BROMLEY CIVIC CENTRE, STOCKWELL CLOSE, BROMLEY BRI 3UH
TELEPHONE: 020 8464 3333 CONTACT: Lisa Thornley [email protected]
DIRECT LINE: 020 8313 4745 FAX: 020 8290 0608 DATE: 12 March 2013
To: Members of the PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3
Councillor Katy Boughey (Chairman) Councillor Douglas Auld (Vice-Chairman) Councillors Roxhannah Fawthrop, Peter Fookes, John Ince, Charles Joel, Paul Lynch, David McBride and Alexa Michael
A meeting of the Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 will be held at Bromley Civic Centre on THURSDAY 21 MARCH 2013 AT 7.00 PM
MARK BOWEN Director of Resources
Members of the public can speak at Plans Sub-Committee meetings on planning reports, contravention reports or tree preservation orders. To do so, you must have • already written to the Council expressing your view on the particular matter, and • indicated your wish to speak by contacting the Democratic Services team by no later than 10.00am on the working day before the date of the meeting.
These public contributions will be at the discretion of the Chairman. They will normally be limited to two speakers per proposal (one for and one against), each with three minutes to put their view
across.
To register to speak please telephone Democratic Services on
020 8313 4745 ------If you have further enquiries or need further information on the content of any of the applications being considered at this meeting, please contact our Planning Division on 020 8313 4956 ------
Information on the outline decisions taken will usually be available on our website (see below) within a day of the meeting.
Copies of the documents referred to below can be obtained from www.bromley.gov.uk/meetings
A G E N D A
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 24 JANUARY 2013 (Pages 1 - 12)
4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS
SECTION 1 (Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)
Page Report Ward Application Number and Address No. No.
4.1 Penge and Cator 13 - 26 (12/02798/FULL1) - Land Rear of 190-200 Kings Hall Road, Beckenham.
4.2 Bromley Common and Keston 27 - 34 (12/03819/FULL1) - Keston CE Primary School, Lakes Road, Keston.
4.3 Mottingham and Chislehurst 35 - 38 (13/00226/FULL1) - Mottingham Sports North Ground, Grove Park Road, Mottingham.
SECTION 2 (Applications meriting special consideration)
Page Report Ward Application Number and Address No. No.
4.4 Farnborough and Crofton 39 - 42 (12/03127/FULL6) - 32 Crofton Avenue, Orpington.
4.5 Plaistow and Sundridge 43 - 50 (12/03612/FULL1) - Babbacombe House, 2 Babbacombe Road, Bromley.
4.6 Farnborough and Crofton 51 - 54 (12/03704/FULL6) - 2 Abbots Close, Orpington.
4.7 Crystal Palace 55 - 68 (12/03859/FULL1) - 193 Anerley Road, Penge.
4.8 Bromley Common and Keston 69 - 72 (12/03874/FULL6) - Barn Farm, 56 Hastings Road, Bromley.
4.9 Cray Valley East 73 - 86 (12/03879/VAR) - Unit 4A Nugent Shopping Park, Cray Avenue, Orpington
4.10 Cray Valley East 87 - 90 (13/00071/FULL6) - 15 Austin Road, Orpington.
4.11 Chislehurst 91 - 94 (13/00146/FULL6) - 3 Gossington Close, Chislehurst.
4.12 Cray Valley West 95 - 100 (13/00155/FULL6) - 42 Clarendon Way, Chislehurst.
4.13 Darwin 101 - 108 (13/00205/FULL1) - 69 Leaves Green Road, Keston.
4.14 Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom 109 - 114 (13/00355/FULL6) - 41 Oxenden Wood Road, Orpington.
4.15 Farnborough and Crofton 115 - 118 (13/00374/FULL6) - 2 Ferndale Way, Orpington.
4.16 Darwin 119 - 126 (13/00444/FULL1) - 305 Main Road, Biggin Hill.
SECTION 3 (Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)
Page Report Ward Application Number and Address No. No.
4.17 Chislehurst 127 - 132 (12/03949/FULL6) - Oak Trees, Walden Road, Chislehurst.
4.18 Chislehurst 133 - 138 (12/04018/FULL1) - Beaverwood School, Conservation Area Beaverwood Road, Chislehurst.
4.19 Cray Valley West 139 - 144 (13/00115/FULL6) - 33 Whitewebbs Way, Orpington.
4.20 Hayes and Coney Hall 145 - 152 (13/00135/FULL1) - 56 Bourne Way, Hayes.
SECTION 4 (Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)
Page Report Ward Application Number and Address No. No.
4.21 Crystal Palace 153 - 158 (12/03989/FULL6) - 10 Lansdowne Place, Conservation Area Anerley.
4.22 Bromley Common and Keston 159 - 164 (13/00270/FULL1) - 58 Gravel Road, Conservation Area Bromley.
4.23 Bromley Common and Keston 165 - 168 (13/00271/CAC) - 58 Gravel Road, Bromley. Conservation Area
5 CONTRAVENTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES
Page Report Ward Application Number and Address No. No.
5.1 Bromley Town 169 - 170 (DRR13/042) - The Ravensbourne School, Hayes Lane, Bromley.
6 TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
Page Report Ward Application Number and Address No. No.
NO REPORTS
7 MATTERS FOR INFORMATION: - ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED BY CHIEF PLANNER UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
NO REPORT
Agenda Item 3
PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3
Minutes of the meeting held at 7.00 pm on 24 January 2013
Present:
Councillor Katy Boughey (Chairman) Councillor Douglas Auld (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors Roxhannah Fawthrop, Peter Fookes, John Ince, Charles Joel, Paul Lynch, David McBride and Alexa Michael
Also Present:
Councillors Russell Mellor, Richard Scoates, Tim Stevens and Pauline Tunnicliffe
21 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were present.
22 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Katy Boughey declared a non-pecuniary interest in Items 4.6 and 4.20; she left the room for the debate and vote and Councillor Douglas Auld took the Chair.
23 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 22 NOVEMBER 2012
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2012 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.
24 PLANNING APPLICATIONS
SECTION 2 (Applications meriting special consideration)
24.1 (12/00776/OUT) - Grays Farm Production Village, CRAY VALLEY WEST Grays Farm Road, Orpington
Description of application amended to read, “Demolition of existing buildings. Mixed use development comprising 2 two storey buildings for Class B1 use (total 2300sqm) with 80 car parking spaces and 52 two storey houses (some with accommodation in roof) with garages and car
38
Page 1 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013 parking.”
Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 9, 11, 13, 17 and 24 January 2013. It was also reported that Highways Division had no objection to the application. Members having considered the report, objections, and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED, SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT with regard to the demolition and construction phase program to ensure delivery of the commercial development, to ensure that existing tenants do not have to decant from the site, a financial contribution to healthcare and education infrastructure (the sum to be confirmed) and an affordable housing provision, as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner with an amendment to condition 2 and five further conditions to read:- “2. Details of a scheme of landscaping, which shall include the materials of paved areas and other hard surfaces and details of landscaping to the boundaries of the site including details of pruning of the tree to the rear of No. 38 Walsingham Road and screening of the School, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved scheme shall be implemented in the first planting season following the first occupation of the buildings or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally planted. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development. 23. (i) Details relating to the appearance, landscaping and scale shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced. (ii) Application for approval of the details referred to in paragraph (i) above must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of
39
Page 2 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
this decision notice. (iii) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the details referred to in paragraph (i) above, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. REASON: No such details have been submitted and to comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 24. The commercial buildings hereby permitted shall be used for business (Class B1) use only and for no other purpose. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the area. 25. The commercial buildings hereby permitted shall not operate on any Sunday nor before 0800 hours or after 1800 hours on any other day. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the area. 26. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site based on sustainable drainage principles, where possible, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development has been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. The surface water drainage strategy should seek to implement a sustainable urban drainage systems hierarchy that achieves reductions in surface water run-off rates to Greenfield runoff rates in line with Policy 5.13 of the Major's London Plan. As a minimum, the London Plan requires that discharge rates are reduced to fifty per cent of existing rates if the Greenfield rate is not achievable. The drainage strategy shall follow the principles of the approved Flood Risk Assessment. The final discharge rates and volumes shall be agreed with the Environment Agency at the detailed design stage. The surface water drainage scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. 27. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
40 Page 3 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include measures of how construction traffic can access the site safely and how potential traffic conflicts can be minimised; the route construction traffic shall follow for arriving at and leaving the site and the hours of operation, but shall not be limited to these. The Construction Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timescale and details. REASON: In order to comply with Policy T5, T6, T7, T15, T16 & T18 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties.”
24.2 (12/01647/FULL6) - 46 Kings Avenue, Bromley PLAISTOW AND SUNDRIDGE Description of application - Amendment to planning application ref.11/00639 to include new gable end roof above ground floor garage and new windows to front, side and rear elevations and alterations to single storey rear extension (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).
Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:- 1. The proposed two storey extension, by reason of its siting and excessive height and bulk, results in a cramped form of development, harmful to the character and spatial standards of the area, contrary to Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the Unitary development Plan. It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to secure the removal of the unauthorised structure. Members considered that it was expedient to authorise enforcement action to ensure that the works be built in accordance with the plans approved under planning permission reference 11/00639 for the reason set out in the above ground of refusal. INFORMATIVE : You are advised that enforcement action has been authorised in respect of some or all of the development subject of this planning decision and you should contact the Planning Investigation Team on 020 8461 7730 or by email to [email protected] to discuss what you need to do to avoid formal action by the Council.
41
Page 4 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
24.3 (12/02474/FULL1) - 20 Southend Road, Beckenham COPES COPE CONSERVATION AREA Description of application – Single storey rear extension with terrace and elevational alterations. Creation of a new self contained 2 bedroom apartment.
Oral representations in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
24.4 (12/03200/FULL1) - 11 The Avenue, Beckenham COPERS COPE Description of application – Demolition of existing building and construction of replacement 3 storey building with accommodation in roof space to provide 8x two bedroom flats with two detached garage blocks to rear and car parking to front; associated landscaping.
Oral representations in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended for the following reason:- 1. The proposed block, by reason of its height, bulk, limited side space provision and position in advance of the established building line of adjacent sites, would present a cramped appearance, detrimental to the street scene and harmful to the visual amenities of the area, contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
24.5 (12/03231/FULL6) - 49 Clarendon Way, Chislehurst CHISLEHURST Description of application amended to read, “Front boundary wall with railings, brick piers and sliding gates. RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.”
Comments from Councillor Eric Bosshard in objection to the application were reported.
42 Page 5 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED, as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner. It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ENFORCEMENT ACTION BE AUTHORISED to secure the removal of the unauthorised structure. Members considered that it was expedient to authorise enforcement action to ensure that the works undertaken be removed for the reason set out in the ground of refusal. INFORMATIVE: You are advised that enforcement action has been authorised in respect of some or all of the development subject of this planning decision and you should contact the Planning Investigation Team on 020 8461 7730 or by email to [email protected] to discuss what you need to do to avoid formal action by the Council.
24.6 (12/03279/FULL6) - 3 Camden Park Road, CHISLEHURST Chislehurst CONSERVATION AREA Description of application – Part one/two storey side/rear extension; creation of lower ground floor; two storey front/side extension; elevational alterations.
Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended for the reason set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
24.7 (12/03813/CONDIT) - 94 Bromley Road, COPERS COPE Beckenham CONSERVATION AREA Description of application - Ventilation details pursuant to condition 04 of permission 12/01686 granted for Change of use of ground floor from retail shop (Class A1) to restaurant and hot food takeaway (Class A3/A5) with ventilation ducting to rear and installation of new shopfront PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.
Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Russell Mellor were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections, and representations, RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future
43
Page 6 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
consideration, to enable Members to visit the site to seek clarification that the drawings are accurate and for the application to be considered at Plans Sub- Committee 1 on 22 March 2013.
24.8 (12/03815/FULL1) - Terrance House, 151 Hastings BROMLEY COMMON AND Road, Bromley KESTON Description of application - Proposed re-modelling of main front (west) elevation, re-landscaping of front forecourt and parking together with re-organisation of rear parking to include demolition of existing garage, proposed new garage block and re-siting of refuse enclosure.
THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF PLANNER .
24.9 (12/03927/TELCOM) - Terrance House, 151 BROMLEY COMMON AND Hastings Road, Bromley KESTON Description of application - Upgrade of telecommunications equipment CONSULTATION BY EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE (UK) LTD REGARDING THE NEED FOR APPROVAL OF SITING AND APPEARANCE.
It was reported that Environment Officer had no objection to the application. Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that APPROVAL OF SITING AND APPEARANCE NOT BE REQUIRED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the condition set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
SECTION 3 (Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)
24.10 (12/03036/FULL1) - Plaistow Lane Service Station, PLAISTOW AND 1 Plaistow Lane, Bromley SUNDRIDGE Description of application – Demolition of existing building and erection of 3 storey building comprising retail (Class A1) unit on ground floor and 8 two bedroom flats above, together with 1 x 2 storey, 4 bedroom house (access from Lytchett Road) plus 15 car parking spaces and associated cycle and refuse space. Oral representations in support of the application were
44 Page 7 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
received at the meeting. Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
24.11 (12/03144/FULL1) - Orpington Fire Station, 13 ORPINGTON Avalon Road, Orpington
Description of application – Demolition of existing station and ancillary structures and erection of a two storey fire station with associated covered wash down, drill tower, yard, car parking, landscaping and alterations to current access/egress arrangements.
Oral representations in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Pauline Tunnicliffe, in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
24.12 (12/03194/FULL1) - Orpington Fire Station, 13 ORPINGTON Avalon Road, Orpington
Description of application – Erection of a two storey temporary fire station and associated works.
Oral representations in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Pauline Tunnicliffe, in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner with an amendment to condition 1 to read:- “1. The use of the site as a temporary fire station hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the temporary structures removed from the site on or before the 24 January 2016 or the completion of the replacement permanent fire station hereby permitted, whichever is the sooner. REASON: In order that the situation can be
45
Page 8 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
reconsidered in the light of the circumstances at that time in the interest of the amenities of the area.”
24.13 (12/03203/FULL1) - 305 Main Road, Biggin Hill DARWIN Description of application – Detached two storey 2 bedroom dwelling.
Oral representations in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates, in objection to the application were received at the meeting. It was reported that Highways Division had no objection to the application. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:- 1. The proposal would lead to dangerous vehicle manoeuvres onto the highway and would be prejudicial to conditions of general highway safety, contrary to Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.
24.14 (12/03297/FULL6) - 90 Spur Road, Orpington ORPINGTON Description of application amended to read, “Single storey front/side/rear extension. RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.”
Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
24.15 (12/03412/FULL6) - 9 Warren Drive, Orpington CHELSFIELD AND PRATTS BOTTOM Description of application – Part one/part two storey side and rear extension.
Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
46 Page 9 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
24.16 (12/03448/FULL1) - Keston Methodist Church, BROMLEY COMMON AND Croydon Road, Keston KESTON Description of application – Change of use of church to restaurant for use by garden centre, demolition of extension, garage and canopy, new single storey side/rear extension, creation of new access path and steps, and elevation alterations.
Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner with an amendment to condition 8 and a further condition to read:- “8. Customers shall not be admitted to the premises before 0900 hours Monday to Sundays (inclusive) and all customers shall have left the premises by 1900 hours Monday-Sunday (inclusive). REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of nearby residential property. 10. Details of arrangements for storage and removal of refuse and recyclable materials (including means of enclosure for the area concerned where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced and the approved arrangements shall be completed before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, and permanently retained thereafter. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in order to provide adequate refuse storage facilities in a location which is acceptable from the residential and visual amenity aspects.”
24.17 (12/03640/PLUD) - Summercroft Surgery, Starts FARNBOROUGH AND Hill Road, Orpington CROFTON Description of application – Use of building as a GP Surgery (Class D1) with ancillary dispensing pharmacy. CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED USE.
Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Tim Stevens, in
47
Page 10 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
objection to the application were received at the meeting. Following a lengthy discussion, Members having considered the report objections and representations concluded that the extent of the pharmacy use proposal would be a separate unit in its own right, and result in a material change of use at the premises, and RESOLVED that A CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED USE BE REFUSED for the following reason:- 1. The proposal would not constitute an ancillary or incidental use to the existing surgery use and is considered to constitute development under Section 55 (1) of the Town And Country Planning Act 1990.
24. 18 (12/03868/FULL6) - 1A Alma Road, Orpington ORPINGTON Description of application – Two storey side and single storey rear extension and front porch.
Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration, to seek a reduction in the bulk and an increase in the side space of the proposed development.
24.19 (12/03911/FULL6) - 8 Haig Road, Biggin Hill BIGGIN HILL Description of application – Single storey side extension and roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer extension.
Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration, to seek an improvement in the quality of the plans.
SECTION 4 (Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)
24.20 (12/03276/FULL6) - 3 Camden Park Road, CHISLEHURST Chislehurst CONSERVATION AREA Description of application – Part one/two storey side/rear extension, two storey front, side extension, creation of lower ground floor and elevational alterations.
Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.
48 Page 11 Plans Sub-Committee No. 3 24 January 2013
Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended for the reason set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.
2 5 TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
25 .1 Objections to Tree Preservation Order 2500 at 10
FARNBOROUGH AND Meadow Way, Orpington. CROFTON Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 2500 relating to one ash tree BE CONFIRMED, as recommended, in the report of the Chief Planner.
25 .2 Objections to T ree Preservation Order 2501at 8 FARNBOROUGH AND Meadow Way, Orpington CROFTON Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order No 2501 relating to two ash trees BE CONFIRMED, as recommended, in the report of the Chief Planner.
The Meeting ended at 10.08 pm
Chairman
49
Page 12 Agenda Item 4.1
SECTION ‘1’ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley
Application No : 12/02798/FULL1 Ward: Penge And Cator
Address : Land Rear Of 190 To 200 Kings Hall Road Beckenham
OS Grid Ref: E: 536697 N: 170282
Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Extension to existing car park to provide an additional 70 car parking spaces; associated landscaping
Update
This application was deferred without prejudice from Plans Sub Committee 1 on 21st February 2013 for a Members site visit to take place on 9th March 2013.
In the interim period photographs have been provided by residents on Kings Hall Road and Bridgelands Close, taken from the first floors of these properties, showing the site prior to the removal of vegetation. Copies of these images are available on the planning file.
In response to concerns raised by the Environmental Health Division that concentrating an additional 70 car parking spaces in one location within and Air Quality Management Area is likely to increase Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, it was considered that the provision of electric charging points could address such concerns. Members may wish to consider whether the imposition of such a condition would adequately overcome these concerns.
The previous report has been repeated below, subject to suitable updates.
Proposal
This proposal is for an extension to existing car park at New Beckenham Station to provide an additional 70 car parking spaces and associated landscaping.
Revised plans have been received which reduce the depth of the car park by approximately 7m providing a buffer zone between the application site and No.s 5 – 8 Bridgelands Way resulting in the loss of a turning circle to the southern edge of the site. There would be no change to the number of car parking spaces proposed which would remain at 70 spaces.
Page 13 Location
The application site would be accessed via the existing commuter car park which leads onto Lennard Road in close proximity to the junction with Kings Hall Road. The application site is currently undeveloped and backs onto the rear gardens of No. 190 - 200 Kings Hall Road and Nos. 5 – 8 Bridgelands Close. To the west of the site is a railway line operated by Network Rail.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
site at present very green with several mature trees along railway line and backing onto Kings Hall Road, vital these are maintained as much as feasibly possible. it is crucial parking will be permeable to prevent increased rainwater run off. increased noise pollution and excessive vibrations already generated from train line which runs adjacent to rear garden of No. 196a Kings Hall Road. large quantity of mature trees have recently been removed which previously reduced noise and vibrations from trains. were proposal to be granted would wish re-introduction of a line of mature trees to separate residential gardens from new car park to obscure view from 2nd and 3rd floor windows of houses on Kings Hall Road and reducing noise, fumes and vibrations from cars and trains. such urban developments step in wrong direction for the area. concerns about lack of distance between car park/turning circle and rear boundary of No. 8 Bridgelands Close. concerns in terms of security due to recent burglaries to properties in the area, trepassing and break-ins to cars in the station car park. Proposed car park would make it easy to jump garden fence with easy and create an easy and convenient escape route. in terms of privacy gardens of Bridgelands Close are only 20ft long making it easy to see into bedrooms of these properties. understand need for additional parking however, concerns over turning closest to Bridgelands Close would prefer a compromise of this being replaced with thick trees and shrubs to provide security and privacy together with reduced noise. there is already controlled parking zone along Kings Hall Road to junction with Bridge Road while commuters already park along Lennard Road to junction with Aldersmead Road and as such little incentive for users to pay extra parking charge as such concerns that this will not lead to relief of car parking pressure in adjacent streets as argued. contrary to paragraph 3.4 there has been no upkeep, repair or restoration by the Council of the fencing bordering the railway or backing onto the houses on Kings Hall Road. Council have failed to maintain any part of the woodland. concerns as the cost of the proposal would be £100,000 with little benefit for residents or commuters in financially constrained times.
Page 14 no direct access point to the site at present. Car park is unsupervised and station unoccupied and unstaffed beyond morning rush hour which would allow scouting of the vulnerable backs of houses during evening and night. an empty concrete car park will increase noise pollution compared to unkempt vegetation, undergrowth and trees at present which act as an acoustic barrier from noise of passing trains. unused land currently home to many species of bird species, insects, squirrels and urban foxes with a number of trees including walnut trees with preservation orders. Pockets of nature in suburban Beckenham should be preserved instead of levelling and concreting of site. Removal of trees and vegetation at the site has affected wildlife. detrimental effect on value of houses neighbouring railway due to loss of aspect and outlook. require appropriate buffer zone between properties at Bridgelands Close and end of car park to ensure fences do not get damaged/vandalised, property remains secure and continues to enjoy some privacy. concerns in relation to flooding as ground of site and surrounding area including rear gardens of Kings Hall Road are low lying with mostly clay subsoil. No. 190 Kings Hall Road has a damp cellar susceptible to regular flooding and garden liable to becoming water logged during periods of excessive rain with high water table level. Most of the trees have now been felled on the site which acted as a natural solution to control water table in the past. council carried out water survey to examine water table with bore hole drilled after 5 months of drought conditions and close to three remaining trees which was not considered to have been undertaken diligently. extending car parking will attract more cars to the area which already has major unresolved traffic problems. concerns as to where lights would be installed or how they would be angled or whether additional trees would be planted to obscure lighting and noise of trains. access to car park is narrow and hazard to pedestrians and safe access to drive of No. 207 Lennard Road. Slowing traffic entering and existing car park needs to be considered. lighting to car park is poor and need to be improved in extension to ensure security and safety to cars and pedestrians. suggest CCTV be used to act as a deterrent to people visiting car park late at night driving recklessly and at speed and to provide additional security provisions. traffic calming measures would also provide significant benefit to pedestrian safety. turning circle is superfluous given three alternative cut-through planned and buffer zone should be installed instead. complaints as to the removal of mature trees and abundant flora and fauna at the site without notifying local residents. concerns vibrations of trains have caused cracks in neighbouring properties which needs to be investigated. concerns as to where further ticketing machines would be located.
Page 15 concerns as to whether new car park would be at same ground level as existing car park excavation may be required in this case. in terms of financial viability concerns on-going costs caused on to residents. already underused pay and display bays in the area, query the need for the scheme which will not alleviate problems experienced by local residents. consider responsibilities under Human Rights Act particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land which would be compromises by extension of car park. entrance to existing car park crosses cycle routes and pedestrian access. An increase in vehicles crossing this will endanger pedestrian and cyclist safety. proposal against Borough and Government policies to try to discourage car use and promote healthier greener modes of transport. site is host to many mature trees, plants and wildlife. One of the conditions on planning application for original car park was to “ensure that as many trees as possible are preserved at this stage in the interests of the amenity”.
The full text of correspondence received is available to view in the file.
Comments from Consultees
The Council’s Highways Drainage Division were consulted who state that there is no public surface water sewer near to the site, surface water will therefore have to be drained to soakaways. The site appears to be suitable for an assessment to be made of its potential for a SUDS scheme to be developed for the disposal of surface water. The site is within the area in which the Environment Agency Thames Region require restrictions on the rate of discharge of surface water from new developments into the River Ravensbourne or its tributaries. There is no groundwater flooding recorded in the area and the fact that the proposed soakaway will be built at 1.5m above groundwater will make the proposal acceptable. No objections are raised subject to conditions including the installation of petrol/oil interceptor prior to discharge of surface water run-off to the soakaway.
The Environment Agency have been consulted and state the site is located over a Secondary Aquifer and within a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ2). They state that the planning application form indicates that land contamination is neither known nor suspected, but no evidence has been produced to support this. They also state from the form that a sustainable drainage system is proposed for surface water.
The Environment Agency hydrogeological mapping indicates groundwater between 6m and 8m below ground level (bgl), although the drilling logs The Council has sent information to the EA Groundwater & Contaminated Land Officer which show groundwater at around 3.5m bgl. Given that the soakaway is proposed to be at approximately 2m bgl, this is only just acceptable from the perspective of protection of Controlled Waters. The site is located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone, SPZ2, and the EA would want an absolute minimum of 1m between the soakaway and the groundwater level. The site currently appears to be
Page 16 undeveloped land and the EA would wish to see an appropriate oil-water interceptor (which should be adequately inspected, cleaned and maintained) installed prior to discharge of surface water run-off to the soakaway. Several conditions are recommended.
Thames Water raise no objections in terms of water infrastructure at the site.
The Council’s Highways Division state the site is accessed from Lennard Road utilising the existing vehicular access arrangement. No objections are raised subject to conditions.
The Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor states that this is an extension to the Lennard Road Car Park run by the Borough, the existing car park has a Safer Car Parking award from the British Parking Association. The Metropolitan Police would expect the principles and standards of the Safer Parking scheme to be adopted to the extended car park if permission is granted in respect of this application.
The Council’s Environmental Health Division states use of the proposed extended car park may increase noise for residents and lead to some loss of amenity, particularly for the houses on Bridgelands Close which are closest to the new spaces and will not benefit from the same acoustic attenuation over long gardens as the houses on Kings Hall Road.
The car park lies within the Council’s Air Quality Management Area declared for NOx. Concentrating an additional 70 car parking spaces in one location within the AQMA is likely to increase NOx emissions in this area. The increase may be both through greater concentration of traffic at a location within the AQMA and by encouraging car use through increasing convenience and availability of parking spaces. Initially the Environmental Health Officer advised that there had been no attempt to mitigate the likely pollution impact (for example through provision of electric charging points - see NPPF para 35). In addition to these, concerns have been raised relating to the loss of amenity from artificial lighting although this could be controlled by a condition. In response to the revised plans received on 18.02.13 the Council’s Environmental Health Division stated the updated proposal showed improvements. The distance to residential facades on Bridgelands Close has been approximately doubled which should lead to a 3dB reduction in specific noise level although some of the acoustic gain from this may be offset by the increased number of spaces on this boundary versus the previous proposal. A condition to require acoustic fencing of at least 2m in height along the southern boundary and south eastern corner of the site would achieve additional acoustic attenuation of up to 5dB at the first floor façade and greater in the gardens which would have no line of sight. It is presumed this is a ‘long stay’ car park but if not making the southern section ‘long stay’ would reduce vehicle movements and so to a small extent reduce loss of amenity from noise as well as slightly reducing the air quality impact.
Network Rail were consulted on this proposal and raise no objections subject to a number of conditions.
Page 17 From a trees perspective concerns relate to the trees in the middle of the site and the potential impact of the construction works on their root systems. This can be overcome by using a no dig method of construction. If permission is to be recommended conditions are recommended. In response to the revised plans received on 18.02.13 no additional concerns have been raised by the Council’s Trees Officer.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking T18 Road Safety NE7 Development and Trees
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1 General Design Principles
London Plan Policy 2.8 Outer London: Transport London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management London Plan Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage London Plan Policy 6.13 Parking London Plan Policy 7.3 Designing out crime London Plan Policy 7.13 Safety, Security and Resilience to Emergency London Plan Policy 7.14 Improving Air Quality London Plan Policy 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes London Plan Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature London Plan Policy 7.21 Trees and Woodlands
The National Planning Policy Framework is also a key consideration in the determination of this application
Planning History
In 1988 under planning ref. 88/03282, permission was granted for the laying out of commuter car park at New Beckenham Station.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
Given its location to the rear of an existing car park and residential gardens the application site is not highly visible in the streetscene. There are a number of mature trees located on the site which add to the visual amenities of the area and were permission to be granted their retention would be secured by way of conditions. Overall the proposal is not considered to result in an unduly harmful impact upon the character of the area.
Page 18 To the east of the site is a railway line resulting in a considerable separation between the application site and residential properties along Copers Cope Road and as such this application shall be primarily concerned as to the implications on the residential amenities of Nos. 188- 200 Kings Hall Road, No. 207 Lennard Road and Nos. 5 – 8 Bridgelands Close.
Nos. 188- 200 Kings Hall have rear gardens of a considerable depth of approximately 36m and although the outlook of these properties will be altered given the considerable distance which would be retained between the rear elevations of these properties to the application site this is not considered to result in a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of these properties.
The flank boundary of No. 7 Lennard Road abuts the existing car park and although this property may be somewhat affected as a result of the additional vehicles entering and exiting the site again this could be satisfactorily overcome by appropriate conditions.
The properties most impacted by this proposal would be Nos. 5 – 8 Bridgelands Close as these properties have rear gardens which are considerably smaller than those on Kings Hall Road with the result that the rear elevations of these properties would be sited a minimum of 7m from the boundary with the application site. To overcome concerns in relation to these properties revised plans have been received which propose an approximately 7m buffer zone within the southernmost section of the application site with the result that the nearest car parking space would be a minimum of 14m from the rear elevations of these properties. Although the residential amenities of these properties may be somewhat affected by the proposal it is considered that on balance given the revisions which have been made these could be satisfactorily overcome through the imposition of a number of conditions.
The applicant confirmed that they intend to erect a 1.8m high boundary fence which would be located within the curtilage on the site. It is considered that the provision of a boundary fence with sound reducing properties would provide an adequate level of screening and security for neighbouring properties, although the Local Planning Authority would encourage this to be a minimum of 2m in height which were permission to be granted could be secured by way of a condition. The Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor has been consulted who stated that the existing car park has a Safer Car Parking award from the British Parking Association. Were permission to be granted a condition would be attached to ensure the application complies with the principles of Secure By Design to limit the potential detrimental impact on the security of neighbouring residential properties.
Concerns have been raised by neighbouring properties in relation to drainage at the application site. Neighbours have stated the area is subject to flooding with cellars being regularly flooded as is the underpass at New Beckenham Station and also the area has a high water table. Local residents also raised concerns that the proposal would remove a significant amount of vegetation and trees which absorb a high proportion of rainwater at present and that were the area to be covered in hardstanding this would be liable to flooding and may also adversely affect the
Page 19 adjoining railway lines which are located on a lower ground level. The applicant has provided detailed calculations in terms of the soakage tests undertaken at the site and both the Council’s Highways Drainage Advisor and Environment Agency are satisfied that the proposal will not result in a significant detrimental impact from a drainage perspective. In terms of potential light pollution for neighbouring residential properties, the applicant has yet to finalise the lighting arrangements at the site but has stated that part of the design will be to minimise light pollution, this could be secured by way of a condition.
Having had regard to the above it is considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 12/02798, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 07.12.2012 18.02.13
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires ACB03R Reason B03 4 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains ACB04R Reason B04 5 ACB16 Trees - no excavation ACB16R Reason B16 6 ACB19 Trees - App'ment of Arboricultural Super ACB19R Reason B19 7 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt Reason : To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan. 8 ACD06 Sustainable drainage system (SuDS) Reason : To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan. 9 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 10 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 11 ACI21 Secured By Design Reason : In the interest of security and crime prevention and to accord with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 12 Prior to commencement of works on site details of an oil-water interceptor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Page 20 Authority. This should include details as to the how the oil-water interceptor shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained. The scheme shall be implemented, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details Reason : To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan. 13 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved and reported to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason : There is the potential for unexpected contamination to be identified during groundworks. The Environment Agency should be consulted should any contamination be identified that could present an unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters. 14 Whilst the principles and installation of sustainable drainage schemes are to be encouraged, no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details. Reason : Infiltrating water has the potential to cause remobilisation of contaminants present in shallow soil/made ground which could ultimately cause pollution of groundwater. 15 Before the external illumination becomes operational the detail of the type, orientation and screening of the lights shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and, shall be permanently maintained as such thereafter. These details shall include measures to minimise the potential light pollution for the adjoining residential properties on Kings Hall Road and Bridgelands Close. Reason : : In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties. 16 The vehicle hardstanding and access drives hereby permitted shall be formed of permeable paving in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include proposals for the regular maintenance of the paving, which shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason : To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan. 17 Before the car parking hereby approved is first used a suitable screen to protect the adjacent properties from noise of a height and type to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected in such a position along the boundary of the site as shall be agreed by the Authority and shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason : In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure a satisfactory standard of residential amenity.
Page 21 18 Storm/surface water must not be discharged onto Network Rail’s property or into Network Rail’s culverts or drains except by agreement with Network Rail. Suitable drainage or other works must be provided and maintained by the Developer to prevent surface water flows or run-off onto Network Rail’s property. Proper provision must be made to accept and continue drainage discharging from Network Rail’s property; full details to be submitted for approval to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer. Suitable foul drainage must be provided separate from Network Rail’s existing drainage. Soakaways, as a means of storm/surface water disposal must not be constructed near/within 10 – 20 metres of Network Rail’s boundary or at any point which could adversely affect the stability of Network Rail’s property. After the completion and occupation of the development, any new or exacerbated problems attributable to the new development shall be investigated and remedied at the applicants’ expense. Reason : In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 19 Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary these shrubs should be positioned at a minimum distance greater than their predicted mature height from the boundary. Certain broad leaf deciduous species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary as the species will contribute to leaf fall which will have a detrimental effect on the safety and operation of the railway. We would wish to be involved in the approval of any landscaping scheme adjacent to the railway. Where landscaping is proposed as part of an application adjacent to the railway it will be necessary for details of the landscaping to be known and approved to ensure it does not impact upon the railway infrastructure. Any hedge planted adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary fencing for screening purposes should be so placed that when fully grown it does not damage the fencing or provide a means of scaling it. No hedge should prevent Network Rail from maintaining its boundary fencing. Lists of trees that are permitted and those that are not permitted are provided below and these should be added to any tree planting conditions: Permitted: Birch (Betula), Crab Apple (Malus Sylvestris), Field Maple (Acer Campestre), Bird Cherry (Prunus Padus), Wild Pear (Pyrs Communis), Fir Trees – Pines (Pinus), Hawthorne (Cretaegus), Mountain Ash – Whitebeams (Sorbus), False Acacia (Robinia), Willow Shrubs (Shrubby Salix), Thuja Plicatat “Zebrina” Not Permitted: Alder (Alnus Glutinosa), Aspen – Popular (Populus), Beech (Fagus Sylvatica), Wild Cherry (Prunus Avium), Hornbeam (Carpinus Betulus), Small-leaved Lime (Tilia Cordata), Oak (Quercus), Willows (Salix Willow), Sycamore – Norway Maple (Acer), Horse Chestnut (Aesculus Hippocastanum), Sweet Chestnut (Castanea Sativa), London Plane (Platanus Hispanica). Reason : In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 20 In view of the nature of the development, it is essential that the developer provide (at their own expense) and thereafter maintain a substantial, trespass proof fence along the development side of the existing boundary fence, to a minimum height of 1.8 metres. The 1.8m fencing should be adjacent to the railway boundary and the developer/applicant should make provision for its future maintenance and renewal without encroachment upon Network Rail land. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be
Page 22 removed or damaged and at no point either during construction or after works are completed on site should the foundations of the fencing or wall or any embankment therein, be damaged, undermined or compromised in any way. Any vegetation on Network Rail land and within Network Rail’s boundary must also not be disturbed. Any fencing installed by the applicant must not prevent Network Rail from maintaining its own fencing/boundary treatment. Reason : In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 21 Any lighting associated with the development (including vehicle lights) must not interfere with the sighting of signalling apparatus and/or train drivers vision on approaching trains. The location and colour of lights must not give rise to the potential for confusion with the signalling arrangements on the railway. The developers should obtain Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer’s approval of their detailed proposals regarding lighting prior to the installation of lighting on the site. Reason : In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 22 The development must ensure any future maintenance can be conducted solely on the applicant’s land. The applicant must ensure that any construction and any subsequent maintenance can be carried out to any proposed buildings or structures without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon Network Rail’s adjacent land and air-space. Reason : In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 23 A minimum of two fixed charging points with dedicated spaces shall be provided for electric vehicles. Details of the power supply and charging points shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the use commencing and shall be maintained as approved and in full working order thereafter. Provision of electric charging points shall be increased in future in line with demand for the facility at this location. Reason : To minimise the Nitrogen oxide emissions in the area which is designated as an Air Quality Management Area, in line with the NPPF and Policy 7.14 of the London Plan.
Reasons for granting permission:
In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies:
Unitary Development Plan
BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking T18 Road Safety NE7 Development and Trees
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1 General Design Principles
London Plan Policy 2.8 Outer London: Transport London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management London Plan Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage London Plan Policy 6.13 Parking
Page 23 London Plan Policy 7.3 Designing out crime London Plan Policy 7.13 Safety, Security and Resilience to Emergency London Plan Policy 7.14 Improving Air Quality London Plan Policy 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes London Plan Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature London Plan Policy 7.21 Trees and Woodlands
The National Planning Policy Framework is also a key consideration in the determination of this application
The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:
(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; and having regard to all other matters raised.
INFORMATIVE(S)
1 If the applicant (and any future resident) needs to utilise Network Rail land and air-space to facilitate works. The applicant / resident would need to receive approval for such works from the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer, the applicant / resident would need to submit the request at least 20 weeks before any works were due to commence on site and they would be liable for all costs (e.g. all possession costs, all site safety costs, all asset protection presence costs). However, Network Rail is not required to grant permission for any third party access to its land.
2 Where a proposal calls for hard standing area / parking of vehicles area near the boundary with the operational railway, Network Rail would recommend the installation of a highways approved vehicle incursion barrier or high kerbs to prevent vehicles accidentally driving or rolling onto the railway or damaging lineside fencing.
3 Before the use commences, the Applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Environmental Health & Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Applicant should also ensure compliance with the Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites Code of Practice 2008 which is available on the Bromley web site.
4 If during the works on site any suspected contamination is encountered, Environmental Health should be contacted immediately. The contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Authority for approval in writing.
Page 24 Application:12/02798/FULL1 Address: Land Rear Of 190 To 200 Kings Hall Road Beckenham
Proposal: Extension to existing car park to provide an additional 70 car parking spaces; associated landscaping
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! 1:2,680
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"25 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 26 Agenda Item 4.2
SECTION ‘1’ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley
Application No : 12/03819/FULL1 Ward: Bromley Common And Keston
Address : Keston Church Of England Primary School Lakes Road Keston BR2 6BN
OS Grid Ref: E: 541578 N: 164419
Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Single storey extension to provide 2 classrooms, play area with canopy, all weather artificial grass play area, extension of parking area to provide 7 additional spaces, bin store and associated external works.
Key designations:
Areas of Archaeological Significance
Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the following:
Single storey rear extension measuring 12.5m deep, 24.5m wide and 3.3m high to provide two reception classrooms. Installation of canopy to rear elevation Creation of all weather grass play area Extension of parking area to provide 7 additional parking spaces Erection of timber bin store
The additional classrooms would provide a dedicated space for the bulge reception class, admitted to the school last year currently being taught in the school hall, and provide room for an additional bulge class of 30 pupils in September 2013. This would take the number of pupils from 210 (240 including bulge year) to 270.
Location
Keston Church of England Primary School is located at the end of Lakes Road set behind gates and landscaping. The school buildings are single storey and brick built. Lakes Road is primarily residential with the village centre to the west. To the east are open fields.
Page 27 The site is located outside of the Keston Village conservation area and is located outside of, but adjacent to the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Comments from Local Residents
In line with normal procedure nearby properties were notified and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
Lakes Road at present is already extremely congested proposals would further limit access for emergency vehicles Keston cannot handle the increased traffic highway visibility is already very limited without the extra traffic expanded school is contrary to the village and rural nature of Keston there is need for school places, but Keston is not the place to accommodate these, other school sites should be considered damage to highway and verges there is an unauthorised one way system in Lakes Road, detrimental to highway safety. Keston Avenue and Heathfield Road have blind junctions proposals are unrealistic for the area there is no evidence to support the schools viability to stay as a one form entry lack of pavements in Commonside and Fishponds Road mean these are unsuitable to collect children from, meaning that cars use Lakes Road and Heathfield Road. instead of permanent extensions, the school should utilise temporary classrooms. the 7 proposed parking spaces in the school is not sufficient to cope with the extra demand. the school was only allowed in the first place if it remains a small village school building on the site will not enhance or improve the pupils educational experience the Design and Access statement is very limited with information harm to the Green Belt Heathfield Road needs to be upgraded construction issues given the limited access from Lakes road build a new school instead Keston Village needs traffic calming measures the submitted Transport Assessment is a poor piece of work Transport Assessment is inaccurate on several accounts. parking survey is insufficient.
The full text of correspondence received is available to view on file.
Comments from Consultees
Comments from the Council’s Education and Care Services department support the application.
Page 28 There are no technical Highway objections, subject to conditions.
Comments from Drainage recommend standard conditions.
Environmental Health raise no objections.
Thames Water raise no objections with regard to water and sewerage infrastructure.
The Crime Prevention Design Advisor recommends conditions for ‘Secure by Design’.
English Heritage (Archaeology) state that no archaeological conditions are required as the development does not appear likely to affect any potential archaeological resource.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development NE7 Development and Trees G6 Land Adjoining Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land C7 Educational & Pre School Facilities T1 Transport Demand T3 Parking T18 Road Safety
London Plan 2011 Policies:
3.18 Education Facilities 6.13 Parking 7.6 Architecture
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
Planning History
83/02612/LBB – detached single storey sports pavilion – permission
86/00013/LBB – erection of 5 bay mobile classroom for educational purposes – permission
89/03641/FUL – retention of mobile class room – permission
94/02983/FUL – retention of mobile classroom (renew of permission 89/03641) – permission
Page 29 00/03576/FULL1 – single storey extension for 2 classrooms and toilets, and relocation of hard play area – permission
03/03572/DEEM3 – erection of mono-pitch roof within courtyard – permission
05/03690/DEEM3 – Amphitheatre and extension to existing playground – permission
06/03298/FULL1 – cycle store – permission
07/01977/DEEM3 – single storey front extension – permission
08/03712/FULL1 – erection of 2 canopies at front entrance of school – permission
Conclusions
This application seeks permission to extend the school, providing two classrooms to accommodate the existing bulge year, admitted in September 2012, plus the forth coming bulge reception class in September 2013 (total of 60 students).
The bulge class of 30 pupils are currently taught in the school hall. Places for the September 2013 have already been applied for and are due to be allocated shortly.
It is noted that within some of the objections received, concern is raised with regard to the permanent expansion of the school to two form entry. This however, is currently at consultation stage and does not form part of this planning application which seeks consent for a classroom extension and landscaping alterations only.
Design and streetscene
The proposed extension to the school is located to the rear of the building and would not be visible from Lakes Road. The extensions are designed to match the existing building and it is considered to be of an acceptable appearance and raises no objection from a design perspective. They would be of limited visibility from the adjacent Green Belt due to the significant separation distance and dividing boundary screening to the north and east as such, the proposals are not considered to result in harm to the visual amenity or character of the adjacent Green Belt.
There is no objection to the installation of the canopy, as this would appear lightweight on the rear elevation and be of minimal impact when viewed from the surrounding playing fields.
An artificial grass play area would be created measuring approximately 300 square metres. This is considered to be of limited visual impact in the school site, where it would be finished with artificial grass, therefore appearing similar to the playing field behind.
It is proposed to demolish an existing unattractive refuse enclosure to the front elevation create 2 parking bays and extend the hard standing partly across an
Page 30 underutilised area of grass. The proposed site plan indicates that the trees located here are to be retained. As such, it is considered that the changes to the frontage would be of minimal impact. The loss of the refuse store is acceptable, as this structure is ungainly and intrusive on the front elevation. The provision of the timber bin store adjacent to the proposed parking raises no objection as this is a small scale structure located to the edge of the site.
Amenity implications
From an amenity perspective, the extension would be located closest to no’s 6 and 7 Grays Park Close, and would be inset approximately 13m from the boundary shared with these properties. And achieve a separation distance of 27.3m to no. 6 and 23.5m to no. 7. Taking into account the orientation north of these two properties and dividing boundary screening, it is considered that the extension would not result in a loss of light or overbearing visual impact.
The artificial grass play area would be located over existing playing fields, toward the southern boundary of the site. It is not considered that this would result in a harmful impact on amenity, where it is located adjacent to an existing established hard playing area within the built up portion of the school site.
Highways and parking
Policy C7 of the UDP states that “proposals relating to primary or secondary schools, which involve an increase in the school roll or the provision of facilities that are likely to used by the wider community, will be required to produce and adopt a School Transport Plan”.
The text to this policy, paragraph 13.23 states that ‘in considering future schools provision, the issue of accessibility will be crucial and that schools will be expected to address such issues through the submission and adoption of a School Transport Plan which following a thorough transport assessment of both existing and proposed development should identity measures which will assist in reductions in car usage; increased walking, cycle and use of public transport; reduced traffic speeds and improved safety particularly for pedestrians and cyclists’.
The school is accessed via Lakes Road for both vehicles and pedestrians, residential properties line both edges of Lakes Road with crossovers onto the highway. Concern has been raised within the received objections that the proposed expansion of the school will have a detrimental impact upon parking, access and safety within Lakes Road, Keston Avenue and Heathfield Road. It should be noted that the bulge class of 30 students is already being taught at the school. An additional 30 students are due to start at the school in September 2013; there is a finalised list for these places at present.
There is an existing school car park with 15 spaces. The proposals submitted seek to provide a further 7 parking spaces to accommodate all staff vehicles and visitors on site (where these may currently park on Lakes Road or surrounding public roads).
Page 31 As the school is surrounded by unrestricted parking zone, a Transport Assessment including a parking survey has been undertaken in order to establish whether all on-street parking spaces in the area are fully utilised. The survey was conducted on Monday 28th January at school peal times of 8:30am and 15:30pm and included Lakes Road, Keston Avenue, Keston Gardens and Windmill Drive.
This report concluded that there are on average 214 unrestricted on-street car parking spaces within the vicinity of the school and that 87 were occupied during the morning peak times and 67 were occupied during the afternoon peak time. Comments from the Councils Highways division have states that this figure is unrealistic as the area surveyed is too large, and some roads are unable to accommodate parking to both sides. It is considered that there are as a maximum 110 parking spaces to be found within the vicinity of the site and that realistic parking occupancy during morning and afternoon peaks are between 65% to 80%. Of the roads surrounding the school, it is recognised that Lakes Road takes the majority of the parking pressure.
The Keston Village Residents Association (KVRA) have commissioned their own transport survey and this has been considered in junction with the applicants Transport Assessment by the Councils Highways Division. Whilst this report reaches differing conclusions, both have been assessed and it is considered on balance, that the increase in vehicular traffic for the proposed bulge class for September 2013 would not be unacceptable where the applicants transport assessment states that as a worst case scenario, there would be an additional 16 vehicular movements.
It should also be noted that the school is promoting alternative modes of travel including ‘WOW’ (Walk once a week). A morning exercise class has also been set up for Thursday mornings (8.30am) of which 44 children have signed up; these would contribute to reducing car travel to the school. Research undertaken as part of the Transport Assessment stated that 45% of pupils arrive by car, whilst the rest make use of other modes of transport including walking, cycling Park and Stride or car sharing. The additional 7 parking spaces within site would also alleviate staff parking on street.
Pedestrian movements are expected to increase, however, the pathways are considered to be in good condition and capable of handling additional movement.
A construction management plan is requested via condition.
Conclusions
Members may therefore consider that the proposed extension of the school is acceptable and that the calculated worst case scenario of 16 additional vehicles would not result in an unacceptable impact on the highway or parking network, when taking into consideration the improvement in parking made within the school.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 83/02612, 86/00013, 89/03641, 94/02983, 00/03576,
Page 32 03/03572, 05/03690, 06/03298, 07/01977, 08/03712 and 12/03819, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ADD02R Reason D02 4 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 6 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 7 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 8 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 9 ACH28 Car park management ACH28R Reason H28 10 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 11 ACH30 Travel Plan ACH30R Reason H30 12 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 13 ACI21 Secured By Design ACI21R I21 reason 14 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development NE7 Development and Trees C7 Education and Pre-School Facilities G6 Land Adjoining Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land T1 Transport Demand T3 Parking T18 Road Safety
Page 33 Application:12/03819/FULL1 Address: Keston Church Of England Primary School Lakes Road Keston BR2 6BN Proposal: Single storey extension to provide 2 classrooms, play area with canopy, all weather artificial grass play area, extension of parking area to provide 7 additional spaces, bin store and associated external works.
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !!!!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!!
! !
! !! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !!
!
! ! !! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!!
!! !
! !
1:4,480
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"34 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.3
SECTION ‘1’ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley
Application No : 13/00226/FULL1 Ward: Mottingham And Chislehurst North
Address : Mottingham Sports Ground Grove Park Road Mottingham London
OS Grid Ref: E: 541862 N: 172476
Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Infilling of 2 doorways on North elevation of pavilion building.
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Green Belt Metropolitan Open Land
Proposal
Infilling of 2 doorways on north elevation of pavilion building.
The proposal seeks to provide a new wall which will be flush with the main external wall of the house, infilling the two recessed doorways that current exist to the northern elevation of the building.
Location
The site forms a large sports ground with a pavilion building at the centre which is the subject of the application. The site falls within Metropolitan Open Land in an area surrounded by residential development.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.
Comments from Consultees
None.
Page 35 Planning Considerations
Policies relevant to the consideration of this application are BE1 (Design of New Development) and G2 (Metropolitan Open Land) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The NPPF is also a consideration.
Planning History
None.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character and openness of the Metropolitan Open Land and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
The proposal will infill the two recessed doorways to the north elevation of the building. The areas in question possess overhanging roofs and it is considered that the infilling of these areas would not add floor area to the buildings and would not result in an addition of bulk. It is considered that the building would not be extended. On this basis, the proposal would not result in any harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Metropolitan Open Land.
The building that is subject to the application is sited a long distance from any neighbouring residential property and therefore no impact to amenities would result.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the proposal is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the Metropolitan Open Land. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 13/00226, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason : In order to comply with Policies BE1 and G2 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the Metropolitan Open Land and the amenities of the nearby residential properties. 4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Page 36 Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development G2 Metropolitan Open Land
Page 37 Application:13/00226/FULL1 Address: Mottingham Sports Ground Grove Park Road Mottingham London Proposal: Infilling of 2 doorways on North elevation of pavilion building.
1:17,740
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"38 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.4
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 12/03127/FULL6 Ward: Farnborough And Crofton
Address : 32 Crofton Avenue Orpington BR6 8DU
OS Grid Ref: E: 544353 N: 165638
Applicant : Mr S Gloag Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Part one/two storey front extension and conversion of garage to habitable room.
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London Loop
Proposal
This application was originally report to Members of Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 at the meeting held on 20th December 2012. Members deferred the application without prejudice to seek the following:
Reduction in scale of the front extension and for the application to be reported back on list 2 of the committee agenda.
In response to the deferral, the applicant has submitted revised drawings (received 20th February 2013) to reduce the depth of the front extension by 0.6m, and reduction in width of 0.3m from the flank elevation.
The original report is repeated below, updated as necessary.
Location
The application site is located on the north western edge of Crofton Avenue, set on the junction with Oakwood Road and comprises a two storey detached dwelling.
The surrounding locality is predominantly residential in nature, there is a varied streetscene featuring a mix of architectural styles, construction materials and dwelling sizes.
Comments from Local Residents
Page 39 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space
Planning History
Planning application 12/01508/PLUD – single storey rear extension certificate of lawfulness for a proposed development was withdrawn.
Planning application 12/02114/FULL6 – part one/ two storey front extension was refused for the following reason:
“The proposed extension, by reason of the excessive front projection at first floor would be harmful to the character of the streetscene, and the amenities of No. 30 Crofton Avenue by reason of visual impact and prospect, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan”.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
A previous application ref. 12/02114 for front extensions was refused for their excessive projection and adverse impact on the adjacent property.
The application has been amended since the refusal by the relocation of the first floor extension so that is now located on the other side of the dwelling, away from the boundary shared with no. 30 Crofton Avenue. The front gable has been replaced with a hipped roof and the extension has also been reduced in depth from a maximum of 4.9m to 4.7m. A streetscene drawing has also been submitted with this application to show the development in the wider context of Crofton Avenue and Oakwood Road.
Following to the deferral of the application at Plan Subs Committee No. 1 on the 20th December 2012, the proposal have been revised again to further reduce the depth of the extension by 0.6m and reduce the width by 0.3m in an attempt to reduce bulk and articulate the front elevation.
Whilst it is noted that dwellings are varied in the locality, with some incorporating front projections. The application site is located on a highly prominent corner plot; Members are advised that it is considered that the reductions in depth and width of
Page 40 the extension do not suitably address Officer concerns with regard to the prominent impact in the streetscene.
With regard to amenity, the most affect property would be no. 30 Crofton Avenue, located directly north east of the dwelling.
These dwellings are unusual in that the front bedroom does not have a front facing window; instead they are arranged with a flank window. In this instance, the bedroom of no. 30’s flank window faces towards no. 32.
The proposed first floor extension was previously proposed to project adjacent to the boundary, resulting in a significant loss of amenity for these occupiers. The extension has now been relocated to the other side of the dwelling, where it would no longer breach the 45 degree angle of visibility and is not considered to result in a loss of amenity to the neighbours.
The garage is to be converted to habitable space; however, as the driveway would provide two off street parking spaces no objection is raised in this regard.
The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the above policies, national and regional planning guidance, all other material planning considerations including any objections, other representations and relevant planning history on the site were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is not acceptable in that it would result in a intrusive impact in the streetscene.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/03127 and 12/02114, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED
The reasons for refusal are:
1 The proposed extension, by reason of the excessive front projection would appear overly intrusive and harmful to the character of the streetscene, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 41 Application:12/03127/FULL6 Address: 32 Crofton Avenue Orpington BR6 8DU
Proposal: Part one/two storey front extension and conversion of garage to habitable room.
2 Oakapple 1
El Sub Sta
O 4 A K W OOD GA RD
ENS 10 OAKW
7
OO 2 a
3 5 10 D R OA 15
D S N
22
GARDE
White
2 1 1 Lodge 1 AKWOOD
t O
o 8 2
24 9 8 101.2m
Oaklands Court UE 14 N
E 9
N AV
FTO 31 35
CRO
32
2
2 10
101.3m 34
ENUE 47
ON AV 0 4 4 5 AD RO CROFT E
149 GRANG
101.3m
5
9
1 54
LB 55
99.8m 63
68
42 1:1,130
67
6 "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"42 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.5
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 12/03612/FULL1 Ward: Plaistow And Sundridge
Address : Babbacombe House 2 Babbacombe Road Bromley BR1 3LW
OS Grid Ref: E: 540396 N: 169821
Applicant : Mr Mat Fahey Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Change of use of Babbacombe House (ground floor only) from office use (class B1) to physiotherapy service (class D1).
Proposal
This application seeks permission for change of use of Babbacombe House (ground floor only) from office use (class B1) to physiotherapy service (class D1).
Location
The application site comprises a three storey office building with basement parking accessed via a ramp to the car park at the rear.
To the south of the site lies a health clinic and car park, to the east lies Bromley North station car park and bus terminus, to the north and west lie predominantly residential dwellings.
The application states that there would be 3 parking spaces within the secure underground car park made available for staff. There would be 8 full time members of staff who would cover the proposed hours of opening as follows: 0800-2000 Mon – Fri and 0900-1700 Saturdays.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.
Comments from Consultees
Highways – The site is located on the south side of Babbacombe Road and is part of Bromley Town Centres Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Also the development is located in an area with a high PTAL rate of 5 (on a scale of 1-6, where 6 is the most accessible).
Page 43 The car parking access from Babbacombe Road via an existing ramp leading to the basement car park, this is regarded as acceptable and no objections are raised.
No technical objections from an Environmental Health (Pollution) point of view.
Town Centre Development Team - The site is currently within the boundaries of Opportunity Site A (OSA) of the Adopted Bromley Town Area Action Plan. However, following a judgement with regards to a Statutory Challenge to Policy OSA, a High Court Order was issued quashing Policy OSA in its entirety. The Council was then required to prepare, publish, consult upon and promote a new policy for the OSA site. It has since been proposed that the site be dealt with in the forthcoming Council’s Local Plan. It is anticipated that the Local Development Framework Advisory Panel will be considering site allocations as part of the Core Strategy/Local Plan process in 2013.
The site sits within the boundaries of Bromley Town Centre proposals map, and in line with Policy BTC 5 of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) any development proposals resulting in the loss of B1 floorspace will be expected to include provision of an appropriate level of replacement office floorspace.
It is the general view of the Council to seek to retain existing office space provision within the town centre, however in this case and from further inspection of the evidence it is the view that in spite of the premises having been well marketed for a period of time, the fact that it has remained vacant may indicate that the design of the premises does not readily lend itself to office use. Furthermore, the size and location of the property is also not likely to have any substantial impact on office provision in the town centre.
Given the particular circumstances of this case, from a Town Centre point of view there is support for this application.
Planning History
Under planning ref. 89/00694, permission was granted for the construction and use of Babbacombe House as offices.
Under planning ref.11/01700, permission was refused for elevational alterations and conversion of ground floor from office (Class B1) to 2 two bedroom self contained flats with associated parking and refuse enclosure. The grounds for refusal were as follows:
The proposed conversion by reason of inadequate natural daylight/ventilation and lack of private amenity space would represent an overdevelopment, out of character in the area and would create an unsatisfactory form of cramped living accommodation for future occupants and if permitted would lead to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is presently developed, contrary to Policies H7, H12 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 44 The site lies within Opportunity Site A: Bromley North Station in the Bromley Area Action Plan and the proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of Class B1 office accommodation contrary to Policy H12 in the Unitary Development Plan and Policy BTC 5 in the Bromley AAP, the latter of which provides that the loss of office accommodation will not normally be permitted unless it is replaced and forms part of the wider redevelopment proposal for the site.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan
EMP3 Conversion or Redevelopment of Offices C4 Health Facilities T3 Parking
The site lies just inside the boundary of Bromley Town Centre proposals map and Policy BTC 5 (office development ) Bromley area Action Plan therefore applies.
The applicant states that they provide all physiotherapy services to Bromley GP’s via a contract with the NHS. Due to an increase in demand they are unable to provide patients with an adequate service in Bromley Town Centre. The aim of the service would be to provide locally accessible service for patients who have been referred. It is envisaged that between 20-30 patients would visit the clinic each day. The applicant states that there is no local shortage of office floor space and there is evidence long term vacancy despite marketing of the building. In support of this contention the applicant has submitted further information regarding the vacancy / marketing of the floorspace.
The letter provided by the marketing agents Linays Commercial confirm that they have been actively marketing the ground floor of the building since 24th August 2009 and that prior to that it had been marketed by Messrs Keningtons since it was vacated by Bromley Primary Care Trust on 17th May 2007.
The method of marketing has included erection of a marketing board, mail shots, data base distribution via internet and paper trial led.
Despite incentives and concessionary terms being offered, i.e. 12 month rent free period, rising scale rental starting at £5psf up to £10 psf over a 5 year period interest has been scant with a handful of enquires from a broad mix of potential users from churches to dental surgeries.
In addition the applicant has asked that the following information be taken into account:
…Providing additional capacity at Babbacombe House is a crucial step in maintaining service standards and good access [to physiotherapy services] for both the local people in the area and the working community in Central Bromley.
Page 45 As a business we are committed to excellence and being good ‘corporate citizens’. We were recently named as winners in the Bromley Business Awards in the Customer Service category and were runners-up in the Overall Award for Best Medium Sized Business. While this may have no bearing, I hope it would demonstrate our commitment to driving business in Bromley in a positive way and that we are responsible and sensitive tenants.
I understand there may be local development plans or initiatives that are coming into play, and that a previous application to turn this site into residential may be complicating this decision. We are essentially a normal office based business and, given the number of employees [8] we can deploy into a given space, believe we will have less impact on the local area than if this was just let as simple open plan office space in terms of pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
Having been through the same process in Orpington last year (at Berwick House) we have been able to radically improve the service we offer to Bromley patients, breathe life into what had been a long-term vacant office space, and create jobs with no discernible impact on other tenants or residents…”
Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group “…Physiotherapy Solutions [the applicant] were awarded a contract to provide all adult musculoskeletal physiotherapy for the Bromley borough over 2 years ago…There is now a significant need to provide additional space for our patients in Central Bromley and this application has our full support…It is vital that as commissioners we continue to respond to the health needs of our community. The prospect of not having adequate services in a key location such as central Bromley, would be at odds with our intentions to bring healthcare closer to our population and maintain high quality services.
A copy of the full text of all the letters referred to in the report are available on file.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties; whether the office premises are genuinely redundant and whether there would be a local shortage of office floorspace / a loss of employment. Also whether the proposal would conflict with policy for the Bromley Area Action Plan and Policies EMP3 and C4 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the above policies, national and regional planning guidance, all other material planning considerations including any objections, other representations and relevant planning history on the site were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.
Page 46 Policy C4 set out that applications for health facilities will normally be permitted provided that they are accessible and do not impact unduly on the amenity of any surrounding residential area.
With regard to the impact upon adjoining residential properties , it is not considered that the amenities of these properties would be unduly adversely affected given the likely patient numbers per day which are projected at between 20-30 and would be spread over the proposed hours of operation [0800-2000].
The applicant states that the ground floor office space has been vacant for close to 6 years despite being actively marketed by Linays Commercial. Additional more detailed information submitted on the 4th March regarding the method and timescale of actual marketing of this floor space appears to lend weight to the applicants contention that sensible efforts have been made to market the floor space over a long and sustained time period despite difficult market conditions. Information submitted in connection with the earlier application at this site in 2011 (ref. 11/01700) corroborates this ascertain.
The requirements of Policy EMP3 states that the conversion of offices to other uses will only be permitted where: i) it can be demonstrated that there is no local shortage of office floor space and there is evidence of long term vacancy despite marketing of the premises; ii) there is no likely loss of employment resulting from the proposal.
The proposal appears to meet with the above requirements of Policy EMP3 in that there is evidence of long term vacancy despite active marketing and there would be no loss of employment resulting form the proposal.
Members will note that Policy BTC5 of the Area Action Plan (AAP) applies in this case. However, in view of the above, the siting of Babbacombe House on the edge of the Bromley Town Centre proposals map, the application is considered acceptable in this location.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/03612 and 11/01700, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 31.01.2013 27.02.2013 04.03.2013
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03
Page 47 3 The use shall not operate on any Sunday or Bank Holiday Xmas Day or Good Friday nor before 0800 or after 2000 Monday to Friday nor before 0900 or after 1700 on Saturday. Reason : In order to comply with Policy C4 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interests of the amenities of nearby residential properties. 4 ACJ01 Restriction on use (2 inserts) Physiotherapy clinic D1 Reason : In order to ensure compliance with Policy EMP3 and the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan in the event there is a new end user proposed 5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Policies (UDP) EMP3 Conversion or Redevelopment of Offices C4 Health Facilities T3 Parking
Page 48 Application:12/03612/FULL1 Address: Babbacombe House 2 Babbacombe Road Bromley BR1 3LW
Proposal: Change of use of Babbacombe House (ground floor only) from
office use (class B1) to physiotherapy service (class D1). 28 OAD R
MBE O C
ABBA B
9 CF 15
1
1 6
CR
RONALDS ROAD
8 2
7
4 2
1 CW
Clinic TCB
43
Car Park 32 Car Park
PCs
k
Bus Par rk 1:780
23 Car Pa D "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"49 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 50 Agenda Item 4.6
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 12/03704/FULL6 Ward: Farnborough And Crofton
Address : 2 Abbots Close Orpington BR5 1HW
OS Grid Ref: E: 544420 N: 166254
Applicant : Mr J Lowther Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Part one/two storey rear extension with two side dormers
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding
Proposal
Permission is sought for a part one, part two storey rear extension including two side dormers. The extension has a depth of 3.9 metres and an eaves height of 2.9 metres for the full width of the existing rear wall of the property with the roof enlargement continuing the ridge line of the existing roof. The two dormers are situated one to each flank elevation and feature a hipped roof design.
Location
The application site is located to the southern edge of Abbots Close near to the junction with Monks Way to the west and features a single storey detached dwelling with accommodation within the roof space provided by a single front dormer. A single storey attached garage is set to the front at the western boundary with No.3
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
the development would completely change the skyline of the properties in Abbots Close the roofline would not be sloping as existing there will be a massive loss of daylight to No.3 there will be a loss of view to No.3
Page 51 the enlargement will completely block the daylight to No.1 the loss of parking cause by builders would cause a problem in this narrow road
Comments from Consultees
No technical consultations were undertaken for this application.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2
The National Planning Policy Framework
Planning History
There is no planning history for the site.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
The proposal has a rearward projection of 3.9 metres to a detached dwelling which is not considered excessive. Consideration must, however, be given to the proposed depth in conjunction to the gabled roof design in relation to the impact upon neighbouring residents in terms of loss of prospect and daylight.
It is noted that the rear building line of No.2 is set much further to the north than that at either No.1 to the east or No.3 to the west, with all three properties benefiting from south-west facing rear elevations. No.1 currently projects some 2.2 metres beyond the rear of No.2, with No.3 being some 3 metres beyond No.2 with an additional depth due to a single storey rear extension of some 3 metres. A separation of 2.65 metres is allowed for from the proposed western flank elevation to the boundary with No.3 and a distance of 1.8 metres from the proposed eastern elevation to the boundary with No.1.
As a result of these differences in building lines, the 3.9 metre extension will project some 0.9 metres beyond the original rear wall of No.3, and some 1.7 metres beyond the rear of No.1. Given the good sized separations retained to the flank boundaries and the south-western orientation, it is not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable visual impact or loss of daylight received upon the neighbouring residents.
Page 52 The flank dormers are shown as serving a study to the west and a bathroom to the east and although any overlooking will be limited, it is considered appropriate that these windows be obscure glazed with a condition ensuring this. The first floor window is not considered to result in any unacceptable amount of overlooking to the rear.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 12/03704, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC01R Reason C01 4 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) to the eastern and western flank dormers ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2
The National Planning Policy Framework
Page 53 Application:12/03704/FULL6 Address: 2 Abbots Close Orpington BR5 1HW
Proposal: Part one/two storey rear extension with two side dormers
!
!
76 ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
77 74 !
!
!
! ! S
! PARROW
!
!
! !
! DRI 6
! VE 0
55 58
!
!
!
! !
! 54
!
!
!
! ! ! 53
67
!
!
!
! !
83.1m !
42
!
!
! 43
! ! 5
! 6
! !
41
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
31
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
27
!
! !
! 8
!
!
!
!
! !
9
1
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! A
BB
! ! O
! T
! ! S
! 15
CLOSE
!
!
!
! !
! 26
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
1
!
84.3m ! !
! !
! WAY 2
! 0
!
!
!
! !
! ONKS !
! M
!
!
!
! ! ! 4
! 2
! 16
! !
19
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
2 ! 1
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! 17
!
! !
!! !
!
!
! ! 11a
!
!
25
1
3 11
28
26
1 2 ST THOMA
S' DR
IVE
19 15
12
1a 1 11
8
SE 3 I 0
NY R MA
RO 3 1:1,350
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"54 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.7
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 12/03859/FULL1 Ward: Crystal Palace
Address : 193 Anerley Road Penge London SE20 8EL
OS Grid Ref: E: 534851 N: 169652
Applicant : Mr Anselmo Chiofalo Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Four storey side/rear extension with accommodation in roofspace; roof alterations including front dormer window extension; balcony to rear; creation of balcony above existing entrance porch; creation of second floor bay window on front elevation. Creation of 9 additional units and reconfiguration of existing property to create a total of 14 x 2 bedroom flats. Demolition of existing 8 garages and construction of 2 garages. Associated landscaping, car parking, cycle store; bin and recycling store; boundary enclosures; and side gate. Creation of in/out drive. Elevational alterations.
Proposal
This proposal can be divided into the following elements:
The property is proposed to be extended approximately 4.7m to the side (5.1m when including the front projecting element) which shall be 10.4m in length at which point it would project beyond the rear elevation for a further 7.7m with a maximum width of 12.9m at this point at a four storey level (including the lower ground floor). The ridgeline of the property is also proposed to be raised by 1.2m to provide additional accommodation in the roofspace. A dormer window extension with a pitched roof would be inserted in the front elevation with a rear dormer window extension to the rear, part of which projects over the 4 storey rear extension. The flat roof of the third floor rear extension would act as a roof terrace servicing the 2 x two bedroom flats in the roofspace which would be enclosed by a 1.8m high obscure glazed panel. A bay window is also to be constructed above an existing bay window on the first floor front elevation. Additional landscaping measures are also proposed including the removal of the 8 existing garages, provision of 21 on-site car parking spaces, 4 of which will service Mayfield Close (two spaces in the form of garages) and 14 of which are to be provided for the future occupants of the application site with 3 visitor parking spaces, bicycle storage and covered bin and recycling stores.
Page 55 In total the proposal would provide an additional 9 two bedroom flats and include substantial alterations to the existing 5 flats to provide a total of 14 two bedroom flats. This would result in three flats on each floor with the exception of the third floor which would have two flats, each with a private screened roof terrace.
Location
The application site is located to the north of Anerley Road, in close proximity to the junction with Maple Road and is a Victorian era four storey (including basement level) detached property currently in use as 5 self-contained flats, with one 3 bedroom flat on ground floor, two 1 bedroom flats on the lower ground floor, one 2 bedroom flat on the first floor, and one 2 bedroom flats on the second floor. To the rear of the site is a two storey building which comprises 4 flats, Nos 1 - 4 Mayfield Close (which are to be retained) and 8 garages which are to be removed 2 of which will be replaced. The freehold of this building and the garages is also owned by the applicant. Access to the site is via Anerley Road with vehicular access being shared with the occupiers of 1-4 Mayfield Close.
Properties in the area vary significantly in terms of their scale and architectural style although the majority of neighbouring properties are either purpose built or large scale properties which have been converted into self-contained flats.
It is worth noting that planning permission has recently been granted by way of Decision Notice dated 1st March 2012 for the demolition of existing building and erection of 4 storey building comprising 22 flats and 2 semi-detached wheelchair bungalows with 24 car parking spaces at No. 2 Betts Way, in close proximity to the application site. In light of this, were permission to be granted for the current application and both developments were to be constructed concurrently, this could result in disruption for local residents and congestion along Anerley Road. Were permission to be granted Members may wish to consider the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a construction management plan prior to commencement of works on site.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owner occupiers were consulted in relation to the application and no representations were received.
Comments from Consultees
The Council’s Waste Advisors requested the applicant be provided with the Notes for Developers detailing requirements.
Thames Water raise no objection with regards to water and sewerage infrastructure.
The Metropolitan Police raise no objections subject to conditions.
The Council’s Environmental Health Pollution Division raised no objections.
Page 56 The Council’s Highways Division stated the site is situated on the southern side of Anerley Road. Anerley Road (A214) is a London Distributor Road (LDR). The development is located in an area with moderate PTAL rate of 4 (on a scale of 1 - 6, where 6 is the most accessible). Vehicular Access- the access will be via the two access points from Anerley Road. Car parking- a total of 21 car parking spaces inclusive of 2 garages (belonging to Mayfield Close) would be provided, which is acceptable. Cycle parking- Cycle stands would be provided, this is satisfactory. Pedestrian access- pedestrian access is from Anerley Road. As such no objections are raised subject to conditions.
The Council’s Environmental Health Housing Divison were consulted who assessed the proposal in terms of its compliance with the Housing Act 2004 Part 1 (Housing Health and Safety Rating System). In terms of proposed Flats 1, 4, 7 and 10 - Kitchen Space (approximate floor area 5 m2 ) the minimum recommended floor area for a kitchen is 6.5 m2 which is a concern as to the lack of separate kitchen area of adequate size.
In terms of proposed flats 1, 4, 7, 10, 13 and 14, bedroom 1 to flats 1, 4, 7 and 10 will be approximately 29m2. The minimum natural light requirement will be 2.9m2 of glazed window or door and the minimum natural ventilation requirement will be 1.45m2 of openable window (not door).
Bedroom 1 to flat 13 will be approximately 25m2 (2.5m2 light and 1.25m2 ventilation) and Flat 14 approximately 32m2 (3.2m2 light and 1.6m2 ventilation). There does not appear to be any openable windows to these rooms, only doors.
External doors are not included when calculating the natural ventilation provision for a room. Unlike an external window an external door can not be left open to provide natural ventilation without compromising the security of a property and in winter time allowing excessive heat loss.
In terms of proposed Flats 2, 5, 8, 11, 13 and 14 there also do not appear to be any openable windows to the living rooms, only doors.
In terms of proposed Flats 3, 8 and 11, bedroom 1 to these flats will be approximately 23m2. The minimum natural light requirement will be 2.3m2 of glazed window or door and the minimum natural ventilation requirement will be 1.15m2 of openable window (not door). The window to these rooms appears be only 1.8m2 which is hazardous as the inappropriate size, shape and or position of windows prevents reasonable penetration of daylight into the room.
In terms of proposed flat 12 the plan shows one window to the living room whilst the elevation shows two. If there are two windows there will be adequate natural light and ventilation.
In terms of proposed flat 6 the living space and kitchen area in the proposed property is combined which is not desirable due to the risk of accidents associated with areas used for food preparation and recreation. All the proposed flats appear to lack internal facilities for drying clothes (i.e. tumble drier or drying cabinet) which is hazardous in terms of damp and mould, personal hygiene and fire.
Page 57 In response to this the applicant have provided further information as to how the concerns could be overcome, the full text of which is provided on the planning file.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following Unitary Development Plan policies:
BE1 Design of New Development H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and design H9 Side Space H11 Residents Conversions NE7 Development and Trees T3 Parking T6 Pedestrians T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1 General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 2 Residential Design Guidance
In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan 2011 policies are:
3.3 Increasing Housing Supply 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Development 3.6 Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation 3.8 Housing Choice 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity 6.9 Cycling 7.2 An Inclusive Environment 7.3 Designing out Crime 7.4 Local Character 7.6 Architecture
London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework is also a key consideration in the determination of this application.
Planning History
The most recent planning history in relation to this property is outlined below:
In 2001 under planning ref. 01/00590, an application was submitted and subsequently withdrawn for the conversion of 3 studio flats (Flats 3a,3b,3c) into 1 two bedroom flat.
In 1993 under planning ref. 93/01364, a Certificate of Lawfulness for an Existing Use was granted for use as seven flats.
Page 58 In 1989 under planning ref. 88/04539, outline planning permission was refused for three storey side extension comprising 3 storey side extension with 6 two bedroom flats and 12 car parking spaces.
In 1989 under planning ref. 89/01878, outline planning permission was refused for a four storey side extension comprising 10 studio flats with car parking spaces.
In 2010 under planning ref: 10/03465/FULL1 permission was granted for elevational alterations and four storey side/rear, first floor front and roof extensions (including dormers), and conversion to 13 two bedroom flats, demolition of the existing 8 garages and provision of 21 car parking spaces, bicycle parking, refuse/recycling storage and landscaping.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the impact on the residential amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties, potential overdevelopment of the site, the level of amenity space and quality of accommodation to be provided for future occupants of the development, the increase in the level of activity at the site, the impact on the streetscene and character of the area and the effects on traffic and congestion in the area, which shall be addressed in this section.
Impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties:
While a large roof terrace is proposed to the rear of the site which would have a depth of 3.85m equating to approximately 25 sq m of external amenity space each for Flats 13 and 14, far exceeding the London Plan Housing SPG requirements of 5sq, this is to be screened by obscure glazed panels of 1.8m in height (5 ft 9 inches) which would be above the eye level of an average adult and as such the impact in terms of loss of privacy as a result of this element of the proposal is not considered to be significantly detrimental. Were permission granted this could be secured by way of a condition. The provision of a fourth floor terrace area has been established under planning ref. 10/03465.
A number of windows are proposed to be inserted in the rear elevation of the property. While these windows proposed are to be somewhat larger than the existing windows in the rear elevation and would be located 7.7m closer to the front elevation of Nos. 1-4 Mayfield Close a distance of 21.7m would still be retained between these properties which is considered to be sufficient to mitigate against any potential loss of privacy or sense of overlooking for these properties. The first, second and third floor of the proposed extension would feature inward opening double doors and a Juliet balcony which does not result in the creation of a raised platform on which to stand and overlooking neighbouring properties. When granting permission for the previous application a condition was attached requiring these screens in the Juliet balconies to be obscure glazed and Members may wish to consider whether the imposition of such a condition would also be applicable in this instance.
Dover House to the east of the application site is angled away from the application site with an approximate distance of 8.6m from the flank wall of the side extension
Page 59 to the flank wall of Dover House where the windows in this elevation appear to be either servicing a bathroom or secondary windows to a habitable room. There is a distance of approximately 16m from the proposed rear extension to the main section of Dover House where there are a number of windows serving habitable rooms located. At present these habitable rooms and balconies at Dover House receive a restricted level of light due to their North West facing orientation, and given the distance from the proposal to the application site this is not anticipated to result in any additional loss of light or significant loss of prospect for the occupants of Dover House.
The current proposal would provide four windows in the eastern flank elevation which would service an en-suite, secondary window for a bedroom, sole fenestration for a bedroom and secondary window for a kitchen. The previously approved application proposed one window in the flank elevation which was the sole form of fenestration for a bedroom and a condition was attached requiring this to be obscure glazed. Since the determination of the previous application planning ref: 10/03465 the London Plan 2011 and London Plan Housing SPG 2012 have been introduced which forms a material consideration in the determination of this application. Ideally it is not considered reasonable for habitable rooms to be served solely by obscure glazed windows, however, as the previous application was permitted with a bedroom with one obscure glazed window it is considered on balance the current proposal is acceptable in this regard.
One window would be inserted in the western flank elevation which would service a bathroom which could reasonably be conditioned to obscure glazed and is not considered to result in a significant loss of privacy or sense of overlooking for No. 191.
In terms of loss of light for No. 191, no part of the development is located within 45 degrees of the middle of the window cill at a first floor level or above. The previous application was granted for a four storey with depth of 5.5m and the current proposal would increase this by approximately 2.15m to a maximum depth of 7.65m. Given the approximately 6.8m distance from the proposed rear extension to the flank wall of No. 191 and the orientation of the site, the additional 2.15m depth current proposed although sizeable is not considered the loss of light or prospect would be of such an extent as to warrant refusal.
Potential Overdevelopment of the Site
In terms of the density levels proposed, the site is located within a moderate PTAL level of 4 in a urban location. The Policy 3.4 of the London Plan defines urban areas as those predominantely dense development such as terraced houses, mansion blocks, mix of different uses, medium building of two to four storeys, located within 800 metres walking distance of a District centre or, along main arterial routes. In this instance Penge would be the nearest District Centre, as designated by Annex Two of the London Plan and while this is located approximately 900m walking distance the site is located along the A214 (Anerley Road) arterial route within an area of relatively high density and as such is considered to fall within the definition of an urban area.
Page 60 In this instance the proposal (both reconfiguration of the existing building and new accommodation proposed) would provide 42 habitable rooms within a site of 0.1218 hectares (excluding No. 1 – 4 Mayfield Close). This would equate to 344 habitable rooms per hectare which satisfies the requirements of Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (between 200-450 hr/ha) and Policy 3.7 of the UDP. As such although a considerable proportion of the site would consist of built development and associated car parking it is not considered that development at such a density would be out of keeping with this urban location.
Amenity Space and Quality of Accommodation for Future Occupants
The current Unitary Development Plan does not specify a specific calculation for the amount of amenity space to be provided per property. However, the London Plan Housing SPG best practice guidelines require a minimum of 5 sq m private outdoor space be provided for 1 – 2 person dwellings. As stated above the two flats contained in the third floor would provide approximately 25 sq m of private amenity space which more than satisfies the London Plan requirements. However, with the exception of Flat 9 on the first floor which would provide a 2.1 sq m balcony to the front, the main amenity space to be provided would be the approximately 63 sq m of communal space to be provided to the rear of the site.
While this does not comply with the London Plan standards the demand for amenity space by the occupants of the two bedroom flats is likely to be less than those of a single family dwellinghouse. Therefore, the level of amenity space provided given the proximity to the designated Urban Open Space of Betts Park and other public parks such as Cator Park and Crystal Palace Park is considered to be sufficient to meet the needs of the future occupants of the proposed development particularly in light of the previous planning permission 10/03465 which proposed 65 sq m of communal amenity space for all 13 flats. Were permission to be granted a condition could be attached to ensure details of landscaping were submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to ensure the quality of landscaping in the curtilage of the property is of a satisfactory standard.
All flats with the exception of Flat 6 on the ground floor meet the requirements of Policy 3.5 of the London Plan which is a minimum gross internal area (GIA) of 61 for a 2 bedroom 3 person flat with the third floor flats exceeding the requirements for a 2 bedroom 4 person flat of 70 sq m. The ground floor Flat 6 would provide 55.5 sq m of GIA, 5.5 sq m less than that required by the London Plan. However, the corresponding flat of the approved application on the ground floor provided 49.71 sq m of GIA for a 2 bedroom flat and as such in light of the previous permission it is considered that on balance, the current proposal is acceptable in this instance.
The London Plan Housing SPG advocates that habitable rooms should not be serviced solely by north facing windows which the current application proposes. However, both the existing building and previously approved application also proposed such an arrangement and as such while this is not considered to be best practice in terms of design, planning permission could not be refused solely on this basis.
Page 61 Largely the development has been designed in a ‘stacked’ manner (with the exception of the third floor) whereby the living room of each flat would be located above that of the floor below and likewise for bedrooms, this is to be encouraged minimising disruption for future occupants.
Additional concerns are raised as to the quality of accommodation to be provided by the Environmental Health Housing Division, however, it is not considered that the application could be refused solely on this basis. Were Members to consider it appropriate a condition could be attached requiring the submission of details and where necessary revised internal plans to be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site to overcome these concerns. All habitable rooms were found to have direct access to a source of light and as stated above rooms, with the exception of ground floor Flat 6, were found to be of an acceptable scale and as such the proposal was considered to provide a satisfactory accommodation, subject to conditions.
Highways and Parking
The current proposal would include a total of 14 car parking spaces for the future occupiers 2 of which would be disabled parking spaces, with a further three visitors parking spaces provided. An additional 4 spaces are to be provided to service Mayfield Close (two of which would be in the form of garages), thus providing 21 car parking spaces on site. No objections were raised by the Council’s Highways Division and the proposal exceeds the car parking standards contained within Appendix II of the UDP requiring a ratio of 1 car parking space per flat. As such the proposal is considered acceptable in respect of car parking provision.
There are no restrictions in terms of car parking to the section of the highway in front of the application site. As previously stated the application site is located in an area with moderate Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rate of 4 (on a scale of 1 – 6, where 6 is the most accessible). The applicant’s accompanying Design and Access Statement outlines the availability of public transport links with a bus stop with frequent services located 25-50 metres from the application site serving routes 157 Crystal Palace to Morden, 354 Crystal Palace to Bromley North, 358 Crystal Palace to Orpington and N3 Bromley North to Oxford Circus. In addition, the Design and Access Statement outlines that there are further buses available from Croydon Road within an estimated 3 minute walk, including 75 Croydon to Lewisham, 197 Croydon to Peckham and 356 Shirley to Upper Sydenham. Anerley Station is an estimated 5 minutes walk from which there are mainline train services available to London Bridge, Charing Cross, Croydon. Birbeck Station is also in relatively close proximity to the application site (approximately 10-15 minutes walk) with mainline services to Victoria and the South East and Tramlink services to Beckenham, Croydon and Wimbledon.
Increase in Level of Activity at Site
While the additional 9 units will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the level of activity at the site, as previously stated the proposal is not considered to result in an overdevelopment or an overly intensive use of the site and as such the increase
Page 62 in the level of activity or noise generated is not considered to be of such an extent as to warrant refusal.
Impact on the Streetscene and Character of the Area
The proposal will significantly alter the current appearance of the property. The area at present is disparate in its architectural style being primarily characterised by large scale purpose built or converted blocks of flats. The proposed side extension has been designed to replicate the existing features of the original dwelling including bay windows, rendered façade and stucco quoins to the corners and as such the proposal is considered to complement the existing property. The area at present does not have uniformity in terms of roof heights and structures and while this proposal will involve an increase of approximately 1.2m in the roof height, given the lack of uniformity at present this is not considered to be excessively detrimental to the overall appearance of the property or the streetscene.
A dormer window is also proposed to be inserted in the front elevation of the property. However, there are examples of front dormer windows within the vicinity. The proposed dormer window is considered to have been sensitively designed with a pitched roof and centred between the two forward projecting elements on the principal elevation and as such is considered to be an acceptable feature. In addition, although the current proposal would involve the insertion of two recessed balconies into the roofspace of the front elevation, the proposal is largely similar in terms of its appearance and design to the previously approved scheme 10/03465.
While the rearwards projection is quite considerable the proposed side extension should largely shield it from view from the highway and as such it is not anticipated to be significantly detrimental to the streetscene.
It is clear that the proposal will impact on streetscape and on the adjacent properties as a result of this proposal and a judgement needs to be made about whether the impact is unduly harmful. However, in light of the previous planning permission (ref. 10/03465) on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this instance.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 10/03465, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op.
Page 63 ACB01R Reason B01 5 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 6 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ADD02R Reason D02 7 ACH04 Size of parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 8 ACH12 Vis. splays (vehicular access) (2 in) 3.3 x 2.4 x 3.3m 1m ACH12R Reason H12 9 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 10 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 11 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 12 ACH27 Arrangements for construction period ACH27R Reason H27 13 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 14 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 15 ACI11 Obscure glaz'g/details of opening (1 in) in the flank elevations ACI11R Reason I11 (1 insert) BE1 16 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank development ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 17 ACI24 Details of means of screening-balconies ACI24R Reason I24R 18 ACI21 Secured By Design ACI21R I21 reason 19 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason : In the interests of the residential amenities of the adjoining properties and the visual amenities of the area, in line with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 20 The premises shall have an approved, effective and well managed CCTV system installed by an NSI - Nacoss Gold Standard / SSAIB registered installer in accordance with NACP 20 and shall be capable of supplying images in all lighting conditions. The installed system shall be compliant with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the licensee shall be the data controller for any images caught on the system and register and notify the ICO. The system installed shall be subject to a regular maintenance contract as stipulated by the installer, have the capability to download images on request of a lawful, relevant authority by a responsible staff member. A responsible staff member must be present at all times to be able to provide to any relevant authority on request images necessary for investigating or preventing crime or apprehending or prosecuting an offender. All images shall be kept on a secure data base for a minimum of 31 days.
Page 64 Reason : In the interest of security and crime prevention and to accord with Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 21 Details of a scheme to light the access drive and car parking areas hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted is commenced. The approved lighting shall be implemented before the development is first occupied, and once installed written confirmation shall be submitted to the Authority that it accords with BS5489-1:2003. The lighting shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason : In order to comply with Policy T3 and Appendix II of the Unitary Development Plan in the interest of visual amenity and the safety of occupiers of and visitors to the development. 22 No loose materials shall be used for surfacing of the parking and turning area hereby permitted. Reason : In order to comply with Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan in the interest of visual amenity and the safety of occupiers of and visitors to the development. 23 Before any work of demolition or construction commences, a method statement detailing the measures to be undertaken to mitigate the noise and dust effects of the works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The demolition and construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. Reason : In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjoining properties.
Reasons for granting planning permission:
In granting planning permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and design H9 Side Space H11 Residents Conversions NE7 Development and Trees T3 Parking T6 Pedestrians T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1 General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 2 Residential Design Guidance
In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan 2011 policies are:
3.3 Increasing Housing Supply 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Development 3.6 Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation
Page 65 3.8 Housing Choice 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity 6.9 Cycling 7.2 An Inclusive Environment 7.3 Designing out Crime 7.4 Local Character 7.6 Architecture
London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance
The National Planning Policy Framework is also a key consideration in the determination of this application.
The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:
(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the impact upon the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjoining properties; (c) the impact upon congestion and road safety within the area; (d) the quality of accommodation provided for future occupants of the property; (e) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties; (f) the character of the development in the surrounding area.
INFORMATIVE(S)
1 You should contact extension 4621 (020 8313 4621 direct line) at the Environmental Services Department at the Civic Centre with regard to the laying out of the crossover(s) and/or reinstatement of the existing crossover(s) as footway. A fee is payable for the estimate for the work which is refundable when the crossover (or other work) is carried out. A form to apply for an estimate for the work can be obtained by telephoning the Highways Customer Services Desk on the above number.
2 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the reponsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).
If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.
Page 66 Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL
3 Any repositioning, alteration and/or adjustment to street furniture or Statutory Undertaker’s apparatus, considered necessary and practical to help with the forming/altering of a vehicular crossover hereby permitted, shall be undertaken at the cost of the applicant.
4 If during the works on site any suspected contamination is encountered, Environmental Health should be contacted immediately. The contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Authority for approval in writing.
Page 67 Application:12/03859/FULL1 Address: 193 Anerley Road Penge London SE20 8EL
Proposal: Four storey side/rear extension with accommodation in roofspace; roof alterations including front dormer window extension; balcony to rear; creation of balcony above existing entrance porch; creation of second floor bay window on front elevation. Creation of 9
G
W 4a tree T 6
OOD e LO 4 Warehouse 8a rr
1 a
ce C 8
16a
18
14a
24a
CLOSE s 16
2
t 12a
1 s
14
22a 4 ETREE
h o 2 17 37b
P L a 12
0 42.7m 2
22 7a
18 3
20 20 APP Kelvin
8 Court 26
to
1
14 2 28 4 27
1 39a y Meth Churc
39b
20
o 16 o
5
9 t 9
4 JA Anerle 3 S
MI 1 36 N 2 E GROVE OAD 10 a
35
8 8 3 Garage
2 35b 38a 7 51 5c 3 2 1
BA 3 40a
9 RFR 1
7 E AY 2 1 1 ST 1 W
ON 15 61
59 3
11 Y
2 7 WA SH E 7 L LD 5 Depot L O El
WE 1 N CL 9
C b ART 11 40 Sub Sta
W OSE 1 to
CH 14
21 Glen
0 Court
1
o o ASHURST 16 1 t 1
23
C
2 to 24 to 2 LO
8
2 1 SE Readman Court
9 to 3 to 9 CF
20
a 20
6 o
t 44.4m
3 1 21
o 3 o t
22 22
26 t 26
o 48
8 16 9
10 1
12 Kingsbridge to 13
165 House 5 7 12 to 9 1 Crystal Palace 1 2 Ca 4
Indoor Bowling rlto 6
4
n Cou 1 to Club 3 1 5 2 rt
4 6 8
1 Benhurst 3 5 Court
1 Carole
7 1
to 3 183 6
a House 4
1
to 3
1
15
to
3
1
to
4 1
17 2
90 5 1
1 54.7m
2b 19
192a ANER ! L
! EY
!
! !
! ROAD 183 1 3 !
! ! to 1 ! 1 ! 2 ! 1 4
! D
!
! ! ! 2 ! ! ! ! B Samaria etts ROA ! wo ! C ! Co od urt PLE R MA
! ! Inchbare chool 18 thony's S 5 n thony ch
St A imary An r Padua St P of Chur C R TCB E ytery
193 OS 12 resb CF P CL 21 1 to 14 to ELD CW
AYFI CF Arbury Court M Dover
Christ Church
House 8 to 207 197 1 199to20 a
2 1 0 3 W 51.9m C
CR
2
4
0
2 LB 20
06 2 7 1 to Par 16 k View C ourt 21 St Georges CF
o 21 t Court
Y 7
1
A 16 0
1 w 2 W a S se
L
u 29
212 to to y 1
ETT Surgery
Ho 18
B 2 on 220
T 2 1
2
4
f
22
to
a
6
2 2
8
22
2
3 2 230
Vicarage
tts Park 234
9 C R
T 5 R S 4 W INITY M E M 1 E
RINITY WS 1
T 0
1 1
0 11
Antony
Stones t 1 1 to
Court o
2
4 36 1
116 07 to Sh 112 e Cour rborn
t e
122
11
3 1:2,030 115
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"68 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.8
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 12/03874/FULL6 Ward: Bromley Common And Keston
Address : Barn Farm 56 Hastings Road Bromley BR2 8NB
OS Grid Ref: E: 542319 N: 166171
Applicant : Mr T Crosbie Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Roof alterations to incorporate rear and side dormer extension.
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Green Belt London City Airport Safeguarding
Proposal
The application site is a rectangular, long, low, converted farm building, of single storey height. This application proposes two dormers, one to the rear measuring 2m wide x 1.9m overall height and one to the side, 1.3 wide x 1.5m overall height. The ridge height is not shown to be raised by the proposal. The introduction of these dormers will enable the creation of a first floor bedroom area and represent approximately a 17% increase in the floor area over that of the original dwellinghouse.
Location
The site is located in the Green Belt and on the west side of Hastings Road.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received at the time of writing the report.
Planning Considerations
Page 69 The application falls to be determined in accordance with the NPPF, the London Plan and the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions G1 The Green Belt G4 Dwellings in the Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open Land
Planning History
There is an extensive planning history relating to the site as a whole. The most relevant in respect of this current application are ref. 97/00363 which was a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development granted 28/4/97 for the lawful use of the outbuilding as a single dwelling house and ref. 09/01709 for roof alterations including increase in roof height and two front dormers to provide additional accommodation in the roof space which was refused and dismissed at appeal.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if so, whether very special circumstances exist that clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, its effect on the openness of the Green Belt and on the character and appearance of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
Para 89 of the NPPF advises that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt; exceptions to this include the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The additional accommodation provided by the proposed first floor extension represents a 17% increase in floor area and therefore falls outside the Council’s 10% increase in floor area tolerance (Policy G4). Policy G4 also states that proposals to extend converted dwellings will not normally be permitted. It is therefore considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The resultant harm should be given substantial weight in determining the application.
In terms of the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt, as noted the dwelling is at present a long, low, converted farm building, of single storey height. The proposed dormers would allow a first floor storey element to part of the building. It may be considered that the visual intrusion arising as a result of the proposed dormers is limited given the size and siting and the limited number of proposed dormers.
Given the scheme is inappropriate development, consideration is to be given as to whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. It is noted that ‘very special
Page 70 circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Members may consider that the limited percentage increase of 7% over and above the 10% tolerance in Policy G4 is not unduly excessive. This combined with the limited visual intrusion and the clustering of built development in this location may present the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the usual Green Belt Policy considerations.
In terms of the impact on nearby residential amenity the proposed rear dormer overlooks onto a front garden area of the nearby dwellings along Hastings Road and the side dormer faces on to a blank gable wall of the adjacent dwelling. Any impacts on neighbouring amenity are likely to be limited and unlikely to warrant a planning refusal ground in this respect.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/03874, 09/01709, 97/00363, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC01R Reason C01 4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps
Page 71 Application:12/03874/FULL6 Address: Barn Farm 56 Hastings Road Bromley BR2 8NB
Proposal: Roof alterations to incorporate rear and side dormer extension.
A
S
TIN
G S Hall RO
A
D 56
73.9m
2
3
0
7
b
10 76
1a 1b 1c 1 2
OSE ITY CL TRIN
1:630
80 78 "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"72 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.9
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 12/03879/VAR Ward: Cray Valley East
Address : Unit 4A Nugent Shopping Park Cray Avenue Orpington BR5 3RP
OS Grid Ref: E: 547125 N: 168154
Applicant : Nugent Shopping Park Ltd & Boots UK Objections : YES Ltd
Description of Development:
Variation of condition 8 of planning permission ref. 07/02689/VAR to allow the sale of pharmaceutical products, cosmetics and toiletries toys and cameras from Unit 4a of the Nugent Shopping Park
Key designations:
Areas of Archaeological Significance Flood Zone 2 Flood Zone 3
Proposal
The application seeks to vary condition 8 of planning permission reference 07/02689/VAR to alter the restriction on the sale of pharmaceutical products, cosmetics and toiletries, toys and cameras in order that Boots UK Ltd can occupy Unit 4A of the Nugent Shopping Park. The unit is currently occupied by HMV.
Condition 8 states that:
‘The scheme hereby permitted shall comprise not more than 16,218 sq m of retail floorspace (Class A1 and Class A3/A4/A5) which shall be subject to the following restrictions unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
(i) Not more than 6,765 sq m of retail floor space including the floor space covered by (ii) where in Class A1 use and (iii) within this condition shall be used for the sale of retail products without restrictions;
(ii) There shall be no fewer than four smaller units. None of the small units shall exceed 400 sq m in total;
Page 73 (iii) The sale of food and drink products shall not exceed 1,500 sq metres out of a total of 6,765 sq m detailed in (i) above.
(iv) The retail floor space hereby permitted and not falling within (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall not be used for retailing any of the following goods:
(a) food and drink other than for consumption on the premises (b) men’s and women’s fashion clothing and footwear; (c) fashion accessories (d) jewellery (e) cosmetics and toiletries (f) pharmaceutical products (g) pets and pet food (h) toys (i) cameras.’
In order to allow the occupation of Unit 4a by Boots, the applicant suggests that the wording of the condition is amended as follows:
‘The scheme hereby permitted shall comprise not more than 16,218 sq m of retail floorspace (Class A1 and Class A3/A4/A5) which shall be subject to the following restrictions unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(i) Not more than 6,765 sq m of retail floor space including the floor space covered by (ii) where in Class A1 use and (iii) within this condition shall be used for the sale of retail products without restrictions;
(ii) There shall be no fewer than four smaller units. None of the small units shall exceed 400 sq m in total;
(iii) The sale of food and drink products shall not exceed 1,500 sq metres out of a total of 6,765 sq m detailed in (i) above.
(iv) Apart from Unit 4a, the retail floor space hereby permitted and not falling within (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall not be used for retailing any of the following goods:
(a) food and drink other than for consumption on the premises (b) men’s and women’s fashion clothing and footwear; (c) fashion accessories (d) jewellery (e) cosmetics and toiletries (f) pharmaceutical products (g) pets and pet food (h) toys (i) cameras
(v) Unit 4a shall not be used for the retailing of any of the following goods:-
Page 74 (a) food and drink (excluding ancillary sales) other than for consumption on the premises (b) men’s and women’s fashion clothing and footwear (c) fashion accessories (d) pets and pet food (e) jewellery.’
The application is accompanied by a Position Statement which includes the following points:
• Boots has 4 categories of store as follows:
High Street stores – a range of formats with the majority categorised as ‘High Street Chemists and Community Pharmacies’ carrying a smaller selection of the Boots range with an emphasis on a pharmacy role Health Centre Pharmacies – these operate within Health Centres and Primary Care Centres Travel Stores – located at airports and railway stations and focused on convenience retail Retail Park Sites – designed to compete against supermarkets and 181 have opened to date
Boots High Street Orpington store is classified as a ‘Destination Large High Street Store’ and comprises 905m² of net sales floorspace - it is an important store within Boots retail store portfolio and over £500,000 has been invested in maintenance and upgrade works at the store since 2004 Boots are committed to the Orpington High Street store and see the additional store at Nugent Shopping Park as complementary supermarkets have entered health and beauty market in recent years with a significant increase in the range of health and beauty goods, the space dedicated to them and their prominence whilst Boots remains the largest individual retailer of health and beauty goods in the UK four of the top five health & beauty retailers are now grocers grocers held 44% of the market share in 2011 – the second largest single operator is Tesco with a 0.9% increase in market share in the last 5 years - Boots market share has fallen by 1.9% during this period Boots primary trading locations continue to be in town and district centres and a very large amount of capital is invested in them Boots is keen to recapture part of the market share lost to grocery superstore retailers so that it can to retain its position within the market and strengthen its business enabling the company to maintain a range of stores Boots stores play an important role as anchor stores in many town centres and they can only maintain that network if they can strengthen their market position car-based grocery shopping trip has inevitably meant that some of Boots core product range is now an established part of the weekly and/or monthly bulk food shop and this trade will not return to high streets - Boots retail park format stores aim to offer an alternative to the large supermarkets providing
Page 75 similar attractions in terms of ease of access by car and quality of customer experience Boots is committed to town centre management throughout the country and is one of the few retailers who have given significant financial and management contributions to setting up town centre management schemes proposed store at Nugent is intended to serve a wider catchment that the High Street Orpington Store which serves a catchment area around Orpington and its neighbouring small centres of St Pauls Cray, Locksbottom and Green Street Green – better car parking and immediate access onto the main road network should ensure a wider catchment stretching from Biggin Hill and Chislehurst in the west up to the edge of the M25 in the east chemists good expenditure is intended to grow by some £52m within the London Borough of Bromley in the Period 2010 to 2021 estimated turnover of the proposed Boots store is approximately £2m – approx. 85% of the trade would be in ‘Chemists Goods’ with the remainder in other categories including:
Clothing (mainly baby wear) Electrical goods (cameras) Toys (some ranges of baby toys are sold) Baby food Sandwiches & Snacks
amount of available expenditure in the Chemists Goods category within the London Borough of Bromley is expected to be approx. £153m in 2016 - proposed store would represent just 1% of market share option of opening an additional store in Orpington town centre rather than at Nugent Shopping Centre would not be justified for the following reasons:
it would not capture the additional trade from the wider catchment of the Nugent Shopping Park. it would not provide the customer convenience factors (accessibility, proximity to car parking, store environment) possible at the Nugent Shopping Park it would result in a doubling up of management costs, services, charges in rent, increased staffing costs and more complex deliveries whilst gaining nothing in terms of customer base and catchment area or additional benefits to customers it would not be seen as a viable alternative for customers to visiting out-of-centre supermarkets for weekly health & beauty purchases and would not therefore help to claw back trade lost to supermarkets
health & beauty retailers in Orpington town centre include Superdrug, the Fragrance Shop, Savers store, Tesco Extra, Sainsburys, The Farncray Pharmacy and Iceland - trade diversion from Orpington town centre is assumed to be spread between these retailers with impacts on each limited in scale.
The Position Statement includes a document summarising Boots commitment to building and sustaining healthy town centres. It also includes a note on the impact
Page 76 of Boots out of centre stores in similar sized towns which draws attention to the following examples:
Ashford, Kent – out of centre store opened in August 2005 and town centre store remains open and has received £250,000 investment Cambridge – out of centre store opened in November 2000 and two town centre stores remain open and have received £2,246,000 investment Basildon – out of centre store opened in November 2000 and town centre store remains open and has received £1,300,000 investment Chelmsford - out of centre store opened in November 2006 and three town centre stores (including one optician) remain open and the optician store has received £650,000 investment Canterbury – out of centre store opened in September 2000 and new town centre store replaced three existing stores in 2004 and has received £4.4m investment Bexhill - out of centre store opened in April 1999 and town centre store remains open and has received £460,000 investment Stevenage – out of centre store opened in September 2004 and three town centre stores (including one optician) remain open and the optician store has received £530,000 investment Torquay – out of centre store opened in April 2006 and two town centre stores remain open and one has received £160,000 investment Yeovil - out of centre store opened in September 2004 and two town centre stores (one optician) remain open and one has received £1m investment Telford - out of centre store opened in December 2004 and two town centre stores (one optician) remain open and the main store has received £450,000) investment Solihull- out of centre store opened in November 2004 and two town centre stores (one optician) remain open and the main store has received £840,000) investment Swindon - out of centre store opened in February 2003 and three town centre stores (one optician) remain open and one store has received £790,000) investment Cheltenham - out of centre store opened in December 2004 and its town centre store remains open and has received £1.5m) investment Shrewsbury - out of centre store opened in December 2004 and two town centre stores remain open and one has received £2.5m investment.
The application is also accompanied by a Retail Statement which includes the following points:
Unit 4a is significantly smaller than Unit 20 – the sales area will be 342 sq m net, less than half the size of the proposed sales area within Unit 20 proposed unit is significantly smaller than Boots’ existing town centre store a survey of shoppers at Nugent Shopping Park in May 2012 confirmed that nearly 95% of shoppers would support the introduction of Boots to the Shopping Park
Page 77 despite the current recession, the vacancy rate in Orpington Town Centre has decreased from 12% in March 2010 to 10.1% in June 2012, significantly lower than the GOAD national average of 13.66% (June2012) Orpington town centre remains relatively healthy and its offer has been significantly enhanced by the opening of the Tesco store - the centre appears viable and vital, commensurate with its role as a Major District Centre Boots market share in the catchment area of the Orpington town centre store is 17% as compared to an average of 25% - proposed store will claw back trade lost from the catchment area there is not expected to be any material impact on local pharmacies which trade in essentially a separate sector of the market than a specialist health and beauty store and the majority of their income is derived from NHS contracts - Boots survey results show that pharmacies have not closed where Boots has opened stores of the type proposed local centres contain few shops selling goods in the Boots product ranges - local grocers and pharmacies sell limited ranges of products such as soaps, shampoos, deodorants, etc - mobile shoppers regularly buy these goods as part of a weekly food shopping trip to a large store there is one pharmacy in the surrounding area, the Osbon Pharmacy on St Mary Cray High Street - this pharmacy sells a small range of health and beauty goods and serves the local St Mary Cray area, a far more localised catchment than the proposed Boots store and there will not be a significant impact on this pharmacy majority of trade of the proposed Boots store would be diverted from large foodstores (both in centre and out of centre) such as the Tesco at Sidcup Boots forecast that trade diversion from town and district centres would be limited (in terms of total trade diversion) and that Boots existing stores would be the most directly affected of the health and beauty stores because of customer brand loyalty Boots experience is that diversion of trade is very low and even when it occurs trade soon returns to previous levels trade diversion is expected to comprise the following:
35% trade diverted from Orpington Town Centre (inc. 5% from the existing Boots store) 35% trade diverted from other town/district centres (including Boots stores) 30% trade diverted from out-of-centre facilities (predominantly supermarkets such as Tesco, Sidcup)
trade diversion from Orpington and Bromley Boots stores will relieve pressure that these stores experience, particularly at peak trading periods proposal will result in the creation of around 14 full time equivalent jobs will be created within the store.
Location
Page 78 Nugent Shopping Park is situated approximately 1.5 km north-east of Orpington Town Centre on Cray Avenue, which forms part of the A224 and is a key vehicular artery through the Borough Unit 4a within the Park is currently occupied by HMV and lies adjacent to WHSmith (Unit 4b) and Marks & Spencer (Unit 3) and has a ground floor area of 518 sq m gross (GIA) Nugent Shopping Park is currently occupied by the following retailers: Hobbycraft, Pets at Home, Cotswold, Nandos, Maplin, Marks & Spencer, HMV, WH Smith, Clintons Cards, Thornton’s, Bathstore, Game, Vision Express, Clarks, Mothercare, Mamas and Papas, Laura Ashley, Waterstones, Desire by Debenhams, Next, Costa, Everything Everywhere and Carphone Warehouse.
Comments from Local Residents
A representation on behalf of the Cray Village Community Forum has been received which can be summarised as follows:
there are 2 chemists at each end of St. Mary Cray High Street and Boots presence at the Nugent Shopping Park would seriously affect their trading closure of the chemist would add to problem of empty business and shop premises in St Mary Cray allowing the application would conflict with attempts to regenerate St Mary Cray.
Planning History
Planning permission was originally granted for Nugent Retail Park in September 2004 (ref. 03/01807) and condition 24 of the permission stated that:
‘The scheme shall comprise a maximum of 12,108 sq. metres of retail floorspace (Class A1 and Class A3) which shall be subject to the following restrictions unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(i) Not more than 2,322 sq. metres of retail floorspace including the floorspace covered by (ii) and (iii) within this condition shall be used for the sale of retail products without restrictions; (ii) Not less than 1,355 sq. metres of retail floorspace shall be used as smaller retail units within Classes Al and A3. There shall be no fewer than 5 smaller units and no more than 10 smaller units. None of the smaller units shall exceed 300 sq. metres. (iii) The sale of food and drink products shall not exceed 1,500 sq. metres out of a total of 2,322 sq. metres detailed in (i) above. (iv) The retail floorspace hereby permitted and not falling within (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall not be used for retailing any of the following goods:
(a) food and drink other than for consumption on the premises (b) men's and women's fashion clothing and footwear (c) fashion accessories (d) jewellery
Page 79 (e) cosmetics and toiletries (f) pharmaceutical products (g) pets and pet foods (h) toys (i) cameras.’
There have since been various applications to vary the requirements of this condition which have resulted in approval of the following:
installation of mezzanine floors to provide 3716 sq m of additional retail floorspace across the site (ref. 04/04583) 2 additional retail units to provide 2,480 sq m additional retail floorspace (ref. 05/03387) minimum small units reduced to 4 and additional 3,500 sq m retail floorspace (ref. 05/00663) removal of restrictions on 893 sq m of permitted retail floorspace (ref. 06/00495) additional 74 sq m retail floorspace (ref. 07/02689) removal of restrictions to allow Pets at Home to occupy Unit 19 (ref. 08/03150).
A planning application to alter restrictions and allow Boots to occupy Unit 20 of Nugent Shopping Park was refused on 14 September 2010 on the following ground:
“The proposed relaxation of restrictions on goods that can be sold at the Nugent Shopping Park would be likely to undermine the vitality and viability of Orpington Town Centre contrary to Policy S7 of the Unitary Development Plan.”
Planning Considerations
Policy S7 of the Unitary Development Plan requires applicants to show that there is a need for the proposal and that a sequential assessment has been carried out. It also requires the proposal to be easily accessible, of an appropriate size and states that it should not harm the vitality or viability of existing centres either by itself or in conjunction with other proposals.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires a sequential assessment for retail development comprising over 2,500 sq m floorspace.
New retail floorspace is not being proposed and the existing floorspace is significantly under the NPPF threshold whilst Unit 4A is currently in retail use. It is considered that a sequential assessment is not required in this case.
Conclusions
Condition 24 of planning permission ref. 03/01807 (subsequently altered) was intended to protect the vitality and viability of Orpington town centre through ensuring that the Nugent Shopping Park did not replicate the function of the town
Page 80 centre. Planning permission was refused following an application for Boots to occupy Unit 20 in September 2010 on grounds that it would undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre. The main issue to be considered in this case is whether the current proposal for Boots to occupy a smaller unit overcomes previous concerns regarding the impact on the town centre.
Unit 20 comprises 1,447 sq m gross floorspace whilst unit 4A comprises 518 sq m gross floorspace. The previous refusal of planning permission partly related to concerns that Boots may leave Orpington town centre following occupation of a large unit at Nugent Shopping Park. The current proposal will see Boots occupying a considerably smaller unit than their town centre store. The application sets out a case that Boots are a retailer committed to town centres and includes details of towns where out-of-centre retail park stores co-exist with town centre stores. It is stated that the store format proposed is intended to compete with supermarkets for the health and beauty market. It is reasonable to accept that Boots are a retailer committed to town centre trading and that the proposal is unlikely to lead to a situation where it would make commercial sense for Boots to pull out of Orpington town centre.
The application indicates that 35% of the trade diversion to the new store would be from Orpington town centre. A proportion of this diversion is likely to be from Tesco and Sainsburys which serve a primary function as grocery retailers and will continue to attract shoppers to the town centre. Whilst there will be likely to be an impact on Orpington town centre it may be considered that this will not be so significant in terms of its vitality and viability as to justify a refusal of planning permission.
Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 10/01762 and 12/03879, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
1 Parking bays shall measure 2.4m x 5m and there shall be a clear space of 6m in front of each space to allow for manoeuvring and these spaces shall be permanently retained as such thereafter. Reason : In order to comply with Appendix II of the Unitary Development Plan and to the interest of pedestrian and vehicular safety. 2 The service yard and turning space shall be kept available for such use at all times and no development whether permitted by the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) or not shall be carried out in the service yard or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to or manoeuvring in the said yard. Reason : Development without adequate servicing facilities is likely to lead to vehicle manoeuvres inconvenient to other road users and be detrimental to the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety in the highway and would not comply with Policy T17 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 81 3 The approved ventilation system including measures to alleviate fumes and odours (and incorporating activated carbon filters where necessary) shall be permanently retained in an efficient working manner. Reason : In order to comply with Policies S9 and ER9 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area. 4 No structure, plant, equipment or machinery shall be placed, erected or installed on or above the roof or on external walls without the prior approval by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. Reason : In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the appearance of the building and the visual amenities of the area. 5 No more than 363 car parking spaces shall be provided within the development in total. A maximum of 321 of these spaces shall be provided for the retail, business and other ancillary uses. Reason : In the interests of highway safety and in accordance with the terms of the original permission. 6 The scheme hereby permitted shall comprise not more than 16,218 sq m of retail floorspace (Class A1 and Class A3/A4/A5) which shall be subject to the following restrictions unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(i) Not more than 6,765 sq m of retail floor space including the floor space covered by (ii) where in Class A1 use and (iii) within this condition shall be used for the sale of retail products without restrictions;
(ii) There shall be no fewer than four smaller units. None of the small units shall exceed 400 sq m in total;
(iii) The sale of food and drink products shall not exceed 1,500 sq metres out of a total of 6,765 sq m detailed in (i) above.
(iv) Apart from Unit 4a, the retail floor space hereby permitted and not falling within (i), (ii) and (iii) above shall not be used for retailing any of the following goods:
(a) food and drink other than for consumption on the premises (b) men’s and women’s fashion clothing and footwear; (c) fashion accessories (d) jewellery (e) cosmetics and toiletries (f) pharmaceutical products (g) pets and pet food (h) toys (i) cameras
(v) Unit 4a shall not be used for the retailing of any of the following goods:-
(a) food and drink (excluding ancillary sales) other than for consumption on the premises (b) men’s and women’s fashion clothing and footwear
Page 82 (c) fashion accessories (d) pets and pet food (e) jewellery. Reason : In order to comply with Policy S7 in the Unitary Development Plan and in accordance with the terms of the permission granted under application ref. 05/03387. 7 No deliveries and/or loading/unloading of goods or the movement of goods from the service areas shall take place outside the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 hours Monday to Fridays and outside 07.30 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays, nor at any times on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason : In the interests of the amenities of local residents. 8 No additional floorspace, roof space or mezzanines (other than that already permitted under this application) shall be provided within any of the retail units hereby permitted without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Reason : In accordance with the terms of the original permission. 9 Retail sales at the units hereby permitted shall not be open for business outside the hours of 07.30 and 22.00 hours Monday to Saturday and for a period of no more than 6 hours between 10.00 and 17.00 hours on Sunday or Bank Holidays. Reason : In the interests of the amenities of the local residents. 10 The premises used for Class A3/A4/A5 purposes hereby permitted shall not open for business other than between the hours of 07.00 and 23.00 hours on any day. Reason : In the interests of the amenities of the local residents. 11 Within the development hereby permitted there shall be a restriction on the size of any one unit, or subdivision or amalgamation, so that the maximum size is no more than 3,000 sq. metres. Reason : In order to prevent overdevelopment of the site and in accordance with the terms of the original permission. 12 The development shall comprise not less than 68 residential dwellings, comprising a mix of one and two bedroom units. Forty percent of these residential dwellings shall be made available as affordable housing units. Reason : In accordance with the terms of the original permission. 13 There should be a floodable void beneath the buildings at the lower end of the site. Reason : To prevent flooding being caused or worsened elsewhere and to reduce damage to property. 14 Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting that order), no wall or other permanent obstruction shall be constructed to obstruct or within any voided area beneath the buildings. Reason : To ensure the voids remain thereafter and thus ensure no significant loss of flood storage or obstruction to flood flow. 15 Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting that order), no wall or other solid boundary treatment shall be constructed within the site that could obstruct flood flows or remove storage for floodwaters. Reason : To ensure no significant loss of flood storage or obstruction to flood flow.
Page 83 Reasons for permission:
In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
S7 Retail and leisure outside existing centres
The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:
(a) the town centres and shopping policies of the Unitary Development Plan (b) the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (c) the vitality and viability of Orpington town centre and having regard to all other matters raised
Page 84 Application:12/03879/VAR Address: Unit 4A Nugent Shopping Park Cray Avenue Orpington BR5 3RP Proposal: Variation of condition 8 of planning permission ref. 07/02689/VAR to allow the sale of pharmaceutical products, cosmetics and toiletries toys and cameras from Unit 4a of the Nugent Shopping Park
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !! !
!! !
!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !! !!!! !! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
1:10,750
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"85 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 86 Agenda Item 4.10
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 13/00071/FULL6 Ward: Cray Valley East
Address : 15 Austin Road Orpington BR5 2BT
OS Grid Ref: E: 546451 N: 167507
Applicant : Ms Layla Lavelle Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Single storey rear and first storey side extensions
Key designations:
Areas of Archaeological Significance Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding
Proposal
The proposal is for a single storey rear and first storey side extensions. The single storey rear extension would extend 3.5m adjacent to the boundary to 17 Austin Road and 1m deeper at 4.5m from the kitchen. A first floor side extension would be introduced and the existing first floor side extension would be extended above the garage.
Location
The site relates to a two storey semi detached property located on the eastern side of Austin Road. The area is characterised by semi-detached single storey and two storey properties.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.
Comments from Consultees
N/a
Planning Considerations
Page 87 The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space
Planning History
No planning history.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
The single storey rear extension would extend 3.5m deep and be a maximum 3.5m high sloping down to a 2.7m eaves. The adjoining property 17 Austin Road is located to the south and therefore there would not be undue loss of light resulting. In terms of outlook, this extension is considered to bring a degree of harm to the patio window of 17, but not enough to warrant refusal on this ground.
A first floor side extension with pitched roof would be introduced. The existing first floor side extension with pitched roof would be extended 1.1m to provide increased first floor accommodation. This aspect is not considered to bring undue harm to the character of the dwelling or streetscene and there would be no amenity issues given its scale and the side window serving a bathroom will be obscured and fixed.
Although a 1m gap to the boundary is maintained at first floor level, the existing ground floor element means that the scheme is to be determined by committee due to its breech with Policy H9 regarding side space. Only a small part of the proposal relating to the bathroom above the garage is contrary to Policy H9. This is considered a marginal allowance and given the reasons discussed above regarding design and amenity, it is deemed a suitable situation to warrant an exception to Policy H9.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 12/00071, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC01R Reason C01
Page 88 4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space
Page 89 Application:13/00071/FULL6 Address: 15 Austin Road Orpington BR5 2BT
Proposal: Single storey rear and first storey side extensions
20
18
3 3 16
12 31
2
y 17
Bd
CR
rd 15
D
1 1 A
st & Wa
O 2 7 R
4
N
1
3 Boro Con 1 EJOH NT L T
IT L
RESCE
C 2
LE 1
RNESDA
BA
2 1 2
12
35
8 33
1 5
0
2 19
16
43
4
1 1
8 1
24
2
2
1
1
3 1
32 34
D
OA R
AUSTIN 21
42
44
4 5
2 4
26
CR 60.8m 20 18 16
14 1:1,180
12
3 4 41 "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"90 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.11
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 13/00146/FULL6 Ward: Chislehurst
Address : 3 Gossington Close Chislehurst BR7 6TG
OS Grid Ref: E: 543927 N: 171560
Applicant : Mr N Patel Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Single storey side/rear extension and raised patio at rear
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds
Proposal
The proposed extension will form an L-shape and project 3.3m beyond the rear existing elevation. A recess situated to the south-western corner of the dwelling will be occupied by the extension. The extension will incorporate a flat roof design and a lantern roof light. The existing patio area will be altered accordingly.
Location
The application dwelling is situated within a 1980's housing estate built within the site of the former Kemnal Manor Lower School. The house is situated within a relatively tightly-clustered cul-de-sac of seven dwellings.
Comments from Local Residents
No representations were received from local residents.
The 'Chislehurst Society' raised the following concerns:
plans do not show proposal in context of neighbouring properties and do not account for changing levels potential adverse visual impact to neighbouring properties
Comments from Consultees
Page 91 Not applicable.
Planning Considerations
Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design; and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties.
Planning History
Planning permission was granted for a first floor side extension under ref. 95/00668.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
The application and neighbouring dwellings follow a staggered arrangement with No. 2 set back in relation to No. 3 and No. 4 set forward. Given the separation between the properties it is not considered that this proposal will so adversely affect neighbouring amenity.The enlarged dwelling will maintain a 1m separation to the southern boundary which will reduce its dominance.
However, it is recognised that the application site is confined with the existing rear garden extending to a depth of approximately 11 metres. The resultant garden depth following the extension will be approximately 8 metres. On balance, the proposal is considered acceptable.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 97/00805, 98/01296, 99/01012, 04/03577, 12/01547 and 12/03620, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC03R Reason C03 4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps
Page 92 Application:13/00146/FULL6 Address: 3 Gossington Close Chislehurst BR7 6TG
Proposal: Single storey side/rear extension and raised patio at rear
47
77.3m
6 4 57
Stone 63
5 72.5m
60
4
6 6
8 6
10
E S
CLO
4
1 2
EC 2 B
N
Y
1 O T 13
4 7
18 SE
16 CLO
N
O
8
T 15
ING 1 BEE S CHW S
9 O OD RIS GO 1 SE 14 O E
CL 10 1
RT
5 7
3
STEWA 1
11
6 1 3
7 15 2
1:940BUCKING 16 H "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"93 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 94 Agenda Item 4.12
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 13/00155/FULL6 Ward: Cray Valley West
Address : 42 Clarendon Way Chislehurst BR7 6RF
OS Grid Ref: E: 546016 N: 168603
Applicant : Mr Irmantas Sukevicius Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Single storey rear extension, front entrance porch and side and rear elevational alterations RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds
Proposal
The proposal is for a single storey rear extension, front entrance porch and side and rear elevational alterations. RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION.
The single storey rear extension is 3.3m high with a flat roof and extends 4.2m from the existing rear wall. Decking would be built flush with the ground level of the dwelling but raised 400mm up from the ground level. Elevational alterations include replacement windows on each side elevation.
Location
Site relates to a two storey detached property located on south side of Clarendon Way. Detached properties of similar size but of varying design characterise the area.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
size of rear extension appears excessive and out of keeping with neighbouring properties. the view from the patio of 44 is limited to a large brick wall.
Page 95 due to siting on higher ground the extension reduces light to patio of 44 in late afternoon and early evening. harms visual amenity of neighbouring properties due to its size and width within a relatively narrow plot. the fact that this is retrospective should not be a factor in determining its acceptability. depth of extension presents an adverse visual impact to No. 40 which is exacerbated by removal of shrubs to boundary. roof could be used as a balcony and result in overlooking. raised decking would result in overlooking.
Comments from Consultees
None
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions
Planning History
The dwelling has been extended to the rear at single storey level ref. 19/70/1706 and later extended at first floor level under refs.64162 and 90354.
In 2012, a part one/two storey rear extension and front porch was refused for the following reason; ‘The proposed extension would, by reason of its excessive first floor rearward projection, have a seriously detrimental effect on the daylighting to the No.40 and No.44 Clarendon Way and the prospect which the occupants of those dwelling might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan’
In 2012, front boundary wall, piers, railings and sliding gates was refused under ref. 12/03518.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the impact the rear extension has on the character of the area and the amenity of the neighbouring properties at Nos. 40 and 44 Clarendon Way.
The reason for refusal of the recent two storey rear extension referred to the ‘excessive first floor rearward projection’. However, the previous plans indicated a 4m deep extension and this one proposes the retention of one 4.2m deep.
The orientation of the dwellings to the south suggests that there would not be an undue loss of light resulting from the single storey rear extension. The key issue is
Page 96 outlook and visual impact and the extent that this extension harms that from Nos. 40 and 44. No.40 is located to the west of the application site and is sited some 8m forward of No. 42. This results in an existing poor relationship to the rear with No. 40 presented with the flank of No. 42. No. 40 benefits from a large open garden and southerly aspect that provides views across the garden from the large kitchen window and patio area. This outlook has been improved by the removal of several high hedges and trees in the application site which to a degree offset any harm caused by the rear extension. The proposed extension with flat roof it is not considered to bring an undue amount of additional harm to the outlook of 40 Clarendon Way.
No. 44 to the east follows a similar building line to the application site and therefore the existing relationship between the two is better. The single storey rear extension is set against the blank elevation of a single storey rear extension of No. 44. Concerns have been raised that the view from this patio is limited to a brick wall. However, this is only the case when looking directly towards the application site, instead of down the garden. The projection past the rear walls of No. 44 is not considered significant enough to harm the amenities of this property in terms of outlook or loss of light.
Concerns over the use of the roof of the single storey extension as a balcony is not indicated on plan but can be controlled by condition.
An area of raised decking would be constructed directly outside the rear extension. This would be raised 400mm from the ground level. Each boundary to Nos. 40 and 44 is served by a 1.7m high fence which would mean there would result in overlooking from this decking into the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties.
The front covered porch area is considered to be in keeping with the design and propositions of the existing dwelling. Other alterations include replacement side windows with like for like which are considered acceptable.
Overall, on balance although there will be some impact to neighbours, it is considered that whilst the single storey extension is deep at 4.2m, it is not considered to result in an undue loss of light or outlook to the neighbouring properties given the limited height and the properties orientation to the south. The only reason for refusal identified would be from the raised decking to the rear which would result in overlooking into the rear gardens of these properties.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 13/00155 and 12/03522, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 17.01.2013
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED
The reasons for refusal are:
Page 97 1 The proposed raised decking to the rear would give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy and amenity to the occupiers of Nos. 40 and 44 Clardendon Way thus contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 98 Application:13/00155/FULL6 Address: 42 Clarendon Way Chislehurst BR7 6RF
Proposal: Single storey rear extension, front entrance porch and side and rear elevational alterations RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
17a
s
g
n FW
Rosal wn thi a r l
d
Fa 17 1 0 87.6m oa Creswick r Segundo
8 B
4
F
F 8a
y 88.0m 8
Bd
174
d 1 3 2 9 W Crayhurst 172 F 170 War 168 a 168
88.5m 164
2 219
88.3m 1 FF
158
86.5m 156
152
43
55 Und 79.5m El Sub Sta 59
Ward Bdy
R 7 C 19
El
ub Sta 3 2a FF
1
2
3 2
71
8 3
CR
3
2 4
FW
83
2 5
CLA 2 6 RENDON
WAY
9
4 2 6
NE AVENUE
R 1
IMBO W 6 74
ENDON CLOSE
44 5
38 CLAR
1 9 9
6 36
CLAREN 13 DO
N GREEN 30 89
RAVENS
B
URY ROAD 21
87
12
79 Po
75
77 4 27
a 2 4
1
4 1
SE 11 O
CL S 35
2
UER 1
CHEQ
26
30 7 43
12
38 13 11 7 53
CR 63 48 75
WI
MBORN 25
2 E AV
ENUE KEVIN 1:1,840
GTON
1
1
14
0 5
34 "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"99 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 100 Agenda Item 4.13
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 13/00205/FULL1 Ward: Darwin
Address : 69 Leaves Green Road Keston BR2 6DE
OS Grid Ref: E: 541705 N: 162490
Applicant : Mr Craig Butt Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling.
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Noise Contours Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Green Belt London City Airport Safeguarding London Distributor Roads
Proposal
Planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling. Measurements taken from the drawings submitted indicate that the proposed dwelling would measure 9.3m wide, a maximum of 14.6m deep and minimum of 12.5m deep by 6.2m high as a maximum.
At ground floor there would be a living room/ kitchen and dining room and study with three bedrooms and bathrooms at first floor.
Location
The application site is located on the eastern edge of Leaves Green Road and comprises a detached single storey dwelling with garage building to the rear. The site is designated as part of the Metropolitan Green Belt, with open fields to the rear (east), although Leaves Green Road is developed on both sides with residential dwellings in varying architectural styles.
Comments from Local Residents
In line with normal procedure nearby properties were notified and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
Page 101 external appearance of the dwelling is not in-keeping. two storey dwelling is not in-keeping. disagree that the existing bungalow is of limited architectural value. precedents for replacement dwellings have already been refused. contravenes Policy G5.
The full text of correspondence received is available to view on file.
Comments from Consultees
Comments from Waste state that refuse and recycling should be left on the edge of curb for collection.
Thames Water raise no objection with regard to surface water drainage and sewerage infrastructure.
Comments from Drainage recommend standard conditions.
There are no Highway objections, subject to standard conditions.
Environmental Health raise no objections, subject to conditions.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space G1 Green Belt G5 Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open Land T3 Parking T18 Road Safety
London Plan 2011
National Planning Policy Framework
Planning History
There is no planning history.
Conclusions
The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt, and the main issues are; firstly, whether the proposals comprise inappropriate development, and if so, whether very special circumstances exist that clearly outweigh the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm; and secondly, whether the
Page 102 proposals would be harmful to the character or appearance of the surrounding area, or detrimental to the amenities of nearby residential properties.
The application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt, where Policy G5 states that
‘Where a building is in residential use in the Green Belt, the Council will permit its replacement by a new dwelling providing that:’ i) The resultant building (including garaging and accommodation below ground) does not result in a material net increase in floor area compared with the existing dwelling as ascertained by external measurement; and ii) The size, siting, materials and design of the replacement dwelling and any associated works (such as boundary fences or walls) does not harm visual amenities or the open or rural character of the locality.
The text to this policy (para 8.27) defines a material net increase as 10% over the existing building, depending on design issues and also states that existing building will include any development or ancillary building which are within 5m.
Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that “local authorities should regard the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt…with the exception of replacement buildings, where they are in the same use and not materially larger than the one they replace”.
The applicant has stated that the dwelling could be extended under permitted development, by way of a single storey rear extension, side extension and loft conversion. Including the existing garage to the rear (set 3.5m away from the dwelling) the proposals have a potential floor area of 169 square metres, which allowing for a 10% increase would create a total floor area of 185.9 square metres. The proposed replacement dwelling has a floor area of 185 square metres or 0.9m2 less than the extended existing dwelling.
Whilst the dwelling has not been extended utilising permitted development, the applicant has stated that the proposed replacement makes improvements in openness and is of a high quality design. As such, Members may considered that the proposals would accord with Policy G5 and that the replacement dwelling is therefore acceptable in principle.
Policy BE1 seeks to achieve high standards of design, whilst paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that “great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in the area”.
The existing dwelling is of limited architectural merit and there is no objection to its demolition and replacement in principle. Members will note that the proposed dwelling is of a striking, contemporary design incorporating large areas of glazing and with crisp detailing, which can be considered to be innovative and high quality which provide a light weight appearance.
Page 103 It is also considered important to consider the application in context, whilst in the Green Belt, Leaves Green Road is developed along both sides with varying house types and sizes, representing a ribbon development connecting Keston to the North with Biggin Hill to the south.
The existing bungalow is built up to the boundary on one side with a very large detached garage set to the rear, visually filling the plot width. The proposed dwelling would involve the demolition of the garage and inset of the dwelling a minimum of 1m in from each boundary (increasing to a maximum of 1.2m depending on the point of measurement due to the changing boundary line). This would allow for clear gaps down each flank therefore improving the spatial standards of the site and is considered to accord with Policy H9. The block plan provided also shows that the dwelling would have a footprint equal to or indeed smaller than those of adjacent dwellings.
The massing of the first floor is reduced by the use of a frameless glazed link, effectively a corridor linking two cuboid forms. This is considered to significantly reduce the bulk of the first floor and would allow for clear views though the site towards the mature trees which line the rear boundary.
Although the dwelling would now be two storeys and measure 0.8m higher than the existing dwelling, the dwelling would continue the pattern of declining roof heights from north to south. As such, it is considered that the height of the dwelling is acceptable.
With regard to amenity, the extension would project 0.6m forward of no. 67 and 0.8m forward of no. 71. These projections are considered minimal, especially where this relates to the external frame of the building, with the main walls inset. The projection forward would not disrupt the building line in Leaves Green Road, which is staggered in any event.
No. 67 has a single storey rear extension across half the rear elevation, resulting in an L shaped dwelling. Where the dwelling would project 4.2m rearward beyond part of no. 67 but be inset 3.8m from the furthest rear elevation of the dwelling. Taking into account boundary screening and distance from the boundaries, it is considered that the proposals would not result in a loss of amenity.
It is considered that no significant trees would be harmed by the proposals.
Members may agree that on balance, the proposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and that planning permission should be granted. The proposed dwelling is considered as making a positive contribution to the streetscene and would not appear as disproportionate or harmful the visual amenities of the area, specifically there would be an improvement in side space, and demolition of the unattractive garage.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 13/00205, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Page 104 Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACC08 Satisfactory materials (all surfaces) ACC08R Reason C08 4 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ADD02R Reason D02 5 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 6 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 7 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 8 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 9 At any time the noise level, from the mechanical ventilation plant, in terms of dB(A) shall be 5 decibels below the relevant minimum background noise level, (LA90(15mins), measured at any 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. (Thus if the predicted noise level is 40dB(A) from the plant alone, and, the plant has a tonal nature, the 40dB(A) shall be increased to 45dB(A) for comparison with the background level. Also the L90 spectra can be used to help determine whether the plant will be perceived as tonal.) Reason : In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of nearby residential property. 10 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space G1 Green Belt G5 Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open Land T3 Parking T18 Road Safety
INFORMATIVE(S)
1 Before the use commences, the Applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Environmental Health & Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Applicant should also ensure compliance with the Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites Code of Practice 2008 which is available on the Bromley web site.
Page 105 2 If during the works on site any suspected contamination is encountered, Environmental Health should be contacted immediately. The contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Authority for approval in writing.
3 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the reponsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).
If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.
Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL
Page 106 Application:13/00205/FULL1 Address: 69 Leaves Green Road Keston BR2 6DE
Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling.
Cherry Orchard Westlea
B L A Sharuhen C Meadow View KNESS 128.0m LAN La Casetta 48
LittleAcre 120.4mE Hazelbank 4
Four Squares 3
Lyncot The Dell
Appledore Green Banks Seaview Hedgeways
60 Primrose Cottage 60a
ir 129.2m nast 62 5
Mo 5
Ringstead Longlands 59 66
Kenilworth Cottage
Vale Cottage El Sub Sta
KimberleyFarm
126.6m
68 73
AD
RO N 0 7 REE G
LEAVES 87
LB
MP
1
0 1
98
136.1m 1:2,210
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and) should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"107 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 108 Agenda Item 4.14
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 13/00355/FULL6 Ward: Chelsfield And Pratts Bottom
Address : 41 Oxenden Wood Road Orpington BR6 6HP
OS Grid Ref: E: 546978 N: 163653
Applicant : Mrs F Noronha Objections : NO
Description of Development:
First floor side extension and roof alterations
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Open Space Deficiency Urban Open Space
Proposal
The property is to be extended by 4.0m to the side of the dwelling, creating a first floor above the existing single storey side section of the house. The roof will be hipped with a cat-slide roof and will retain a side space of 0.95m to the side boundary. The extension will have a length of 8.3m, with the front wall set marginally behind the main building line of the house. The roof alterations include front and rear rooflights to provide light to the roof accommodation. No raising of the roof ridge height is proposed.
Location
This property is located on the south western side of Oxenden Wood Road. The site currently comprises a large detached two storey dwelling. The area is characterised by similar large houses set within large and spacious plots.
Comments from Local Residents
Page 109 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.
Comments from Consultees
None.
Planning Considerations
Policies relevant to the consideration of this application are BE1 (Design of New Development), H8 (Residential Extensions) and H9 (Side Space) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The Council’s adopted SPG guidance is also a consideration.
Planning History
Planning permission was granted under ref. 84/02071 for a two storey side extension and single storey side extension. This development has been completed.
A planning application for a first floor side extension and roof alterations was withdrawn under ref. 12/03948.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
The proposal is contrary to side space policy as it would retain a 0.95m side space to the flank boundary. The dwelling will retain a 1.85m separation to the flank wall of No. 43 as this neighbouring property is also sited 0.9m from the flank boundary. Although less than the required 1m, the provision of an additional 5cm of side space needed to comply with the policy would not be considered to result in a substantial improvement to the appearance of the dwelling within the street scene. The resulting 1.85m separation between the two buildings is considered not to result in a significantly detrimental impact on the character of the area and although the first floor space between the two buildings would be eroded, on balance it is considered that the proposal would not result in a cramped form of development and would not impact harmfully on the spatial standards of the area, which is characterised by large dwellings sited within plots with minimum side space. The provision of a lowered eaves level cat-slide roof to the side elevation is also considered to alleviate this impact to a degree.
There is a projecting single storey section of the house which includes the chimney, and this is sited closer to the flank boundary, with a separation of 0.35m. This section of the house may also be considered to erode the space between the buildings, however on balance it is considered that the sloped roof would reduce bulk close to the flank boundary and that adequate space will be achieved at first floor level between the dwellings to prevent a cramped appearance.
Page 110 The design of the extension is considered to match the architectural style of the house, incorporating a hipped roof and matching features. The roof alterations would provide rooflights to the front and rear elevations. The extension would give the house an asymmetrical appearance which may be considered to add interest to the dwelling’s appearance, and is considered to be sympathetically designed to accord with the character of the host dwelling.
The proposal would not project to the front or rear of the neighbouring property at No. 43 and there are no first floor side windows that would look onto the proposed development. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not harm the amenities of these neighbouring properties. Similarly, the proposed rooflights will not result in significant further overlooking or loss of privacy to neighbouring rear gardens over and above that already experienced from the first floor rear windows.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significantly harmful impact on the character of the area and would not impact harmfully on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/03948 and 13/00355, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI10 Side space (1 insert) 0.95m north-western ACI10R Reason I10 4 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) flank extension ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 5 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason : In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of the nearby residential properties.
Reasons for granting permission:
In granting planning permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space
Page 111 The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:
(a) the impact on the character of the surrounding area (b) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties, including light, prospect and privacy (c) the spatial standards to which the area is at present developed and having regard to all other matters raised.
Page 112 Application:13/00355/FULL6 Address: 41 Oxenden Wood Road Orpington BR6 6HP
Proposal: First floor side extension and roof alterations !
!
! ! !
!
1:3,770
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"113 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 114 Agenda Item 4.15
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 13/00374/FULL6 Ward: Farnborough And Crofton
Address : 2 Ferndale Way Orpington BR6 7EL
OS Grid Ref: E: 544909 N: 164305
Applicant : Mr S Rowshankish Objections : YES
Description of Development:
First floor side extension
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding
Proposal
This corner property currently has a 5.4m wide single storey side extension on its southern side, which provides a 1.5m gap to the side boundary with Durrant Way.
It is proposed to add a first floor extension over part of the existing side extension, which would be set in 1.5m from the southern flank wall of the ground floor extension, thus giving a separation to the boundary at first floor level of 3m.
Location
This two storey semi-detached property is located on a corner plot adjacent to Durrant Way, and its large ground floor extension gives it a prominent appearance in the street scene.
The opposite side of Ferndale Way contains detached bungalows, with other semi- detached two storey dwellings in the close vicinity.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
overlarge extension which would be out of character with the surrounding area
Page 115 property may used for multi occupancy which would add pressure to parking in the close vicinity.
Local ward councillors have expressed support for the proposals.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space
Planning History
Single storey side extensions to this property were granted under refs. 83/01200 and 09/03540, and have been built.
Permission was refused in October 2012 (ref.12/02570) for the erection of a first floor side extension which extended over the full width of the ground floor extension, on the following grounds:
“The proposed extension would, by reason of its size, bulk and close proximity to the side boundary, result in a cramped form of development on this prominent corner site, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.”
Permission was subsequently refused on the same grounds (ref.12/03419) for a revised proposal which set the first floor back 1.2m from the side wall of the ground floor extension. No appeal has been lodged to date.
Conclusions
The main issues in this case are the impact of the revised scheme on the character and spatial standards of the surrounding area and on the amenities of the occupants of nearby residential properties.
The proposed first floor extension would be located on the southern side of the dwelling, away from the adjoining dwelling and adjacent to Durrant Way, therefore, the amenities of adjoining occupiers would not be adversely affected.
The revised scheme involves reducing the width of the first floor side extension by a further 0.3m (since the last refused scheme) so that it would now be set back 3m from the flank boundary with Durrant Way. However, the ground floor would remain at 1.5m from the side boundary, and the extension is still considered to appear cramped and overdominant on this prominent corner plot, and would project significantly further forward than adjacent dwellings in Durrant Way.
Page 116 The proposals are, therefore, considered to result in a cramped form of development which would be detrimental to the spatial standards of the surrounding area.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/02570, 12/03419 and 13/00374, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED
The reasons for refusal are:
1 The proposed extension would, by reason of its size, bulk and close proximity to the side boundary, result in a cramped form of development on this prominent corner site, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 117 Application:13/00374/FULL6 Address: 2 Ferndale Way Orpington BR6 7EL
Proposal: First floor side extension
2
29
27 28 16 2
11 4 5
E AY
S W 15
DALE
N
FER
SAPHORA CLO 4 2
1 2
El Sub Sta 20
DURRANT
WAY 47 6
1
3 3
9 97.4m 1 5
93.8m
89.4m
1:1,000
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"118 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.16
SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration
Application No : 13/00444/FULL1 Ward: Darwin
Address : 305 Main Road Biggin Hill TN16 3JJ
OS Grid Ref: E: 542692 N: 158414
Applicant : Mr Lee Knighting Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Detached two storey 2 bedroom dwelling
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Green Belt London City Airport Safeguarding London Distributor Roads Open Space Deficiency
Proposal
As Members may recall a similar proposal (ref. 12/03203) was presented to Committee on 24th January 2013. The same application has been resubmitted with clarification in relation to the vehicle parking and manoeuvring arrangements within the site. This application seeks to clarify these matters.
The proposed dwelling would be built to the western side of the dwelling at No 305 within an area which currently forms part of the residential curtilage of that property.
The detached house would measure approximately 5.1m (max width) x 8.6 (max depth) and incorporate a staggered design with the rear part of the property being wider. The western flank of the dwelling would be angled – in line further with the boundary line. Dormers would be incorporated within the front and rear roof slopes. A detached outbuilding would be demolished within the proposed rear garden area, whilst access would be shared with the existing property at No 305.
The planning application is accompanied by a vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring diagram. A total of four parking spaces will be provided on site which will serve the existing dwelling at No 305, and the proposed dwelling. This will represent an increase of two spaces in relation to the existing situation.
Page 119 Location
The application site forms part of an existing residential curtilage and is located between two storey residential properties either side. The rear part of the site adjoins the Green Belt.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
loss of light to neighbouring property development will lead to undesirable overlooking lack of off-street parking will compromise highway safety vehicles may obstruct passing traffic and pedestrians using adjoining footpath development encompasses land at rear outside of applicant’s ownership concerns regarding future access rights on to the site refuse bins should be placed within the site for collection to avoid obstructing the footpath discrepancy in the proposal
Any further objections will be reported verbally to Members
Comments from Consultees
From a Highways perspective no objection is raised in principle, subject to conditions, and on the basis that the parking areas associated with the existing and proposed dwellings that this can be designated and be made legally binding.
Planning Considerations
Policies BE1 (Design of New Development), G6 (Land adjoining Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land), H7 (Housing Density and Design), H9 (Side Space), T3 (Parking) and T18 (Road Safety) of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration.
Planning History
Under ref. 05/03010 permission was granted for a single storey rear extension at the existing property at No. 305. That application initially included a new dwelling, although that element of the application was withdrawn.
Under ref. 10/01984, a proposed two storey two bedroom detached house was refused on the following grounds:
“The proposed development would constitute a cramped form of development, out of character with the street scene, conducive to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is at present
Page 120 developed and contrary to Policies H7, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.”
“The proposal would be overdominant and would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of adjacent property at No 303A Main Road might reasonably expect to be able continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect in view of its proximity to the boundary and forward projection, thereby contrary to Policies H7, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.”
A subsequent application, ref. 11/00164 for a similar scheme was withdrawn in order to address highways concerns.
Under ref. 11/01646, a further application for a detached two storey dwelling was refused on the basis that the proposal would constitute a cramped form of development; and on the basis that in the absence of adequate off-street parking and turning area on site, the proposal would lead to parking and reversing on the highway which would lead to a detrimental impact to highway safety.
An appeal was subsequently dismissed in. In considering it the Planning Inspector raised the following points:
Para 9:
“[In the interest of highway safety] I consider that it is necessary to ensure that vehicles can turn round on site…. it was evident that many occupiers had created a turning space in their own front garden. This indicates to me the importance people attach to avoiding the need to reverse on or off the highway. In my view it would require either some form of section 106 obligation or an enforceable condition to ensure that the proposed layout would work satisfactorily. No such mechanism has been presented to me.”
Para 11:
“I conclude that the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable risk to highway safety on a busy distributor route with local hazards and sub-standard visibility on leaving the site.”
Para 12:
“The gap between the side wall of the new house and no.303A would be adequate to avoid a cramped appearance and would be larger than that between this infill pair of semi-detached houses and the terrace on the other side. The scale, form and design of the new house would reflect these aspects of nos. 305 & 307. The siting would be set back to ensure that the established development continued to make a positive contribution to the street scene.”
Para 13:
Page 121 “I consider that the principle of an infill dwelling of the type and siting proposed would be acceptable. However, I am concerned at some apparent inconsistencies on the revised drawing.”
Para 15:
“Consequently, while I do not object to the principle of the proposal, I conclude that the revised drawing fails to demonstrate a satisfactory outcome for the character and appearance of the street scene and area.”
Para17:
“I consider that the effect of the proposal on living conditions in adjoining properties would not be enough to warrant the withholding of planning permission for this reason, or to add significant weight to my findings on the main issues.”
As noted above a recent planning application, ref 12/03203 was refused on 24 January, on the following ground:
“The proposal would lead to dangerous vehicle manoeuvres onto the highway and would be prejudicial to conditions of general highway safety, contrary to Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.”
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area, the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties, and its impact on highway safety.
As Members will note, a 2011 application (ref. 11/01646) was refused by the Council on the basis that it would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site, and that the proposal would adversely affect highway safety as this would lead to parking and reversing on the highway. At the subsequent appeal, the Inspector principally raised concerns in respect of the highway safety implications, since it would be “necessary to ensure that vehicles can turn round on site… [and that] it would require either some form of section 106 obligation or an enforceable condition to ensure that the proposed layout would work satisfactorily.” No such mechanism was presented. The Inspector also raised doubts in respect of apparent inconsistencies in the plan, although he considered that the principle of an infill dwelling of the type and siting proposed would be acceptable, and that the effect of the proposal on living conditions in adjoining properties would not be enough to warrant the withholding of planning permission for this reason.
In comparison to the above refused application, the siting, layout and design of the proposal have been amended. It is considered that this will enhance vehicle manoeuvrability on site, although any permission should be subject to a legal agreement, involving a variation in the Deeds of the existing and proposed dwellings to ensure that shared access is available to both properties on a permanent basis, irrespective of their ownership. In addition, given the location of
Page 122 the development deliveries should be undertaken outside of the peak hour, so a construction management plan will be required.
In terms of its design and impact on local character this proposal incorporates a minimum 1.0m separation to the western (flank) boundary which is considered acceptable, taking into consideration local spatial characteristics. Furthermore, it is considered that the overall width of the plot means that the principle of an infill dwelling of the type and siting proposed would be acceptable. Finally, taking into account the siting and design of the proposed dwelling it is not considered that the amenities of No 303A will be so adversely affected as to warrant refusal.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/03010, 10/01984, 11/00164, 11/01646, 12/03203 and 13/00444, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 17.12.2012
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A LEGAL AGREEMENT and the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACI09 Side space (1 metre) (1 insert) western ACI09R Reason I09 3 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details Reason : To comply with Policies BE1 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan to secure a visually satisfying setting for the development, and to differentiate parking and turning areas associated with the existing and proposed dwellings in the interest of highway safety. 4 ACA08 Boundary enclosures - implementation ACA08R Reason A08 5 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01 6 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 7 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) first floor western dwelling ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 8 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 9 ACH09 Restriction on height to front and flank ACH09R Reason H09 10 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 11 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 12 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E
Page 123 Reason : To control future development on this site and prevent an overdevelopment, in accordance with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Reasons for permission:
In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development G6 Land adjoining Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space
The development is considered satisfactory in relation to the following:
(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relation of the development to the adjacent property; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties.
INFORMATIVE(S)
1 You should consult the Land Charges and Street Naming/Numbering Section at the Civic Centre on 020 8313 4742 or e-mail: [email protected] regarding Street Naming and Numbering.
2 You should contact extension 4621 (020 8313 4621 direct line) at the Environmental Services Department at the Civic Centre with regard to the laying out of the crossover(s) and/or reinstatement of the existing crossover(s) as footway. A fee is payable for the estimate for the work which is refundable when the crossover (or other work) is carried out. A form to apply for an estimate for the work can be obtained by telephoning the Highways Customer Services Desk on the above number.
3 Any reposition, alteration and/or adjustment to street furniture or Statutory Undertaker’s apparatus, considered necessary and practical to help with the forming of vehicular crossover hereby permitted, shall be undertaken at the cost of the applicant.
Page 124 Application:13/00444/FULL1 Address: 305 Main Road Biggin Hill TN16 3JJ
Proposal: Detached two storey 2 bedroom dwelling
Tr
a ck
289
303 3a 205.2m 30
305
307
282
0
9 2
0a
29
92 2
0
94 2 30
El Sub Sta
Fern 1:7801
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"125 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 126 Agenda Item 4.17
Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT
Application No : 12/03949/FULL6 Ward: Chislehurst
Address : Oak Trees Walden Road Chislehurst BR7 5DL
OS Grid Ref: E: 543078 N: 170868
Applicant : Mr Graham Bentley Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Front and side/rear extensions with the creation of first floor to form two storey dwelling house and elevational alterations
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds
Proposal
Permission is sought for a side and front extension, a side and rear extension and the creation of a first floor set over the resulting footprint to form a two storey dwelling house with associated elevational alterations.
The side/rear extension is set behind the existing single storey garage to the western elevation and does not project beyond the existing rear wall or closer to the boundary. This element has a depth of 4.1 metres and a width of 3.3 metres.
The front extension is set to the front of the existing garage with a width of 3.2 metres and a depth of 2.7 metres. This element projects forward of the current bay window to the eastern edge of the front elevation by around 1 metre and the enlargement is retained as a garage. The roof of this enlargement is utilised as a front balcony area for the proposed first floor addition.
The first floor occupies the full footprint of the existing dwelling and the side/rear extension and features a hipped roof with a cat slide design to the western boundary with a projecting gable feature to the front elevation. No first floor flank windows are proposed with a side space of 1.1 metres retained to the eastern boundary and between 0.931 metres and 0.9 metres to the western boundary.
Page 127 Location
The application site is located to the northern edge of Walden Road to the west of the junction with Grove Vale and opposite the junction with Sandy Ridge. The site features a single storey detached dwelling with a single storey attached garage to the western elevation. The area itself has no defined character, with the adjacent property at ’Amberley’ being a previously extended two storey dwelling, however the main feature is of good sized two storey detached dwellings.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
the residents of 1 Grove Vale have raised concerns at the blocking of light to that property and there will be overlooking.
Comments from Consultees
No technical consultations were undertaken for this application.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extension H9 Side Space NE7 Development and Trees T3 Parking
Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2
Planning History
Application ref. 85/01303 granted permission for a single storey side extension.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.
At ground floor level the proposal seeks to enlarge the footprint of the existing dwelling to the front and rear of the previously permitted single storey garage, with
Page 128 the building line to the rear maintained and the front elevation seeing a small forward projection. To the rear this enlargement projects some 1.6 metres beyond the rear wall of ‘Amberley’ to the western boundary. This increase in footprint is not considered in itself to result in harm to the character of the area or the amenities of the neighbouring residents.
The introduction of a first floor would represent a large degree of additional scale above the existing dwelling. However, it is considered that the host dwelling is the exception to the rule within the area in terms of its single storey nature and so would not be out of character within the streetscene. The design of the resulting property is considered to sit well within the wider context, for which there is no common vernacular, and the use of a cat-slide roof to the boundary with ‘Amberley’ reduces the impact to the daylight received and the outlook of the residents of that property.
The proposal to the western elevation maintains the existing side spaces which, at 0.931 metres to the front and 0.9 metres to the rear, falls short of the 1 metre expected by the Council under Policy H9. It is noted, however, that the roof design to this boundary results in an eaves height below that of ‘Amberley’ and the high level windows at that properties eastern first floor flank elevation. As a result it is not considered that any substantial degree of daylight would be lost and, given the level of side space that is provided and the overall design, the impression of terracing would be avoided.
Concerns have been raised by the residents of 1 Grove Vale as to loss of daylight and overlooking. However, no flank windows are proposed to the eastern first floor elevation that would result in overlooking and it is not considered that any overlooking would result from the first floor rear windows. With regard to daylight received, No.1 is set some 24 metres from the eastern flank elevation of the application dwelling to the south east and as a result of the level of separation and orientation of the properties, it is not considered that any loss of light would result to the residents of No.1 or No.2 which also adjoins the site to this boundary. A balcony is proposed to the front elevation, however due to its location it is not considered that any overlooking would result to neighbouring residents.
A mature Oak is present to the front garden, although this is not protected, as well as a number of trees to the eastern boundary that add amenity value and screening to the area and the site. The proposed works are not considered to result in damage to these trees, with additional hardstanding being added to the front of the curtilage. It is considered that the health of the oak can be protected by way of condition
It is therefore considered that on balance the proposed development is acceptable, in that it would not be harmful to the character of the area, be detrimental to the streetscene or harmful to the amenities, daylight or prospect of neighbouring residents.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 12/03949, excluding exempt information.
Page 129 RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op. ACB01R Reason B01 3 ACB16 Trees - no excavation ACB16R Reason B16 4 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 6 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 7 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) eastern or western first floor flank development ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 8 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC01R Reason C01 9 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extension H9 Side Space NE7 Development and Trees T3 Parking
Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2
INFORMATIVE(S)
1 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).
If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.
Page 130 Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL
Page 131 Application:12/03949/FULL6 Address: Oak Trees Walden Road Chislehurst BR7 5DL
Proposal: Front and side/rear extensions with the creation of first floor to form two storey dwelling house and elevational alterations
6
ALE
2 4
GROVE V
East Lodge
Amberley Oak Trees LB
1
7
5 92.0m
3
0 46
El Sub Sta 21
91.0m 11
1:900
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"132 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.18
Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT
Application No : 12/04018/FULL1 Ward: Chislehurst
Address : Beaverwood School For Girls Beaverwood Road Chislehurst BR7 6HE
OS Grid Ref: E: 545368 N: 170915
Applicant : Beaverwood School For Girls Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Demolition of existing attached single storey teaching block and erection of two storey extension for Learning Resource Centre
Key designations: Conservation Area: Chislehurst Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area Green Belt London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds Sites of Interest for Nat. Conservation
Proposal
It is proposed to demolish an existing single storey classroom ‘wing’ (c1950s construction) and construct a two storey replacement to provide a new Learning Resource Centre on the ground floor (together with cleaner cupboard, private study room and disabled WC), and a lecture theatre on the first floor (together with office). The full details of the proposal are as follows:
maximum width 12.1m, maximum depth 15.8m and height of 7.7m hipped roof design materials used in external surfaces and windows similar to existing school building (comprising facing brickwork with quoin and plinth detailing and steel framed windows)
The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which makes the following points in support of the application:
existing block comprises 2 classrooms and an office space for the Humanities Faculty
Page 133 it was constructed in the 1950s and is now in poor condition with many structural and fabric defects with serious issues regarding the flat roof, windows and flooring the existing block is poorly insulated and is not thermally efficient, and the classrooms do not meet current standards proposal will address these shortcomings and construct a building that is suitable for current educational needs proposal will provide state of the art education accommodation and facilities, to promote and enable the individual learning that is required in almost all GCSE and A’ level courses specifically the new facilities will enable the school to offer more students GCSE courses in ICT, Travel & Tourism and Health & Social Care the design is proportionate with other nearby buildings on the site the development will, at two storeys in height, be in keeping with the majority of the existing school buildings although the ridge height will be appreciably lower than ridge height of the main school building the development will closely match the materials and design of the existing building, with a similar roof pitch, use of bonnet hip tiles and similar brickwork detailing underneath cills and at window heads, and with quoin and plinth detailing replicated the development will be subservient to the existing building windows will be steel framed powder coated casements similar to those in the main building, with transom and mullion arrangements to match existing the scheme will enhance the School’s overall thermal performance and provide statutory ventilation levels within the classrooms the new facilities will be accessible for all students, with level access and the inclusion of a lift the development will greatly enhance the learning environment for the School without detriment to the Conservation Area, Green Belt and existing buildings on the site.
Location
The application site is located on the western side of Beaverwood Road, and is host to Beaverwood School for Girls. The site is located within the Chislehurst Conservation Area and the Green Belt, and adjoins open playing fields to the west.
The site measures approx. 4.6ha in area.
Comments from Local Residents
A site notice was displayed, an advertisement published in the local press and the owners/occupiers of properties adjoining the site notified by letter. At the time of writing no representations had been received.
Comments from Consultees
Not applicable.
Page 134 Planning Considerations
The main planning policies against which the application should be considered are as follows:
Unitary Development Plan
BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas G1 The Green Belt C7 Educational and Pre-School Facilities
The London Plan
3.18 Education Facilities 7.16 Green Belt
Chapter 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also of relevance.
From the conservation perspective no objections are raised.
Planning History
There is extensive planning history at the site. Most recently, planning permission was granted for a single storey classroom extension under ref. 09/01570.
Conclusions
The proposed extension will provide enhanced facilities at the school, replacing an existing single storey extension which is no longer fit for purpose. In policy terms, both UDP Policy C7 and London Plan Policy 3.18 offer broad support to such development, and the main issues for consideration in this case will therefore be the impact of the proposed two storey extension on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal is sited well away from the nearest residential properties to the site (Hoblands End) and it is not considered that the amenities of neighbouring residents will be affected in this case.
Regarding the impact on the Green Belt the development will, in accordance with UDP Policy G1, constitute inappropriate development and give rise to harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt ‘in principle’. However, the siting of the extension will be broadly within the envelope of existing built development on the site and it will project no further towards the more open Green Belt land to the west. Whilst the footprint of the extension will be similar to the existing extension to be replaced, the proposal will involve the introduction of first floor accommodation and an increase in height, and will as a result give rise to a limited degree of actual harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. It will therefore be necessary for Members to consider whether the case put forward in support of the development by the Applicant (and summarised at the beginning
Page 135 of the report) will be sufficient to outweigh this actual and ‘in principle’ harm to the Green Belt, and demonstrates very special circumstances to allow planning permission to be granted in this case.
In short, the supporting case put forward by the Applicant states that the existing structure is no longer fit for purpose and has a number of defects (including structural). It is therefore proposed to replace it with a new purpose built facility to meet the current educational needs of the school. The extension has been designed to match the existing school building but will be subservient to it, with a lower roof height and will not encroach further towards the open Green Belt land to the west than the existing two storey development on the school site.
In this case, whilst there will be harm as mentioned above, the siting, size and scale of the development is such that its impact on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt will be limited. The supporting case advanced by the School indicates that the existing extension is no longer fit for purpose, and its replacement is therefore necessary to ensure that the school continues to provide teaching/studying facilities commensurate with current standards. On balance, given the limited degree of actual harm identified in this case, it is considered that the case advanced by the School in support of the development will outweigh the harm to the Green Belt identified and demonstrate very special circumstances to allow planning permission to be granted in this case.
With regard to the impact on the Conservation Area, the extension will be sited at the rear of the main school building and will not be highly visible. The design, materials and scale of the extension are appropriate to the host building and on balance, it is considered that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved in this case.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/04018 and 09/01570, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03
Reasons for granting permission:
In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies:
Unitary Development Plan
Page 136 BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas G1 The Green Belt C7 Educational and Pre-School Facilities
The London Plan
3.18 Education Facilities 7.16 Green Belt
Chapter 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:
(a) the relationship of the development to adjacent property (b) the character of the development in the surrounding area (c) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties (d) the design and conservation policies of the development plan (e) the preservation of the character and appearance of the conservation area (f) the demonstration of very special circumstances to outweigh any harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. and having regard to all other matters raised.
INFORMATIVE(S)
1 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).
If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.
Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL
Page 137 Application:12/04018/FULL1 Address: Beaverwood School For Girls Beaverwood Road Chislehurst BR7 6HE Proposal: Demolition of existing attached single storey teaching block and
erection of two storey extension for Learning Resource Centre
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!! ! !
! !
!! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !!
! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!! ! !
! !! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!! !
! !
! ! ! !
!!
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!!
! !!! !! !
!
! ! !! !
! ! !
!
!
! !! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! 1:12,870
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"138 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.19
Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT
Application No : 13/00115/FULL6 Ward: Cray Valley West
Address : 33 Whitewebbs Way Orpington BR5 2TH
OS Grid Ref: E: 545811 N: 169704
Applicant : Mr Phillip Collins Objections : NO
Description of Development:
First floor side extension
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding London City Airport Safeguarding Birds
Proposal
The proposed extension will be constructed on top of the existing single storey side extension at the house. The extension will have a width of 3.4m and a length of 6.1m. The roof will be hipped and lower than the roof of the house, with a height of 6.7m. The front and rear walls of the proposed extension will be set in from the main walls of the house.
Location
This property is located on the southern side of Whitewebbs Way and forms one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The property is sited on a corner as the road bends around to the east. The area is characterised by semi-detached and terraced two storey dwellings.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.
Comments from Consultees
None.
Page 139 Planning Considerations
Policies relevant to the consideration of this application are BE1 (Design of New Development), H8 (Residential Extensions) and H9 (Side Space) of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The Council’s adopted SPG guidance is also a consideration.
Planning History
Planning permission was refused under refs. 12/01275 and 12/03149 for a first floor side extension. The refusal grounds were as follows:
‘The proposed extension would result in a cramped and over-dominant feature on this elevated site, harmful to the amenities of neighbouring properties, the spatial standards of the area and the streetscene in general, thereby contrary to Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.’
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
This application has been amended from the previously refused applications by dropping the ridge on the first floor side extension to form a hipped roof and reducing the length of the extension, setting it in from the front and rear elevations. It is considered that the reduction in bulk and width would result in a development that is subservient to the main house and would not appear prominently within the street scene as it would not project forward of No. 31.
The property is located in a prominent corner position and in an elevated position over the neighbouring property, No.31 to the north east. It is considered that the reduction in bulk and the increase in separation from No. 31would result in an extension that would not have a harmful effect on this neighbouring property in terms of prospect and light. The facing window will be a bathroom and this can be obscurely glazed and non-opening by way of a condition. The extension will only be obliquely visible from the neighbouring property at No. 31 and the proposal is not considered to result in an oppressive sense of enclosure for this neighbour due to the reductions in bulk and increase in separation.
The proposal does not comply with Policy H9 for side space requirements as the development falls within 1 metre of the flank boundary. The rear point of the single storey side garage is at present within 1m of the side boundary of the site. The loss of side space would not be particularly significant in this location as the first floor would be sited a suitable distance from the boundaries of the site (approximately 2m due to the set in of the first floor from the rear wall of the main house). Although the property is sited on the angle of the road and in an elevated position, due to its
Page 140 subservience the extension is considered not to harm the spatial standards and character of the area.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significantly harmful impact on the character of the area and would not impact harmfully on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. It is therefore recommended that Members grant planning permission.
Additional documents have been received dated 30/01/13 indicating distances of the resulting walls to the site boundaries.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/01275, 12/03149 and 13/00115, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 30.01.2013
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI11 Obscure glaz'g/details of opening (1 in) in the first floor rear elevation ACI11R Reason I11 (1 insert) BE1 4 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason : In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of the nearby residential properties.
Reasons for granting permission:
In granting planning permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space
The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:
(a) the impact on the character of the surrounding area (b) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties, including light, prospect and privacy (c) the spatial standards to which the area is at present developed
Page 141 and having regard to all other matters raised.
Page 142 Application:13/00115/FULL6 Address: 33 Whitewebbs Way Orpington BR5 2TH
Proposal: First floor side extension
14
16
18
FF WAY
WEBBS 13 38 E WHIT
d Bdy
War 54
35 54
2
12
lter e h S
BEDDINGTON ROAD
ILL
H
1 3 OOD W 'S L
AU 1 P ST 1:900 66.4m "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"143 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 144 Agenda Item 4.20
Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT
Application No : 13/00135/FULL1 Ward: Hayes And Coney Hall
Address : 56 Bourne Way Hayes Bromley BR2 7EY
OS Grid Ref: E: 539717 N: 166069
Applicant : BHHQ Ltd Objections : NO
Description of Development:
Single storey extensions, first floor extension for lift. Cladding and elevational alterations, external first floor access provision, resurfacing and laying out of parking area.
Key designations:
Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Local Distributor Roads Open Space Deficiency
Proposal
Single storey and first floor extensions are proposed by this application as well as cladding and elevational alterations, external first floor access provision and the resurfacing and laying out of the parking area.
The proposed extensions are single storey with a flat roof with rooflights design. The second storey element will facilitate the lift facility and is kept to a minimum of built development. The revised access to the first floor accommodation is along part of the new flat roof development. Some replacement windows and cladding are proposed along with a new club sign as part of the elevational alterations.
This application has been submitted following a planning refusal, reference 12/01845, following which the agents undertook a local consultation in order to help address concerns relating to impact on neighbouring amenity and the previous grounds of refusal. The details are available to view on file and whilst the scheme remains of the same substance the revised proposal includes:
General reduction in glazed areas; glazing changed to high level and non-opening; obscure glazing; clarification of fire doors with limited opening; full acoustic enclosure to the air handling plant; PIR operated directional lighting to the building
Page 145 perimeter; low level bollard and directional lighting to parking area; clarification over use of external staircase; additional soft landscaping to site perimeter; clarification of area accessible to wheelchair users; site sections to show relationship to adjacent sites.
Location
The site is accessed from the north side of Bourne Way. Residential lies to the west, south and east of the site and the railway line to the north.
Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received at the time of writing the report.
Comments from Consultees
Network Rail raised no observations.
Highways Drainage advise that surface water will have to be drained to soakaways and suggest planning conditions and an informative in the event of a planning permission.
No technical objections are raised by Thames Water in respect of the proposal and informatives are suggested in the event of a planning permission.
Highways Planning comments note the formalisation and porous surface material of the parking area, the marking out of bays and provision of a turning area to be a marked improvement on the existing situation. Subject to the provision of cycle parking and suggested conditions in the event of a planning permission no highway objection is raised.
No objections are raised from an Environmental Health point of view and informatives are suggested in the event of a planning permission.
No technical objections are raised in respect of cleansing.
Any comments regarding impact on trees will be reported verbally.
Any comments from the Environment Agency will be reported verbally.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the NPPF, the London Plan and following policies of Bromley’s Unitary Development Plan:
BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking L9 Indoor Recreation and Leisure
Page 146 SPG1
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
The use of the site is well established (since 1926) for use by the athletics club and currently has a membership in the region of 850. The planning application form suggests the hours of opening for the proposed non-residential use are 9am-9pm Monday-Friday, 10am - 5pm Saturdays and 10am – 2pm Sundays and Bank Holidays although the supporting statement does reference to the fact that the club are looking to increase the number of private bookings.
The supporting statement submitted with the application states that the proposals will improve facilities as well as make all parts of the site fully accessible for less able bodied athletes. By having enhanced facilities they hope to expand current female numbers and users of other groups such as Pilates and Run England. As well as hoping to attract a larger number of athletes it is hoped the improved facilities will enhance prospects for social/private hire functions. The supporting statement sets out the current levels of use (including private functions) and states that this will largely remain unchanged although it is planned to increase the numbers of private bookings. It should be noted the size of the function room remains unchanged.
Planning policy recognises the importance of the role that leisure and recreation can play in the life of the Borough and is equally concerned that there is no detrimental impact on nearby residential amenity.
As noted there have been a number of previous planning proposals but the agent highlights that the club have allowed planning permission 09/01163 to lapse in order not to have a detrimental impact on current considerations.
The site sits behind residential properties and is set at a slightly lower level. It has a general feel of substantial and mature natural screening; the railway embankment to the north is at a much higher level. In terms of the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity it is noted that the extension is of a flat roof design and the site sits at a lower level than the neighbours to the south and west. The proposed development will be at angles to the site boundaries and will, at its closest, be approximately 7m rising to 14m away from the southern boundary and 4.5m rising to 7.5m from the western boundary.
The previous ground of refusal was concerned with the close proximity and increased noise and disturbance to neighbours of the proposal. It is noted that the footprint of the current scheme remains the same as that refused. Local consultation to identify mitigation measures have been carried out by the applicants and have informed this current proposal. The revisions set out under ‘proposal’ above specifically include non-opening, high level, obscure glazed windows; PIR directional lighting; acoustic enclosure to the air handling plant and
Page 147 additional soft landscaping to the boundary. The site has a level of existing, mature natural screening; combined with enhanced planting proposals it may be considered that although the development will be visible from the nearby dwellings the visual impacts arising therefrom are not unduly significant. Whilst the design is of a flat roof it does not appear to sit uncomfortably with the host building. Equally a new external material is to be introduced by the way of an element of cedar cladding. This will sit comfortably alongside the existing brick finish.
In respect of any potential noise and overlooking the revised plans indicate acoustic measures for associated plant and non-opening, high level, obscure glazed windows where relevant. The planning history of the site indicates the acceptance of increased development at the site. There is no record with Environmental Health that suggests the site raises any neighbour nuisance. The intention seems to be to make the facilities more attractive to a wider membership base and to enhance the booking attraction of the existing function room. There do not seem to be any existing planning restrictions from this point of view and this element of the use could be safeguarded by Environmental Health legislation.
The proposed formalisation and porous surface material of the parking area, the marking out of bays and provision of a turning area are considered, from a highways point of view, to be a marked improvement on the existing situation.
The proposed development will be liable to a payment under the Mayoral CIL. An informative is suggested in the event of a planning permission.
Having had regard to the above Members may consider given the planning history, that the combination of the Environmental Health history, the lower levels of the site, the low level design approach, overlooking and noise mitigation measures and that no neighbour objections have been received to the revised proposals that, on balance, the revisions to the scheme will ensure that the proposal will not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor cause such harm to the character of the area as to warrant a planning refusal.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 13/00135, 12/01845 and 09/01163, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION
Subject to the following conditions:
1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACC07 Materials as set out in application ACC07R Reason C07 4 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ADD02R Reason D02 5 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt
Page 148 ADD04R Reason D04 6 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 7 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 8 Before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, bicycle parking (including covered storage facilities where appropriate) shall be provided for 20 cycles at the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the bicycle parking/storage facilities shall be permanently retained thereafter. ACH22R Reason H22 9 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29 10 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32 11 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) to the south-east and south-west elevations ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) BE1 12 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC01R Reason C01 13 Details of an acoustic air plant enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted and permanently maintained thereafter. Reason : In the interest of nearby residential and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 14 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps
Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking L9 Indoor Recreation and Leisure
SPG1
INFORMATIVE(S)
1 Before the use commences the Applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Environmental Health & Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Applicant should also ensure compliance with the Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites Code of Practice 2008 which is available on the Bromley web site.
If during works on site any suspected contamination is encountered Environmental Health should be contacted immediately. The contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Authority for approval in writing.
Page 149 2 Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.
3 Legal changes under The Water Industry (Scheme for the Adoption of private sewers) Regulations 2011 mean that the sections of pipes you share with your neighbours, or are situated outside of your property boundary which connect to a public sewer are likely to have transferred to Thames Water's ownership. Should your proposed building work fall within 3 metres of these pipes we recommend you contact Thames Water to discuss their status in more detail and to determine if a building over / near to agreement is required. You can contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777 or for more information please visit our website at www.thameswater.co.uk
4 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).
If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.
Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL
Page 150 Application:13/00135/FULL1 Address: 56 Bourne Way Hayes Bromley BR2 7EY
Proposal: Single storey extensions, first floor extension for lift. Cladding and elevational alterations, external first floor access provision, resurfacing and laying out of parking area.
!
!
!
1:2,750
"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"151 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 152 Agenda Item 4.21
Section ‘4’ - Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS
Application No : 12/03989/FULL6 Ward: Crystal Palace
Address : 10 Lansdowne Place Anerley London SE19 2UQ
OS Grid Ref: E: 533563 N: 170307
Applicant : Mr & Mrs Owen and Avni Pringle Objections : YES
Description of Development:
First floor rear extension
Key designations: Conservation Area: Belvedere Road Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding
Proposal
Planning permission is sought for a first floor extension which will sit above an existing single storey extension at the rear to provide an additional bedroom and the opportunity to re-organise the internal space to meet the applicant’s requirements for their growing family.
The extension would be approx. 3.8m in length and 4.5m wide. The ridge height of the extension would sit marginally lower than the main roof and the rear wall would be set approx. 0.2m from the rear boundary. No windows are proposed in the rear wall but two new Velux style rooflights are proposed on the northern roofslope. The external finish of the extension will comprise slate roof tiles and yellow London stock brickwork to match existing.
Location
The application site comprises a unique part one/two storey detached building formally a Coach House which was converted into residential in the 1980s. The building fully extends up to its boundaries to properties at the rear in Tudor Road and directly adjacent to the footway in Lansdowne Place. There is a small enclosed courtyard amenity area to the host dwelling at the rear and there is no provision for on-site parking.
Page 153 The site lies within the Belvedere Road Conservation Area. The character of Belvedere Road Conservation Area is one that is derived from harmonious diversity: seldom are any neighbouring buildings identical. The designs and materials employed vary throughout the area, which contains a mixture of densely developed terraces and spaciously laid out detached and semi detached properties.
Comments from Local Residents
Letters of objection have bee received from adjoining residents in Tudor Road to rear which can be summarised as follows:
the enjoyment of the garden by the occupiers of Flat 1, 18 Tudor Road would be compromised by the location of the extension and its windows and would lead to a feeling of being boxed in by its height and proximity, the proposed development would impact upon natural daylight and outlook, the development would only be approx. 7.7m away from the furthest window to Flat 1 the Coach House is very restricted and unable to accommodate additional development, increase in the prospect for overlooking into adjacent gardens, the extension will cause significant harm to the existing character and appearance of the building when viewed from the street, disrupting the historic design, rhythm, scale and massing of the building, the development would impact upon the setting of No.8 Lansdowne Place which is a locally listed building, the extension would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the Belvedere Conservation Area.
Comments from Consultees
Environmental Health (Housing): The accommodation, capable of family occupation is considered to:
result in overcrowding i.e. inadequate bedroom size due to low ceiling height, provide a lack of minimum recommended external recreational space for family occupation, provide inadequate outlook from windows free from obstruction and not solely of sky or a single structure such as a flank elevation or brick wall, provide inadequate natural daylight to existing rooms and means of escape in the event of a fire (access from bedrooms through open plan living room/kitchen).
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan, The London Plan and National Planning Policy Guidance:
Page 154 BE1 Design of New Development BE10 Locally Listed Buildings BE11 Conservation Areas H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space
Belvedere Road Conservation Area - Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 & 2
National Planning Policy Framework
Planning History
Under planning ref. 86/01180, permission was granted for the conversion of the Coach House for residential use. Conditions imposed on the grant of this permission include the removal of permitted development rights and the use of the garage for no other purpose other than the accommodation of private motor vehicles ancillary to the residential use of the building. It should be noted that the garages has been internally converted into a kitchen.
Under planning ref. 06/03724, permission was granted for a single storey rear extension.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area, whether the development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
The application site is a unique residential conversion set within an area of buildings of various types but which lies behind large four storey development in Tudor Road. The constraints of the site heavily restrict the opportunity to extend the property further. Due to the size of the plot, there is no space around the building. The building is already constructed on its boundaries. Given the planning history of the site, the building has already expanded internally through the conversion of the garage and construction of a single storey rear extension. The proposed extension to provide a 2nd/3rd bedroom would result in a family dwelling with extremely limited private amenity space. The extended dwelling whilst allowing for a re-configuration of internal space is still considered from an Environmental Health point of view to result in overcrowding/lack of space (including external space), inadequate natural lighting and outlook and inadequate means of escape in a fire. The constraints of the site and its relationship to neighbouring properties restrict the provision of a quality family development to overcome these concerns, e.g. provision of windows with adequate outlook other than sky. As such it is considered that the proposed extension would constitute a cramped form of overdevelopment, harmful to the character of the area and contrary to the Housing objectives in the UDP which seek to maintain and enhance the quality of the residential environment and promote sustainable residential quality.
Page 155 With regard to the impact of the proposal upon the Belvedere Road Conservation Area, the Council have a duty to ensure that any new development in such areas will either seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposed extension, although located at the rear of the building, will clearly be seen from the public realm. The nature of the built form varies greatly in this part of the conservation area, however Policy BE11 in UDP requires new development to respect or complement the layout, scale, form and materials of existing buildings and spaces. Although the building does not form part of a uniform terrace of similarly designed buildings, the space about buildings and its organic form contribute to the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area. The proposed extension would increase the bulk of development on the site impacting upon the space about the building at first floor level which would further reduce the sense of separation with the adjoining development in Tudor Road and would fail to either preserve or enhance the conservation area.
With regard to local concern regarding impact of the proposal upon No.8 Lansdowne Road which is a locally listed building, it is considered that given the reasonable degree of separation been the proposed development and No.8 that it would not have a serious impact upon its historic interest or setting.
Turning to the impact upon residential amenity, it is considered that the occupiers of properties in Tudor Road would be most affected by the proposal. It is considered that the orientation of the rooflights would directly face into the private rear garden space of No.16. The potential for overlooking is greatly increased by the fact that these windows provide the only source of light, ventilation and outlook for the extension. The proposed extension would also bring development at first floor level much closer to the flats at No.18. Windows in the rear aspect of No.18 generally serve bedrooms but the presence of the development will be visually dominant when viewed from these windows. Furthermore, given the proximity of the development, it is considered that the bulk of the extension and increased height of the rear wall directly on the boundary will greatly increase the sense of enclosure which would impact upon the living conditions of the family occupying the garden flat and use of that outdoor space.
Daylight diagrams have been submitted by the agent to demonstrate that the shading impact of the proposed extension would be minimal. Given the orientation of the properties, natural daylight to the rear garden on No.18 is limited in the afternoon. It is acknowledged that sunlight may be affected by the proposal.
Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is not acceptable in that it would result in an unacceptable cramped form of development be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residents and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Belvedere Conservation Area.
In the event of planning permission being granted, it is noted that this development would not be CIL liable (Community Infrastructure Levy).
Page 156 Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 86/01180, 06/03724 and 12/03989, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED
The reasons for refusal are:
1 The proposal represents a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the restrictive nature of the plot and lack of separation to the property boundary, which would be out of character, harmful to the amenities of the area and the character and appearance of the Belvedere Road Conservation Area in general, contrary to Policies H8, H9, BE1 and BE11 in the Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance for Belvedere Road Conservation Area.
2 The proposed first floor extension by reason of its size, siting, positioning of windows and location in close proximity to the adjoining properties in Tudor Road would result in a visually dominant form of development and would be seriously detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of No.16 and 18 may reasonably expect to continue to enjoy in terms of visual impact, overshadowing, loss of privacy and prospect contrary to Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 157 Application:12/03989/FULL6 Address: 10 Lansdowne Place Anerley London SE19 2UQ
Proposal: First floor rear extension 8
1
0 6 1
hland Lodge
2
1
7 to 7
1:260 4 2 "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"158 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 4.22
Section ‘4’ - Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS
Application No : 13/00270/FULL1 Ward: Bromley Common And Keston
Address : 58 Gravel Road Bromley BR2 8PF
OS Grid Ref: E: 542230 N: 165805
Applicant : Mr And Mrs Butcher Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two storey replacement dwelling.
Key designations: Conservation Area: Bromley Hayes And Keston Commons Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Local Distributor Roads
Proposal
This scheme proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow and replacement with a two storey detached dwelling, with associated off-street parking. The application site offers a road frontage and a rear garden approximately 25m in length. The front section of the dwelling has been set at an angle in response to the street scene. A 1 m side space is proposed to the south boundary, increasing to 2 m at the rear; 2 m side space is proposed to the north boundary decreasing to 1m at the rear. The design proposed references Georgian style detailing.
Location
The application site is located on the west side of Gravel Road. The site forms part of the wider Bromley, Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area. On the corner of Cross Road and Gravel Road stands the locally listed ‘Bird in Hand’ Public House. A mix of detached and semi-detached two storey (mostly residential) development is characteristic of the wider area, with two storey dwellings located to the north and south of the application site. To the south of the site is 60 Gravel Road, a locally listed 1830 restored house. To the north of the site is a two storey dwelling which sits at an angle to the road frontage and features bay windows to the front elevation and an l-shape configuration to the rear elevation.
Page 159 Comments from Local Residents
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
the building is not a suitable replacement and will be unacceptable in a Conservation Area demolition involves boundary walls which belong to 56 replacement will affect highway safety difference in site levels and proposed bulk and length affect lighting to 56 any replacement dwelling should be in keeping
Comments from Consultees
From a Conservation point of view concerns are raised in respect of the dominance of the proposed replacement building in the street scene and its impact on the adjacent locally listed building.
No Highway Planning concerns are raised to the proposal although conditions are suggested in the event of a planning permission.
Environmental Health raise no objection and suggest relevant informatives in the event of a planning permission.
Cleansing note that refuse and recycling should be left edge of curtilage.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with the NPPF, the London Plan and the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:
H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas BE12 Demolition T3 Parking T18 Road Safety
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for Bromley, Hayes and Keston Commons – Conservation Area Statement SPG 1 – General Design Principles SPG 2 – Residential Design Guidance
Planning History
A planning application was submitted, ref. 12/00420 for the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of two storey 3 bedroom replacement dwelling with accommodation in the roof space. This was refused for the following reasons:
Page 160 The proposed design and size of the replacement building would harm the character and appearance of this part of the Bromley, Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would be detrimental to the prospect and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of No. 56 Gravel Road by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect, overshadowing and loss of privacy which the replacement dwelling would engender, thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
An accompanying application ref. 12/00550 for Conservation Area Consent was also refused for the following reason:
In the absence of a suitable replacement scheme, it would be premature to grant consent for the demolition of the existing building, contrary to Policy BE12 of the Unitary Development Plan.
A planning appeal was submitted which was subsequently refused. The Inspector came to the view that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers but found that the design of the proposed dwelling would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Conclusions
The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.
In respect of the first issue the particular concerns raised by the Planning Inspector commented ‘… the largely featureless façade would look out of place in the street, particularly because the house would have no obvious entrance …’. It is noted that the current design does allow for an active frontage onto the street. However, the Inspector also raised concerns in respect of the size of the house in relation to the plot, the bulk of the dwelling and its overbearing presence in the street scene which did not reflect the surrounding buildings in that part of the conservation area.
The agent’s supporting statement considers that by addressing the bulk and angle of the dwelling it ensures that the property does not appear as an overbearing presence within the street and the current scheme successfully addresses the Inspector’s concerns. However, this part of the Conservation Area contains a small group of buildings and the SPG notes that ‘the architectural character is understated and traditional’. The proposed replacement dwelling is of a neo- classical style which will be very conspicuous in the streetscape. It is also considered to detract from the locally listed building at no.60 by attempting to reference its classical style but in a more dominant way. Additionally, the sidespace is also limited and actually less than the previously refused scheme on the boundary with no.60.
Page 161 The planning history acknowledges that the Council have not raised an objection to the loss of the building per se rather it is concerned that the design of any replacement dwelling is sensitive to the ‘understated and traditional’ character of the area within which is sits.
Neighbour objections continue to be raised in respect of the impact of the bulk and ‘added length’ of the proposed new dwelling and that it will ‘inhibit the light amenity’. As noted above the Council previously raised a refusal ground in respect of detrimental impact on neighbouring amenity. The Planning Inspector noted however, that ‘whilst the proposed house would be appreciably larger than the existing bungalow, the loss of light to No.56 and its garden, which otherwise enjoys largely open aspects, would be marginal. For the same reason, there would be no appreciable increase in visual domination’. Whilst there will clearly be some impact on neighbouring amenity, given that the Inspector’s decision is a material consideration, it may be considered that it is not so great as to warrant a planning refusal ground.
Neighbour objections relating to highway safety are also raised however a 1m high boundary fence is proposed and no objection has been raised by the highway engineer in this respect.
Neighbour comments raised in respect of the boundary wall are a private civil matter. It is noted that Certificate A has been signed and submitted in relation to the planning application.
Having had regard to the above, whilst it is clear the current scheme has been amended from that previously refused, it is considered that the development in the manner proposed has not sufficiently addressed the previous grounds of refusal and the development would thereby fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In the event of a planning permission it should be noted that this proposal is potentially CIL liable.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/00420, 12/00550, 13/00270 and 13/00271, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED
The reasons for refusal are:
1 The proposed design and size of the replacement building would harm the character and appearance of this part of the Bromley, Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 162 Application:13/00270/FULL1 Address: 58 Gravel Road Bromley BR2 8PF
Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two storey
replacement dwelling. 3
Middle House 2
1 South House
LANGH AM C LO SE 18
5m 1 Camerton
2
2
21
Wetherby 44 6
2 3
14
Hall CHE RRY 2 akhurst B ORCH
romley Common 10
48 Bap
1 t 1 i WEALD st Ch Manse
CL 29 OSE
8m 6
76. Thornbury 1 Glebe 1
0
5
3a
3
b 39
78.5m
PH 5 5a 13 21 62
29 1a 3 31
CROSS ROAD
5
2
4 OAD
8 1 34
0 R 4
70 5 1 AVEL R G
1
5
3 CLOSE 2 1 S 3
VE
a O 55 12 El D St b
6
7 Su
7 7 80
BARNET DRIVE
16
1 6
E LIMES
3 8 9 1:1,550
60 "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"163 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. This page is left intentionally blank
Page 164 Agenda Item 4.23
Section ‘4’ - Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS
Application No : 13/00271/CAC Ward: Bromley Common And Keston
Address : 58 Gravel Road Bromley BR2 8PF
OS Grid Ref: E: 542230 N: 165805
Applicant : Mr And Mrs Butcher Objections : YES
Description of Development:
Demolition of existing bungalow CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT.
Key designations: Conservation Area: Bromley Hayes And Keston Commons Biggin Hill Safeguarding Birds Aldersmead Road Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area London City Airport Safeguarding Local Distributor Roads
Proposal
This application seeks Conservation Area Consent for demolition of existing buildings.
An accompanying application (ref.13/00270) proposes the erection of a replacement two storey dwelling.
Location
The application site is located on the west side of Gravel Road. The site forms part of the wider Bromley, Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area. On the corner of Cross Road and Gravel Road stands the locally listed ‘Bird in Hand’ Public House. A mix of detached and semi-detached two storey (mostly residential) development is characteristic of the wider area, with two storey dwellings located to the north and south of the application site. To the south of the site is 60 Gravel Road, a locally listed 1830 restored house. To the north of the site is a two storey dwelling which sits at an angle to the road frontage and features bay windows to the front elevation and an l-shape configuration to the rear elevation.
Comments from Local Residents
Page 165 Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations were received which can be summarised as follows:
the building is not a suitable replacement and will be unacceptable in a Conservation Area demolition involves boundary walls which belong to 56 any replacement dwelling should be in keeping
Comments from Consultees
From a Conservation point of view concerns are raised in respect of the dominance of the proposed replacement building in the street scene and its impact on the adjacent locally listed building.
Planning Considerations
The application falls to be determined in accordance with S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that conservation area. The following policies of the Unitary Development Plan are further considerations:
BE9 Conservation Areas Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for Bromley, Hayes and Keston Commons – Conservation Area Statement
All other material considerations shall also be taken into account.
Planning History
A planning application was submitted, ref. 12/00420 for the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of two storey 3 bedroom replacement dwelling with accommodation in the roof space. This was refused for the following reasons:
The proposed design and size of the replacement building would harm the character and appearance of this part of the Bromley, Hayes and Keston Commons Conservation Area and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would be detrimental to the prospect and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of No. 56 Gravel Road by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect, overshadowing and loss of privacy which the replacement dwelling would engender, thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
An accompanying application ref. 12/00550 for Conservation Area Consent was also refused for the following reason:
Page 166 In the absence of a suitable replacement scheme, it would be premature to grant consent for the demolition of the existing building, contrary to Policy BE12 of the Unitary Development Plan.
A planning appeal was submitted which was subsequently refused. The Inspector came to the view that the proposal would not adversely affect the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers but found that the design of the proposed dwelling would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. As a result of the absence of a suitable scheme for a new building on the site, Appeal B (for Conservation Area Consent) also failed.
Conclusions
The main issue relating to this application is the effect that the demolition of the building would have on the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the above policies, national and regional planning guidance, all other material planning considerations including any objections, other representations and relevant planning history on the site were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.
No planning objection is specifically raised to the demolition proposed and therefore, its loss would not be resisted where an acceptable scheme for redevelopment exists. However, the proposed scheme submitted under ref.13/00270 is not considered acceptable, therefore, the granting of Conservation Area Consent in this instance would be premature.
Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/00420, 12/00550, 13/00270 and 13/00271, excluding exempt information.
RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED
The reasons for refusal are:
1 In the absence of a suitable replacement scheme, it would be premature to grant consent for the part demolition of the existing building, contrary to Policy BE12 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Page 167 Application:13/00271/CAC Address: 58 Gravel Road Bromley BR2 8PF
Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalow CONSERVATION AREA
CONSENT. 3
Middle House 2
1 South House
LANGH AM C LO SE 18
5m 1 Camerton
2
2
21
Wetherby 44 6
2 3
14
Hall CHE RRY 2 akhurst B ORCH
romley Common 10
48 Bap
1 t 1 i WEALD st Ch Manse
CL 29 OSE
8m 6
76. Thornbury 1 Glebe 1
0
5
3a
3
b 39
78.5m
PH 5 5a 13 21 62
29 1a 3 31
CROSS ROAD
5
2
4 OAD
8 1 34
0 R 4
70 5 1 AVEL R G
1
5
3 CLOSE 2 1 S 3
VE
a O 55 12 El D St b
6
7 Su
7 7 80
BARNET DRIVE
16
1 6
E LIMES
3 8 9 1:1,550
60 "This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the applicationPage site"168 © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661. Agenda Item 5.1
Report No. London Borough of Bromley
DRR13/042 PART ONE - PUBLIC
Decision Maker: PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 3
Date: Thursday 21 March 2013 Decision Type: Non-Urgent Non-Executive Non-Key
Title : THE RAVENSBOURNE SCHOOL, HAYES LANE, BROMLEY.
Contact Officer: Tim Bloomfield, Development Control Manager Tel: 020 8313 4687 E-mail: [email protected]
Chief Officer: Chief Planner
Ward: Bromley Town;
1. Reason for report
Blue plastic screening displaying the school name has been affixed to an existing fence around a hard surfaced sports area. Although the fence has been in situ for several years the screen enclosure requires planning permission due to its height in excess of 2m. Complaints have been received about the appearance and visual impact of the screening.
______
2. RECOMMENDATION
No further action
1 Page 169 3. COMMENTARY
3.1 The site comprises a tarmac sports area, approximately 24m x 39m, centrally located within the school grounds. Around the pitch is a green wire mesh fence approx. 3.1m high. Complaint has been made concerning blue plastic sheeting of similar height secured to the north-west and south-east fencing. The blue colour scheme reflects the schools colours and bears the name of the school “The Ravensbourne School” in large letters on each side.
3.2 The school business manager stated the main purpose of the screen is to provide privacy for pupils engaged in sport on the pitch, to act as a wind break and to concentrate players’ attention on the pitch.
3.3 A planning application was requested for the screens, being in excess of 2m in height, and for advertisement consent as they bear the school logo.
3.4 The matter was subsequently discussed on site with the school’s business manager. It was noted that the nearest houses are approx. 200m away from the screen on the far side of the sports field and at an angle such that the screen is not directly in the line of sight. The screens have been turned round so that the school name now faces inwards. Although the name is still visible it is not so prominent. Part of the screening is visible from Hayes Lane but is partly shielded from view by mature vegetation.
3.5 The visual impact of the screens is not considered to be significant given the situation within the extensive school grounds and the distance from the nearest residential dwellings is sufficient to minimise any loss of visual amenity. The visual impact could be reduced if the screens were a darker green colour further but the school wishes to retain the blue screens in the school colour.
3.6 On balance it is concluded that it would not be expedient to take enforcement action.
Non -Applicable Sections: Policy, Financial, Legal and Personnel Implications Background Documents: (Access via Contact Officer)
ENF/EN/12/00693
2 Page 170