LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES … · 2010-02-16 · LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY...

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Committee (SC) on 2nd August 2007 REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER SECTION „1‟ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley NO APPLICATIONS

2

SECTION „2‟ - Applications meriting special consideration

_______________________ 1. Application No : 06/03294/FULL1 Ward :

Bromley Common And Keston

Address : Tall Timbers 2 Pine Glade Orpington Kent BR6 8NT

Conservation Area: Keston Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 542724 N: 164831

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Harland Objections : YES Description of Development: Two storey five bedroom detached replacement house with swimming pool enclosure and detached double garage Joint report with application ref. 07/00166 Proposal The applications propose the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a two storey five bedroom detached house with swimming pool enclosure and detached double garage. Consultations APCA - object as they consider the design to lack cohesion and sensitivity and the existing building to make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. From a heritage point of view it is considered that the existing house is well built and contributes to the CA. The proposed replacement building will damage the spatial standards of the CA by the substantial enlargement of the footprint by nearly 50%. One comment was received from a local resident concerning the congestion in Pine Glade likely to result from this and other permitted development. Planning Considerations In response to the criticisms of both applications made by APCA and from a heritage viewpoint the applicant commissioned independent conservation consultants to review the position. The consultants conclude that “the existing architectural design and detailing of the building is unremarkable”. Tall Timbers is not listed or locally listed. They consider that “the proposed replacement building will enhance the conservation

3

area and replace a building of unremarkable quality”. The full report is available on file and any comments received on it from APCA or others will be reported verbally. The relevant UDP policies are: - BE1 - Design of new development BE11 – Conservation areas BE12 – Demolition in conservation areas Planning Conclusions The main issues in these cases are the linked points of whether the existing property makes a positive contribution to the conservation area and whether the replacement property is a high quality replacement. There are no other technical issues which could be covered by conditions. Members will need to consider whether they prefer the views of those opposed to the scheme APCA and heritage and design over those offered by the applicant and his consultants. The comment on this material from APCA is awaited and will be reported verbally. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/03294 and 07/00166, 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 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 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 10 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 11 ACH11 Visibility splays (new buildings) (3 in) 2.4m x 2.4m x 2.4m 1m ACH11R Reason H11 12 ACH24 Stopping up of access ACH24R Reason H24

4

13 ACI01 Restriction of "pd" rights Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE11 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan

and in the interest of the character and appearance of the Keston Park Conservation Area and the residential amenities of adjacent properties.

14 ACI18 No additional hardstanding ACI18R I18 reason 15 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation areas NE7 Development and trees H7 Housing design D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1. The proposed building would be harmful to the character and appearance of the

Conservation Area contrary to Policy BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________ 2. Application No : 07/00166/CAC Ward :


Address : Tall Timbers 2 Pine Glade Orpington Kent BR6 8NT


OS Grid Ref: E: 542724 N: 164831

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Harland Objections : YES Description of Development: Demolition of existing dwelling CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT Joint report with application ref. 06/03294 RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACG01 Listed Building Conservation Area Consen ACG01R Reason G01

5

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1. The proposed demolition of the dwelling would result in the removal of a building

which makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, contrary to Policy BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.


Biggin Hill

Address : 10 Dowding Road Biggin Hill Westerham Kent TN16 3BG

Conservation Area:NO

OS Grid Ref: E: 541827 N: 159629

Applicant : Mr T Mitchell Objections : NO Description of Development: Single storey side extension for a garage and replacement boundary fence to a maximum height of 1880mm and enclosure of land from amenity space to residential use Proposal This proposal is for a single storey side extension for a garage and retrospective application for a replacement boundary fence to a maximum height of 1880mm and enclosure of land from amenity space to residential use. This element has now also been included in this application. This property is a semi-detached two storey property situated on a corner plot. This estate is very open, with low fences and open green areas to give the sense of space. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

the property has previously been extended, and therefore the single storey side extension is an overdevelopment of the site.

the fence is contrary to the covenant of the estate, which was introduced to make the estate feel “open”.

Planning Considerations

6

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan: Policy BE1, Design of New Development, states that all proposals should be of a high standard of design and layout, and should be attractive, complement the scale, form, layout and materials of the adjacent buildings and respect the existing street scene. Policy H8, Residential Extensions, states that the design and layout of proposals should respect the host dwelling, compatible with development in the surrounding area and space between buildings should be respected or maintained when these contribute to the character of the area. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. The single storey side extension element to this proposal will be adjacent to the two storey side extension which is currently being built under ref. 04/01440. The single storey side extension will be approximately 3.65m wide and run the full width of the house, approximately 7.4m and be 3.4m high with a pitched roof element to the front and flat at the rear. The extension will be approximately 2.6m from the boundary fence/hedge. The retrospective part of this application is for the boundary fence and use of land adjacent to Koonowla Close. Since the application was first submitted the trellis on top of the fence has been removed and the concrete pillars have been reduced to be inline with the top of the fence and it has been painted green, to be in-keeping with the area. The applicants have stated that the new fence is no higher than the original, and they have replaced them „like-for-like‟. Concerns were raised about the ownership of the land, this was clarified by Croydon Land Registry and all the land in question is in full ownership of the applicants. Also concern over the possible encroachment onto the open area adjacent to the garden as there is a covenant on the estate requiring the land to be open-plan (an extract from the deeds is on file ref. 06/02709 letter dated 23rd November 2006). Further investigation of aerial photographs showed that in 1998 the land was not bound by a fence, but by 2003 appears to have been. This is considered to be a material change of use and planning permission is required, this has been included in the current application. Having had regard to the above and considering the changes the applicants have carried out in respect to the above proposal it is considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 06/02709, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions:

7

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 INFORMATIVE(S) 1 Enforcement action be authorised for the removal of the shed in the rear garden.


Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 7 Barnhill Avenue Bromley BR2 9DP


OS Grid Ref: E: 539732 N: 167554

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Mahendra Patel Objections : YES Description of Development: First floor side/rear extension Proposal The application site comprises a two storey semi-detached house. The surrounding area is predominantly residential characterised by semi-detached properties. The properties in this part of the road have north facing rear gardens. The property has previously been extended with a 5 metre (approximately) deep, flat roofed, ground floor rear extension (as scaled from the existing rear elevation of the building), built up to the flank boundary with No.9 Avenue. The current proposal is to extend over this extension at first floor level. The applicants also wish to erect a detached garden building at the end of the garden. This would appear to not require planning permission provided that this element falls under the requirements of “Permitted development”. As such, any objections in relation to this building have not been accounted for in this report. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

8

impact on light and air to neighbouring properties

building on property boundary

overdevelopment

inaccuracies in plans

loss of neighbouring properties usability by reason of loss of light

minimal outside space at property

structural damage to neighbouring properties

loss of views from neighbouring properties

flat-roof of first floor extension is like a shoe box

no other first floor extensions in neighbourhood Planning Considerations Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design and safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties, the spatial characteristics of the area and the visual amenities of the area. Conclusions Originally the applicants proposed that the first floor extension would cover the full width and depth of the existing ground floor extension. However, it was considered that this would have seriously detrimental effects on the amenities of the neighbouring properties by reason of loss of outlook and loss of light. As such revised plans were submitted with the following amendments:

depth of first floor extension reduced from approx. 5 to 3.4 metres (as scaled from the existing rear elevation of the building).

first floor extension brought in from the flank boundary with No.9 by approximately 1.8 metres.

first floor extension extended out to the side (towards boundary with No.5) over existing garage by approximately 1.6 metres.

It was considered that the resulting impact of the revised scheme with these alterations would be considerably reduced. The positioning of the extension further away from the flank boundary with No.9 as well as the reduction in depth would have less of a significant impact on their light and prospect. However, with the first floor extension now extending out to the side of the property, a 1 metre minimum side space from the side boundary of the site was required for the full height and length of the flank wall of the property. In order to achieve this applicants decided to demolish the existing ground floor garage and replace it with a narrower building upon which the first floor extension would sit, complete with a 1 metre side space to the flank boundary. Revised plans to that effect were submitted. To summarise, the proposed first floor extension is approximately 3.4 metres deep (as scaled from the existing rear elevation of the building) by approximately 5.1 metres wide. Between the eastern flank boundary with No.9 and the side of the extension there is an approximate separation of 1.8 metres. On the other side there is a 1 metre side space.

9

As the properties in this part of the road have north facing rear gardens then light reaching neighbouring properties may be effected by the extension early in the morning and later on nearer the evening. In terms of visual impact it is considered that there is a large enough separation to not have significant impact on the outlook from No‟s 5 and 9. Members will need to consider both of these aspects. The extension will incorporate a flat roof which will be visible from the front of the property. Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that: “Where possible, the extension should incorporate a pitched roof and include a sympathetic roof design and materials. In particular, flat-roofed side extensions of two or more storeys to dwellings of traditional roof design will normally be resisted unless the extension is well set back from the building line and is unobtrusive.” Members will also therefore need to consider the merits of the proposed roof design and whether or not it is set far enough back to have a significant impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/00956, excluding exempt information. As amended by documents received on 8.5.2007 8.6.2007 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 ACI09 Side space (1 metre) (1 insert) western ACI09R Reason I09 4 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) eastern, southern or western first floor

rear extension ACI13R I13 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 D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 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, loss of light and prospect, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

10

2. The proposed extension is of a poor design, incongruous in appearance, which

would be harmful to the appearance of the existing dwelling and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.


Chelsfield And Pratts Bottom

Address : The Buff Orpington Pinewood Drive Orpington Kent BR6 9NL


OS Grid Ref: E: 545451 N: 164386

Applicant : Greene King Pub Co Objections : YES Description of Development: Flat roof canopy and patio area with fenced enclosure in service yard Proposal This application proposes to erect a flat roofed canopy and fence off an area in the service yard to be used as an area for smoking. The Buff Public House is located in a local parade at the end of a crescent of shops with residential to the north-west, the south and the north (flats over shops) of the pub; there is an access road between the site of the pub and the dwellings to the north-west, with a reasonable amount of natural screening. Operating hours are Monday – Thursday 11am -11pm; Fridays 11am -12 midnight; Saturdays 11am – 11pm and Sundays 12 noon – 10.30pm. Consultations Local objections have been received and have been summarised as follows:

increase in noise level from users of the covered area and from the new access door left open – live music on occasions will exacerbate this

concerns over lighting issues

smell and health related issues

should consider alternative siting to front of pub No objections are raised in relation to highways issues.

11

Environmental Health advise that a condition on the Premises Licence currently will restrict the use of the structure to the effect that the garden/patio of the premises shall not be used after 21.30 on any night and no regulated entertainment is to take place in the garden/patio area of the premises. They advise that the application may be considered as a substantial alteration of the premises under the terms of the Licensing act 2003 and that a variation of the premises licence may be required. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be determined in accordance with Policy BE1 (Design of New Development) of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 advises that development should respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings and those of future occupants. Conclusions In terms of its design the flat roof canopy is unlikely to have any impact on the street scene given its concealed location in the delivery yard. No Highways concerns are raised as the proposal will not prevent the delivery vehicles from operating in a similar way as at present. The main issue therefore is around the impact that the proposal will have on the amenity currently enjoyed by occupiers of nearby residential properties. Local objections have been raised mainly from the properties to the north-west of the site. The need for the shelter arises following recent Government legislation. This legislation will potentially have a huge impact on business if customers have no provision to smoke, particularly in inclement weather. Other local public houses already seem to have facilities in place. This needs to be carefully weighed up with safeguarding the amenities for nearby residents. Other feasible locations for the shelter will still be near residential properties. It should be noted that restrictive hours of use of the garden/patio area have been dealt with under other legislation and therefore the hours of use of the shelter will need to be in line with those as imposed under the Premises Licence. This will help to safeguard against concerns raised from nearby neighbours. Given this, Members may consider that the grant of planning permission is appropriate for this particular proposal. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/01243, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 28.06.2007 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

12

Policy (UDP) BE1 Design of new development INFORMATIVE(S) 1 You should be aware that planning approval does not constitute or imply

compliance with the Health Act 2006, the Licensing Act 2003 or associated regulations. The applicant is advised to contact the Licensing Team for further advice.


Orpington

Address : Glen House 32 Sevenoaks Road Orpington Kent BR6 9JJ


OS Grid Ref: E: 546025 N: 165640

Applicant : Knoll Rise Surgery Objections : YES Description of Development: Single storey front, side and rear extensions, side and rear dormer extensions, 7 car parking spaces at front and rear and change of use to doctors surgery Proposal The application site is located in the corner of Sevenoaks Road and The Avenue. The site is currently a detached two-storey residential dwelling. The area is comprised of a mixture of semi-detached and detached residential buildings with a relatively high spatial standard. A large nursing home, Sycamore Lodge, is situated opposite the site on The Avenue. The proposal is for a change of use from a single dwelling house to a doctor‟s surgery including single storey front, side and rear extensions and side and rear dormers. The single storey front extension would extend the width of the existing porch to create a lobby and an access ramp. To the side a small extension is proposed to create the main entrance lobby for patients. To the rear the single storey extension would project 5m in depth, extending across the full width of the property. Side and rear dormers are also proposed. There would be 4 consultation rooms on the ground floor and a further 4 on the first floor; these would include consultation rooms for doctors, treatment, minor surgery

13

room, district nurse, practice nurse and counselling. A further room is proposed within the roof space and would be used for either practice manager , secretary and archive storage or as required. Seven car parking spaces are also proposed including 1 space for disabled parking and the remainder for surgery staff. There are currently 2 vehicular accesses serving the site both fronting Sevenoaks Road, the access closest to the junction with the Avenue will be stopped up while the access adjacent to the boundary with No. 30 Sevenoaks Road will be retained serving as an entry point only. A new crossover is proposed in the Avenue adjacent to the boundary with “Squirrels Leap” serving as an exit point for vehicles. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and the following objections were received:

parking of cars at the rear of the property will be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties by reason of interfering with the quiet enjoyment of rear gardens

the proposed extensions are out of character with the area and disproportionate to the size of the plot and would create an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the amenities of the adjoining owners

traffic problems will arise and there is insufficient site parking for the proposed use,

proposal will lead to parking congestion on adjacent roads

there will be a proliferation of non-residential uses in the area From a highways point of view, as Sevenoaks Road is a London Distribution Route it would be preferable for both accesses from this road to be stopped up with just the new access to The Avenue. There is sufficient room for turning within the site if bays 1-4 were re-arranged and located to the boundary with No. 30. A pedestrian access to Sevenoaks Road may be more appropriate. Conditions are suggested to ensure that on-site parking is arranged accordingly and adequate sight-lines etc are provided. The applicants have been advised of these suggested changes and any comments received will be reported verbally at Committee. The Bromley NHS Primary Care Trust supports the proposal. Planning Considerations Relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are BE1 (design of new development) T3 (parking) T6 (pedestrians), C1 (community facilities), C3 (access for buildings for people with disabilities), and C4 (health facilities). Relevant planning history includes an application (ref. 93/02043) for the continued use of part of the ground floor as an office permitted in 1993 and a single storey side/rear and side dormer extensions permitted in 2006 but yet to be implemented (ref. 06/02693).

14

An application for a 2 storey side and rear extension including front and rear dormers and conversion of dwelling into 4 two bedroom and 1 one bedroom flats with associated parking was refused in 2005 (ref. 05/02052) on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the area and detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties. The proposal also contravened the Council‟s side space policy. More recently in 2007 (ref. 06/04290) planning permission was refused for a proposal comprising part one / two storey rear and single storey side extensions incorporating access ramps and side dormer extensions and change of use to doctors surgery. The main differences with the current proposal are the reduction of the scale of the development to the rear, namely deletion of the first floor element of the proposal from the scheme. 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. With respect to the change of use to a doctors‟ surgery, policy C4 states that applications for new health care facilities will be permitted provided that they are accessible by public transport. It is considered that as the site has a high PTAL value, the change of use would comply with this policy. The proposal also incorporates sufficient access to the facility for disabled users. The extensions are of a reduced scale and the deletion of the first floor rear element has reduced the bulk particularly in relation to the neighbouring property „Squirrels Leap‟. The number of parking spaces has been increased from 5 to 7 in an effort to accommodate staff parking within the site. The 3 car parking spaces to the rear of the site would be parallel with Squirrels Leap. It is considered that the extension has now been reduced to a more acceptable size, however the site is located on a prominent corner plot and Members will need to consider whether this development would have an adverse impact on the street scene. Whilst Members are advised that new health facilities are encouraged within the Borough, this needs to be weighed against the impact the proposed extensions and change of use will have on the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. The parking area in the rear garden has been located approx 5.8m away from the garden of No 30 Sevenoaks Road, which should enable some planting to be carried out to provide a „buffer‟. The nearest space to Squirrels Leap, The Avenue, will be adjacent to the flank wall of that property, which includes flank windows to a lounge and dining room. Members will need to consider whether the existing boundary planting or the provision of additional fencing would be sufficient to overcome the concerns of the neighbour. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 93/02043, 05/02052, 06/02693, 06/04290 and 07/01472, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested:

15

1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACH02 Satisfactory parking - no details submit ACH02R Reason H02 4 ACH12 Vis. splays (vehicular access) (2 in) 3.3m x 2.4m x 3.3m 1m ACH12R Reason H12 5 The accesses to Sevenoaks Road shall be stopped up at the back edge of the

highway before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied in accordance with details of an enclosure to be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. The approved enclosure shall be permanently maintained as such.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy T11 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the pedestrian and vehicular safety.

6 Details of a scheme to light the access drive and car parking areas hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted is commenced, and the approved scheme shall be implemented before the development is first occupied and the lighting shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy T3 and Appendix II of the Unitary Development Plan, in the interest of visual amenity and the safety of occupiers of and visitors to the development.

7 Details of the finished surfaces of the driveway and parking areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and the driveway and parking areas shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before the doctors surgery hereby permitted are first occupied.

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

8 ACJ01 Restriction on use (2 inserts) a doctor's surgery D1 Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the

interests of the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. 9 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development T3 Parking T6 Pedestrians C1 Community facilities C3 Access to buildings for people with disabilities C4 Health facilities INFORMATIVE(S) 1 You should contact extension 4621 (020 8313 4621 direct line) at the

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

16

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site, by reason of the

excessive depth of projection of the single storey rear extension and the amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces, out of character with the area, detrimental to the streetscene and contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposal would be harmful to the amenities of the neighbouring residential

properties by reason of the close proximity of parking spaces to neighbouring properties and the generally overintensive use of the site, thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.


Shortlands

Address : 17 Styles Way Beckenham Kent BR3 3AJ

Conservation Area: Park Langley

OS Grid Ref: E: 538413 N: 168099

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Sealy Objections : YES Description of Development: Single storey front extension/first floor side extension/single storey rear extension and pitched roof to existing garage and alterations to existing driveway Proposal The application site is a 2-storey, detached dwelling situated on the northern side of Styles Way within the Park Langley Conservation Area in Beckenham. The road is fronted by similar type houses of various designs on similar sized plots and the majority of the properties are built to a regular building line. However the property in question covers a significantly larger area of the plot in comparison to other properties in the locality. The proposal comprises a single storey front extension, a first floor side extension, a single storey rear extension, a pitched roof to the existing garage and alterations to the existing driveway. The current application follows on from a previous application that was refused in 2003 for a first floor side and single storey front and rear extensions, including rear balconies.

17

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and the following representations were received from the Park Langley Resident‟s Association:

already a substantial property covering most of the width of the plot at ground floor level;

although the development at first floor level can be accommodated without contravening Policy H9 regarding side space, the Association questions whether the spatial standards as proposed will be sufficient;

this proposal could lead to an overdevelopment at the site;

question whether the proposal preserves or enhances the area, or even has a neutral effect, or whether the added bulk will lead to overdevelopment detrimental to the character of the conservation area.

The Highways Officer has highlighted that Styles Way is not a classified road, and that there are other properties in the road with in and out drives. There is more than 5 metres between the drives and there is minimal on-street parking in the road. Therefore, no objection is received from a Highways point of view. There is no objection to the proposal from a tree point of view, subject to a standard condition being applied. From a conservation aspect, it is considered that some form of development at first floor level would be beneficial in „tidying‟ up the appearance of the property on the eastern side. However it is considered that the current proposal is bulky and not subservient to the host building, and it is therefore suggested that any first floor extension is set back from the main front building line. Accordingly, these suggestions could be looked at in greater detail before support is given from a conservation point of view. Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas did not inspect this application and therefore no comments have been received. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to policies BE1, BE11, 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 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 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.

18

As regards to history, a first floor side and single storey front and rear extensions, including rear balconies, was refused under ref. 03/01079 on the following ground:

The proposed extensions would by reason of their size, bulk, poor design and proximity to the side boundary result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site harmful to the spatial characteristics of the Park Langley Conservation Area and the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, thereby contrary to Policies E.1, H.3 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Park Langley Conservation Area and Policies BE1, H8 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

A more recent application was submitted, ref. 07/01664, for an outdoor swimming pool and detached single storey building at rear for pool house and was refused in June 2007 on the following ground:

The development would prejudice the retention and well-being of a mature oak tree along the eastern property boundary which is protected within the Park Langley Conservation Area, therefore contrary to Policies BE1, BE14 and NE7 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 conservation 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. It is also essential to compare the current application with the previous case in order to assess whether the changes result in acceptable or unacceptable development. The proposed single storey rear extension is to be sited along the entire width of the main dwellinghouse. It is to measure approximately 17.35 metres in width to match the width of the existing dwellinghouse, not including the existing single storey attached garage. Along the western flank, the proposed single storey rear extension is to measure approximately 4.2 metres in depth, this will then be reduced in the middle of the extension to measure approximately 3.05 metres in depth, and will then extend again to measure approximately 4.5 metres in depth along the western flank of this aspect of the proposed rear extension. The existing front porch is to be altered to measure approximately 3 metres in depth to include a canopy, and is to be slightly reduced in width from approximately 3.2 metres as existing, to measure approximately 2.95 metres in width. At first floor level, there is proposed development above the existing single storey sitting room, which is currently a flat roof extension after planning permission was granted. The first floor aspect is to measure approximately 6.3 metres in width and approximately 7.9 metres in depth. There is to be a bay window in the front elevation towards the eastern side in order to match the existing bay window in the front elevation towards the western side. It is proposed that the first floor extension will be set back approximately 350mm from the forward most part of the main dwellinghouse. The floor area of the existing garage is to remain as existing, however the workshop to the rear of the garage is to be extended by approximately 3.5 metres in width where the

19

workshop adjoins the garage, and approximately 1.6 metres in width at the rear most aspect of the workshop. A plain tile pitched roof is proposed on top of the existing single storey garage and extended workshop, with the roof being hipped in an effort to minimise loss of light to the neighbouring property. The height of the garage/workshop and the pitched roof when combined will be approximately 2.35 metres up to the eaves and approximately 4.8 metres to include the roof. Along with the addition of a new roof, it is also proposed to replace the existing double metal door with a timber door which will include glazed panel inserts, in an attempt to complement the character of the Park Langley Conservation Area. Alterations to the existing driveway are also proposed, which includes creating an in/out driveway and therefore felling a Leylandii tree. No objections were received from the tree officer or the Highways department regarding this aspect of the proposal. Despite the proposal to fell a large Leylandii tree, it is proposed that extensive landscaping will take place to the front of the property and important hedging will be retained on existing boundaries to prevent loss of privacy to both the applicants and neighbouring properties. Existing upvc windows are also to be replaced with timber windows in order to match them with the original windows at the property. It is considered that this will enhance the appearance of the dwellinghouse. It is considered that the existing dwelling as it stands does not make a positive contribution to the Park Langley Conservation Area, and especially the existing flat roof extension and garage detract somewhat from the character of the area. Whilst from a conservation stance it is considered that come form of development at first floor level over the existing flat roof would make a positive contribution to the existing dwellinghouse, it may be considered that the current proposal is considered rather bulky and could be reduced somewhat to be more subservient to the host dwelling. Accordingly, Members will need to assess this application carefully. The current proposal has been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous refusal grounds from 2003. There is no habitable accommodation proposed at first floor level above the garage/workshop area, and it can be argued that this reduces the bulk of the proposal overall, however the proposed single storey rear extension under the current proposal does increase the floor area in comparison to the application in 2003. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 03/01079 and 07/01664, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACC02 Sample brickwork panel ACC02R Reason C02 4 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03

20

5 ACI14 No balcony (1 insert) the single storey rear extension ACI14R I14 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8 6 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1, BE11 and H8 of the Unitary

Development Plan. 7 ACI19 Rest. on use of roof space/first (1 in) roof space ACI19R I19 reason 8 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation areas H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space


Shortlands

Address : 42 Malmains Way Beckenham Kent BR3 6SB


OS Grid Ref: E: 538607 N: 168129

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Vasudevan Objections : YES Description of Development: Two storey side and single storey rear extensions Proposal The application site is within an Area of Special Residential Character and situated on the south western elevation side of Malmains Way and comprises a two storey detached house. The property is located in a residential area characterised by detached houses built in the 1930s. Permission is sought for a two storey side and single storey rear extension. The two storey side extension is about 2.3m wide and goes back the whole length of the property to the existing rear building line. The roof line shall be hipped hence at the lowest part towards No 44 the height of the wall shall about 5m. The distance from the flank wall of the two storey side extension to the boundary line towards No 44 is about 1.4m for the majority of the flank wall until approximately 1.8m from the existing rear building line of the property where the boundary line is more set in towards that of the property at No 42 hence the distance gradually reduces back from this point to a

21

distance of about 1.2m. There are two proposed windows on the flank elevation of the two storey side extension both of which are small and obscure glazed. One of which shall be at a first floor level and one on the ground floor level. The single storey rear extension is about 3.5m deep, 5.2m wide and about 3.7m high to the pitch of the roof. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which are summarised below -

loss of light

cramped overdevelopment of the site

lower the spatial standards of the Area of Special Residential Character

distance from the flank wall of the two storey side extension to the flank wall of the neighbouring property shall be inadequate

Any further comments will be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations The main policies relevant to this case are Policies H8, H9 H10 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 proposal of two or more storeys in height a minimum sides pace of 1 metre must be retained for the full height and length of the flank wall. Where higher standards of separation exist 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 H10 requires that properties within these classified areas respect and complement the established and individual qualities of the individual areas. Development should be sympathetic to the distinctive characteristics of the area and provide a high standard of residential amenity. 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 Under ref. 06/03498 an application similar to that now submitted under ref. 07/01699 was refused under delegated powers and further dismissed at appeal. The differences between the two applications are that the previous application‟s two storey side extension was wider and hence the distance to the boundary with divides

22

No. 42 from 44 was smaller and ranged from 1.2m for the majority of the flank wall until approximately 1.8m from the existing rear building line of the property where the boundary line is more set in towards that of the property as No. 42 hence the distance gradually reduces back from this point to a distance of about 1 m. This ground of refusal was as follows:- „The proposed two storey side extension, by reason of its proximity to the flank boundary will constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site, harmful to the amenity of the adjoining property, out of character with the street scene and conductive to a retrograde lowering of spatial standards to which the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character is at present developed, contrary to Policies BE1, H8, H9 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan.‟ The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that there would be a loss of light to the first floor bedroom window on the north western elevation of No. 44 as this is the only window which serves the bedroom. It was considered that the proposed two storey side extension of No 42 would further lead to a reduction in light to the living room windows on the ground floor level of the northern western elevation of No. 44. It was considered that the proposal would lead to a cramped development and lower the spatial standards of the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character. As the proposed two storey side extension is within the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character standards of separation are higher hence proposals are expected to provide a more generous side space. In this instance the distance from the flank wall of the two storey side extension to the boundary line towards No. 44 is about 1.4m for the majority of the flank wall until approximately 1.8m from the existing rear building line of the property where the boundary line is more set in towards that of the property at No. 42 hence the distance gradually reduces back from this point to a distance of about 1.2m which is greater than the 1m side space requirement for areas which are not within an area of special residential character. It may therefore be deemed that this is an appropriate standard of separation for the area. However due to the neighbouring property No. 44 having a bedroom at first floor level which is purely served by one window on the north western elevation it may be considered that the side space provided is inadequate as it shall lead to a loss of outlook to No. 44 and possibly a loss of light although as the bedroom window in question of No. 44 is north facing the loss of light is considered to be minimal. Accordingly, members views are requested on the matter to consider whether the revised application has sufficiently overcome the previous grounds of appeal or whether the neighbours amenities are unduly harmed. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 06/01699, 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

23

ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) on the first floor south-eastern

elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) H8 4 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: 5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space H10 Areas of special residential character BE1 Design of new development D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1. The proposed two storey side extension, by reason of its proximity to the flank

boundary will constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site, harmful to the amenity of the neighbouring property, out of character with the street scene and conducive to a retrograde lowering of spatial standards to which the Park Langley Area of Special Residential Character is at present developed, contrary to Policies BE1, H8, H9 and H10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________ 9. Application No : 07/01811/PLUD Ward :

Penge And Cator

Address : 40 Oak Grove Road London SE20 7RQ


OS Grid Ref: E: 535230 N: 169445

Applicant : Mrs Theresa Y Smith Objections : YES Description of Development: Use as 5 bedroom residential care home CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED USE Proposal The application site is located on the south-western side of Oak Grove Road. The plot is uniform in width (approx. 9m) and is approx. 33m deep. Oak Grove Road is a predominantly residential area, with a mixture of semi-detached and terraced dwellings.

24

The host property is a semi-detached dwelling, which has a part one/two storey extension at the rear. It is proposed to use the dwelling as a 5 bedroom residential care home, providing accommodation for men and women aged 18-65 with ongoing mental health needs with varying levels of independence. The home will provide low levels of support for residents who no longer need to be in hospital, aiding their reintegration within the community. The residents would be under the supervision and monitoring of a trained and qualified mental health/psychiatric nurse. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations (including a petition signed by 59 residents) were received which can be summarised as follows:

proposed use is unsuitable for host property

potential increase in traffic and pressure on parking due to deliveries, visitors etc.

detrimental impact on local property prices

increased noise and disturbance

proposed use will change character of street

Oak Grove Road is a quiet and well established community

detrimental impact on local safety and security, particularly given nursery located close by

concerns for safety of local children

residents will be unpredictable

site notice not displayed in a prominent position

commercial use inappropriate in residential street

lack of information on proposed use

works have been undertaken at property without planning permission In respect of legal opinion, it has been advised that the proposed use is either within Class C3 or is not materially different from a Class C3 use. Any further comments will be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations Planning permission was granted under ref. 82/00524 for a part one/two storey rear extension to the property. The application requires the Council to consider whether the proposed use as a 5 bedroom residential care home would result in a material change in the use of the land. This decision will be based on the factual information provided by the applicant and will take account of legal opinion. In this case the planning merits of the scheme are not relevant. The current use of the property falls within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Use Classes (Amendment) Order 2006. Class C3 is defined as use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence) by a single person or by people living together as a family, or by not more than six residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents). Where

25

unrelated residents live together as a single household, this will include disabled and mentally disordered people living in the community rather than in institutions. Members may wish to note that in preparing the property for the proposed use, alterations have been made without planning permission. These consist of an outbuilding at the end of the garden and a conservatory – both of which have been partially constructed. While the outbuilding is likely to fall within the limits of „permitted development‟, the conservatory would, in light of the previous two storey addition to the property, require planning permission. In addressing this issue, a retrospective planning application for the conservatory was formally requested, and is to be found on this agenda under ref. 07/02247. Conclusions On the basis of the information submitted and taking into account legal opinion it is considered that the proposed use as a 5 bedroom residential care home would either fall within Class C3 or is not materially different from a Class C3 use. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/01811 and 07/02247 excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 26.06.2007 RECOMMENDATION: CERTIFICATE BE GRANTED The proposed use would not result in a material change of use requiring planning permission.

_______________________

10. Application No : 07/01794/PLUD Ward :

Darwin

Address : Holmehurst Single Street Berrys Green Westerham Kent TN16 3AA


OS Grid Ref: E: 543436 N: 159664

Applicant : Mr Simmons And Mrs Wyatt Objections : NO Description of Development: Replacement mobile home CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposal

26

The application site is a plot of land of 0.18 hectares located within The Metropolitan Green Belt. The land consists of an existing access track with a series of outbuildings located against the northern boundary of the site and an existing mobile home, measuring 8.32 meters in length by 2.83 metres in width, which was subject to a lawful development certificate in 2001 (ref. 01/03035). The mobile home and the existing outbuildings are off a poor state of repair and of little positive contribution to the landscape of the area. The site is situated on a significant gradient and slopes heavily downwards to the west of the entrance, with the existing mobile home is located at the lowest point of the site. To the north boundary is Greatfield Farm, whilst to the east is a property called Amberley. The western boundary is adjacent to open Green Belt land. The proposal seeks a certificate of lawfulness for a replacement mobile home as allowed under The Caravan Act 1968. section 29(1) of the 1960 Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act defines a Caravan as; “A caravan/mobile home comprised of not more than two section which does not when assembled, exceed 60ft in length, 20ft in width and 10ft overall height of living accommodation (measured internally)” The proposed replacement will be of a larger size than what currently exists, measuring 12m in length by 6 metres in depth, but within the definition of a caravan as defined by the above mentioned Act. Consultations From a legal point of view the previous certificate of lawfulness ref. 01/03035 did not specify the size of the caravan granted under this application, and only highlighted the area approved on a site plan at the scale of 1:2500 making it very difficult to accurately determine the extent of the area subject to the consent. In light of this it was considered on balance of probabilities that a certificate be granted. Planning Considerations The previous certificate approval ref. 01/03035 for the residential use of the existing caravan was granted, because the use had occurred continuously for a period in excess of 10 years. A full planning application has also been lodged seeking permission for a larger mobile home in an alternative position under ref. 07/01791. This incorporates the removal of a series of existing outbuildings. The proposal is for a certificate of lawfulness and therefore is a legal determination and not subject to development plan policies or assessment of its planning merits. Conclusions On the basis of the information submitted and taking into account legal opinion it is considered that the proposed replacement mobile home is lawful by virtue of the Caravans Act 1968 and that a certificate should be granted specifying the specific

27

measurements of the mobile home approved, in order to enforce any future applications. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 01/03035 and 07/01791, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: CERTIFICATE BE GRANTED The replacement mobile home would be lawful by virtue of the Caravan Act 1968.


Penge And Cator

Address : 22 Cator Road London SE26 5DS

Conservation Area: Cator Road

OS Grid Ref: E: 535874 N: 170757

Applicant : Marleigh Enterprises Ltd Objections : YES Description of Development: Elevational alterations/two storey side/single storey rear and rear dormer extensions and conversion into 1 one bedroom and 6 two bedroom flats with 6 car parking spaces Proposal The application site is situated on the east side of Cator Road at the south end of the Cator Road Conservation Area, and is currently a vacant building, previously used as a residential care home. The area is characterised by large detached Victorian houses set within spacious plots, approximately 15m x 75m, which contributes to the character of the Conservation Area. Immediately to the south, No. 18 lies outside of the Conservation Area. To the south, Lennard Road comprises of smaller, semi-detached dwellings. It is proposed to erect a two storey side and single storey rear extension, and convert the building into 6 two bedroom flats and 1 one bedroom flat, with 6 car parking spaces to the front. The side extension will have a subservient roof, maintaining a 1m side space to the flank boundary. A rear dormer is proposed to serve the accommodation in the roof space.

28

Measurements taken from the drawings submitted show that the resulting building will be a maximum 14m in width and 19.5m in depth. A side space of 1.5m will be retained to both flank boundaries. The building will be set back 11m form the highway. A new vehicular access is proposed in the centre of the frontage, replacing the existing access to the south of the frontage. Consultations Local residents were consulted and no representations have been received. The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) has raised concerns that the proposal is a poor design and that the extension should be subordinate to the main building. It is commented that flats in this location do not need parking spaces and that the central access point is discordant. Windows should be box sash. Environmental Health concerns were raised regarding the means of escape from Flat 7. This has been addressed with amended plans. Concern was also raised regarding levels of natural light to flank windows in light of the proximity of the buildings. From a technical highways perspective, no objection is raised with regard to the proposed number of parking spaces and layout subject to safeguarding conditions requiring visibility splay and secure cycle storage. There are no drainage or Thames Water objections to the proposal. Any subsequent comments received will be verbally reported at the Committee meeting. Planning Considerations The proposal should be considered principally with regard to H7, BE1, BE11, T11 and T18 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (2006). These concern the design of housing/new development, preserving and enhancing conservation areas, as well as issues of highway safety relating to new accesses particularly. In addition, the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Cator Road Conservation Area requires that extensions should be ideally to the rear and that side extensions should not be flush with the front building line. Dormers should also be on the rear roof slopes. Areas of hardstanding to the front of properties should be kept to a minimum. Advice in PPS3 “Housing” encourages local planning authorities to maximise the potential of sites while at the same time producing good design compatible with the surrounding area. A previous scheme on the site was withdrawn under ref. 07/00352 due to problems with payment of the fee. This application proposed a conversion into 7 flats with 7 parking spaces. Prior to withdrawal, highways concerns were raised in respect of manoeuvring of vehicles on the site. The current scheme reduces the parking to 6 spaces and increases the single storey side extension to a two storey one, increasing the internal floor space.

29

There are other examples of recent planning history on the road for conversions and similar extensions. A conversion into 5 flats was refused under ref. 87/02272 on the following grounds: 1. The site is located in the Cator Road Conservation Area and the conversion of the

property in the manner proposed would be out of character and contrary to Policy H2 of the Bromley Borough Plan.

2. The proposed conversion would result in an overintensive use of the property, detrimental to the amenities of the area, and thereby unacceptable in terms of Policy H5 (ii) and (iii) of the Bromley Borough Plan.

3. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to set a pattern for similar undesirable conversions, detrimental to the character and amenities of the Conservation Area and prejudicial to approved policy.

This proposal was granted permission on appeal. The Inspector Stated that:

In this case there is no disagreement that the property is of adequate size to be subdivided nor is there criticism of the space standards and layout of the flats. I therefore conclude that this property is of an individual nature on the east side of Cator Road and its conversion in the manner proposed would not cause demonstrable harm to the area; nor would it lead to a precedent being created.

An application for a part one/two storey side and two storey rear extensions and conversion into 2 one bedroom and 4 two bedroom flats, formation of vehicular access and 9 car parking spaces at No. 12 Cator Road was refused under ref. 04/03097 on the following grounds: 1. The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site, out of character

with adjoining development, and would thus be contrary to Policies H.2 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6 and BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

2. The size of the proposal, utilising the whole site frontage and with minimal side

space provision, would present a cramped appearance, detrimental to the street scene and contrary to Policies H.2 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6 and BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

3. The provision of an extensive area of hardstanding for car parking and

manoeuvring at the front of the site would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene, contrary to Policies H.2 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6 and BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

4. The proposed area of hardstanding would prejudice the retention and well-being

of an oak tree at the front of the site, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality and contrary to Policies H.2, E.1 and G.28 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6, BE1 and NE7 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

The proposal at No. 22 proposes a lower amount of parking and hardstanding, with a more generous side space retained to the flank boundaries. The application at No. 12

30

proposed a significantly sized side extension which utilised the entire width of the property. The current application at No. 22 proposes a side extension of 2.2m. Conclusions The main issue of concern in this instance is the impact of the proposed extension and alterations on the character and appearance of the Cator Road Conservation Area. In addition the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety, parking and the standard of accommodation. The Cator Road Conservation Area comprises large detached houses with spacious front and rear garden areas. There is a mix of housing types on the road, particularly on the eastern side, with examples of conversions such as No. 26. In this respect, such a proposal on this site is not considered to be out of character within the Conservation Area. In addition, the property is considered to be large, suitably capable of accommodating its conversion into 7 flats of adequate size. In terms of visual impact on the street scene, the proposed extension is set back from the front bay of the building, with a subservient roof. The extension is considered to tidy the appearance of the building and would not result in a significant visual impact on the Conservation Area. The design of the extension matches that of the host building. Although environmental health concerns had initially been raised with respect to natural light entering the flank windows, these are mostly existing; with only one proposed flank window on the two storey extension. This serves a bathroom and therefore natural light remains as existing for most of the building. Flat No. 4 possesses a small existing flank window; however, this is not considered a significant issue in light of the fact that the remainder of the flat has ample windows. In terms of parking, the provision of 6 spaces serving 7 flats is considered acceptable due to the difficulty in manoeuvring on site. There is not considered to be a parking problem on Cator Road and at present, an area of hardstanding exists at the property with space for approximately 2 cars. The location of the refuse storage to the front of the building, subject to screening to be approved by condition, is acceptable and details of the cycle parking can be conditioned. Given that the buildings on Cator Road share a similar building line, the side extension is not considered to impact detrimentally on the amenities of the neighbouring property at No. 18, subject to an obscure glazing condition. The area of hardstanding proposed to the front is unfortunate; however, Cator Road frontages and boundaries are extremely mixed and of varied quality and at present, much of the front of the property is hard surfaced and used for parking; however, a generous amount of landscaping obscures this and the proposal is not considered to be of significant detriment to the character of the area. Subject to landscaping and surface materials conditions, it is considered that the proposed enlarged area of hardstanding could be softened by adequate landscaping and front boundary enclosure. Although the proposed extension utilises the existing side space, the proposal is not considered to significantly alter the character of the Conservation Area or impact detrimentally on neighbouring amenities. The building is considered to be of adequate

31

size to comfortably accommodate the proposed number of flats, with adequate parking provided. The proposed conversion is therefore considered acceptable on balance. Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/00352 and 07/02045, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 05.07.2007 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION 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 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 4 ACC02 Sample brickwork panel ACC02R Reason C02 5 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 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) 3.3m x 2.4m x 3.3m 1m ACH11R Reason H11 9 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 10 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) on the first floor flank elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 11 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) first floor flank two storey

side extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 12 Details of the surface materials to be used for the hardstanding hereby permitted

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and be permanently maintained as such.

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

13 Details of the front boundary enclosure hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and be permanently maintained as such.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

14 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) H7 Housing density and design BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation areas

32

T11 New accesses T18 Road safety INFORMATIVE(S) 1 You should contact extension 4621 (020 8313 4621 direct line) at the

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



Address : 15 Forest Drive Keston Kent BR2 6EE


OS Grid Ref: E: 542245 N: 164567

Applicant : Mrs And Mrs Shand Objections : YES Description of Development: Two storey side and front, side and rear dormer extensions. Amendment of permission 07/00491 to incorporate roof alterations and rear balcony. Proposal The application site comprises a large two storey detached house. The property resides with a diverse mixture of large, detached properties within the Keston Park Conservation Area. The proposal is an amendment of a series of previous applications. The original grant of planning permission (ref. 05/04367) was for 2 two storey rear and front, side and rear dormer extensions. The two rear extensions took the form of two „wings‟ on the rear of the house. The applicants then applied to have an additional two storey rear extension in between the two wings under ref. 07/00491. The current proposal is for further amendments to include:

an increase in the height of the two rear wing extensions by 1.2 metres bringing them level with the main ridge height

33

an increase in the height of the existing front gable to continue the higher ridge line at the rear

a change in the roof design on the rear wings from gable to half-hipped ends

a balcony at the rear between the two wings Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

laurel screening to eastern property boundary has been removed

original application stated no planting would be removed

views from No.17 ruined due to removal of screening

loss of privacy at No.17 due to removal of screening

laurels are an essential element in the parks landscape structure

balcony will overlook into back garden and bedroom of neighbouring property (No.19)

raising of roof will damage views

amount of light to No.17 effected

gross overdevelopment of property

overdominant In terms of the trees at the site, it would appear that some of the screening at the property was removed. It would seem that planning permission would not have been needed for the removal of the Laurel screening. Following a meeting with the agents, in which they confirmed that the Corbel detailing on the front gable would be retained, from a conservation point of view there would appear to be no objections to this element. APCA were consulted and objected to the proposed amendments on the grounds that they will change the proportions and integrity of the approved scheme to its detriment. Planning Considerations Policies BE1,BE11 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 safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the Keston Park Conservation area. Applications for development in a Conservation Area will be required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. The Keston Park Conservation Area is characterised by large and individualistic private homes residing on large plots with a mature landscape in a manner typical of American suburban development. Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the Keston Park Conservation area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. With regard to the raising of the height of the wings to match the roof height of the main dwelling it is considered that the impact on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of

34

light and outlook will not be significantly increased. The only property directly facing onto the wing extensions is No.17 to the east of the site. As the wing extensions have already been permitted under the previous applications and this application is simply assessing the increase in their height. In this instance it is not considered that the impact on neighbouring properties, in particular No.17, will be significantly increased from what has already been granted planning permission. From a visual perspective and in terms of the impact of the proposed alterations on the Keston Park Conservation area, the only changes that will be visible from the front of the property will be the raising of the roof height on the wings and the front gable. Considering that the roof will be raised no higher than the original ridge height and the corbel detail on the front will be maintained, it is not thought that the changes will significantly impact on the character and appearance of the Keston Park Conservation area. With regard to the removal of screening on the eastern flank boundary, there were no conditions paced on the previous two applications stating that any landscaping should be retained. As such the Council has no control of Laurels being removed at the site and no breach of planning permission has occurred in respect of this. However, as this is a Conservation Area any further tree removal will need to seek approval from the council‟s tree officers. It is however recommended that to overcome concerns raised about lack of screening at the site, a condition is placed on any grant of planning permission stating that a scheme of replacement landscaping is implemented. The proposed balcony is located in between the two rear wings and projects no further out at the rear than these. With regard to the issues raised concerning overlooking from the balcony into neighbouring properties, in this instance, given that the balcony is shielded by the two wings and projects no further back, it is considered that it will present no greater risk of overlooking than the already approved windows at the rear of the wing extensions. Furthermore, the properties at the rear of the site (in particular No.19 Forest Drive) are very well screened by a number of mature trees and any removal of said trees would first need approval from the Council. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/04367, 07/00491 and 07/01963, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACC02 Sample brickwork panel ACC02R Reason C02 4 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 5 Details of a scheme of landscaping for the eastern flank boundary, which shall

include the height and species of planting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before the commencement

35

of the development hereby permitted. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally planted.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan, to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development and in the interest of the amenities of adjacent properties.

6 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation areas H8 Residential extensions


Bickley

Address : 62 Hill Brow Bromley BR1 2PQ


OS Grid Ref: E: 541979 N: 169751

Applicant : Mr And Mrs M Austin Objections : NO Description of Development: Two storey front with flank dormer and juliet balcony at first floor level. Proposal The application proposes a two storey front with flank dormer and Juliet balcony at first floor level. The property is a large detached dwelling located on the eastern side of Hill Brow. The site is not within a Conservation Area or Area of Special Residential Character. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received, although an objection was received from the Sundridge Residents‟ Association on the grounds that the proposal would be obtrusive, out of character with the area and detrimental to the amenities of the occupants of the surrounding residential properties.

36

Planning Considerations The application falls to be determined in accordance with policies BE1 and H8 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 relates to residential extensions and requires that the scale, form and materials should compliment the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 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. Conclusions An application for a two storey front extension with flank dormer and Juliet balcony and detached double garage at front was refused in January 2007 under ref. 06/04170 on the following grounds: (1) the proposed extension, by reason of its size and projection forward of the main dwelling, would appear unduly prominent and harmful to the appearance of the existing property and the visual amenities of the area; and (2) the proposed garage by reason of its prominent siting in advance of the building line would be an incongruous and obtrusive feature in the street scene detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the area. The current application is for a two storey front extension only. The detached double garage has been omitted from the current proposal, therefore the second grounds of refusal highlighted above would no longer be relevant. A single storey front garage already exists at the application site, which projects forward of the main building by approximately 6.5 metres and is approximately 4 metres wide. The proposal would involve the demolition of this single storey garage and its replacement with a two storey front extension that is larger and projects forward by approximately 6.8 metres (which has been reduced from approximately 8.4 metres) and is approximately 5.9 metres wide (which has been increased from approximately 4.9 metres). A dormer window would be located on the northern flank elevation of the two storey front extension facing the neighbouring property to the north, No. 64, however it is proposed that this window will be obscured glass as it is serving an en-suite bathroom. A Juliet balcony is located on the southern flank elevation of the two storey front extension facing the neighbouring property to the south, No. 60, however there is a good separation between this part of the proposed development and the dwelling at No. 60. Although the two storey front extension has been reduced in depth from the previous application in an attempt to overcome the first grounds of refusal highlighted above, it is still considered that the overall size and forward projection of this proposed development would appear unduly prominent and harmful to the appearance of the existing property and the visual amenities of the area.

37

The applicant has provided an extensive supporting statement dated 20th June 2007, which justifies the revisions that have been made to the previously refused scheme. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 06/04170 excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED The reasons for refusal are: 1. The proposed extension, by reason of its size and projection forward of the main

dwelling, would appear unduly prominent and harmful to the appearance of the existing property and the visual amenities of the area, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.


Penge And Cator

Address : 40 Oak Grove Road London SE20 7RQ


OS Grid Ref: E: 535230 N: 169445

Applicant : Edwin And Theresa Smith Objections : NO Description of Development: Single storey rear extension PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION Proposal The application site is located on the south-western side of Oak Grove Road. The plot is uniform in width (approx. 9m) and is approx. 33m deep. Oak Grove Road is a predominantly residential area, with a mixture of semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The host property is a semi-detached dwelling, and has a part one/two storey extension at the rear. A planning application has been submitted retrospectively for a single storey rear extension. Measurements recorded on site by the case officer indicate that the single storey rear extension has an approximate depth of 3.7m. At the time of writing this report, accurately scaled plans were yet to be received, and as such confirmation of all measurements of the single storey rear extension will be reported verbally at the meeting.

38

Members should be aware that an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed use of the property as a 5 bedroom residential care home is also to be found on this agenda, under ref. 07/01811. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

objection against this proposal on the subject of the intended change of use of host building

Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. Planning Considerations Planning permission was granted under ref. 82/00524 for a part one/two storey rear extension to the property. The main policies relevant to this case are Policy H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 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 The single storey rear extension is effectively an extension to the existing part one/two storey rear extension, resulting in a cumulative depth of approximately 7m. While the orientation of the host dwelling and the adjoining dwelling are such that there will be minimal impact on residential amenities by reason of overshadowing and loss of light, it could be argued that the visual impact of the single storey rear extension is unacceptable as a result of the cumulative depth upon the amenities that the occupiers of No. 42 Oak Grove Road may reasonably continue to enjoy. Members will need to consider whether the visual impact of the single storey rear extension is significant enough to warrant the refusal of this application. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/01811 and 07/02247, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04

39

2 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the top fanlights on

the south-eastern flank elevation shall be obscure glazed and shall subsequently be permanently maintained as such.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent property at No. 42 Oak Grove Road.

3 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1. The cumulative effect of the single storey rear extension and the existing part

one/two storey rear extension to the property results in an excessive rearward projection prejudicial to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling at No. 42 Oak Grove Road by reason of visual impact thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Further recommendation: Enforcement action to be authorised to secure the removal of the single storey rear extension.

_______________________

40

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


Chislehurst

Address : 17 Oakleigh Park Avenue Chislehurst Kent BR7 5PB

Conservation Area: Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref:

E: 543413 N: 169627

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Falshaw Objections : YES Description of Development: Single storey front extension to garage, new entrance way with roof over, part one/two storey front/side extension, part single storey/part first floor side extension, formation of new basement at rear, alterations to roof to provide habitable accommodation in roof space with rear balcony and re-cladding of building. Proposal The application proposes a single storey front extension to garage and new entranceway with roof over, part one/two storey front/side extension, part single storey/part first floor side extension, formation of new basement at rear and alterations to roof to provide habitable accommodation in roof space with rear balcony and re-cladding of the building. The property is a large detached house located on the northern side of Oakleigh Park Avenue within the Chislehurst Conservation Area. The layout of the host dwelling is unusual because the property is sited on a slope, therefore the main entrance to the property is at first floor level. Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:

the neighbours at No. 15 are concerned about the potential for overlooking from the new windows that are proposed along the southwest elevation.

Planning Considerations

41

The application falls to be determined in accordance with policies BE1, BE11, 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 BE11 relates to conservation areas and requires new development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas. Policy H8 relates to residential extensions. It requires that the scale, form and materials should compliment the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Policy H9 relates to side space and requires a minimum side space of one metre to be require for proposals of two or more storeys in height. The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the Chislehurst Conservation Area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. Conclusions The application comprises five elements: (1) the single storey front extension to garage and new entranceway with roof over; (2) the part one/two storey front/side extension; (3) the part single storey/part first floor side storey side extension; (4) the formation of new basement at rear; and (5) the alterations to roof to provide habitable accommodation in roof space and rear balcony. The existing garage is on the ground floor of the property underneath the main entrance to the house (see planning officer‟s photograph 5). The proposed single storey front extension would enlarge the garage by approximately 1.230 metres in depth, which is considered to be a moderate extension to the property. The extensions to the front of the property also include a new glass entranceway with roof over, which would replace the existing porch (see planning officer‟s photograph 5). Although this part of the property would involve increasing the dwelling forward of the main building line, it is considered that this would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the surrounding residential properties due to the footprint of the existing building. Along this section of Oakleigh Park Avenue there is not a defined building line, therefore it is considered that the proposal would not cause any undue harm to the character and appearance of the Chislehurst Conservation Area and street scene generally. The proposed part one/two storey front/side extension on the southwest corner of the property would incorporate a new stairwell at the front of the property, together with a small extension to the dining room and new third bedroom, and a new glazed area to the lounge. An objection has been received from the neighbours at No.15 regarding the windows along the southwest elevation, which would be overlooking their property. However, it is considered that the proposed windows in this part of the extension would be unlikely to have any more of a significant impact than what already exists at the site (see planning officer‟s photographs 6, 7 and 12). The applicant has amended the drawings (docs received 29th June 2007) to reduce the area of glass in the glazed roof over serving the lounge in order to try and improve the situation for the neighbours at No. 15. It is suggested that if permission is granted, the window serving the new

42

stairwell should be the subject of a safeguarding condition. However, as the existing windows along this elevation are not currently obscure glazed, it may be unreasonable to request that the new windows of similar dimensions should be frosted glass. The proposed part single storey/part first floor side extension would be sited on the northeast elevation adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring property, No. 19 (see planning officer‟s photographs 14 and 15). Although spatial standards would be altered somewhat by this part of the proposal, it is considered that the proposal would not result in a more cramped appearance as viewed from the street than what already exists at the site. There are no objections from a conservation point of view. This part of the proposal would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the residents of No. 19 as there is adequate planting between the two properties to screen the proposed development. Additionally, there are no windows proposed in the flank elevation of the proposed development facing No. 19. The formation of new basement at rear would create a new family room which would open up into the rear garden, together with a new bathroom and store. It is considered that this part of the proposal would be unlikely to significantly impact the adjoining neighbours due to the siting of the proposed extension. There is a good degree of separation between this part of the proposed development and both of the neighbours at Nos. 15 and 19, and the rear building line of the application property is set considerably further forward then the adjoining properties so that the basement area would only be visible from limited vantage points (see planning officer‟s photograph 9). The rear of the garden is densely covered by tress and shrubs therefore the proposed basement would not impact any residents towards the rear of the site (see planning officer‟s photograph 13). The proposed alterations to the roof to provide habitable accommodation in roof space would increase the overall height of the roof by approximately 1 metre. Once again, it is considered that the separation between the application property and the neighbours at Nos. 15 and 19 is sufficient. Additionally, the application property is also lower than the surrounding buildings (see planning officer‟s photograph 1a). This part of the proposal also includes a new rear balcony from the proposed loft room. There is an existing balcony at the rear of the property on the first floor, which is fairly large in size (see planning officer‟s photographs 8 and 12). Having had regard to the above it was considered that although some overlooking would arise from the rear balcony, it would be unlikely to have any more of an impact than what currently exists at the site and would not be significantly harmful enough to warrant a refusal of planning permission. Although the proposed extensions are fairly moderate when considered individually, the combined extensions altogether would enlarge the property quite considerably. However, having had regard to the above it is considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents or impact detrimentally on the character of the Chislehurst Conservation Area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 07/01809, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 29.06.2007 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

43

Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) on the south-west elevation serving

the stairwell ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8 4 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area. 5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation areas H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space


Orpington

Address : Land R/o 301-309 Court Road Orpington Kent


OS Grid Ref:

E: 547052 N: 165261

Applicant : Asprey Homes Ltd Objections : YES Description of Development: Demolition of 307 and 309 Court Road, construction of access road and erection of 6 detached houses Proposal This application comprises a resubmission of a previous scheme dismissed at appeal in April 2006. The site is located on the eastern side of Court Road and comprises No. 307 and 309 Court Road. These are 2 detached houses with the rear garden of No. 309 wrapping around the rear of nos. 301-305 Court Road. To the rear of the site (the east) is Goddington Park which is Green Belt land.

44

The proposal seeks to demolish Nos. 307 and 309 fronting Court Road, create an access road and erect 5 dwellings to the rear of the site and 1 new dwelling on the site of No. 309 Court Road. The agents submit that the scheme results in a density of 13 dwellings per hectare which, although less than the density guideline in Policy H7, is reflective of the generally spacious character of the area. The site area is c 0.45 hectares. Separation distances in excess of 55m would be provided between the rear elevations of the proposed houses and Nos. 301-305, Court Road. A minimum separation distance would be maintained between the house on Plot 6 and No. 311 Court Road of 45m. The agents also contend that the proposed houses are 2 storey in height and of a scale consistent with the nearby dwellings and that the layout of the scheme has been designed to retain important trees and mature landscaping on site. The dense tree screen along the eastern boundary to Goddington Park will be maintained and a communal landscaped area formed thus removing the post development pressure on the trees as evident in the previous scheme. Consultations A number of objections have been received in response to local consultation and 1 letter of support. The objections are summarised below:

road safety – fast road, line of vision poor, new access road create additional problems to this busy junction area at peak times.

concerns over Lime tree on highway verge

concerns with existing hedging/future landscaping

loss of amenity to surrounding houses

loss of privacy

loss of trees

detrimental impact on adjoining Green Belt

precedent Street trees are included on the submitted tree survey and safeguarding conditions are suggested in the event of a planning permission in order to ensure their healthy retention. The trees to the rear of the site form an effective screen between the site and Goddington Park and should be retained; appropriate conditions are suggested in the event of a planning permission. Transport for London has assessed the application in terms of the potential safety and performance aspects of the development on the A224 Court Road. Concerns are raised regarding the impact of the development, however road improvements are suggested which would help minimise the impact on Court Road. Any planning permission will therefore need to be the subject of a legal agreement regarding highway issues. The agents have indicated the willingness of their client to undertake this. The site is in an area of low public transport accessibility, therefore 2 no. parking spaces per dwelling is acceptable. Other details relating to the access road and proposed garages need to be clarified. Further updates will be reported verbally to Committee.

45

Footpath 208 runs from Court Road to Goddington Park but is separated from the new development by existing houses therefore the proposal will not impact on the Right of Way. The Ramblers‟ Association comment that at no stage of development should the path be impinged upon. Thames Water raise no concerns in terms of the water and sewerage infrastructure and the Environment Agency raise no objection to the proposal but offers advice, a copy of which has been forwarded to the agents. The Council‟s drainage consultant advises that there is no public surface water sewer in Court Road and connection of this site to the highway drain will not be permitted. Crime prevention concerns are raised with the detail of intended boundary fencing along the eastern boundary with Goddington Park. Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered under Policies H7 (Housing Density and Design), BE1 (Design of New Development), G6 (Land adjoining Green Belt), NE7 (Development and Trees), T3 (Parking), T12 (Residential Roads) and T18 (Road Safety). The planning history includes a scheme for 10 dwellings refused by the Council and dismissed on appeal (ref. 05/03318). The council gave 5 reasons for refusal relating to: over-development; inadequate parking given the low accessibility to public transport; visual harm to the adjacent Green Belt; road safety given Court Road‟s Strategic Secondary status and the loss of a mature lime tree. The Inspector considered there were 3 main issues for consideration: a) the effect on the character and appearance of the area; b) the effect on the living conditions for residents abutting the site; and c) the adequacy of the proposed access and parking in relation to highway safety and congestion. The appeal was dismissed, with the Inspector concluding „Although the achieving of housing gain within the built-up area warrants support in principle, I consider that the adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents as well as harm to the visual amenities of the adjacent Green Belt….are overriding objections to this particular scheme‟. The inspector noted that in terms of the relationship of the development to the adjacent Green Belt and the visual impact that the development would bring about a marked change in the character of the adjoining part of the park. Instead of filtered views of the existing long back gardens, with the existing houses largely screened from view, there would be a closely spaced row of houses only some 10m from the boundary and that the rather uninteresting and regimented design and layout would harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt. Concerns were also evident regarding the post development pressure on the trees along the eastern boundary with Goddington Park which would increase the prominence of the houses as seen from Goddington Park. In terms of the effect on living conditions the Inspector was concerned with the impact of the access road and the resultant traffic on the tranquil rear area and to the side of

46

No.305. The extent of overlooking and disturbance for No. 311 was also considered to create an accumulation of harm to the living conditions of residents. With regard Policy H7, para 4.40 refers. This advises that backland development may be acceptable provided it is small scale and sensitive to the surrounding area. It also states that additional traffic should not cause an unacceptable level of disturbance to neighbouring properties, and a high standard of separation and landscaping should be provided. Conclusions From the conclusions of the appeal decision it may be considered that the principle of development in this location may not be unacceptable subject to careful consideration of the impact on living conditions for neighbours and the impact on the visual amenities on the Green Belt. This being so it remains to be considered if the current scheme has addressed the previous grounds of concern sufficiently to warrant a grant of planning permission. In relation to the impact on the living conditions of neighbours, this particular scheme has addressed some of the concerns by the re-orientation of the houses. This results in the access road located away from the rear of gardens of Nos. 301-305 and 311. It will however terminate to the rear of the garden of No. 311 and run the length of garden of No. 305. With regard impact on Nos. 301-303 it may be considered that there is sufficient tree screening and separation that the living conditions for occupiers will not be unduly affected. With regard impact on No.305, to the rear the existing and proposed tree screening plus the degree of separation would result in a reasonable relationship so as to not unduly impact on the living conditions. However the impact of the access road on No. 305 requires careful consideration. There are now 5 proposed dwellings to the rear as opposed to 10, resulting in correspondingly less traffic. There is also a 3.5m soft verge proposed adjacent to this boundary which will enable a more robust form of landscaping. This in turn will help to lessen the impacts from the access road. It is for consideration as to whether this is sufficient to overcome concerns of impact on living conditions for the occupiers of No. 305. It should be noted that apart from concerns about landscaping no objections have been raised by the current occupier. With regard the impact on No. 311, there will be some overlooking created. There is a fairly substantial natural screening located in the middle of the garden at No.311 c 10m from the back of the house. This will help to some degree however the rear end of the garden will be subject to some oblique overlooking and the impacts from the termination of the access road at the rear. With the previous scheme the cumulative impacts on No. 311included a detached house overlooking No. 311 only 20m away, the access road nearer to No.311, disturbance from a bin store, plus the side of the end property in the row of houses. The overall length of the garden is in the region of 66m. No objections have been received from the current occupiers to date. With this type of development it is inevitable that there will be an impact on the living conditions currently enjoyed by the occupiers. It may be considered that, on balance, given the extent of separation, the existing natural screening and opportunities for

47

enhanced screening afforded by the revised site layout and the reduced cumulative impacts on No. 311, the impacts may not be so great as to warrant a refusal of planning permission on this issue. When considering the effect on the visual amenity of the Green Belt there will undoubtedly still be some impact. This scheme differs from that previously refused in that the line of houses are now staggered, with greater separation between the plots and offers some 11m - 19m separation from the park boundary. The access road will of course be nearer but the post development pressure on the trees has been addressed by the re-orientation of the houses. Whilst built development will be nearer to the Green Belt as a result of the scheme, the retention of the tree screening is now more practical. The development itself is also of a less regimented nature with more spaciousness between plots. Whilst there will be some impact it is considered that this will not be so great as to warrant a refusal of planning permission. Overall, given the Inspectors observations relating to the previous scheme and the revised scheme now before Members, it may be considered, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement relating to highways issues and safeguarding conditions, that this proposal addresses previous concerns sufficiently to warrant the grant of planning permission. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/03318 and 07/01838, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 10.07.2007 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT 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 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op. ACB01R Reason B01 5 ACB16 Trees - no excavation ACB16R Reason B16 6 ACB18 Trees-Arboricultural Method Statement ACB18R Reason B18 7 ACB19 Trees - App'ment of Arboricultural Super ACB19R Reason B19 8 ACH01 Details of access layout (2 insert) ACH01R Reason H01 9 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 10 Details of the finished surfaces of the access road, garage drives and parking

areas, which shall include coloured materials and block paving, shall be be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning

48

Authority before the development commences and the access road, drives and parking areas shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before any of the dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied.

ACH17R Reason H17 11 The access drive and parking area hereby permitted shall be lit in accordance

with BS 5489 - 1:2003 and the developer shall certify in writing to the Local Planning Authority that the lighting installed so complies and such lighting shall be maintained thereafter to the Authority's satisfaction.

ACH23R Reason H23 12 The development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to minimise the

risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the application site and the development. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and 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.

Reason: In the interest of security and crime prevention and in order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

13 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) to Plot 6 on the southern elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 14 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) H7 Housing density and design BE1 Design of new development

_______________________ 17. Application No : 07/01847/DET Ward :

Copers Cope

Address : Land At Junction Of Stumps Hill Lane And Worsley Bridge Road Beckenham Kent


OS Grid Ref:

E: 537384 N: 170672

Applicant : Leander Holdings Ltd/ Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd

Objections : YES

Description of Development: Residential development comprising 85 dwellings with estate road and car parking (details of siting/ design/ external appearance/ access/ surface and foul water drainage/ car and bicycle parking/ storage of refuse and recyclable materials/ land for possible future widening of Stumps Hill Lane/ pedestrian

49

access towards Southend Road/ proposals for dwellings for wheelchair users and 'lifetime homes'/ provision for offloading parking and turning during construction/ measures to minimise risk of crime/ affordable housing pursuant to Conditions 1 (a-d)/9/10/11/12/14/15/17/19/20/21 and the Section 106 Agreement of outline permission ref 05/03755 including relaxation of Condition 17 (ii) regarding provision of alternative means of access within estate) Proposal This roughly square site is open land on the east side of Worsley Bridge Road. Its northern boundary is formed by Stumps Hill Lane, an unmade road that connects Worsley Bridge Road to Southend Road. To the east of the site are Stevens Close and Abbey Lane/Littlestone Close, and adjacent to the south are the playing fields of Worsley Bridge Road School. There are trees and undergrowth alongside the east and south boundaries, and hedges, undergrowth and some small trees alongside the other 2 boundaries. The submitted site survey shows the location of the trees on both the site and the footway of Worsley Bridge Road. The land has been in the same ownership as the former Lloyds Bank Sports Club on the other side of Worsley Bridge Road, which now includes a development of flats fronting Copers Cope Road and the Kent County Cricket Club ground and pavilion. However, aerial photos taken in 1998 and 2002 indicate that the application site has not been used for playing fields for some time. The open land on the other side of Worsley Bridge Road also includes the Crystal Palace Football Club training ground. The site has an area of 1.3 hectares, the gross area (including half the width of the adjacent roads) being 1.45 hectares. These details pursuant to the outline permission for the site comprise the following houses and flats – Affordable Dwellings (30) – 8 one bedroom flats

12 two bedroom flats 9 three bedroom three storey houses (of which 2 for disabled occupiers) 1 four bedroom three storey houses (for disabled occupiers)

Private dwellings (55) – 16 two bedroom flats 8 three bedroom three storey houses 27 four bedroom two and three storey houses 4 five bedroom three storey houses

The relevant conditions are set out in the description. Details will be submitted at a later date of landscaping, boundary enclosures, lighting and energy efficiency/renewable energy (conditions 1(e), 4, 16 and 18). The proposed layout can be described as follows – 1) estate road from Worsley Bridge Road with a straight alignment, with cul-de-sacs off

50

2) 2 blocks of four/five storey flats linked at ground floor level by shared access to car

parking/covered refuse storage area under the blocks – also at this level will be entrances to the flats, with refuse storage and bicycle parking. These will be in the south-east part of the site backing on to Littlestone and Stevens Closes. The top floors will have less floorspace than those below. There will be balconies at front and rear (i.e. including facing properties in the Closes) (private and shared ownership affordable)

3) north-east part of the site – 2 terraces each of 5 houses (two storey with dormers/gables/rooflights to provide accommodation in the roof) (social rented affordable)

4) on the Worsley Bridge Road frontage, mixture of three storey detached (1) and semi-detached (4) houses with integral garages/forecourt parking and two storey detached houses (some with small front & rear dormers/accommodation in roof) with garages in front (flanking the road and 1 – 4m from the footway) (private)

5) 2 detached two storey houses backing on to Stumps Hill Lane (with attached/linked garages) (private)

6) 2 detached two storey houses backing on to the school grounds (with detached double garages) (private)

7) remainder of housing (basically the middle of the site) – three storey terraced houses – 15 with integral garages, 9 with 1 forecourt parking space each (private)

The Design Statement accompanying the application can be summarised as follows –

the site slopes up from its west side (Worsley Bridge Road) to Stevens Close (alongside the east boundary) by 2.5 – 3.5m, there being a 1m high bank along the latter boundary

adjoining residential development is varied in character – two storey houses in Stumps Hill Lane and Littlestone Close, three and four storey flats (Stevens Close) and 3 ten storey blocks (Porchester Mead, Southend Road)

adjacent to the south are school playing fields, with sports fields on the other side of Worsley Bridge Road

the layout of the estate road will replicate the central spine road on the illustrative drawing accompanying the outline application

the layout will follow the pattern of development immediately surrounding the site, namely detached/semi-detached housing along Worsley Bridge Road and Stumps Hill Lane with flatted development towards the rear of the site adjacent to Stevens Close. The general building line to Worsley Bridge Road will be followed by the proposed houses with parking in forecourt areas, or in garages which will in part be forward of this building line - these will be single storey and have the effect of breaking up the building line to produce a more varied street elevation. To lessen the impact on the existing properties fronting Stumps Hill Lane, the development has been designed so that only flanks of terraced houses face onto Stumps Hill Lane, with a 3m gap between the proposed new dwellings and the edge of Stumps Hill Lane, these houses being mainly two storey, some with rooms in the roof. Within the site, the majority of the housing will be three storey town houses, mostly with integral garages

the bank located along the east boundary of the site will be adjacent to the ground level car parking of the two proposed blocks of flats. As such the upper ground floor flats will appear almost at ground level when viewed from Stevens Close, with three storeys of flats above the ground parking level and a fourth storey set back from the edge

51

the mixed traditional form of residential development existing in the area will be replicated in the development with a mixture of houses and flats. The design of the new houses and flats will have similar characteristics to the adjoining residential properties, namely pitched roofs with brick/render elevations. There are a variety of roof pitches ranging from 30º/40º/42º. It is intended to utilise a limited palette of three bricks, three roof tiles, render and some weatherboarding which would give variety to the scheme, but also provide a degree of visual unity to the development. In addition, the fenestration will also have similar characteristics in terms of general proportion/size etc

car parking will be provided on the basis of –

- flats (private and affordable shared ownership) - 1 space per flat - social rented affordable houses – 1 space per dwelling - detached houses and houses with forecourt areas – generally 1 space plus 1

forecourt space - terraced housing – 1 integral garage or car space plus 0.5 additional

visitor‟s/casual parking (8 of the 15 terraced houses with garages will have a forecourt space in front)

cycle parking – the 2 blocks of flats will each have their own dedicated store at ground level, houses with garages will be able to store bike(s) within them, and a secure store is proposed for the affordable houses

refuse storage/collection – storage area at ground level for the flats, collection of bags of refuse arising from the houses from 4 collection areas alongside the estate road/cul-de-sacs.

Consultations Objections raised by local residents (including in a petition) express concern about the following matters –

loss of green field site

density

five storey development would be higher than neighbouring properties, out of character and loss of outlook from existing dwellings

that construction traffic and traffic from the development may use Abbey Lane

possible loss of trees

safety/welfare of pupils of Worsley Bridge Junior School. A letter has been received from Palgrave Estate, representing the views of residents of Porchester Mead – they have consistently supported development of the site but express concern about ongoing problems of trespass, vandalism, graffiti and malicious damage in the area. Their concern is that this should not be exacerbated by the pedestrian access from the proposed development to Stumps Hill Lane, which would increase use of Porchester Mead as a short-cut pedestrian route. There are no adverse technical highways comments regarding the access layout, car parking etc. Regarding the proposed cycle parking –

further details are required of the racks and construction of the cycle store for the affordable houses

52

the stands for the cycle storage in the blocks of flats appear to be unacceptable

the private houses without garages do not have any cycle storage and this needs to be addressed.

Any response from the applicant/revised plans will be reported verbally at the meeting. Further details are required of the drainage details, as follows –

permeability tests to assess the adequacy of the size of the soakaways

confirmation of the proposed status of the estate roads, if they are to be public highways the roof drainage should not drain to soakaways under the roads as proposed

in the absence of floor slab levels, it is not certain that connection of foul drainage to the public sewer in Stumps Hill Lane will be possible without a redesign of the system.

Any response by the applicant to these technical comments will be reported verbally at the meeting. The refuse storage for the flats is acceptable, but the arrangement for the houses shows areas of hardstanding adjacent to the highway to be used for sacks on Collection day – this is unacceptable and does not provide for recycling. However collection of refuse and recycling from front edge of curtilage of the houses will be acceptable. The site layout needs to be revised to delete the collection points. The Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor supports the developers‟ intention of building the private and affordable housing to achieve Secured by Design accreditation, and makes a number of detailed recommendations to the applicant. One of the main points is that the ground level car parking for the flats needs to be provided with an automatic gate to prevent vehicle-related crime becoming a problem. The other concern is about the gate to be provided to Stumps Hill Lane so that the estate‟s residents have easier access to bus services in Southend Road (required by condition 17(iii) of the outline permission). The Advisor queries whether the gate will encourage public transport use and expresses concern that the estate will not have the “blind cul-de-sac” layout that ensures no through “escape route” exists for offenders to exit, citing research indicating that alternative routes through residential areas make it easier to commit crime. The officer refers to anti-social and disorderly behaviour in the area associated with nearby housing estates which can be linked to the permeability of their layouts. Planning Considerations This site was formerly Metropolitan Open Land/Green Chain, but in 2002 the Development Control Committee decided to allocate it for housing purposes during the UDP review. Following the UDP Inspectors report, the housing supply strategy report by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners looked at this and other sites, and in 2005 the Council agreed that it should remain as a housing proposal site. The Committee resolved to grant outline planning permission in December 2005.

53

The relevant UDP policies in relation to these details pursuant are as set out in the reasons for granting approval in the recommendation below and cover the following issues –

design of new housing development including scale, form and layout, effect on residential amenities, and provision of security and crime prevention measures

provision of accessible housing/lifetime homes

provision of safe access for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, together with adequate car and cycle parking

that particular account has been taken of existing trees

disposed of foul and surface water will be adequately provided for. The following part of the report examines the conditions in order. 1 (a-d) – siting, design/appearance, access. The houses will have 9-10m deep rear gardens, but the flats will have virtually no amenity area. The flats are higher than the nearby residential properties, but separation from the two storey flank wall of the Littlestone Close houses (20m) and the flats at Jodie Court (28m) is considered acceptable. Garages in front of houses is not a feature of development along Worsley Bridge Road but the site has a sufficient frontage and the development is of such a size that it can form its own identity, and this format of development along that road is considered acceptable. The straight access road into the site is somewhat uninspired but the designs of the houses and flats are attractive and imaginative. Full details have not been submitted yet of the external materials, but the Design Statement sets out the proposed approach. 9 &10 – drainage. See under Consultations. 11 & 12 – access & parking. No technical objections, car parking will accord with Council policy. 14 – refuse/recycling storage. See under Consultations. 15 – bicycle parking. See under Consultations. 17(i) – land reserved for possible future widening of Stumps Hill Lane. The likely requirement if such widening ever takes place is for a 1.5m strip of land. The houses are shown to be set back 3m, which means that a rather cramped appearance will arise if the widening were to be implemented in the future. 17(ii) – requirement to provide an alternative access road into the site. The application seeks removal of this condition. Application ref. 05/03755 was for residential development comprising a maximum of 96 dwellings, and the provision of a second road was recommended by Council highways officers during processing of the outline application. Members imposed a condition requiring that the details pursuant should comprise no more than 85 dwellings, and on the basis of this lower number and the detailed layout proposed, the removal of this condition is acceptable. 17(iii) – requires a pedestrian entrance to enable access towards Southend Road. This is to enable residents on the estate to reach the bus service at Southend Road without a long detour through the estate and via Worsley Bridge Road. Whilst the comments of the Police Advisor are noted, these concerns are one of a number of issues in assessing the layout, and in the interest of sustainability it is important to ensure that public transport can be accessed easily. The architect is aware of the concerns and will comment on them – a “keypad” security arrangement for such pedestrian accesses to new development has been accepted elsewhere in the Borough. 19 – homes for wheelchair users/”lifetime homes”. 3 of the social rented houses will be for disabled occupiers. The Council‟s Housing Development Officer is concerned about aspects of layout of these houses, including that the lifts do not provide access to the

54

second floor. The architect will be commenting on this issue, and confirming that some or all of the other dwellings will comply with Part M of the Building Regulations (which implies accordance with “lifetime homes” standards). 20 – on-site parking/turning/off-loading during construction. The details submitted are acceptable - they show a parking compound on plots 1-3 (north-west corner of the site) and storage of materials on the turning area/parking in front of plots 8-13. 21 – measures to minimise the risk of crime and meet the specific security needs of the development. See comments under Consultations and above regarding 17(iii). Section 106 Agreement – this set out the mix of units and type of tenure required for the affordable housing, and these details accord with what was provided for in the Agreement. The Housing Development Officer is concerned that the private and shared ownership flats are not in separate blocks, and that this will create management and other problems. However it is considered that this is acceptable, indeed will assist in the objective of providing a mixed and balanced community. The architect is likely to comment on this issue. There are 3 mature tees in the north-east part of the site that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order – a lime and 2 oaks. Also there are trees on the southern boundary (mainly just outside the site) that will be close to the proposed houses. None of these trees will be directly affected by the development, and conditions to protect trees during construction have been imposed on the outline permission. As part of the application process, it has been necessary for the Council to give a screening opinion as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. The proposals constitute Schedule 2 development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. After taking into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the Regulations and the terms of the European Directive, it was considered that the proposed development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as nature, size and location. This opinion was expressed taking into account all relevant matters, including the information submitted with the application, advice from technical consultees, the scale/characteristics of the existing and proposed development on the site. The applicants were advised accordingly. Conclusions These details concern most of the conditions of the outline permission. As noted above there are some concerns about technical aspects of the following and these other issues will be the subject of comment/revisions –

bicycle parking

refuse/recycling storage

drainage

internal layouts to accord with Policy H5 (accessible housing)

shared ownership and private flats in the 2 blocks

pedestrian gate to Stumps Hill Lane. Any comments from the applicant/architect together with any revised plans will be reported verbally at the meeting. If any of the issues cannot be resolved in time for the meeting, the relevant conditions should be deleted from the description and dealt with at a later date.

55

The concerns of local residents are noted, but mostly they concern issues of principle or matters required by the conditions which Members agreed at the outline stage (e.g. the gate to Stumps Hill Lane). The details are recommended for approval subject to consideration of further details that may be received from the applicants, as set out above. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/03755 and 07/01847, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 05.07.2007 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: 1 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 2 Before any of the flats hereby approved are first occupied, the entrance to the

ground floor car parking shall be provided with gates in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include their method of opening (including a related security system) and the gates shall be permanently maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

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

3 Details of security measures for the pedestrian gate to Stumps Hill Lane shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before any of the dwellings hereby approved are first occupied and permanently maintained thereafter.

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

4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development ER13 Foul and surface water discharges from development H5 Accessible housing H7 Housing density and design NE7 Development and trees T3 Parking T7 Cyclists T18 Road safety INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI10 Street Naming and Numbering 2 RDI16 Layout of Crossovers etc 3 RDI18 Advise DC Re commencement 4 RDI23 Thames Water-sewers

56


Bromley Town

Address : 205 High Street Bromley BR1 1NY

Conservation Area: Bromley Town Centre

OS Grid Ref:

E: 540139 N: 169416

Applicant : Capitalstart Ltd (Mr Haim Danous) Objections : NO Description of Development: Three storey side extension, single storey side and rear extension with roof terrace above. Dormers with accommodation in roof. Erection of balconies/terraces at front, side and rear and conversion of public house (Class A4) to restaurant (Class A3) at ground floor/4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats on upper floors. Proposal The application site is located in the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area within the Bromley North Village. The site is around 0.08 hectares and consists of a three storey building with an existing decking and terrace area to the front and side of the main building visible from the High Street with a large car park and yard area to the side and rear fronting Walters Yard. The building is set back from the frontage line of the High Street thus creating the small open seating area in front of the principal elevation which extends around the side of the building which leads to the rear car park and Walters Yard. The surrounding area is predominantly of a uniform traditional high street frontage of narrow individual properties with retail accommodation at street level and a mixture of office and storage space above. The rear elevation of the site fronting Walters Yard is architecturally very mixed with rear yard and parking access off Walters Yard to surrounding properties. The proposals involve the refurbishment of the existing building, change of use of building at ground floor from Class A4 (public house) to a restaurant (Class A3) and a single storey side and rear extension with roof terrace above, and creation of 4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats on upper floors with dormers and accommodation in roof space and balconies / terraces at front, side and rear. Consultations Nearby owners/neighbours were notified of the proposals and the following representations were made -

57

a letter of objection has been received from the owner of an adjoining property raising concerns that the current proposal restricts any potential possible residential redevelopment at the adjoining properties due to the location of the proposed extensions.

From a highways point of view, future residents should not be eligible to apply for any parking permits. No objections are raised to the principle of a car free development. Concerns are raised with regards to pedestrian activity and whether the scheme makes adequate provision for a safe and secure pedestrian environment.

From an environmental health perspective there are no objections raised. Town Centre Management has no objections to the proposals. In terms of refuse collection the proposals are acceptable for the collection and storage of refuse. With regards to Fire Brigade Access the proposal is considered acceptable. In terms of drainage issues any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. From a Metropolitan Police point of view, any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. From a Heritage and Urban Design point of view, the elevations are now considered more acceptable but the balconies facing the High Street could be considered out of character with the area. The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas raised objections to the proposal stating that the scheme is an overdevelopment of the site unsympathetic to the host building and Bromley Town Conservation Area. The proposal is not compatible with surrounding buildings, is over dominant and out of character with surrounding properties. Planning Considerations Under planning application ref. 07/00233 a proposal has been submitted for a three storey side extension/single storey front/side and rear extension/dormers with accommodation in roof/balconies/terraces and conversion of public house (Class A4) to restaurant (Class A3) at ground floor/4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats on upper floors and linked four storey building to rear comprising 2 four bedroom and 2 two bedroom flats with rear terraces. An appeal has been submitted for the non determination of this application. The site is located within the Bromley Town Centre conservation area and the Council has a statutory obligation to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies BE1 (General Design), H1 Housing Supply, H7 (Housing Density and Design),H9 (Side Space), T1 (Transport Demand), T3 (Parking), T5 (Access for People With Restricted Mobility) T6 Pedestrians, T7 Cyclists, T18 (Road Safety),BE1 ( Design Of New Development), BE11

58

Conservation Areas, S9 (Food and Drink Premises), ER8 (Noise Pollution), and ER4 (Sustainable and Energy Efficient 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), 3C.1 (Integrating Transport and Development), 4B.1 (, Design Principles For a Compact City), 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 H.1 seeks to ensure provision for additional housing which is needed is provided by acceptable redevelopment proposals. Policies H.7 and H9 aim 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 and the provision of adequate daylight/sunlight to penetrate into and between buildings Policy T.1 seeks to ensure that development proposals likely to be significant generators of travel should be 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 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 T.18 states that in determining planning applications, the Council will consider as appropriate the potential impact on road safety and pedestrians and will seek to ensure road safety is not adversely effected Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. 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 3C.1, 3C.2 & 3C.22 of the London Plan relate to transport and parking provision within London. They state that the Boroughs should be seeking to ensure that sustainable transport development occurs by encouraging patterns and forms of developments that reduce the need to travel, especially by car, ensuring that development is related to current transport capacity and reduce the dependence on car travel for developments by reducing parking provision and encouraging more sustainable development.

59

Policies 4B.1 & 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. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area is a further consideration. Conclusions The proposed re-use of this building helps to maintain the vitality and viability of the Bromley North Village. The scheme ensures a building of good architectural quality is retained providing an appropriate mixed use development within Bromley Town Centre without compromising the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposed building is of an acceptable design and scale relating appropriately to the adjacent properties in Walters Yard and the High Street .The proposal maintains spatial standards within the locality with an acceptable height and scale The number of units proposed and the design has a minimal impact on surrounding properties. With regards to highways issues the pedestrian access to the flats is by way of the Walters Yard entrance only. Traffic levels in this location appear to allow vehicles to stop and drop passengers off without any danger to pedestrian or vehicular activity. There is also an existing footway along Walters Yard which is shown on the submitted proposed ground floor plans. Cycle storage provision has been indicated on the submitted plans and it is felt that conditions attached to any permission can resolve any issues regarding appropriate layouts, sighting and design of this area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/00233 and 07/02023, excluding exempt information. RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACC02 Sample brickwork panel ACC02R Reason C02 4 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 5 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 6 ACI21 Secure By Design ACI21R I21 reason 7 ACJ01 Restriction on use (2 inserts) a restaurant A3 Reason:

60

8 The use shall not operate before 9.30am and after 11.00pm on any Sunday to

Thursday or any Bank Holiday nor before 9.30am and after 12 midnight on any Friday to Saturday.

ACJ06R J06 reason (1 insert) ER8 9 ACJ10 Ventilation system for restaurant/take-a ACJ10R J10 reason 10 ACJ11 Soundp'fing. etc for rest./t-away (1 in) ceilings and walls between

the ground floor ACJ11R J11 reason 11 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps 9 Policies (UDP) H1 Housing supply H7 Housing density and design H9 Side space T1 Transport demand T3 Parking T5 Access for people with disabilities T6 Pedestrians T7 Cyclists T18 Road safety BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation areas ER4 Sustainable and energy efficient development ER8 Noise pollution S9 Food and drink premises Policies (The London Plan) 3A.1 Increasing London's housing supply 3A.2 Borough housing targets 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity 3C.22 Parking strategy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.6 Sustainable design and construction 4B.7 Respect local context and communities 4B.11 Heritage conservation

_______________________

61

SECTION 4 – Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS NO APPLICATIONS

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES … · 2010-02-16 · LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY...

Documents

Transcript of LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES … · 2010-02-16 · LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY...