section „1‟...three bedroom dwelling (class c3) proposal this property adjoins elmstead home for...

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Committee (SC) on 21st February 2008 REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER SECTION „1‟ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley

_______________________

1. Application No : 07/03917/FULL2 Ward:

Chislehurst

Address : 100 Elmstead Lane Chislehurst Kent BR7

5EL

Conservation Area:NO

OS Grid Ref: E: 542616 N: 171303

Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Change of use from family resource centre with ancillary staff accommodation to

three bedroom dwelling (Class C3)

Proposal This property adjoins Elmstead Home for Elderly people and was retained by the Council when the home was sold in 1996. Planning permission was subsequently granted under ref. 97/02093 for the use of the property as a Family Resource Centre, but this use has ceased and the property has been vacant for some time. It is proposed to change the use of the property to a three bedroom dwelling which would have a small rear garden, and appears to have parking for 2/3 vehicles on the site.

Consultations No letters of objection have been received from third parties.

2

From a highways point of view, the proposed use as a single dwelling is unlikely to result in a significant increase in the use of the existing vehicular access, therefore, no objections are raised. No objections are raised to the proposals from an Environmental Health point of view.

Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

C1 Community Facilities H12 Conversion of Non-Residential Buildings to Residential Use

Policy C1 aims to prevent the loss of community facilities unless it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a need for them. Policy H12 allows for the conversion of genuinely redundant non-residential buildings into residential use, subject to achieving a satisfactory quality of accommodation and amenity.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are the loss of the family resource centre and the impact of the proposals on the character of the surrounding area. The property has been vacant for some time and is considered to be surplus to Council requirements. Furthermore, its conversion into a single residential dwelling would be in keeping with the surrounding area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 97/02093 and 07/03917, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) C1 Community facilities H12 Conversion of non-residential buildings to residential use

________________________

3

SECTION „2‟ - Applications meriting special consideration

_______________________

2. Application No : 07/03848/FULL1 Ward :

Mottingham And

Chislehurst North

Address : Castlecombe Primary School

Castlecombe Road London SE9 4AT


OS Grid Ref: E: 542206 N: 171437

Applicant : Castlecombe Primary School Objections : YES


Single storey extensions to existing nursery to form Children's Centre with 9

additional car parking spaces adjacent to existing access road.

Proposal Castlecombe Primary School lies on the southern side of Castlecombe Road, and is occupied by the main school building located within the western part of the site, and a detached single storey nursery building further to the east, which was granted planning permission in 2004 and lies to the south of an existing youth centre which fronts Castlecombe Road. It is proposed to extend the existing nursery building to the north and east, adjacent to the youth centre, in order to provide a childrens‟ centre which forms part of the Government‟s strategy requiring councils to provide early years support to parents and children. It would have a floor area of 245sq.m. and the design and materials would match the existing nursery. It would open between 8am-6pm, 48 weeks a year, and would provide an additional 22 places for 0-4 year olds. A maximum of 6 staff would be needed if the centre reaches capacity. Vehicular access to the centre would be via an existing access to playing fields, and 9 parking spaces would be located along the proposed access road adjacent to residential properties (the application originally proposed 11 spaces but was reduced as a response to highways concerns). Six of these spaces would be for staff use, two for visiting healthcare/social workers, and the last space for disabled parking. A small single storey store would also be added to the southern part of the existing nursery, which is required due to internal rearrangements.

Consultations

4

Letters of objections have been received from nearby residents, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

open playing fields should be protected from any further development

additional pressure for parking in Castlecombe Road

the car parking would cause disturbance to adjoining residents From a highways point of view, insufficient information has been submitted to justify the need for 9 additional car parking spaces, particularly as the supporting statement indicates that local staff would be employed and encouraged to attend on foot or by public transport. If considered acceptable, measures should also be put in place to ensure that the parking is only used by Children‟s Centre staff. No objections are raised to the proposals from a drainage point of view. The application has the full support of the Children and Young People Department.

Planning Considerations The following policies are relevant to the consideration of this application: BE1 Design of New Development C7 Educational & Pre-School Facilities C8 Dual Community Use of Educational Facilities G2 Metropolitan Open Land T3 Parking

Conclusions There is a clear need for the provision of a Children‟s Centre in this location, and the building has been sensitively designed and located in order to minimise its impact on both the open nature of this Metropolitan Open Land, and on the amenities of adjoining residents. The car parking area would be located close to residential properties, but the level of vehicular movements are not considered to lead to significant disturbance to nearby residents. With regard to concerns raised over the level of parking provided in terms of sustainable development, Members may consider on balance that the need for the Children‟s Centre outweighs the possible overprovision of car parking. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 03/03988, 04/03088 and 07/03848, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 28.01.2008


Subject to the following conditions:

5

1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 4 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development C7 Educational and pre-school facilities C8 Dual Community Use of Educational Facilities G2 Metropolitan Open Land T3 Parking

_______________________


Plaistow And

Sundridge

Address : 16 Cambridge Road Bromley BR1 4EA


OS Grid Ref: E: 540361 N: 170110

Applicant : Joel Investments Ltd Objections : YES


Part one/two storey side/rear extension with accommodation at lower ground level

and conversion to form 1 three bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats

This application was originally presented to Members on 24

th January 2008, and was

deferred for a Member site visit. Members visited the site on 2nd

February 2008, and the application is therefore presented to Members on this agenda for further consideration. The report is repeated below, updated as necessary.

Proposal The application site is located on the south-eastern side of Cambridge Road, Bromley. The plot is roughly uniform in width (approx. 9m) and is approx. 40m deep. Cambridge Road is a predominantly residential area, comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings, some of which have been subdivided into flats. The host property is a two storey property with accommodation provided at lower ground level and within the

6

roofspace, and has been previously converted into three self-contained flats. There is an existing single storey rear extension. It is proposed to construct a part one/two storey side/rear extension and alter the internal layout to provide 1 three bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats. The proposed extension has an overall height of approx. 8.2m, a maximum depth of approx. 4.1m, and is set in approx. 1.7m from the south-western boundary (when scaled from the submitted plans). The extension has a width of approx. 7.4m at single storey level. At first floor level, the depth of the extension is reduced to 3.2m, and has a width of approx 5.2m, being set in approx. 2.2m from the boundary with the adjoining property at No. 18 (when scaled from the submitted plans). This application presents a revised proposal following the withdrawal of application ref. 07/03311 for a part two/three storey side and rear extension and conversion into 2 one bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats following officer concerns regarding the impact of the extension on residential amenities and that the number of units proposed would result in an overdevelopment of the site which would be out of character with the surrounding area.

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

impact on parking pressure in the area

loss of light to habitable room impacting on legal requirement for right to light (BRE209) and “ancient lights”

loss of privacy

extension not in keeping with character of area

development may lead to further hardstanding and loss of front garden

extension will be overbearing and result in loss of outlook

problems with rubbish being left kerbside for collection and upkeep of property if flats for rent

questions over maintenance of communal garden

increase in hardstanding in front garden would be undesirable

overdevelopment of site

development contrary to policy From a technical Highways, Environmental Health (Housing) and Drainage point of view, no objections are raised. Thames Water was notified of the application and raised no objections to the proposal from a waste and water point of view.

Planning Considerations Under ref. 88/01409/EUC the Council refused to grant an established use certificate for the use of the property as three separate self-contained flats. Under ref. 88/04486, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the property to 3 self-contained flats (section 32 application). Under ref. 07/03311, an application for a part two/three storey side and rear extension and conversion into 2 one bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats was withdrawn by the applicant

7

following officer concerns regarding the impact of the extension on residential amenities and that the number of units proposed would result in an overdevelopment of the site which would be out of character with the surrounding area. The main policies relevant to this case are Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development - development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings and should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure. Policy H8 requires that design of residential extensions should be in keeping with the local area in terms of scale, form and materials used. Any development should protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties, including daylight and sunlight.

Conclusions The revised proposal now under consideration maintains the number of flats to 3, and is no more intensive than the existing use of the property, in keeping with the character of the area. It is noted that the proposed side/rear extension may be considered deep, however the depth has been reduced at first floor level and a greater separation is offered between the proposed first floor flank elevation and the boundary with the adjoining property at No 18 in comparison to the previously withdrawn scheme. It is considered that on balance, the proposal is unlikely to result in significant detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties nor the character of the area in general and therefore Members may consider the proposal acceptable. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/03668 and 07/02847, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 17.12.2007


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

________________________

8


Chislehurst

Address : Builders Yard R/O No's 1-4 Albany Road

Chislehurst Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 543784 N: 171032

Applicant : Marpaul Ltd Objections : YES


Single storey detached office building with cycle store

Proposal This site is located to the rear of properties fronting Albany Road to the north-west and Chislehurst High Street to the south-west, and lies adjacent to a public car park. It was previously used as a builders yard, gaining access from Albany Road, and lies just outside Chislehurst Conservation Area. It is proposed to demolish the existing storage sheds on the site (which occupy an area of 174sq.m.) and replace them with a single storey office building (Class B1) occupying a footprint of 230sq.m which covers virtually the whole site. A cycle store would be provided on site but no car parking. The main entrance to the building would be on its south-eastern side adjacent to the public car park, and it is estimated that 20 staff will occupy the building.

Consultations Letters of objection have been received from local residents, including The Chislehurst Society, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

figures given regarding the area of the site and the proposed site coverage are misleading

increased traffic and pressure for parking in already congested streets

trellis facing Albany Road properties should be replaced with solid wall to prevent overlooking

possible impact on silver birch tree in garden of No.6 Albany Road

hours of operation should be limited

site should be securely locked out of hours

design is out of character with the surrounding area

questionable need for additional office space in the area. From a highways point of view, although concerns were initially raised regarding the lack of any on-site car parking, given that the proposals are small-scale with relatively low levels of staff, and that the site lies adjacent to a Council-run car park where season tickets are available and there is evidence of availability of parking spaces, no objections would, on balance, be raised.

Planning Considerations

9

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan: BE1 Design of New Development BE13 Development Adjacent to a Conservation Area T3 Parking EMP7 Business Support Permission was refused in 2006 (ref. 06/00640) for the erection of a two storey office building on this site (along with an extension to the rear of Nos.68-70 High Street), on the following grounds:

The proposed office building to the rear of Nos.1-5 Albany Road would, by reason

of its size, site coverage and close proximity to neighbouring residential properties, result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site and would have a seriously detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents by reason of loss of light, privacy and outlook, thereby contrary to Policy E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, and Policy BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

The proposed car parking layout is inadequate in design, and as such, the

proposals would be lacking in adequate parking provision to meet the needs of the development, thereby contrary to Policy T.15 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, and Policy T3 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether the revised scheme would now provide an adequate form of development for the site, whether it would adequately protect the amenities of nearby residents, and whether the lack of any car parking provision would be acceptable for a small-scale office development in this location. Given the existing use of the site as a builder‟s yard, the redevelopment of the site with a small-scale office development may be considered acceptable in principle. The building would cover most of the site, but would be single storey with a low level roof, and would be set approximately 15-18m away from the rear elevations of Nos.1-5 Albany Road. A small open courtyard on the north-western side of the building would be bounded by a 1.5m high wall with 0.75m high trellising above in order to protect the amenities of adjoining residents. The building is therefore considered to be unobtrusive in the street scene, and would protect the amenities of nearby residents. Furthermore, the design of the proposals are considered acceptable in terms of their impact on the adjacent Chislehurst Conservation Area. No objections would, on balance, be raised from a highways point of view, subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Travel Plan. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/00640 and 07/04023, excluding exempt information.

10

as amended by documents received on 02.01.2008


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 3 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 4 Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the local Planning Authority which shall include measure to promote and encourage the use of alternative modes of transport for staff and visitors using the offices. It shall also include a timetable for the implementation of the proposed measures and details of the mechanisms for implementation. The Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timescale and details.

Reason: In order to promote alternative methods of transport for staff and visitors to the premises, and reduce reliance on private car transport.

5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development BE13 Development Adjacent to a Conservation Area T3 Parking EMP7 Business Support

_______________________


Penge And Cator

Address : 1 Oakfield Road London SE20 8QA


OS Grid Ref: E: 534720 N: 169972

Applicant : Safestore Properties Plc Objections : NO


Detached four storey building for self storage warehouse (class B8) with servicing

and car parking

11

Proposal The application site is located to the South of Crystal Palace, on the corner of Anerley Station Road, Cambridge Grove and Oakfield Road. It is currently occupied by a distribution warehouse which was previously used as a depot and distribution facility for Express Dairies. The land is bounded to the north-east by a vacant plot of land, to the west by a railway line and by a five storey development under construction at Nos. 5-9 Anerley Station Road comprising 13 flats - there are balconies on the side (eastern) and rear elevations facing the current application site. On the opposite side of the road to the east of the site is the Royal Oak Tavern, a number of residential properties of varying heights and of varying style and character, a bus terminal used by London Busses and a plumbing supplies warehouse. The vacant plot of land to the north east of the site was granted permission at appeal in March 2003 for a detached building for a religious meeting house with a detached storage building, 48 car parking spaces, six 5m high lighting columns and 2 metre high railings and gates. The previous buildings on the site have been demolished however, the proposed development has not yet been implemented. The application proposes a detached four storey building for a self storage warehouse (Class B8) with servicing and car parking. The Design and Access Statement which has been submitted with the application states that the proposed building will have a footprint to match that of the existing building of 1600sq.m however, the proposed storage building will be taller than the existing development on the site to enable it to accommodate a 3 storey mezzanine. The building will have a height of 13m and will measure approximately 50m in length and 33.5m in width at the widest part. The existing gates and fences will be replaced, however, the application does not include any details of these boundary enclosures. The appearance of the building will be functional but relieved by the use of materials as follows;

brickwork for ground floor (with glass shopfront and yellow roller shutter doors on rear elevation facing the railway)

silver metal cladding (first/second floors)

grey cladding (third floor) which also conceals the low angle pitched roof, with yellow feature bands top and bottom at this level.

The application does not propose any changes to the pedestrian or vehicular access into the site. The site will be accessed by vehicles from Cambridge Road. Parking is proposed to the rear of the site together with a loading area and a service yard which continues round to the western part of the site adjacent to the new residential development at Nos. 5-9 Anerley Station Road. An Operational Study has been submitted with the application. This describes the operation characteristics of Safestores‟ self storage business illustrated through two case studies of existing Safestore centres. The Operational Study states that Safestore operations differ from those associated with „storage of distribution‟ operations due to the nature of their business and the mix of domestic and small business customers. The Safestore centres operate from an administrative office and include a customer reception and adjoining storage areas. A small retail area is annexed to the reception, ancillary to

12

the main B8 use. This area is not clearly identified on the submitted plans which show a reception area with a meter room, tea point and toilet facilities at ground floor level adjacent to the main storage area. The Operation Study states that the centres do not generate significant volumes of noise and there is no requirement for heavy machinery. The information submitted with the application does not include details of the proposed opening hours for the unit, however, the Operational Study notes that opening hours tend to follow the patterns of local retail outlets. In additional information received in response to initial highways comments, the applicants confirm that they do not anticipate any HGV parking on site overnight and have very few visits by large vehicles‟ as the traffic surveys indicate. It is not expected that there will be any vehicles parked on site overnight. Other than possible staff vehicles visits to the store last less than an hour each. Many are as short as 10 minutes. It is also advised that the areas stated in the Operations Study are net lettable spaces and relate to the actual amount of lettable storage space provided in the building once space for reception/stairs/corridors etc are removed. With regard to the provision of on site renewable energy, the applicants have stated that they will be providing 10% of the onsite energy requirement through renewable sources and that further details can be submitted for approval pursuant to a condition.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. No local objections have been received in respect of the proposed development. No objections are raised to the proposal from a technical highways point of view on the basis that the application does not propose a change of use of the site. It is however suggested that a number of conditions be imposed should the application be granted permission. No objections have been raised from an environmental health point of view. Thames Water advise that there are public sewers crossing this site, and no building works will be permitted within 3m of the sewers without Thames Water's approval. It also recommends that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities, failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses. It has no objections with regard to water infrastructure.


The application is located within a designated business area on the Unitary Development Plan proposals maps. The main policies against which to assess this application are; BE1 Design of new Development T3 Parking

13

T18 Road Safety EMP4 Business Areas ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development Policy BE1 sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development. Development should respect the scale, form 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 the occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants and ensure their environments are not harmed by noise or disturbance. The quality of the materials to be used and the amount of landscaping/screening proposed are therefore important considerations of this case. Policy T3 requires the parking provision to be in accordance with the Council‟s parking standards as set out in Appendix II of the UDP. The potential impact on road safety will be considered by the Council in determining an application, as required by Policy T18. The Council will seek to ensure that road safety is not adversely affected. The application site is located in a business are as identified on the proposals map. Policy EMP4 states that in business areas only the following uses will be permitted; Class B1, B2, or B8 (subject to certain restrictions). It is understood that the current use of the site falls within Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order. The application does not propose a change of use of the site and the Council have permitted self-storage facilities elsewhere in the borough. Most recently permission was granted at 2A Farwig Lane under application ref 07/02182 for a detached building for self storage warehouse and office uses (Classes B1 & B8) and detached building for office and light industrial uses (Classes B1 (a) and B1 (c)) with car parking and servicing. Elsewhere in the borough, permission was granted in 2003 for a “Big Yellow” self storage unit at Chaffinch Business Park, Croydon Road, Elmers End, and there are a number of self storage facilities along Cray Avenue, Orpington. The Council‟s requirements for sustainable and energy efficient development are set out in Policy ER4 which requires all new development to include or be capable of accommodating resource efficiency measures and in the case of non residential developments or developments of 10 dwellings or more applicants will be required to include the use of on site renewable power generation equipment to provide at least 10% of the projected energy requirement. The main issues of consideration in this case are whether the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character of the area and the amenities of nearby properties and whether the proposed use is acceptable in policy terms having regard to the above.

Conclusions The proposed uses as a self storage warehouse falls within Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and therefore complies with the uses outlined in Policy EMP4 of the Unitary Development Plan. In this respect, the proposal is appropriate for a designated Business Area.

14

In terms of design, the proposed unit is typical of contemporary warehouse/industrial schemes and would be in keeping with the character of a business area such as this, but careful consideration should be given to the overall size of the building. On balance it is considered that the proposed self storage facility is acceptable in this Business Area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04311, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years 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 ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 6 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied the junction of

Cambridge Road and also the site access junction with Anerley Station Road shall be provided with 2.4m x 45m visibility splays and there shall be no obstruction to visibility in excess of 1m in height within these splays except for trees selected by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, and which shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

ACH11R Reason H11 7 ACH15 Grad of parking area or space(s) (2 in) parking, service and

loading area 1 in 20 ACH15R Reason H15 8 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 9 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 10 ACL01 Energy Strategy Report ACL01R L01 reason 11 While the development hereby permitted is being carried out, provision shall be

made to accommodate operatives‟ and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority and such provision shall remain available for such uses to the Authority‟s satisfaction throughout the course of the development.

Reason: in the interest of pedestrian and vehicular safety. 12 Prior to first use of the unit herby permitted the developer shall submit written

certification to the local planning authority that the parking and loading area has been lit in accordance with BS 5489-1:2003 and that such lighting will be maintained to such standard thereafter.

ACJ22R J22 reason

15

13 No structure, plant, equipment or machinery shall be placed, erected or installed on

or above the rood or on external walls without the prior approval by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority.

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

14 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new Development T3 Parking T18 Road Safety EMP4 Business Areas ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development INFORMATIVE(S) 1 Should a building over / diversion application form, or other information relating to

Thames Waters assets be required, the applicant should be advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 850 2777.

2 Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourses.

________________________

6. Application No : 07/04387/TPO Ward :

Kelsey And Eden Park

Address : 117 South Eden Park Road Beckenham

Kent BR3 3AT


OS Grid Ref: E: 537602 N: 168023

Applicant : Mr R Percy Objections : NO


Fell one oak at rear and one cedar at front SUBJECT TO TPO 2225

Proposal Fell one oak tree at rear and one cedar of front, subject to TPO 2225

Consultations

16

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.

Planning Considerations This property is owned by the Council and this application has been made by the prospective purchaser of the property. The TPO was made last year following the grant of planning permission for the use of the building for residential purposes. The application has been made because the two trees are alleged to be causing structural damage to the building and the application has been accompanied by a letter from an engineer. The building is a single storey Victorian Lodge with a small extension at the rear. The cedar is 2 metres from the side of the building and the oak 6 metres to the rear. The property has cracking, both internal and external. The letter from the engineer which accompanies the application very briefly describes the damage and assumes that tree roots extend under the building and also assumes that they have lead to desiccation of the soil and foundation subsidence. There was no investigation of the sub soil, no root identification and no monitoring. This information is normally required in alleged tree related subsidence cases. There are reports on the property dating from 2004 and 2005. The first report was not detailed but the second report sought to establish the likely cause of the movement of the property. It was reported that the movement has been ongoing for a considerable number of years and whilst there is cracking throughout the building the most active movement was found to be in three areas – the front left hand corner which has subsided relative to the internal structure and the damage here is graded as severe, the right hand flank of the rear extension, where again the movement is downward and is graded as moderate damage and the third area of damage is the bay window where the damage is historic but also active. It was established that the foundations of the building are only 680mm deep with the soil being desiccated clay and roots found to a depth of 2700mm. These roots have been identified as ash and cedar. No monitoring of the damage was carried out. It was concluded that due to the proximity of the trees to the building, tree control measures alone would not arrest the movement and underpinning would be needed to provide a lasting solution. Whilst there is clearly damage to the property there is no up to date evidence and whilst the cedar is implicated there is no evidence to link the oak tree to the movement of the property. It should be pointed out that the property was damaged when it was marketed and this is reflected in the offered purchase price. The cedar tree is over 20 metres in height and is in a healthy condition. It is of good form and is of high amenity value. It is a dominant feature in the car park for the Harvington Estate and it is a valued amenity by the Friends of Harvington. The oak is a smaller tree at 12 metres in height and of lesser amenity value and although it is in a poor condition it does contribute to the character of the estate.

Conclusions

The trees are of amenity value, with the cedar being a particular feature at the entrance to the Harvington Estate. The Lodge building has suffered subsidence and the cedar tree is implicated. However the damage is extensive and the building will need to be underpinned and this would mean that the tree could be retained. There is no evidence to link the oak tree to the damage.

17

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04387, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are: 1 The cedar and oak are considered to make an important contribution to the visual

amenities of the entrance to the Harvington Estate and the loss of the trees would be detrimental to the amenities of the area. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to substantiate the proposed felling of the cedar and oak trees.

_______________________

7. Application No : 07/04444/VAR Ward :

Bromley Common And

Keston

Address : 157 Southlands Road Bromley BR2 9QZ


OS Grid Ref: E: 541864 N: 168306

Applicant : Jubilee Church Objections : YES


Variation of condition 9 of permission ref. 04/02455 to permit extended training, all

night prayer events and 'sleepovers' outside the permitted hours a maximum of 18

times per year (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)

Proposal

The application site is located on the north side of Southlands Road. The site currently comprises a church building, permitted under ref. 03/02165. This permission was subsequently revised and permitted under ref. 04/02455. The surrounding area is characterised by predominantly terraced and semi-detached residential dwellings, with a garage use to the west and allotment gardens to the rear of the site. The church seeks to maximise its role as both a church and community facility. This application seeks retrospective planning permission to vary a condition attached to permission ref. 04/02455 to permit the use of the church over a 24 hour period for a total of 18 times per year for use by a Christian training programme for 2 day block training, prayer events and supervised overnight stays for young people to worship. The use of the premises overnight would be purely for praying and sleeping.

18

The current permission restricts the use of the facility between the hours of 11pm and 8am. The applicants supporting statement states that this restriction leads to a significant amount of noise and disturbance around 11pm when users of the facility leave the premises and by relaxing the hours of operation condition, overnight use of the premises would reduce this disturbance. No additional car parking space on the site is proposed. The proposed overnight use is threefold. Firstly, a Christian training group named DNA will use the facility for up to 13 nights per year. These training groups will consist of a 2 day block training period, allowing sleeping within the premises between these days. Secondly, after hours prayer events are proposed for up to 3 nights per year. This will comprise of private prayer time for a period of 1-2 hours over the 24 hour period. Finally, youth events are proposed for a maximum of 2 nights per year, allowing young people ages 12-16 to take part in evening activities and sleep over at the premises. The proposed overnight use prayer events and training groups will accommodate up to 30 adults, compared to the present lack of restriction on numbers of users of the facility.

Consultations

Local residents were initially consulted on the understanding that the use would operate 24 hours a day for 7 days a week. Representations can be summarised as follows:

increased strain on existing on-site parking facilities and the highway network

increased noise and disturbance

vandalism increase by users of the facility at night

the condition is already being breached. Following consultation with the applicants, the description was amended to accurately describe the use to operate for a maximum of 18 occasions per year. Neighbours were re-consulted and further representations can be summarised as follows:

premises unsuitable for such a use

the proposed use as a residential college would be regular and excessive

no objection raised to the limited nature of the proposal

excessive noise and disturbance.

No technical objections are raised in respect to Highways or Environmental Health matters, subject to appropriate conditions.


The principal policies against which to assess this application are Policies BE1, C1 and T18 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. These concern the design of new development, community facilities and issues of highway safety.

Under ref. 00/03419 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a part one/two storey community centre/church. This permission was subsequently revised under refs. 03/02165 and 04/02455. These revisions incorporated an enlarged front and rear section to the building.

Conclusions

19

The main issue of concern in this instance is the impact of the proposed variation of condition on the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and on aspects of highway safety. The proposed variation of condition proposes the overnight use of the community centre for youth groups and religious training facilities. This would allow such groups to sleep at the facility overnight. The presently imposed condition requires the use to cease at 11pm and as a result, users of the facility must vacate and use alternative premises for their purposes. The relaxation of the condition would allow for overnight use of the facility for young people to be trained and for worship, under adult supervision. Members will need to consider whether the variation of this condition will result in any detrimental impact on neighbouring amenities beyond the usual closing time of 11pm on a limited basis of 18 times per year. In addition, vehicular movements may decrease should the use be permitted to operate overnight. Members will need to consider whether the proposal is acceptable in light of the existing permission and the guidance of Policies BE1, C1 and T18. Given the planning history of the site, the current proposal, which amounts to a „lock in‟ of religious training and worship groups for overnight sleeping, Members may consider the proposal would not result in a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. The level of usage at unsociable hours can be further restricted through limiting numbers of users on these occasions by conditions to mitigate any potential impact on neighbouring occupiers.

Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 03/02165, 04/02455 and 07/04444, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years 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 ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 6 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 7 ACH04 Parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 8 ACH11 Visibility splays (new buildings) (3 in) access 3.3m x 2.4m x

3.3m 1m ACH11R Reason H11 9 The use shall operate 24 hours a day for a maximum of 18 days per calendar year

and shall not operate before 0800 or after 2300 on any other day.

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

20

10 No noise shall be audible at any point on the cartilage of the site between 2200 hrs

and 0800 hrs on any day.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents. 11 The overnight facilities hereby permitted shall be restricted to a maximum of 30

users at any one time.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents. 12 The building hereby permitted shall only be used as a community centre and

church.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents. 13 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development C1 Community facilities T18 Road safety D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1 The proposal would result in a seriously detrimental impact on the amenities of

nearby residential properties by reason of the likely increase in general noise and disturbance at unsociable hours, thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

________________________


Bickley

Address : Footpath Between St Georges Road And

Southborough Road St. Georges Road

Bromley


OS Grid Ref: E: 542527 N: 168541

Applicant : Kevin And Joanne Taylor Objections : YES


Change of use of footpath 126 to residential curtilage to Nos. 9 St. Georges Road 4

and 5 Hawthorne Close and 25 Southborough Road

Proposal

21

The application proposes the closing off of Footpath 126, which runs from St George's Road, Bickley, through to Southborough Lane. The footpath is approximately 140m in length, approximately 2-3m in width and runs adjacent to the following properties: Nos. 23 and 25 St George's Road, Nos. 4 and 5 Hawthorne Close and Nos. 7 and 9 Southborough Lane. The footpath is owned by the applicants, however, it has been confirmed that the Local Authority is responsible for it‟s maintenance. It is intended that the footpath will form part of the residential curtilages of No. 9 St. George's Road, Nos. 4 and 5 Hawthorne Close and No. 25 Southborough Lane, thereby becoming the responsibility of the owners of these properties. It is intended that mature trees will be planted along the footpath to provide screening for the house owners. The application further proposes the erection of two new brick walls at either end of the footpath, as well as new fencing to a height of approximately 1.8m (6ft) at specific sections along the footpath in order to incorporate the footpath into the residential curtilages of the aforementioned properties.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and a large number of representations were received. Several letters of objection have been written with regards to the closure of the footpath and these can be summarised as follows:

closing the footpath would be serving the putative interest of a minority at the expense of the wider community;

the footpath is overgrown and is rarely used because of this, but there is a remedy for this and to close the footpath using this argument seems duplicitous;

the footpath is a definitive, rather than a permissive, right of way, and cannot be closed to the public;

the footpath is regularly used by walkers;

closing the footpath is the wrong solution for the problem of anti-social behaviour;

closing the footpath would avoid it being used by criminals, but it does not actually reduce the number of criminals in the area;

once these facilities are taken away they are lost for good;

the footpath is ideal for children to avoid traffic either by walking or cycling;

the footpath is used by schoolchildren at Bromley High and Bullers Wood.

there are many other actions that householders can take to prevent burglaries;

footpaths in urban areas encourage people to walk and cycle as a way to reduce traffic and improve the environment.

The Ramblers Association strongly object to the application as the footpath is used by pedestrians and is part of a useful local network enabling people to avoid roads. The Ramblers Association have submitted a petition with 123 signatures, all of which object to the closure of the footpath. However, several letters have also been written in support of the closure of the footpath and these can be summarised as follows -

the footpath is not sufficiently maintained;

22

the footpath is an overgrown eyesore;

there are litter and graffiti problems along the footpath;

syringes have been found along the footpath and there is evidence of drug use which has been confirmed by the Metropolitan Police;

it is a high security risk and several burglaries have occurred in the area;

the path is not a natural choice for any route;

youths "loiter" around the footpath;

it is rarely used by anyone other than those with what may be classed as “anti-social intentions”;

the footpath is not well lit in hours of darkness to attract use;

the footpath is dangerous where it opens on to Southborough Road; A petition with 74 signatures in support of the closure of the footpath has been included by the applicant as part of the proposal. From a highways point of view, there are strong concerns about the proposal. A survey was carried out on 16

th January 2007 to ascertain the normal day-to-day use of the

footpath. This survey revealed that 6 people used the path between the hours of 0730 and 1830, of which 3 were walking their dogs. There is no reason to suppose this is not a typical example of the daily use of the path, however, the current environment of the path, being unlit and with no formal surfacing, could impact on its attractiveness for use by the public. Nevertheless, the Council is under a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority, under section 130 of the Highways Act 1980. The Council‟s Right of Way Officer maintains that Footpath 126 is enjoyed by local residents as an alternative link to Bickley Station from St Georges Road and forms part of a right angled route to that destination. The route is a facility that is available to the community as a whole and not just local people. There were plans to redress the surface problem prior to this application, by surfacing the path with blacktop in order to bring it in line with other Rights of Way in the locality. This would undoubtedly have encouraged greater usage and would have been carried out as one of Bromley‟s objectives outlined in Bromley‟s Rights of Way Improvement Plan, which is a statutory obligation under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. There have been no complaints about the path relating to antisocial behaviour, enviro-crime or other criminal activity, however, there have been complaints about the surface of the path and a request for street lighting. These issues were in the process of being addressed but have been put on hold pending the outcome of Mr Taylor‟s application. The Planning Process is not considered to be the correct way to proceed with the closure of a Right of Way. There is specific legislation for Gating Orders and closure under The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, The Highways Act 1980 and the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005.

Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with policies BE7 and L2 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE7 relates to „Railings Boundary Walls and Other Means of Enclosure‟ and seeks to resists the construction of enclosures that would erode the open nature of an area or adversely impact local townscape character.

23

Policy L2 relates to „Public Rights of Way and Other Recreational Routes‟ and states that planning permission will not be granted for development affecting a Public Right of Way unless the proposals include either the retention or diversion of the Right of Way such that, as a route, it is no less attractive, safe or convenient for public use.

Conclusions Local representation Several residents have written in support of the closing off of Footpath 126, however, a number of objections have also been raised. Local neighbours who support the application maintain that the footpath is not used by the general public, it is of no benefit to the local community and its closure will improve the appearance and, more importantly, the security of the area. However, on the other hand, the local residents who object to the proposal claim that it is, in fact, used regularly by walkers around the area and the closing off of the path is not the right solution to preventing localised crime. Maintenance of the path The Local Authority is responsible for the maintenance of Footpath 126, in spite of the fact that it is owned by the applicants. Several residents have commented that the footpath is overgrown and unsightly, littered with debris and that there is graffiti along the walls of the properties that run alongside the footpath. There is also a strong feeling that the footpath is unsafe and encourages anti-social behaviour from certain individuals who consider it as a place to gather. It cannot be denied that the footpath is perhaps not as well maintained as it could be, but members may consider that the closure of the footpath would not be the right solution for tackling crime in the area. A copy of a letter from the Metropolitan Police Bickley Safer Neighbourhood Team to the applicant dated 13

th August 2007 confirms that anti-social behaviour has been happening

at certain times along the footpath. However, it is considered that closing off a public right of way just to prevent unsociable forms of behaviour could set a precedent for other similar applications in the borough. Use of the path There are conflicting opinions from the nearby residents as to how well-used Footpath 126 is by the general public. It has been claimed by some local residents that the footpath is used "only on rare occasions" whilst others maintain that they "regularly use the footpath". A recent survey by the Council revealed that six people used the path between the hours of 0730 and 1830, three of which were walking their dogs, and there is no reason to suppose this is not a typical example of the daily use of the path. Policy L2 of the Unitary Development Plan specifically states that planning permission will not be granted for development affecting a Public Right of Way unless the proposals include either the retention or diversion of the Right of Way. Sub-paragraph 9.13 of Policy L2 states that "a well maintained, promoted and signposted network of footpaths, bridleways and byways, both through the urban and rural area, enables people to pursue different forms of recreation and to gain access to open space and to the countryside". Whilst it might be argued that in its present state the footpath is not well kept, the public can access the footpath nonetheless and it does enable people to pursue different forms of recreation through walking and cycling.

24

Having had regard to the above, it is considered that Footpath 126 should not be closed off for use by the general public. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04446, excluding exempt information.


The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposed change of use to residential curtilage involves the closure of

Footpath 126, with no alternative diversion of the right of way, and would thereby result in the unacceptable loss of a local community facility, contrary to Policy L2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

________________________


Plaistow And

Sundridge

Address : 2 Plaistow Lane Bromley BR1 4DS


OS Grid Ref: E: 540469 N: 170391

Applicant : Mr Gerry Dowd Objections : YES


Demolition of existing building and erection of three/four storey block comprising 2

retail shops (class A1) at ground floor offices at first floor and 7 two bedroom one

bedroom flats above. With 16 basement car parking spaces and bicycle parking with

vehicular access at rear.

Proposal The application site is located on Plaistow Lane close to the junction with Nichol Lane. It is located on the north side of Plaistow Green roundabout approximately 1 ½ miles north from the centre of Bromley. The site is situated on a small local parade and occupies Nos. 2-8 Plaistow Lane (the Bath Room and Britts Bar & Diner). The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential and of varying character. Immediately adjacent to the site to the west at No1 Plaistow Lane is the site of the former BP Petrol Station at which planning permission has recently been granted for a mixed use development comprising retail use at ground floor level and residential above.

25

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings at Nos. 2-8 Plaistow Lane and erect a three/four storey block comprising 2 retail shops at ground floor, offices at first floor level and 8 flats above at third and fourth floor levels. 16 car parking spaces will be provided at a basement level together with bicycle parking and refuse storage. Vehicular access will be from Lytchet Road at the rear of the site. In terms of amenity space provided, 7 out of the 8 flats will be provided with an external terrace and a small amenity area is to be provided to the rear of the development at ground floor level. A number of documents have been submitted with the application including a Design and Access Statement, a Contamination Report, a Daylight Study and a Noise Survey. Pre application discussions took place between the applicant and Council officers. The applicants were advised of the main issues of concern which included the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, the height and bulk of the development, provision of amenity space, and potential highways issues. The Design and Access Statement includes a summary of the pre application discussions and explains how the development has been designed having regard to policy requirements and the initial concerns which were raised at the pre application stage. The proposed replacement block has a contemporary design, with the front elevation comprising white rendered finish of the lower two storeys and a predominance of glazing above. Other elevations include brickwork at lower levels and aluminium panels higher up. In terms of the relationship of the proposed development with neighbouring properties, the Design and Access Statement states that the third floor of the proposed development has been set back from the boundary with No 9 Plaistow Lane to respect the scale and form of the neighbouring property, moreover, the rear of the building has been cut back to help protect the amenity of the existing properties in Nichol Lane. The flats have been planned to ensure that these adjacent residential properties will not be overlooked. Contamination from the disused petrol station has not spread to the application site. The noise survey concludes that noise control measures will be required for all flats to contain the internal noise levels within the recommendation of British Standard 8233: 1999 Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings – Code of Practice. The Daylight Study concludes that there will be a reduction in daylight on three measuring planes (on No. 55 Nichol Lane) of between 5-7% and it concludes that there will be no adverse effect on daylight penetration inside that building.

Consultations A number of objection letters have been received from local residents. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:

loss of privacy

loss of light

development is higher than the surrounding development

increased traffic and impact on road safety. There are no technical highways objections to the proposal subject to certain conditions. The comments note that the site fronts onto the Plaistow Green roundabout which is

26

subject to “at any time” waiting and loading restrictions. Therefore servicing the units will have to take place from inside the site or from Lytchet Road and there is a loading bay indicated on the entrance to the access road. The tandem parking spaces shown on the basement plan would need to be allocated to the same units to make them usable. More detail is required regarding the cycle storage, however this can be covered by a condition. No objections are raised to the proposal from an Environmental Health point of view regarding the contamination and noise issues, subject to certain conditions being imposed should permission be granted. The proposed arrangements for the storage and collection of refuse are acceptable.


In strategic terms, the most relevant London Plan policies are found in sections 3A, and 4B which deal with “Living in London” and “Designs on London”. Policies 3A.1 & 3A.2 of the London Plan relate to housing provision within the London Boroughs. They state that the Boroughs should be seeking to increase their housing provision by various means including redevelopment in town centres, suburban heartlands and small-scale residential infill. Policy 4B.1 sets out the design principles for a compact city. It needs to maximise the potential of sites while at the same time respecting local interest, character and communities. Policy 4B.3 seeks to ensure that development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context. Policy 4B.7 requires the respect of the local context and communities and states that the Mayor will and boroughs should ensure proposed developments preserve or enhance local social, physical, cultural, historical, environmental and economic characteristics. The main policies from the Unitary Development Plan against which to assess this application are; BE1 Design of new Development BE2 Mixed Use Developments H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design T3 Parking T6 Pedestrians T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety S5 Local Neighbourhood Centres, parades and individual shops S11 Residential Accommodation ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development Policy H.1 seeks to ensure provision for additional housing which is needed is provided by acceptable redevelopment proposals. The density of a proposed development would normally be assessed against Policy H7, with the density matrix at table 4.2 being used as a guide to assess the density of the development. The proposed scheme however includes a mix of uses so it is therefore difficult to assess its density using table 4.2. For information, the application proposes a density of approximately 90 units/ha and approximately 289 hr/ha (based on 23 habitable rooms). Policy H7 also requires that the development provides a mix of housing types and sizes and that adequate amenity space

27

is provided. 7 out of the 8 flats are provided with amenity space in the form of an external terrace. The design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development are set out in Policy BE1. Development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings and should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure and should respect the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants and ensure their environments are not harmed by noise or disturbance. The Council will expect proposals in appropriates cases to incorporate a mix of land uses as stated in Policy BE2. Policy T1 seeks to ensure that development proposals likely to be significant generators of travel are located in areas accessible by a range of transport modes. The Council will assess the acceptability of proposals and their location by reference to Transport for London‟s Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL‟s). Policy T.3 seeks to ensure that all off street parking provisions for new developments meet the requirements outlined in Appendix II.

Policy T3 requires the parking provision to be in accordance with the Council‟s parking standards as set out in Appendix II of the UDP which requires a maximum of 1 space per unit where the predominant housing type is flats. 1 car parking space has been provided per retail unit, 6 spaces for the office use and 1 space per residential unit. A secure cycle space should be provided internal or external to each residential unit. For information, the application proposes a secure covered bicycle store with 2 spaces allocated for the retail units, 4 for the offices and 1 per residential unit. The potential impact on road safety will be considered by the Council in determining an application, as required by Policy T18. The Council will seek to ensure that road safety is not adversely affected.

Policy T5 requires that all development is designed to ensure ease of access for people with restricted mobility (Design guidance and access criteria are set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance). Policy T7 seeks to increase and promote the cycle network in Bromley by ensuring that new development would not adversely impact upon cyclists and that in new residential development secure cycle storage will be sought. Policies T6 and T18 state that in determining planning applications, the Council will consider as appropriate the potential impact on pedestrians and on road safety and will seek to ensure road safety is not adversely effected. Policy ER3 promotes the need for all new developments to provide adequate space for recycling and waste collection to enable the Council to meet its recycling targets. The Council‟s requirements for sustainable and energy efficient development are set out in Policy ER4 which requires all new development to include or be capable of accommodating resource efficiency measures and in the case of non residential developments or developments of 10 dwellings or more applicants will be required to include the use of on site renewable power generation equipment to provide at least 10% of the projected energy requirement. The application proposes that the highest roof will be clad in a solar roof membrane with embedded photo-voltaic cells to generate 10% of the buildings energy requirement. As noted above planning permission has recently been granted (ref 07/03549) on the adjacent site at No.1 Plaistow Lane for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of

28

a three storey block comprising a retail unit at ground floor and 4 one bedroom flats and 5 two bedroom flats above with a total of 15 car parking spaces - this scheme includes a first floor terrace for the use of the first floor flats (on the eastern side of the site) adjacent to the current application site and the properties in Nichol Lane. The residential units at second floor level also have balconies; however these are set back from the boundary of the site.

Conclusions The principle of a mixed use development on this site is considered acceptable from a planning policy point of view and there are no objections in principle to the demolition of the existing buildings on the site. The main considerations of this case are therefore whether the current proposals would result in an overdevelopment of the site, and whether there would be a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjacent residents in terms of loss of light, privacy, outlook, visual amenity and increased noise and disturbance. Whilst the daylight survey concludes that the proposal does not result in any significant loss of light to adjoining properties in Nichol Lane, it is considered that the four storeys proposed will have an overbearing impact on the outlook and visual amenities of the properties in the vicinity which are predominantly two storeys in height. The natural slope of the land at properties behind the application site falls away and this too will exacerbate the detrimental impact. It is acknowledged that amendments have been made to the scheme following pre-application advice, however, the proposal will still result in a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents and on the character and appearance of the area. The application may be considered more acceptable if the top floor were to be removed from the proposal. It is therefore considered that whilst the proposal will provided much needed residential accommodation in the Borough, this does not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal in terms of its impact on the amenity of adjoining residents and the character and appearance of the area and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/03549 and 07/04532, excluding exempt information.


The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposal would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of adjoining

properties might expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposal, by reason of its excessive height would result in an overdominant

development of the site out of character with adjoining development, detrimental to the appearance of the street scene in general and contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

29

________________________


Copers Cope

Address : 67 Westgate Road Beckenham Kent BR3

5TR


OS Grid Ref: E: 538095 N: 169831

Applicant : Preira Mendoza Objections : YES


Erection of 2 storey three bedroom house including basement accommodation and

integral double garage

Proposal The application site currently forms part of the garden of No.65 Westgate Road and is on the junction with The Avenue. The surrounding area is residential, predominately characterised by two and three storey terraced houses, with flatted developments along The Avenue. The plot measures approximately 8.3m by 28m. Permission is sought for the erection of an end of terrace house. The proposed house is laid out on three floors, but has the appearance of a two storey house due to accommodation being provided at basement level. The single storey rear element measures approximately 11.3m in depth, with the height at a maximum of 3.1m, with a height of 2.35m to the boundary adjacent to No.67 Westgate Road. Amenity space is provided in the form of a sunken courtyard and terrace, and first floor terrace area. Vehicular access to the site will be via The Avenue and 2 car parking spaces are proposed in the integral garage. A minimum side space of 1.3m is provided to the boundary with The Avenue. In the design and access statement accompanying the application, the agent states that the scheme complements the existing site and provides an effective resolution of what is felt to be a disparate corner plot.

Consultations There have been local objections raised in respect of the application which are summarised below:

Westgate Road used to be unmade- now constant stream of traffic

large garden at No.67 gives feeling of openness

loss of privacy and overlooking to No.2 Olyffe Drive

concerns over large tree on corner of Westgate Road and The Avenue

30

concerns over construction work- effect of lorries on unmade part of The Avenue

double garage inappropriate near corner of crossroads

noise factor from courtyard – very close to boundary with No.50 The Avenue

vibrations from excavations could cause problems with existing foundations

character of corner changed and not in-keeping

Any further comments received will be reported verbally. From a street trees point of view, there are concerns raised with regard to the Plane Tree outside of the site and the impact of construction work. Thames Water do not raised any technical objections. From a Highways point of view, objections are raised due to vehicles having to stop in the footway in order to open/close the garage door when exiting and entering, and inadequate pedestrian visibility splays.

Planning Considerations There is no recent planning history on the site. In considering the application the main policies are H1, H7, H9, BE1, T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. These concern the housing supply density and design of new housing/new development, the provision of adequate car parking and new accesses and road safety. Policy H1 (v) seeks to make most effective use of land in accordance with the density/location matrix in Table 4.2. Policy H7 aims to ensure that new residential development respects the existing built and natural environment, is of appropriate density and respects the spatial standards of the area as well as amenities adjacent occupiers, and allows adequate light penetration into and between buildings. Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy T3 seeks to ensure that off street parking provisions for new development are to approved standards. Policy T18 requires that issues of road safety are considered in determining planning applications. Government guidance in the form of PPS3 “Housing” generally encourages higher density developments in appropriate locations, while emphasising the role of good design and layout to achieve the objectives of making the best use of previously developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas, but without compromising the quality of the environment. The London Plan now also forms part of the development plan where Policies 4B.1, 4B.3, and 4B.7 are relevant.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether this type of development is acceptable in principle in this location, the likely impact of the proposed scheme on the character and

31

appearance of the surrounding area and on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, having particular regard to the density, layout and design of the proposed dwelling. Due to the prominent location of the site on a corner plot, any development on this site must be sympathetically designed to be in-keeping with the surrounding development in order to make a positive contribution towards the visual amenities of the area. It is argued that the development represents a loss of open space, whilst only maintaining minimum side space to the boundary. The impact of overlooking from the first floor terrace will be reduced given that an opaque screen is proposed. However, the single storey rearward projection is unacceptable in terms of the relationship with No.67, and will result in a detrimental impact on the residential amenities at that property in terms of outlook and visual impact. The proposed dwelling will cover the majority of the site, and the amount building coverage would result in an overdevelopment of the site, which is out of character with the immediate surrounding development and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04635, excluding exempt information.


The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposed dwelling, by reason of its excessive site coverage would result in a

cramped overdevelopment of this corner site and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene in general, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed dwelling, by reason of its excessive rearward projection, will have a

seriously detrimental effect on the prospect and visual impact to the adjoining house which the occupants of that dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policy BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed means of access to the site and double garage would be inadequate

to meet the needs of the development, in respect of provision of adequate visibility and as such the proposal would be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and conditions of general road safety, thereby contrary to Policy T18 and T11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

________________________

32


Chislehurst

Address : 3 Beechwood Rise Chislehurst Kent BR7

6TF


OS Grid Ref: E: 544012 N: 171512

Applicant : Miss C Ashton Objections : NO


First floor side extension and part conversion of existing garage into a habitable

room

Proposal The application site is a two storey detached dwelling with attached single storey garage and store, and the property is situated on the eastern side of Beechwood Rise. The road is fronted by similar type houses of similar designs on similar sized plots, with the majority of the properties are built to a regular building line. The estate comprises a number of cul-de-sacs each serving groups of dwellings spaced equally apart, with a minimum 1 metre side spaces to each dwelling and in some cases, as is the case with the application site, single storey attached garages are present at the side of the properties. This property has an attached garage at the side, separating it from the neighbouring property number 5, whilst maintaining a 1m side space. Throughout the estate a number of properties have had either single storey or two storey side extensions. The proposal comprises a first floor side extension and part conversion of the existing garage into habitable accommodation. The rear half of the existing garage is to be converted into habitable accommodation which is not considered to be detrimental to the dwellinghouse as one parking space will remain within the garage, with additional forecourt parking. This aspect of the development has also been accepted in principle under a previous application where permission was granted. The proposed first floor side extension is set back from the forward most part of the front elevation of the main dwellinghouse and existing garage by approximately 3.15m in order to prevent a cramped appearance of the application site and the neighbouring property when viewed together from the roadside. The width of the proposed first floor side extension is to match the width of the existing garage, however the height of the proposed extension will not match the height of the roof of the main dwellinghouse and will in fact be approximately 0.5m lower than the original dwellinghouse.

33

There are a number of history cases on the site, varying from redevelopment of the whole area in the mid 1980s, to more recent planning applications and appeal decisions at this particular property.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.

Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy H8 aims to ensure that residential extensions respect the scale, form and spatial standards of the surrounding area, and protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties. Policy H9 draws attention to the need to respect the spatial standards of the surrounding area and retain satisfactory standards between existing properties. As regards to history there are a number of previous applications. Initially in 1983, permission was granted for the demolition of the existing school buildings and erection of approximately 150 houses and approximately 25 flats for the elderly with associated car parking – outline at Kemnal Manor Lower School under ref. 83/02183. An application for the approval of details for permitted scheme ref. 83/02183 was refused under ref. 85/02020. Permission was then granted for a residential development comprising 124 two storey houses with garages and parking spaces on the Kemnal Manor Lower School site under ref. 85/03009. Once the initial applications were permitted, permission was granted under ref. 05/04091 for the conversion of part of garage to habitable room and new pitched roof to habitable section. A further application was refused under ref. 07/00429 for a part one/two storey side/rear extension and part conversion into a habitable room. A subsequent appeal was dismissed under ref. 07/00168 for the planning application ref. 07/00429. The most relevant history application is the most recent proposal under ref. 07/00429 for a part one/two storey side/rear extension and part conversion into a habitable room. The refusal ground was as follows:

The proposed first floor side extension would constitute a cramped form of extension contrary to Policies H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and result in a diminution of daylighting to No. 5 Beechwood Rise.

34

The current proposal has been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous refusal ground and the dismissed appeal decision.

Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area, the impact that it may have upon the spatial standards of the area and the amenities of the occupants of the surrounding residential properties. The previously refused application (ref. 07/00429) and subsequent appeal that was dismissed included a first floor side extension that was located along the full width and length of the existing attached single storey garage. In comparison the current proposal has been reduced in length and height. The Appeal Inspector was of the opinion that the previous proposal, by infilling a substantial part of the gap above ground floor level between the application site and No. 5, would create a terracing effect and would considerably reduce the effectiveness of the gap currently expressed between the two properties. In addition, the gable roof and alignment of the upper floor with the main front wall would appear unduly bulky and cramped within a restricted space and would be a disruptive influence on the street scene, harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Although the Inspector conceded that the proposal did comply with Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan with regards to the retention of a 1m side space between the flank wall of the two storey development and the property boundary, the Inspector felt that the proposal was contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan. The Inspector found that in terms of the impact of the previous proposal upon the residents of the neighbouring property, the proposal would not be unduly overbearing when viewed from the rear windows and garden of No. 5. Given the position of the proposed extension to the east of No. 5, it was considered by the Inspector that no undue loss of daylight would ensue and accordingly it was found that no harm would be caused to the living conditions of the occupants of 5 Beechwood Rise. The Inspector mentioned an extension allowed on appeal at No. 21 Beechwood Rise but highlighted that it did not share similar characteristics in terms of the effect upon the streetscene between the proposal at No. 21 and the proposal at No. 3. The Appeal application was therefore considered on its own merits and whilst it was agreed that the proposal would not lead to loss of light or other adverse neighbour impact, it was not considered to outweigh the findings with regards to the harmful effect of the proposal upon the streetscene and the character and appearance of the area. The appeal was therefore dismissed. The current proposal appears to meet and overcome the concerns raised by the Appeal Inspector. The current proposal has been re-designed so that it is now similar to the scheme allowed at appeal at No. 21 Beechwood Rise which was referred to by the Appeal Inspector. The proposed first floor side extension has been set back from the front elevation so that it will not be as prominent from the roadside and it therefore should not have an adverse impact upon the character of the street scene in comparison to the previous application.

35

The ridge line of the proposed extension has been lowered to form a stepped roof ridge which, together with the front elevation of the extension being set back from the front elevation of the main dwellinghouse, should lead to a subservient form of extension and Members may now consider that the current proposal can be considered acceptable. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/04091, 07/00429, APP/07/00168/S78 and 08/00012, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties and the preserve the appearance of the street scene.

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

________________________


Chislehurst

Address : 6 Camden Close Chislehurst Kent BR7

5PH

Conservation Area:

Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 544061 N: 169996

Applicant : Mr Vernon Soleil Objections : NO


Two storey side/rear extension and underground swimming pool/recreational area

and pump room at rear.

Proposal

36

The application proposes a two storey side/rear extension and an underground swimming pool/recreational area with a pump room at the rear. This application is a revised scheme following the refusal of planning application ref. 07/03305. The application site is located within the Chislehurst Conservation Area. Sub-Unit 3 of The Chislehurst Conservation Area Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) specifically relates to Camden Close. Camden Close is a private estate of sixteen detached dwellings built as a group in 1934 within the walled gardens of a nineteenth century house. The properties within this close are unified by their use of "olde worlde" architectural details such as steeply pitched roofs, tall gables and chimneys, tile hanging and weatherboards. All of the houses in Camden Close are on the Council‟s local list.


overdevelopment of the plot;

it will encroach upon the neighbours and reduce the space between the plots;

it will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property;

out of character with the locality and the Chislehurst Conservation Area;

detrimental to the asymmetrical appearance of the building The National Trust have raised objections to the proposal on the grounds that the extensions would be out of scale and unsympathetic to the original design philosophy of the building and the close as a whole. The National Trust considers that the proposal will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the locally listed building and will be intrusive in views from the road. From a Heritage and Urban Design point of view, it should be noted that there were no objections to the previous application ref. 07/03305. Any conservation area comments will be reported verbally. In terms of trees at the site, there are no objections to the proposal. Environmental Health has also not raised any objections. No comments have been received from Thames Water and Drainage; however the following advice was issued with the previous application under ref. 07/03305:- Drainage – The swimming pool should not be emptied during heavy rain or at times of peak use and the discharge should be made to the foul sewerage system to prevent overloading of the sewer network. Thames Water - The swimming pool should not be emptied overnight and in dry periods. The discharge rate should be controlled so that it does not exceed a flow rate of 5 litres/second into the public sewer network. If the pool exceeds 10 m

3 of water then it will

need metering.


37

The application falls to be determined in accordance with policies BE1, BE10, BE11 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy BE10 relates to locally listed buildings and requires new development to be sympathetic to the character, appearance and special local interest of the building. It also requires new development to respect the setting of the locally listed building. Policy BE11 relates to conservation areas and requires new development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas. Policy H9 relates to side space and requires a minimum side space of one metre to be provided for proposals of two or more storeys in height.

Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the Chislehurst Conservation Area and the appearance of this locally listed building, and the impact that the development would have on the amenities of the occupants of the surrounding residential properties. An application for a two storey side/rear extension and an underground swimming pool/recreational area with a pump room at the rear was refused in October 2007 under ref. 07/03305 on the following grounds: “The proposal constitutes an excessive form of development, out of scale with the existing dwelling and resulting in an over intensive use of the site”. The current application is a revised scheme. The proposed two storey side/rear extension is sited on the northern flank elevation of the property adjacent to the neighbouring property, No. 7. The extension also wraps around the rear of the dwelling to a depth of approximately 3.7m, which has been reduced from 4.0m under ref. 07/03305. In terms of the impact of the current proposal on the occupants of the adjoining residential properties, Nos. 5 and 7, it is considered that the separation between the application site and these properties is satisfactory and would be unlikely to result in any undue harm to the occupants of these dwellings. With regards to the basement extension, it should be noted that a number of these types of extension already exist within Camden Close, including at Nos. 8 (ref. 96/02748), 14 (ref. 06/03133) and 16 (ref. 02/03594). However, an application to extend the basement at No. 8 was refused in September 2007 under ref. 07/02485 on the following grounds: “The proposal constitutes an excessive form of development, out of scale with the existing dwelling and resulting in an over intensive use of the site, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan”. Under ref. 07/03305 it was considered that, even though the basement extension would be sited underneath the dwelling and would not significantly impact the amenities of the occupants of the surrounding residential properties, it would have been excessive in size and, altogether, the proposed extensions would have resulted in an overdevelopment of the site. It should be noted that the basement extension would have been larger than the proposal refused at No. 8.

38

The proposed basement area has now been reduced by 46 square metres and together with the reduction in size of the proposed two storey side/rear extension, Members are asked to consider whether the overall development is now acceptable. In this case; Members views are requested.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/03305 and 08/00042, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 Details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority of the insulation for the plant within the building hereby permitted. The approved insulation shall be submitted before the plant is first used and shall be permanently maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the residential amenities of the area. 4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development BE10 Locally Listed Buildings BE11 Conservation Areas H8 Residential Extensions INFORMATIVE(S) 1 The applicant should be advised that the swimming pool should not be emptied

during heavy rain or at times of peak use. The discharge should be made to the foul sewerage system to prevent overloading of the sewer network.

2 The applicant should be advised that any proposal involving a swimming pool with a volume exceeding 10 cubic metres of water will need metering. You are advised to contact Thames Water on 0845 9200 800.

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1 The proposal constitutes an excessive form of development, out of scale with the

existing dwelling and resulting in an over-intensive use of the site, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

________________________

39


Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 26 Princes Avenue Petts Wood Orpington

Kent BR5 1QS


OS Grid Ref: E: 545216 N: 167634

Applicant : Mr J Sleeper Objections : NO


Part one/two storey rear extension together with first floor extension to include front

dormer and porch extension

Proposal

Part one/two storey rear extension together with first floor extension to include front dormer and porch extension to a detached property. This property is situated within an Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC), which is characterised by mock Tudor design, and the majority of these houses were the built by Noel Rees in the 1930‟s.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received. Any representations received will be reported verbally.

Planning Considerations Policy H10, Areas of Special Residential Character, states that applications will be required to respect and complement the established and individual qualities of the individual areas, and the Council will seek to protect the environmental character. Policies H8, Residential Extensions, states that the design and layout of proposals should respect the host dwelling, compatible with development in the surrounding area and space between buildings should be respected or maintained when these contribute to the character of the area. 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. It should be noted by Members that a proposal for a part one/two storey side and rear and first floor front extension incorporating front dormer to a detached property was refused by Members on the 20

th December 2007 as it was considered “ the proposal would be an

overdevelopment of the site, out of character in the Area of Special Residential Character and detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents, contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan”.

Conclusions

40

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the amenities of the adjoining resident, the character and appearance of the host building and the character of the area. This current application indicates a side space of approximately 3.25m between the two storey rear extension and the neighbouring property to the east No. 24 and approximately 3.9m from the neighbouring property to the west No. 28. The rear extension would project approximately 3.5m from the original dwelling house on the western side of the property adjacent to No. 24, but angled and reducing in depth adjacent to No.28 on the east. This property is situated approximately 0.3m from the boundary with the property to the west No. 28. On the front elevation the proposal will include the addition of a pitched roof and dormer to the existing first floor window above the entrance hall. The extension to the front elevation will include the front wall becoming aligned with the existing building line (~1m) the dormer will project a further ~1.3m (an addition ~0.6m further than the exiting bay windows). The new porch area will involve a pitched roof mirrors the neighbouring properties in terms of design and this may be considered more architecturally sympathetic in design to the properties within this road. In respect of the character of the area, it is considered that this application requires careful consideration, given the ASRC designation, which is intended to safeguard the established and individual qualities of the area. It should be noted that this is a detached property which at present may not be considered the same architectural design of the other houses along this road. Considering the part one/two storey extension is set to the rear of the property and the proposed front additions may be considered on balance an improvement to the area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/03991 and 08/00227, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space H10 Areas of special residential character

________________________

41


Plaistow And

Sundridge

Address : 4 Horsley Road Bromley BR1 3LB


OS Grid Ref: E: 540626 N: 169830

Applicant : Erinvale Group Objections : NO


First floor side and rear extension and two storey extension and conversion into 2

two bedroom and 4 one bedroom flats and 2 car parking spaces.

Proposal This application proposes the addition of a first floor side and rear extension, a two storey extension and the conversion of the extended property into 2 two bedroom and 4 one bedroom flats with 2 car parking spaces. The application is the resubmission of an earlier proposal refused under delegated powers to enable Members to consider the proposal.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers have been notified of the application. Any representations received will be reported verbally. The early applications resulted in objections on the grounds that additional windows will be overlooking the adjoining property. There are no highway objections subject to the safeguarding conditions suggested.

Planning Considerations Under planning ref. 07/00191 planning permission was granted for two first floor and rear extensions and two storey extension for offices. Under refs. 07/03165 and 07/04284 permission was refused for a proposal similar to that now proposed. The reason for refusal was that “the proposal does not provide private and communal amenity space for the occupants of the proposed dwellings which would create an unsatisfactory residential environment contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.” Polices BE1 and H7 remain the relevant policies in the current case. The applicant‟s case is that marketing the property with the benefit of the permission for offices has not produced a possible occupier. Residential use is therefore put forward as an appropriate alternative use. The main difference between the current proposal and that refused previously is that instead of 3 parking spaces the available space is redesigned to provide 2 car parking spaces and an amenity area behind them.

Conclusions

42

The application is submitted to enable Members to consider whether the area of amenity space created is sufficient to address the previous ground of refusal. Members will be aware that in converted properties the limitations of the existing premises place limitations on development not found in comprehensive redevelopment. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/00191, 07/03165 and 07/04284, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 3 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 4 ACH24 Stopping up of access ACH24R Reason H24 5 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 6 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H7 Housing density and design D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1 The proposal does not provide private and commercial amenity space for the

occupants of the proposed dwellings would create an unsatisfactory residential environment, contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

________________________

43

SECTION „3‟ – Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT

________________________


Bromley Common And

Keston

Address : 65 Oakley Road Bromley BR2 8HD


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 542066 N: 165417

Applicant : John Hills Objections : YES


Two storey side extension

Proposal

The application is situated on the eastern side of Oakley Road and comprises a two storey detached property. The property is located in a predominantly residential area characterised by detached and semi detached properties built in the 1970s with a large area of open land adjacent to the host dwelling to the western side of Oakley Road. Directly North of No 65 Oakley Road is an area of open land (allotment gardens) however this has planning permission for houses to be built on this plot Permission is sought for a two storey side extension which shall be located on the north elevation, of the host dwelling. It shall have a width of about 6.45m and a length of about 10.4m which shall not project beyond the front building line however is proposed to project beyond the rear building line by about 1.6m. The overall height of the two storey side extension including the roof shall be to a height of about 7.8m. There is a separation from the proposed two storey side extension to the boundary of about 1.1m

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received. These are summarised below:-

overbearing

concerns this extension may provide Asprey homes to come back requesting much larger homes on the adjoining plots

The Rookery Estates Company had the following comments to make with respect to the application:-

44

believe intention is to provide a separate semi detached property

concerns over location of windows within the north flank shall overlook the gardens of the new proposed properties

poor location of extension within the plot

inadequate design Please note that this objection was removed once revised plans were submitted 06/12/07 provided that the maximum height of the roof ridge was 8.6m

Planning Considerations The main policies relevant to this case are Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2006), which relate to the design of residential extensions and development in general. Policy H8 requires that design of residential extensions should be in keeping with the local area in terms of scale, form and materials used. Any development should protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties, including daylight and sunlight. Policy H9 requires that for proposals of two or more storeys in height a minimum side space of 1 metre must be retained for the full height and length of the flank wall. Where higher standards of separation exist the proposal shall be expected to provide a more generous side space. Development should provide adequate spacing to prevent a cramped appearance and safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining neighbours. Policy BE1 sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development. Development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings and should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure.

Conclusions

The main issue to be considered in this case is the impact of the proposal on the amenities of adjoining neighbours. Originally plans were submitted with the application (15/10/07) which depicted a two storey side extension, this projected beyond the front building line by about 5.9m. These plans were then superseded by revised plans received (06/12/07), these showed a proposal for a three storey side extension to a height of about 10m although the extension did now not project beyond the front building line of the host dwelling. Amended plans were then received dated (23/01/08) depicting the proposal has reverted back to a two storey side extension and does not project beyond the front building line. It was not considered that the proposed extension given its depth and height would result in a significant impact on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. This was taken into consideration the new properties proposed for the current allotment gardens to the north of the site specifically plot No 23 which has been approved (under ref:- 07/03295) for a three storey town house which shall be a height of about 10.2m and is situated about 1m away from the boundary which shall separate the proposed house from the host dwelling.

45

The amended plans further demonstrate that the roof of the proposed extension shall merge with that of the original house hence it was now deemed that the proposal would not lead to a detrimental impact upon the street scene. Members may agree that the revised scheme is acceptable. Background papers referred to during the production of the report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/03665, excluding exempt information.



Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI09 Side space (1 metre) (1 insert) northern ACI09R Reason I09 4 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) of the first floor northern elevation of the

extension ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8 5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space

________________________


Biggin Hill

Address : 199 Main Road Biggin Hill Westerham Kent

TN16 3JU


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 541985 N: 158850

Applicant : Milford Group Plc Objections : YES


Part two/three storey block comprising 8 two bedroom flats with access road and 10

car parking spaces, cycle store and refuse store

46

Proposal This application was deferred from the meeting on 20

th December in order to request

increased parking provision and improved turning space. Revised plans have now been submitted which provide 2 additional car parking spaces along the side access road and an improved turning head to the rear. The previous report is repeated below, with suitable updates, for Members‟ consideration. This site is located on the north-eastern side of Main Road, close to the junction with Lebanon Gardens, and lies adjacent to a detached dwelling to the north-west, and a detached bungalow to the south-east. It is proposed to replace the existing two storey dwelling on this site with a part two/three storey block comprising 8 two bedroom flats, and includes an access road running along the south-eastern boundary adjacent to No. 201 leading to a parking area at the rear containing 8 spaces, with 2 further spaces provided along the access road, and a cycle store.

Consultations Letters of objection have been received from nearby residents, the main points of which are summarised as follows:

overdevelopment of the site

building would be overdominant in the street scene

loss of privacy and light to adjoining properties

use of the side access road would result in noise disturbance to No.201

increased traffic using the access road would be a safety hazard

noise and general disturbance during construction works

refuse store would be too close to neighbouring properties. No objections are now seen in principle to the revised scheme from a highways point of view, subject to safeguarding conditions. However, the cycle store is not in a very accessible location, and may need to be relocated, and the 6m radius on the access is not required, which could be dealt with by way of a condition. With regard to the trees on the site, the majority are to be retained, while those to be removed are small specimens apart from the fir tree located at the rear, but this is of poor form and has limited amenity value. The proposed refuse store is located too far from the road (more than 18m), and the access road is too narrow to allow refuse vehicles to access the site, therefore the store would need to be relocated which could be dealt with by way of condition.

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 H7 Housing Density and Design

47

T3 Parking London Plan

4B.1 Design principles for a compact city

4B.6 Sustainable design and construction

4B.7 Respect local context and communities

4B.3 Maximising the potential of sites Permission was refused in March 2007 (ref. 06/04376) for the erection of a block of 8 two bedroom flats at the front of this site, with a terrace of 4 three bedroom houses at the rear, on grounds relating to cramped overdevelopment, detrimental impact on the free flow of traffic and road safety, and lack of affordable housing provision. The subsequent appeal was recently dismissed on grounds relating to the harmful impact of the terrace of houses proposed at the rear of the site, and its associated access and parking, on the character and appearance of the locality. The Inspector did, however, consider that the block of flats at the front of the site would not appear dominant nor be out of character in the street scene, and that the parking provision for the flats would be adequate. He did not consider that the access and parking arrangements would cause undue hazards on the highway, nor that the proposals would cause undue overlooking or loss of amenity to neighbouring properties, including the use of the access road. A further application was submitted (ref. 07/02438) prior to the appeal decision on the earlier scheme being issued which replaced the 4 houses at the rear with a single three bedroom bungalow. However, the rear dwelling was still considered to intrude upon the open and tranquil nature of the rear gardens surrounding the site, an issue identified by the Inspector on appeal, and the application was subsequently refused.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether the revised scheme has adequately overcome the Inspector‟s previous concerns with regard to the impact of rear development on the open nature of the rear gardens. The current scheme comprises only the block of flats at the front of the site to which the Inspector had no concerns, with only a parking area and amenity space being proposed at the rear which would retain the open nature of the rear gardens in close proximity to the site. Furthermore, tree screening would be provided adjacent to the parking area to retain privacy to the adjoining property. Therefore, the reduced scheme would now result in an acceptable redevelopment of this site, and would not have a harmful impact on the amenities of adjoining properties, subject to safeguarding conditions. Furthermore, the provision of an additional 2 car parking spaces along the access road could provide some visitor parking, and the on-site turning area would now be workable. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/04376, 07/02438 and 07/03694, excluding exempt information.

48



Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA08 Boundary enclosures - implementation ACA08R Reason A08 4 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op. ACB01R Reason B01 5 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing ACB02R Reason B02 6 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires ACB03R Reason B03 7 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains ACB04R Reason B04 8 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 9 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 10 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt ACD04R Reason D04 11 ACH01 Details of access layout (2 insert) Main Road 1m ACH01R Reason H01 12 ACH02 Satisfactory parking - no details submit ACH02R Reason H02 13 ACH04 Parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 14 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 15 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 16 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 17 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the south-eastern flank elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 18 ACI21 Secure By Design ACI21R I21 reason 19 ACK06 Slab levels - compliance ACK06R K06 reason 20 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, you should

certify in writing to the Local Planning Authority that the lighting of the access and car parking area is in accordance with BS 5489-1:2003, and such lighting shall be maintained permanently thereafter.

ACH23R Reason H23 21 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps 21 Policies (UDP)

49

H7 Housing Density and Design BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI16 Layout of crossover, etc

________________________


Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 64 Woodhurst Avenue Petts Wood

Orpington Kent BR5 1AS


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 544046 N: 167290

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Lamberti Objections : YES


Part one two storey side and rear extension. Pitched roof over existing garage.

Proposal The application proposes a part one/two storey side and rear extension with pitched roof over existing garage. Revised plans are to be considered resulting from the applicant‟s consideration of the initial objections from the occupiers of No. 62 Woodhurst Avenue.

Consultations Adjoining residents have been consulted on the revised plans and objections submitted from the occupiers of No. 62 Woodhurst Avenue (North East) are on the following issues:-

1. Right to Light – The additional height of the proposed second storey extension, coupled with the single floor extension right up to the party wall and boundary will materially reduce the amount of light which illuminates the main room of occupation, thus affecting the comfortable use and enjoyment of the house.

Copy photographs are enclosed number 1-5 to show the existing impact on light of

the present extension which was approved in 2003. The neighbours did not object to this as a gesture of goodwill but in retrospect did not appreciate the impact this made on the light received and which an additional development will exacerbate. The pictures were taken on the 10 November, a full month before the shortest day showing the shadow and consequent light loss already evident. Picture No. 5 (13

th

50

December) shows that the sun, after just clearing the existing extension, then

immediately falls below the tree line of oaks, etc, which have preservation orders on them. With the proposed 1

st floor extension no sunlight would be received onto the

patio area adjacent to the rear of the property (approximately 4 metres in depth) for some 4 months of the year.

2. Visual Impact and loss of Outlook – This development will visually impact on the ambience and enjoyment of the property and land which has been occupied for 27 years. The single storey extension including pitched roof will be the first sight from the main living area. Copy photographs 6-13 show the height and length of the proposed (amended) ground floor and the visual impact in and outdoors.

3. Bulk and size – The height and bulk of both parts of the extension would be overwhelming and would be out of character with the rear of the properties along the road. Copy photographs 14-15 demonstrate this point and that the existing extension (at 4.02 metres) is at a greater depth than any other nearby. Copy photographs 16-17 show the other neighbour‟s garage (no. 60) giving an indication of the visual effect this has despite being almost a full metre lower (pole denotes 3.22m) than the proposed extension to No. 64. The existing extension to No. 60 was erected prior to occupation in 1980 and has a flat roof and depth of only 2 metres (this property was built as a 4 bedroom house in c.1935).

4. Value of Property – This proposed development will affect the saleability of the property as any intended purchaser‟s first view of the rear of the property will be this proposed extension and the lack of natural light in the main living area will be noticeable.

5. Bromley Unitary Development Plan – The proposed extension is not in accordance with Policy BE1 of the UDP and also Policy H8. This application is an overdevelopment of the plot and out of character with the other houses along this delightful avenue built in the 1930‟s.

Occupiers of No. 66 Woodhurst Avenue confirm no objections.

Planning Considerations These proposals fail to be considered under Policy H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. The principal issue in this case is boundary proximity to a rear lounge and the current orientation of the rear garden in relation to afternoon/evening sunlight. Photographs on file taken by the objector clearly indicate the winter shadowing of their property from 1:00 p.m. and the profile that the ground floor extension will provide. The first floor section will also affect the setting sun. The amended boundary footprint and the current screening by the boundary fence/trellis planting should be noted.

Conclusions Members will be aware that this is a common form of development to semi-detached properties of this type and in some cases can fall within “permitted development”. The extension will be located to the immediate south-west of the neighbours at No. 62 and will

51

inevitably have some impact on light/prospect, as is the case with other similar proposals elsewhere. The Committee will wish to take account of the neighbours‟ concerns in this case but on balance it is recommended that permission be granted, given the modest projection of the single storey extension and the separation of the first floor from the common boundary by 2.6m. Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04321, excluding exempt information.



Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1 4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

________________________


West Wickham

Address : 1 Pine Avenue West Wickham Kent BR4

0LN


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 537954 N: 166351

Applicant : Mr And Mrs O'Neil Objections : NO


Two storey side extension and detached double garage at front/side

Proposal

This application was deferred by Members of Plans Sub-Committee on 24/1/08 for further information. The application is for a two storey side extension and detached double garage at front/side.

52

The scheme has been revised from an earlier submission (ref. 07/03106) refused on the following grounds under delegated powers:

The proposed extension would result in a cramped overdevelopment of this corner site, harmful to the character and visual amenities of the streetscene and contrary to Polices H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed detached garage, by reason of its prominent siting adjacent to the highway, would be harmful to the character and visual amenities of the streetscene, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed extension, by reason of its excessive size, would be capable of severance to form a separate dwelling, resulting in an overdevelopment of the site, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Consultations

No objections have been received from local residents.


This current scheme results from negotiations with the Council officers to secure a more compact format for this triangular plot at the apex of two highways. The refused application included a two storey side extension with a width of 6.5m and this has now been reduced by 1.5m, leaving greater separation to the boundary. The detached garage is still to the front/side of the enlarged dwelling but has been slightly relocated to reduce its impact. A copy of the refused plans is attached to the file to enable a comparison to be made. It will be noted that there are no overlooking or neighbouring amenity issues in this case.

Conclusions

Members may now conclude that on balance the proposals are of satisfactory design and siting for this plot without any impact upon visual amenities or prospect to surrounding properties. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/04357 and 07/03106, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI07 Restrict to members of household (1 in) at 1 Pine Avenue, West

Wickham ACI07R Reason I07 4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

53

________________________


West Wickham

Address : 149 Langley Way West Wickham Kent BR4

0DL


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 539175 N: 166637

Applicant : Ozlem Demirhas Objections : YES


Single storey rear extension amendment to permission 07/00874 RETROSPECTIVE

APPLICATION

Proposal

The application is situated on the north western side of Langley Way and comprises a two storey terraced property. The property is located in a predominantly residential area characterised by terraced properties built in the 1930s. Permission is sought retrospectively for a single storey rear extension about 5.8m wide and 3.37m deep with a height of about 2.65m at the further point away from the rear property increasing to about 3m where the extension connects to the existing rear building line.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received. These are summarised below:-

loss of light

loss of outlook

detrimental effect upon character of the area

breach of planning condition from previous application 07/00874

concern about garage being built in rear garden (this was subject to an investigation being carried out by the enforcement section, the result was that the garage was permitted development.)

The full text of correspondence is available to view on file. Any further comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations The main policies relevant to this case are Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2006), which relate to the design of residential extensions and development in general.

54

Policy H8 requires that design of residential extensions should be in keeping with the local area in terms of scale, form and materials used. Any development should protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties, including daylight and sunlight. Policy BE1 sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development. Development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings and should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure.

Conclusions

A single storey rear extension was granted permission under ref: - 07/00874 and therefore in principle of a single storey rear extension to the host dwelling has already been established. The main issue in assessing the current application is to consider whether the alterations in the manner proposed are acceptable, both visually and with regard to the amenities of the surrounding neighbours. The current retrospective application now depicts a single storey rear extension with a flat roof rather than a sloped roof. The part of the roof furthest away from the existing rear building line is now about 2.65m instead of 2.5m shown on the plans approved under ref:- 07/00874 the height of the extension at the point at which it meets the rear building line of the host dwelling is now about 3m instead of 3.35m as approved on the previous planning application (07/00874). The depth of the extension is now about 3.37m whereas on the previously submitted application the depth approved was 3.24m a difference of 13cms. Although there is an increase in height and depth proposed, on balance, the amended plans are considered acceptable in that it will not lead to a further loss of amenity to the residents of the adjoining properties. In addition the south eastern orientation of the rear gardens of properties along this side of Langley Way means that any loss of sunlight/daylight to adjoining properties would be minimised. It was noted that a similar single storey rear extension was built at No 145 Langley Way however with no planning history it was to be assumed that this was built under permitted development rights. Accordingly, members may agree that on balance this application does not result in undue harm on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Background papers referred to during the production of the report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04358, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) flank extension ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1 2 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space

55

BE1 Design of new development

________________________


Bromley Town

Address : 2 Blyth Road Bromley BR1 3RX


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 539876 N: 169822

Applicant : Mrs Vicdan Erkir Objections : YES


Demolition of existing hotel and erection of three storey block comprising 9 two

bedroom flats with 2 parking spaces bin storage and cycle store

Proposal

The application site is on the northern fringe of Bromley Town Centre, located at the junction with London Road and comprises a two storey detached building currently used as a hotel with front parking area and garden to the rear. The plot width is approximately16.4m and the dimension of the building is approximately 14.5m wide, 16 m deep and the height is 13.4m as scaled from the drawings. There is a separation between Nos. 2 and 4 Blyth Road of approximately 1.25m and 1.3m as scaled from the drawing, the east flank wall abuts the snooker club site in London road. The front of the property proposes a vehicular access to the west of the site with provision of two parking spaces, together with refuse bin and cycle enclosures. Rear shared amenity space is approximately 13m in depth as measured on the drawings The area is characterised by a mixture of residential accommodation and commercial uses such as a nursing home, dentist surgery and a children‟s nursery. To the southern end of the road a number of sites have been redeveloped with higher density blocks of apartments. Very few of the large houses in the immediate area remain in single residential occupation. The site adjacent No 2 received planning permission granted under appeal, for the demolition of the snooker hall and the erection of 12 flats with offices on the ground floor (under ref. 06/01742) and this development fronts onto London Road. This proposal seeks the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a three storey block consisting on 9 one bedroom flats bin stores, cycle sheds and two off street parking space.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows –

56

the depth and height would have a dominant affect

out of character and not in keeping with the existing Victorian properties

loss of light

the additional occupants would add to the existing parking problems in the road

construction concerns The Crime Prevention Design Advisor has requested a condition be added requiring the development incorporate measures to minimise the risk of crime From a Highways point of view it is required that a legal agreement be entered into preventing residents of the development from being eligible for parking permits. Environmental Health rise no technical objections Thames Water has not submitted any comment at this time and any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. With regard to Waste raised no technical objections are raised subject to appropriate conditions rating to the refuse and recycling storage.

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 ER4 Sustainable and energy efficient development H1 Housing H7 Density and Design T3 Parking T18 Highway Safety The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies H7 (Housing Density and Design),H9 (Side Space), T3 (Parking), T18 (Road Safety),BE1 ( Design Of New Development), ER4 (Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development) and ER13 (Foul and Surface Water Discharges From Development) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2006) Policy H7 and BE1 requires the scale and form of new residential development to be in keeping with the surrounding area, and the privacy and amenities of adjoining occupiers to be adequately safeguarded. Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seek to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy T3, requires off street parking provision in accordance with the parking standards set out in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2006) Policy T18 draws attention to the need to ensure any proposal does not have an adverse effect on road safety. Government guidance, and that contained within the London Plan, require Councils to

57

maximise the best use of urban land where appropriate when considering new residential developments, but also to retain development that makes a positive contribution to a conservation area. The following is a brief summary of the history of the site:

86/00035 Conversion into guest house/hotel detached house Permission 07/03275 Planning permission was refused for the demolition of existing hotel and erection of four storey block comprising 1 one bedroom and 8 two bedroom flats with 2 parking spaces bin storage and cycle store. On the grounds: by reason of its size, out of scale and character with neighbouring properties, excessive rearward projection detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties and non compliance with the Councils 1 metre side space policy, contrary to Policies H7, BE1 and H9 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. This application was submitted to address the reasons of refusal under ref. 07/03275. The scheme is now for a traditional designed building more in keeping with the surrounding Victorian houses. The overall height has been reduced to 3 storeys and a 1.25m side space is provided between the flank wall and No. 4 Blyth Road, and the height of the building is considered to adequately compare with the adjacent buildings. The proposed development under ref. 07/03275 was for a 4 storey block in a modern style with flat roof and front elevation consisting of white painted render, horizontal and vertical timber cladding, aluminium windows and doors with glazing panels to Juliet balconies. This proposal is for a 3 storey building in traditional style with pitched tiled roofs, gables and bays with wooden windows. With regard to the impact on amenity to adjacent buildings there are no windows on the flank elevation of No. 4, and no flank windows to the proposal other than to bedroom 2 of the rear flats which are situated approximately 10m (as scaled from the drawings) away from the boundary with No. 4. The 3 storey depth at the rear is large but given that it is adjacent to the Snooker Club building which virtually occupies the full depth of the plot adjacent the application site, there is minimal impact here as the rearward projection is between approximately 7.8metres and 9.5metres from the boundary with No. 4. This section of Blyth Road comprises detached Victorian houses and has a mix of single residences and flat conversions. It is felt that the style of this flatted development would not be out of character with the pattern of surrounding development nor the visual amenities of the street scene, particularly with regard to the permission granted for the flatted re development of the site of the Snooker Club next door (under ref. 06/01742). With regard to matters of parking there is a shortage of on street parking spaces in Blyth Road. The application proposes only two spaces, however the site is within a moderate public transport accessibility level (PTAL) and falls within the Town Centre controlled parking zone (CPZ) the location is highly sustainable with a range of shopping, leisure,

58

educational facilities, employment and services easily accessible by walking, cycling and travel by bus and train whilst no technical objections are raised to the reduction in parking standards it is considered that a legal agreement be entered into (should permission be granted)so that future occupiers of the flats would not be eligible for parking permits. 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 loss of amenity to local residents, the character and visual amenities of the area and highway safety in general. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/03275 and 07/04535, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A

LEGAL AGREEMENT SO FUTURE OCCUPIERS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PARKING

PERMITS IN THIS INNER ZONE

and the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years 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 ACA08 Boundary enclosures - implementation ACA08R Reason A08 5 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 6 ACH02 Satisfactory parking - no details submit ACH02R Reason H02 7 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 8 ACH19 Refuse storage - implementation ACH19R Reason H19 9 ACH04 Parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 10 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 11 ACH23 Lighting scheme for access/parking ACH23R Reason H23 12 ACH24 Stopping up of access ACH24R Reason H24 13 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) western flank building ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) H7 14 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason 15 A side space of 1.25 metres shall be provided between the west flank wall of the

property hereby permitted and the flank boundary of the property. ACI09R Reason I09 16 Details of the Photovoltaic Panels together with the location of installation shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority

59

before any work is commenced. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy ER4 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building

17 Details of the use of sustainable and renewable materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building

18 The development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the application site and the development. Details of theses measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local authority and implemented in accordance with the approved details. The security measures must incorporate the principles and objectives of Secured by Design to improve community safety and crime prevention.

ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) H7 19 The developer is to certify in writing to the local authority that the lighting of the

access/car parking is in accordance with BS 5489-1:2003 prior to the first occupation of the development and that such lighting will be maintained permanently there after.

ACH24R Reason H24 20 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps 20 Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development ER4 Sustainable and energy efficient development H1 Housing H7 Housing density and design T3 Parking T18 Road safety INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI16 Layout of crossovers, etc 2 RDI09 Minimum side space notes on conditions

________________________

60


Chislehurst

Address : San Marino Heathfield Lane Chislehurst

Kent BR7 6AH

Conservation Area:

Chislehurst

OS Grid

Ref:

E: 544117 N: 170629

Applicant : Asprey Homes Objections : YES


Demolition of existing house and erection of 2 two storey five bedroom detached

house with integral garages plus associated vehicular access and driveway

Proposal

Joint report with application ref. 07/04653 The application site is located towards southern end of Heathfield Lane close to the junction with Ashfiled Lane and is within the Chislehurst Conservation Area. The application site is a large plot which currently contains one detached dwelling known as San Marino. At present the dwelling provides a significant garden area with a large amount of side space towards the Northern boundary with Frogges Manor. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and characterised by detached houses with Chislehurst Common located towards the West of the site. The proposal is for the demolition of the existing house and its replacement with 2 two storey five bedroom detached houses with integral garages plus associated vehicular accesses and driveways. The proposed development will sever the existing „u shaped‟ driveway that exists at San Marino, so as to retain one access each for the use of the two new properties. No additional accesses onto Heathfield Lane are proposed. Members may recall a previous planning application at this address approved at committee on the 6

th December 2007 under ref. 07/03507. This approval was an outline planning

application for a detached two storey five bedroom house on land adjoining San Marino. This revised proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of two dwellings on the site.

Consultations Letters of objection have been received from local residents. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:

the existing trees along the boundary with Ashfiled Lane should be retained to ensure the privacy and amenity of residents is respected

as in the previous application, the proposed house adjacent to Frogges Manor results in loss of light, amenity and privacy

this new proposal would result in a great deal more noise and disturbance, access is still a cause for concern.

61

even though the proposal does not involve the creation of a new vehicle access the proposal would increase traffic particularly during construction

In terms of trees and landscaping, there are no significant trees located within the site. With regards to drainage surface water will have to be drained to soakaways and there is no public surface water sewer near to this site. With regards to Highways comments these will be reported verbally at the meeting. The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas, (APCA) were consulted on the application and any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations The following is a brief summary of the recent history of the site:

Under planning application reference WK/5/63/381 outline planning permission was granted in 1963 for a detached house with a garage. This application has been renewed nine times since, most recently under ref. 95/02324. Under planning application ref. 07/03507 outline planning permission was granted in December 2007 for a detached two storey five bedroom house with integral garage and associated vehicle access and driveway. 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 and London Plan are further considerations: The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Chislehurst Conservation Area is a further consideration. Policies BE1 (Design Of New Development), BE11 (Conservation Areas), H1 (Housing Supply), H7 (Housing Density and Design), H9 (Side Space), T3 (Parking), T7 (Cyclists), T18 (Road Safety), 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.1 (Increasing London‟s Supply Of Housing), 3A.2 Borough Housing Targets), 4B.3 (Maximising The Potential of Sites), 4B.6 (Sustainable Design and Construction), 4B.7 (Respect Local Context and Communities) of the London Plan. Policy H7 and BE1 requires the scale and form of new residential development to be in keeping with the surrounding area, be of a high standard of design and to adequately safeguard the privacy and amenities of adjoining occupiers. Policy H9 draws attention to the need to respect the spatial standards of the surrounding area and retain satisfactory standards of separation between existing properties.

62

Policy BE11 draws attention to the need to preserve and enhance conservation areas and highlights the need for all proposals for new development to ensure the character and appearance of the conservation area is maintained. Policy T.3 seeks to ensure that all off street parking provisions for new developments meet the requirements outlined in Appendix II of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy T7 seeks to increase and promote the cycle network in Bromley by ensuring that new development would not adversely impact upon cyclists and that in new residential development secure cycle storage will be sought. Policy T.18 states that in determining planning applications, the Council will consider as appropriate the potential impact on road safety and will seek to ensure road safety is not adversely affected. Policy ER3 promotes the need for all new developments to provide adequate space for recycling and waste collection to enable the Council to meet its recycling targets. Policy ER4 sets out the Council‟s outlook towards incorporating renewable energies into developments. The appropriateness/design and location of methods for generating renewable energy should pay special attention to the character and appearance of locally & statutorily listed buildings and buildings within conservation areas. Policy ER.13 requires development to ensure there is adequate drainage, sewage and surface water run off provided and accommodated on site. It should also employ sustainable drainage methods, unless there is an overriding reason for not using such an approach. Policies 3A.1 & 3A.2 of the London Plan relate to housing provision within the London Boroughs. They state that the Boroughs should be seeking to increase their housing provision with amongst other routes redevelopment in town centres, suburban heartlands and small-scale residential infill. Policies 4B.1, 4B.3 & 4B.6 of the London Plan relate to ensure high quality design within the London Boroughs. They state that all new development should maximise the potential of sites and fulfil the criteria for good sustainable, urban design whilst respecting the natural environment and built heritage. Policy 4B.7 of the London Plan relates to the protection of London‟s environment and local context. This states that local distinctiveness should be respected by all proposals and preserve or enhance the social, physical, cultural, historical and environmental characteristics of an area. Government guidance, and that contained within the London Plan, require Councils to maximise the best use of urban land where appropriate when considering new residential developments, but without compromising the quality of the environment.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether, having regard to the previous scheme granted under ref. 07/03507, the current proposals would result in an overdevelopment of the site,

63

would adequately protect the amenities of adjacent residents in terms of light, privacy and outlook, and would be in keeping with the character and appearance the area.

The principle of a redevelopment on this site has already been agreed. The difference between the current proposal and the previously approved scheme is that the current proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of two dwellings. The southern most dwelling will be sited predominantly on the same footprint as the existing property at San Marino. The northern most dwelling located towards the boundary with Frogges Manor will be sited predominantly on the same footprint as the dwelling for which permission was recently granted in December 2007. The only difference between this dwelling and the previously approved dwelling is a slight relocation towards the south of the site, increasing the distance between it and the existing dwelling at Frogges Manor. The overall footprint of the development is considered acceptable in this location with the garden sizes of the proposed dwellings being similar to those at adjoining properties. It is therefore considered that the proposed layout of the site leaves adequate separation between buildings. The proposal would not result in any significant loss of light or amenity to adjoining occupiers due to the proposed distances between boundaries and the orientation of the site. Conditions can be imposed (subject to permission being granted) to reduce the potential of overlooking by way of obscure glass. The means of access is considered acceptable considering the fact that the proposal involves no additional vehicular accesses to accommodate the development. Landscaping and planting adjacent to the boundaries will help to mitigate any potential noise and disturbance associated with the use of the access and parking areas compared to the current underdeveloped verdant character of the plot. With regards to the demolition of San Marino, it is considered that the existing property is of no specific architectural merit and does not make a positive contribution to the conservation area and it is therefore acceptable to be demolished subject to a suitable replacement being constructed. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will inevitably result in some visual impact within the street scene, it is considered that on balance the proposal is an acceptable form of development without significant harm to local visual or residential amenity. Nor the character and appearance of this part of the Chislehurst Conservation Area in general. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. WK/5/63/381, 92/01852 , 07/03057, and 07/04653, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years 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 ACC01R Reason C01

64

5 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 6 ACD03 Restricted 100mm outlet ACD03R Reason D03 7 ACI01 Restriction of "pd" rights

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the adjoining residents in order to comply with Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

8 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining residents in order to comply with

Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 9 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the north and south elevations ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H7 10 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) north and south extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H7 11 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas, H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development ER13 Foul and Surface Water Discharges From Development

________________________

22. Application No : 07/04653/CAC Ward :

Chislehurst

Address : San Marino Heathfield Lane Chislehurst

Kent BR7 6AH

Conservation Area:

Chislehurst

OS Grid

Ref:

E: 544117 N: 170629

Applicant : Asprey Homes (Miss J AlIison) Objections : YES


Demolition of existing dwelling CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

Joint report with application ref. 07/04652

65

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

subject to the following conditions: 1 ACG01 Listed Building Conservation Area Consen ACG01R Reason G01 2 AJ05B Justification CONSERV AREA CONSENT Policies (UDP) BE11 Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition in Conservation Areas

________________________


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : 27 The Glen Orpington Kent BR6 8LP

Conservation Area:

Farnborough Park

OS Grid

Ref:

E: 543017 N: 165306

Applicant : D McCarthy Objections : NO


Installation of rear roof dormers (Amendment to permission 06/00453 for two storey

four bedroom detached house) RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

Proposal This is a retrospective application is for a two rear roof dormers. These have been added to a house currently under construction.

Consultations At the time of writing no objections have been received. Any representations received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations Policies BE1, H8 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design; to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties; and to protect the overall character of conservation areas.

66

Under application ref. 06/00453 the Council refused permission for the erection of a two storey four bedroom detached house. However, this scheme was allowed on appeal and two rear dormers have subsequently been added to the property.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity. In view of the separation between the application property and that located to the rear, No. 5 Meadow Way (which has been calculated at around 68m) it is not considered that the privacy of that neighbouring property will be harmed. In relation to the impact on the character of the Conservation Area it is not considered that this will be harmed as the dormers are confined to the rear elevation and will not appear burdensome within the streetscene. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/00453 and 07/04094, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation areas H8 Residential extensions

________________________


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : Newstead Wood School For Girls Avebury

Road Orpington Kent BR6 9SA


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 544671 N: 165209

Applicant : Newstead Wood School Objections : NO


67

Two storey classroom and office block

Proposal Construction of a new two storey classroom block providing new mathematics facilities and including office space for mathematics staff. The proposed floor area of the new block is 542 sq. m. The proposed maximum roof height is 7.6m above ground level. The building proposed will have a slightly mono-pitched roof which for all intents and purposes will appear flat, constructed in dark grey (colour) polymeric sheet roof covering. The walls of the building will be clad in white (colour) glazed facing brickwork and grey (colour) resin/ wood fibre panels. Solar shading louvres are proposed to be fitted to all windows on the west facing elevation. A canopy will be erected over the access balcony at first floor level along the east elevation. This canopy will join the new building to the existing building. The proposed location is in a void or recess within existing buildings on the west side of the school and adjacent to the School‟s tennis and netball courts. Currently this area is grassed and informally landscaped with three medium sized trees, shrubs and hedges. There is no proposal to increase the school roll as a result of the development.

Consultations To date there have been no representations received, and any received in the mean time will be reported verbally at the meeting. Technical comments from Building Control and Drainage were not available at the time of writing this report and comments will be reported verbally at the meeting. Thames Water has no objections to the development regarding sewerage and water infrastructure.

Planning Considerations The School is on land designated Urban Open Space, and access to public transport is low (1b) as defined by Transport for London. The proposal requires consideration of Policies BE1, G8 and C7 of the UDP. Policy BE1 (Design of New Development) requires that any new development be of a high standard of design and layout in order to create an attractive townscape and pleasant living and working conditions. Policy G8 (Urban Open Space) permits new buildings provided the development is related to the existing use of the site, and is small scale and does not erode the open outdoor space available for recreation and children‟s play facilities.

68

Policy C7 (Educational and Pre-School Facilities) permits extensions to existing school facilities provided they are located so as to maximise access by means of transport other than the car.

Conclusions It is considered that the scale of the proposed block is appropriate within the context of the existing school buildings. It is two storeys high, and with a flat roof will sit within the recess of the existing two and three storey building without looking dominant or incongruous. Furthermore the proposed design and materials are suitable and will complement the existing buildings. The impact on the protected Urban Open Space will be minimal given the proposed siting being within a recess in the existing buildings. The new block is therefore not considered to significantly erode the open space of the site or the area. The new maths facility is intended to complement and improve existing school facilities but not increase the school roll. The proposal is therefore unlikely to have an adverse effect on car use or traffic congestion in the area and will comply with Policy C7. Having regard to the relevant policies in the UDP, it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the character or setting of the existing buildings, nor would it result in any significant harm to visual amenities in general. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/00096, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan

Reason: 3 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development G8 Urban Open Space INFORMATIVE(S) 1 You should seek engineering advice from the Environmental Services Department

at the Civic Centre regarding the reinstatement of any damage to the highway. Please Contact Dave Thomas of Street Services on 020 8313 4578.

________________________

69


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : The Lawns Elm Walk Orpington Kent BR6

8LX

Conservation Area:

Farnborough Park

OS Grid

Ref:

E: 542979 N: 165177

Applicant : Mark Haris/st Marks Objections : YES


Replacement two storey five bedroom detached house with accommodation in roof

space and adjacent double garage

Proposal The site is located towards the south eastern end of Elm Walk within the Farnborough Park Conservation Area. The current house is of two storeys and is of an arts and crafts style influence and sits towards the south eastern boundary of the plot. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and characterised by large detached houses. The application site is currently in use as a single dwelling house and has had some limited and not particularly sensitive extensions constructed in the past. The proposal is for the demolition of the existing house and replacement two storey six bedroom detached house with accommodation in roof space and integral double garage. Members may recall two previous planning applications at this address. The first application was approved at Committee on the 24

th May under ref. 07/00279. This

approval involved extensive modifications to the existing house to create a six bedroom dwelling with accommodation in the roof space. After further consideration by the applicant another planning application was submitted under ref. 07/03055 for the demolition of the existing house and rebuild as per the approved scheme. This application was approved at committee on the 11

th October. The current revised application involves a remodelled front

and rear facade and a reconfigured internal layout which repositions the dwelling further towards the rear of the site by around 2.8m.


we acknowledge that the revised application has not changed the proposed property since the last application in terms of its overall size. However our main concerns are that the windows overlooking our garden should be frosted glass and that the developer provides a secure boundary wall or fence where the existing garage was located.

From a drainage point of view, no objections raised subject to standard condition D03.

70

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas, (APCA) were consulted on the application and any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. Under planning application ref. 05/04128 planning permission was granted for a two storey front, side and rear extension and a single storey side extension. Under planning application ref. 07/00279 planning permission was granted for part one/two storey front/side and rear extensions with front and rear dormers. Under planning application ref. 07/03055 planning permission was granted for a replacement two storey six bedroom detached house with accommodation in roof space and integral double garage.


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 and London 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.1 (Increasing London‟s Supply Of Housing), 3A.2 Borough Housing Targets), 4B.3 (Maximising The Potential of Sites), 4B.6 (Sustainable Design and Construction), 4B.7 (Respect Local Context and Communities) of the London Plan. Policy H7 and BE1 requires the scale and form of new residential development to be in keeping with the surrounding area, be of a high standard of design and to adequately safeguard the privacy and amenities of adjoining occupiers. Policy H9 draws attention to the need to respect the spatial standards of the surrounding area and retain satisfactory standards of separation between existing properties. Policy BE11 draws attention to the need to preserve and enhance conservation areas and highlights the need for all proposals for new development to ensure the character and appearance of the conservation area is maintained. Policies 3A.1 & 3A.2 of the London Plan relate to housing provision within the London Boroughs. They state that the Boroughs should be seeking to increase their housing provision with amongst other routes redevelopment in town centres, suburban heartlands and small-scale residential infill. Policies 4B.1, 4B.3 & 4B.6 of the London Plan relate to ensure high quality design within the London Boroughs. They state that all new development should maximise the potential of sites and fulfil the criteria for good sustainable, urban design whilst respecting the natural environment and built heritage.

71

Policy 4B.7 of the London Plan relates to the protection of London‟s environment and local context. This states that local distinctiveness should be respected by all proposals and preserve or enhance the social, physical, cultural, historical and environmental characteristics of an area. Government guidance, and that contained within the London Plan, require Councils to maximise the best use of urban land where appropriate when considering new residential developments, but without compromising the quality of the environment.

Conclusions The area around the site is predominantly residential in character and the buildings are of a variety of styles and scale. Having regard to the previously approved scheme, it is considered that the proposed replacement house is of an acceptable design and scale. The appearance of the existing dwelling has been altered by various works which include extensions to the front, side and rear which undermine the buildings historic integrity. The proposal is to rebuild the dwelling in a repositioned location with a revised design. The overall floor area of the house has not been increased and remains the same as the scheme previously permitted. The proposal would be of an individual design, however given the variety in the built form along Elm Walk and the approval of the extensions to the existing house , the proposal is not considered to be out of character with the area. The size, scale and design of the dwelling proposed is considered to respect the character and appearance of the area and in comparison with the existing dwelling. The replacement dwelling would be an acceptable redevelopment of the site, taking into account its proximity to neighbouring properties, and location within the Conservation Area. Although the proposed footprint is larger than the existing dwelling, the plot is considered to be large enough to adequately accommodate a replacement dwelling of this size In conclusion, the proposals are considered to provide an acceptable 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. 07/00279, 07/03055 and 08/00114, excluding exempt information.


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

72

ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 6 ACD03 Restricted 100mm outlet ACD03R Reason D03 7 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining residents in order to comply with Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

8 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the south-east and north-west elevations

Reason: To comply with Policies BE1 and H7 and in the interests of the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

9 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) south-east and north-west dwellinghouse

ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H7 10 The single storey flat roof area at the rear shall not be used as a balcony or sitting

out area and there shall be no access to the roof area.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interests of the amenities of the adjacent properties.

11 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas, H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development ER13 Foul and Surface Water Discharges From Development

________________________


Chelsfield And Pratts

Bottom

Address : 8 Vancouver Close Orpington Kent BR6

9XR


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 546004 N: 164656

Applicant : Mr D J Playfoot Objections : YES

73


Two storey rear extension

Proposal This application is for a two storey rear extension. The proposed extension would project 3.5m at ground and first floor level with a gable roof above linking on to the main roof.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. Objections were received in relation to the impact on outlook from a neighbouring property. Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties. A previous application, ref. 07/04097, for a two storey rear extension with a 4 metre rearward projection, was refused permission at the Planning Sub Committee meeting held on 20th December on the following ground:

The proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the area and detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties by reason of visual impact contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity. The projection of the proposed extension has been reduced to 3.5m. This will extend beyond the main property and align with its western flank. In terms of neighbouring amenity, it should be noted that adjoining property, No. 10 Vancouver Close is raised by approximately 1m at ground level and that its rear building line is located approximately 1-1.5m further forward than that at No 8. In addition the proposed extension will be situated over 6m away from the boundary with No. 10. Members will need to consider whether this reduction in projection is sufficient to overcome the previous ground of refusal. In relation to the property at No. 36 Vancouver Close which is located behind the application property there would be a separation of approximately 10m between the rear of the proposed extension and the rear boundary of the application property and approximately 20m between the rear elevation of No. 36 and the proposed extension at No. 8 (according the Ordnance Survey extract). This separation is considered adequate and compliant with separation standards normally recommended, so that the general amenities and privacy of that property will be maintained. As such it is considered

74

that the proposed extension will not unduly affect neighbouring amenity. It is not considered that the character of the area will not be harmed given the nature of the proposed extension. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04094, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) first floor eastern extension ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1 4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

________________________

75

SECTION 4 – Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS

________________________


Bickley

Address : One Chimney Woodlands Road Bromley

BR1 2AD

Conservation Area:

Bickley Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 542720 N: 169204

Applicant : Terry Lloyd Objections : YES


First floor side extension

Proposal It is proposed to extend the dwelling (detached) located at One Chimney Woodlands Road, Bickley by way of a first floor side extension. The first floor extension will sit approximately 1.1m behind the front faēade extending to a depth of approximately 7.0m along the western elevation dwelling. The proposed extension will be approximately 2.15m in width sitting approximately 2.3m from the common boundary with „Brinkley‟ to the west. The proposed extension will be finished in a pitched roof design to match the height of the existing dwelling which is approximately 7.4m above existing ground level. The proposed extension will create an additional floor area of approximately 15m

2.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows - 1. Comments received by owner/occupier of „Brinkley‟ Woodlands Road, Bickley

(adjacent property to the west) who object to the proposed development. The Objector is concerned with the following aspects of the proposed development:

primarily because the spacious setting of properties and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be harmed. The extension would not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area as is required by policy. It would

76

conflict with UDP Policy BE11 which expects development to respect or compliment the layout of buildings and spaces in Conservation Areas.

the current proposal still does not provide an appropriately generous side space in this location, and this adds to the main reason for resisting the proposal.

planning decisions should be consistent as is a requirement in Planning Policy Statements. The current proposal does not overcome the Inspectors objections to the earlier similar proposal and therefore should be refused.

I agree with the Inspector‟s approach to these matters. In summary, the proposal would be detrimental to the spacious character of the Conservation Area, would be contrary to UDP policies BE1 and BE11 and to the content of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Bickley Park Conservation Area and would also conflict with Policy H9.

In addition to the nearby owners/occupiers, consultation was undertaken with The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) and the Heritage and Urban Design (HUD) department of the Council due to the site being located within a Conservation Area – Bickley Park. At the time of compiling this report, comments from APCA and HUD had not been received.

Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to policies BE1, BE11, H8 & H9 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy BE11 requires proposals for the alteration or extension to a building to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area by:

a) respecting or complementing the layout, scale, form and materials of existing buildings and spaces

b) Respecting and incorporating in the design the existing landscape or other features that contribute to the character, appearance or historic value of the area.

Policy H8 aims to ensure that residential extensions respect the scale, form and spatial standards of the surrounding area, and protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties. Policy H9 seeks to maintain a 1 metre space from side boundaries for two storey development. The side space should be retained for the full height and length of the flank wall of the building. The Policy aims to provide adequate separation between buildings to safeguard the privacy and amenity of adjoining residents and to prevent a cramped appearance and unrelated terracing from occurring. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Bickely Park Conservation Area summarises the layout (para. 5.5) in the Bickley Park Area as:

77

5.5 …“spaces around and between buildings are an important part of the character and

appearance of an area, and the setting of principal contributory buildings. Consequently, where areas or buildings are characterised by open settings, wooded grounds or large gardens, the introduction of additional substantial additional buildings may not be appropriate. In particular, the semi-rural impression of the Conservation Area should be maintained”

In addition to the above, guidance is provided on the „Alteration and Extension‟ to and the Location and form of Extensions within Para 5.10 & 5.12 which state: 5.10 The Conservation Area is not a museum, but a living part of the urban area.

Changing lifestyles and expectations will result in pressure for adjustments to existing buildings to respond to this. Such modifications can frequently be achieved without diminishing the character and appearance of the Area, but care is required. Even internal alterations can have an impact on the external character of the building and Area, such as by requiring installation of external plumbing fixtures or ventilation stacks.

5.12 Extensions and additions should reflect the forms, materials, textures and finishes

of the host building, along with the design philosophies underlying its style. These vary between individual buildings in this Conservation Area, and will need to respond to the specific building. The proportions, positioning and integration of an addition relative to the host building are important and deserving of significant design effort to safeguard not only the building's contribution to the public realm, but its enduring value to the owner. It should not be so large as to dominate or compete in visual terms with the host building.

History The application site has been subject to numerous planning applications to extend the dwelling in the past namely: - Planning application ref. 93/03174 approved by the Council on the 27

th February

1991 for a single storey side/rear extension. At the time of the site visit, this approval had been implemented.

- Planning application ref. 93/02613 was refused by the Council on the 22

nd

December 1993 for a front boundary wall. A revised application was submitted, ref. 94/00117, for a front boundary wall and gate which was subsequently approved by Council on the 9

th March 1994. At the time of the site visit, this approval had been

implemented.

- Planning application ref. 95/00559 was approved by the Council on the 26th April

1995 for a single storey side/rear extension (conservatory). At the time of the site visit, this approval had been implemented.

- Planning application ref. 00/02483 was approved by the Council on the 20

th

September 2000 to allow a detached garage at front and the conversion of the existing garage into a habitable room. A subsequent amendment was made under planning application ref. 02/04098 for the similar proposal which was approved by

78

- the Council on the 19

th February 2003. At the time of the site visit, this approval had

been implemented. - Planning application ref. 06/02700 was refused by the Council on the 6

th September

2006 for a first floor side and rear extension. The application was refused by the Council due to:

“The proposal would harm the character and appearance of this part of the Bickley Park Conservation Area as it has insufficient side space to comply with the Council’s requirements in respect of two storey development in the absence of which the extension would constitute a cramped form of development, out of character with the street scene, conductive to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is at present developed and contrary to Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan”

The decision of the Council was appealed to the Planning Inspectorate – APP/G5180/A/07/2036030/WF [Council Ref: AP/07/00032/S78]. The appeal was dismissed by the Inspectorate stating that the extension “would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brinkley Park Conservation Area” and the proximity of the extension in relation to the side boundary “does not afford an appropriately generous space in this location” (Conservation Area).

6. Planning application ref. 07/03424 was approved by the Council on the 20

th

November 2007 for a first floor extension which will be supported on piers creating a void at ground floor level. The first floor extension will project 2.0m beyond the current rear façade of the dwelling and will be approximately 5.0m in width sitting 3.4m from the western façade of the dwelling. The extension cumulates in a pitched roof design which sits approximately 7.5m above ground level. At the time of the site visit, this approval had not been implemented.

7. The current application ref. 07/04530 is similar in nature to planning application ref.

06/02700 which was refused by the Council for a first floor side and rear extension. The difference being that the applicant has separated the two aspects proposed within that application into two separate applications for a first floor side, being refs. 07/04530 and 07/03424 for a two storey rear extension.

As such, the current proposal is a revised application aimed at resolving the refusal grounds imposed within Decision Notice ref. 06/02700.

Assessment

Firstly, the neighbour has referenced a number of Appeal Decisions within the Bickley Park Conservation Area which were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate to support their objection to the development namely: 1. Appeal Decision AAP/G5180/A/02/110925 for the removal of the existing 3 storey

building containing 5 apartments; construction of 4 no.2 storey single bed apartments; construction of 1 no. detached dwelling located at 11 Denbridge Road, Bickley.

2. Appeal Decision AAP/G5180/A/06/2012994 for the construction of 3 no. apartments

and parking area located at the land front of 11 Denbridge Road, Bickley

79

3. Appeal Decision AAP/G5180/A/06/20300264 for the erection of detached dwelling

with attached garage located at the land rear of 8 Denbridge Road, Bickley. 4. Appeal Decision AAP/G5180/A/06/2023382 for the construction of a single

residential dwelling, together with a new vehicular access position located No.‟s 24 and 24A St Georges Road, Bickley.

In response, the Applicant has also highlighted development along Woodlands Road which he believes is development which has been approved/established within the Bickley Park Conservation Area which is in close proximity to side boundaries namely:

LLB Decision ref. 07/00099 for a detached two storey 5 bedroom house with accommodation in the roof space with integral double garage and pool room (revised design to permitted application ref. 06/01373) located at Silverdale 15A Woodlands Road, Bromley. LLB Decision ref. 06/01856 for a “Detached two storey four bedroom house with accommodation in roof and attached triple garage with accommodation over and detached two storey six bedroom house with accommodation in roof and attached double garage (Amendments to scheme permitted under ref. 05/02310 including revisions to site area and vehicular access to plot 2, elevational alterations and deletion of basement accommodation to plot 1)” located at The Pines and The Firs in Woodlands Road. Planning permission ref. 06/01856 is in essence an amendment to an Appeal Decision Ref.: APP/G5180/A/02/1086650 against the Council‟s original decision (ref. 01/02684) for a the establishment of two detached,

seven-bedroom houses each with detached garage and access drive.

In considering the merits of the above decisions, it should be highlighted that all the proposals are/were for the introduction of a new dwelling within an existing residential environment which would significantly reduce the spaciousness of the Conservation Area as opposed to an extension(s) to an existing dwelling(s).

It is also highlighted that planning decision ref. 07/00099 for Silverdale 15A Woodlands Road, Bromley proposes a 2 metre separation from the side boundary at which point the dwelling is a single storey in nature while decision ref. 06/01856 for The Firs/The Pines proposes a 2.6m (approx.) space between the dwellings (being 1.2m from the boundary for The Firs and 1.4m from the boundary for The Pines). However, the dwellings which existed at the site prior to Appeal decision were semi-detached in nature and is considered one of the reasons the Inspectorate allowed the appeal in the first instance.

Notwithstanding the above decisions, it is considered the main focus in determining the application is whether the applicant has amended the application to a degree which addresses the grounds of refusal imposed by the Council in Decision Notice ref. 06/02700 and as followed with by the Planning inspectorate under Appeal Decision APP/G5180/A/07/2036030/WF.

It is highlighted that the Inspector in summing up his appeal decision “considered the effect of the extension on the living conditions at Brinkley but did not find the proposal to be unacceptable in this respect stating there would be a reasonable distance between the two buildings and consequently good standards of light and outlook would remain”. I agree with this statement given the distance between the dwellings provided by the staggered formation of the dwellings coupled with vehicle access area, as opposed to private amenity

80

space within the front garden of Brinkley and that the change in topography between the One Chimney and Brinkley, with One Chimney sitting approximately 0.9m lower at the front elevation and approximately 1.2m lower at the rear elevation.

The applicant has attempted to address the spatial separation from the boundary by in-stepping the first floor by an additional 1.0m to that which was refused under ref. 06/02700. However, the Councils Policy H9 seeks to provide a side space to be retained over the full height and length of the flank wall of the dwelling to avert a cramped appearance to protect the spacious setting of properties and the character and appearance of the area. It is considered the proposed changes are not largely significant change as the development still represents a cramped appearance and does not complement the layout, scale and form of existing buildings and spaces and therefore does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation.

Conclusion 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. Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is not acceptable in that it would result in a loss of amenity to local residents Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/04530, excluding exempt information.


The reasons for refusal are:

1 The proposal would harm the character and appearance of this part of the Bickley

Park Conservation Area as it has insufficient side space to comply with the Council‟s requirements in respect of two storey development in the absence of which the extension would constitute a cramped form of development, out of character with the street scene, conductive to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is at present developed and contrary to Policies H9 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

________________________

section „1‟...three bedroom dwelling (class c3) proposal this property adjoins elmstead home for...

Documents