition of the existing barn and other appropriate conditions. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 96/01820 and 08/00336, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 26.01.2009 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 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted

ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces)

ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application

ACH03R Reason H03

8

6 ACI01 Restriction of all "pd" rights Reason: In the interests of the openness and character of the Green Belt and

countryside in this rural location and to comply with Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7 ACI23 Outbuilding only ancillary use ACI23R Reason I23R

8 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In the interests of the openness and character of the Green Belt and

countryside in this rural location and to comply with Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

9 The barn shown to be demolished on submitted plan CW/07/182/02C shall be demolished and the resulting debris completely removed from the site prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interests of the openness and character of the Green Belt and countryside in this rural location and to comply with Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

10 The residential curtilage of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be as shown by a red line on submitted plan CW/07/182/02C and shall not be enlarged or altered at any time.


11 Details showing the extent of any access drive or other hardstanding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.


12 Reason for granting permission:

The proposal will not result in any overall harm to the openness or character of the Green Belt or countryside and the building to be converted is of sound construction not requiring major renovation or rebuilding. The proposed garage is appropriate within a rural setting in terms of its design and there are no highway objections to the reuse of the existing access. The proposal therefore complies with Policies T3, T18, BE1, BE3, and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI10 Consult Land Charges/Street Numbering 2 RD128 Variation to approved plans

9

Reference: 08/00336/FULL1 Address: Cookham Hill Farm Skeet Hill Lane Orpington Kent BR5 4HB Proposal: Demolition of existing barn / conversion of stable/store/tackroom to four

bedroom dwelling / creation of associated residential curtilage and erection of single garage


11


Bickley

Address : Beaulieu Yester Road Chislehurst Kent BR7 5LT


OS Grid Ref: E: 542470 N: 170178

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Lumb Objections: YES Description of Development: Single storey side/rear and first floor rear extensions (amended plans received) Proposal The application seeks permission to erect a part one/two storey side and rear extension. The scheme proposes a new storage area and single garage with pitched roof over replacing the existing flat-roofed, double garage at the side of the property. A garden / play room is proposed to the rear of the storage area, adjoining the existing dining room. To the rear of the site, first floor extensions are proposed above the existing breakfast and dining room to accommodate 2 bedrooms. Internal alterations are proposed at first floor level with no impact on the external appearance of the dwelling. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• scale and visual impact of the proposed development detrimental to the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

• not in keeping with the character of the property. • loss of afternoon sunlight to the adjoining south facing property. • considerable overlooking into adjoining plots all at a lower level. • height and proximity to rear boundary detrimental to amenities of adjoining

residents.

12

The Council’s Highway Drainage section was consulted regarding the application, however provided no comment on the application. Thames Water was consulted regarding the application and have no objection with regard to sewerage and water infrastructure. 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 Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. 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 scheme has been amended to overcome previous refusal grounds (ref: 08/01840) with the proposal now having a revised street elevation resulting in an improved appearance consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The garage with pitched roof over would reduce the bulk of the proposal relative to the original submission which sought a full two storey side extension. The steep pitch over the garage would see the use of clay tiles to retain consistency in design, while the reduced height coupled with the pitched roof form would lessen the impact of the scheme on the adjoining dwellings to an acceptable level. The revised side extensions would not be considered to affect the outlook of the dwellings to the north, nor overlook the dwellings within Sundridge Avenue to any significant degree. The ground floor garden / play room extension of circular design would have a radius of 2.7metres. Projecting to the rear, in line with the existing dining room, it is considered the garden / play room would not adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining dwellings and would not result in any potential overlooking or loss of privacy. The first floor rear extensions at their closest point would have a separation from the boundary of 4.6 metres. The rear extension would further propose a dummy

13

pitch roof to minimise the bulk of the proposal, and to prevent overshadowing and loss of aspect to the rear. Windows are proposed at first floor, to serve the bedrooms, however are considered to be sufficiently separated from site boundaries and orientated away from surrounding dwellings so as not to result in undue overlooking of neighbouring dwellings. Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/03252, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 14.01.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1 The extension proposed, by reason of its height and proximity to the rear

boundary, would be detrimental to the amenities which residents of adjoining dwellings in Sundridge Avenue might reasonably expect to continue to enjoy, due to loss of light, privacy and aspect, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The side extension, by reason of its size, height and siting would result in

a bulky form of development, out of character with the surrounding area, detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the streetscene in general, thereby contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

14

Reference: 08/03252/FULL6 Address: Beaulieu Yester Road Chislehurst Kent BR7 5LT Proposal: Single storey side/rear and first floor rear extensions (amended plans

received)


15


Kelsey And Eden Park

Address : 511 - 513 Upper Elmers End Road Beckenham Kent BR3 3DB


OS Grid Ref: E: 537265 N: 167634

Applicant : Funshine Day Nursery EP (Mr Colin Myatt)

Objections: NO

Description of Development: Erection of a boundary fence maximum height 1.8 metres RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION Proposal The proposal property comprises a detached two storey building on a corner plot at Upper Elmers End Road and Eden Park Avenue. The building has accommodation in the roof space and has been extended. The property has a current lawful use as a day nursery for children. The fence, which is the subject of the current retrospective planning application, has been erected on top of a rendered low brick wall on the front and part of the side boundary of the property. It is a close boarded wooden fence with a gate in the corner to provide pedestrian access to the site, with a minimum height of approximately 1.65m and a maximum height of approximately 1.8m. The fence was originally erected without planning permission by the previous owner of the property, and was done so with the intention of providing privacy and security for the children who attend the nursery. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.

16

No objections have been raised from a Planning Highways point of view. Please note that any comments received shall be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with Policies BE1 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. In terms of history, an operational development enforcement notice was issued at this site for the unauthorised installation of a fence, exceeding 1 metre in height. An appeal was lodged against the enforcement notice but was dismissed under reference AP/07/00117/ENFOP in July 2007. In this instance, the appeal was against the unauthorised erection of a close boarded wooden fence above the low brick wall, with trellis above. The Inspector was of the opinion that the area has an open and attractive nature, and the main reason for the appeal being dismissed was due to the appearance of the fence being out of character and appearance with the area. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that the fence has on the character of the area and the impact that it has on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. The fencing has been in position prior to January 2007, when the property was occupied by the previous owner who erected the fence. It is in position in order to provide security and privacy to the children’s nursery which is on site after permission was granted in March 2005 for the use under ref. 05/00182. It is considered that the fence does not pose a threat to pedestrian or vehicular safety, which has been stated by the Highways Engineer and also corroborated by the Planning Inspector in her appeal decision. At this point, the Inspector stated that although Upper Elmers End Road is a busy road, and the junction with Eden Park Avenue is also relatively heavily trafficked, the junction is some distance in front of the fence. Given the distance, it was considered that the fence does not obscure visibility to any significant degree so far as either pedestrians or drivers are concerned, and the fence therefore does not cause harm to highway safety nor does it conflict with the relevant policies in the Unitary Development Plan. However the Inspector did state in effect that the reasoning behind the appeal being dismissed was that the fence was felt to have an obtrusive and over-dominant means of enclosure for the front garden, with the adverse visual

17

appearance being enhanced by the mismatch of materials and design. This was mentioned in reference to the close boarded fence and open trellis on top of the solid white wall. In an attempt to overcome the issues raised by the Inspector in terms of the appearance and impact upon the streetscene, the current owner of the property has removed the trellis from the top of the fence, and has also reduced the height of the fence by approximately 0.3 metres. Accordingly, Members may consider that sufficient changes have been made to the fence in order for the current application to be worthy of planning permission being granted. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. ENF/06/00218/BRCOND, AP/07/00117/ENFOP, and DC/08/03463/FULL1, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and T18 of the Unitary

Development Plan and to protect the character and appearance of the street scene.

2 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development T19 Road safety

18

Reference: 08/03463/FULL1 Address: 511 - 513 Upper Elmers End Road Beckenham Kent BR3 3DB Proposal: Erection of a boundary fence maximum height 1.8 metres

RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION


19


Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 55 Westland Drive Bromley BR2 7HE


OS Grid Ref: E: 539735 N: 165881

Applicant : Mr John Simpson Objections: YES Description of Development: Single storey front/side/rear extension Proposal The current proposal was put forward to Members at Plans Sub Committee 3 on 18th December 2008, with a recommendation for permission. It was deferred at the meeting in order to seek a reduction at the rear in terms of depth and to look at the forward projection of the garage. The application was then resubmitted to Committee on 22nd January 2009 after the applicant decided he did not wish to make any changes to the application at that point. The application was again deferred to seek a reduction in the height and depth of the proposed extension. The applicant has considered the request by Committee Members at the meeting on 22nd January 2009 but has chosen not to make any alterations to the proposed scheme and has stated that he wishes the application to be determined as it stands. He has therefore requested that Members consider the application and determine it on its merits. Accordingly the report has not been substantially altered but put back to Committee Members to determine. The application property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse, located on the north western side of Westland Drive, close to the junction with Holland Way. The property falls within an area of special residential character.

20

The proposal comprises a single storey front/side/rear extension, which can be divided into three separate sections, although these three elements do comprise one single extension. The first element is the single storey front extension, which will project forward from the existing garage by approximately 0.9m. This element will then join into the side extension which will extend along the entire flank of the host dwellinghouse for approximately 14.9m in depth. Within this projection the rear extension will extend approximately 2.5m in depth from the original rear elevation of the host dwellinghouse. The width of the entire proposed extension will vary, although the flank wall of the extension will form a straight wall along the property boundary shared with No. 53 Westland Drive. The width will vary as the existing flank wall of the original dwellinghouse is at present stepped in at various points. The entire proposed extension will have a single flat roof above it, and will measure approximately 3.2m in height along the main element of the side extension, with a dummy pitch above the garage extension which will have an eaves height of approximately 2.3m and an additional height of approximately .83m for the dummy pitch. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and the following representations were received:

• object to the extension of the garage in front of the building line; • part of the charm of the area of special residential character is the

detached properties and neat small garages; • proposal to widen and project the garage is out of keeping along the

street; • proposal will set a precedent for similar extensions along the road; • the extension of the garage up to the boundary would give the effect of a

terraced property; • extending the width of the garage will reduce the open space and

Arcadian feel of the detached properties along the road; • one local resident states that a covenant prevents the forward extension of

the garage, however covenants are not planning considerations; • the extension has a formidable height, with an unrelenting side elevation; • block light from bay window of host dwellinghouse (Applicant’s property); • extension will not preserve the character of the 1930’s road; • provided an alternative sketch; • one local resident does not object to the proposal and stated that except

for extending the garage forwards, the proposal would appear to fall under permitted development tolerances.

21

Full comments made by local residents and interested parties can be found on the file. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies BE1, H8 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan. There does not appear to be any planning history on this site. Conclusions The main issues of this case appear to be the impact of the proposal upon the character of the area of special residential character of which it lies within, along with the amenities of the residents of nearby properties. The proposed extension will bring the flank elevation of the host dwellinghouse up to the property boundary shared with No. 53 Westland Drive. Whilst development above a single storey would not be acceptable if it was built up to the property boundary and would require a substantial degree of separation, with single storey proposals this is not the case. In terms of the current application it is necessary to observe the impact the extension will have upon the amenities of the neighbouring property. In this instance, the two windows along the flank elevation of No. 53 facing the area for the proposed extension at No. 55 comprise of a glazed door providing access to the kitchen and a utility room, both of which are not habitable rooms. As such it would be difficult to argue that these rooms should be afforded a greater separation from the proposed extension due to possible loss of light. Whilst the forward projection of the garage would bring this element of the property further forward than the existing bay window, it will remain set back from the front elevation of the neighbouring property. Although objections from local residents state that there are no other examples of this form of extension, and that if permitted it will set a precedent for this type of extension, further along the road similar developments can be seen. For example, nos. 20, 16, 14, 8, 6, 4 and 3 Westland Drive all appear to have a single storey form of development built up to the property boundary shared with their next door neighbours. The following table shows the properties along the road with similar developments built up to the boundary, and whether or not permission has been granted for this development or whether it appears to be part of the original design of the dwellinghouse; Number of property Part of original house or extension? If extension, what reference number? 20 Appears to be part of original N/A

22

16 Appears to be part of original N/A 14 Extension DC/06/01355 12 Extension, although set back from

front of property DC/07/00520 8 Appears to be part of original N/A 6 Appears to be part of original N/A 4 Appears to be part of original N/A 3 Extension DC/94/00698 Whilst the table shows that the majority of the examples given are original to the host dwellinghouses, there are some examples of extensions, two of which have been permitted within the last 2 years. Notwithstanding the extensions, the fact that a number of properties along the road have single storey aspects of the property built up to the property boundary does suggest that a similar form of development at the current application site would not be out of keeping along the road in terms of the original developments. In addition, the plans approved at extension at No. 14 Westland Drive under ref. 06/01355 also project forwards of the bay window of the host dwellinghouse, which is similar to the proposal at No. 55 Westland Drive. Therefore, this element could also be considered to be following a precedent that has already been set by previously approved development. However the above properties are located at the opposite end of Westland Drive, and fall outside of the Area of Special Residential Character so it could be argued that direct comparisons should not be made. The objections and points raised during the consultation period have been carefully considered and are material to the making of this recommendation. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/01355, 07/00520 and 08/03500, excluding exempt information. 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 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) flank extension

ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8 4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps

23

Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H8 Residential extensions H10 Areas of Special Residential Character

24

Reference: 08/03500/FULL6 Address: 55 Westland Drive Bromley BR2 7HE Proposal: Single storey front/side/rear extension


25


Bromley Town

Address : 42 Meadow Road Bromley BR2 0DX


OS Grid Ref: E: 539367 N: 169533

Applicant : Mr Marius Ugincius Objections: NO Description of Development: Loft conversion incorporating roof alterations to form additional bedroom. Proposal The application site is on the north-eastern side of Meadow Road, Shortlands, towards the northern end of the road close to Shortlands Golf Club. The plot measures approx. 5.5m in width and 32m deep. The application property is a semi-detached two/three storey house, which has been sub-divided to form two self-contained flats. It is proposed to enlarge the existing roof to provide a barn-end type design and to convert the roofspace to provide an additional bedroom. This application should be considered alongside application ref. 08/03567, also to be found on this agenda and submitted in relation to the adjoining property at No. 40a Meadow Road, concerning a barn-end type roof extension, rear roof extension and a roof terrace set within the roofslope. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and at the time of writing the report, no local objections had been received. Planning Considerations There is no recent planning history at the site.

26

The main Policies within the Unitary Development Plan against which to assess this application are as follows: BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions Conclusions The proposed enlargement of the roof to a barn-end type design may not normally be considered acceptable since it would be greater than a true half-hip and may result in the un-balancing of the pair of semi-detached properties. It should be noted however that an application has also been submitted in respect of the adjoining property at No. 42 under ref. 08/03567 seeking an enlarged roof of a similar design to that under consideration here. It is considered therefore that provided both extensions are constructed simultaneously that an undesirable un-balancing may not result and that on balance, this element to the proposal may be considered acceptable. On balance, Members may agree that the proposal is acceptable, subject of course to a safeguarding condition concerning the works being carried out alongside those to the adjoining property. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/03565 and 08/03567, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs


ACC04R Reason C04 3 The roof extensions hereby permitted at Nos. 42 Meadow Road shall only

be constructed in conjunction with roof extensions at 40a Meadow Road permitted under ref. DC/08/03567 and be completed within 3 months of each other.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in order to prevent the unacceptable unbalancing of this pair of semi-detached properties.

4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

27

Reference: 08/03565/FULL1 Address: 42 Meadow Road Bromley BR2 0DX Proposal: Loft conversion incorporating roof alterations to form additional bedroom.


29


Bromley Town

Address : 40A Meadow Road Bromley BR2 0DX


OS Grid Ref: E: 539369 N: 169528

Applicant : Mrs Geraldine Rose Objections: NO Description of Development: Roof alterations incorporating rear dormer extension with balcony and railings. Proposal The application site is on the north-eastern side of Meadow Road, Shortlands, towards the northern end of the road close to Shortlands Golf Club. The plot measures approx. 5.5m in width and 23m deep. An access way adjacent to the property leads to a block of garages at the rear. The application property is a semi-detached two/three storey house, which has been sub-divided to form two self-contained flats. It is proposed to enlarge the existing roof to provide a barn-end type design and to convert the roofspace to provide an additional bedroom. In addition, a small rear roof extension will be constructed to house the staircase up into the roofspace, and a terrace area will be provided, which will be set within the roofslope. Measurements taken from the drawings submitted indicate that the dormer will measure approx. 1.1m in width, 2.1m in height and will project with a maximum depth of approx. 3.3m, while the roof terrace will have an area of approx. 3.36m2. Revised plans have been received showing a reduction in the width of the rear dormer extension and the revised siting of the proposed terrace within the roofslope. This application should be considered alongside application ref. 08/03565, also to be found on this agenda and submitted in relation to the adjoining property at No. 42 Meadow Road, concerning a loft conversion to form an additional bedroom incorporating a barn-end type roof extension.

30

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and at the time of writing the report, no local objections had been received. Planning Considerations There is no recent planning history at the site. The main Policies within the Unitary Development Plan against which to assess this application are as follows: BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions Conclusions The proposed enlargement of the roof to a barn-end type design may not normally be considered acceptable since it would be greater than a true half-hip and may result in the un-balancing of the pair of semi-detached properties. It should be noted however that an application has also been submitted in respect of the adjoining property at No. 42 under ref. 08/03565 seeking an enlarged roof of a similar design to that under consideration here. It is considered therefore that provided both extensions are constructed simultaneously that an undesirable un-balancing may not result and that on balance, this element to the proposal may be considered acceptable. The proposed rear roof extension is considered to be modest in size and may not result in significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties nor the character of the area. The proposed roof terrace would be set back within the roofslope, and is of a modest floor area. Careful consideration will need to be given however with regard to the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. It is considered that the outlook towards the adjacent property at No. 38 would largely be obscured by the proposed rear roof extension, and any views towards the adjoining property at No. 42 would largely be obscured by the existing three storey projecting element to the rear of the dwelling. A separation of approx. 43m would be afforded to the properties on Chart Close adjoining the rear of the site, which is considered to be sufficient in this case to mitigate any possible overlooking towards these properties. On balance, Members may agree that the proposal is acceptable, subject of course to a safeguarding condition concerning the works being carried out alongside those to the adjoining property.

31

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/03567 and 08/03565, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 23.12.2008 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs


ACC04R Reason C04 3 The roof extensions hereby permitted at Nos. 40a Meadow Road shall

only be constructed in conjunction with roof extensions at no. 42 Meadow Road permitted under ref. DC/08/03565 and be completed within 3 months of each other.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in order to prevent the unacceptable unbalancing of this pair of semi-detached properties.

4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

32

Reference: 08/03567/FULL1 Address: 40A Meadow Road Bromley BR2 0DX Proposal: Roof alterations incorporating rear dormer extension with balcony and

railings.


33

_____________________ 8. Application No : 08/03867/VAR Ward :

Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : Petts Wood Football Club Barnet Wood Road Bromley BR2 7AA


OS Grid Ref: E: 541082 N: 165701

Applicant : Mrs Meryl Clarke Objections: NO Description of Development: Variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref. 03/00117 for 2 detached portable buildings for changing and toilet facilities to use portacabin for use as kitchen facility and toilet associated with Petts Wood Football Club. Proposal The proposal site is accessed from Barnet Wood Road and is located within the Green Belt. The application is for the variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref. 03/00117 which granted permission for the siting of 2 detached portable buildings to be used for changing and toilet facilities only on the site. The application seeks to change the use of the portable building so that it can be used for a kitchen facility and toilet associated with Petts Wood Football Club. Application ref. 03/00117 for 2 detached portable buildings for changing and toilet facilities was granted temporary permission to be retained until 31st March 2008 (condition 1) after which date the decision notice states that the structure should be removed and the land restored to its former condition. Therefore the current application also seeks to retain the portable structure on site. Consultations

34

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received. No objections are seen to the proposals from an Environmental Health point of view as they satisfy food hygiene regulations. Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan. In terms of history, temporary permission was granted under ref. 03/00117 for 2 detached portable buildings for changing and toilet facilities. This temporary permission was granted until 31st March 2008. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that the portable building has on the Green Belt land it is located on and the impact it has on the amenities of the area. The portable building has been sited in this location since at least January 2003. It has been painted dark green in order to comply with condition 2 of permission ref. 03/00117, in an attempt to protect the visual amenities of the Green Belt. The current application has been submitted in order to change the use of the portable building from changing and toilet facilities, to a kitchen and toilet facility. It is considered that due to the appearance of the portable building and it being located on the edge of the site, it may not have a detrimental impact on the appearance or amenities of the Green Belt land on which it is located. However the proposed use of the portable building should be carefully scrutinised. Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan relating to development within the Green Belt clearly states that permission will not be granted for the re-use of a building in the Green Belt unless it meets all of the following criteria:

• it will not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the open character of the land

• use of the land surrounding the building and boundary treatments will not harm the openness of the land or conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt

• the building is of permanent construction and capable of conversion or re-use without extensive or complete reconstruction

• the form, bulk and design of the building are in keeping with its surroundings

35

• the proposed use does not entail external storage of materials, plant or materials

• the proposed use has no adverse effect on the recreational enjoyment or appearance of the countryside.

The portable building will not be altered or enlarged from an external point of view, no materials will be stored outside, and the use would be changed purely by converting the building internally, therefore, it may be considered that the present openness of the area will not be affected. However, the building is of a temporary nature, and it may be considered that its use as a kitchen facility would not strictly comply with the criteria set out within Policy G1 in terms of demonstrating special circumstances in order to retain the structure and use it as a kitchen. The kitchen will be used in relation to the outdoor sport facility on this site, which is an acceptable use of Green Belt land, however, Members will need to consider whether the kitchen use may be considered an essential facility to support the outdoor sports use. Accordingly, Members may wish to carefully consider whether the proposed change of use of the portable building would have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities and character of the Green Belt, or whether in this instance, the change of use is acceptable in that it would not have a further detrimental impact upon the character and openness of the Green Belt land. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 03/00117 and 08/03867, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the Green Belt and to comply with

Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 2 The detached portable building hereby permitted shall be used for kitchen

and toilet facilities ancillary to the outdoor recreational use at Petts Wood Football Club, Barnet Wood Road, Bromley and for no other purpose.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to accord with the terms of the application.

3 ACE03 Limited period - build'gs and use (1 in) 28.02.2014. ACE03R Reason E03 D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the

following grounds are suggested:

36

1 The site is located within the Green Belt wherein there is a presumption

against development not associated with the essential needs of predominantly open-air sport and recreation, and the Council sees no special circumstances which might justify the grant of planning permission for the retention and use of the portable building for kitchen and toilet facilities as an exception to Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Further recommendation:

Enforcement action be authorised to ensure the removal of the portable buildings located on site, for which temporary planning permission expired on 31st March 2008.

37

Reference: 08/03867/VAR Address: Petts Wood Football Club Barnet Wood Road Bromley BR2 7AA Proposal: Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 03/00117 for 2 detached

portable buildings for changing and toilet facilities to use portacabin for use as kitchen facility and toilet associated with Petts Wood Football Club.


39


Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 149 Crofton Lane Orpington Kent BR5 1HB


OS Grid Ref: E: 544896 N: 166760

Applicant : Mr Wayne Phillips Objections: NO Description of Development: Five bedroom detached two storey dwelling with accommodation in roof space (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) Proposal The site is located on the eastern side of Crofton Lane at a point were Crofton Lane bends sharply to the west and is opposite Crofton School. The site is located between a terrace of three houses to the north of the site and a small parade of shops to the south. No. 149 Crofton Lane is located to the east of the site and No. 20 Towncourt Lane to the west. This application seeks to regularise the siting of a dwelling which was previously granted on appeal under ref. 07/00515. The dwelling is the same size and virtually identical design as the approved scheme, however its location on the site has altered by it turning slightly clockwise. This has altered the distances to each site boundary as follows: The site boundary distance adjacent to No. 149 at the front of the property was approximately 0.2m for the allowed scheme and is increased to 0.9m. The boundary adjacent to No. 20 on the approved scheme was approximately 2.0m from the boundary tapering to 1.0m at its closest for the approved scheme, and is now 1.0m at the front and 0.67m at its closest. Essentially the proposed dwelling is now closer to the boundary on the west side and further away on the east side compared to the permitted scheme. Consultations

40

Local residents have objected to the application – the residents of No. 22 Towncourt Lane raise concerns about the limited size of the garden, the impact of the newly constructed boundary wall and the proximity of the new property to No. 20 and its impact upon the daylighting to this property. They consider that the small adjustment has had a more serious impact given the restricted nature of the plot. The resident of No. 149 Crofton Lane adjacent to the site also raises concerns about the property being out of character with the area, blocking light to No. 20 and the unsatisfactory appearance of the new brick wall. Concerns are also raised regarding the use of the parking area for Nos. 20-24 Towncourt Lane. Drainage comment that a standard condition is required limiting surface water outlet. Highways have no comment on the scheme. Planning Considerations The planning history of the site can be summarised as follows: 05/04030 2 semi-detached houses Refused overdevelopment and loss

of parking 06/00938 2 bedroom detached Permitted house 07/00515 4 bedroom detached Refused allowed at appeal house 07/03958 3 bedroom detached Refused overdevelopment and house impact on adjoining properties The current proposal is virtually identical to that permitted under ref. 07/00515 at appeal with the exception of the siting which is moved slightly clockwise. The proposal falls to be considered with regard to UDP Policies H7 (housing), H9 (sidespace) BE1 (design), T3 (parking), and T18 (road safety) Conclusions Given that the principle of the development of this site has been accepted at a planning appeal, the primary consideration here is whether the changes to the siting unacceptably increase the impact of the dwelling on the streetscene or adjacent properties. The proposal is contrary to Policy H9 regarding sidespace, however this was also the case with the approved scheme. The dwelling has moved to be closer to No. 20 Towncourt Lane at the front of the property which slightly increases the impact

41

upon No. 20. Consequently the impact upon No. 149 Crofton Lane is improved as the bulk of the dwelling is turned slightly away from this property. The Inspector in deciding the appeal for application ref. 07/00515 concluded that outlook of adjacent properties would not be affected and that direct overlooking would be avoided. He also considered that a reasonable area of private garden would be provided and concluded that the proposal would accord with adopted planning policies aimed at securing good design and protecting the street scene. Members will need to carefully consider whether the slight change in the siting of the property has had a serious enough effect compared to the previous scheme to warrant refusing this application. On balance, the change which has been made is not considered to be so severe in terms of its impact upon neighbours or the streetscene so as to warrant refusing the application. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/04030, 06/00938, 07/00515, 07/03958 and 08/03928, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details


ACA07R Reason A07 3 ACC07 Materials as set out in application

ACC07R Reason C07 4 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application

ACH03R Reason H03 5 ACH04 Size of parking bays/garages

ACH04R Reason H04 6 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted

ACH18R Reason H18 7 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

ACI03R Reason I03 8 ACH11 Visibility splays (new buildings) (3 in) access 3.3m x

2.4m x 3.3m 1m ACH11R Reason H11

9 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank units ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1

10 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) to the first floor flank elevations ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1

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

42

12 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: 13 Reasons for granting permission:

The proposal is sufficiently similar to the previously approved scheme under ref. 07/00515 and is considered to have no further detrimental impact upon the streetscene or amenities of neighbouring properties therefore according with Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI10 Consult Land Charges/Street Numbering 2 RDI16 Layout of crossovers

43

Reference: 08/03928/FULL1 Address: 149 Crofton Lane Orpington Kent BR5 1HB Proposal: Five bedroom detached two storey dwelling with accommodation in roof

space (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)


45


Chislehurst

Address : 45 Elmstead Lane Chislehurst Kent BR7 5EG


OS Grid Ref: E: 542348 N: 170702

Applicant : Mr Geoffrey Field Objections: NO Description of Development: Single storey front/side extension above existing lower ground floor garage Proposal This proposal is single storey front/side extension above existing lower ground floor garage to a detached property. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received. 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 Relevant Planning History 08/01955 Single storey front/side extension above existing Refused lower ground floor garage Conclusions

46

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. This proposal follows a recent refusal under ref. 08/01955 for a similar application. It was refused due to lack of side space as the proposed addition above the basement garage was only 0.30m from the boundary with No. 43. In this current proposal the extension is stepped in 1m from the boundary which now overcomes the previous refusal. Normally the Council do not consider a “stepping in” to overcome the lack of side space, however as the extension is over a basement it is not considered to be degrading the spatial standards of the area and therefore acceptable on these terms. The extension would provide a new lounge and enclosed balcony, the lounge and balcony would be ~8.4m x 4m and the new hall a maximum of ~2.3m x 3.8m. The design of the extension will match the existing house by copying the mock Tudor style beams above windows. Given this design it is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the host dwelling, character of the area or street scene generally. In terms of visual impact and loss of light to neighbouring properties, essentially this is a single storey side extension as the garage is at basement level and as seen from the neighbouring property No. 43 it is not considered to have any significant impact. Having had regard to the above it is considered that on balance the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/01955 and 08/03933, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC07 Materials as set out in application

ACC07R Reason C07 3 ACI07 Restrict to members of household (1 in) at 45 Elmstead Lane, Chislehurst

ACI07R Reason I07

47

4 A side space of 1 metre shall be provided between the southern flank wall of the extension hereby permitted and the flank boundary of the property.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space

48

Reference: 08/03933/FULL6 Address: 45 Elmstead Lane Chislehurst Kent BR7 5EG Proposal: Single storey front/side extension above existing lower ground floor garage


49


Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 189 Crescent Drive Petts Wood Orpington Kent BR5 1AZ


OS Grid Ref: E: 543922 N: 167059

Applicant : Mrs L Buddin Objections: YES Description of Development: Part one/two storey side/rear extension Proposal This application relates to a proposed part one/two storey side and rear extension. The proposed extension will be L-shaped at ground floor level and project up to 4m beyond the existing rear elevation and up to 1.7m beyond the south eastern flank. The first floor element will project 3m rearward but will be set 2m off the boundary with No 191. It will also project beyond the south eastern flank, maintaining a separation of at least 1m with the flank boundary. The proposed extension will partly be built in place of existing single storey side and rear elements. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

• extension is in excess of other two storey extensions • loss of light • substantial increase in size • loss of outlook • proposal could affect structural integrity of neighbouring property • one message confirming no objection to proposal

50

Planning Considerations Policies H8 (design of residential extensions), H9 (residential side space) and BE1 (design and layout of new development) 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, ensure an adequate separation in respect of 2 storey side extensions, and are to safeguard the overall character and amenities of the area. This application has been submitted following a refusal of a previous application for a part one/two side/rear extension under ref. 08/02839. The application was refused on the following ground: The proposal, by reason of its height, siting and rearward projection, would be harmful to the amenities that the occupiers of the adjoining property might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of over-shadowing, loss of light and visual impact, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. In comparison to the refused application this proposal will project a maximum of 3m at first floor level (a reduction from 4.7m (maximum) proposed under ref. 08/02839) and will be located 2m off the boundary with No. 191 Crescent Drive. These changes are considered to result in a development more acceptable in relation to the neighbouring property. Given its siting, the proposed first floor element of the rear extension – with its more limited projection and separation from the boundary – is unlikely to appear dominant from the side of No. 191 Crescent Drive. It should be noted that the first floor room at No. 191 closest to the boundary comprises a bathroom. Whilst the ground floor element will be noticeable from the rear of No. 191 the proposed rearward projection of 3m is considered acceptable. Taking into account the orientation of the properties, it is acknowledged that a flank kitchen window to No. 191 may lose direct sunlight for part of the day, however since this room is also served by another south-western facing window it is considered that the kitchen (which appears to be an extension) will continue to received adequate sunlight. The dining room window serving No. 191 is also south-western facing and given the reasonable separation to the proposed extension it is not considered that sunlight coming in the direction of this room would be seriously affected.

51

A number of similar extensions have been added to dwellings along Crescent Drive. Of note, a first floor rear extension has been added to a neighbouring dwelling at No. 193 (as permitted under ref. 05/03305) which is of similar depth and layout to that proposed at No. 189. Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/03305, 08/02839 and 08/03997, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 17.12.2008 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs


ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank extension

ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

52

Reference: 08/03997/FULL6 Address: 189 Crescent Drive Petts Wood Orpington Kent BR5 1AZ Proposal: Part one/two storey side/rear extension


53


Penge And Cator

Address : 82 High Street Penge London SE20 7HB

Conservation Area: Penge High Street

OS Grid Ref: E: 535372 N: 170338

Applicant : Mr Michael Mifsud Objections: NO Description of Development: First floor rear extension to provide additional accommodation to existing flat Proposal The application site is located on the southern side of High Street within the Penge High Street Conservation Area. The surrounding area contains a mixture of commercial units and residential properties. To the rear of the site are St. John’s Cottages (locally listed buildings) and opposite the site lies Waterman’s Square (statutory listed buildings). The site comprises a commercial unit at ground floor level, with the upper three floors comprising 5 flats. The property has several extensions at the rear. The site has recently suffered from extensive fire damage. Planning permission is sought is extend and refurbish an existing one bedroom flat at first floor level into a two bedroom flat with two external amenity areas. The existing first floor will be extended to the side and rear in order to provide the additional accommodation. The Agent states that the existing flat was constructed 5 years ago and has been used as rented accommodation for the past 4 years. However, the existing flat does not appear to benefit from planning permission. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application however at the time of writing the report no comments had been received from local residents.

54

No objections have been raised from the Council Highways engineer. The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas did not inspect this application. The Council’s Heritage and Urban design officer does not raise objections to the scheme. Planning Considerations The site has been extended several times over the years. Most relevant applications include a two storey rear extension and conversion of first floor office/kitchen ancillary to retail shop to form a first floor two bedroom flat which was refused planning permission under ref. 96/02559. The application was refused on the following basis:

The proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site out of character in this location within the Penge Conservation Area contrary to Policies E.1 and E.7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed development would be lacking in adequate on site car parking provision to accord with the Council’s standards and is therefore contrary to Policy T.15 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Following the above refusal, planning permission was later granted for a single storey extension with a similar footprint to be used for ancillary storage (ref. 97/00508). A single storey building at the rear was also granted retrospectively under ref. 97/02387. Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether the proposed building is likely impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties and the increased residential use of the site. As stated above, the existing one bedroom flat does not currently benefit from planning permission and the proposed extensions will result in a two bedroom flat. Consideration has been given to any potential impact the proposed development may have on the amenities of adjoining neighbours, and on balance given the siting and location of the works it is not considered that the extension of the flat will lead to a significant loss of visual amenity to local residents. Amended plans were received on 12th January 2009 showing 1.8m high screening being provided around the main outside terrace area which will prevent overlooking into surrounding properties. The second amenity space at the side will overlook the rear of the commercial units and is not considered to detrimentally affect residential amenity.

55

Members must also take into account the planning history of the site. Planning permission for a two storey rear extension (ref. 96/02559) was refused on the grounds of overdevelopment in the conservation area. The single storey element was later constructed, so in essence the proposed first floor extensions may result in a similar (although slightly smaller) extension than was previously refused permission. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/04062, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 12.01.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: 3 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

56

Reference: 08/04062/FULL1 Address: 82 High Street Penge London SE20 7HB Proposal: First floor rear extension to provide additional accommodation to existing

flat


57


Bromley Common And Keston

Address : 41 Longdon Wood Keston Kent BR2 6EN

Conservation Area: Keston Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 542192 N: 164727

Applicant : Mr Greg Williams Objections: NO Description of Development: Replacement two storey 5 bedroom detached house with attached garage Proposal Joint report with application ref. 08/04064. The application site is situated on the east side of Longdon Wood and is occupied by a detached two storey house with a detached garage. The road and surrounding area that forms part of the Keston Park Conservation Area is characterised by detached properties of varied architectural design and appearance forming a mixture of two storey houses, chalet bungalows and older style detached bungalows. The original dwellings within this street are situated on spacious plots set well back from the highway with well planted established gardens and mature trees and landscaping. Redevelopment in the form of substantial sized detached houses replacing older type properties has taken place on a number of sites throughout the estate in recent years. The proposal is to demolish the existing house and construct a replacement two storey five bedroom detached house with attached garage. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.

58

From a highways point of view no technical objections are raised but a standard condition should be imposed on any approval to ensure highways safety during the demolition process. From a drainage point of view, no technical objections are raised. From a heritage and urban design point of view, no objections raised considering the previous application and the Planning Inspectorates conclusions the replacement house now seems acceptable subject to conditions regarding the materials. The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas, (APCA) were consulted on the application and their comments can be summarised as follows: No objections raised considering the comments within the Inspectorates report on the previous application. Planning Considerations Under planning application ref. 07/02962 planning permission was dismissed at appeal for a detached two storey five bedroom house with integral garage and accommodation in the roof space. The Inspector concluded that whilst the principle of a replacement dwelling may be acceptable here the proposed mass, height and site coverage of the building proposed was unacceptable and would fail to complement the character and appearance of the area and surrounding properties. 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 following policies of the Unitary Development Plan are further considerations: Policies BE1 (Design Of New Development), BE11 (Conservation Areas), H7 (Housing Density and Design),H9 (Side Space), ER4 (Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development) and ER13 (Foul and Surface Water Discharges From Development) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2006). It also falls to be considered under policies 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) of The London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) Government guidance, and that contained within the London Plan, require Councils to maximise the best use of urban land where appropriate when

59

considering new residential developments, but also to retain development that makes a positive contribution to an area. Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether the current proposals would adequately protect the character, spatial standards and residential amenities of the surrounding area, and whether the proposed mass, height and site coverage of the building is now acceptable. The area around the site is predominantly residential and the buildings in the area are of a variety of styles and scale. The proposed replacement house is of an acceptable design, on a site that is capable of accommodating a more intensive form of development. The revised proposals no longer incorporate accommodation within the roof space, with the front gable scaled down in size considerably. These alterations have enabled the ridge to be lowered so that the overall height is now 1.75m lower than the previously refused scheme. The large side and rear dormers have now been removed which has reduced the overall bulk of the property within the street scene. The overall width of the house has also been reduced to accommodate a distance of 1.3 metres towards the side boundaries of the site. The reduced footprint and height of the development provides greater separation and maintains spatial standards within the area. The replacement dwelling proposed would be of an individual design, however given the variety in the built form within this area and the Inspectors comments that the existing property is not of any specific architectural merit, the proposal is not considered to be out of character with the area. In conclusion, the proposals are considered to provide an appropriate form of development on the site which would neither harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, nor unacceptably affect the amenities of adjoining residents Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/02926, 08/04063 and 08/04064, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 26.01.2009 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years

60

2 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07

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

4 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and

in the interests of the visual and residential amenities of the area. 5 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted

ACK05R K05 reason 6 ACK09 Soil survey - contaminated land

ACK09R K09 reason 7 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas H7 Housing Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T18 Highway safety Policies (London Plan) 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI06 Notify Building Control re. demolition 2 Before the development 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 Environmental Protection Act 1990.

61

Reference: 08/04063/FULL1 Address: 41 Longdon Wood Keston Kent BR2 6EN Proposal: Replacement two storey 5 bedroom detached house with attached garage


63

_____________________ 14. Application No : 08/04064/CAC Ward :

Bromley Common And Keston

Address : 41 Longdon Wood Keston Kent BR2 6EN

Conservation Area: Keston Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 542192 N: 164727

Applicant : Mr Greg Williams Objections: NO Description of Development: Demolition of existing house CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT Joint report with application ref. 08/04063 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT subject to the following conditions: 1 ACG01 Comm.of dev-Listed Building and Con.Area

ACG01R Reason G01 2 AJ05B Justification CONSERV AREA CONSENT Policies (UDP) BE11 Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI06 Notify Building Control re. demolition 2 Before the development 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.

64

Reference: 08/04064/CAC Address: 41 Longdon Wood Keston Kent BR2 6EN Proposal: Demolition of existing house CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT


65


Penge And Cator

Address : Yeoman House 57-63 Croydon Road London SE20 7TS


OS Grid Ref: E: 535364 N: 169774

Applicant : Penge Partners LLP Objections: NO Description of Development: Change of use part of sixth to eighth floors and all of ninth floors from offices (Class B1) to 89 bedroom hotel (Class C1) with attached lift shaft/ entrance extension on Avenue Road frontage Proposal This site has a frontage of 75m and is on the corner with Avenue Road, to which it had a frontage of 65m – it includes an area (30m x 20m) at the rear of Avenue Court (block of flats in Avenue Road) which is part of the existing car parking. It is occupied by a ten storey office block that includes a car dealership (showroom and workshops) and car parking at ground and first floors (within and at the rear of the building). The main vehicle access is from Croydon Road. The car dealership has forecourts to both roads, and the means of access to its workshop and north-east forecourt is from Avenue Road. The site has 203 car parking spaces (60 on ground floor, 103 first floor deck, 8 at the front near the office entrance, 32 for the car dealership) and 43 spaces for display of cars for sale. The proposal is to convert part of the building (as described above) to hotel use – about one third of the sixth to eight floors will remain in office use. Excluding the ground and first floors, the building has a gross internal floor area of 7760 sq m, of which 2908 sq m (37.5%) will be changed from office to hotel use. The extension will provide an entrance and lift for the hotel’s exclusive use, on the Avenue Road frontage – the reception will be on the sixth floor. A flat roofed plant enclosure is proposed on the roof for water tanks etc.

66

30 of the car parking spaces on the first floor deck will be for exclusive use of the hotel, with shared use of a further 59 spaces. The lift will serve the first floor to enable guests to access the parking. Service and refuse vehicles will service the development from the new Avenue Road hotel entrance. The application is accompanied by – Planning Statement (including PPS6 “Planning for Town Centres” statement) Design and Access Statement Energy Efficiency Statement Transport Assessment The remainder of if this section of the report sets out a summary of the applicant’s documentation in support of the proposal. The proposed development will bring back into use part of an existing office block, which has been vacant for a significant period of time despite marketing attempts to secure new occupiers. Correspondence has been submitted which documents the marketing of the office space, including advertising, mailshots, presentations and refurbishment of reception/common parts and the fifth floor ready for provision of office suites to meet any demand. Despite this sustained strategy, the vacancy rate has increased from 39% (December 2006) to 52% (September 2008). Planning policy supports the proposed hotel use provided it can be demonstrated that there is a need for the development, that there are no more centrally located sites that could accommodate the development, and that it will not lead to a shortage of office floorspace as evidenced by long term vacancy, or lead to a loss of employment. There is a clear and identifiable need for additional hotel accommodation in London over the period to 2026. Within the borough of Bromley itself, the current level of hotel accommodation is limited, small in scale and predominately privately run. There is only one small budget hotel located within 5km of the site. Travelodge have identified a need for the type of accommodation they offer and as such propose an 89 bedroom hotel. Following discussions with the Local Planning Authority the scope of the sequential site assessment was established. The sites that were investigated were found to be for the most part too small and where redevelopment would be possible the physical constraints were such that the scale of development required would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area, and unviable. Redevelopment is also not possible where properties are advertised for letting rather than sale. Where potentially suitable larger sites have been identified these have not been available or viable for various reasons. It is considered that it has been adequately demonstrated that there are no more

67

centrally located sites available for the proposed development. Yeoman House represents the only currently deliverable Travelodge hotel site within the study area – sites were examined in Penge, Beckenham, Crystal Palace, South Norwood and Sydenham. A hotel development on this site would not prejudice possible hotel schemes in Bromley Town Centre. In view of the proximity of the site to Penge District Centre, it can be considered to be “edge of centre” in the context of the PPS6 advice. Significant time and money has been invested in trying to secure occupiers for the vacant space within the building but to no avail. The owners are now in a position whereby the only way they can bring the building back into full productive use is through its part change of use to hotel. The proposal will not result in the loss of any employment but rather will create employment and bring back into productive use parts of a building that have remained vacant for a considerable period of time. The principle of development is therefore acceptable and accords with relevant national and local planning policy. The area has a good public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 4, which is “good” – there are 9 bus routes with 640m walking distance, and Kent House, Anerley and Avenue Road rail stations/tram stop are within 960m walking distance. The London Overground service will serve Anerley from mid 2010 and further improve accessibility. The number of car based trips will be less than for an office use, based on both a whole day and the peak hours. As the proposal is for a budget hotel without restaurant/bar open to residents and with no conference/meeting/leisure facilities, this will limit traffic generation. Peak periods of demand for car parking for the office and hotel uses will not coincide, enabling shared use of the existing car parking on site e.g. in morning as hotel guests depart, officers workers arrive. Bicycle and motor cycle parking can be provided. The operator does not market its hotel for coach party operators, so coach parking is not an issue. A time-limited loading bay is suggested in Avenue Road. A Travel Plan (TP) will be implemented to assist staff (and where possible guests) to make sustainable plans for journeys to and from the site – an outline TP and Staff Travel Survey Questionnaire is included in the Transport Assessment. The Energy Efficiency Statement concludes that improvements the fabric of building will increase its thermal efficiency by over 50%. Each bedroom typically has 3 panes of windows at present, 2 of these will be provided with metal stud partitions, and a secondary glazed unit will be provided for the other. It considers the various renewable technologies but concludes that they would not be suitable, cost effective or feasible for the building or the scheme. Discussions with the applicant regarding renewable energy are ongoing at the time of writing.

68

Consultations Nearby residents were notified of the application and no representations were received. There are no objections in terms of Environmental Health. Further responses to consultations, including regarding renewable energy and GLA comments, will be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development states, at paragraph 8, that the plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability that it aims to provide, is central to planning and the key role in integrating development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main policies of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan considered to be relevant to this application include: T1 Transport Demand T2 Assessment of Transport Effects T3 Parking T5 Access for People with Restricted Mobility T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety EMP3 Office Development EMP5 Development Outside Business Areas L10 Tourist Related Development (New Development) L11 Tourist Related Development (Changes of Use) BE1 Design of New Development ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development There are a number of other relevant policy documents that come under the general category of other ‘material considerations’. These include: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS6: Planning for Town Centres PPG13: Transport Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism. In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan policies are:

69

2A.1 Sustainability Criteria 2A.9 The Suburbs: supporting sustainable communities 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres 3D.7 Visitor Accommodation and Facilities 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4A.4 Energy Assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4B.1 Design Principles for a Compact City 4B.4 London’s Buildings: Retrofitting 4B.5 Creating an Inclusive Environment 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 5D.1 The Strategic Priorities for South East London. Hotels are covered by PPS6: Planning for Town Centres which sets out the approach to assessing such proposals:

‘In the context of development control and subject to the policies set out below, local planning authorities should require applicants to demonstrate:

a) the need for development b) that the development is of an appropriate scale c) that there are no more central sites for the development d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres e) that locations are accessible.’

Policy L9 of the UDP states that a proposal for a hotel will be permitted provided that: (i) it is located in or on the edge of Bromley or Orpington town centres, or

within a district centre or a local centre (as defined in Chapter 11). Outside of these locations, the applicants must demonstrate a need for the hotel and must show that a sequential approach to site selection has been applied and that there are no suitable or available sites in the town centres, edge of town centres or within district and local centres before considering out of centre sites in locations accessible by a choice of means of transport; and

(ii) the hotel will be well-separated from neighbouring residential properties

and not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to occupiers of nearby properties.

The subtext at Paragraph 9.26 states that:

‘Hotel accommodation in the form of purpose-built hotels or the conversion of larger properties to hotels or guesthouses would provide a useful

70

supporting service to local businesses and cater for tourists. Hotels would also contribute to the local economy by providing jobs. Provision in Bromley may help to absorb some of the pressure for new hotels in central London. Hotels should be located in environmentally acceptable locations accessible by public transport, in accordance with the sequential approach outlined in PPS6.’

Policy EMP3 of the UDP states that ‘the conversion or redevelopment of offices for other uses will be permitted only where: (i) it can be demonstrated that there is no local shortage of office floorspace

and there is evidence of long term vacancy despite marketing of the premises; and

(ii) there is no likely loss of employment resulting from the proposal. The subtext at paragraph 10.17 states that:

‘The age and configuration of some older office buildings in the Borough may be a barrier to their successful re-occupation. Many modern companies now seek flexible space that can accommodate the needs of various new technologies within the shell of the building. Rather than see these buildings stand empty for extended periods, proposals that advocate a mix of uses will be considered favourably. Appropriate mixed-use proposals will contribute to the vitality and employment opportunities within the Borough’s larger town centres, while also contributing to local housing requirements.’

The main issues to be considered in this case are the impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and on the residential amenities of nearby properties and whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements of Policy L10 and EMP3. Conclusions The proposed external development of the building should not result in harm to the appearance of the area. It is not considered that the change of use will result in any adverse impacts to the residential amenities of nearby properties in terms of overlooking and noise and disturbance given the fact that the proposal involves an existing building. The proposal is a good opportunity to bring forward a mixed use development on the site that could maximise its potential by adding diversity to the local economy. There are few hotels in the area and the use would help to stimulate an area that needs developing in order to promote its position in the future. Tourism would enliven the surrounding area bringing much needed new expenditure to local businesses.

71

The UDP does not define a boundary for Penge town centre, however PPS 6 defines edge of centre as likely to be within 300m of a town centre boundary. The site lies approx. 300m from the edge of the secondary shopping frontage and on this basis it would be reasonable to accept this site as an edge of centre site which would contribute to Penge town centre. The sequential test carried out indicates that there are no potential sites within Penge town centre and the applicant has indicated that they would be keen to pursue sites in other centres. The granting of permission on this site would therefore not detract from the potential for similar development in other centres. The applicant has demonstrated a need for the hotel use and satisfied the relevant requirements for sequential testing in accordance with Policy L10 and PPS6. The owners have been exploring opportunities for the building for some time. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence that there is no local shortage of office floorspace, that there is evidence of long term vacancy despite marketing of the premises and that there is no likely loss of employment from the proposal. The proposal is therefore compliant with Policy EMP3. The application is considered to satisfy the relevant policy requirements. The desirability of bringing this part of the building into productive use and the benefits that will result from the proposed use can be considered to provide a good degree of justification for this scheme. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/04090, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application

ACH03R Reason H03 3 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities

ACH16R Reason H16 4 ACH22 Bicycle Parking

ACH22R Reason H22 5 ACH23 Lighting scheme for access/parking

ACH23R Reason H23 6 ACH28 Car park management

ACH28R Reason H28 7 ACH29 Construction Management Plan

ACH29R Reason H29 8 ACH30 Travel Plan

72

ACH30R Reason H30 9 ACI21 Secured By Design

ACI21R I21 reason 10 ACL01 Energy Strategy Report

ACL01R L01 reason 11 The hotel facilities shall be used by hotel guests only. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate car parking is provided and to comply

with Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. 12 No conference facilities shall be provided in relation to the hotel use. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate car parking is provided and to comply

with Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. 13 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) T1 Transport Demand T2 Assessment of Transport Effects T3 Parking T5 Access for People with Restricted Mobility T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety EMP3 Office Development EMP5 Development Outside Business Areas L10 Tourist Related Development (New Development) L11 Tourist Related Development (Changes of Use) BE1 Design of New Development ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS6: Planning for Town Centres PPG13: Transport Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism. Policies (London Plan) 2A.1 Sustainability Criteria 2A.9 The Suburbs: supporting sustainable communities 3D.1 Supporting Town Centres 3D.7 Visitor Accommodation and Facilities 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction 4A.4 Energy Assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4B.1 Design Principles for a Compact City 4B.4 London’s Buildings: Retrofitting 4B.5 Creating an Inclusive Environment 4B.8 Respect local context and communities 5D.1 The Strategic Priorities for South East London.

73

Reference: 08/04090/FULL3 Address: Yeoman House 57-63 Croydon Road London SE20 7TS Proposal: Change of use part of sixth to eighth floors and all of ninth floors from

offices (Class B1) to 89 bedroom hotel (Class C1) with attached lift shaft/ entrance extension on Avenue Road frontage


75


Darwin

Address : 24 Hazelwood Road Cudham Sevenoaks Kent TN14 7QU


OS Grid Ref: E: 544610 N: 161525

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Ken Turner Objections: NO Description of Development: Single storey rear extension Proposal The application site is located to the west of Hazelwood Road and is a detached dwelling within the Green Belt. The property is a replacement dwelling for which planning permission was granted in 1987. The proposal is for a single storey extension for a conservatory and it is proposed to be located to the middle of the property at the rear. The extension measures approximately 4.3m deep and 3.8m wide with a maximum height of 3.7m to the apex of the roof. The floor area increase equates to approximately 11 percent. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations have been received to date. Planning Considerations Policy BE1, Design of New Development, states that all proposals should be of a high standard of design and layout, and should be attractive, complement the scale, form, layout and materials of the adjacent buildings and respect the existing street scene. Policy H8, Residential Extensions, states that the design and layout of proposals should respect the host dwelling, compatible with development in the surrounding

76

area and space between buildings should be respected or maintained when these contribute to the character of the area. Policy G1, Green Belt, this states that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate development detrimental to the character and openness of the area unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm caused. Policy G4, Extensions/Alterations to Dwellings in the Green Belt, this policy outlines the criteria when such proposals will be permitted:

• the net increase in the floor area over that of the original dwellinghouse is no more than 10% as ascertained by external measurement and;

• their size, siting, materials and design do not harm visual amenities or the open, rural character of the locality; and

• the development does not result in significant detrimental change in the overall form, bulk or character of the original dwellinghouse.

This policy states that proposals to extend converted or replacement dwellings will not normally be permitted. Conclusions The application is applying for a conservatory to the rear of the property. The applicants’ daughter suffers from multiple sclerosis and is wheelchair bound. It is proposed that the extension will allow her to enjoy the garden fully. Members are asked to consider that these circumstances may outweigh the harm caused to the character and openness of the Green Belt. The extension is considered to be of an appropriate size in relation to the host dwelling and Members may consider that the proposal is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt, especially taking into account the density of housing in this particular area. The extension given its separation and siting from the adjacent property boundaries is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of both neighbouring properties and is unlikely to harm the amount of light currently enjoyed by the occupiers of those properties. As the property is a replacement dwelling, the application does not comply with policy G4 of the Unitary Development Plan. However, Members are asked to consider whether the proposal is likely to cause undue harm to the character of the Green Belt or whether the circumstances presented by the applicants are considered special and sufficient to outweigh the impact on the Green Belt and warrant permission.

77

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/04223, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H8 Residential extensions G1 Green Belt G4 Extensions/alterations to dwellings in Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open Land

78

Reference: 08/04223/FULL6 Address: 24 Hazelwood Road Cudham Sevenoaks Kent TN14 7QU Proposal: Single storey rear extension


79

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


Plaistow And Sundridge

Address : 14 Farwig Lane Bromley BR1 3RB


OS Grid Ref:

E: 539989 N: 169897

Applicant : Luceno Properties Ltd Objections : NO Description of Development: Detached building for office and light industrial uses (Class B1 (a) and B1 (c) with car parking. Proposal The site lies within a designated business area to the north of Bromley Town Centre. It has a frontage onto Farwig Lane. The site forms part of the larger redevelopment site for a ‘Big Yellow’ Storage Depot which was granted planning permission under ref. 07/02182. The proposed unit will be located to the east of the site of the ‘Big Yellow’ storage building and behind an existing light industrial unit which was also permitted under planning ref. 07/02182. It is to be identical in height and construction detail to the unit under construction. Use Class B1(a) relates to the use of the building for offices (other than financial services) and B1(c) relates to light industry. To the east of the site are some residential dwellings and the surrounding area generally comprises of a mixture of retail, office, light industrial and residential development.

80

The site is accessed from Farwig Lane and two additional car parking spaces are proposed, giving a total of 4 standard and 1 disabled parking spaces. A cycle store beneath the external access steps is also proposed. The proposed light industrial unit will be two storeys high. It would have a pitched roof and would measure approximately 9m high, 9.25m wide and 6m in depth giving a floor area of approximately 55.5m². The applicants have stated that an additional 6 employees will work at the site. The proposed hours of operation are 9am – 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am – 1pm Saturday. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received. The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections. The Council’s highways engineer has no objection and commented as follows:

• the proposal is within the boundary of an existing commercial area • the proposal will have no direct independent impact on the highway

network save for a slight increase in vehicular traffic Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 - This sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development. Development is expected to complement the scale, from and materials of adjacent buildings, it should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure and should respect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants. EMP2 – Through this policy, the Council seeks to ensure that 1) the shopping functions of the town centres are not impaired; 2) access to the development by means other than by the private car can be achieved; and 3) on small office schemes mixed use or flexible office space for small businesses and start-ups can be achieved. EMP4 – This policy sets out what uses will be permitted within a designated business area. It states uses within class B1 will be allowed provided that it does not impede effective operation of neighbouring businesses.

81

T3 - This relates to parking and seeks to ensure that parking spaces in new development are provided at no higher levels than is set out in the Council’s parking standards. T18 - This policy seeks to ensure that road safety is not adversely affected by planning proposals. Conclusions The proposed building will replicate that which had already been granted planning permission and has been constructed at the site, therefore, the principle of this type of development in this location has already been established. Nevertheless, the effects it would have on the character of the area, the added impact it would have on the functioning of neighbouring businesses and town centres, the effects on road safety and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding buildings must all be taken into account. The building would be located some 8 metres behind the existing light industrial unit, with only a small proportion visible from the street. The impact on the visual amenities of the street scene would therefore be minimal. Given its small scale in comparison to other development in the area, it is not considered that it would appear unduly conspicuous or constitute an overdevelopment of the site. Given its scale, the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on town centre vitality but, moreover, would help retain the scale and character of this area as well as adding to its vitality. With regard to the impacts on road safety, again, the scale of the development and number of parking spaces proposed would be unlikely to have a significant impact. The buildings directly adjacent to the site are the new ‘Big Yellow’ storage facility and light industrial unit permitted under the previous scheme, and some existing business/industrial units. No concerns were raised regarding the impact of the proposal on occupants of surrounding buildings and in this location it would have no significant impact on outlook from neighbouring buildings or detrimentally impact the amount of light entering these buildings or their curtilages. Having had regard to the above it is considered that the development as proposed is acceptable. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/02182 and 08/03603, excluding exempt information.

82

as amended by documents received on 20.11.2008 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs



ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces)

ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt

ACD02R Reason D02 6 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt

ACD04R Reason D04 7 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application

ACH03R Reason H03 8 ACH10 Provision of sight line (3 inserts) 2.4m x 60m the

vehicular access 1m ACH10R Reason H10

9 ACH11 Visibility splays (new buildings) (3 in) vehicular access 3.3m x 2.4m x 3.3m 1m ACH11R Reason H11

10 ACJ22 Lighting Scheme ACJ22R J22 reason

11 ACK03 No equipment on roof ACK03R K03 reason

12 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason

13 ACK09 Soil survey - contaminated land ACK09R K09 reason

14 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22

15 ACH23 Lighting scheme for access/parking ACH23R Reason H23

16 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development EMP2 Office Development EMP4 Business Areas T3 Parking T18 Road Safety

83

INFORMATIVE(S) 1 There is a Thames Water main crossing the development site which

may/will need to be diverted at the developer’s cost, or necessitate amendments to the proposed design so that the aforementioned main can be retained. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for maintenance and repair. Please contact Thames Water Developer Services Contact Centre on Tel. 0845 850 2777 for further information.

84

Reference: 08/03603/FULL1 Address: 14 Farwig Lane Bromley BR1 3RB Proposal: Detached building for office and light industrial uses (Class B1 (a) and B1

(c) with car parking.


85


Darwin

Address : Cedar Farm Cudham Lane South Cudham Sevenoaks Kent TN14 7QD


OS Grid Ref:

E: 545187 N: 158693

Applicant : Mr G Morgan Objections : YES Description of Development: Detached two storey 6 bedroom dwelling (Amendments to dwelling granted under permission 05/00617) Proposal This application has been submitted following the construction of a dwelling under planning permission ref. 05/00617 not in accordance with the approved plans. The supporting case states that the changes are mainly cosmetic in nature and do not result in any material change to the overall external appearance of the building. It is suggested that the proposal therefore should not give rise to any Green Belt or other policy objections and the planning considerations which were present for the original decision to permit the house are the same now. The changes are described as follows:

• utility / kitchen- depth reduced but squared off – same floor area • breakfast room – glazed door replaced with window • dining room – two windows moved and window added • drawing room – two windows moved • games room – three windows combined into two • swimming – hip end to barn hip and lowered ground level • master bed – window added and roof shape changed over kitchen • wc – window added • bed 3 – window added • bed 5 – window replaced with velux

86

Further changes not described in the covering letter include the change from hipped to gable ends on the east and west elevations of the main roof. Changes to the outbuildings do not form part of this application and are considered in a separate enforcement report on this agenda. Consultations Representations have been received from local residents which raise concerns about the outbuildings (not part of this application) and the overall appearance of the property and questions why views are being sought once the building has already been built. Planning Considerations The dwelling and outbuildings were permitted under ref. 05/00617 in 2005. The site had formerly been a farm and a number of outbuildings were demolished as part of the original proposal, along with the extinguishment of a second residential curtilage which was lawful at the site. Relevant policies include Policies BE1 and G1 in the UDP and national policy in PPG2 relating to Green Belts. Conclusions The dwelling constructed at the site differs in various ways from that permitted and it is necessary to consider whether these changes cause any harm to the openness and character of the Green Belt and the rural area in general. The changes to the dwelling, although some slightly alter the layout and appearance of the building, are not significant in terms of their impact upon the Green Belt or countryside, and in general can be considered to comply with the terms and aims of the original permission and policies G1 and BE1 and guidance in PPG2 regarding Green Belts. On balance, Members may consider it appropriate to grant planning permission for these changes. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/00617 and 08/03796, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO A DEED OF VARIATION TO LINK THE PERMISSION TO THE s106 LEGAL AGREEMENT ATTACHED TO PERMISSION REF. 05/00617

87

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



ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E Reason: In order to comply with Policy G1 of the Unitary Development Plan and

to safeguard the character and openness of the Green Belt. 5 ACK04 Demolition of existing building (see DI0

ACK04R K04 reason


The changes to the dwelling are not significant in terms of their impact upon the Green Belt or character of the area from the dwelling previously permitted and therefore comply with Policies G1 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI06 Notify Building Control re. demolition 2 RD124 Public Right of Way advice 3 RD128 Variation to approved plans 4 The applicant is advised that this permission solely relates to the dwelling

at Cedar Farm as shown on the application drawings and not any other buildings at the site.

88

Reference: 08/03796/FULL6 Address: Cedar Farm Cudham Lane South Cudham Sevenoaks Kent TN14 7QD Proposal: Detached two storey 6 bedroom dwelling (Amendments to dwelling granted

under permission 05/00617)


89


Farnborough And Crofton

Address : Land Adj. 182 Broadwater Gardens Orpington Kent


OS Grid Ref:

E: 544410 N: 164777

Applicant : Keniston Housing Association Ltd Objections : YES Description of Development: Two storey residential development comprising 5 two bedroom flats/1 three bedroom flat/2 three bedroom houses and 1 four bedroom house including 2 additional car parking spaces and private amenity areas Proposal This application seeks permission for 9 dwellings adjacent to an existing residential area. These are in the form of 5 two bedroom flats, 1 three bedroom flat, 2 three bedroom houses and 1 four bedroom house. These would be laid out as an addition to the end of the existing cul-de-sac at Broadwater Gardens and vehicular access gained from the existing road. Two of the units will be provided for the disabled. Private gardens will be provided for each unit. The site is mostly overgrown scrubland with no significant trees. It is informally used for recreation by local residents. It is approximately 0.18 hectares in size and the development is proposed at 192 habitable rooms per hectare The surrounding area is largely a housing estate managed by the applicants comprising mostly 2 storey houses in terraces. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, an Ecological Appraisal, an Ecology Survey and a Stage 1 Contamination Assessment. Consultations

90

A number of letters have been received from local residents (in particular Cherrycot Rise to the south of the site and including a set of letters from the Cherrycot Residents Association) raising the following concerns:

• overlooking • waterlogging of gardens will occur • subsidence will occur • possible movements of Cherrycot Rise towards the A21 • estate is on flight path • removal of play land for children

No objections are raised from a Cleansing viewpoint. Drainage comment that the site is in an area where the Environment Agency and Thames Water require a restriction on the rate of discharge of surface water from new developments into the River Ravensbourne or its tributaries and standard condition D02 is recommended. There are no public foul sewers near to the site and the applicant has been requested to clarify how it is proposed to connect to the sewer network. Standard condition D04 is also recommended. Highways comments suggest conditions and require a mechanism to prevent any development commencing until a stopping-up order has been agreed in relation to an area of adopted highway within the site. An informative is suggested. With regard to the public right of way alongside 182 Broadwater Gardens, an informative is suggested regarding the possibility that the land forming part of the site as it has been used by the public could be the subject of a claim for registration as a village green or a different route for the right of way than that proposed. Clarification is sought from the applicant regarding future maintenance arrangements for the proposed right of way route. The Countryside Officer and Site Manager for Darrick and Newstead Woods comments that the ancient boundary hedge to the northeast of the development site should be protected during and after construction as it is important historically and for nature conservation. It is also requested that plants and species at the eastern and southern boundaries of the site should be of native species to benefit local wildlife and mitigate against the loss of scrub habitat. The Crime Prevention Officer notes that the proposal could potentially increase crime and expects measures to reduce this possibility from the applicant; the proposal to include Secure By Design accredited products within the development is applauded, and a planning condition is recommended in this regard.

91

The Council’s Housing Development Manager supports the proposal as it meets current housing needs including over 40% family housing and two fully wheelchair accessible units. It also achieves the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. There are no objections with regard to Trees and a standard condition is recommended. The Environmental Health Officer has no objection subject to an informative. Planning Considerations The site has some planning history which includes a refusal of planning permission in 1986 for 48 one and two bedroom flats in two storey blocks on the basis of cramped overdevelopment, intrusion into amenity land and drainage problems. In a subsequent appeal the Inspector commented on an alternative illustrative scheme stating that a much reduced scheme sited close to the eastern side of the site would not be so harmful. A revised scheme was submitted under reference 88/01690 for 20 flats and was considered to overcome the previous grounds of refusal. The drainage concerns would not be a problem given the reduced number of dwellings and the application was on a reduced area of the site. The application was granted permission but not implemented. The site is not subject to any protective designation although it is adjacent to a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation and Urban Open Space to the north. The main policies of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan considered to be relevant to this application include: T3 Parking T18 Road Safety H1 Housing Supply H5 Accessible Housing H7 Housing Density and Design NE7 Development and Trees NE9 Hedgerows and Development BE1 Design of New Development There are a number of other relevant policy documents that come under the general category of other ‘material considerations’. These include: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPG13: Transport.

92

In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan policies are: 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. It is considered that the main issues relevant to the determination of this application are the impact of the proposal on the visual and residential amenities of the area, the impact of the proposal on the existing open area of the site and the impact upon nature and wildlife. Conclusions This application is for residential development on undesignated land and will meet a housing need, also providing 2 units fully equipped for disabled occupants. It therefore accords with general land use policies. The supporting text to Policy H7 of the UDP states that “scope for further housing development occurs mainly on "infill" sites”, of which this site is considered to be a suitable example. The proposed layout and design of the development is in keeping with the surrounding properties and the proposal respects the spatial standards and general character of the area, complying with Policies H7 and BE1 of the UDP. Although the issue of the loss of some of the open area may be considered regrettable, this issue has been addressed in the past and due to the previous consideration of the matter, the site has remained undesignated in the UDP and development in principle is therefore considered appropriate. In fact a large proportion of the scrubland will remain and there are additionally other large areas of designated open space in close proximity to the site and these provide adequate amenities for a wider area including this proposed development. With regard to the parking provision the proposal is considered to provide a suitable level of parking and therefore complies with Policy T3 of the UDP. Although technically there is an overprovision of parking (12 spaces for 9 dwellings), some of this is part of the existing parking area and is not objectionable. With regard to Policy T18 and road safety, the proposal is considered acceptable subject to a separate Section 38 agreement under the Highways Act which will ensure suitable details of the extension to the public highway. The application provides over the required percentage of accessible housing in Policy H5 (which in any case only applies to schemes of 20 dwellings or more), and the proposal will meet a specific housing requirement at a suitable density

93

(192 hrha), therefore complying with Policy H1 and H7. In respect of Policy H7 it also provides a suitable mix of housing types including larger family dwellings. The relationship of the proposal to existing dwellings is considered satisfactory and no undue overlooking or loss of amenity will occur. With regard to an objection received it is considered that the rear of properties in Cherrycot Rise are a significant distance of over 50 metres from the new properties which is acceptable to prevent any harm to privacy. Conditions are required to protect the natural environment as set out in the response from the Countryside Officer. A suitable landscaping scheme will assist in maintaining a good relationship with the adjacent Site of Interest for Nature Conservation. Furthermore the requirements of Policy NE9 relating to protection of hedgerows can be met by use of suitable planning condition. Concerns relating to drainage can be addressed through the imposition of a condition, although a response is awaited from Thames Water and will be reported verbally. Concerns raised by objectors relating to drainage and subsidence are primarily matters which are addressed through other legislation rather than planning. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 88/01960 and 08/04204, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs

ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA09 Landscaping scheme (inc.street furniture

ACA09R Reason A09 3 ACA08 Boundary enclosures - implementation

ACA08R Reason A08 4 ACB16 Trees - no excavation

ACB16R Reason B16 5 ACC07 Materials as set out in application

ACC07R Reason C07 6 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt

ACD02R Reason D02 7 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt

ACD04R Reason D04 8 ACH02 Satisfactory parking - no details submit

ACH02R Reason H02 9 ACH17 Materials for estate road

94

ACH17R Reason H17 10 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

ACI03R Reason I03 11 ACI21 Secured By Design

ACI21R I21 reason


The proposed development accords with provisions in the Unitary Development plan insofar as it will provide housing to meet an identified need (including for the disabled) and will respect and sit comfortably within the existing character of the area. The scheme will protect existing natural and ecological resources and will not cause harm to the amenities of nearby residential properties, therefore complying with Policies T3, T18, H1, H5, H7, NE7, NE9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI03 Seek engineering advice 2 RDI10 Consult Land Charges/Street Numbering 3 RD125 Stopping up Right of Way

95

Reference: 08/04204/FULL1 Address: Land Adj. 182 Broadwater Gardens Orpington Kent Proposal: Two storey residential development comprising 5 two bedroom flats/1 three

bedroom flat/2 three bedroom houses and 1 four bedroom house including 2 additional car parking spaces and private amenity areas


97

SECTION 4 – Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS


Orpington

Address : 67 Vinson Close Orpington Kent BR6 0EQ


OS Grid Ref: E: 546187 N: 166469

Applicant : Mrs Xenia Stedwick Objections : YES Description of Development: Erection of a 3 bedroom two storey detached dwelling at land r/o 67 Vinson Close Proposal This application is for the erection of a 3 bedroom two storey detached dwelling at land to the rear of 67 Vinson Close, part of which is currently occupied by a detached garage. The dwelling and associated garden area will occupy the western half of the curtilage of 67 Vinson Close with much of the proposed dwelling aligning with the neighbouring dwelling at ‘Glenholme’. Access will be gained from Cyril Road through an existing crossover, with two parking spaces provided within the front garden area. The rear garden area will measure approximately 10m in depth. The dwelling itself will measure approximately 8.5m in depth (including front bay windows) whilst the roof ridge will be set approximately 8.0m above ground level. A side space of approximately 0.1m will be maintained between the dwelling and the northern boundary, whilst a separation of approximately 1.1m will be maintained with the southern boundary. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

98

• proposal constitutes a cramped over development with sub-division of a

garden that reduces amenity space of two properties at an unacceptable level

• cramped design with inadequate side space provision • proposal does constitute backland development • loss of landscape features and views • inadequate provision for soft landscaping • out of character with surrounding development • poor parking layout may pose a road safety hazard • poor siting of waste area • loss of amenities with overlooking and loss of privacy, sunlight and

daylight to neighbouring occupiers. • approval could lead to precedent for similar development • protected lime trees could be undermined • lime trees will undermine amenities of proposed dwelling leading to a

severe loss of light • Glenholme site is at least three times the size of the application site

No objections raised by English Heritage. No technical highways objections raised. No objections raised by Environmental Health or the drainage division. Concerns raised by the Tree Officer in relation to the impact of the development on the root protection areas of the protected lime trees, and that these trees will result in the proposed dwelling being overshadowed. Planning Considerations Policies BE1, H7, and H9 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; to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties; and to maintain adequate side space provision. Policy NE7 (Development and Trees) states that proposals for new development will be required to take account of existing trees on the site or adjoining land, which in the interest of visual amenity and/or wildlife habitat, are considerable desirable to be retained. Conclusions The proposed development will appear cramped and out of character with surrounding development. This will especially be reflected in the small garden

99

areas to the front and rear of the proposed house, as well as the limited side space provision proposed adjacent to the northern boundary. The proposal will therefore appear cramped and out of character with local spatial standards and development patterns. In contrast the neighbouring dwelling at ‘Glenholme’ the proposed development will occupy a significantly smaller plot and be set closer to properties along Vinson Close given the staggered building line of houses along that street. This will result in overlooking from the proposed dwelling, which will be accentuated as a result of the elevated nature of the application site in relation to the Vinson Close properties. It is also considered that the retention and well being of a number of lime trees which form a distinct patters to the rear of Vinson Close will be prejudiced, given the proximity of the development to their root protection area. In addition the proposed dwelling could be overshadowed given its proximity to those lime trees. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/03809, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposal represents a cramped overdevelopment of the site by

reason of the restrictive size of plot available and would be out of character with the surrounding area, therefore contrary to Policies BE1, H7 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed development would give rise to an unacceptable degree of

overlooking and loss of privacy and amenity to the occupiers of adjoining properties thus contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The development would prejudice the retention and well being of a

number of lime trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, therefore contrary to Policies BE1 and NE7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 By reason of its proximity to the surrounding lime trees, the proposed

dwelling would be overshadowed, thereby compromising the amenities that its occupants might reasonably expect to be able to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1, H7 and NE7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

100

Reference: 08/03809/FULL1 Address: 67 Vinson Close Orpington Kent BR6 0EQ Proposal: Erection of a 3 bedroom two storey detached dwelling at land r/o 67 Vinson

Close


101


Orpington

Address : Land At Former 1 To 23 Orchard Grove Orpington Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 545935 N: 165988

Applicant : Linden Homes SE Ltd Objections : YES Description of Development: 18 two/ three storey houses and three storey block comprising 8 one bedroom flats with car parking (amendment to scheme allowed on appeal under ref. 06/04545) Proposal The site is located on the edge of Orpington town centre opposite the five/six storey mixed use Tesco’s development currently under construction. Much of the remainder of the surrounding area is suburban in character comprising detached and semi-detached two storey houses. Orchard Grove slopes down to Station Road resulting in a fall from north to south along the frontage of the site. There is a rise from east to west in the southern and northern parts of the site whilst the middle of the site is relatively flat. There are a number of important trees along the western boundary of the site and there is a large cedar in the south-west corner, all protected by TPOs. Immediately to the north of the site lie Nos. 25 & 27 Orchard Grove, both detached two storey houses, whilst to the west are the gardens of properties in Elm Grove and to the south is No. 12 Station Road, a four storey flat roofed block of flats. Planning permission was granted at appeal in July 2007 for the redevelopment of Nos. 1-23 Orchard Grove to provide 76 flats within 2 four storey blocks and 16 houses to the rear with 86 car parking spaces. It is now proposed to increase the number of units by substituting 18 houses and a block of 8 one bedroom flats for the 16 permitted houses. An additional 6 car parking spaces are proposed to provide a total of 92. The 18 houses will be arranged in 3 terraces each comprising 6 houses and the block of flats will be sited in the north-west corner of

102

the site. It is proposed that the houses will be for private sale and the flats will be affordable housing. The application is accompanied by: Transport Statement Arboricultural Impact Assessment Sustainability Statement Planning and Design Statement. Consultations Nearby residents were notified of the application and representations were received, which can be summarised as follows:

• remaining trees on the site should be protected • overdevelopment • out of character • increased noise and disturbance • increased traffic • overlooking • increased pressure on local infrastructure and services • developer previously agreed to provide houses along the rear of the site

which provided suitable transition between houses on Elm Grove and the 2 blocks of flats to the front of the site

• loss of security / increased risk of crime • developer has been uncooperative regarding erection of a suitable

boundary fence along rear of the site • damage to adjacent properties during demolition process • changes to scheme are financially driven • proposal would set precedent for further flats along the rear of the site • air pollution • potential environmental damage from surface water run-off • loss of outlook / visual impact at No. 27 Orchard Grove • planning application is misleading • trees on the site are deciduous and therefore don’t provide year round

screening. There are no technical highways objections to the proposal. There are no objections from an Environmental Health point of view. There are no policy or technical objections to the proposal in terms of sustainable development and renewable energy issues.

103

Planning Considerations The previous application on the site (ref. 07/04545) for 76 flats and 18 houses was refused planning permission on the following grounds:

The proposal, by reason of the scale and design of the blocks, will be an overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the area, thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal, by reason of the amount of the site covered by buildings and hardstanding and the resulting lack of amenity space, would be a cramped overdevelopment of the site and out of character in the area, thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal, by reason of the scale and design of the development, would be likely to set an unsatisfactory pattern for future development in the area, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal was subsequently allowed on appeal and the following is an excerpt from the Inspector’s report:

‘The appeal site is sizeable, but in my view it represents a well contained area that forms a discreet planning unit within the context of its surroundings. As indicated, the area opposite is the subject of radical change and immediately to the south is an existing four storey flat roofed block of flats quite unlike the detached houses which constitute the appeal site. To the north the site Orchard Grove turns through ninety degrees.

This renders the properties at 1-23 (possibly with the addition of No. 25 which does not form part of this proposal) as a well defined block of land. To the west the land rises substantially beyond the well landscaped rear boundaries to adjoin the houses in Elm Grove which themselves enjoy substantial rear gardens. The result is a well separated visual and topographical relationship with the houses on the appeal site, which are set at a lower level.

In this context, and given the desirability of making effective and efficient use of residential redevelopment opportunities as advocated in both national and local planning guidance, I consider the site to be well suited to a higher density housing scheme. In this regard I concur with the view of the Inspector who dealt with the earlier appeal on this site, and I also consider that the proposal makes a valid attempt to recognise the transition between the substantial supermarket building under construction to the east and the lower density suburban housing to the west within Elm Grove.

104

The proposed split between the flatted blocks on the road frontage and the semi-detached and short terraces of family housing to the rear reflects this layout and design approach and in effect allows for a gradual transition in building volume, height and density from east to west across the site.

The houses to the rear would not be readily visible from outside the site given their position behind the flats and as they would be set at a lower level when viewed from Elm Grove.

Provision is made for an open amenity space area within the development and this is predominantly aimed at the needs arising from within the flats, as the proposed houses all have private rear gardens. I consider this to represent an important component of the scheme given the strong likelihood that the occupants of some flats might be families with children. Provision is modest but is well positioned within the development to avoid undue conflict with vehicles and to immediately adjoin areas which are least sensitive to potential noise disturbance.

It is quite clear that the outlook over the appeal site for a number of local residents from windows or garden areas would change. Several expressed concerns of this kind. However such change is an inevitable corollary of development and does in my view represent a justifiable reason for resistance to proposals on its own account.’

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development states, at paragraph 8, that the plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability that it aims to provide, is central to planning and the key role in integrating development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main policies of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan considered to be relevant to this application include: 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 NE7 Development and trees

105

BE1 Design of New Development ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development IMP1 Planning Obligations. There are a number of other relevant policy documents that come under the general category of other ‘material considerations’. These include: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPG13: Transport. In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan policies are: 2A.9 The Suburbs: supporting sustainable communities 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.4 Energy Assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4B.1 Design Principles for a Compact City 4B.8 Respect local context and communities. The applicant has identified the site as excluding the two large blocks of flats and on this basis the proposal equates to a residential density of 38.8 dwellings per hectare. The residential density including the 2 large blocks would be 106.2 dwellings per hectare. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to make a financial contribution in respect of healthcare and education provision in accordance with Policy IMP1. The main issues to be considered in this case are the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the impact on the residential amenities of the area. Conclusions In terms of impacts on nearby residential properties the most significant revision to the approved scheme relates to the introduction of the block of 8 flats. The block will be approx. 8m from the boundary with No. 27 Orchard Grove at the nearest point. It will look onto the south-eastern flank elevation of No. 27 and it may therefore be considered that there will be no unacceptable impacts on the residential amenities of this property. The appeal Inspector noted that the amount of amenity space relating to the 2 large blocks of flats was modest. However this application omits the 2 blocks and provides private gardens to the houses and amenity space around the block

106

of 8 flats. It may therefore be considered that the provision of amenity space relating to the currently proposed development is acceptable. The previously approved scheme incorporates a significant amount of car parking. The current proposal will result in an increase amount of site coverage with buildings and an increased amount of hardstanding on the site for car parking with less soft landscaping. The introduction of a block of flats to the rear of the site would be at odds with providing a transition in building volume and density from east to west across the site whilst the introduction of an increased number of houses arranged in terraces will result in a less spacious appearance. As such the proposal will result in an excessive amount of development on the site which will relate unsatisfactorily to the scale and form of adjacent residential development in Orchard Grove and Elm Grove. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/04107, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposal, by reason of the scale and design of the buildings and the

amount of hardstanding, will be an overdevelopment of the site out of character with existing development in Elm Grove and Orchard Grove, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

107

Reference: 08/04107/FULL1 Address: 1 Orchard Grove Orpington Kent BR6 0RX Proposal: 18 two/ three storey houses and three storey block comprising 8 one

bedroom flats with car parking (amendment to scheme allowed on appeal under ref. 06/04545)


london borough of bromley town planning renewal and recreation

Documents