Report Sheet - London Borough of BromleyRich text do… · Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley...

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Committee (SC) on 18th March 2004

REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER

SECTION „1‟ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley

_________________________

1. Application No : 04/00286/DEEM3 Ward:

Cray Valley West

Address : 119 Cotmandene Crescent

Orpington Kent BR5 2RB

Conservation Area:NO

OS Grid Ref: E: 546614 N: 169278

Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Security shutters

Proposal

Permission is sought for security shutters at No.119 Cotmandene Crescent.

Consultations

No letters of objection have been received to date.

Planning Considerations

Planning permission has recently been granted for open lattice style security shutters at several

units in Cotmandene Crescent.

Cotmandene Crescent is a District Shopping Centre and Appendix III.7.2(v) of the Unitary

Development Plan specifies the type of shop front shutters that are considered to be acceptable.

Policy BE16 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002) sets out

requirements relevant to security shutters. Consideration should also be given to leaflet14 A Guide

to the Design of Shopfronts, Blinds and signs which gives guidance about appropriate types of

security shutters in shopping areas.

2

Conclusions

The proposals are for an open lattice design which accords with relevant Policies and guidance.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on

file ref. 04/00286, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 DCA01 Commencement of Development

DCA01R A01 reason

2 Details of the external finish of the security shutters 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 shutters shall be finished in accordance with the

approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

3 AJ02 Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps

Policies (AUDP)

E.1: Design of new development

Appendix III.7: Shopfronts

Policies (2DDUDP)

BE1: Design of new development

BE16: Security shutters.

3

SECTION „2‟ - Applications meriting special consideration

_________________________

2. Application No : 02/03640/FULL1 Ward :

Clock House

Address : Playing Field Adj. Elmers End

Station Elmers End Road

Beckenham Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 535681 N: 168427

Applicant : Fortis Leisure Objections : YES


11 all weather sports pitches, single storey pavilion/changing room building, 8m high

floodlights, landscaped mounds alongside south-west and north-west boundaries and 85

car parking spaces

Proposal

This application was deferred by the Plans Sub-Committee on 18 December 2003, for a Member

level site meeting with Councillors from Croydon Council to discuss the issues affecting the site.

To date, Croydon Council have not expressed an interest in taking up this request, and it is

considered that the application should be determined without further delay.

The previous report is repeated below, suitably amended where appropriate.

The application site, Acco-Rexel Sports Ground is a playing field of approx. 17,321 sq.m. and is

designated as Metropolitan Open Land in the adopted and second deposit draft Unitary

Development Plans.

The site is located at the southern end of Elmers End Road. Adjacent to the south and west

boundaries is South Norwood Country Park which is an area of informal recreation and wildlife

conservation and located within the London Borough of Croydon. To the north of the site is

Elmers End Road, which has a retaining wall that rises as it runs east to a bridge over the

railway. To the east of the site are Elmers End Station which serves both the railway and

Tramlink. Beyond the railway to the east is Tesco‟s superstore and a large business park.

The site is accessed from the station approach/car park slip road off of Elmers End Road. It was

formerly in use by a local football club, but has not been used in recent years. The existing small

pavilion building is located in the northwest corner of the site and lies in a state of disrepair due

to vandalism and neglect. The site is fenced off and does not allow access to the public.

This application seeks full permission for the development of this site comprising:

4

11 all weather sport pitches constructed from artificial turf with ancillary kick board

fencing up to 1.2m with additional 1.2m of plastic coated wire mesh above and Nylon

catch netting, coloured black up to a total height of 5m

a total of 44 - 8m high floodlights to the courts with 4 lights per court positioned in

each corner

single storey pavilion/changing room building which would occupy a footprint area

of approximately 511 sq.m. The building measures 30.5m by 16.6m and would be

externally clad with predominantly glazed main elevation overlooking the courts

towards the rear of the site

1.5 - 5m high landscaped mounds along the south-west and north-west boundaries

adjacent to the South Norwood Country Park

car parking are to the front of the site comprising 85 spaces including secure cycle

storage facilities for up to 20 cycles.

This multi-sports centre proposal is being promoted by Fortis Leisure Ltd, which seeks to

develop a commercially funded all weather sports facility in the borough. It is intended that the

centre will be made available free of charge to schools, community groups and the leisure

services departments of both Bromley and Croydon Councils between the hours of 9.00am to

5.30pm Monday to Friday and on a restricted basis from 9.00am to 5.00pm Saturdays and

Sundays. At all times it is proposed to open the centre to paying customers and would remain

open until 11pm seven days a week.

Consultations

Numerous letters of objection have been received from local residents including the Elmers End

Residents Association, West Beckenham Residents Association and the Orpington Field Club

are summarised below:

land is designated as Metropolitan Open Land, and the presumption should be against

development

increased risk of flooding as the land acts a sponge in heavy rain

visual impact of the proposed lights of 8m high and of high intensity to local

residential properties

increased risk of traffic congestion at Elmers End

no provision for coaches without prior arrangement

increased noise and disturbance from users of the sports centre on the amenities of

local residents and the wildlife in South Norwood Country Park

increased noise and disturbance particularly from social use of the proposed bar

visually detrimental to the residents of Mayford Close with the appearance of

„Colditz‟

adverse impact on the wildlife to the adjacent South Norwood Country Park in terms

of noise and lighting.

Objections have been received from London Borough of Croydon on the following grounds:

the illumination of the sports facilities and provision of high fencing is likely to have

an adverse effect on protected wildlife species

the alteration to the ground levels to construct the proposed earth mounds would be

likely to impact on water table thereby affecting the hydrology and water storage

capacity of the site and water flows within the Country Park

the provision of earth mounds, floodlighting and high fencing would adversely affect

the open character of the Metropolitan Open Land.

5

Any additional comments in respect to the revised site layout and ecology report will be reported

verbally at the meeting.

In respect to technical highway issues, no objections have been raised in principle to the

proposals, although it would be necessary to amend the siting and provision of cycle parking,

secure storage facilities and the pedestrian access to attract non-car users. Car parking provision

should also be restricted to the maximum of 85 spaces and it would be appropriate, should

permission be granted to request a travel plan as part of a Section 106 agreement.

With regard to environmental health issues, no objections have been received in respect of the

technical specification of the proposed floodlights.

In respect to drainage and flooding issues, both Thames Water and the Environment Agency

have been consulted and do not raise any objections subject to conditions.

Comments have also been received from English Heritage and Sport England regarding the

application. English Heritage state that the site is designated as a Schedule Ancient Monument

which indicates the remains of a medieval moated site. No objections are raised to the proposals

subject to a condition requiring details of a programme of archaeological work.

Sport England also raise no objections to the principle of the development and consider “the

proposed development is for an outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of

sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of

the playing field”. In addition, Sport England considers “that a facility of this nature could

bring much community, educational and sporting benefit to Bromley, with free access to may

local groups and organisations”.

A letter of support has been received from Crystal Palace Football Club who consider that “the

proposed development is in an area with limited facilities and will be a great benefit to the local

community who will benefit immensely from the development of soccer in the area. Crystal

Palace FC Community Scheme have worked in partnership with LB Bromley developing football

since 1989 and the development of this facility will further enhance our local programme”.

In addition, a letter of support has been received from The FA in respect of the development and

is summarised as follows:

the development of all formats of football is essential in delivering the FA's vision of

„using the power of football to build a better future‟

5-a-side football is the fastest growing form of football in England as the provision of

high quality facilities, aligned to changing patterns of leisure time has resulted in

significant growth in the game over the past 3 years

recent research conducted by the FA has identified a general lack of provision of 5-a-

side facilities across England and London with latent demand. Players have

identified the poor state of pitches and facilities as the biggest issue facing grass roofs

football today.

the FA therefore welcomes all forms of investment into the game that will further

enhance the playing opportunities available and supports Fortis Leisure in its plans to

develop a new football facility in Elmers End.

6


The site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) in the adopted and second deposit draft

Unitary Development Plan. Policy G.6 of the adopted UDP states that within such areas only the

following uses will generally be considered acceptable:

public and private open space and playing fields

agriculture, woodland and orchards

golf courses

allotments and nursery gardens

cemeteries and crematoria

schools and institutions in extensive grounds (Deleted by PPG2).

Policy G2 of the second deposit draft reiterates this policy with additions to update the policy to

comply with PPG2. With regard to sports facilities, the draft policy states that “essential

facilities for outdoor sport and recreation and for other uses of land which preserve the

openness of the MOL and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”.

Policy G.7 of the adopted UDP states that: “the Council will seek to maintain the open character

of MOL in a form appropriate to each area. Built development associated with the uses

specified in Policy G.6 should conserve and enhance the open nature and character of the land

and will be controlled to ensure new development is built close to any existing buildings or the

periphery of the site and that a high standard of landscaping would be required”. This Policy is

updated as G3 in the second deposit draft UDP and states that “where development is associated

with outdoor recreational activity, it should be to the minimum scale consistent with the

requirements of that activity”.

Policy L.12 in the adopted UDP refers to playing fields and states “the Council will resist the

loss of all public playing fields and will ensure that the best use is made of any spare capacity”.

This is updated as Policy L7 in the second deposit draft to include sports grounds and playing

fields in light of PPG17. The supporting policy text states that “PPG17 requires that playing

fields identified in the assessment of needs, should not be lost to development unless there is an

established surplus of all forms of open space. If playing fields are no longer required for their

original purpose, consideration should be given their use to meet other needs for recreational

land in the wider community”.

Policy L2 of the adopted UDP states that to the foregoing and certain other policies, the Council

“will support and encourage the development of suitable outdoor recreational uses in

Metropolitan Open Land areas”.

Policy T.3 and T.15 of the adopted UDP (updated as Policy T2 and T3 in the second deposit

draft Unitary Development Plan) requires all development proposals to be assessed for their

contribution to traffic generation, impact on congestion and safety and to provide on-site parking

in line with the Councils parking standards.

Other relevant Policies in this case are Policy E.1, which relates to new development in general

and Policies G.23, G.24 and G.25 of the adopted UDP which states that the Council will seek to

protect features of nature conservation, which may be threatened by new development generally.

These are updated as Policy BE1 and NE1, NE2 and NE4 in the second deposit draft UDP. In

addition, Policy ER11 in the second deposit draft UDP refers to the provision of security or

floodlighting. In particular, the supporting text requires that “the level of lighting should be

minimal – particularly in residential areas, conservation areas, nature conservation sites, open,

rural or Green Belt locations”. Policy ER18 also states that “development which would have

7

adverse ecological impacts on the water environment, particularly in relation to rivers, ponds

and wetlands will not normally be permitted”.

Guidance given in Regional Planning Guidance (RPG3) is also of relevance to the consideration

of the application, paragraph 7.8 states:

“Land of this importance should not be used for developments which compromise its open

character and value to London’s green setting. The principles of control over development in the

Green Belt, set out in PPG2, also apply to MOL. There is a presumption against inappropriate

development including development which would be harmful to the open character of the land.

Such development should only be allowed in very special circumstances”.

Conclusions

The main issues in this case are firstly whether the proposals would be harmful to the open

nature and character of the Metropolitan Open Land in which the site is located, and secondly,

whether the proposals would have an adverse impact on the amenities of local residents and

wildlife and nature conservation at the adjacent South Norwood Country Park in terms of visual

impact, noise and disturbance, traffic, risk of flooding and light pollution.

PPG2 makes it clear that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to MOL. It is for

the applicant to demonstrate the “very special circumstances” why permission should be

granted. However, very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm caused by reason of

inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

Nathaniel Litchfield consultants, have submitted a comprehensive statement in respect to all

planning issues regarding the application on behalf of the applicant. In summary the very special

circumstances they put forward in respect of the proposals are as follows:

it is an acceptable use of MOL

the proposed built development is essential to the operation of the acceptable use of

the site and has been designed to minimise land take and ensure the openness of the

land is protected

it is a use which is fully supported by the Government‟s recreational policy

it is unlikely to adversely affect any archaeological interests

it seeks to mitigate any potential for harmful lighting pollution by careful design and

location

it will provide new employment, principally for local people

it seeks redevelopment of a site, which is currently unattractive and prone to

vandalism and antisocial behaviour. The proposal will create a new facility and allow

for management of the site

it will provide for adequate car parking provision, based on experience of other sites

in order to ensure no displacement offsite, and

the proposal positively seeks the reduction in car use through its location near to a

transport node, and by the provision of cycle facilities and bicycles for staff.

With regard to the visual impact of the development on the openness of MOL, the applicant‟s

consultant states that: “the proposal has been revised to maximise the openness of the site by

keeping the new building on the periphery of the site, in line with the local plan policy. Only

essential floorspace is provided as ancillary accommodation and this is set back within the site

to reduce visual impact. New buildings would largely be seen in the context of the existing

station building and car park. The courts are open in nature, with only lower level kick boards

and the minimum recommended safety fencing”.

8

In respect to the issue of site selection for the proposed development, a supporting statement has

been submitted by property consultants, King Sturge who identified the site as a suitable location

for a Goals Soccer Centre and their reasoning behind the selection is summarised below:

the search site encompassed all potential land within the London Borough of

Bromley and from the outset any potential sites that were allocated for housing or

employment uses in the Bromley UDP. No leisure sites are designated in the plan.

the focus of the site selection process was on areas where housing, employment and

retail were normally prevented by planning policy, namely the more open sites away

from the town centres on the urban fringe. Given the requirement to be close to an

active and substantial population, the search was focused to the north of the borough.

the only potential development sites for the use were designated Green Belt, MOL or

Urban Open Land.

of all the sites explored none, apart from the site at Elmers End, were genuinely

available for development, either because they were not available, or the land value

was too high and would make the sports centre development commercially unviable.

in view of the lack of sites genuinely available sites in Bromley for the proposed

development, it is considered that this should be an additional reason for permitting

development, i.e. if development cannot proceed on the Elmers End site to meet an

identified local need, then it is unlikely to be built anywhere else in the borough.

The proposed development would however, cover the majority of the site by large areas of

artificial and hard surfaces, together with floodlights and a large building and it is considered

that despite attempts to minimise the visual appearance of the courts through design and

landscaping that the development would be highly visible from a wide area around the site, and

that its permanent retention would represent a significant intrusion into the open nature and

character of the land. Furthermore, the floodlights themselves would illuminate a large area of

the sports ground towards to southern end of the site. The MOL at this point is particularly

vulnerable, close as it is to the urban area of Elmers End. Lights from the adjacent urban area

including the railway station and supermarket car park, and particularly the street lighting on

Elmers End Road and Croydon Road already surrounds the site on two sides. The added effect

of the illuminated floodlights would be to significantly increase the intensity of light in the area

and to extend the urbanised appearance of the area into the larger area of the country park and

grounds of Beckenham Crematorium to the west. Whilst the design of lights are such to reduce

stray lighting and the hours of use could be limited by a planning condition, it is not considered

that this would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the openness of the MOL when the

lights were illuminated. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to be an appropriate form of

development on MOL and that there are no very special circumstances to justify inappropriate

development in this case.

In respect to issues of noise and disturbance, it is considered that the impact to nearby residential

properties would be minimal. The nearest residential property would be more than 30m from the

site and 90m from the closest court. Set against the existing developments of the

railway/tramline, main road and retail superstore, it is not considered that any noise generated

from the use of the site would be significantly above that of the immediate vicinity.

Turning to traffic and car parking, there are no standards set out in the second deposit draft UDP

which are appropriate for this type of development. In view, of the close proximity to public

transport links at Elmers End, the applicant has revised the car parking layout to provide 85

spaces in line with the Councils requirements. The supporting statement accompanying the

application submits trip data from similar sites at Bexleyheath, Wembley and Dagenham as a

comparison in the expected vehicular trips to the application site. It also makes reference to the

9

proposed car park having a dual use, in that it could be utilised for commuter parking during the

day, when use of the centre would be low. However, given the current ethos from Government

to reduce reliance on the use of private vehicles and to encourage alternative modes of transport,

the proposal could result in an unacceptable intensification in the number of vehicular

movements associated with the existing vehicular access from Elmers End.

With respect to local concerns regarding flooding, Elmers End is an area historically known to

have flooding problems. The applicant states that: “the pitches are designed to be fully

permeable with a sub-base, which acts as storage capacity for water during heavy downpours.

This means that the run-off characteristics are similar to grass and the normal problems of flash

flooding that can cause difficulties with the existing drainage network are minimised”. Although

no technical objections have been raised to the proposals by the relevant agencies, the site does

perform a flood reduction role however, it is not considered that the proposals would increase the

risk of flooding in the area which could be safeguarded through conditions.

With regard to the issue of floodlighting, it is considered that there would not be any additional

disturbance to nearby residential properties. The only residential areas which are likely to

affected are on the northern side of Elmers End Road and as this road is well lit and elevated at

this point, any adverse effects from the proposal are likely to be minimal.

With regard to the impact on wildlife, the site is located adjacent to South Norwood Country

Park Nature Reserve and is designated as a Metropolitan Site of Nature Conservation in the

London Borough of Croydon Unitary Development Plan and a Site of Metropolitan Importance

in the Mayor of London‟s draft „London Plan‟. The applicant has submitted an ecology report

(prepared by Ecology Consultancy Ltd) which provides survey information with regard to the

ecological impact of the proposal on the wildlife and how any adverse impact may be mitigated,

for example by the use of the proposed landscaped mounds along the boundary with the country

park. A summary of the report‟s conclusions are listed below:

the main habitats on site include semi-improved neutral grassland, tall herbaceous

vegetation, ruderal vegetation, bramble scrub, hedges and scattered trees. A seasonal

pond and ditch occur in the southern part of the site

no rare or uncommon plant species were recorded. No habitats or significant

conservation value occur but the trees, hedges, pond and ditches are considered

worthy of retention as proposals

a range of common bird and invertebrates were noted. No protected species (other

than nesting birds) were recorded but there is potential for common reptiles and

amphibians. Although none identified, trees on the periphery of the site could

contain bat roosts.

the report concludes that the widespread habitats on the application site are of limited

ecological interest and the impacts of the development are not considered significant.

However, the report acknowledges that the proposed floodlighting is likely to be the

most significant impact on wildlife in South Norwood Country Park yet the

ecological effects of lighting are not well understood. In any case, the report

concludes that the proposed lighting for the scheme together with the creation of an

informal planted earth bund to act as a purpose built screen will reduce the impact of

lighting on the wildlife interest of the neighbouring country park to a minimum.

The proximity of the site to the adjacent country park would result in a reduction in feeding area

and consequently population numbers of birds and bats living within the park because of the

wetland, rough grassland, and the scrub of the site also contains large populations of

invertebrates as well as plants and seeds. Although the ecological report covers the application

site well, it does not adequately assess the effects on the adjacent country park. Of major concern

10

is the impact of the light pollution from the floodlights which would affect birds roosting on the

nearby lake and around the periphery of the site or flying at dusk. In particular, an important

approach for birds to the main pond in the country park is across the application site. There are

over 110 species of bird using the local nature reserve including significant number of wildfowl

such as mallard, teal, widgeon, shoveler and pochard, together with a variety of goose and owl

species. Roosting time and night hunts will coincide with when the lights are switched on and

inadequate information has been submitted to show the impact of light on these issues. In

addition, the proposed high netting to retain sports balls within the site may obstruct the flight

paths of low flying birds to and from the adjacent nature reserve. Mitigation for wildlife has not

been itemised except for landscaping of screening mounds. The report fails to justify how these

mounds will overcome the effect of lighting on wildlife. Furthermore, the revised site layout

plan shows ponds to be built into the mounds to increase wildlife potential, however it is

considered that the ponds will be shaded by the mounds themselves, which will restrict plant

growth and hence other wildlife.

The site is located close to an area identified through the Index of Multiple Deprivation as one of

the areas with high levels of deprivation. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposals could

include significant benefits for the local community in engaging local youth, reducing crime and

vandalism through active participation in sport, the principle of built development on MOL is

considered to be an inappropriate use of this land which by reason of its permanence would have

a lasting effect on the open nature of the site contrary to Policies G.6 and G.7 of the adopted

UDP and Policies G2 and G3 of the second deposit draft UDP and central government guidance

contained in RPG3, PPG2 and PPG17.

Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence

on file ref. 02/03640,excluding exempt information.

as amended by documents received on 05.11.2002 09.01.2003 07.03.2003 06.05.2003

03.10.2003 21.10.2003 12.11.2003

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are:

1 The proposal would by reason of the amount of site coverage by artificial and hard

surfaces, large pavilion building and the intensity of illumination of the floodlighting,

would be both inappropriate development and harmful to the openness of this area of

Metropolitan Open Land and no very special circumstances are seen which might justify

the setting aside of established policy. As such the proposal would be contrary to

Policies G.6, G.7, L.2 and L.12 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies

G2, G3, L7 and ER11 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September

2002).

2 The proposed development would have an adverse impact on native wildlife and would

be in conflict with the interests of nature conservation of the adjacent South Norwood

Country Park contrary to Policies G.23, G.24 and G.25 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policies NE1, NE2, NE4, ER11 and ER18 of the second deposit

draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

_________________________

11


Chislehurst

Address : Flat 1 The Chestnuts St. Pauls

Cray Road Chislehurst Kent BR7

6QD

Conservation Area:

Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 544616 N: 170025

Applicant : Rusjon (UK) Ltd Objections : YES


Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 2 three/four storey blocks comprising 20

two bedroom and 4 three bedroom flats, with basement and surface parking for 50 cars

(The Chestnuts and Chestnuts Royal, St. Pauls Cray Road)

Joint Report with Application No. 02/04374

Proposal

This site is located on the north-east side of St Paul‟s Cray Road close to the local shopping

centre of Royal Parade, Chislehurst. The site has a frontage to St Paul‟s Cray Road of about 50m

and a maximum depth of about 85m. The south eastern part of the site is occupied by a five

storey building known as The Chestnuts, which also has a three storey extension to the side. The

north western part of the site is occupied by a three storey building known as Chestnuts Royal

which is connected to the three storey side extension of The Chestnuts.

The site currently has two vehicular access points from the highway. In the centre of the

frontage and access leads under Chestnuts Royal to a garage compound and parking area at the

rear. A second access point to the Chestnuts leads to forecourt parking in front of that building.

There is a significant tree and shrub screen along the south eastern boundary together with

mature trees to the front of the site and groups of trees along the north west boundary. The

existing buildings are of an ordinary design which contributes little to the character and

appearance of this part of the Chislehurst Conservation Area.

Conservation area consent (ref: 02/04374) is sought for the demolition of the existing buildings

on the site and planning permission is sought for the erection of two new buildings comprising a

total of 24 flats. The south-eastern building would have a maximum height of four storeys and

would accommodate 7 two bedroom flats, 5 three bedroom flats and one 4 bedroom flat. The

north-western block would be part three storey and part four storeys and would accommodate 11

units in total in a mix of 10 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats. The three storey element of

this block would be adjacent to the north-western boundary which adjoins the two storey

dwellinghouses in Bull Lane. The applicants state that this part of the building would be lower

than the existing three storey block on the site.

The existing south-eastern access from St Paul‟s Cray Road is to be retained to provide access

to 7 forecourt parking spaces and to a ramp leading down to a basement car parking area which

would accommodate another 43 spaces. The existing garages at the rear of the site would be

cleared and the area landscaped and returned to amenity space. The proposed buildings have

been designed in a traditional form with materials including yellow stock bricks with stone

stringcourses and arches and a slate roof.

12

In support of the proposals the applicants make the following points:-

the existing buildings on the site are of an unattractive design and appearance and

detract from the charm and character of this part of the conservation area

the existing buildings do not make a positive contribution to the character and

appearance of the conservation area and a as result there can be no objection in

principle to their demolition and redevelopment with a new scheme.

the proposed new buildings are of a high quality design with good space for

landscaping around and between the two new buildings. The height of the proposed

blocks would not exceed that of The Chestnuts, and although part of the new building

is higher than the existing building on the Chestnuts Royal site, the overall mass and

bulk of the new scheme would be a significant improvement on the street scene.

the scheme would not represent an overdevelopment as a substantial area of the site at

the rear would remain undeveloped and give good separation to adjoining properties

at the north-western boundary, the closest part of the new building would be lower

than the existing building on the site. The number of windows on the flank elevation

has been reduced to a minimum.

the site does not need to provide affordable housing given the number of units

proposed (24) and the limits set in Government Circular 6/98. The Council‟s

emerging policy on affordable housing is at odds with Government advice and needs

to be justified through the UDP process. As a result, little weight can be attached to

the policy.

revised plans have been submitted to reduce the impact of Block 1 on the north

western side of the site. The rear wing has been lowered by 1 metre and the block

moved away from a group of holly trees. Furthermore, the number of windows has

been reduced to remove any overlooking problems from the north-western flank

elevation.

The applicants have also submitted a tree report which concludes that the development would

result in the loss of 11 low quality trees that could be replaced by post construction landscaping.

Appropriate application of robust fencing and ground protection measures would also ensure the

safe retention of the remaining trees in and around the site.

Consultations

The views of English Heritage have been sought of the merits of the existing buildings on the

site. Any comments will be reported verbally at the meeting regarding the demolition of the

existing buildings and the merits of the replacement scheme.

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas has been consulted and its comments will also be

reported verbally at the meeting.

With regard to highways matters, concerns are raised about the lack of turning facilities on the

site for refuse vehicles.

With regard to trees on the site, the revisions made to the layout of the car parking areas at the

front of the proposed flats has eased the pressure on two hollies and a birch. However, the

parking area appears awkward and whilst the width of the drive has been reduced it will slope

down to the basement parking and no information has been supplied as to how the land will be

affected where these trees are growing.

13

A group of 3 hollies at the north-western boundary will be affected by the proposed building

works. These trees are some 3-4 metres away from the proposed building and are still

unacceptably close. The trees, whilst not large, form a screen between the site and buildings in

Bull Lane and sufficient distance is required between the furthest extent of the canopy and the

proposed building to allow for the erection of scaffolding and to allow safe working. At the very

least this would mean that the trees would have to be cut back severely or the builders would ask

for their removal.

A number of letters have been received which raise objections to the proposals. The comments

made can be summarised as follows:-

the proposals represent a substantial intensification of development on the site which

would be out of character with neighbouring properties and the Chislehurst

Conservation Area

the proposals fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the

conservation area

the bulk and massing of the proposals is out of character with neighbouring properties

in Bull Lane.

the adjoining dwellings in Bull Lane have very short rear gardens and as a result the

new building would dominate the outlook from the rear of these properties.

the loss of mature trees on the site would be detrimental to the character of the area

additional traffic from the site would add to congestion in the area

it is likely that other trees on the site would be lost as a result of excavations

the proposed buildings are too high for this part of the conservation area.

The Chislehurst Society raise objections to the proposals on the grounds that the footprint of

development on the site would be substantially increased and that although lower in parts, the

general massing of the new buildings would be over-bearing. This would be particularly

important in relation to the two storey houses in Bull Lane. It is considered that the proposals

would cause harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and should be

refused. They also note that the proposed access crosses Common Land between the site and the

carriageway in St Paul‟s Cray Road. This would require the consent of the Commons

Conservators.


The site lies within the Chislehurst Conservation Area. Any proposals within the area will

therefore need to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character

or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies H.2, E.1 and E.7 of the adopted UDP

and Policies H6, BE1 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept

2002).

In addition the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Chislehurst Conservation Area is

relevant. This sets out the definition for the character of the Conservation Area and includes this

site in Sub-unit 5. This defines the residential element around the shopping centre of Royal

parade as follows:

“3.46 The surrounding cluster of housing and other development is included in the

Royal Parade character sub-unit. This contains a mixture of predominantly

residential properties, including a strong proportion of buildings from the

nineteenth century. The houses along Church Row are a particularly delightful

14

complement to the common they front, and the characteristics relevant to

Character Sub-unit 2 (above) also apply to it.”

The relevant paragraph from Sub Unit 2 is as follows:

“3.29 All properties fronting the commons and adjacent main routes are very important

to the character and appearance of Chislehurst. The buildings are generally

positive contributors to these qualities, whilst the generosity of trees, hedges and

gardens strongly reinforces the sense that a wooded environment with scattered

housing lies beyond the commons.”

With regard to the demolition of buildings in conservation areas, the SPG states that it is the

Council policy to resist the loss of buildings; spaces, trees and features, which it considers, are

contributory to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is Council policy to

"oppose the demolition of any part of a building or building within conservation areas where

these make a positive contribution to the character of an area". [UDP Policy E.7 (i)].

It is considered that the Chestnuts and Chestnuts Royal are non-contributory buildings. The SPG

states as follows with regards to their demolition.

“4.11 Proposals for demolition of buildings or changes to features or spaces which

Council considers detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation

Area will generally be supported subject to the Council being satisfied that the

design of the replacement building, feature or space will result in enhancement of

the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in a manner consistent

with achievement of policy 3 below, and a secure commitment to proceed with

the replacement proposed without undue delay.”

With regard to the replacement buildings on the site, the SPG makes a number of

recommendations for the design of the new structures. Generally, developers should be guided

by the following general; advice:

“4.13 Development on a currently vacant site should be mindful of established density

and layout in the Area, which will generally provide a guide to the appropriate

scale and positioning of new development. Insertion of new structures within

plots, which are already developed, will generally require constraint in scale and

careful positioning to ensure that they do not detract from the established

character and appearance.”

The SPG goes on to state that the Council expects all new

development in the Borough to be of a high standard of design

and layout, respecting the scale, form and materials of adjacent

buildings and areas and achieving satisfactory relationships

with existing buildings, spaces and features. (UDP Policy E.1).

Where new buildings are proposed, attention is required to

ensure their compatibility with the character and appearance of

the Conservation Area. New development should result in a

positive contribution to the Area, both in its own right, and as

an element in the urban form. As well as buildings, this also

applies to consequential spaces and to the relationships between

buildings, along with treatment of the site and its

surroundings.

At paragraph 4.18, the SPG states that new buildings should not

become dominant elements or overwhelm contributory structures

15

and spaces. It is usually good practice for new buildings to

keep within the typical height of existing buildings, preferably

remaining slightly lower than adjacent contributory buildings.

Conclusions

In the first instance, Members will need to decide whether or not the existing buildings on the

site make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. It is

considered that the existing buildings do not actually positively contribute and therefore, their

demolition would not be ruled out, subject to an acceptable scheme for replacement buildings on

the site.

With regard to the new building, Members will need to decide whether or not they are of an

appropriate scale and design for this sensitive location. The statutory test is relevant and states

that new proposals in Conservation areas should pay special attention to the desirability of

preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed

buildings, although lower than the five storeys of The Chestnuts are generally more bulky and

increase the massing of development along this frontage to St Paul‟s Cray Road. The

predominant height of four storeys fails to respect the small domestic scale of the two storey

dwellings at St Meddens on Bull Lane and results in a scheme of two massive buildings which

dominate the area to the detriment of the character and appearance of the conservation area.

In addition, the proposals have extensive rear wings which significantly add to the amount of

development on the site. This has a limited impact in terms of Block 2 at the south eastern end

of the site, but in Block 1, at the north-western end, this has an impact on the outlook from the

rear of properties in St Meddens and significantly closes of the prospect and amenities which

they currently enjoy. The potential impact on the three holly trees on the boundary would

increase this impact and result in a proposal which dominates the rear aspect of these properties

to an unacceptable degree.

The loss of trees is also likely to significant and will result in further harm to the character and

appearance of the conservation area. In the light of these comments, it is recommended that

planning permission be refused for the erection of the two blocks of flats and that conservation

area consent be refused for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site for the reasons

stated.


files ref. 02/04365 & 02/04374, excluding exempt information.



1 The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the amount of

site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces and the height, mass and bulk of the

proposed replacement blocks of flats which would harm the character and appearance of

this part of the Chislehurst Conservation Area contrary to Policies H.2, E.1 and E.7 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6, BE1 and BE9 of the second deposit

draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

2 By reason of the height of the proposed replacement blocks of flats and their additional

projection into the rear of the site, the development would be likely to have a detrimental

16

impact on the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of loss of

prospect from the rear of their properties, thereby 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 (Sept 2002).

3 The proposed development would result in the undesirable loss of trees all of which are

protected by virtue of their location within the Chislehurst Conservation Area which

would be severely detrimental to the character and visual amenities of the Chislehurst

Conservation Area and therefore contrary to Policies H.2 and E.7 of the deposit draft

Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary

Development Plan (Sept 2002).

_________________________

4. Application No : 02/04374/CAC Ward :

Chislehurst

Address : Flat 1 The Chestnuts St. Pauls

Cray Road Chislehurst Kent BR7

6QD

Conservation Area:

Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 544616 N: 170025

Applicant : Rusjon (UK) Ltd Objections : YES


Demolition of existing buildings The Chestnuts and Chestnuts Royal, St. Pauls Cray Road

Conservation Area Consent


RECOMMENDATION: CONSENT BE REFUSED

1 The proposed demolition of the existing buildings on the site would be premature in the

absence of an acceptable scheme for their replacement, which would thereby conflict

with Policy E.7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies BE7 and BE9 of

the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002) and the advice contained

in paragraphs 3.16-3.19 of PPG15 "Planning and the Historic Environment".

_________________________

17


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : The George High Street

Farnborough Orpington Kent BR6

7BA

Conservation Area:

Farnborough Village

OS Grid Ref: E: 544355 N: 164296

Applicant : Laing Homes South East Thames Objections : YES


Demolition of existing building (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT) (DUPLICATE

APPLICATION)


Proposal

Demolition of existing public house.

Consultations

Refer to application ref. 03/02932.


This proposal is dependant upon permission being granted for application ref. 03/02932. The

building in question is not considered to be of any particular architectural merit.

Conclusions

If Members grant permission for application ref. 03/02932 then consent can be granted for this

application.

as amended by documents received on 22.08.2003 07.11.2003

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

subject to the following conditions:

1 DCG01 Listed Blgs/Conservation Area Consents

DCG01R G01 reason

18

_________________________


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : The George High Street

Farnborough Orpington Kent BR6

7BA

Conservation Area:

Farnborough Village

OS Grid Ref: E: 544355 N: 164296

Applicant : Laing Homes South East Thames Objections : YES


Demolition of existing building and erection of linked residential redevelopment

comprising 9 three bedroom two storey houses each with front dormer and rear dormer

windows, three storey block comprising 6 two bedroom flats, associated access drive from

Church Road, with 9 car parking spaces to the rear and 6 spaces to the front of Church

Road


This application was withdrawn from the Plans Sub-Committee agenda on 18 December 2003 at

the applicant‟s request. A duplicate application ref. 03/02931 was considered at the Sub-

Committee and was deferred for amendments to be made to the scheme. Amended plans were

received and the application was subsequently refused at the Plans Sub-Committee on 22

January 2004 for the following reasons:

1 The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the amount of

site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces having particular regard to the space about

the building and rear garden areas. Which would be out of character with the

surrounding pattern of development and the Farnborough Conservation Area in general,

contrary to Policies H.2, E.1 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and

Policies H6, BE1 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept

2002).

2 The proposed development is located within the Farnborough Village Conservation Area

and by reason of its bulk and massing, the proposed development is considered to be of

insufficient merit to replace the existing building(s) on site, contrary to Policy E.7 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary


This application was not amended and is therefore to be considered on the basis of the plans

seen by the Sub-Committee on 18 December. As such the report to that meeting is repeated

below with changes where appropriate.

19

Proposal

The site location of this application is The George Public House, an early –mid 20th

Century

building which replaced an historic coaching inn. The site is situated in the Farnborough village

Conservation Area at the junction of the High Street and Church Road.

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing building and erection of six terraced houses

fronting the High Street, 3 terraced houses fronting Church Road and a three storey corner block

comprising 6 two bedroom flats. It is proposed to have a total of 15 car parking spaces, 6 on the

frontage to Church Road and 9 to the rear via a new access drive from Church Road.

The applicant has stated their aim of picking out a variety of distinctive characteristics of the

Conservation Area and maintaining the village-like character of the area.

Consultations

Local residents were consulted on the application; objections have been received on the

following grounds:

the height of the block of flats

loss of The George pub as a landmark building and village facility

the negative effect on local businesses

overdevelopment not in keeping with the Conservation Area

insufficient car parking

impact on congestion and road safety

overlooking and loss of privacy

change to the character of the village

density

loss of amenity to adjoining properties

loss of light and outlook.

A letter of support has also been received.

A letter has been received from an adjoining owner relating to the amended plans withdrawing

previous objections, which were raised on the original plans.

The result of a survey of 400 properties conducted by a local group, which resulted in 80 replies,

has also been submitted. To summarise the survey found that the respondents were in favour of

a development utilising the existing building and retention of the car park.

The South East London Archaeological Unit was consulted on the application and has advised

that they are of the opinion that the site is within an area of archaeological potential and that an

appropriate condition should therefore be attached.

English Heritage was also consulted for their views on potential archaeological impact and also

has no objections subject to the imposition of a condition.

There are no technical objections from a cleansing and drainage point of view.

From a highways point of view there are concerns the proposal will significantly obstruct the

sightline from Church Road and consequently have an adverse affect on road safety for vehicles

and pedestrians.

20

From a tree point of view there is some concern over the impact that the removal of the existing

hard surfacing may have on the plane trees on the site although they could be safeguarded

through the imposition of conditions. The applicant has also been asked whether the access to

the parking at the rear can be provided without excavating under the canopy of the tree. Any

response will be reported at the meeting.

From a heritage and design point of view the amended plans are an improvement on those

originally submitted. The development will create a traditional built frontage on the important

junction between Church Road and the High Street. The built form adequately reflects the

variety of styles within the village – from vernacular to Victorian – with traditional local

materials proposed. However, it is considered that this will only be successful if the detailing is

meticulous and to a high, traditional standard.

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas were consulted on the original plans and made the

following comments:

„We object to this on the grounds of Policies E.1, E.7 and its design relative to the other key

buildings in the conservation area, a much more sympathetic scale building should be proposed.‟


The proposal should be considered principally with regard to Policies H.2, Design of Housing

Development, E.1, Design of New Development and E.7, Conservation Areas of the adopted

Unitary Development Plan and the equivalent Policies in the second deposit draft Unitary


The key issues covered by H.2 and E.1, which relate to this application are as follows;

That development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings.

The proposed building should be in keeping with the character of the area.

The privacy and amenities of adjoining properties should be protected.

The density of the proposed development is in keeping with the character and spatial standards

of the area.

With regard to Policy E.7 and draft Policy BE9 the main points are that where there will be an

adverse impact on the Conservation Area the Council will;

Oppose the demolition of buildings which make a positive contribution to the character of the

area

Prevent the loss of important trees

Further considerations are the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Farnborough Village

Conservation Area and PPG 15, which require an assessment of the contribution of the building

to character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Conclusions

This is a significant site in the heart of the Farnborough Village Conservation Area, which

clearly requires careful consideration taking into account the relevant issues, which are

considered to be its impact on the historic nature and character of the conservation area, the

design of the proposal and any potential impact on the amenities of the occupants of adjoining

properties.

21

In an assessment of the merits of the existing building it is fair to say that the site has some

historic significance in relation to the coaching inn, its replacement however is not of any

particular merit in its own right and has been altered and extended considerably over the years.

The building‟s form does not relate to its surroundings by virtue of its raised position and

difficult relationship to the High Street. Furthermore, its adjoining car park (on the most

prominent part of the site) is unsightly and allows views of the existing building‟s bleak flank

elevation. As such, having considered all its features, it is not felt that the existing buildings

make a positive contribution to the conservation area. The loss of a public house is also not an

issue given that there are a number of other public houses in the village.

With regard to the proposed development although this is a single development it is necessary to

break it down into three sections, the elevation of the terraced houses facing the High Street, the

terrace facing Church Street and the block of flats on the corner.

The terrace facing the High Street has been designed in a Victorian style with a street frontage

set back around 1 metre from the back edge of the pavement with low picket fences. To the rear

the houses have small gardens backing onto the car park ranging from 5 metres to 7 metres in

length. The scale and design of these houses is in keeping with the conservation area in that two

storey buildings with dormers are found in the buildings on the northern side of the High Street,

although on the more historic southern side of the High Street dormers are not common. There

is sufficient distance between the terrace and the properties opposite for overlooking and loss of

privacy not to be a concern. The outlook for the adjoining property to the east should be

improved given the reduction in built form compared with the existing buildings. It should be

noted that to achieve the development in its current form, the depth of the rear gardens has been

reduced from the normal requirement of 10 metres.

The terrace of three houses to Church Street has been designed in a Kentish vernacular style and

is set back 9 metres from the back edge of the pavement to allow for the retention of trees and

creation of car parking at the front. This terrace should blend in well with the surrounding area

providing appropriate materials are used. The gardens to these houses are again small, around 4

metres in length to one of the houses and 8 metres to the other two. Concern has been raised by

the occupant of the first floor flat at 3 Church Road with regard to total loss of light to the

kitchen area and loss of outlook. When assessing loss of amenity consideration is normally only

given to habitable rooms and it may therefore be unreasonable to consider refusing the

application on the basis of loss of amenity to a kitchen area. Not withstanding this the applicant

has carried out a survey to assess the daylight and sunlight impact, which concludes that there

will be a minor reduction in daylight to the window but no loss of sunlight or overshadowing.

The block of flats also has a Kentish vernacular type appearance although clearly of a

grander scale. Whilst this particular aspect of the development may be considered out of scale

with the general character of the village a slightly larger building on the corner of the site is felt

to be appropriate to provide a focal point. There is a small communal garden accessed by 2 of

the flats.

In summary this proposal has the potential to create a high quality development on a significant

site. The design complies with the conservation area policies and guidance and the scale and

massing of the building is not inappropriate to the locality. Loss of amenity to the adjoining

properties should be minimal. There is a less than normal amount of rear amenity space to the

properties although given the openness of the car park at the rear of the site the feeling of a

cramped development should be avoided. Highways concerns relating to visibility do need

careful consideration as do local resident‟s comments relating to inadequate parking although it

should be noted that Government guidance encourages local authorities to adopt flexible parking

standards and advises that developers should not be required to provide more car parking than

22

they or potential occupiers might want. With regard to the historical significance of the site the

applicants have indicated verbally that they would be willing to install a plaque in a prominent

position, which makes reference to the site‟s past. It is recommended that a condition be placed

on any planning permission to ensure this is carried out.


files ref. 03/02931, 03/02932, 03/02922 and 03/02923, excluding exempt information.





DCA01R A01 reason

2 DCA04 Landscaping scheme full app no details

DCA04R A04 reason

3 DCA07 Boundary enclosures no details submitted

DCA07R A07 reason

4 DCB01 Trees to be retained during blg ops

DCB01R B01 reason

5 DCB02 Trees - protective fencing

DCB02R B02 reason

6 DCB03 Trees - no bonfires

DCB03R B03 reason

7 DCB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains

DCB04R B04 reason

8 DCB16 Trees - no excavation

DCB16R B16 reason

9 DCC01 Satisfactory materials

DCC01R C01 reason

10 DCC02 Sample brickwork panel

DCC02R C02 reason

11 DCC03 Details of windows

DCC03R C03 reason

12 DCC05 Brickwork patterning

DCC05R C05 reason

13 DCC06 Mortar details

DCC06R C06 reason

14 DCH01 Details of access layout (2 inserts)

DCH01R H01 reason

15 DCH03 Satisfactory parking, full application

DCH03R H03 reason

16 DCH04 Parking bays/garages

DCH04R H04 reason

17 DCH12 Visibility splay (veh access) (2 insert) 3.3m x 2.4m x 3.3m

DCH12R H12 reason

18 DCH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilties

DCH16R H16 reason

19 DCH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted

DCH18R H18 reason

20 DCH22 Bicycle parking

DCH22R H22 reason

23

21 DCH23 Lighting scheme for access/parking

DCH23R H23 reason

22 DCI02 Restriction of pd rights - A,B,C and E

DCI02R I02 reason need reason

23 DCI13 No windows (2 inserts) flank development

DCI13R I13 reason

24 DCK01 Compliance with submitted plan

Reason: In order to comply with Policies E.1 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policies BE1 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary


25 DCK03 No equipment on roof

DCK03R K03 reason

26 DCK05 Slab levels, no details submitted

DCK05R K05 reason

27 DCK08 Archaeological access

DCK08R K08 reason

28 A plaque shall be installed on the corner block making reference to the historical

significance of the site, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced. The works

shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and permanently maintained

as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a link is maintained between the proposed development and its

historical past.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 RDI06 Obligations Section 80 Building Act 1984

2 RDI10 Street Naming and Numbering

3 RDI18 Advise DC Re commencement

4 The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The

applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form an archaeological project

design. The design should be in accordance with appropriate English Heritage

guidelines.

_________________________

7. Application No : 03/03099/DEEM3 Ward :

Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : Darrick Wood Secondary School

Lovibonds Avenue Orpington Kent

BR6 8ER


OS Grid Ref: E: 543971 N: 165093

Applicant : Darrick Wood Secondary School Objections : YES


Floodlighting to all weather pitch comprising eight 12 metre columns

24

Proposal

This application was deferred by the Plans Sub-Committee on 23rd

October 2003 for Members to

visit the site. A site visit was carried out at 5.00pm on Tuesday 17th

February 2004. The

previous report is repeated below.

The application seeks permission for eight 12 metre high lighting columns to an existing all

weather pitch. The lighting is proposed to be used until 10 p.m. Monday – Friday and until 6

p.m. on Saturday. No Sunday use is proposed.

Consultations

27 letters of objection have been received. The objectors highlight problems associated with the

existing use of the school and its facilities. Concern is also expressed about the late night use,

the effect of the lighting on amenity and the intensification of use of the site and the exacerbated

problems which would flow from it.


Under ref. 94/02651 permission was refused for eight 18 metre high floodlighting columns.

Under ref. 95/01434 permission is refused for six 12 metre high lighting columns. The grounds

of refusal in both cases were the effect on residential amenity and the open nature of the site.

The current application seeks to address the issues by stressing the improved lighting technology,

the separation distance between the pitch and residential properties and proposing to reinforce

the existing planting between the pitch and residential properties. It is not acceptable to the

applicants to accept a shorter period of floodlight use in the evenings.

Conclusions

The previous grounds of refusal are still relevant to this application and there has been no

material change in circumstances which would warrant a different recommendation.


files refs. 94/02651, 95/01434 and 03/03099, excluding exempt information.



1 The proposed floodlights by reason of their height and proximity to residential properties

on this elevated site would constitute visually prominent and intrusive features,

detrimental to the residential amenities of adjoining properties backing on to the site

contrary to Policy ER11 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan

(September 2002)

2 The proposal would create development of a nature and scale which would be likely to

impair the open nature of the site, which is an area of Urban Open Space, contrary to

Policy G.11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy G10 of the second

deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

25

_________________________


Cray Valley East

Address : Oak View Crockenhill Road

Orpington Kent BR5 4ES

Conservation Area:

OS Grid Ref: E: 548154 N: 167569

Applicant : Oak View Estates Ltd Objections : YES


Single storey extensions to provide link corridor and toilet facilities

Proposal

This application for single storey extensions to the premises has twice been deferred by the Plans

Sub-Committee to obtain additional information. On the last occasion, at the meeting on 18th

January 2004, Members requested clarification on the following points.

details of a business plan so as to establish the extent of future changes and the likely

intensity of the use in terms of the overall accommodation to be provided and the

maximum numbers of children/staff

details of any covenants regarding the private sewer serving the site and confirmation

sought that this was used for foul drainage only and not for surface water run-off

details of existing parking provision and any additional parking proposed, together

with an assessment of demand both now and after development works at the site are

complete.

In response, the agent has commented as follows:

“1. PROPOSED BUSINESS/DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Phase 1 (completed February 2001)

Refurbishment of part of the existing accommodation/building at ground floor level to provide 9

bedrooms, 5 classrooms, gymnasium, ancillary offices, kitchen, laundry, administration, games

room, recreational room. Art room and toilet facilities.

Maximum number of staff (at any one time**) 16

Maximum number of children 9

Phase 2 (present)

Refurbishment of the remaining part of the existing accommodation/building at ground floor

level and erection of three single storey extensions to provide 8 bedrooms (with ensuite

bathrooms), seclusion room and ancillary accommodation such as stores etc.

26

Maximum number of staff (including phase 1) 20

Maximum number of children (including phase 1) 17

Phase 3 (anticipated, subject to market forces)

Refurbishment of part of the existing accommodation/building at first floor level to provide 10-

12 bedrooms (with ensuite bathrooms) and ancillary accommodation such as stores etc.

Maximum number of staff (including phase 1 + 2) 26

Maximum number of children (including phases 1 + 2) 29


Remodelling of phase 1 area to provide ensuite bathroom/showers to bedrooms to comply with

statutory regulations.

Maximum number of staff (including phases 1, 2 + 3) 26

Maximum number of children (including phases 1, 2 + 3) 29


Refurbishment of the remaining part of the existing accommodation/building at first floor level

to provide 7-10 bedrooms (with ensuite bathrooms) and ancillary accommodation such as

stores etc.

Maximum number of staff (including phases 1, 2, 3 + 4) 30

Maximum number of children (including phases 1, 2, 3 + 4) 39

**Oak View is operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week, therefore staffing is based upon a

shift arrangement to cover this requirement. However the majority of the staffing is between 9

a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday with reduced staffing levels outside of these times/days. The

figures quoted are the maximum number of staff at any one time.

2. SEWER DRAINAGE

I am unable to supply you with a copy of the covenant transferred with the purchase of Oak View

(formally Shawcroft School) regarding the private sewer, however, I can confirm that this

covenent permits a 150mm diameter drain from their property which eventually connects with

the main public sewer via an existing 150mm foul drain running through the adjoining land for

the purpose of draining soil from the applicants site.

You may wish to note that the majority of the underground foul water drainage within the

curtilage of the site is100mm diameter. As previously stated the discharge from Oak View site

will not exceed the levels originally designed for the Shawcroft School.

I would also confirm that all of the surface water drainage discharges into a number of existing

brick built soakaways each approximately 12 cu.m. and not into the foul water drainage sewer

system. Any indication to the contrary was a mistake on my part and is incorrect.

I would also like to draw to the committees‟ attention that the additional toilet facilities included

within this application have already been approved, this application merely adjusts the

orientation of the toilet extension through 90 degrees to avoid the underground high power

cables which would cause health and safety issues to the workmen when excavating the

foundations.

3. PARKING PROVISIONS

27

There are no existing plans of the existing parking arrangement, however at present there are 30

defined car parking spaces at Oak View. These spaces were originally defined when the site was

operated as Shawcroft School.

We understand that the Council‟s UDP sets the standard levels of parking, within high

accessibility (which is applicable to this site since public transport passes the site on Crockenhill

Road and the bus stop is approximately 100m from the site entrance) as being “determined

locally on proposal merits”.

Following consultation with your general planning enquiries department we understand that it

would be appropriate to use the 1 space per 10 staff ratio for determining minimum parking

levels.

During phase 1 refurbishment works, 3 of the spaces were re-defined for disabled usages. There

is no proposal to increase the present provision, however, any increase would be subject to

statutory approvals where necessary.”

The previous report, suitably updated, is repeated below for Members‟ consideration.

This site is used as a residential medium secure unit for maladjusted children.

The application proposes 2 single storey extensions at the rear of the building complex. The first

involves the provision of a linked corridor within an existing courtyard and the second involves a

minor addition to an existing bedroom to provide shower/toilet and enlarged store.

In support of the application, the agent explains the following:

the toilet extension is provided to comply with the Health Authority‟s statutory

requirement for each bedroom to have en-suite facilities

the extension has been relocated from its originally approved position because of

underground cables

the corridor link is again required to comply with legislation (Health and Safety) and

will allow movement around the building without leaving the secure areas

the extensions are low-level and designed to match the building‟s existing features,

lines and materials; as such, the overall proportions of the building will not be

affected and, given the enclosed location of the corridor, neither will the surrounding

environment

the proposed extension will not increase the number of children or staff at the facility.

In response to questions raised following the original deferral, the agent commented as follows:

Will there be an increase in children? - The establishment (formally known as

Shawcroft School) originally provided accommodation for the education and care of

up to 50 children. At present the facility cares for a maximum of 9 children, when

this phase is completed there will be an additional 8 children, making a total number

of 17 children. Hence there is no increase in the number of children from the

previous use.

Confirmation of building usage – Oak View is a medium secure adolescent

psychiatric facility offering therapy and educational facilities to the children in their

care, who come from deprived backgrounds including children who have been abused

and operates within Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order

1987.

28

Is there to be an increased discharge to the sewers? - As previously stated the facility

originally provided accommodation for the education and care of up to 50 children

plus bungalows for the Head Teacher and Caretaker and two flats for married

teachers. In all the facility originally had in excess of 140 appliances (i.e. wc‟s, baths,

sinks, urinals, hand basins and showers). After completion of this phase there will

only be 50 appliances. Therefore there will not be an increase in discharge to the

sewers.

Storage of builder‟s rubble - I confirm that the temporary spoil heap has been

removed and that this temporary spoil heap has not affected any of the trees. A recent

photograph is attached to support this statement. (copy attached to file)

Consultations

Objections have been received from 13 local residents on the following summarised grounds:

concerns about security and vandalism

concerns at the concentration of such development in St. Mary Cray

contrary to Green Belt policy

objections to principle of secure unit (it has already been established that this does not

require planning permission)

concerns about inadequate parking and increased traffic of numbers increase

devaluation of property

increased noise and litter

concerns about overloading services such as sewers

access to Oakview and adjoining Kevington Hall already a problem

inadequate neighbour notification (immediate neighbours have been consulted and

the application has also been publicised by way of a site notice and local press

advert).

Any further comments received will be reported verbally at Committee.


This premises is located within the Green Belt and until July 1997 was used as a boarding school

for maladjusted children. The site was formally part of the adjoining property, Kevington Hall,

which is a listed building. The school complex was erected within the original walled garden to

the Hall and the walls are therefore listed by virtue of the listing of the main building. However,

the school buildings are not statutorily listed but are on the Council‟s local list.

There was a change in ownership of the site in about 1999 and in March 2000 a report was

presented to Committee explaining the use intended by the new owners.

The Chief Operating Officer of the premises at that time advised that the new owners would be

continuing the existing lawful use, providing a residential medium secure unit for maladjusted

children. It was anticipated that between 50 and 54 children ranging between 6 and 18 years of

age and between 10-13 carers/staff would be in residence. The existing school facilities with

about 7 classrooms along with teaching staff would be in use on a full time basis. There would

also be a medical team comprising of a full time psychiatrist, registered nurses, psychologists,

health assistants and recreational therapists. On the basis of the information provided and that

there was no material change in use, Members noted the report and took no action.

29

The question of the use has been raised again recently but as residential schools and hospitals fall

within the same use class, planning permission would not be required for either use.

Given the Green Belt location and the local listing of the building, Policies G.2 and E.1 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies G1 and BE1 of the second deposit Unitary

Development Plan (September 2002) apply.

Since the introduction of the current use, the site has been the subject of a number of

applications, including proposals for security fencing (99/03448) and a recent permission (ref.

03/00635) for two modest single storey extensions located towards the rear. It is the relocation

of one of these additions that forms part of the current proposal.

Conclusions

As the site is located within the Green Belt, Members will first need to consider whether the

development is inappropriate in policy terms and, if so, whether there are very special

circumstances to justify setting aside the normal presumption against such development. It will

also be necessary to consider whether the extensions would harm the appearance of the building,

particularly given its local listing, and character of the area.

On the first issue, it is evident from the layout plan that the extensions, which are modest in size,

will be within/adjacent to the existing building complex and will not, therefore, encroach onto

open Green Belt land. On this basis, and given the legislative need for the facilities to be

provided, it is considered that there are very special circumstances in this particular case to

justify the development in Green Belt terms.

On the second issue, the extensions will be single storey and designed to match the main

building, as far as possible. Given their rearward location and modest bulk when compared with

the main building itself, it is not considered that they will cause sufficient harm to the building or

area to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

Background papers referred to in the production of this report include all correspondence on files

refs. 99/03448, 03/00635 and 03/03208, excluding exempt information.




DCA01R A01 reason


DCC01R C01 reason


DCC03R C03 reason

_________________________

30


Chislehurst

Address : Land At Woodclyffe Drive

Chislehurst Kent

Conservation Area:

Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 543253 N: 169510

Applicant : Woodclyffe Development Ltd Objections : YES


13 split level town houses with integral garages and frontage access drive

Joint report with Application No. 03/03471

Proposal

This application was deferred by the Plans Sub Committee on 19th

February 2004 to carry out a

site visit and to seek a reduction in the amount of development on the site. Members visited the

site on 13th

March 2004 and in response to the request for a reduction, the applicants have

submitted revised plans which show 13 units on the site, rather than 14. The house adjacent to

the north-eastern boundary has been omitted and the remaining houses on the site have been re-

positioned to increase the permeability and visibility between the central pair of houses and the

adjoining terraces. In the light of these comments, my previous report is repeated below with

suitable amendments.

This site is located at the northern end of Woodclyffe Drive close to Chislehurst Station. The

site is currently undeveloped and is largely overgrown with rough vegetation and a number of

trees. The site is flat at the point where is meets Woodclyffe Drive but then slopes steeply down

to wards the Chislehurst Caves to the north-west. The remainder of Woodclyffe Drive is in

residential use with a mixture of dwelling types including three storey townhouses and two

storey detached houses.

Two planning applications have been submitted for full planning permission on the site for the

erection of, in the case of 03/03470 (revised) 13 houses on the site, and in the case of 03/03471,

14 split level townhouses with integral garages. The houses would be split into two terraces

each side of a central pair of semi-detached houses. The houses would front onto an access road

and parking area leading onto Woodclyffe Drive.

To take account of the topography of the site which drops by 10 metres from front to rear, the

houses would be split level with two storeys to the front and four storeys to the rear. The houses

31

are of a contemporary design using a mix of materials including zinc roof panels, cedar cladding

and natural stone walls with large areas of glazing.

In support of the proposals, the applicants have submitted a long statement relating to the

planning merits of the case. In summary they make a number of general points :

the planning history indicates that the principle of residential development on this site

has been accepted by the Council. The history also demonstrates the inherent

difficulties with development of this site resulting from it topography and former

uses, which have resulted in previous schemes not being viable

the current proposals are in accordance with national, regional and local planning

policies

the area around the site comprises a range of densities and the form of development

proposed, townhouses, is already found in the conservation area. The density of

development would be in keeping with existing densities in the surrounding area

the proposed development which benefits from high quality design and landscaping

will, as a result preserve the character and appearance of the area

the development is considered acceptable in terms of its design, density and impact.

Reports have also been submitted in relation to the impact of the proposals on trees on the site,

on badgers in the area, on ground conditions and measures to show how the houses would be

built on the site and on bats which have been reported in the area.

With regards to trees, the report summarises the main issues as follows:

“The survey site is for residential development and the northern part id to remain

substantially unaltered although some landscape and ecological enhancements are to be

made. There are very few trees of merit in the residential area and the combination of

severe topography and soil and geological characteristics means that the most practicable

way forward is to start from scratch. This is the only feasible way of combining the

efficient development use of the site as required, with an integrated and sustainable tree

planting and landscape scheme.”

A supplementary tree report has also been produced relating to trees on neighbouring ground to

the east of the site. This report concludes that they would not be affected by the proposals,

although it is not clear from the report whether they have been accurately surveyed.

With regards to the badgers in the area, the submitted report concludes that the badger sett

located in close proximity to the proposed development probably represents a single social

group. Disturbance would obviously take place in the foraging area; however, there appears to

be sufficient natural habitat in the locality to accommodate their needs. The report also states

that the opportunity should be taken to provide mitigation in the form of natural habitat

enhancement that will benefit badgers and the local environment. A licence also needs to be

obtained from English Nature prior to commencement of work.

The Structural Appraisal Report suggests a number of methods of building the proposed houses,

which mainly suggest deep piles through the site and beyond the Chislehurst Caves below.

The bat survey, carried out in January found 2 bats within the Chislehurst Caves system in a

location which was unlikely to be affected by the exploratory and piling works associated with

the proposed development. A follow up survey was carried out in February and reinforced the

conclusions of the first survey. The consultants conclude that bats may make occasional use of

32

the entrance areas in winter, but that the majority of the cave system surveyed is too warm for

successful bat hibernation and too heavily disturbed for regular use by bats

Consultations

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas raise no objections to the proposals.

A number of trees on the site are affected by the development, all of which are protected by TPO

1 (1964) or because of their location in the Chislehurst Conservation Area. The trees are in

varying conditions and the Council‟s tree officer broadly agrees with the consultants report, apart

from T.26 which is a young horse chestnut with considerable potential for the future.

To achieve the proposed layout, there will be considerable earthworks and the only trees which

are shown to be retained are four close to the boundary with Oakleigh Park Avenue. 26 trees

will be lost of the scheme goes ahead which is considered unacceptable.

With regards to highways matters, no objections have been raised, subject to the imposition of a

number of conditions.

English Nature has advised, with regards to badgers, that a licence would be required to carry out

work on the site. With regards to the bats issue, English Nature states that the results of the

survey have prompted some concerns. Although at present these caves appear to be an

unsuitable roosting habitat for hibernating bats, there is the potential for some areas to perhaps

become more suitable if the temperature drops as a result of colder weather. Also, on the first

visit to the caves, two Natterer‟s bats (Myotis nattereri), were found close to Entrance No.2.

Natterer‟s bats are one of the UK‟s less common bats and are considered to be typical

hibernators in underground sites such as caves. At present the conditions within the cave would

be unsuitable for hibernation due to the increased temperature, limited airflow and also the high

levels of disturbance from public access. English Nature has also provided advice to the

applicants about the licences which may be required if any work is carried out which may disturb

any bats or their hibernation or roosting sites.

English Nature has also stated that the appropriate timing for proposed works, in particular any

drilling work, is crucial as this may cause severe disruption due to noise and vibration. English

Nature should be consulted on timing of works and any necessary mitigation measures. If

planning permission for this development is granted, and work goes ahead, workers must be

made aware that if any bats are discovered at any time, work must stop immediately and English

Nature be consulted for advice. Also, if the commencement of this development is postponed

for a period of more than six months, further bat surveys will be required.

A number of letters have been received which raise objections to the proposals. The comments

made can be summarised as follows.

the loss of trees on the site would be unacceptable

the site is a much needed wildlife habitat which will be destroyed if the development

is allowed to proceed

the condition of the site and its location above Chislehurst Caves makes it unsuitable

and unsafe for development

permission exists for five dwellings on the site and any more than this would be an

overdevelopment

the additional traffic generated by the proposals would be intolerable

the design of the dwellings is not appropriate for this area

there is insufficient car parking associated with the houses

33

properties to the rear of the site in Brenchley Close would be overlooked by the new

houses, resulting in a loss of privacy to residents.

A letter of support for the proposals has been received from the owners of Chislehurst Caves.

Any further comments on the revised plans will be reported verbally at the meeting.


As stated above the site has been the subject of proposals for development in the past. The

planning history can be summarised as follows:

Ref. Number Description Status Decision

84/00619/FUL Five Detached Houses Refused 26.07.1984

86/03350/FUL Detached Four Bedroom House Permission 22.01.1987

87/00041/FUL Plots 56 And 7

Three Detached Houses

Permission 07.05.1987

87/03956/OUT Three Detached Houses Outline Refused 14.04.1988

88/04524/FUL Plot 10 Detached 2 Storey X 4

Bedroom Dwelling With Integral

Garage

Refused 01.02.1989

89/01485/FUL Plot 10

Detached Five Bedroom House With

Detached Garage

Refused 06.07.1989

Appeal of 89/01485 Dismissed 18.09.1990

89/03826/FUL 2 Detached Five Bedroom Houses

With Detached Garages

Refused 17.05.1990

89/03827/FUL 2 Detached Five Bedroom Houses

With Detached Garages Duplicate

Application

Refused 17.05.1990

90/00272/FUL Three 2 Storey 5 Bedroom Detached

Houses Each With Detached Double

Garage

Refused 17.05.1990

90/00273/FUL Three 2 Storey 5 Bedroom Detached

Houses Each With Detached Double

Garage

Refused 17.05.1990

90/00803/FUL Plot 5 Detached Two Storey 5

Bedroom House With Integral Garage

Withdrawn 03.01.1991

90/02117/FUL Plot 5 Detached 2 Storey 5 Bedroom

House With Integral Garage Revised

House Type And Plot Size Duplicate

Application


90/02726/FUL Plot 10 Detached 2 Storey Five

Bedroom House With Detached

Garage


92/00394/FUL Plots 9 And 10 One Detached Five


Garage and One Detached Four

Bedroom House With Integral Garage

Refused 20.05.1992

92/00694/FUL Plots 56 And 7

Three Detached Houses Renewal Of

870041

Withdrawn 22.07.1992

34

95/02661/FUL 1 Detached Five Bedroom House With

Attached Garage 4,

Detached Four Bedroom Houses With

Integral Garages Car Parking Spaces

Access Drives And Associated

Landscaping


96/01630/FUL Plot 10 Detached 2 Storey Five


Garage

Permission

(S. 106)

18.09.1996

99/00871/FUL 3 Detached Two/Three Storey Five

Bedroom Houses Each With Detached

Garage At Front


The permission granted under ref: 99/00871 is extant. The 1996 permission under ref 95/02661

has recently expired. The applicants state that this permission permitted five houses which used

a similar proportion of the site for development. They state that this is demonstrated ion one of

their drawings.

The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies h.2, E.1 and E.7 of the adopted

Unitary Development Plan. The equivalent policies in the second deposit draft Unitary

Development Plan (Sept 2002) are Policies H6, BE1 and BE9.

The site lies within the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area. Any proposals within the area

will therefore need to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the

character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

Conclusions

The principle of residential development on the site has been established by the grant of planning

permission over the past 30 years for various schemes. Of most relevance are the last two

permissions; the 1996 permission for five detached houses spread across the site and the 1999

permission which is extant. In considering the current proposals, Members will need to consider

whether the form of development, ie terraced housing and the density of development is

acceptable for this location.

The remainder of Woodclyffe Drive and Timber Close has a diverse character and contains a

mixture of 2 storey detached houses and three storey terraces of townhouses. The townhouses

are contained within open frontages and areas of mature landscaping. Members will need to

decide whether or not the proposed two storey terraces would preserve this character.

The amount of development on the site is significantly larger than anything which the Council

has granted in the past on the site. Previous schemes have shown detached houses on the site,

yet it is stated that these have not been progressed because of the costs involved in developing

the site. The revised plans submitted for application 03/03470 have eased the pressure of

development at some points. In particular the deletion of the dwelling adjacent to the north

eastern boundary has increased the separation distance to the boundary to 4.8 metres, whilst the

repositioning of the terraces has increased the size of the gaps between the pair of semi-detached

houses and their neighbours. The gap between the pair and the eastern terrace is now 4.4m

(previously 1.6m), whilst the gap between the pair and the western terrace is 3.2m (previously

3.0m).

With regards to application 03/03471 which relates to 14 houses and has not been revised, the

following comments still apply. There appear to be a number of locations on the site where

development appears tight. For example, the end of terrace dwelling closest to the north-eastern

35

boundary would be provided with a very small garden. In addition, the gap between the pair of

semi-detached houses and the eastern terrace measures 1.6 metres off the plan which is sub-

standard, given the Council‟s policy for a 1 metre gap each side of a common boundary for two

storey development.

In the light of these comments, Members will need to decide whether the amount of development

and the form and design of the houses is appropriate for this area, given its location in the

Chislehurst Conservation Area.




RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED

If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested:


DCA01R A01 reason


DCA04R A04 reason


DCA07R A07 reason


DCB01R B01 reason


DCB02R B02 reason


DCB03R B03 reason


DCB04R B04 reason


DCB16R B16 reason


DCC01R C01 reason


DCC03R C03 reason

11 DCD02 Surface water drainage - no details

DCD02R D02 reason

12 DCD04 Foul water drainage - no details

DCD04R D04 reason

13 DCH02 Satisfactory parking, no details

DCH02R H02 reason


DCH04R H04 reason

15 DCH10 Provision of sight line (2 inserts) 60m x 4.5m x 60m vehicular access

to Woodclyffe Drive 1.0m

DCH10R H10 reason

16 DCH14 Grad access drive-unmade road)(1 insert) 1:10

DCH14R H14 reason

17 DCH15 Grad parking area/space (2 inserts) parking areas 1:10

DCH15R H15 reason

36


DCH16R H16 reason

19 DCH17 Materials for estate road

DCH17R H17 reason


DCH18R H18 reason


DCH23R H23 reason


Reason: To prevent an overdevelopment of the site.

23 DCI08 Private vehicles

DCI08R I08 reason

24 DCI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank dwellings

DCI17R I17 reason H.2 H6


DCK05R K05 reason

26 DCK09 Soil survey, contaminated land

DCK09R K09 reason

27 DCK10 Badgers, protective fencing

DCK10R K10 reason

28 DCK11 Badgers, timing of works

DCK11R K11 reason

29 DCK12 Badgers, no works close to sett

29 DCK13 Badgers, supervision of works close to

DCK12R K12 reason

DCK13R K13 reason

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

1 The proposal would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the

amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces and would be out of character

with the surrounding area and harmful to the character and appearance of the Chislehurst

Conservation Area, contrary to Policies H.2, E.1 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policies H6, BE1 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary


_________________________


Chislehurst

Address : Land At Woodclyffe Drive

Chislehurst Kent

Conservation Area:

Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 543253 N: 169510

Applicant : Woodclyffe Development Ltd Objections : YES


14 split level town houses with integral garages and frontage access drive

37


as amended by documents received on 27.01.2004




DCA01R A01 reason


DCA04R A04 reason


DCA07R A07 reason


DCB01R B01 reason


DCB02R B02 reason


DCB03R B03 reason


DCB04R B04 reason


DCB16R B16 reason


DCC01R C01 reason


DCC03R C03 reason


DCD02R D02 reason


DCD04R D04 reason


DCH02R H02 reason


DCH04R H04 reason

15 DCH10 Provision of sight line (2 inserts) 60m x 4.5m x 60m the vehicular

access to Woodclyffe Drive 1.0m

DCH10R H10 reason

16 DCH14 Grad access drive-unmade road)(1 insert) 1:10

DCH14R H14 reason

17 DCH15 Grad parking area/space (2 inserts) 1:10

DCH15R H15 reason


DCH16R H16 reason


DCH17R H17 reason


DCH18R H18 reason


DCH23R H23 reason

38


Reason: To prevent an overdevelopment of the site.

23 DCI08 Private vehicles

DCI08R I08 reason

24 DCI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank dwellings



DCK05R K05 reason


DCK09R K09 reason

27 DCK10 Badgers, protective fencing

DCK10R K10 reason

28 DCK11 Badgers, timing of works

DCK11R K11 reason

29 DCK12 Badgers, no works close to sett

DCK12R K12 reason

30 DCK13 Badgers, supervision of works close to

DCK13R K13 reason


1 The proposal would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the

amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces and would be out of character

with the surrounding area and harmful to the character and appearance of the Chislehurst

Conservation Area, contrary to Policies H.2, E.1 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policies H6, BE1 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary


_________________________

11. Application No : 03/04231/ADV Ward :

Cray Valley East

Address : Lamp Column Outside Unit 1

Springvale Retail Park

Sevenoaks Way Orpington Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 547103 N: 168751

Applicant : Streetbroadcast Ltd Objections : NO


Internally illuminated 6 sheet poster display sign on lamp column

Joint report with 03/04273 Lamp Column Outside 33 Masons Hill Bromley and 03/04262 Lamp

Column Outside Unit 3 Croydon Industrial Estate Tannery Close Beckenham.

These applications were withdrawn from the Plans Sub-Committee on 22 January 2004 on the advice

of the Director of Legal and Democratic Services after it became clear that the size of the adverts

conflicted with the Council‟s contractual advertising arrangements. Revised plans have now been

39

submitted showing signs which fall within the size requirements. The previous reports are repeated


Proposal

The application relates to advert consent for a double-sided internally illuminated sign attached

to a lamppost. The sign is proposed to be located 4.5m above ground level, approx.1.1m in

width by 1.7m in length. The proposal is for a trial period of six months, it is understood that if

the proposal is deemed appropriate a number of other sites in the Borough could be the subject

of further applications in addition the three currently under consideration.

Consultations

Local residents and businesses were consulted on the application and no objections have been

received to date.

There are no technical objections from a highways point of view.


The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies E.12 Control of Advertisements and

Signs and T.6 Road Safety of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies BE17

Advertisements and Signs and T22 Road Safety of the second deposit draft Unitary Development

Plan (Sept 2002).

Conclusions

The proposed sign will be prominent and there are concerns that it may have a detrimental

impact on the visual amenities of the area, however Members may feel that, as the application is

for a trial period of only six months a temporary consent would be appropriate.


file ref. DC/03/04231/ADV, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT GRANTED


6 The advertisement hereby consented shall be removed on or before 30th September 2004.

DCE01R E01 reason

7 DCF04 Hours for illuminated signs (2 inserts) 0600 hours Midnight

DCF04R F04 reason

_________________________

40


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : Tanglewood Sunnydale Orpington

Kent BR6 8LZ

Conservation Area:

Farnborough Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 543511 N: 165750

Applicant : Mr Robert Bond Objections : NO


Demolition of existing bungalow (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)

Proposal

Demolition of existing bungalow.

Consultations

Refer to application ref. 03/04267.


This proposal is dependant upon permission being granted for permission ref. 03/04267. The

dwelling in question is not considered to be of any architectural merit.

Conclusions

If Members grant permission for application ref. 03/04267 then consent can be granted for this

application.


files refs. 03/04252 and 03/04267, excluding exempt information.


If Members are minded to grant Conservation Area Consent the following conditions are

suggested:

41

1 DCG01 Listed Blgs/Conservation Area Consents

DCG01R G01 reason

If Members are minded to refuse Conservation Area Consent the

following grounds are suggested:

1 In the absence of a suitable replacement building it would be premature to grant

conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing building thereby contrary to

Policy E.7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy BE9 of the second

deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002) and the advice contained in PPG15

Planning and the Historic Environment.

_________________________


Kelsey And Eden Park

Address : Lamp Column Outside Unit 3

Croydon Road Industrial Estate

Tannery Close Beckenham Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 535654 N: 167960

Applicant : Street Broadcast Ltd - Planning Department Objections : NO


Double sided internally illuminated advertisement mounted on existing lamp column at a

height of 4.5m (minimum)

Joint report with 03/04273 Lamp Column Outside 33 Masons Hill Bromley and 03/04231 Lamp

Column Outside Unit 1 Springvale Retail Park Sevenoaks Way Orpington.




submitted showing signs which fall within the size requirements. The previous reports are repeated


Proposal


to a lamppost. The sign is proposed to be located 4.5m above ground level and is approximately

1.1m in width by 1.7m in length. The proposal is for a trial period of six months, it is

understood that if the proposal is deemed appropriate a number of other sites in the Borough

could be the subject of further applications in addition the three currently under consideration.

Consultations

42

Local residents and businesses were consulted on the application and no objections have been

received.

The London Borough of Croydon has been consulted, as an adjoining local planning authority

and any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

There are no technical objections from a highways point of view.





Plan (Sept 2002).

Conclusions

The proposed sign will be prominent and there are concerns that it may have a detrimental

impact on the visual amenities of the area, however Members may feel that, as the application is

for a trial period of only six months a temporary consent would be appropriate.






6 The advert hereby consented shall be removed on or before 31st August 2004.

DCE01R E01 reason

7 DCF04 Hours for illuminated signs (2 inserts) 0600 midnight

DCF04R F04 reason

_________________________


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : Tanglewood Sunnydale Orpington

Kent BR6 8LZ

Conservation Area:

Farnborough Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 543511 N: 165750

Applicant : Mr Robert Bond Objections : YES


Detached six bedroom house with basement accommodation and attached double garage

43


Proposal

The property is a detached bungalow on Sunnydale, which is within the Farnborough Park

Conservation Area. This part of Farnborough Park is an area which has suffered from historic

flooding.

The proposal is to demolish the existing bungalow and erect a six bedroom house with basement

accommodation and attached double garage.

Although the surrounding area could be described as being mixed in character, the style of house

most prominent in the area is „Arts and Crafts‟. It is stated in the applicant‟s submission

statement that the proposed house is designed on an „Art and Crafts‟ theme.

The application has been submitted following the withdrawal of a previous application under ref:

03/02657 as a result of concerns raised at officer level with regard to the siting and design of the

house.

Consultations

Local residents were consulted on the application and a number of objections have been

received. Their concerns can be summarised as follows:

excessive depth of 15m in relation to Harlaxton

concern over the inadequate separation between Tanglewood and Harlaxton

overlooking from first floor rear window, garage window and balcony

loss of sunlight

risk of flooding and drainage problems

overdevelopment of the site

out of character with adjacent properties.

Photographs showing historic flooding in Sunnydale have also been submitted.

The Advisory Panel for Conservation has objected on grounds that the proposal is an

overdevelopment which compromises the spatial quality of the Conservation Area.

The Environment Agency has been consulted and was not satisfied with the Flood Risk

Assessment submitted by the applicant. It is understood that the applicant has been negotiating

directly with the Agency to overcome their objections and any further comments will be reported

verbally at the meeting.

From a heritage and urban design point of view there are no objections subject to the imposition

of a number of conditions.


The proposal should be considered principally with regard to Policies H.2, Design of Housing

Development, E.1, Design of New Development, E.7, Conservation Areas and C.11-13

Development in Areas Liable to Flood of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the

equivalent Policies H6, BE1, BE9 and ER13 in the second deposit draft Unitary Development

Plan (Sept 2002).

44

The key issues covered by H.2 and E.1, which relate to this application are as follows;

that development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings.

the proposed building should be in keeping with the character of the area.

the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties should be protected.

the density of the proposed development is in keeping with the character and spatial

standards of the area.

With regard to Policy E.7 and draft Policy BE9 the main points are that where there will be an

adverse impact on the Conservation Area the Council will;

oppose the demolition of buildings which make a positive contribution to the

character of the area

prevent the loss of important trees.

Policy C13 seeks to minimise the effect of new development in catchment areas contributing to

sections of rivers prone to frequent flooding.

Further considerations are the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Farnborough Park

Conservation Area and PPG 15, which require an assessment of the contribution of the existing

and proposed buildings to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

There is no relevant planning history on the site.

Conclusions

Aside from the matter of flood risk to be addressed by further comments from the Environment

Agency the significant issues to be addressed in the determination of this application are whether

the existing dwelling should be retained and whether the proposed dwelling will preserve or

enhance the Conservation Area whilst not unacceptably affecting the amenities of the occupants

of adjoining properties.

In terms of design the building is considered a suitable replacement for a bungalow, which is not

felt to make a positive contribution to the conservation area. However there are concerns over

the width and depth of the building, which could be considered to be excessive on this plot and

in turn detract from the character of the conservation area.

With regard to any potential impact on adjoining properties, the degree to which occupants of the

proposed houses would be able to overlook adjoining properties is likely to be in accordance

with what would be expected in a residential road characterised by two storey houses. The

balcony referred to in local resident‟s concerns is a „juliet‟ style balcony which does not afford

the opportunity to sit out, it is therefore considered that this would be unlikely to cause more

harm than a standard rear window. It is likely that the amount sunlight received by the occupants

of Harlaxton will be diminished to a certain extent given the proposed replacement of a

bungalow with a two storey house. However the ground floor rearward projection of 3 metres

and the first floor rearward projection of 1.5 metres beyond the rear building line of Harlaxton

are not considered excessive.

The overall bulk of the building could be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining properties in

that it may give the feeling of being overdominant and injurious to the general outlook from

those properties.

45

In summary the principle of redeveloping this site with a two storey dwelling would appear

reasonable. However although the design of the house would potentially make an attractive

addition to the street scene consideration needs to be given the overall bulk of the building and

the impact that it would have on the conservation area and the amenities of the adjoining

occupants. A further issue for consideration is whether sufficient space has been provided

around the building to create an appropriate setting for a house of this size in the conservation

area.


files ref. DC/03/04252 and 03/04267, excluding exempt information.




DCA01R A01 reason


DCA04R A04 reason


DCA07R A07 reason


DCC01R C01 reason


DCC03R C03 reason

6 DCD03 Restricted 100mm outlet

DCD03R D03 reason


Reason: To avoid overdevelopment given the restricted nature of the site and to comply

with Policies E.1 and H.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies BE1

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

8 DCI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the first floor flank elevations



DCK05R K05 reason

10 Samples of external materials, including roof cladding, wall facing materials and

cladding, window glass, door and window frames, decorative features, rainwater goods

and paving where appropriate, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on

behalf of the Local Planning AUthority before any work is commenced. The

development shall be carried out in accordance witht the approved details.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy E.1 and Appendix III.2 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policy BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan

(Sept 2002) and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities

of the area.

11 Sample elevations and sections at 1:20 scale of the front door, and drawings at 1:1 scale

of sectional profiles of the window and door frames, cornices, string courses and other

decorative mouldings, where appropriate, shall be submitted to and approved in writing

by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced. The

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

46

Reason: In order to comply with Policy E.1 and Appendix III.2 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policy BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan

(Sept 2002) and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities

of the area.


1 The proposed dwelling would constitute an overdevelopment of the site by reason of its

excessive flank elevations and inadequate space around the building and would be

harmful to the character and appearance of this part of Farnborough Park Conservation

Area thereby contrary to Policies H.2 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan

and Policies H6 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept

2002).

2 The proposed dwelling would be over dominant and would be detrimental to the

amenities that the occupiers adjoining properties might reasonably expect to be able to

continue to enjoy by reason of its visual impact and loss of prospect in view of its size

thereby contrary to Policy H.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and H6 of the

second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

3 In the absence of evidence to the contrary the proposal would be likely to increase the

risk of flooding in area liable to flooding contrary to Policy C.13 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policy ER13 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development

Plan (Sept 2002).

INFORMATIVE(S)


_________________________


Bromley Town

Address : Lamp Column Outside 33 Masons

Hill Bromley


OS Grid Ref: E: 540479 N: 168589

Applicant : Streetbroadcast Ltd Objections : YES


Internally illuminated poster panel attached to lamp column

Joint report with 03/04231Lamp Column Outside Unit 1 Springvale Retail Park Sevenoaks

Way Orpington and 03/04262 Lamp Column Outside Unit 3 Croydon Industrial Estate

Tannery Close Beckenham.




submitted showing signs, which fall within the size requirements. The previous reports are repeated


47

Proposal


to a lamppost. The sign is proposed to be located 4.5m above ground level, and is approximately

1.1m in width by 1.7m in length. The proposal is for a trial period of six months, it is

understood that if the proposal is deemed appropriate a number of other sites in the Borough

could be the subject of further applications in addition the three currently under consideration.

Consultations

Local residents and businesses were consulted and 2 objections have been received from

businesses on the grounds that the sign would distract attention from the businesses.

From a design point of view there is concern over the size of the cabinet, which will be visually

prominent in the street scene.

From a highways point of view it is felt that the sign would be a distraction to motorists, which

could have a detrimental effect on road safety.





Plan (Sept 2002).

Conclusions

Although highways concerns have been raised on the possibility of driver distraction from this

type of advert, where such matters has been considered at appeal, the Planning Inspectorate has

generally found that it was not possible to give consideration to this issue as a substantive ground

of refusal.

Aside from the highways issue the proposed sign will be prominent and there are concerns that it

may have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the area, however Members may feel

that, as the application is for a trial period of only six months a temporary consent would be

appropriate.






6 The advert hereby consented shall be removed on or before 30th September 2004.

DCE01R E01 reason

7 DCF04 Hours for illuminated signs (2 inserts) Midnight 0600 hours

DCF04R F04 reason

48

_________________________


Orpington

Address : 64 Craven Road Orpington Kent

BR6 7RT


OS Grid Ref: E: 547717 N: 165254

Applicant : Asprey Homes Ltd Objections : YES


Demolition of existing dwelling at 64 Craven Road and erection of 3 detached four

bedroom houses, 2 linked detached four bedroom houses and 1 detached five bedroom

house, with associated parking and access road

Proposal

This application seeks full planning permission for 6 houses. The existing property has a large

garden area.

The site has a frontage of approximately 40 metres with a depth of approximately 65m. The

applicants indicate that the site area approximately amounts to 0.31 hectares.

The proposed development indicates three dwellings ( Plots 1 and 5 & 6) following the existing

street pattern fronting Craven Road with an access road between Plot 1 and Plot 6 with three

further dwellings behind the front three dwellings. Plots 2-4 are set around a turning head. To the

rear of the site is Goddington Park, this land is designated as Green Belt within the Unitary

Development Plan.

Consultations

There have been objections to this application from local residents. The comments received are

summarised below. Members will be aware that the full text of correspondence is available for

inspection.

too many houses, out of character with the area

loss of light

49

overlooking and loss of privacy

noise and disturbance

may result in the loss of the large cedar tree

increase in the volume of traffic

the site backs on to Goddington Park, which is Green Belt.

Any further representations in respect of this application will be reported verbally.

The site is covered by Tree Preservation Order 1957, this is a blanket order and protects all of the

trees at this site. This scheme shows loss of several fruit trees, cherries, hollies and hazels.

These trees are all small and of limited public amenity value, the significant trees at the site are

on the Craven Road frontage and all of these trees with the exception of a cherry tree are shown

to be retained. The back gardens of plots 2 and 3 will be heavily shaded by mature trees in

Goddington Park and there in likely to be pressure for the trees to be cut back or removed if the

development is allowed

Any highway engineering comments will be reported verbally.

The South East London Archaeological Unit comments that on their sites and monuments record

the proposed development is within an area of high archaeological potential. Accordingly, it

suggests that if permission is granted an archaeological condition should be attached to any

consent requiring an archaeological watching brief during the ground works phase of

development.


In this case, the proposed application has to be considered against Policies H.2 and E.1 of the

Unitary Development Plan. The thrust of policy is to protect the diverse and attractive housing

areas in the Borough, objectives encapsulated particularly in Policies H2, and E.1. These

policies are framed (i) to resist poor design and development that it out of scale of character with

the surrounding area and (ii) to protect privacy, amenity, trees and general spatial standards.

To the rear the site is adjacent to Goddington Park, which is designated within the Unitary

Development Plan as Green Belt and in this case Policy G8 is also relevant to the determination

of the case.

Members will also note the emerging policies in the second Deposit Draft Unitary Development

Plan 2002 (September 2002), which reflect the above objectives.

Neither the adopted or draft UDP identify the site as being of archaeological significance.

Conclusions

The major considerations of this case appear to be whether the principle of development is

acceptable, whether the density, size and siting of the proposal is satisfactory within the site and

whether the resulting impact on adjoining properties is not unduly harmful. The latter

consideration must include the impact of the access and activity to and from the site in respect of

properties near to the site.

It is noted that the application site is an unusually large area of undeveloped land within an

existing residential area. However, the proposal appears to have an unacceptable relationship

with the adjacent area in terms of character and impact on the adjacent properties.

50

Firstly, the proposal with its access between the properties fronting Craven Road to three further

properties in a cul-de-sac arrangement results in a backland form of development out of character

with the existing street form. Secondly, the proposal in terms of layout appears to have an

unacceptable relationship with the adjacent properties in terms of amenities that they could

reasonably expect to continue to enjoy. Thirdly, the Green Belt of Goddington Park to the rear of

the site is unduly affected by the intrusion of this residential scheme. The scheme will be

significantly closer than the existing house at 64 Craven Road.

PPG3 “Housing” seeks more efficient use of previously developed land, but this should be

achieved without compromising the quality of the environment.

The objections and points raised during the consultation period have been carefully considered in

the making of this recommendation.


file ref. DC/03/04575, excluding exempt information.



1 The proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the

area and detrimental to the residential amenities of the adjoining properties, thereby

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 proposed development would result in a development that would cause harm to the

character and appearance of the adjacent Green Belt land contrary to Policy G.8 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy G8 of the second deposit draft Unitary

Development Plan (September 2002).

_________________________



Address : Beckenham Hospital 379 Croydon

Road Beckenham Kent BR3 3QL


OS Grid Ref: E: 536898 N: 169191

Applicant : Bromley Primary Care Trust Objections : YES


Redevelopment of hospital comprising retention of former cottage hospital and two/three

storey building (including minor injuries unit, GP surgeries and ancillary offices, with

plant at second floor level), formation of vehicular access and alterations to existing

accesses to Croydon Road, highway works to Croydon Road, servicing, 138 car parking

spaces and 2.4m high fence on south and east boundaries

51

Proposal

These applications have been submitted by the Bromley Primary Care Trust. Primary care is

defined as the first point of contact for most patients, which in general is their GP surgery or

health centre, and includes community nurses (ie practice nurses, district nurses and health

visitors), therapists, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. In recent years the NHS has sought to

provide more services at the primary care level, which is distinct from –

care in the community/continuing care

secondary care - local hospital, usually a District General Hospital (DGH)

tertiary care - specialised hospitals or departments of hospitals dealing with complex

illnesses, serving a wide geographic area and with teaching and research facilities.

The proposed new hospital is part of the BBG LIFT scheme (Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

Local Improvement Finance Trust). The NHS LIFT is a national joint venture company able to

own property, and rent and lease it to GPs. At a local level LIFTs are being developed by

management boards comprising local NHS managers, GPs and private sector partners, alongside

the national NHS LIFT. It should be noted that the Beckenham Hospital scheme is the largest

LIFT project in the country. There are effectively 5 clients for which the building has been

designed - the 2 GP practices, Oxleas Mental Health Services, Bromley PCT and Bromley

Hospitals Trust.

The services to be provided are shown on the floor plans –

2 GP practices, Elm House and St. James to be relocated from sites at Beckenham

Road/Elm Road and Elmers End Green

dentistry, podiatry, cardiac, diabetes departments

physiotherapy

speech therapy

outpatients department

minor treatment suite

family planning

urology

genito-urinary medicine (GUM) (sexually transmitted diseases)

minor injuries unit (MIU) (small accident and emergency department)

diagnostic imaging

offices and consultation rooms for Oxleas

pharmacy/dispensary

small ancillary café.

At present the hospital has a day nursery and provides offices and ambulance parking for St.

Johns Ambulance. These nursery and office uses will not be provided for in the new building,

and sites to relocate them to are being investigated. However St. Johns Ambulance will continue

to have on-site ambulance parking and provide a patient drop off service to the hospital.

The proposed building will be two storey, with plant and meeting rooms at second floor level.

The meeting rooms can be made available for other users, as a source of revenue to the Trust.

The existing floorspace of the hospital is stated to be 8140 sq.m., the proposal being for a

building of 9400 sq.m. The portable buildings proposed on the adjacent part of the Recreational

Ground will have a floorspace of 2000 sq.m.

52

The redevelopment application is accompanied by the following documentation, in addition to

the plans and forms -

Design Statement (KSS Design Group - Architects), with letters dated 20/02/04 from

the architects updating and supplementing the original statement regarding matters

arising during processing of the applicationPreliminary and Supplementary Transport

Reports (Peter Brett Associates - Consulting Engineers)

Statement regarding restoration works to former Beckenham Cottage Hospital (KSS)

Daylight and Sunlight Report regarding the Shaftesbury Road properties (Wilks Head

and Eve - Chartered Surveyors and Town Planners).

The application forms state that there are 68 existing car parking on site, though the consulting

engineers have recorded 93 cars on the site and are of the view that some parking taking place is

not associated with the hospital, and clearly some of the existing parking is by nursery users. A

survey by officers has recorded about 110 cars at the hospital. The proposal is for 54 public pay

and display parking spaces and 80 staff car parking spaces, with 2 disabled spaces and 2 spaces

for Kelsey Farmhouse (total 138). The Transport Report identifies a need for 50-75 additional

staff parking spaces, to be provided in the spare capacity at the Village Way/Sainsbury‟s Council

car park. The access arrangements proposed are as follows -

reorganised public parking/hospital entrance in the south-west corner of the site (at

the front), with in and out and access and a link to further public parking in front of

the new buildings

a new access at the north end of the Croydon Road frontage adjacent to the former

Kelsey Park Farmhouse, for ingress of service vehicles and staff cars

staff parking at the rear of the Shaftesbury Road properties and at the rear of the site

adjacent to Croydon Road Recreation Ground

egress for all service vehicles and staff cars, and for some public parking to

Shaftesbury Road (this will not be for ingress) - kerb build-outs will be provided.

Two-way working will be permitted to serve the rear of the Croydon Road shops and

the garage at No.2 Shaftesbury Road. During the construction of the hospital this

access will be used by construction traffic in and out of the site, though only for out

construction traffic during Phase 2 once the new in access adjacent to the former

Farmhouse is available

works to the carriageway of Croydon Road to provide right turn in facility/ghost

islands for southern access/exit and relocated pedestrian crossing, and incorporating

bus priority measures proposed by Transport for London.

The Supplementary Transport Report makes a number of points regarding issues raised during

processing of the application -

the Council has requested that ghost island facilities at the new staff-only access be

considered. It is considered that as the junction is only for staff vehicles entering and

the traffic movements are relatively low, there is no need for a ghost island. Also the

Transport Report gives evidence that a ghost island junction would be impossible to

construct in terms of land constraints

in response to concerns about the layout and circulation of the main public car

parking area on the original plans, this has been redesigned to relocate the drop-off

and taxi bays adjacent to the central island, with a 2m footpath alongside which links

to the main entrance via a crossing over the vehicle circulation area. The number of

drop-off and taxi bays has also been revised, however it should be noted that the 2

drop-off and 1 taxi bays are believed from the traffic data to be sufficient. It may be

more practical to simply provide 3 drop-off bays and allow taxis to use these, but this

53

requires further consideration. The ambulance bay adjacent to the main entrance has

been amended following further consultation with the relevant departments and

practices, which will require the facility on site. The bay has been enlarged to

accommodate a maximum of 4 ambulance cars or 3 ambulances. It is considered that

this will be adequate for the arrival and departure of ambulance cases to the new

Minor Injuries Unit (MIU) or on an emergency call, together with patient drop-

off/pick-up by the St. Johns Ambulance Service

a survey of existing car park use has been carried out, including of duration of stay. It

is considered that 54 dedicated public spaces and segregated parking for staff, as well

as the introduction of the management scheme providing control of unauthorised use

of the car park by others will offer the maximum benefit and reserve spaces for

patients use throughout the day

servicing/deliveries - the circulation/layout has been altered in respect of delivery

bays, storage areas and other medical associated operations, affecting the layout of

the public and staff car parking areas. The report considers the current delivery

patterns of the existing site and those of the departments that will relocate to the site.

The likely maximum number of delivery movements per day which the site could

generate has been calculated, allowing for an element of reduction associated with

duplicate deliveries and introduction of a waste management strategy. It is estimated

that the site could generate up to 32 deliveries per day, which equates to around 3-4

possible vehicles on site at any one time. Although the majority of these are short

time deliveries of less than 15 minutes, there are a number of long-stay operations eg

laundry. 4 bays are proposed for operational purposes, 2 short stay bays in the staff

car park and 2 long stay bays on the exit link with 2 adjacent to the proposed

compactor. Also 3 St. John‟s Ambulance bays are to be provided within the staff

parking area.

Regarding the locally listed buildings -

the former Cottage Hospital will be renovated and linked to the new building

the former Farmhouse is being omitted from the scheme, but it is suggested by the

architects that it can be converted to office or residential use, and 2 parking spaces are

shown to be provided for its use.

The main points in the Design Statement and other material supporting the application are as

follows -

1. The design responds to the Council‟s Planning Brief for the site and

maintains the amenities of the Shaftesbury Road properties and reduces proximity of

buildings to the northern boundary with those adjacent gardens

respects the boundaries with the Recreation Ground and its Urban Open Space

designation

retains the 2 locally listed buildings

creates a new urban presence and Hospital entrance

is based on two storey height with central massing three storeys high

aims to achieve the best clinical adjacencies and patient-focussed design with good

accessibility by maximising accommodation at ground floor level and having good

communication with upper floors

is configured to allow a rapid two phase construction over a 3½ year period, to

minimise disruption. In the first phase the buildings at the front will be retained

while the rear part of the site is redeveloped. The main car park will be available

during both construction phases, though the 24 space car park at the front (permitted

54

1994) will only be available during the first phase - it will be the site storage

compound for Phase 2.

2. It is explained that a central main entrance from the Croydon Road frontage would lead

to long patient routes within the building, create pedestrian/ vehicular conflict and

compromise the setting of the retained Victorian buildings. The proposed design of the

Croydon Road elevation has a bold sculptural form and facetted overlapping planes

which provide a backdrop to the 2 retained buildings. It will be clad in terracotta and its

windows will be on the return reveals, providing discreet entrance and windows to GUM

and ensuring that there is no doubt about where the main entrance is located.

3. The proposed materials are mainly traditional (brick plinth, render, terracotta), but the

design will integrate the retained old buildings and the new in an entirely contemporary

design. More modern materials will generally be at high level only, ie aluminium (roof,

with cladding panels and louvres at roof level) and timber (louvres to second floor

windows). The entrance is a bold composition of large planes of terracotta cladding, this

material being used at other locations to “signal” an entrance or punctuate the elevations.

4. The floor plan of the building is based on the steel frame construction and a compact

module of accommodation which helps to minimise construction, operational and

servicing costs while maximising the internal areas benefiting from natural light and

ventilation and helping to reduce patient travel distances. This results in a strong grid and

rectilinear form and 2 long wings to the rear of the building, expressed externally by the

white rendered walls and regular fenestration, but varied by architectural elements that

“break out” of the wall planes to provide additional accommodation and which will be

boldly coloured render, eg waiting room on north elevation, consulting rooms on both

sides of the GP accommodation and the café. The revised window design and minor

elevational alterations are a response to minor internal reconfiguration of rooms and to

research carried out to perfect ventilation of the building, further improve daylighting and

take account of disabled access and infection control issues. The minor changes to

internal layout have increased the length of the north-east wing by 1.75m, also

necessitating moving part of the car park layout about 1m nearer the eastern boundary.

5. It is intended that Shaftesbury Road will only be used as the access point for construction

vehicles during Phase 1 of the construction, which is a period of 3 months enabling

works, followed by 18 months construction. The new road entrance adjacent to Kelsey

Park Farmhouse will be created as part of the enabling works for Phase 2 and will be

possible as theMIU currently in that location will decant into the completed Phase 1

development allowing the demolition of the building in that location. It is appreciated

that the residents have concerns over additional traffic generation in Shaftesbury Road

but the first 50m of Shaftesbury Road (up to the access point into the hospital site) is not

fronted by residential development, but consists of the flank walls of commercial

properties on either side. It is not possible to demolish the MIU and provide construction

access in this location during Phase 1 as there is a direct and necessary relationship

between the minor injuries unit and the x-ray service provided by the Diagnostic Imaging

department adjacent within the existing hospital. Although the MIU has only been

operational for 3 months, it already receives approximately 35 patients a day of which

one-third are typically injuries requiring immediate referral to the x-ray department. If

the MIU was demolished prior to the completion of Phase 1 it would be required to be

recreated within the “decant village” and be dislocated from the x-ray department.

Currently the link is a short internal corridor. If the MIU was recreated within the

“decant village” the link would require a patient to exit the decant accommodation, cross

the car park and re-enter the existing hospital to access the x-ray department.

55

Additionally, ambulance and patient dedicated drop-off is currently provided

immediately outside the current minor injuries unit and this would not be possible as

effectively in the “decant village” where the drop-off would be shared by all departments.

The minor injuries unit also has regular blue light requirements (where the nature of the

injury is beyond the capability of the MIU and urgent transfer to an A&E unit is

required). In this circumstance, the immediate ambulance pick-up capability provided in

its current location is important. Finally the MIU and x-ray department operate extended

opening hours compared to the rest of the hospital and are operationally required to be

located together in order to be isolated as a self-contained operation after the rest of the

hospital has closed. This would be much more difficult with the departments in separate

buildings.

6. The main facilities will be open 8am - 6pm, but out of hours uses are clustered into

groups so that they can operate independently from the main functions of the building, eg

MIU, dentistry, GPs, diagnostic imaging, minor treatment suite, meeting rooms.

7. A mobile imaging vehicle can dock in the staff car park adjacent to the outpatients

department, if required. The requirements for on-site refuse storage (including

compaction) and collection have been set out, and discussions with the fire brigade

confirm that perimeter access, fire fighting accessibility and fire fighting water supplies

will be acceptable in principle.

8. The design acknowledges the Planning Brief‟s concern about the possible impact on the

Shaftesbury Road properties and the two storey height on the north side of the building is

lower and further away from the boundary than the existing three/four storey high

Trapnell Wing. The daylight and sunlight report confirms that the redevelopment will

meet the recommendations of the Building Research Establishment guide “Site Layout,

Planning for Daylight and Sunlight”. The application originally proposed a 2.4m high

close boarded fence along the near boundary with the Shaftesbury Road gardens but it is

agreed that a wall of a height to be agreed may be appropriate, and this matter can be

subject of a condition and agreed as part of details pursuant. As a consequence of the

likely need for a wall on the northern boundary, the building is to be located 0.5m to the

south of the position proposed on the drawings first submitted.

9. The Crime Prevention Officer has been consulted as part of the Secured by Design

process. The plans were well received and the details of the proposal will be developed

with the CPO during further consultations. The key features of the design relevant to the

consultation are as follows:

comprehensive CCTV coverage of the external perimeter of the building and

significant internal coverage

a good standard of external lighting to staff and public parking for personal safety

concerns, whilst ensuring that light spillage beyond the site perimeter is minimised.

The general principle will be low level lighting or lighting mounted on the boundary

facing inwards

generally shrubs within the site boundary will be maintained at a maximum height of

1m to significantly reduce the opportunity for persons to hide and potentially attack

staff

a 2.4m high new close boarded fence to the east and south perimeter. Though the

CPO would prefer a metal palisade fence in this location, it is considered that a new

wooden fence of equal height would provide robustness and deterrence in

conjunction with appropriate lighting and CCTV coverage. Also a close boarded

timber fence would be more in keeping with the park environment.

56

Further design development is required on the nature and design of the 0.9m-1.2m

boundary fence to Croydon Road and it is considered that a condition should be imposed

in this respect.

10. Responding to various issues raised in the Planning Brief -

none of the trees on the site are to be removed

the buildings close to the eastern boundary with the Recreation Ground will be only

two storeys high

the existing car park is Urban Open Space and is not to be built on

cycle parking and taxi stands are proposed

public art could be provided in the garden/courtyard areas

as the access to Shaftesbury Road is to be for egress only, this should address

concerns about traffic intensification in the road

access will continue to be provided to the garage in the rear garden of No.2

Shaftesbury Road

the right turn central reservation in Croydon Road will be provided by land take from

the application side.

The architects have addressed various concerns regarding the application for the temporary

buildings in the following statement -

“Location Relevant to Tree Damage - All trees and mature shrubs on site have been

surveyed in position and canopy and are accurately reflected on the attached drawings.

The applicant is concerned to avoid any damage or affect on the existing trees on the

Recreation Ground. The benefit of the modular construction is that it is a reasonably

malleable system that can respond in plan form to boundary requirements. The tendering

companies are expressly aware of the need to avoid any damage to the trees during

installation or dismantling and equally to avoid any impact on the root zone throughout

the duration of the stay on site.

Establishment of the “decant village” will take approximately 6-8 weeks and that the

total duration on site is estimated to be no more than 2 years based on a 18 month

construction period, 3 month decant and commissioning phase with erection and

dismantling sequences. The revised drawings indicate that none of the temporary

accommodation will be located anywhere within 1m of the fullest extent of the root zone

of the trees as defined by the maximum extent of the tree canopy as surveyed.

The temporary units will be brought to site initially to the front car park. A large mobile

crane will be used to hoist the units cleanly over the mature trees between the car park

and the proposed site. A second, smaller, mobile crane will be located on the proposed

decant site to accurately place the units to the required configuration. The units will be

placed on the eastern extremity and work backwards to the car park entrance position.

The large mobile crane within the car park will be used to accurately place the final units

at the western end of the site.

Appearance - The elevations submitted are indicative but typical of each of the systems

currently under consideration for competitive tender.

Pam Jones Memorial – It will be necessary to sensitively relocate and subsequently

restore the memorial bench and semi mature cedar tree dedicated to Pam Jones of the

West Beckenham Residents Association. It is the intention to agree with the Residents

57

Association and/or family a suitable relocation position for the duration of the temporary

decant village followed by exact relocation to its current position.

Flower Beds - The positions and extent of five swaths of daffodils within the grassed

areas have been surveyed and, subject to restoration proposals to be agreed with the

relevant officers, will restore these features accordingly.

Position - The appropriate position of the “decant village” has been carefully considered

and responds to fundamental operational requirements for the seamless provision of

services at Beckenham Hospital during the redevelopment.

It is important that there is a close relationship with all the facilities within the “decant

village” and the existing main entrance, diagnostic imaging and outpatients department

etc within the half of the existing hospital which remains during the Phase 1 construction.

The proposed position of the “decant village” places the 2 halves of the hospital as close

as practically possible and minimises the disruption which will still occur in the

necessary daily transfer of patients, staff and goods between the two halves of the

hospital. To relocate the decant village to the east side of the current hospital would

completely dislocate the 2 functional halves of the hospital.

It is also essential that vehicular access for patient/private car drop-off, taxi drop,

ambulance drop-off and emergency ambulance pick-up is provided as close as possible to

the entrance and reception of the “decant village”. A relocation to the east side would

necessitate either the creation of a new roadway around the side of the hospital or

opening up of the end of Shaftesbury Road into the park to provide such access. It is

considered that both these options would be unacceptable. Firstly, a traffic road to the

south side would create a greater loss of amenity, nuisance and potential damage to trees

and the landscape than the current proposals which would all be in addition to the

“decant village” itself.

Secondly, a Shaftesbury Road access would mean that residents are subject to half of the

vehicular traffic, including deliveries, visiting the hospital passing through the length of

Shaftesbury Road between the hours of 7.30am and 10.00pm as well as the disturbance

along the entire length of the road of the construction traffic necessary to both install and

remove the “decant village”. The current location to the south of the hospital requires no

roadway adjustment or extension onto the park and is therefore by far the most preferable

solution.

Balfour Beatty - Considerate Contractor Scheme - Please note that Balfour Beatty

Construction Ltd is a member of the Considerate Contractor programme and have both a

genuine desire and obligation to ensure the environmental protection during the

redevelopment works. A statement by Balfour Beatty addresses the following issues:

liaison with third parties and neighbour relations

proposed works

environment protection

access proposal.”

Consultations

Most of the letters received from local residents are from the occupiers of properties in

Shaftesbury Road, also one has been received from the West Beckenham Residents Association.

The main points raised concern -

58

inadequate parking for staff and visitors, a pay and display car park will lead to

visitors seeking free parking in nearby streets

there are existing severe problems of pressure on the street parking in Shaftesbury

Road, and these will be worsened. Also access for emergency vehicles will be

hampered

there are also existing congestion problems in Shaftesbury Road caused by vehicles to

and from the hospital. These will be worsened as the Transport Report predicts the

number of vehicles using the access to the road increasing from 117 to 854 per day,

particularly this will cause disturbance to No.2 (adjacent to the access)

the building works are expected to take 3½ years and demolition/construction will

cause great disturbance to Shaftesbury Road residents. Use of the road by

construction vehicles is unacceptable. The existing minor injuries unit should be

relocated to the decant accommodation so that the new ingress access from Croydon

Road can be provided during construction

a residents parking scheme should be introduced in the area (at least in Shaftesbury

Road)

proposal contrary to para 6.10 of the Council‟s Planning Brief - “vehicular traffic

should not be directed to the Shaftesbury Road access”

trees at the rear of the Shaftesbury Road properties should be retained

possible light pollution affecting the adjacent properties

a 2.4m high fence should be provided for the full length of Nos.2-26 (even)

Shaftesbury Road

the entrance to Croydon Road Recreation Ground from the end of Shaftesbury Road

should continue to close at sunset to prevent unsociable behaviour

the west elevation (to Croydon Road) and the orange and purple colours shown on the

elevations are unacceptable, out of character, and detrimental to the Victorian brick

buildings. Parts of the west elevation are hidden from public view, which would be

contrary to “Secured by Design” principles and conducive to crime and anti-social

behaviour

no proposals are shown on the plans for enhancing pedestrian links to the town centre

temporary use of part of the Recreation Ground will represent a loss of a valued local

amenity

the hospital café would be detrimental to the trade of the café in the Recreation

Ground

regarding the portable buildings in the Recreation Ground, no objections providing

the site is restored immediately after the new hospital opened

An objection has been received from Sainsburys that use of the Village Way car park to cater for

the shortfall of car parking on the hospital site will prevent the spaces concerned being used by

Sainsburys shoppers and visitors to other town centre facilities in the daytime, and this will have

a detrimental impact on the quality and health of the town centre as a whole - public car parking

is vital to the success of a town centre and helps stores in them compete effectively with out-of-

town facilities, this being acknowledged in PPG6 and the London Plan.

1 letter of support has been received. Also it is understood that the Town Centre Manager and

town centre traders welcome the enhancement of health facilities on the site.

The comments of the Council‟s drainage engineer and Thames Water are that -

there are no objections to the proposal regarding impact on the sewerage

infrastructure

59

the standard condition regarding surface water drainage details should be imposed if

the development is permitted

petrol/oil interceptors should be provided for the drainage of the parking areas.

The following are technical highway engineering comments on the hospital redevelopment

application -

the additional information and scheme revisions address or clarify issues raised

during processing of the applications

the applicants‟ offer to enter into a „considerate contractor‟ scheme to deal with all

the off-site implications of the development during the construction stage is

welcomed. It is suggested that this should include an agreement to organise regular

meetings between the contractor, the residents‟ representatives, the PCT and the

Council

the relocated pedestrian crossing should be a puffin-style crossing and the estimated

cost for the relocation and maintenance of the crossing is £55,000 - the applicant has

agreed to meet this cost

there is concern that there will be an adverse effect on on-street parking in nearby

residential roads both during construction and once the hospital is complete. With

the development generating a high demand for parking, parking in roads close to the

hospital could well become more difficult for residents. It is noted that the applicant

has agreed to fund the cost of a parking scheme in Shaftesbury Road, however there

is concern that the adverse effect on parking could go beyond Shaftesbury Road. It is

suggested that the applicant fund a residents‟ parking scheme for the residential roads

in the immediate area of the hospital, which would require at least £30,000 to

implement. The redevelopment may well have an adverse effect on the on-street

parking outside the immediate area to be considered. Additional roads beyond an

initial scheme may need to be considered, which would need a further review of on-

street parking in the roads outside the scheme area after its implementation. This

issue would need to be included in the hospital‟s travel plan so that the extent and

timing of any further parking scheme can be determined in conjunction with the

parking management arrangements for the hospital

the minor realignment of Shaftesbury Road to improve vehicular access may however

result in a loss of on-street car parking, reinforcing comments made about the need

for an on-street parking scheme

access to the public car park - sight-lines of 90m x 4.5m x 90m would normally be

required but this cannot be achieved. The minimum acceptable visibility would be

90m x 2.4m x 90m or that which exists for the present access, whichever provides the

greatest visibility. The vehicular entrance and exit points should have entry treatment

to slow vehicles, this being shown on the revised plans

the proposals for separate vehicular accesses for the pay and display public car park

and the staff parking areas are understood together with the rationale behind the

internal arrangement of the public access, parking, taxi rank, and drop-off area

the arrangements for circulation of public car parking will result in additional

vehicles using Shaftesbury Road as an exit, and it would be helpful for the applicant

to provide an analysis of the operation of the Sahftesbury Road junction, the staff car

park entrance and the public car park entrance so the impact on traffic in Croydon

Road can be assessed

the staff car park entrance from Croydon Road will also be used by all service and

delivery vehicles. The applicants have demonstrated why a right turn facility cannot

be provided in Croydon Road for this entrance. The entrance point should have entry

treatment to slow vehicles

60

car parking requirement - the number of existing parking spaces are referred to above.

It is considered that the proposal will lead to further pressure for on-street parking in

the area. The information provided by the applicant‟s agent regarding the parking

requirements is noted. Given the specialist nature of the development, the Council

has no set parking standards that can be applied to the proposal, hence it is reliant on

the applicant‟s assessment of the parking demand. The 138 proposed parking spaces

appear to be insufficient for the demand generated and there is therefore a clear

requirement for a travel plan to address the shortfall for the whole life of the

development

the proposal to use the nearby Council car park off Village Way is noted, as are the

surveys suggesting that there are up to 100 spaces available on weekdays. Whilst this

will undoubtedly assist in the parking requirements for the new hospital, it is

understood that the Council would not wish to enter into a long-term agreement for

the provision of such parking. Equally, there can clearly be no guarantee that the

spaces will be available at the time motorists wish to park or that the spaces will be

available for the whole life of the hospital. However it is accepted that the proximity

of the Village Way car park to the development would make it a convenient location

for visitors and staff to park. But if the spare spaces are all taken by long stay workers

associated with the hospital and consequently the Village Way car park is often found

to be full, this would make it less attractive to shoppers. As the Village Way car park

is primarily a shoppers car park the use for regular long-term parking is a matter to be

given careful consideration.

Any comments from the Environment Agency will be reported verbally at the meeting.

The Architecture Panel (TAP) has considered the original plans for the proposal and is of the

opinion that it is an impressive solution, commenting in its standard format regarding the

following criteria -

Site Suitability: A most appropriate redevelopment, providing local health care close

to need

Massing and orientation: Carefully handled large building. Sensitive design. Views

not adversely affected

External appearance: Very clever use of elevations and materials which express the

uses inside the building and providing orientation for visitors

Means of access, servicing and circulation: Support for the set back entrance offering

concise and direct link to visitor circulation. Best endeavours are made to address

pressures for parking and the conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movement

Landscaping: Front boundary railing may need reconsideration

Conclusions: Impressive design solution. Recommended for permission.

The Panel has not been reconsulted as the changes on the amended plans are relatively minor.

Any comments from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) will

be reported verbally at the meeting.

Regarding the locally listed buildings, the renovation of the former Cottage Hospital will

enhance its appearance and is to be welcomed. It is unfortunate that the former Kelsey

Farmhouse has been omitted from the application and its retention, marketing for future use and

implementation of a scheme for this (subject to planning permission) should be safeguarded in

the Section 106 Agreement.

61

Regarding trees, there are no technical objections to the hospital development subject to

appropriate conditions. There were concerns about the proximity of the portable buildings to

trees at the Recreation Ground, but revised plans show increased separation between the

buildings and existing trees, which will minimise any harm -conditions to safeguard the trees are

suggested.

Regarding the effects of the proposals on the Recreation Ground, the Landscape Division wishes

to be helpful to the PCT while the development is constructed, but states that the following

conditions will apply to the works:

a full photographic survey to be undertaken before the start of works in the

Recreation Ground

no mature trees to be felled or pruned, root systems need to be protected and not

damaged by pads or footings to the temporary buildings

all grass, shrubberies and roses to be fully reinstated after removal of temporary

buildings and maintained at the developer‟s cost until established

any fences, gates and paths/hard surfaces that are damaged shall be replaced

signage, with information about the works and details of reinstatement to be clearly

set up around the perimeter and at entrances to the Recreation Ground

rental received from the use of the Recreation Ground to be used to provide

additional facilities/improvements to the park

security of the park not to be compromised

trading rights at the Recreation Ground cafe not to be compromised by any catering

arrangements in the hospital building – ie they should not be able to sell to the park

users, trading to be restricted to patients/medical staff only.


The first purpose-built health care building in Beckenham was the two storey red brick structure

fronting Croydon Road at the south end of the Hospital site. It was erected as the Beckenham

Cottage Hospital in 1872, and accommodated 4 patients, providing the wider village community

with a washhouse and baths. This would have been quite an impressive provision given the small

size of Beckenham Village at that time.

Patient provision was doubled in 1877 and as Beckenham developed as a suburban district of

London in the 1880s the cottage hospital began a slow expansion which continued for over a

century: 1887 (Lea Wilson Ward), 1895 (operating room), 1898 (Fewster Children‟s Ward),

1899 (Marie Louise Block), 1903 (operating theatre), 1917 (private ward) 1926 (extensions),

1932 (Children‟s ward), 1939 (Trapnell Wing), 1959 (outpatients department), 1969 (Douglas

Lindsay Ward), and other modern additions.

In 1946 the hospital expanded to include the two storey house fronting Croydon Road at the

north end of the site. This building is known historically as Kelsey Park Farmhouse, it appears

to pre-date the hospital as it is shown on 1841 and 1861 maps. However, its architectural

treatment and materials are almost identical to the original Cottage Hospital building.

Apart from minor developments (eg escape stairs, mobile building and link extensions), the

recent planning history of the site comprises the following applications -

demolition of mortuary and store buildings and formation of 3 ambulance parking

bays, 4 car parking spaces and turning area (ref. 92/1970) - permitted October 1992,

and implemented (rear of Nos.2-14 Shaftesbury Road)

use of part of ground floor as day nursery (eg. 92/2323) - permitted January 1993

62

additional 24 car parking spaces at front (ref. 94/1914) - permitted October 1994, and

implemented

redevelopment of site with part two/three storey hospital and residential development

(ref. 96/2832) - withdrawn December 1998

additional 30 car parking spaces at rear, with access from the car park in the south-

west of the site along a driveway parallel to the southern boundary (ref. 99/2383) -

permitted October 2000, not implemented.

The main requirements of Policies E.1 of the adopted UDP and BE1 of the draft UDP are that

new development respects adjacent buildings, does not detract from existing trees and planting,

provides adequate space to ensure an appropriately landscaped setting, provides a satisfactory

relationship between buildings and respects the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring

properties.

Policy E.6 of the adopted UDP states that development should not detract from the character,

appearance or setting of locally listed buildings. This is updated by Policy BE8 of the draft

UDP.

None of the trees at the hospital or Recreation Ground are protected by TPOs but policies

regarding trees are relevant.

The hospital site adjoins the Urban Open Space (UOS) of the Recreation Ground, and part of the

car park is also UOS. The temporary buildings will be removed and the land reinstated, hence

there will be no lasting effect on the openness of UOS. As the car park will be laid as car

parking for the redeveloped hospital there will be no adverse effect on openness in this respect

either.

Policies T.15 of the adopted UDP and T3 of the draft UDP concern the car parking standards, the

latter reflecting Central Government advice on this issue. The site is within an area of

moderate/high accessibility to public transport. However the parking needs of the development

will have to be assessed on merit, taking into account the material put forward by the consulting

engineers.

Policy C.1 of the adopted UDP states that the Council will take account of the needs of health

facilities when considering development proposals. Policies C1 and C5 of the draft UDP are

supportive of new healthcare facilities providing -

they are accessible by public transport

amenities of adjoining properties are adequately safeguarded

there is no unsatisfactory impact on on-street parking or highway safety

normally the proposal will be expected to comply with other policies of the plan.

Regarding the Sustainable Communities objectives in Part I of the draft UDP the provision of

social infrastructure as proposed close to the population it serves will reduce the need to travel

(eg to Farnborough) and reduce social exclusion (ie to those to whom access to healthcare would

be effectively denied by distance). The provision of related services on the same site producing

more “patient centred” services delivered at modern multi-purpose premises would be in line

with The NHS Plan (July 2000).

Another material consideration is the Planning Brief approved by the Development Control

Committee in April 2003.

63

The London Plan (February 2004) includes policies regarding healthcare that are relevant.

Policy 3A.17 indicates that UDP policies should promote the objectives of the NHS Plan and

Local Delivery Plans. The “Strategic Service Development Plan for LIFT in Bexley, Bromley

and Greenwich (Dec 2002)” is such a delivery plan, to which the Council are signed up as a

partner organisation. The redevelopment of the Beckenham Hospital site is Scheme 1 of the first

tranche. Policy 3A.18 states that preferred locations for hospitals, primary healthcare centres,

GP practices and dentists should be identified in areas accessible by public transport and with

particular reference to Policy 3D.1 which seeks to strengthen the wider role of town centres.

The Community Plan 2003-2015 is by the Bromley Local Strategic Partnership, which is

comprised of 11 groups and agencies including the Council and the PCT – other members

include the Police, Broomleigh Housing Association and Business Focus. Under “Health and

Social Care Theme” outcomes sought in the document are one stop services in accessible

locations and local health centres implementing a borough-wide preventative strategy, an

objective being implementation of LIFT funding to provide improved health facilities or local

health centres.

The main issues for consideration can be summarised as follows -

the amount of development proposed. Due to the increased floorspace and parking,

the coverage of the site with buildings and hard surfaces will clearly increase. The

internal planning of the building has been driven by an emphasis on keeping

accommodation at ground and first floor levels (rather than build up) and this has

tended to increase site coverage. It will be noted that parking at the rear of the site has

been permitted but not implemented

the effect on residential amenity. The affected properties in Shaftesbury Road can be

seen as being affected in negative and positive ways. Though the bulk of buildings

has been reduced and their separation from the affected gardens has been increased

(some existing buildings on this part of the site being four storey), the amount of

vehicular activity close to the rear of these affected properties will increase markedly.

However the boundary enclosure should mitigate the latter effect, and residents have

not expressed concerns about the effects of the building and car parking, rather are

mainly concerned about use of Shaftesbury Road by exiting vehicles from the

development. Use of the road by construction traffic will be “in and out” during

Phase 1, and for exiting construction traffic during Phase 2

traffic generation and parking issues. Members will need to take a view on certain

matters e.g. the adequacy of the parking and the increase in use of Shaftesbury Road

(albeit only by exiting vehicles). The locality is clearly already affected by street

parking pressures caused by the Hospital, shopping and entertainment uses/ food

establishments in the town centre, commuters and the lack of off-street parking for

residential properties. Whether additional pressures due to the new Hospital will be

serious or alternatively can be accepted will have to be considered

whether the proposal is in character in the area. The existing buildings mainly are a

mixture of Victorian hospital and 1930s hospital. The proposal has the appearance of

being a contemporary hospital, which may be considered an appropriate approach to

designing for this site. The views of TAP and CABE should be taken into account.

The wall treatments of brick, render and terracotta seem uncontroversial and with the

curved metal roof may produce a building not dissimilar in its contemporary

appearance to the Beckenham Spa swimming pool and leisure centre in Beckenham

Road. In general terms it is unfortunate that the opportunity has not been taken to

provide a new central entrance to the new hospital from the Croydon Road frontage,

but this has been driven by the internal planning of the floorspace and circulation

within the building

64

whether desirable on-site details and off-site proposals can be achieved by and effects

of the development be mitigated by planning conditions and a Section 106

Agreement. It is suggested that the latter include –

1. Ensuring that the former Farmhouse is retained and marketed for future change of

use, and the Cottage Hospital renovated and included in the scheme

2. Off-site highway works

3. Contribution to a residents parking scheme

4. Improving the route to the Village Way car park - lighting, CCTV etc.

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 its nature, size and location.

This opinion was expressed taking into account all relevant matters including the information

submitted with the application, advice from technical consul tees, the scale/ characteristics of the

existing and proposed development on the site. The applicants were advised accordingly.

Conclusions

In accordance with the Planning Brief, written and illustrative material has been submitted with

the planning application to demonstrate how urban design, Unitary Development Plan policies,

the Brief itself and other material planning considerations have been taken into account in

drawing up the proposals, in line with the advice in PPG1 and the Department of Environment,

Transport and the Regions (DETR) and CABE publication “By Design”.

The redevelopment of Beckenham Hospital is a complex proposal raising a wide range of issues.

Its implementation requires temporary provision of portable buildings on the adjacent

Recreation Ground. As such the applicants have submitted extensive material to address issues

raised prior to the submission of the applications and matters that emerged as being of concern

during their processing. The matters raised by the architects and consulting engineers have been

set out at length in this report in order that Members can be aware of the reasoning behind the

proposals and give the various points full consideration.

Residents and one of the residents associations have raised a number of concerns, mainly about

traffic, parking and residential amenity issues, which also deserve full consideration.

The proposal will facilitate the provision of a variety of healthcare services to the population in

the north-west of the Borough. It has been developed in line with the adopted planning brief for

the site and makes efficient use of the site to enhance local health services in line with adopted

local and national health/town centre objectives. Whilst there will be an increase in trips to the

site/daytime parking demand, the impact of this increase should be minimises by effective car

park management and other travel plan initiatives.

Members will note that the main land use planning matters for consideration are set out in the

previous section of this report.

If permitted, the Beckenham Hospital redevelopment application will be subject to a Section 106

Agreement to secure -

65

retention of former Kelsey Park Farmhouse, its marketing for future change of use

and implementation of a scheme for its continued use, subject to planning permission

renovation of the former Cottage Hospital in accordance with the submitted details,

and its incorporation in the permitted scheme

kerb realignment, ghost island and relocation of pedestrian crossing to Croydon Road

kerb build-out to Shaftesbury Road access

off-site works on pedestrian route to Village Way public car park, include works to

that car park (to be agreed)

financial contribution to residents parking scheme

considerate contractor agreement, including control of on-street car parking by

building operatives.




RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF

A LEGAL AGREEMENT

and the following conditions:


DCA01R A01 reason


DCA04R A04 reason


DCA07R A07 reason


DCB01R B01 reason


DCB02R B02 reason


DCB03R B03 reason


DCB04R B04 reason


DCB16R B16 reason


DCC01R C01 reason


DCD02R D02 reason


DCH03R H03 reason


DCH16R H16 reason


DCH18R H18 reason

14 DCH21 H21 Car parking to be for customers/employee

66

DCH21R H21 reason


DCH22R H22 reason


DCH23R H23 reason

17 DCH25 Satisfactory servicing facilities

DCH25R H25 reason

18 DCJ16 Standby generators

DCJ16R J16 reason


DCK03R K03 reason


DCK05R K05 reason

21 DCK07 Disabled access

DCK07R K07 reason


DCK09R K09 reason

23 Details of the dimensions of the sight lines at the exit from the public car park to

Croydon Road which can be accommodated within the site shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. With the exception

of trees selected by or on behalf of the Authority no obstruction to visibility shall exceed

1m in height in advance of the approved sight lines, which shall be provided before the

building hereby permitted is substantially completed and be maintained permanently

thereafter.

DCH10R H10 reason

24 Prior to first occupation of the building hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall

include measures to promote and encourage alternatives to single occupancy car use and

a timetable for implementation of the proposed measures and details of the mechanisms

for implementation and future annual monitoring of the Bromley Primary Care Trust.

The Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timescale and

details.

Reason: To encourage the use of non-car modes of transport to the development, reduce

the impact of traffic generated by the use of the site and accord with Policy T2 of the

second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

25 Details of a scheme for the management of the car park shall be submitted to and

approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before any part of

the development is first occupied and the car park shall be operated in accordance with

the approved scheme at all times unless previously agreed in writing by or on behalf of

the Authority.

DCH02R H02 reason

26 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, parking for

bicycles, motor cycles and mobility buggies (including covered storage facilities where

appropriate) shall be provided at the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and

approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority, and the bicycle

parking/storage facilities shall be permanently maintained thereafter.

DCH22R H22 reason

27 A sculpture, work of art or historic artefact shall be erected in front of the development

hereby permitted before it is first occupied, in accordance with details to be submitted to

and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority and shall be

permanently maintained as such to the Authority's satisfaction.

67

Reason: In the interest of the history, culture and visual amenities of the area and to

comply with Policy BE4 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept

2002).

28 Details of the finished surfaces and the road markings of accesses, car parking and

servicing areas and vehicular circulation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before the development commences and the

surfaces shall be completed in accordance with the approved details before any of the

dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan

and Policies BE1 and T22 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept

2002) and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and pedestrian and vehicular

safety.

29 At any time the noise level, from the site/plant, in terms of dB(A) shall be 5 decibels

below the relevant minimum background noise level, (LA90(15mins)), measured at the

nearest noise-sensitive building. Also, if the plant has a distinctive tonal or intermittent

nature the predicted noise level of the plant shall be increased by a further 5dBA.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of amenity for nearby residential properties

and to comply with Policy ER9 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan

(Sept 2002).


Policies (AUDP)

E.1: Design of New Development

E.6: Historic Buildings

T.3: Traffic Generation, Congestion and Safety

T.15: Parking

C.1: General Policies for Community Services

G.11: Urban Open Space

G.28: Trees, Woodlands and Landscaping

Policies (2DDUDP)

BE1: Design of New Development

BE8: Locally Listed Buildings

T3: Parking

T22: Road Safety

C1: Community Facilities

C5: Health Facilities

G10: Urban Open Space

NE6: Protection of Trees and Woodland Amenity

IMP4: Planning Obligations

Planning Brief for the site approved by the Development Control Committee on 29th

April 2003.

INFORMATIVE(S)


_________________________



Address : 12 Kemerton Road Beckenham Kent Conservation Area:NO

68

BR3 6NJ

OS Grid Ref: E: 538058 N: 169083

Applicant : S Steventon And Co Ltd Objections : YES


Part two/three/four storey block comprising 14 two bedroom flats, with 10 single and 3

double garages and 4 car parking space, at 12 and 14 Kemerton Road

Proposal

The site is situated at the far eastern end of Kemerton Road, which is a small residential cul-de-

sac, and is currently occupied by a pair of two/three storey semi-detached dwellings on a total

site area of 0.266ha. The site tapers outwards towards the rear, measuring between 58-69m deep,

and while the site frontage measures approximately 23m, the width of the site increases to 59m

at its widest point.

Kemerton Road contains a variety of property styles, including Victorian detached houses, some

of which have been converted into flats, detached houses, three storey town houses, modern two

and three storey flatted blocks and detached bungalows. There are also two smaller cul-de-sacs at

Ashdown Close and Ellesmere Avenue which feed off Kemerton Road. However, it is clear that

the eastern end of Kemerton Road is of a much lower residential density than the western end.

The site is bounded to the west by a five bedroom two storey detached house, No.10 Kemerton

Road, and its garden areas to the front and rear. This property is set back further into its site than

the frontage of No.12, and is located immediately adjacent to the flank boundary with No.12.

The site is bounded to the north by a detached bungalow, and to the east by the rear gardens of

properties fronting Oakhill Road. To the rear of the site lies a further detached dwelling, Little

Orchard, and the parking area for Overbury Court, a block of flats which fronts Overbury

Avenue.

There are two Tree Preservation Orders which cover this site; TPO 1605 which protects a lime

tree on the front boundary of No.12, and TPO 1827 which protects a yew tree in the rear garden

of No.14 immediately adjacent to the flank boundary with No.12.

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a part two/ three/four storey

block comprising 14 two bedroom flats with car parking to the rear and at the front of the site.

The front of the new building would be in a similar position to the existing buildings on the site,

and would extend to the rear between 5 and 8 metres beyond the existing building.

Consultations

A number of letters of objection have been received in response to the proposal:-

11 Kemerton Road

overlooking from bedrooms and kitchens

car parking to the front likely to affect the protected lime tree

access unacceptable and too narrow for large contractors‟ vehicles.

69

4 Kemerton Road – flats 1, 2 and 8

overdevelopment of the site

unacceptable traffic conditions.

12 Oakhill Road

objections reiterated on basis of scale and effect on character.

14 Oakhill Road

the issue still remains width, bulk and scale

eastern elevation still a massive four storey structure

the reduction in level of 1m merely emphasises the fact that the building is too high.

20 Oakhill Road

reiterates previous changes, no improvement overall.

10 Kemerton Road

effect on amenity

traffic difficulties

details of design to the rear unreasonably intrusive

roof ridge taller and larger than that discussed on appeal

access unreasonably intrusive

overlooking will occur from flats 5, 6, 9, 10 and 13.

Any further comments received will be reported verbally.

The proposed parking provision is 20 spaces – 16 garages spaces and 4 surface spaces two to the

front and two to the rear. This is just under 1.5 spaces per unit. Policy T.15 of the UDP would

require 28 spaces at 2 per unit. However the Inspector in earlier appeals has considered this

parking provision to be acceptable.


Permission was refused in September 1999 (ref. 99.01331) for the erection of a single storey

side/rear extension to No.14 and the conversion of this property only into 1 three bedroom and 2

one bedroom flats on grounds relating to the over-intensive use of the property, the

unsatisfactory loss of a medium sized family dwelling, the failure to provide a separate kitchen to

one of the flats, and the lack of adequate on-site car parking provision.

While there have been a number of applications and appeal decisions regarding the proposed

development of this site, the most recent was that from July 2003 when two schemes for 14 flats

(12 two bedroom and 2 three bedroom) were dismissed. The relevant conclusions of the

Inspector are set out below:-

“in principle, development….. for flats, with rear car parking, at the density proposed

would not be out of keeping with the character of the wider area. The key question in

addition to that of residential amenity is the degree to which built form would retain the

70

quality of the environment by representing a sympathetic transition of massing, scale and

density between the proposed development and adjacent buildings.”

The Inspector was considering two proposals one considerably deeper (by 10m) than the existing

12 and 14 Kemerton Road, the other considerably wider including a two storey access feature

adjacent to 10 Kemerton Road.

“I accept that the redevelopment of the site for flats may result in a building of somewhat

greater size than the existing semi-detached dwellings and that a development of three

storeys with penthouse accommodation might not be unacceptable in principle. However

the scheme due to its bulk and rearward projections, would clearly fail to respect its

setting or to represent a sensitive and imaginative response to building at a higher density

of the sort that is encouraged by PPG3”.

In respect of the second proposal she concluded:

“I consider the building would be overdominant and would fail to achieve a

satisfactortory relationship to surrounding development due to its width, bulk and scale.”

The Inspector accepted the parking arrangements.

As regards residential amenity the Inspector felt neither scheme would be detrimental in terms of

loss of privacy but the greater depth of the first scheme would have a unduly oppressive effect on

the outlook from 12-20 Oakhill Road.

The Inspector considered an acoustic wall to supplement the planting would be necessary to

protect the amenities of 10 Kemerton Road from traffic using the access.

A comparison of the current application with both dismissed appeal schemes reveals the

following:-

Current Appeal A Appeal B

Depth 22m (average) 26m 21m

24m (maximum)

Width 16 (excl. two storey 18.5m 22m + two

element storey link adj No. 10

Height 12.5m (as submitted) 10.5m 10.5m

(11.5m above

existing GL) (9.5m) (9.5m)

10.5m (as revised)

9.5m)

The main issues in this case are whether the proposals would comprise an overdevelopment of

the site by reason of bulk, residential density and site coverage, and the impact of the scheme on

the amenities of nearby residents.

The policies which are of most relevance to this case are Policies H.2, E.1, and T.15 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan, and Policies H2, BE1 and T3 of the first deposit draft

Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002). These refer to the design of new residential

developments which should be in keeping with the area and should not have an adverse impact

on residential amenity and the design of new built development generally.

71

Conclusions

The application has been put forward as an attempt to take on board the previous Inspector‟s

reservations about the smaller of the two schemes she dismissed. In that decision the Inspector

raised no objection to the principle of flatted development on the number of flats proposed but

she was concerned about the overdominance of the block which would fail to achieve a

satisfactory relationship to surrounding development due to its width, bulk and scale.

This application the applicants claim combines the width of the first appeal scheme with the

depth of the second scheme. The applicants claim the amended design and the introduction of

two storey elements on either side reduce the overall bulk and scale of the building. However, it

must be said that the original design submitted as part of this application which would have

resulted in a building approximately 2m higher than those proposed in the earlier appeal

schemes, is much better than the revised plans which have reduced the height. If Members are

satisfied that this compromise proposal addresses the issues raised by the Inspector and local

residents, the conditions set out below would be necessary.

Background papers referred during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files

refs. 99.00922, 99.01331, 00.00411 and 01.01400, excluding exempt information.





DCA01R A01 reason


DCA04R A04 reason

3 DCA05 Landscaping scheme - implementation

DCA05R A05 reason


DCB02R B02 reason


DCB03R B03 reason


DCB04R B04 reason


DCH18R H18 reason


DCK05R K05 reason

9 DCH01 Details of access layout (2 inserts)

DCH01R H01 reason


DCH02R H02 reason


DCH04R H04 reason

12 DCH05 Garage dimensions

DCH05R H05 reason


DCH16R H16 reason


72

DCH17R H17 reason


DCH22R H22 reason


DCH23R H23 reason

17 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied boundary

enclosures of a height and type to be approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local

Planning Authority including an acoustic fence alongside 10 Kemerton Road shall be

erected in such positions along the boundaries of the site(s) as shall be approved and shall

be permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan

and Policy BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002) and in

the interest of visual amenity and the amenities of adjacent properties.


Policies (AUDP)

H.2: Design of Housing Development


Policies (2DDUDP)

H6: Design of New Development

BE1: Design of New Development.

_______________________


Chelsfield And Pratts

Bottom

Address : Fairtrough Farm Fairtrough

Road Orpington Kent BR6 7NY


OS Grid Ref: E: 546924 N: 161369

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Lewis Objections : YES


Retention of wall, fence and gates RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

Proposal

An application has been made for the retention of a wall, fence and gates at Fairtrough Farm,

Fairtrough Road, Orpington. Members will be aware of a history of planning contraventions and

appeals at Fairtrough Farm, having recently considered applications for the retention of the

unauthorised equestrian stud facility and associated development (refs.03/01235,03/01236,

03/1237). These applications were refused permission at by the Plans Sub-Committee meeting

on 19th

February 2004.

Retrospective permission is sought for wall, comprising two separate sections, close-boarded

timber fencing and sheeted metal gates. The section immediately in front of the Old Kent Barn is

constructed of red brick and is approximately 2 metres in height. There are a series of substantial

piers at regular intervals and between the pillars is a lower wall. There is a central access. The

brick pillars and wall are capped with cast concrete blocks. It would appear that this section of

73

wall has been constructed in order to receive railings between the piers, and iron gates to the

centre gap, although neither has been installed to date. There is a further section of wall

constructed with a different mix of bricks, although still predominantly red, in front of the shell

of former farmhouse with two substantial piers each side of an entrance gap, and two substantial

piers at either end of the section of wall. This section of wall appears to be incomplete, but at its

highest point is approximately 0.5 metres higher than the section of wall in front of the Kent

Barn. To the north of the Kent Barn, there is a section of close-boarded timber fencing set on a

course of bricks comprising 5 panels linking to the two sheeted metal gates, painted green.

These gates provide the main access to the site. Each gate is approximately 2 metres high and

around 3 metres wide. It is stated they are required so as to prevent horse escape and trespassing.

Consultations

The Pratts Bottom Residents‟ Association notes that the wall is very prominent and not in

keeping with the rural nature of the area and therefore object to the application.


The site is located within the Green Belt and is rural in nature. Of particular relevance are

policies relating to new development: Policies E.1 (the design of new development) and Policy

E.2 (Buildings in rural areas) in the adopted UDP. Policies BE1 (the design of new

development), BE2 (buildings in rural areas) and BE6 (railings, boundary walls and other means

of enclosure) of the second deposit draft UDP are also relevant to consideration of this

retrospective application. Essentially these policies seek to ensure design is of a high standard

and respects its location. Policy BE6 specifically resists the construction of inappropriate

enclosures.

Conclusions

This is essentially a rural area and there are elements of the design of the brick wall that appear

out of character, unduly prominent and suburban in this location. In particular, the section of

wall in front of the Old Kent Barn appears somewhat harsh and incongruous, and does not blend

well with either the Old Kent Barn or the wider countryside. The gates, being of a solid

appearance, also present a stark character and have a detrimental effect on the quality of the

environment.

Members may consider that the retrospective application as it stands is unacceptable and should

be refused permission, and that it would be expedient to take appropriate enforcement action.





1 The brick wall is suburban in character and forms an unduly prominent and incongruous

feature in this sensitive rural area, and is out of keeping with the Old Kent Barn and

wider countryside and landscape and is thereby contrary to Policies E.1 and E.2 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies BE1, BE2 and BE6 of the second

deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).2 2

2 The gates, by reason of their design, materials and solid appearance, are detrimental to

the appearance of this sensitive rural area and thereby contrary to Policies E.1 and E.2 of

74

the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies BE1, BE2 and BE6 of the second


FURTHER RECOMMENDATION:

1 Enforcement action be taken to secure removal of the unauthorised development and

appropriate reinstatement of the land.

_________________________

20.

Application No : 03/04613/FULL1 Ward :


Address : Croydon Road Recreation Ground

Croydon Road Beckenham Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 536930 N: 169030

Applicant : Bromley Primary Care Trust Objections : YES


Two storey portable buildings to provide temporary accommodation for hospital and day

nursery during redevelopment of Beckenham Hospital

Joint report with Application No. 03/04595




1 DCE01 Limited period - building(s) (1 insert) 31.12.06

DCE01R E01 reason

2 No site preparation works shall be undertaken, and no equipment, plant, machinery or

materials for the purposes of development shall be taken onto the site until an

arboricultural method statement detailing the measures to be taken to protect trees is

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

The statement shall include details of:

75

Type and siting of protective fencing, and maintenance of protective fencing for the

duration of project;

Type and siting of scaffold (if required);

A schedule of timing of site preparation and building works;

Method statement for the installation and removal of the modular buildings;

Depth, extent and means of excavation of foundations and measures for prevention of

leaching of deleterious materials into the surrounding ground;

Information as to the means and timing of removal of foundations;

Location of site facilities (if required), and location of storage areas for material,

structures, machinery, equipment or spoil, and mixing of cement or concrete;

Location of bonfire site (if required);

Treatment of any roots cut in the course of construction;

Methods proposed for the watering of the trees during the course of the project.

The method statement shall be implemented according to the details contained therein

until completion of building works, and all plant, machinery or materials for the purposes

of development have been removed from the site.

DCB02R B02 reason

3 The applicant shall at his own expense instruct an arboricultural consultant, approved by

the Council in writing to oversee the works and report to the Council throughout the

period of the works insofar as the works may affect trees around the perimeter of the site.

Works shall not commence on site until a consultant has been appointed. After

commencement of the project, all persons employed or engaged on the project shall

immediately comply with any reasonable instruction, advice or request given or made by

the arboricultural consultant in respect of works insofar as they relate to or affect trees

around the perimeter of the site, including an instruction to cease work if the

arboricultural consultant considers that works have deviated from the agreed working

methods and in these circumstances works shall not recommence until or unless written

authority has been given by the Council or the arboricultural consultant that such works

may recommence.

DCB02R B02 reason

4 There shall be no excavation works beneath the canopy of any trees shown to be retained

on the submitted plan. The paths from the main entrance and emergency exit shall be

constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by or on behalf of

the Local Planning Authority.

DCB16R B16 reason


Policies (AUDP)


G.11: Urban Open Space

G.28: Trees, Woodland and Landscaping

C.1: General Policies for Community Services

Policies (2DDUDP)

BE1: Design of New Development

G10: Urban Open Space

NE6: Protection of Trees and Woodland Amenity

C1: Community Facilities

C5: Health Facilities.

76

_________________________


Mottingham And

Chislehurst North

Address : 94 Grove Park Road London SE9

4QB


OS Grid Ref: E: 541425 N: 172345

Applicant : Mr S Bennett Objections : YES


Two storey side extension and addition of first floor to form two storey building

comprising 4 one bed self-contained flats

Proposal

The property is one of a pair of detached bungalows on Grove Park Road. To the south-west is a

small end-of-terrace house (No. 96) attached to a two storey block of 8 flats with a similar end of

terrace house attached to the far end. Grove Park Road is a wide busy road with a mixture of

housing types from large two-storey detached houses to high-rise block of flats.

The proposal is for a two storey side extension to the south west adjacent to No. 96, and the

addition of a first floor with pitched roof all to form a two storey building comprising 4 one bed

self contained flats with car parking to the front.

There will be a 1m side space retained between the boundary of No. 96 and the proposed

twostorey side extension. No. 96 has no windows on the flank wall and there is a side space of

approximately 7m between its flank wall and the boundary. Within this space is a single storey

garage. The proposed two storey side extension will extend no further back than the existing rear

77

wall of the host bungalow and there will be only one small first floor window on the flank

elevation adjacent to No. 96.

The additional first floor may have an effect on daylighting to No. 92 (the bungalow to the north

east of the application site) but due to the orientation of the property this is considered not to be

significantly greater than the existing situation and insufficient to warrant a refusal.

Consultations

Objections were received from No. 96 and are summarised as follows:

loss of early morning sunlight and privacy to the rear of the property

intensification of parking

insufficient Side Space.

Environmental Health made no objections to the application.

Regarding highways matters, should the application be permitted a number of conditions should

be imposed regarding the off street parking, visibility etc.


The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies H.3 and H.8 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and H8 and H12 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan

regarding extensions to, and conversion of residential properties into self-contained units. The

main aims of these policies are to encourage appropriate development, which is sensitive to the

amenities and character of the surrounding area whilst providing suitable accommodation with

sufficient amenity space.

Conclusions

The proposed two-storey side extension would cause a minimal effect on the amenities of the

adjacent property, No. 96 due to the orientation of the properties, the separation between the

flank wall of both properties and the lack of windows on the flank elevation of No. 96.

The additional first floor in my view would not cause an unacceptable effect on the amenities of

the adjacent bungalow, No. 92. The first floor extension is kept to footprint of the existing

property and it is suggested that any windows on the Northeast elevation be obscure glazed and

no additional windows other than those marked on the revised plans be allowed, so as to reduce

any overlooking.

Although the proposal would involve the loss of a small family unit, presently a two bedroom

bungalow, the conversion of the property into 4 self contained one bed flats would not be an over

intensive use of the site nor would it be out of character with the area due to the range of

different properties in this location. The footprint of the property is only enlarged to one side,

leaving an acceptable amount of amenity space to the rear and an area for off street parking to

the front. A condition is suggested for the layout of the off street parking and refuse storage to be

submitted before the development commences.

78

Taking into consideration the above, it is recommended that permission be granted subject to a

number of conditions regarding parking on the site and the reduction of any impact on the

amenities of adjoining properties.


file ref. DC/04/00165/FULL1, excluding exempt information.





DCA01R A01 reason

2 DCC04 Matching materials

DCC04R C04 reason

3 DCI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the north-east elevation


4 DCI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) in the south-west elevation


5 DCI13 No windows (2 inserts) north-east and south-east first floor and two

storey extensions



DCH02R H02 reason


DCH04R H04 reason

8 DCH09 Restiction on height to boundary walls

DCH09R H09 reason

9 DCH12 Visibility splay (veh access) (2 insert) 2.4m x 2.4m 1m

DCH12R H12 reason


DCH18R H18 reason


Policies (AUDP)

H.3: Design of Residential Extensions

H.5: Residential Side Space

H.8: Residential Conversions


Policies (2DDUDP)

H8: Design of Residential Extensions

H10: Side Space

H12: Residential Conversions

BE1: Design of New Development.

_________________________


Bickley

79

Address : 59 Blackbrook Lane Bromley BR2

8AZ


OS Grid Ref: E: 542999 N: 167998

Applicant : Mr And Mrs White Objections : YES


Part one/two storey side and rear extension and front entrance porch

Proposal

The application property is a detached house in Bickley. The depth of the rear extension is given

as 2.73m (internal). The width of the first floor extension is now reduced.

Consultations

10 local residents were consulted on the application and one objection has been received.

The concerns raised are that the grounds of refusal regarding application ref. 03/03583 have not

been overcome and this extension projects a further 0.5m beyond the dimensions of the refused

application.


The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies H.3 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policies H8 and BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development

Plan (Sept 2002).

Members may recall that planning permission was refused for a two storey rear and first floor

side extensions and a front entrance porch by committee on 18 December 2004 for the following

reasons.

The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site, which would result in a

cramped form of development conducive to a retrograde lowering of the spatial

standards in the area and contrary to Policies H.3 andf H.5 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policies H2 and H10 of the second deposit draft Unitary


The proposal, by reason of its size and location would have a detrimental impact on

the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties thereby contrary to Policy

H.3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy H8 of the second deposit

draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

Conclusions

This application differs from 03/03583 in that there is no first floor extension to the side of the

house and therefore the only visual change to the street scene will be the front porch together

with replacement windows not requiring planning permission.

Although the rear extension is 0.4m deeper than that in the previous application it is considered

that as there is reasonable separation between the two storey part of the extension and the

80

adjoining properties this application complies with the aforementioned policies in that there is

unlikely to be any significantly harmful affect on the amenities of adjoining properties.


files ref. 03/03583 and 04/00207, excluding exempt information.




DCA01R A01 reason


DCC04R C04 reason

3 DCI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) serving the first floor bathroom window


4 DCI13 No windows (2 inserts) flank extensions


5 AJ01 Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

_________________________



Bottom

Address : Land Adj. To Metrobus Garage

Farnborough Hill Orpington Kent

BR6 6DA


OS Grid Ref: E: 545439 N: 163919

Applicant : 02 UK Limited Objections : NO


The removal of the existing 15m slim-line monopole mast and replacement 14.75 metre

column mast with main frame to carry both 2G and 3G antennae

Proposal

This application seeks permission to replace the existing 15 metre slim-line monopole mast with

a 14.75 metre column mast and a main frame to carry antennae. The overall height will be 17.20

metres.

This application is submitted on behalf of „02‟, one of the major licensed operators in the UK.

Members will note that another telecommunications operator (Vodafone) has equipment on the

Metrobus site.

81

Consultations

There have been no objections to the application at the time of writing the report. However, if

any objections are received they will be reported verbally.

Any comment regarding Environmental Health matters will be reported verbally at the meeting.


In this case, the proposal would have to be considered against Policies E.1 and E.14 of the

Unitary Development Plan.

These policies relate to design of new development and telecommunications equipment

respectively. This is together with the emerging policies of the second deposit draft Unitary


National guidance on telecommunications is set out in PPG8.

The major considerations of this case appear to be impact the development would have on the

visual amenities of the area.

Conclusions

Members should note that the applicants submitted this application as a consultation application

regarding the need for approval of safety and appearance under the General Permitted

Development Order. Essentially, the General Permitted Development Order indicates that masts

under 15 metres and not within conservation areas do not require planning permission, but

require the operator to consult the Local Planning Authority with regard to siting and appearance

of the mast.

In this case, it is considered that planning permission is required as the mast and the main frame

(the element to which the antennae are fixed) is in excess of 15 metres. On this basis, the Local

Planning Authority is processing the proposal as a planning application and the applicant has

been advised of this; any response will be reported verbally at Committee.

Members will note that with all telecommunication applications there is a balance between

technical need and the amenities of the area.

The site is at a lower level than the adjacent A21 and not all the mast is visual at street level.

The proposal essentially results in a similar structure as the nearby mast is also within the

Metrobus site.

In this case Members may consider that this application is acceptable in terms of the impact on

visual amenities and that planning permission should be granted.


file ref. 04.00588, excluding exempt information.


82



Reason: In order that the Council can reconsider any alteration to the approved scheme.


Policies (AUDP)

E.1: Design of new development

E.14: Telecommunication apparatus

Policies (2DDUDP)

BE1: Design of new development

BE19: Telecommunication apparatus

_________________________


Cray Valley West

Address : 34 Hayfield Road Orpington Kent

BR5 2DN


OS Grid Ref: E: 546475 N: 167772

Applicant : Mr A Day Objections : YES


First floor side and rear extension

Proposal

This is a semi-detached property located on the southern side of Hayfield Road near the junction

with Austin Road. The adjoining properties consist of a bungalow on the east side (number 32)

and the second semi-detached of the pair on the west side (number 36).

An identical application for a first floor side and rear extension was submitted in December 2003

and was refused on the grounds that the extension by reason of its size and form would have a

detrimental effect on the amenities of number 32 in terms of loss of light and would be out of

scale and character with the area, contrary to Policies H.3 and E.1 of the adopted UDP and

Policies H8 and BE1 of the second deposit draft UDP. No local objections were received.

The applicant subsequently submitted a supporting statement asking that the application be

reconsidered. The statement outlined other similar extensions that have been granted permission

83

along Hayfield Road, most notably the case of a two-storey side and rear extension that has been

built at number 41, which adjoins a similar bungalow at number 43.

The statement also stressed that the proposed extension would not cause any loss of light to

number 32 as it will be at least 1m from the flank boundary, leaving almost 2m between the two

properties. With regards to the window on the flank elevation of number 32 facing number 34,

the applicant explains that this window is used primarily to ventilate the bathroom and is already

obscured by the 2.4m high boundary fence. No windows are proposed in the flank elevation of

the extension, therefore the applicant considers the proposal would not invade the privacy of

number 32. The owners of the bungalow at number 32, when consulted by the applicant

apparently had no concerns.

Consultations

This application is a re-submission and includes the supporting statement for Members

consideration. The owners of the adjoining bungalow at No 32 have objected to the current

application on the grounds of loss of light to their property. No other objections have been

received.


Policy H.3 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy H8 and BE1 of the

second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002) are relevant in the

consideration of this application.

Policies H.3 and H8 state that the Council will require the design of proposals for the

enlargement of residential properties to be in keeping with the area, to leave adequate space

about the building and to protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties.

Policies E.1 and BE1 state that the Council will expect development to be of a high standard of

design and layout and will ensure that development respects the scale, form and materials of

adjacent buildings, does not detract from important views, leaves adequate amenity space, has a

satisfactory relationship between buildings, allows adequate daylight to penetrate into and

between buildings and respects the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

Conclusions

It is considered that this proposal for a first floor side and rear extension requires special

consideration by Members. The proposed extension is relatively large, however the information

supplied in the applicant‟s supporting statement demonstrates that many other extensions of a

similar design and type have been permitted along Hayfield Road and in the Borough as a whole.

The neighbours in the adjoining bungalow (number 32) have now objected on grounds of loss of

light and Members are therefore asked to make a judgement on the applicant‟s case and the

neighbour‟s concerns.


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


DCA01R A01 reason


DCC04R C04 reason

84

3 DCI09 Side space (1 metre) (1 insert) eastern

DCI09R I09 reason

4 DCI13 No windows (2 inserts) eastern first floor side and rear extension

DCI13R I13 reason



1 The proposed extension by reason of its size and form would have a detrimental effect on

the amenities of No. 32 in terms of loss of light and would be out of scale and character

with the area, contrary to Policies H.3 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan

and Policies H8 and BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan

(September 2002).

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 RDI07 1 metre Side space

85

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

_________________________

25. Application No : 03/04475/CONDIT Ward :

Mottingham And

Chislehurst North

Address : Eltham College Grove Park Road

London SE9 4QF


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 541794 N: 172968

Applicant : Eltham College Objections : NO


Details of soundproofing pursuant to condition (ix) of permission 97/1499 granted on

appeal for two storey music school building

History:- 02/00451 – Details of soundproofing pursuant to condition (ix) of Permission 97/1499

granted upon appeal for a a two storey music school building – withdrawn by applicants

following deferral by Members of the Plans Sub-Committee on 4.04.02, for details of a

management scheme to control noise to be submitted/discussed and to clarify details of any

external windows.

03/00716 – A duplicate application with further updated information and acoustic specification

was considered by Members of the Plans Sub-Committee on 5.06.03. The outcome of that

consideration was that Members deferred with acceptance in principle. Members also sought

confirmation that such suggested acoustic works could be accommodated within the approved

building designs.

Proposal

The current application (for the avoidance of any doubt) has been registered afresh to avoid any

confusion over the present status of the former two applications. Considerable negotiations have

taken place with the acoustic designers, the school‟s architects and the Councils own Chief

Environmental Health Officer to ensure the reasonable efficiency of the acoustic specification to

be employed within the detailed design permitted at appeal. Accordingly it is the sole

discharging of condition (ix) of the appeal that is to be considered not the building or its siting.

Consultations

This application together with the former two withdrawn submissions has been continually

opposed by the Mottingham Residents Association and one individual resident who resides at 1

Layzell walk (opposite north of the proposed building). Both objectors have been advised of the

current committee consideration and invited to attend the meeting to address Members should

they require. Any updated objections will be reported verbally at the meeting.

86

Chief Environmental Health Officer

As mentioned, resulting from detailed negotiations from a noise pollution issue, Members are

now advised that with the physical provisions of the sound insulation condition (ix) of appeal

and can be discharged providing the schools management conditions are acceptable.


To update the issues involved the applicants supporting background information is quoted

outlining the technical input:-

“1.Introduction

Sandy Brown Associates are the architects and acoustic consultants of the proposed music

school building. Below we present proposals to discharge the above condition, which requires

the follows.

“Before the development hereby permitted commences, a scheme shall be agreed with

the local planning authority which specifies the provisions to be made, including

physical and managerial conditions, for the control of noise emanating from the building

hereby permitted and the adjacent Anthony Barnard Hall. The development shall be

carried out and the operation of these buildings shall be managed in accordance with the

agreed scheme.”

Our brief from Eltham College includes a requirement to ensure that sound levels produced by

activities inside the music school do not cause a nuisance to nearby residents. To achieve this

requirement we have consulted the Environmental Health Department of the London Borough of

Bromley and propose to adopt the following criterion.

1 The maximum A weighted sound level (Lmax) produced by musical instruments inside the

Music School is to be controlled such that noise levels at the nearest dwelling would be

10 dB below the measured A weighted background level (L90).

Although there is no requirements for the cessation in the use of the Anthony Barnard Hall

contained within the condition, it is the College’s intention to transfer music related activities to

the new building. The reason being that the Antony Barnard Hall provided very little sound

insulation and the activities which now take place in this hall and can be noisy, would be carried

out in the acoustically designed music school.

2 Sound Insulation

In this section we describe the type of sound insulation measures that will be incorporated in the

design. These arehigh performance sound insulation constructions commonly found in buildings

such as auditoria, studios and other music venues where the control of sound is fundamental to

the success of the design. Every such project has its own specific details and these are

developed during the detailed design state of the building process. The musical school at

Eltham College will follow this same process.

Indicative details and examples of the kind of noise control measures we have used on other

projects, which demonstrate our understanding of noise control principles and detailing are

attached (Figures 1-6). Their acoustic performances would be chosen such that noise break-out

from the music school would satisfy the criterion adopted after discussions with the

Environmental Health Department of the London Borough of Bromley.

87

It is important to bear in mind that as well as controlling noise-break out from the school, the

design of the building has to take account of sound insulation requirements between areas

within the building and some of these areas, such as the recital room, are at least as sensitive to

noise intrusion as the nearby dwellings. Therefore, the overall sound insulation of the music

school will be a key consideration throughout the development of the design.

We will advise on the sound insulation of all the building envelope elements, and their interfaces

to ensure that the criterions is met.

All windows would be fixed glazing and non openable and acoustically designed. All doors to

sound producing areas would be acoustic doors with self-closers.

We know that there is concern about the location of the drum room, but this has been taken into

account and we will continue to pay particular attention to this room to ensure that its acoustic

design wills satisfy the criterion.

We will visit the site during the construction phase to ensure that acoustically critical elements

are built correctly.

On completion we will carry out tests to show that the criterion has been achieved.

3. Plant noise control

A noise control design will be developed so that plant and ventilation noise levels, including

intake and extract locations, will satisfy the following criterion:

The A weighted noise in terms of 5 minute Leq is to be controlled such that levels at the nearest

dwellings would be 10dB below the measured A weighted background L90) and contain no tonal

characteristics.

The same criterion will be used in the noise control design for both internally and externally

located plant.

The criterion is proposed following consultations with the Environmental Health Department of

the London borough of Bromley.

4. Background noise

Background noise levels near dwellings in Mottingham Lane opposite the proposed music school

were measured in July 1998. Further noise surveys would be undertaken when the design of the

music school is underway to ensure the background levels measured in 1998 are still

representative.

5. Managerial provisions

These have been prepared separately by Eltham College

Eltham College submit the following management control information”-

“I write to provide information regarding the physical and managerial control of noise

emanating from Eltham College, specifically in relation to the existing building currently used

88

for music based activities – Antony Barnard Hall, and the Building Permitted on Appeal – the

new Music School.

Antony Barnard Hall – Existing Building

Where the building permitted on Appeal will acquit itself with distinction is in relation to the

existing building in New Quad – Antony Barnard Hall. In the absence of the building permitted,

the Antony Barnard Hall is currently used, and will continue to be used, for both Music and

Drama activities. The School recognises that the overall design of this building favours the

Drama activities, with Music activities hampered by poor acoustics, resulting in current noise

emanation to other areas within the School (acknowledged by the School to be impinging on

other curricular areas) and perhaps also distracting to our local residents. In relation to the

physical control of noise emanating from the Antony Barnard Hall, it is the intention of the

School to move these music activities to the new, purpose-built Music School, designed to

acoustically contain music activities, thus allowing the Antony Barnard Hall to revert to its

original and much more appropriate use as a Drama theatre.

Given the changes mentioned above in the way the Antony Barnard Hall (“ABH”) will be used

in the future, the management of the ABH will be firmly with the Head of Drama of Eltham

College, reporting ultimately to the Headmaster. The Head of Drama, and in his absence his

Deputy, will be responsible for ensuring on a daily basis that the new policy of use is adhered to.

Building Permitted on Appeal

The physical controls of the new Building permitted will be incorporated in the design and

specification of the new building, and it is worth emphasising that the School sought and

identified Sandy Brown Associates as specialist acoustic consultants early in the project entirely

for this purpose. In terms of the design and specification of the new building I believe Sandy

Brown Associates have provided technical information to you in this regard.

In terms of the managerial control of noise from the building permitted on Appeal, I believe the

above factors already illustrate a strong proactive management approach by the School to the

control of noise.

Nevertheless this management will be enhanced, by placing the building under the overall

management of our Director of Music, who will also oversee the use of the building by our

resident professional orchestra, the Orchestra of St. John’s. It is also hoped that the new

building will provide a facility for free music tuition for local children during the evening. To

facilitate this latter project a management arrangement, broadly replicating the very successful

management structure adopted at the Eric Liddell Sports Centre will be put in place.

The Eric Liddell Sports Centre serves as a facility for the School during the School day, and a

Community sports facility during the evenings, weekends and School holidays. The community

use in the Sports Centre is managed by a separate Centre Manager in conjunction with an

Advisory Committee made up of representatives of Eltham College, London Borough of Bromley

and Sports England. Both London Borough of Bromley and Sports England cite the entre as the

model of good practice for a Community Use facility and how it should be managed (please see

correspondence attached). It is hoped that representatives of the London Borough of Bromley

and the Arts Council will sit on a similar Advisory Committee for the new Music School.

We intend to implement these changes by informing, in writing, all existing and future users of

this new policy.

89

In summary, the building permitted can only improve on the existing situation in regard to the

emanation of noise, moving music based activities into a new facility and resource designed

specifically for such activity.”

The applicants have sought Counsels opinion regarding any further information that they are

legally required to submit and advised that condition (ix) on the basis of submitted details; has

been met. Should any unauthorised variations to the final building design (as submitted at

appeal) or acoustic specification be introduced, the Council have adequate control through

enforcement procedures. This opinion is endorsed by the Council‟s legal and democratic

services subject to the letter dated 26.02.03 from Sandy Brown Associates being specifically

referred to in the decision notice.

Conclusions

There would now appear to be no justifiable reasons not to now discharge condition (ix) of

permission granted at appeal on 97/1499. Formal notice has been received that a physical start

has been made at the site upon the associated access works.

Background papers used in the preparation of this report comprise all correspondence (excluding

exempt information) on Files:- 02/00451, 03/00716 and 03/04475.


RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL


1 The acoustic specification that forms the basis of this approval shall be incorporated in its

entirety and without variations within the detailed plans granted at appeal upon which

condition (ix) was imposed.

Reason: In order to accord with the terms of the original application 97/01499 and to

ensure no unauthorised variances to the acoustic specification are introduced without the

prior written approval of the Council.

2 AJ03 Justification RES'VE MATTERS APPROVAL

Policies (2DDUDP)

ER9 Pollution

_________________________

90

26. Application No : 03/04614/PLUD Ward :

Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 150 Kingsway Orpington Kent BR5

1PU


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 544465 N: 167879

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Williams Objections : YES


Two storey side extension including modified rear elevation involving removal of single

storey rear element and replacement with ground floor wall, windows and door no closer

than two metres to the indicated boundary CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

Proposal

This application for a Certificate of Lawfulness seeks formal confirmation that a proposed two

storey extension with pitched roof on the eastern side of the dwelling is „Permitted

Development‟ under Class A of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (as amended). (GPDO)

Members may be aware that there is an existing two storey extension on this side of the dwelling

that in part replaced an attached single storey garage/utility area built with the original house.

This existing extension is considered to exceed the relevant “permitted development” limits but

it could probably be modified to reflect the development now proposed.

In support of the application, the applicant states that it differs from the previous LDC (currently

at appeal) on two accounts:

There is no single storey section to the rear elevation – it is proposed that this be

removed so that the entire structure is set 2m away from the boundary.

The development has a pitched roof, in line with the lower ridge of the existing

house, which covers part of the development, but does not cover the projection to the

front of the development, this part has a flat roof.

It is explained that these alterations have not yet been made, as approval is awaited. Subsequent

information received indicates the pitched roof to have a lower ridge height than originally

proposed (now 1.5m), reduced width (3.0m) with guttering fixed on the flat section of roof.

Consultations

The occupiers of neighbouring properties have been notified of the current proposal as a matter

of courtesy although this type of application is a legal determination and as such the planning

merits of the development are irrelevant.

A letter has been received from the immediate neighbours at 16 Towncourt Crescent.

They set out the recent planning history of the site in some detail and summarise their concerns

about the development. It is their view that the extension proposed in the current application

falls outside the criteria for “permitted development” for several reasons, as summarised below:

91

As the garage/utility structure was demolished without the approval of the local

planning authority (in breach of section 55 of the Town and County Planning Act) no

allowance can be made for the removal of this part of the original dwellinghouse in

any calculation of “p.d.” volumes.

On this basis, the volume of the proposed two storey extension at 142.17m³. or

146.82m³. (depending on roof design) exceeds the normal “p.d.” allowance of 70m³.

Notwithstanding the above, the base measurements from which the applicant

calculates the cubic enlargement are not necessarily accepted given that the original

drawings of the house do not show the passageway between the house and garage to

be enclosed (i.e. retaining a volume)

The replacement of the flat roofed garage/utility structure with a new development

including a pitched roof involves an alteration of the roofshape in breach of A.1(h)

The development at its junction with the house will be within 2 metres of the

boundary and will exceed 4m in height, in breach of A.1(d).

The neighbours also comment that the application is for a proposed development and does not

cover the “as built” situation. Consequently, the latest revisions which reflect the work to the

roof currently being carried out, are not relevant. In this respect, Members should note that the

application is to all intents and purposes a hybrid application, in part indicating elements of the

work on site to be retained and in part indicating modifications that can be carried out if and

when a Certificate is granted.

In respect of the present extension they state that as it is in excess of permitted development it

should not be allowed to continue to completion. They request that an enforcement notice

coupled with a stop notice be served to stop the present breach of planning control.


For Members information, there have been three recent planning applications for large

extensions to the eastern side and to the front of this property and all have been refused. Two

have been dismissed at appeal and one is scheduled to be heard at an informal hearing in April

this year. In addition, an application for a certificate of lawfulness for existing development (i.e.

concerning the extension currently on site), which sought to establish that the works were

“permitted development”, is to be considered at the hearing in April following an appeal against

non-determination. The appeal is to be contested on the grounds that the extension requires

planning permission, as it is located within 2m of the curtilage boundary and exceeds 4m in

height and therefore falls outside the realms of “permitted development” under Class A Part 1

Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

In considering this current application, Members will be aware that it must be determined solely

on the facts of the case and against the criteria of the GPDO.

In order to constitute permitted development, the extension in this case should not, interalia –

enlarge the original dwellinghouse by more than 70m³;

exceed the height of the highest part of the roof of the original dwellinghouse;

exceed 4m in height if within 2m of the boundary of the curtilage of the

dwellinghouse;

result in the ground coverage of buildings with the curtilage (other than the original

dwellinghouse) exceeding 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground

area of the original dwellinghouse);

consist of or include an alteration to any part of the roof.

92

Conclusions

The calculated volume of the extension falls below the normal 70m³ limit set out in Class A,

once allowance is made for the demolished part of the original dwellinghouse (ie the

garage/utility area) and the recent removal of a conservatory previously added to the western end

of the house.

Although the neighbour considers that the garage/utility structure was demolished unlawfully

and should not, therefore, be taken into account in the volume calculations, the GPDO clearly

indicates that the 70m³ permitted development allowance is over and above in size of the

original dwellinghouse. It is therefore generally appropriate to include all parts of the original

dwellinghouse in the volume calculations, whether or not they have been removed. The

neighbour has also queried the actual volume of the element removed and the extent to which

there was an “enclosed” volume between the garage and the house. On the available evidence,

which includes the drawings of the original house, it would appear that the degree of enclosure

between the garage and the dwelling itself is sufficient to incorporate a volume, thus making the

garage part of the original dwelling.

On the basis of the above, it is considered that the volume increase falls within the 70m³ limit.

The submitted drawing indicates the height of the extension to be below that of the highest part

of the original roof and a 2m separation between the rear wall of the extension and the indicated

boundary, which comply with the relevant sections of Class A. In addition, the requirement to

retain 50% of the curtilage is met and the proposal does not indicate any alteration to the original

roof of the dwellinghouse.

In these circumstances, it is considered that the proposal is permitted development under Class A

of the Schedule to the General Permitted Development Order.

Background papers refereed to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on



RECOMMENDATION: CERTIFICATE BE GRANTED

1 The proposal constitutes 'permitted development' under Class A, of Part 1 to Schedule 2

of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (as

amended).

_________________________

93


Clock House

Address : Land Adj To 257 Birkbeck Road

Beckenham Kent BR3 4SU


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 535342 N: 169143

Applicant : Silverstone Homes C/o The Harvest

Partnership

Objections : YES


Three storey block comprising 6 two bedroom flats with 8 car parking spaces, cycle

parking and refuse storage (revision to elevations of scheme permitted under ref. 03/03207)

Proposal

This application site lies at the southern end of Birkbeck Road close to the junction with Elmers

End Road. It is situated within an area of fairly mixed uses with both a bungalow and

commercial premises opposite the site and businesses along Elmers End Road, yet it is flanked

on both sides by two storey residential properties.

Birkbeck Road in general is predominantly characterised by two and three storey residential

properties with off-street parking at the front. The majority of properties in the road are two

storey residential properties which include single dwelling houses but many of which were

originally built as flats.

The application site comprises of an area of derelict land with 4 detached garages and a small

workshop building at the rear. It is approximately 653 sq. metres in area and has a plot frontage

of approximately 18.5m and a depth of approximately 34m. The proposal is to remove all

existing buildings on the site and erect a threestorey block of flats. The block will be sited on the

Birkbeck Road frontage on a similar building line to the adjacent residential properties. The

separation distances for the boundaries vary. The boundary with 259 Birkbeck Road the

separation is 1metre. At the boundary with 247 Birkbeck Road the separation is 4.8metres. The

separation distance for the rear of the block is 13.8metres. The block is recessed at the front by

6metres. The maximum depth of the is 15.5metres and it will share the same building line with

247 Birkbeck Road, although the proposed building will project approx 1.5m further beyond the

rear of 261 Birkbeck Road. The ridge height of the new building is shown on the plans to be

comparable with the adjacent houses at approx 8.9metres.

4 car parking spaces are proposed at the front of the site with 4 spaces to the rear served by a

“drive through” adjacent to the north-east boundary.

The window fenestration pattern to the block of flats has been altered. 2 windows to the rear

elevation of the third floor have been removed. The obscured glazed windows to the stairwell at

the second floor have been removed. Two new windows have been added to the side elevation of

the third floor.

Secure parking has been provided for 8 bike stands and they cover an area measuring 8.08metres

wide. The enclosed bin store measures 5.6m in depth and 1.2metres wide. The proposed height

has not been indicated and is therefore presumed it will be at the height of 1.8metres, which is

shown on the previously consented scheme.

94

Consultations

2 residents have objected strongly to the application and refer to previous correspondence, the

main concerns regarding the permitted scheme being:

overdevelopment

increase demand for on-street car parking

intensive use of the site by additional vehicular traffic would be exacerbate the

existing traffic conditions of the road and immediate vicinity, prejudicial to highway

safety.


Under 03/00113 permission was sought for a three storey block comprising 2 one bedroom and 6

two bedroom flats with 11 car parking spaces. This application was withdrawn with a view to

amend the design of the building and reduce the number of units and car parking spaces.

Under ref: 03/01220 permission was sought for a three storey building comprising 6 two

bedroom flats and 7 car parking spaces with cycle storage. This application was also withdrawn

in an attempt to reduce the overall height and bulk of the building.

Under reference 03/02259 permission was refused for a three storey block comprising 6 two

bedroom flats and 7 car parking spaces with cycle and refuse storage on the following ground:

“ The development proposed has inadequate parking provision and would

significantly exacerbate demand for on-street car parking in the locality

and thus would be detrimental to the amenities of existing residents

thereby contrary to Policy T.15 of the adopted Unitary Development

Plan and Policy T.3 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development

Plan (Sept. 2002)”

Under ref: 03/03207 permission was permitted in October 2003 for a three storey block

comprising 6 two bedroom flats with 8 car parking spaces, cycle and refuse storage.

The description of the application is identical to the scheme granted permission under ref:

03/03207. The revisions to the permitted scheme are as follows:

increase in the bulk of the rear roofs/ second floor accommodation

change in the entire window fenestration pattern

removal of windows from the second and third floors and the addition of windows to

the third floor side elevation

increase to the size of the bike stands and enclosed bin store. However neither the

bike stands nor the bin store are provided with cover and as such further details will

need to be submitted.

The relevant policies are H.2 and E.1 of the Unitary Development Plan, which requires new

development to be in keeping with the surrounding area and to respect the amenities of adjoining

properties. In the first deposit draft of the Unitary Development plan those policies are updated

as H6 and BE1. National guidance in PPG3 Housing encourages local planning authorities to

maximise the potential of sites such as this while at the same time producing good design

compatible with adjoining development.

95

Conclusions

This application is similar to the permitted scheme, the main change being the increase in bulk of

the block at the rear of the roof/ second floor.

The proposed development shows the ridge height of the new building to be comparable with the

houses on either side. In order to integrate the building into the surrounding context of

predominantly two storey buildings, the upper storey is accommodated within the roof space

with a mansard roof design and dormers at the rear. This is considered to be acceptable given

that neighbouring properties could be extended, as in the case of properties in the road, with

large rear dormers under permitted development rights.

It is considered that the changes to the scheme would not affect local residential amenity.






DCA01R A01 reason


DCA04R A04 reason


DCA07R A07 reason


DCC01R C01 reason


DCD02R D02 reason

6 DCD03 Restricted 100mm outlet

DCD03R D03 reason


DCD04R D04 reason


DCH03R H03 reason


DCH04R H04 reason

10 DCH19 Refuse storage - implementation

DCH19R H19 reason


DCH22R H22 reason


DCH23R H23 reason

13 DCI15 Protect: traffic noise-glazing(1 insert)

DCI15R I15 reason

14 DCI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) north-eastern and south-western

flank building



DCK03R K03 reason

96


DCK05R K05 reason

17 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the proposed windows in the

north-eastern and south-western flank elevations shall be obscure glazed incapable of

being opened apart from the top fanlights to the windows to the stairwell (in case of an

emergency) and shall subsequently be permanently maintained as such.


_________________________


Penge And Cator

Address : Land Adj 78 Byne Road London


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 535415 N: 171096

Applicant : Pinnicle Properties Objections : YES


Two storey three bedroom terraced house

Proposal

The application site is currently occupied by a detached garage and is flanked on both sides by

end of terrace properties at Nos. 78 and 82. The site is rectangular in shape (approx.31m x 7m)

and roughly equivalent in size to the plots in this section of Byne Road.

The front of the house would be positioned in line with the neighbouring properties, but would

project to the rear some 4.65m less than No.78 and 5.6m less than No.82. In terms of design, the

house would be in keeping with the properties to either side. The front part of the house would

be attached to No.82 with a side space of 1m being retained to the boundary with No.78. Two

windows (to hall & landing) are proposed in the south flank elevation facing No.78. The rear

third of the house would be set 1.5m from the boundary with No.82.

Both adjacent houses have a number of flank windows resulting in mutual overlooking between

Nos. 78 and 82, though there is an 8m separation between them.

Byne Road is a long fairly narrow road characterised by two and three storey terraced properties,

a number of which have been subdivided into flats.

Consultations

From a highways point of view the site is located in a narrow residential road, where whilst on-

street parking may currently be tolerated, this operates at or near maximum capacity at times of

peak demand, i.e. evenings and weekends. Accordingly, any residential development, which does

not provide for off-street parking or reduces the present amount of off-street parking would only

exacerbate an already difficult situation and have an adverse effect upon the existing conditions

of safety and free flow of traffic.

97

One letter of objection has been received from No.67:

loss of privacy / overlooking

loss of outlook

modern house would be out of character in this location

level of traffic is currently unsustainable due to the number of cars parked on the road

loss of off-street parking

noise and disruption during building works.


Under ref. 02/03651 permission was refused for a two storey terraced building comprising 1

three bedroom, 1 one bedroom and 1 studio flat. The grounds were as follows:

1 The proposal would result in an overintensive use of the site lacking in off-street parking

and would therefore have an adverse effect upon existing conditions of safety and free

flow of traffic within the highway thereby contrary to Policies T.3 and T.5 of the adopted

Unitary Development Plan and Policies T3 and T22 of the second deposit draft Unitary


2 The proposed building by reason of its close proximity to the respective flank boundaries

together with the restrictive width of the site would result in a cramped form of

development which would give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and a loss

of daylight and prospect to neighbouring properties thereby contrary to Policies E.1 and

H.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies BE1 and H6 of the second


Under ref. 03/00457 planning permission was refused for two storey four bedroom house, on the

following grounds:

1 The proposal does not comply with the Council's requirement for a minimum 1 metre

side space to be maintained to the flank boundary in respect of two storey development

in the absence of which, the proposal would constitute a cramped form of development

out of character with the street scene and thereby 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 proposed building by reason of its excessive rearward projection which lies in close

proximity to the flank elevations of Nos. 178 and 182 containing numerous windows,

would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining residents resulting in loss

of light and outlook, thereby 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


Application ref. 03/04138 for a two storey building comprising 2 one bedroom flats, was

withdrawn.

The appeal against refusal of application ref. 03/00457 was dismissed, the Inspector in reaching

in his conclusions considered the main issues to be:

the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene; and

the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with

particular regard to daylight, sunlight and overshadowing.

98

The Inspector considered that the 0.4m side space to be

insufficient and would result in “ a more cramped appearance to

this part of the street scene”

On the second issue the Inspector considered the; “proximity of development to No.78 would

make it appear overbearing and it would have a material detrimental impact on the daylight to at

least one of its ground floor habitable rooms”. In addition he considered that the two storey rear

element projecting 3.65m beyond the rear wall of No.82 would have detrimental impact on the

sunlight reaching the side window to one of the rear ground floor habitable rooms at No.82.

The main changes as compared with current application are as follows:

side space increased from 0.4m to 1m

rear two storey element reduced from 3.65m to 2.1m

distance between rear two storey flank at No.82 increased from 2.7m to 3m

The main policies in this instance are Policies E.1 and H2 of the adopted Unitary Development

Plan and Policies BE1 and H6 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

(Sept 2002). These policies relate to the Design of New Development and Housing Design and

seek to ensure that the scale, form and materials are in keeping, the privacy and amenities of

adjoining properties are safeguarded, the design and layout allows adequate daylight and sunlight

to penetrate between buildings, adequate amenity space is provided. Policies H.2 and H6 also

seek to provide off street car parking.

Concerns are raised from a highways point of view regarding the lack of off-street parking,

however, there was no highways ground of refusal concerning application ref. 03/00457 for a

four bedroom house, neither was this issue identified by the Inspector in dismissing the appeal.

On this basis a single dwelling is considered acceptable without on site parking. It should be

noted that an access to provide parking would remove potential for on street parking for the

length of the carriageway affected.

In terms of the impact of the proposal on the street scene, the 1m side space would generally be

in keeping with the spatial characteristics of the area, this would also allow for a greater side

space between the proposed house and No.78. By reducing the depth of the first floor element at

the rear, this has improved the level of amenity for the neighbouring properties (as compared

with previous schemes), with particular regard to the impact on daylight.

The concerns raised by the resident at No.67 on the opposite side with regards to loss of privacy

and outlook are not considered to be sustainable, given the separation of this property from the

application site.

Conclusions

The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the impact on neighbouring properties and the

visual amenities of the area. Members, will need to consider parking issue, however it is

considered that the development without on-site parking may be acceptable in this instance.


on files refs. 02/03651, 03/00457, 03/04138 and 04/00170, excluding exempt information.

99




DCA01R A01 reason


DCC01R C01 reason


DCA07R A07 reason


DCD02R D02 reason


DCH22R H22 reason


Reason: In order to comply with Policies E.1 and H.2 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policies BE1 and H6 of the second deposit draft Unitary

Development Plan (Sept 2002) in the interest of the amenities of nearby properties and to

prevent an overdevelopment of the site.

7 A side space of 1 metre shall be provided between the flank wall of the house hereby

permitted and the flank boundary of the property.

DCI09R I09 reason

8 DCI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) southern flank elevation


9 DCI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) southern and northern flank house



Policies (AUDP)

E.1 Design of new development

H.2 Design of Housing Development

Policies (2DDUDP)

BE1 Design of new development

H6 Housing Design

_________________________

100


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : 9 Munnery Way Orpington Kent BR6

8QD


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 543458 N: 165470

Applicant : Mr Costin And Mrs Lovell Objections : YES


Single storey rear extension

Proposal

A single storey rear conservatory is proposed to the south-west corner of this detached dwelling.

Projection depth is indicated as 3.56m, and the extension is to be fully glazed above a low brick

wall to all elevations. The site is virtually flat. A previous application (ref. 03/03748) was

refused under delegated powers on the following grounds:

„By reason of its excessive rearward projection the proposed rear extension would result in a

serious loss of prospect of the adjacent property contrary to Policy H.3 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan and Policy H8 of the Second Deposit Unitary Development Plan (Sept

2002).‟

The previous depth of projection was approximately 3.31m, however the separation is some 5m,

an increase of approximately 1.5m from the previous application.

Consultations

Previous residents have been consulted. The occupier of No.10 Munnery Way (north-west) still

objects on the following grounds - extension too deep for such a small garden, also roof profile

intrusive in appearance

Previous points of objection can be summarised as follows -

the 4 houses at the end of Munnery Way are built very close to each other and have

very small gardens, backed by high leylandi in the gardens behind.

the distance between the walls of Nos.9 and 10 is only 1.83m. The back walls were

originally in line but No.9 already has a single storey extension (1.52m) the whole

width of the house. The depth of No. 10‟s garden is about 11.3m and that of No.9 is

now about 9.75m deep. The gardens are only 10m wide.

impact – the proposed structure is 3.35m (about 0.254m deeper than before), 3.35m

wide (1.22m less) and 3.05m overall height (excluding mouldings) which is about

254mm less than before. This reduction seems large but it must be remembered it is

only the apex and the box structure is still the same height and has been extended.

The overall reduction in what would be seen is negligible. When added to the existing

extension this means a projection of almost 5.18m into a 11.3m deep garden. The

roof extends about 0.61m above the rear wall of the existing extension. There will be

101

3 different roof heights, the main house, the existing extension and the new

extension.

light – the gardens of Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 are south-westerly facing and therefore,

the sun is only visible in No. 10‟s back garden once it has rounded and cleared the far

side on No.9. Any extension to the rear of No.9 with a roof that high and still close to

No. 10‟s boundary will cast additional shadow over parts of its garden.

although in the revised proposal the structure has been narrowed it still extends to

within about 5.79m of No. 10‟s boundary and now protrudes an additional 0.229m

(4.88m in total) into the original (and No. 10‟s) garden.

Any further comments will be verbally reported at the meeting.


The proposal falls to be considered under Policy H3 of the adopted UDP and Policy H8 of the

draft UDP. Members will note that the current proposal sites the extension some 5m from the

objector‟s boundary

Conclusions

Due to the increased separation of approximately 1.5m the proposed conservatory in the position

shown is considered acceptable and possibly preferable to a detached conservatory elsewhere

within the garden.






DCA01R A01 reason


DCC04R C04 reason


Reason: In order to ensure strict compliance with the submitted plans.


_________________________

102


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : 12 State Farm Avenue Orpington

Kent BR6 7TN


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 544045 N: 164600

Applicant : Mr A Osborne Objections : NO


Two storey side extension

Proposal

A two storey side extension to the north flank of a linked detached house having a north-west,

south-east orientation upon a level site.

A previous application (ref. 03/04277) was refused on the following grounds:

1 The proposed extension would not comply with the Council‟s requirement for

minimum 1 metre side space to be maintained to the flank boundary with respect

to two storey development and would therefore constitute a cramped form of

development and as such would be contrary to Policies H.3, H.5 and BE1 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H8, H10 and BE1 of the second

deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002).

2 The proposed extension by reason of its size and siting would be detrimental to

the amenities of nearby local residents thereby contrary to Policy H.3 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy H8 of the second deposit draft


Consultations

Previously advised residents - any comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.


The proposals falls to be considered under the following Policies H.3, H.5 and BE1 of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H8, H10 and BE1 of the second deposit draft


The previous ground of refusal in respect of side space policy has now been overcome in the

amended scheme.

The changes to the proposal are as follows:-

103

full compliance with side space policy to the flank wall of the extension

a significant reduction of the first floor accommodation to curtail the rear portion of

the proposal 1 metre set-in from the existing house rear wall

no flank windows to the side first floor wall

the proposed rear new window is an obscure glazed bathroom.

Conclusions

The proposals as amended are now considered acceptable.






DCA01R A01 reason


DCC04R C04 reason

3 DCI0 Side space (1 metre) (1 insert) north

DCI09R I09 reason

4 DCI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) north extension



_________________________

31. Application No : 04/00511/TELCOM Ward :

Cray Valley West

Address : B G Transco Site Sevenoaks Way

Orpington Kent


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 547042 N: 168683

Applicant : T-Mobile (UK) Objections : YES


Installation of 3 panel antennae, 3 transmission dishes and access ladders all on the

existing gas holder, equipment cabin within existing fenced compound CONSULTATION

BY T-MOBILE REGARDING NEED FOR APPROVAL OF SITING AND

APPEARANCE

Proposal

104

This application seeks prior approval for the installation of 3 panel antennae, 3 transmission

dishes with access ladders on an existing gas holder together with an equipment cabin.

This application is submitted on behalf of “T Mobile”, one of the major licensed operators in the

UK.

Consultations

There have been objections to the application from a local resident. The comments received are

as follows:

detrimental effect on people‟s health

the Council has a duty to protect the people of the borough from such development

where there is a risk involved.

A Ward Councillor has also raised objections to this additional telecommunications development

Any comment regarding Environmental Health matters will be reported verbally at the meeting.


In this case, the proposal would have to be considered against Policies E.1 and E.14 of the

Unitary Development Plan.

These policies relate to design of new development and telecommunications equipment

respectively. This is together with the emerging policies of the second deposit draft Unitary


National guidance on telecommunications is set out in PPG8.

The major considerations of this case appear to be impact the development would have on visual

amenities of the area. It is noted that health and safety matters appear to be the major objection

to this proposal.

Planning Policy Guidance advice states on this aspect:

However, it is the Governments firm view that the planning system is not the place for

determining health safeguards. It remains central Governments responsibility to decide what

measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Governments view, if a proposed mobile

phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary

for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior

approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.”

Accordingly, whilst acknowledging the public concern in respect of this application it may be

considered that health and safety issues cannot reasonably be used as grounds for refusal in this

case. The current PPG8 emphasises the view that it should not be necessary for the Local

Planning Authority to consider the health effects. Indeed, as existing the health and safety

legislation falls under the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The Guidance also states, “In order to limit visual intrusion the Government attaches

considerable importance to keep the numbers of radio and telecommunication masts, and of the

sites for such installations, to the minimum consistent with the efficient operation of the

network. The sharing of masts and sites is strongly encouraged where that represents the

105

optimum environmental solution in a particular case use would also be made of existing

buildings and other structures, such as electricity pylons, to site new antennas.”

Members will note that another telecommunications operator (“Orange”) has equipment on the

gas holder together with an existing equipment cabin.

This equipment is in the form of a lattice mast attached to the side of the gas holder. This is

clearly visible from some distance. This element was approved under 01/3561.

Conclusions

Members will note that with all telecommunications applications there is a balance between

technical need and the amenities of the area. It is noted that there are objections to this

equipment and reference is made to the health issues, as part of the comments received.

In this case it would appear that the antennae have been sensitively designed and would be

camouflaged to a great extent on the existing large structure of the gas holder.

Members may consider that this application is acceptable in terms of the impact on visual

amenities.

Background papers referred during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file

ref. 04.00511, excluding exempt information.




Reason In order that the Council can reconsider any alteration to the approved scheme.


Policies (AUDP)

E.1 Design of new development

H.3 Design of residential extensions

Policies (2DDUDP)

BE1 Design of new development

BE19 Telecommunication apparatus

_____________________________________________________________________________

106

SECTION 4 – Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS



Address : 15 Kenwood Drive Beckenham Kent

BR3 6QX


OS Grid Ref: E: 538249 N: 168641

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Miller Objections : NO


First floor front, side, single storey front and rear and front and rear gable extensions with

side dormer (Amendment to scheme permitted under ref. 03/02827)

Joint Report with Application Nos. 03/04264 and 03/04265

Proposal

The application was deferred by the Plans Sub-Committee on 22 January 2004 in order that

Members could give the proposal further consideration and that the report be re-submitted on

Section 2 of the Agenda so that the applications can be given special consideration.

The application site is located on the western side of Kenwood Drive close to the junction with

Hayes Lane, and is occupied by a detached house with garage.

The immediate surrounding area is characterised by detached dwellings, some of which are fairly

substantial, and although all have large rear gardens, properties on this side of Kenwood Drive

are located quite close to the side boundaries.

Under ref. 03/02827 planning permission was granted for a first floor front/side extension over

the garage area to provide an additional bedroom, a single storey front extension to form a new

enclosed porch, and a single storey rear extension for conservatory. Extensions to the roof

involve an increase of approx. 0.85m to the overall roof height and comprise a gable extension to

the rear of the property, maintaining a hipped design to the front, with hipped roof dormer

extensions to the southern side and front elevations.

Amendments to the permitted scheme are now proposed, with 3 applications submitted for

consideration. No changes are proposed to the first floor front/side, single storey front and rear

extensions. The proposed amendments concern the roof extensions and are as follows:

Application ref. 03/04263 proposes gable extensions to both the front and rear of the property

with a large pitched roof dormer extension to the southern side elevation.

Application ref. 03/04264 also incorporates gable extensions to the front and rear, with large

pitched roof dormer extensions proposed to both the north and south side elevations.

107

Application ref. 03/04265 again proposes front and rear gable extensions, with a hipped roof

dormer extension to the south elevation. The dormer proposed is identical to that permitted under

03/02827.

Consultations

At the time of writing this report no letters of objection have been received in respect of the

applications. Any representations received will be reported verbally at the meeting.


Policy H.3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy H8 of the second deposit draft

Unitary Development Plan (September 2002) are relevant to the determination of these

applications. These policies refer to the design of residential extensions, requiring that the scale,

form and materials should be in-keeping with the original dwelling and area. Dormer extensions

into prominent roof slopes and extensions above the existing ridgeline will not normally be

permitted.

Under refs. 03/01374 and 03/01375 planning permission was refused for various extensions,

including roof additions, on the following ground:

“The proposed roof extensions involving a substantial alteration to the existing roofline would

result in a bulky overdominant roof harmful to the appearance of the host dwelling and street

scene in general, thereby contrary to Policy H.3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and

Policy H8 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).”

Each application comprised a first floor front/side extension, and single storey front and rear

extensions that were not considered harmful to the amenities of neighbouring properties.

However the proposed alterations to the roof, as set out below, were considered unacceptable in

terms of their overall size and bulk, overdominant and detrimental to the character and

appearance of the host property.

The scheme proposed under ref. 03/01374 incorporated a gable extension to the rear, maintaining

a hipped design to the front roof slope. Large pitched roof dormer extensions were proposed to

both side elevations with a smaller dormer to the front.

Under ref. 03/01375 gable extensions were proposed to the front and rear roof slopes with 2

pitched roof dormers to the sides, identical to those proposed under ref 03/01374.

A revision to application ref. 03/01375 was proposed under ref. 03/02826. Gable extensions to

front and rear were still included, however the dormer to the northern side elevation was omitted

and the dormer proposed to the southern side elevation was reduced in size and incorporated a

hipped roof design that helped to lessen the perceived bulk. Whilst the side dormer was basically

acceptable, gable extensions to both the front and rear were still considered unacceptable

producing a roof design that did not overcome the previous ground of refusal. Planning

permission was again refused on the same ground.

As detailed earlier in this report, planning permission was granted under ref. 03/02827, which

was a revision to the scheme refused under ref. 03/01374. Again the dormer to the northern side

elevation was omitted, and the one to the southern side elevation reduced in size and provided

with a hipped roof. The rear gable extension was still proposed, with the front roof slope

maintaining a hipped design with dormer addition.

108

In support of the 3 applications submitted, the applicant states that the various proposals are in

keeping with the host property and the area in general. Sets of photographs are included which

show other properties in the Borough which the applicant claims are similar to the roof

extensions proposed. In addition the applicant states that Kenwood Drive is within an area of

architectural diversity with a mix of gable, pitched and hipped roof designs.

Conclusions

The main issue to consider is whether the proposed amendments to the roof additions permitted

under ref. 03/02827 are acceptable in terms of their visual impact on the host property and

general street scene, with particular regard to the overall size and bulk of the resultant roof.

Substantial alterations to the size and form of the existing roof have already been permitted to

this property involving an increase of about 0.85m in roof height. Given the size of the property,

with a relatively narrow plot frontage compared with some other properties within the immediate

vicinity, it is felt that the property has already been granted the maximum amount of roof

extensions possible, without compromising the character and appearance of the original house.

Any further proposals to increase the size of the roof area would be considered detrimental and

harmful to the character of the property as existing.

It is recognised that there are a variety of roof designs in the area, however each application is

dealt with on its own merits and as such this reasoning cannot set a precedent for development

that is considered inappropriate for a particular site. Some properties do incorporate gable

elements to the front, such as the adjoining properties No.16 and 17, although the main roof is

hipped. Such features are part of the house as originally built, not extensions, and therefore in

keeping in terms of scale and form.

In addition the proposed front gable extension would result in a gable feature that is much larger

than the gable elements of the adjoining properties, as it involves an extension to the entire front

roof slope. Along with the proposed side dormer extension(s), in particular the large pitched roof

style dormers proposed under refs. 03/04263 and 03/04264, the proposed extensions would be

out of character with adjacent properties in terms of their overall size and scale. The application

property is sited in a prominent location at the entrance to Kenwood Drive. It would be important

to ensure that any alteration respected the visual context of the immediate surrounding area.

The roof additions now proposed in each application (namely large pitched roof style dormers

and front gable extension) have already been considered under the previous applications, albeit

submitted in different combinations. It is considered that the amendments now proposed do not

overcome the previous ground of refusal and as such result in an overdominant and visually

bulky roof shape that would detract from the host property and general street scene.


on files refs 03.01374, 03.01375, 03.02826, 03.02827, 03.04263, 03.04264 and 03.04265,

excluding exempt information.

109



1 The proposed roof extensions involving a substantial

alteration to the existing roofline would result in a bulky

overdominant roof harmful to the appearance of the host

dwelling and street scene in general, thereby contrary to

Policy H.3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and

Policy H8 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development

Plan (September 2002).




BR3 6QX


OS Grid Ref: E: 538249 N: 168641



First floor front, side, single storey front and rear, and front and rear gable extensions

with side dormer extensions (Amendment to scheme permitted under ref. 03/02827)










Plan (September 2002).

_________________________

110




BR3 6QX


OS Grid Ref: E: 538249 N: 168641



First floor front, side, single storey front and rear and front and rear gable extensions with

side dormer (Amendment to scheme permitted under ref. 03/02827)










Plan (Sept 2002).

_________________________


Cray Valley West

Address : 27 Leith Hill Orpington Kent

BR5 2RS


OS Grid Ref: E: 546047 N: 169609

Applicant : Steve Kelly And Jerry Hanson Objections : NO


Use of ground floor for office use (Class B1)

Proposal

111

The lawful use of these premises is as a new age health centre offering aromatherapy,

reflexology, acupuncture, acupressure, shiatsu, hopi ear candle wax removal, anti smoking

treatments and counselling. This use was granted permission in April 1993 (ref. 93/00444).

A letter from the applicant has stated that the use is for office use for wages, accounting,

administration, and records storage. It is also stated in the letter that there will not be any

personal callers to the premises and meetings/visits to customers all occur elsewhere.

It is understood that there is space for two cars to park at the rear of the property, and there is

also parking available at the front of the site.

Consultations

There are no technical highways objections.

A letter of support has been received from the adjacent business premises.


The site is located in a small local parade of shops in Leith Hill.

The site has been vacant since January 2000.

Policy S.4 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy S5 of the second deposit draft Unitary

Development Plan (Sept 2002) are of relevance. In Policy S.4 it is stated that a change of use

from retail to a non-retail use in local parades etc.will not normally be permitted except where

the premises are situated in a local centre with an adequate range of shops for day to day needs,

if it is close to other main shopping centres or if it will improve the range of local services.

Policy S5 states that a change of use to a non-retail use will normally only be permitted if the

new use will attract visitors during shopping hours or if it contributes to the range of local

services or the provision of local community facilities.

Conclusion

The site is currently unsightly and boarded up. Members may wish to consider the need to

secure a tenant on this premises, and the fact that the premises has been vacant since January

2000. The applicant has indicated that a personal permission or a temporary permission for 5

years would be acceptable.

It is noted that the current lawful use of the premises is not currently for Class A1(retail shop)

use, however, it is considered that the proposed B1 use will not contribute to the range of local

services or the provision of local facilities, and is not located in a centre with an adequate range

of shops for day to day needs.



1 The proposal will not improve the range of local services

provided in the local parade nor will it contribute to the

provision of local community facilities and is therefore

contrary to Policy S.4 of the Unitary Development Plan and

Policy S5 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development

Plan (Sept 2002).

112

_________________________



Bottom

Address : Cliffs Cottage Norsted Lane

Pratts Bottom Orpington Kent

BR6 7PQ


OS Grid Ref: E: 547089 N: 162116

Applicant : Mr And Mrs D Campion - Willis Objections : NO


Single storey side extension together with alterations to the roof, incorporating front, rear

and side dormers

Proposal

Cliffs Cottage is a bungalow with an attached garage located in the Green Belt on the northern

side of Norsted Lane, 140m from the junction with Rushmore Hill. It is the last property in the

row of houses on that side of the lane. The proposal involves a single storey side extension to

integrate the garage into the main dwelling and to create a new utility room. The existing garage,

which is attached to the main building at the rear, will be demolished. Extra living space is also

required in the loft and it is intended to provide a new enlarged roof to form first floor

accommodation incorporating front, side and rear dormers.

In support of the proposal, the applicants state that if the development is permitted the footprint

of the building will be marginally smaller although the dwelling will be higher because of the

change in the pitch of the roof.

They also state that the dwelling will be lower than the neighbouring property, will increase the

bulk by less than 20%, will improve the character of the original dwellinghouse and will create a

building that is aesthetically pleasing and sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

Consultations

No objections have been received, one letter of support has been received from the adjoining

owner at „Mayfield‟, Norsted Lane.


Permission has been granted twice for single storey side extensions (refs. 97/01721 and

03/00355), and an application has been refused for a detached single garage (ref. 01/03883). An

application for an identical proposal was submitted in August 2003 (ref. 03/02950) and refused

113

on the grounds that its overall cubic content would be an over development of the site in light of

Policy G.3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policy G5 of the second deposit draft

Unitary Development Plan (September 2002) and PPG2 „Green Belts‟. An appeal has been

lodged against this decision.

Policy G. of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy G5 of the second deposit draft

Unitary Development Plan (September 2002) are relevant in the consideration of this application

and take precedence over general residential extension policies.

In terms of policies G3 of the adopted UDP and G5 of the second deposit draft UDP the

proposed volume increase exceeds that recommended, in light of the dwelling‟s Green Belt

location.

Policy G3 states that the Council will not normally permit proposals which result in a net

increase of more than 105m3, unless the development would not result in any significant change

in the overall bulk or character of the original dwelling house or be visually intrusive or have any

adverse effect on the character of the Green Belt.

Policy G5 states that the Council will only permit extensions or alterations to dwellinghouses in

the Green Belt if the net increase in volume over that of the original dwellinghouse is no more

than 20% and that the size, siting, materials and design do not harm the visual amenities or rural

character of the locality. It also states the development must not result in a significant

detrimental change in the overall form, bulk or character of the original dwellinghouse.

In this case, the proposed increase will be well in excess of the normal volumetric and

percentage allowances and will result in a visually intrusive, bulky extension that is

disproportionate in relation to the original dwelling.

Conclusions

This proposal is considered to represent an over development of the site by reason of its overall

cubic content in light of Policy G3 of the adopted UDP and Policy G5 of the second deposit draft

UDP.

Background papers referred to in the production of this report include all correspondence

(excluding exempt information) on files Ref: 03.02950, 04.00450.



1 The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site and

is contrary to Policy G.3 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan, Policy G5 of the second deposit draft

Unitary Development Plan (Sept 2002) and PPG2 'Green Belts'

by reason of its overall cubic content, resulting in a

visually intrusive, bulky extension that is

disproportionate in relation to the original dwelling.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Report Sheet - London Borough of BromleyRich text do… · Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley...

Documents

Transcript of Report Sheet - London Borough of BromleyRich text do… · Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley...