SECTION „1‟...2008/10/09 · 1 LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY TOWN PLANNING RENEWAL AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Committee (SC) on 9th October 2008 REPORT OF …

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

TOWN PLANNING

RENEWAL AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

Committee (SC) on 9th October 2008 REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER SECTION „1‟ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley

_______________________

1. Application No : 08/02612/FULL1 Ward:

Bromley Town

Address : Central Library High Street Bromley

BR1 1EX

Conservation Area:

Bromley Town Centre

OS Grid Ref: E: 540217 N: 169118

Applicant : Bromley Central Library (Mr John

Wilkins)

Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Alterations to main entrance doors

Proposal The application site lies on the west side of Bromley High Street within the Bromley Town Conservation Area. The application seeks planning permission for alterations to the entrance foyer of the Central Library. The alterations involve the removal of the existing library entrance doors and their replacement with two outward opening double doors and an automatic revolving door.

Consultations

2

Heritage and Urban Design and the Advisory Panel on Conservation Areas have raised no objections to the proposals. A letter of support has been received from The Bromley Civic Society.

Planning Considerations Policies of the Unitary Development Plan including BE1and C3 are relevant to the determination of this application. The Policy BE1 requires that development respects the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings and areas; and that the development respects the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy C3 seeks to support the Disability Discrimination Act by following the national requirements by encouraging provision of appropriate access to and facilities in public buildings for people with restricted mobility. Such improvements will also benefit other groups, particularly the elderly and those with children. Relevant London Plan Policies: Policy 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment Policy 3A.17 Addressing the needs of a diverse population

Conclusions The impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area in general is considered acceptable. The proposal has been designed to complement the existing entrance foyer of the library by using materials matching the existing faзade. The proposal is considered acceptable in this location and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 05/00287, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 The materials and finish of the doors are to match the existing doors and

framework.

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

3 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policy (UDP) BE1 Design and New Development

_______________________

3

SECTION „2‟ - Applications meriting special consideration

_______________________

2. Application No : 07/04603/FULL6 Ward :

Penge And Cator

Address : 10 Woodbastwick Road London SE26

5LQ

Conservation Area:

Cator Road

OS Grid Ref: E: 535923 N: 170987

Applicant : H Muhammad Objections : YES


Extension to existing single storey extension and rear decking (PART

RETROSPECTIVE)

Proposal The application site is a semi-detached dwelling situated within a predominantly residential area of similar storey semi-detached dwellings. The area is part of the Cator Road conservation area which is defined in the adopted Unitary Development Plan as a Victorian suburban development of large detached houses. The application seeks approval for an extension to an existing single storey rear extension and retrospective permission for existing timber decking. The rear extension would infill an area below the projecting flat roof canopy section of the existing extension resulting in an overall rear projection of 3.5 metres. Revised plans were received proposing the insertion of windows in both flank walls of the existing extension.

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

reference made to plans approved and conditions imposed on original application

query over why approval is being sought for something which was disallowed in original application

query over whether decking will be extended further

4

reference made to fence height being raised and loss of light caused by this

strongly object to further extension

loss of privacy

overlooking from decking

current roof extension has affected views from neighbouring property, privacy and daylight

neighbouring dwelling set further back and below level of application site making current development stand out and over shadow garden and privacy. Further infill extension will exasperate situation

reference made to side extension and need for planning permission

development not in nature with other properties

plans do not show how far decking is intended to stretch

extending the decking further than existing will require another heightening of the fence to preserve privacy

Bromley Council would effectively be permitting an extension of over 4 metres which would break all planning records for acceptance for a semi-detached property

inconsistency with decking in revised plan

rendering and painting of walls has never been carried out From a heritage and urban design point of view, given the location of the extension and decking it is unlikely that this proposal will detrimentally impact the character or appearance of the Cator Road Conservation Area.

Planning Considerations Policies BE1, BE11 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design, safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the area and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. History

Retrospective planning permission was granted for the single storey rear and rear dormer extensions under ref. 06/03919. A condition was placed on this permission stating that:

The rear elevation shall be permanently maintained as shown on the approved plans and the overhanging roof shall not be enclosed by any flank or rear walls.

Further to this, rear decking was constructed which the applicants have included in the current application. It is alleged that a single storey side extension has also been built. However, this is being investigated as a separate matter. A boundary fence over 2m high has also been erected adjacent to No. 8. This too is under separate investigation.

Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it has on the character of the area and the impact that it has on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

5

The development is at the rear and the property is semi-detached and does not therefore typify the character of houses in the conservation area as defined in the UDP. It is therefore not considered that neither the proposed infill extension nor the decking has a significant impact on the character or appearance of the area. The proposed infill would amount to a total rear projection of 3.5m, as scaled from the rear of the original dwelling. This is what the Council usually considers acceptable on a semi-detached property. There is a separation of approximately 4m between the flank wall of the extension and No.12 and even given the height difference between the properties (No.12 is on a lower level) it is considered that no significant loss of light or outlook would occur as a result of the infill extension. The rear of the dwellings in this part of the road are all south facing so, generally speaking, benefit from a reasonable period of sunlight throughout the day which would not be significantly affected by the development. With regard to overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings, the decking sits level with the base of the extension and appears to project out a further metre from the rear elevation before descending into steps. However, there is a discrepancy between the proposed floor plan and the proposed flank elevation. It is not clear whether the existing decking would be extended further back once the infill extension was constructed. Revised plans were requested clarifying this but, to date, these have not been received. In any case it is considered that the decking, as a whole, but particularly nearest to the extension presents unwelcome opportunity for overlooking into neighbouring properties, particularly given its proximity to the flank boundaries of the site. Notwithstanding the condition which was placed on the original permission, restricting the infilling of the overhanging roof, members must decide, in light of the merits of the current application, whether this infill extension together with the decking warrants refusal. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/03919 and 07/04603, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 27.05.2008 28.08.2008

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are: 1 The decking gives rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of

privacy and amenity to the occupiers of the adjacent properties, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The provision of flank windows in the existing single storey rear extension would

give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy and amenity to the occupiers of the adjacent properties, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Further recommendation: Enforcement action authorised to seek the removal of the decking.

6

_______________________


Bromley Town

Address : Enterprise House 45 Homesdale Road

Bromley BR2 9LY

Conservation Area:NO

OS Grid Ref: E: 541149 N: 168322

Applicant : London & Quadrant Housing Trust Objections : YES


Block between two and six storeys high with semi-basement parking area

comprising 82 flats (21 one bedroom/ 55 two bedroom/ 6 three bedroom) with 82

car parking spaces/ cycle parking/ refuse storage

Members will recall that this item was previously considered by the Plans Sub-Committee on 14

th August 2008 but was deferred over concerns about its overall height

and bulk. The previous report is updated as appropriate. The scheme has been amended in the light of Members‟ concerns. The main changes following deferral are:

reduction in units from 90 to 82 flats, so as to reduce the bulk of the building.

reduction in height by one storey so at its highest point the building is 6 storeys (rather than 7), reducing to 2; it is the central taller element that has been reduced by a storey. The applicants make the point that the existing building, being designed for office use, has a greater floor to distance height than is necessary for residential development. Thus with reduced storey heights (2.85m as opposed to 3.5m) it is possible to accommodate more storeys of accommodation, without increasing the overall height of the building.

parking provision is adjusted to maintain the 1:1 provision. This has allowed an increase in the provision of amenity area.

the new tenure mix is 37.66% affordable whereas the previous plans proposed 36.33%.

The site is located on the northern side of Homesdale Road, adjacent to the Currys retail warehouse to the west and a four storey office building to the north-east at No.47 Homesdale Road (also currently subject of a planning application). Opposite is Garrard House and Sussex House, both office blocks, which are both subject of a current application for residential development. Permission was previously granted in 2006 at Garrard House for 69 flats. The application site comprises an office building known as Enterprise House which has, according to the applicants, been vacant for some time. The existing building dates from the late 1970s / early 1980s and contains parking at ground level under the building for approximately 40 vehicles with access from Woldham Road. Immediately

7

abutting the rear of the site is Woldham Place comprising modern two storey semi-detached and terraced residential properties. The existing building is a concrete framed structure clad with brick facades and has a seam metal roof. The existing car parking provision extends to the rear boundary of the property and abuts the gardens of the homes to the rear. This application seeks to demolish the existing office building and construct a new block of between two and six storeys high with semi-basement parking. The revised plans propose 82 flats as apposed to 90 previously proposed. The breakdown of the units is as follows: 21 one bedroom, 55 two bedroom and 6 three bedroom flats with 82 car parking spaces (a ratio of 1:1). Members may recall that a previous application on this site was considered by a Plans Sub-committee on 26

th April 2007 for a conversion of the existing office building into

residential use to comprise a total of 62 flats including 20 flats for shared ownership and parking for 62 cars (ref. 07/00171). Members were minded to approve permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement to ensure the provision of affordable housing and to obtain contributions for health and education infrastructure. However the legal agreement has not been signed and consequently permission has not been granted for this scheme. The current application is accompanied by a detailed design and access statement demonstrating the design principles of the development and setting out how it is considered by the applicants that it accords with planning policy and the local context of surrounding development. It is argued that the previous conversion scheme (ref. 07/00171) would be poorly laid out, with single aspect homes that would look into a small central courtyard and that there would be poor light penetration into the units. As the existing building was designed for office use, it is argued by the applicants that it is not well disposed for a residential conversion. It is argued that to make the best use of the site, the existing building should be demolished and a new building constructed to meet and exceed the latest standards in environmental and residential design. Arguably the principle of housing on the site and consequent loss of office uses has been established by the previous application as the Plans Sub-Committee was minded to grant permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement. Evidence in relation to that earlier application stated that Enterprise House was no longer viable as an office building for the following reasons:

demand for a single building of this size in Bromley is extremely limited and historical evidence indicates that such a letting would be unlikely, even in the medium to long term;

the location of Enterprise House is now secondary being on the edge of the town centre within what is now a predominantly residential area;

a full scale refurbishment would be needed in order to attract a prospective tenant and such expenditure could not be justified. Disposal by way of sub-division of the building might result in an earlier take up of some of the space but the individual floor plates are too large and would need to be broken down into separate distinct areas;

the tight parking provision can also restrict demand, particularly against a backdrop of the limited on street parking availability.

Consultations

8

Letters of objection have been received both in relation to the original and revised plans by a occupiers of properties in the vicinity including those in Woldham Road and Woldham Place, summarised as follows:

overdevelopment of the site: proposal too high and bulky; excessive size in terms of density, height and footprint

number of units excessive

loss of privacy and overshadowing to neighbouring properties

a seven storey building would be too high in close proximity to residential properties

severe loss of light to neighbouring properties

offices only used Monday to Friday whereas residential proposal would be used all the time resulting in constant overlooking, disturbance and loss of privacy

the overall size and bulk would affect natural daylight to the properties in Woldham Place

increased noise and air pollution by additional cars on the site

increase in traffic likely to result in increased demand for on-street parking and impact upon highway safety as Homesdale Road is already heavily used and prone to congestion

light pollution emanating from the building and car parking areas

concern over location of refuse bins and potential bin odours affecting adjoining residents

noise during construction would cause severe disruption No technical highway objections are raised in principle to the proposal and the number of parking spaces provided closely accords with the requirements of the Unitary Development Plan for a site in this location of moderate accessibility. Various detailed comments are made and conditions suggested including one relating to the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Environmental Health states that PPS23 requires that all applications for sensitive development on land where there is potential for contamination should be accompanied by a Phase I Risk Assessment.

From a drainage point of view, the site is within an area in which the Environment Agency requires restrictions on the rate of discharge of surface water from new developments into the river Ravensbourne or its tributaries. Accordingly a condition should be imposed on any permission to ensure that details are submitted for approval prior to commencement of any development. From a planning policy point of view, it is considered that this scheme represents a significant improvement over the earlier scheme (ref. 07/00171) in terms of accommodation. It is also stated that financial contributions should be sought in relation to health and education provision. The Housing Department fully supports the scheme as the provision of affordable housing exceeds that required by Policy H2 of the UDP. It is in excess of the 35% affordable housing requirement. Detailed comments are made relating to amenity space, design and quality standards, lifetime homes requirements, wheelchair standard housing which are available on file for Members‟ inspection. The RSL for this application are London and Quadrant Housing Trust which is one of the Council‟s preferred development partners.

9

Planning Considerations In considering the application the following UDP Policies are relevant: H2 - Affordable Housing H5 - Accessible Housing H7 - Housing Density & Design BE1 - Design of New Development T3 - Parking T18 - Road Safety ER4 - Sustainable and Energy Efficient development ER8 - Noise Pollution IMP1 - Planning Obligations

The following London Plan policies are relevant: 3A.1 - Increasing London‟s Supply of Housing 3A.2 - Borough Housing Targets 3A.3 - Maximising potential of sites 3A.5 - Housing Choice 4B.1 - Design principles for a compact city 4B.8 - Respect local context and communities National Guidance as follows is also relevant, in particular the following: PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing

Conclusions Members will need to consider carefully whether the revised proposals comply with relevant development plan policies, specifically those within the Bromley Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan. The main issues in this case are whether residential development is acceptable in this location, the impact of the proposals on the amenities of adjacent occupiers and on the parking and traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity and the visual impact of the new block on the locality and street scene. The site falls within the built up area of Bromley and is not allocated for any defined use within the UDP nor are there any site specific policy designations restricting development on the site. Thus, in principle, the site could potentially accommodate some form of redevelopment subject, of course, to compliance with other relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Although the residential development of this site could be considered to result in a loss of office space and an employment generating use, this has to be considered against the support in principle for making the most efficient use of land for housing in sustainable urban locations. It is not considered that the current state of the site makes a particularly positive contribution to the area or that it would be unduly harmed by new development as long as any proposal takes account of residential amenities of the locality.

10

There are constraints on the site: for example the proximity of the existing residential dwellings especially in Woldham Place and a development of the scale proposed would clearly have implications for amenity for existing residents. That said, the principle of residential redevelopment and loss of office space has already effectively been established by the Plans Sub-Committee‟s decision to grant permission for a previous residential conversion scheme subject to the completion of a legal agreement. The evidence relating to the marketing of the site and the unsuitability of the offices for modern requirements was accepted in that case. In these circumstances, it is considered that a residential development is acceptable in principle, although it is regrettable that an employment use would be lost. The local context of the site comprises a mix of flatted and housing residential development alongside a mix of commercial uses and as such there is no predominant character in this location. The block itself is undoubtedly quite substantial, rising at its highest point to six (previously seven) storeys. However the applicants argue that the proposal has been carefully designed to reduce the appearance of overall bulk, and to take account of nearby properties. For example the building has been split into three distinct and separate volumes of different character to reduce the overall appearance of bulk. The middle section is tallest, although it is set back from Homesdale Road. The other two blocks either side are lower, with different materials and fenestration, thus breaking up the building into separate elements. The rear of the building has been designed to relate to the dwellings to the rear of the site in two ways. First, the building is stepped back progressively on the upper floors, away from the residential properties to the rear. This means that the overlooking to those properties should be reduced as well as the overall visual impact of the block. Secondly, the centre „finger‟ of the building which stretches to the rear of the site takes up only a third of the width of the rear boundary in contrast to the existing building, and arguably may appear less overbearing in relation to those properties. The proposed new building is also set at a greater distance from the properties to the rear than the existing building thus reducing its visual impact from the properties in Woldham Place. The applicants argue therefore that the relationship between the proposal and properties to the rear is an improvement on the existing situation and also an improvement on the previously submitted scheme. In addition, the roof terraces of the new building are proposed to be lined with privacy schemes to prevent overlooking. It is acknowledged that the occupiers in Woldham Place to the rear of the building would be mostly affected by the proposed residential development in that the presence of the future residential occupiers of Enterprise House may be more apparent, as compared to the office use of the existing building which operates between certain hours predominantly on weekdays. Nevertheless the applicants have attempted, as outlined above to mitigate any additional impact in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy through „stepping back‟ of the rear part of the building and the provision of privacy screens to roof top garden terrace areas. In terms of the design, it the block is of an uncompromisingly modern design, using contemporary materials and does not seek to replicate existing buildings in the vicinity. However UDP Policy BE1 does not require new buildings to replicate existing ones but advocates amongst other things that new development should be imaginative and attractive to look at, provided that the amenity of the adjacent properties is safeguarded. Given the varying styles and comparable building heights of properties in this location, the applicants state that the block should not have a detrimental impact on

11

either the visual amenities of the street scene or the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. No highway objections have been raised in principle and the parking provision is considered acceptable in this location and would adequately meet the needs of the development. Detailed information has been provided in relation to how the building will incorporate renewable energy and resource efficiency measures, in accordance with Policy ER4. For example it is proposed to use renewable energy sources (including solar panels and ground source heat pumps) to provide on site renewable energy generation. Any permission will require the completion of a legal agreement to ensure provision of affordable housing as well as appropriate financial contributions for health and education. Members will need to carefully assess whether the design, bulk and overall appearance of the scheme would be appropriate in this location, having regard to the nearby residential properties. The revised plans show a reduced overall height and consequent reduction in units as compared with the originally submitted plans and the building is stepped away from the dwellings at the rear so as to minimise its impact. Should Members be minded to approve permission the following conditions are suggested. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/01185, 07/00171 and 08/01469, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 18.07.2008

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A

LEGAL AGREEMENT

and the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 5 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 6 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 7 ACH23 Lighting scheme for access/parking ACH23R Reason H23 8 ACI15 Protection from traffic noise (1 insert) road ACI15R I15 reason 9 ACI20 Lifetime Homes Standard and wheel chair ACI20R I20 reason

12

10 ACI21 Secured By Design ACI21R I21 reason 11 ACL01 Energy Strategy Report ACL01R L01 reason 12 While the development hereby permitted is being carried out, provision shall be

made to accommodate operatives and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall remain available for such use to the Authority's satisfaction throughout the course of the development.

ACH12R Reason H12 13 Details of the privacy screens including height, location and a sample of their

material shall be submitted to and approved by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of the building and the screens shall be erected in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained thereafter.

ACC01R Reason C01 14 Details of solar panels and other energy generating equipment (including the

appearance, siting and technical details) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority before any work is commenced, and the approved scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is first occupied. Thereafter the approved scheme shall be permanently maintained in an efficient working manner and no further lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior approval in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy ER4 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of amenity of the locality and public safety.

15 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) H2 Affordable housing H5 Accessible housing H7 Housing density and design T3 Parking T18 Road safety BE1 Design of new development ER4 Sustainable and energy efficient development EMP5 Development outside of business areas IMP1 Planning obligations Policies (The London Plan) 3A.1 Increasing London's supply of housing 3A.2 Borough Housing Targets 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 3A.5 Housing choice 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.8 Respect local context and communities

_________________________________________

13


Bromley Common And

Keston

Address : Sports Ground Oakley Road Bromley


OS Grid Ref: E: 541912 N: 165863

Applicant : Mr Ray Tolfrey Objections : YES


Spectator stand perimeter netting on north and south boundary and single storey

detached building RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

This application was reported to Members on 11

th September and deferred in order for

a parking survey to be carried out, and to seek confirmation as to whether the spectator stand complies with Football Association (FA) standards. Members will be updated in respect of both of these matters at the meeting. The report is repeated below, updated as necessary.

Proposal The application site is a sports ground of approx. 1.22ha within designated Green Belt land, located to the west of Oakley Road. The site comprises a full sized football pitch, with associated outbuildings including a club house, and floodlighting, and is the home ground for a local football club, Holmesdale F.C. The site is accessed via an unmade track from Oakley Road, with a small area of hardstanding to the north-east of the site serving as a car park. The immediate surrounding area comprises mainly open or rural land, with a residential dwelling and cattery (Bencewell Cottage) to the west of the site fronting Oakley Road, and Bencewell Farm to the south of this, with various commercial uses being in operation at this site. Planning permission is sought retrospectively for a spectator stand adjacent to the western site boundary, perimeter netting behind the goals to the north and south boundaries, and a detached single storey building among the existing cluster of associated outbuildings in the north-eastern corner of the site. The spectator stand measures approx. 21.5m in width and approx. 2.9m in depth, and is constructed from scaffold tubes and boarding with a corrugated roof. The perimeter netting to the north and south boundaries has a maximum height of approx. 6m, and a maximum width of approx. 24m, and is constructed from scaffolding. The detached single storey building has a maximum height of approx. 2.22m with a flat roof, a maximum depth of approx. 2.77m and a width of 5.02m, and is constructed from concrete blockwork (painted green) with an asphalt roof. A supporting statement has been submitted to accompany the application, which states that Holmesdale F.C. have recently experienced success in being promoted to the „Kent League‟ and if retrospective planning permission is not granted they will not have the required facilities to maintain their position within the League and will be demoted. Additional information has been submitted by the applicant in respect of the Green Belt context, stating that the facilities are essential for the continued use of the site for outdoor sport and recreation in that it “supports the aspirations of the public to be able

14

to compete in sports on a level deemed, and in this case proved appropriate” and that in addition “it is essential for the area to have a recreation facility to be proud of and that is on par with national standards”. It is the applicant‟s view that natural, social and economic benefits of the spectator stand outweigh the visual harm. The applicant suggests however that the spectator stand could have been designed to a lower height and therefore with a reduced visual impact, although argues that it is common to find spectator stands adjacent to football fields and in this case the top of the stand is lower than adjacent tree tops and the impact is therefore localised. The applicant agrees that the visual aspects of the Green Belt must be protected, but maintains that in order for Holmesdale F.C. to continue within „Step 5‟ of the Football Association Pyramid System there is a need for a covered seating area for at least 150 people.


concerns re. impact on parking in Oakley Road and conditions of road safety

spectator stand and netting obstruct views and appear overbearing

stand big and bulky

netting is unsightly

overlooking

increased traffic and impact to flow of traffic on Oakley Road

noise and disturbance From the Environmental Health (pollution) perspective, no objections are raised.

Planning Considerations Under ref. 83/01803 planning permission was granted for a single storey side extension for a female toilet/changing accommodation with an enlarged bar store. Under ref. 06/04071 planning permission was refused for the retention of the spectator stand, perimeter netting to the north and south boundaries and a single storey detached building. The reasons for refusal were as follows:

„The perimeter netting, by reason of the excessive height of the supporting poles, results in a detrimental impact on the open character of the Green Belt, contrary to Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.‟

The storage building, by reason of its unsatisfactory external materials, harms the visual amenities of the Green Belt, contrary to Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan.‟

This application was submitted following an Enforcement enquiry (ref. EN/06/00526), with a notice being served against the works. An appeal against the enforcement notice was submitted out of time and therefore not accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. Following this an extended period of compliance was given, and the current application submitted within this time, with revisions made in seeking to overcome the previous grounds of refusal.

15

Under ref. 07/00453 planning permission was granted for floodlighting to the sports pitch comprising six 15 metre columns. Planning permission was granted under ref. 07/03905 to vary Condition 3 of the previous permission and the hours or operation. The main policies relevant to this case are Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development - development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings and should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure. Policy G1 relates to new development within designated Green Belt land, and states that permission will not be given for inappropriate development unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness or any other harm. The construction of new buildings will be inappropriate unless constituting an essential facility for outdoor sport and recreation.

Conclusions It is noted that the previous refusal raised objection only to the perimeter netting to the north and south boundaries and the detached single storey building. The reasons for refusal were specific in these objections; namely the height of the supporting poles to the netting which protruded above the netting itself, and the materials of the detached single storey building which was constructed from unfinished blockwork. Both of these points have been addressed in this submission, with the height of the supporting poles being reduced in line with the top of the netting at 6m, and the detached single storey building having been painted in green. While it is recognised that the spectator stand is relatively large and prominent within its setting, it is ancillary to an outdoor recreational use and no formal ground of refusal was advanced in respect of this element under the previous application. On this basis, Members may consider that in light of the alterations to the perimeter netting and the detached single storey building that the previous reasons for refusal have been sufficiently addressed and that planning permission should be granted for the retention of the works. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 83/01803, 06/04071, 06/00526, 07/00453, 07/03905, 07/00453 and 08/01857, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development G1 Green Belt

_________________________________________

16


Copers Cope

Address : The Lodge Southend Road Beckenham

Kent BR3 1SE

Conservation Area:

Southend Road

OS Grid Ref: E: 537468 N: 170133

Applicant : Gengis Kemal Objections : YES


Demolition of existing building and erection of detached three storey block

comprising 4 two bedroom flats and 1 three bedroom flat with 6 car parking

spaces and refuse store

Joint report with application ref. 08/02115

Proposal The application site is located at the corner of Park Road and Southend Road, Beckenham and comprises a detached two storey house of red brick and white painted render with a tiled roof, with a large detached garage in the north-eastern corner of the site. The site is of a wooded character with a number of mature trees being the subject of a blanket TPO, and falls within the Southend Road Conservation Area. The site measures approx. 38m in width and has a maximum depth of approx. 42m, and has an area of 0.095 ha. At present, the site is developed to a density of 10 units/ha. The immediate surrounding area comprises mainly flats, including South Park Court, a 1930s four storey mansion block to the south of the site, and Park Keep, the three storey block of flats and maisonettes to the west. There are several statutory listed buildings within the Conservation Area, including the gate lodges to Beckenham Place Park on the eastern side of Southend Road. It is proposed to demolish the existing house on site, and construct a three storey block to comprise 4 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats. Members should be aware that an application seeking Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing house can be found on this agenda (ref. 08/02115). The existing garage in the north-eastern corner of the site will be retained and converted to form cycle storage. A new access on to Park Road is proposed, along with forecourt parking. The block has a hipped roof design, with a feature front gable and small roof dormers to the northern, southern and eastern roof slopes. The block will be finished with facing brick work at ground floor level, with white render to the first floor, with stone detailing between the finishes. Windows will be white UPVC. Measurements taken from the drawings submitted indicate that the block will have a maximum height of approx. 10.3m a maximum width of approx. 14.45m and a maximum depth of approx 17.25m. The block is to be set approx. 10.4m from the footway on Park Road, and will have a minimum side space of approx. 2m maintained to the western flank boundary. A separation of approx. 17m will be maintained from to the eastern site boundary at the front of the block, reducing to approx. 10.3m at the rear. A minimum separation of 5.2m will be maintained to the northern (rear) site boundary.

17

The proposed development would have a density of approx. 52.6 units/ha.


bulk of building would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area setting, along with the increased intensity

increased congestion

potential loss of conifers which act as a barrier with Park Keep

impact of new access and increased intensity to pedestrian and road safety

need to preserve character of the street and not build flats

overlooking

loss of light

noise and car pollution as a result of loss of trees

overdominant by reason of height, size and bulk

cramped overdevelopment

over-intensification of the use of the site

previous reasons for dismissal not overcome

loss of trees

the benefit of demolishing the existing building has not been demonstrated

plot not suitable for multiple occupancy

inadequate parking

impact of increased traffic to character of the area

design does not respect or complement existing buildings and spaces in the surrounding area

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) were consulted on the application and consider that while the bulk, mass and location within the plot are acceptable the architectural detail of the block is „insufficiently distinctive‟. The Council‟s waste advisors were consulted and raised no objection to the application. From the Highways Drainage perspective, it is suggested that a standard condition is imposed on any approval. Environmental Health (pollution) has advised that a standard condition concerning soil contamination should be imposed on any approval. From the technical Highways perspective no objections are raised in light of the revised parking layout submitted. With regard to Trees no objections are raised, and it is suggested that various conditions are added to any approval.

Planning Considerations Under ref. 01/03276 outline planning permission was refused for a detached four storey block comprising 7 two bedroom flats and 7 car parking spaces, along with an

18

accompanying application seeking conservation area consent to demolish the existing building, submitted under ref. 01/03275. Under ref. 02/00829 outline planning permission was refused for a detached four storey block comprising 7 two bedroom flats and 7 car parking spaces, along with an accompanying application seeking conservation area consent to demolish the existing building, submitted under ref. 02/00789. The reasons for refusal were as follows:

„The proposal, by reason of the amount of site coverage by buildings and hard surfaces, constitutes a cramped overdevelopment of the site, which together with the bulk and siting of the proposed four storey building would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Southend Road Conservation Area, contrary to Policies H.2 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).‟

„The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of trees, which are protected by an area Tree Preservation Order, and would prejudice the health and long term retention of remaining trees which are considered to provide an important contribution to the visual and residential amenities of the Southend Road Conservation Area, thereby contrary to Policies H.2 and E.7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies H6 and BE9 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).‟

An appeal against this decision was dismissed, with the Inspector considering that the main issue in the appeal was the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and on the setting of the adjacent listed gate lodges. The Inspector considered that a building of the size proposed would be highly conspicuous, as would the hardstanding. It was considered that the wooded nature of the site was the most important feature, indeed making a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area. The impact of the proposed development on the vulnerability of the cedar nearest to the house was of particular concern, with the Inspector noting that little room would be left for building operations if the tree were adequately protected during construction – in addition this was considered to be a further indication of the cramped nature of the site. In light of these points, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Under ref. 04/01941 an application to fell the cedar tree to the side of the house was refused and dismissed at appeal. The main policies against which to assess this application are Policies BE1, BE11 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 sets out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development - development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings, should be imaginative and attractive to look at, and should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure. Policy BE11 concerns development within Conservation Areas and advises that proposals will be expected to respect or complement the layout, scale, form and materials of existing buildings and spaces. Policy H7 requires the scale and form of new residential development to be in keeping with the surrounding area, and the privacy and amenities of adjoining occupiers to be adequately safeguarded.

19

Conclusions In light of the Inspector‟s comments in respect of the appeal proposal, the main issues for consideration in this case will be the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the impact on the protected trees within the site. In comparison to the appeal proposal, the proposed block has a revised siting and footprint, with a greater separation afforded to the northern and western site boundaries. While it is noted that the block would be approx. 1m nearer to the eastern site boundary, a generous maximum separation of approx. 17m will remain. The proposed block has a lower height overall when compared to the appeal proposal, and in addition given the lower eaves height, the smaller dormer windows is considered to appear less bulky. In addition, various sections of the block have lower roof sections in comparison to the main bulk of the block which are considered to further reduce the bulk and visual impact of the proposed block. The proposal currently under consideration is of a lower density than the appeal scheme, although it should be noted that neither the Council nor the Inspector considered density to be of concern. The provision of 6 car parking spaces along with the required turning area will result in a sizeable area of hardstanding to the forecourt, however it is proposed to landscape the remaining site area, of course retaining the majority of the trees on site which would preserve the wooded character of the site. With particular regard to trees, the main concern raised at appeal was in respect of the cedar closest to the existing dwelling on site, although since this decision the tree has been felled and removed from the site. Investigations into this matter by the Council‟s Tree Officer revealed that the tree was in decline, and in spite of concerns that there are no grounds on which the Council could prosecute. On this basis, there is no objection to the proposed development on tree grounds subject of course to the imposition of standard conditions. In addition, the site owners have a duty to plant a replacement tree for the cedar, which could be included within the landscaping for the development. It is recognised that the site is prominent given its location on the corner of Park Road and Southend Road, however it is not considered that the proposed block would appear unduly conspicuous and prominent within the street scene and wider area generally given its reduced height and bulk, and the generous separation proposed to the southern and eastern site boundaries. The design is considered to be appropriate for the Conservation Area, having particular regard to the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Southend Road Conservation Area which advises that the Council will expect all proposals for new development to conform with the character of that section of the conservation area surrounding the proposal site and with the general character of the area, especially in regard to the scale and height of construction, location with a plot (where material), design and materials used. With regard to the impact of the proposal on residential amenities, it is noted that there are no windows to the flank elevation of the adjacent residential block „Park Keep‟ to be effected, and in respect of overlooking and loss of privacy adequate separation to Sandgate House to the north will be afforded. The siting of the block is such that the proposal is considered unlikely to result in any loss of light or prospect. Finally, it should be noted that no objections are raised from the technical Highways perspective in respect of the proposed new access and the proposed parking layout, subject of course to the imposition of standard conditions.

20

In light of the above, Members may consider that the concerns raised at appeal in respect of the previous application have been sufficiently addressed, and that on balance the proposal would is acceptable. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 01/03276, 01/03275, 02/00829, 02/00789, 04/01941, 08/02115 and 08/02112, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 13.08.2008


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op. ACB01R Reason B01 3 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing ACB02R Reason B02 4 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires ACB03R Reason B03 5 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains ACB04R Reason B04 6 ACB16 Trees - no excavation ACB16R Reason B16 7 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 8 ACC02 Sample brickwork panel ACC02R Reason C02 9 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 10 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 11 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 12 ACH04 Parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 13 ACH12 Vis. splays (vehicular access) (2 in) 3.3m x 2.4m x 3.3m

1m ACH12R Reason H12 14 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 15 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 16 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 17 ACH24 Stopping up of access ACH24R Reason H24 18 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan

Reason: 19 ACK09 Soil survey - contaminated land

21

ACK09R K09 reason 20 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE11 Conservation Areas H7 Housing density and design

_______________________

6. Application No : 08/02115/CAC Ward :

Copers Cope

Address : The Lodge Southend Road Beckenham

Kent BR3 1SE

Conservation Area:

Southend Road

OS Grid Ref: E: 537468 N: 170133

Applicant : Gengis Kemal Objections : YES


Demolition of existing building CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

Joint report with application ref. 08/02112

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT

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

_______________________

22


Crystal Palace

Address : 19 Anerley Park London SE20 8NF


OS Grid Ref: E: 534472 N: 170204

Applicant : Freshfood Property Ltd Objections : YES


Creation of third storey to provide 2 two bedroom flats and revised front parking

layout

Proposal The application site is located to the eastern side of Anerley Park. The site currently comprises a two/ three storey detached Victorian building of 5 flats. There is an area of hardstanding to the front of the property currently providing parking for 4 cars. There is an amenity area to the rear of the site. The surrounding area is wholly residential in character comprising predominately of large Victorian properties which have mainly been converted into flats. The site is bordered by a three storey semi-detached property with semi-basement to the north, and an identical two storey detached property to the south. Permission is sought for an additional storey which from the front will have the appearance of a third storey and to the rear a fourth storey over the existing building to provide an additional 2 self-contained flats, bringing the total up to 7 on the site. The area to the front of the building is proposed to be upgraded with a revised parking layout, a low level brick wall and new planting. The application also includes a parking stress survey.

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

loss of light to No.30A Anerley Park

No.19 is part of 5 identical detached Victorian buildings

extension would change the look and feel of the road

work will be disruptive to existing flats

risks of destabilizing the structure

create need for concrete underpinning

reduction of property values for flats in No.19

visual impact- out of character

impact on parking

unwanted precedent for further applications

23

It is also noted that the full texts of the above objections are available on file ref. 08/02132. Any further comments received shall be reported verbally at the meeting. The Agent provided a response to the objections received, which is available of the file. From an Environmental Health point of view no adverse comments have been raised. From a Highways point of view no technical objections have been raised, subject to standard conditions.

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

Conclusions The main issues in this case are whether this type and height of development is acceptable in principle in this location, the likely impact of the proposed scheme on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, having particular regard to the density and design of the proposed scheme.

In terms of street scene, the principle of a three storey block is considered to be in-keeping with the adjoining properties given the three storey height of adjacent property at No.21.

Following the parking survey conducted on behalf of the applicant, the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant increase in the demand for on-street parking and the

24

Council‟s Highways engineer does not raise objections to the proposed additional 2 flats.

It is considered that the extension will not impact on the amenities of the adjoining of the residents adjoining the site, given its siting and reasonable separation from the neighbouring development and by being set back from the road.

On balance, the construction of an additional storey to accommodate 2 additional flats is considered acceptable in that it is unlikely to result in a detrimental impact on the street scene nor the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers. The objections and points raised during the consultation process have been noted and carefully considered in the making of this recommendation. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/02132, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details 2 ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 4 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 5 ACH11 Visibility splays (new buildings) (3 in) access 3.3m x 2.4m x

3.3m 1m ACH11R Reason H11 6 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 7 ACH24 Stopping up of access ACH24R Reason H24 8 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H7 9 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) H7 Housing density and design BE1 Design of new development T3 Parking T6 Pedestrians T18 Road safety INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI16 Layout of crossovers 2 RDI10 Street Naming and Numbering 3 RDI21 Advice from Building Control

25

_______________________


Chislehurst

Address : World Of Golf Sidcup By Pass

Chislehurst Kent BR7 6RP


OS Grid Ref: E: 544450 N: 172324

Applicant : Ashtour Ltd Objections : YES


Demolition of existing building. Removal of tennis courts and crazy golf course

and laying out of adventure golf course. 12 all weather 5 a side football pitches

31 x 8m high floodlights. Single storey Clubhouse/ changing facilities building

with office accommodation in roof for golf and football centres. Car parking areas

to increase number of spaces from 138 to 278. Filling in of 3 ponds and

excavation to form 3 ponds

Proposal

Members deferred the above application at the Plans Sub-Committee meeting on September 11 to seek further comments from Transport for London (TfL) and the Council‟s Highways Engineer regarding the suitability of the access arrangement and the likelihood of increased u-turn manoeuvres at the A20 Sidcup bypass and Green Lane junction. There was concern that it may not be adequate for use by large vehicles such as coaches in view of the amount of car parking proposed on the site. The applicant has submitted a diagram demonstrating a coach manoeuvring in and out of the site. The Council‟s Highways Engineer has commented that the access is considered adequate and comments are awaited from TfL at the time of writing and will be reported verbally at the meeting. The original report has been updated where appropriate and is repeated below.

The site lies within an area of designated Green Belt on land between Imperial Way and the A20 Sidcup Bypass adjacent to the boundary of the London Borough of Bexley. There is a mixture of predominantly inter-war terraced and semi-detached housing to the south and west and beyond the A20 to the north whilst there is an area of predominantly open land to the south and east of the site. It is accessed from the A20 Sidcup bypass and currently incorporates an existing clubhouse (480m²), driving range facility, 9 hole golf course (disused), adventure golf course, four tennis courts and parking. A car wash, hardstanding used for informal car parking and buildings used for ancillary storage and ground keeping vehicles are located in the eastern part of the site. It is proposed to demolish the existing clubhouse and ancillary storage buildings and erect 12 five-a-side all weather football pitches and a new shared clubhouse facility with associated parking and landscaping. It is also proposed to improve the adventure golf

26

facility and extend it over the existing tennis courts. The five-a-side football pitches will be located along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to Kemnal Road. They will occupy an area of approx. 8,360m² and will be bounded by 1.2m high green „kickboard‟ fencing and 5m high black „invisible‟ nylon catch netting. 42 additional car parking spaces will be provided. The clubhouse building will be located centrally adjacent to the northern boundary of the site and will be approx. 59.8m wide, 24.8m deep and 6.8m high to the ridge of the roof. The ground floor will provide 480m² floorspace for World of Golf (equivalent to the floorspace of the existing facility) and changing rooms with showers and toilets, a reception, office, kitchen and a 370m² clubhouse/lounge area for the five-a-side facility. There will be a 245m² storage/office area within the roofspace. Comprehensive landscaping is proposed and will include the relocation of 3 ponds on the eastern side of the site to the south of the proposed all-weather pitches. The applicant has submitted a unilateral undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which will provide the following groups with free community use:

students at all schools within the London Borough of Bromley

London Borough of Bromley youth sports development

football in the Community

all children aged 16 and under

members of registered youth groups and registered youth community groups within the London Borough of Bromley.

The free community use will be made available on the following basis:

Monday to Friday 9.00am to 5.30pm – 12 all weather pitches

Saturday 9.00am to 12.30pm – 4 all weather pitches

Saturday 12.30pm to 6.00pm – 5 all weather pitches

Sunday 9.00am to 5.30pm – 4 all weather pitches. The application is accompanied by a Planning, Design and Access Statement which includes the following points:

replacement clubhouse facility will be set lower into the site than the existing building with a lower ridge height

five-a-side pitches will introduce the countryside location to residents who do not presently use the golfing facilities

World of Golf facilities are open to all on a pay as you go basis

Goals are an established provider of multi-sports facilities throughout the UK and occupy 20 other sites

Goals have been awarded the FA Small Sided Advanced Football Award for its centres in England

all-weather pitches will use the latest 3rd

generation artificial grass, Edel Nature Turf, which has a natural feel and is the only artificial turf sanctioned by the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) for professional football

design of the courts incorporates storage capacity for water during heavy downpours which means that the run-off characteristics are similar to grass and do not cause flash flooding

materials used in the pitches are inert and prevent any polluted water into the drainage system

27

existing clubhouse building is of lightweight timber construction and is difficult to secure and is in need of significant and prohibitively expensive maintenance

site previously included a nine hole golf course but due to the proximity of this to adjacent houses World of Golf agreed to discontinue use of this part of the site and the site is therefore under utilised

Goals consider there to be strong demand for five-a-side facilities in the Sidcup area

existing tennis courts are under used and the extension and improvement of the adventure golf facility will complement the other golfing facilities on the site giving a holistic approach to golf for every age and every level

other Goals sites have demonstrated that the optimum viable level of pitch provision is between 11 and 13 five-a-side pitches

the development would allow existing customers a Goals facility closer to where they live and reduce travel

those living in close proximity to the site would be more likely to use modes of transport other than the motor car

new customers would be attracted from the immediate locality

pitch use times will be staggered to reduce space required for changing areas and ancillary accommodation

in accordance with Sport England‟s guidance notes the lounge/refreshment area will help achieve the high standard and high utilisation of the facility

Goals lounge areas are typically used in association with Youth Sport Development and allow audio equipment and playback of digital video to analyse and improve techniques for training sessions

lounge areas are used for the assembly of school and youth clubs and groups which aids security as children can wait indoors for collection by parents

lounge area will serve a social function and will be used by waiting teams during tournaments and is key to the commercial viability of the scheme

floodlighting is designed to minimise light spillage onto neighbouring land. The applicant has set out very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt which includes the following points:

proposed building will be sited on previously developed land currently used as car parking

building is designed to be the minimum possible size appropriate to the viability of both World of Golf and Goals

height of building is lower than that it replaces

insulation and energy efficiency of building will represent a significant improvement on the existing building

proposal will increase use of the site significantly for leisure and recreation purposes allowing members of the public and particularly local residents the opportunity to use the site

it is proposed to provide free access to local schools, community groups and Bromley Leisure Department

proposal will improve the standard of facilities found locally by introducing 3rd

generation all weather pitches

the site will be improved visually through removal of storage buildings and formalisation of parking area with associated landscaping and a better landscaped site frontage

landscaping will create better ecological habitats.

28

The application is accompanied by a Phase 1 Habitat Survey which concludes that the principal habitats worthy of protection and enhancement as part of any development proposals would be the ponds, tree line and scrub at the site‟s boundary. Further surveys are recommended for great crested newt and bats. A Great Crested Newt Survey has been submitted which states that no great crested newts were found in the survey area. However, a well established smooth newt population has been found on the site and it is recommended that replacement ponds are provided on the site to mitigate against a significant impact to or complete loss of this population. A Bat Survey has been submitted which states that two bat species were recorded foraging and commuting over the two ponds close to the existing maintenance equipment sheds and the adjacent tree line during the survey. It is recommended that replacement ponds are provided to mitigate against a loss of foraging habitat. No evidence of bat roosting was found in any of the buildings on the site but it is recommended that a watching brief for bats be utilised before any works begin. Mitigation measures to minimise the impact of the proposed floodlighting are also proposed and landscaping should seek to enhance the foraging potential for bats through use of native plant species.

A Landscape Masterplan has been submitted including details of existing tree retention and protection proposals and a Landscape Design Strategy including a schedule of planting.

The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment which concludes that there is adequate capacity on the local road network to accommodate the additional traffic generated. The nature of the existing development and the proposed facility is such that the bulk of traffic will arrive and depart outside of the network peak periods whilst the proximity of the site to local residential areas should encourage users to walk and cycle to the facility. The social nature of golf and five-a-side football is such that the development will encourage an element of car sharing. An Energy Strategy and Assessment has been submitted which sets out energy efficiency measures and considers options to achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from on-site renewable energy generation equipment. The application is accompanied by a Noise Survey which concludes that the 12 pitches and associated facilities will not result in any significant noise impacts to the closest residential properties. Floodlighting information and a lighting report have been submitted which concludes that the proposed floodlights will not have a significant impact on nearby residential properties. A Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted which investigates measures that can be taken to limit waste of materials during demolition and construction.

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

29

out of character

inappropriate use of Green Belt land

increased traffic

increased air pollution

increased noise and disturbance

noise will continue until late in the evening

disturbance to sleep

ball washing machine is currently very noisy

loss of enjoyment of residential gardens

loss of privacy at nearby residential dwellings

light pollution

visually obtrusive

many local residents are elderly

full use is not made of Flamingo Park football facilities

layout will result in new incidents of property damage and personal injury from golf balls at properties on Imperial Way, which has occurred in the past

World of Golf have failed to maintain netting, boundary fences and noise from site

few local residents currently use World of Golf facility and development will provide little benefit to community

there are more appropriate locations along A20

people will park on the other side of the A20 and climb over the barriers

increased demand for on-street parking

detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety

football players may use foul language

increase in anti-social behaviour

site is a long distance from police stations

alcohol may be sold and the building could be used as a function hall with extended hours and loud music.

There are no objections to the proposal from the Council‟s in-house drainage consultant. The Heritage and Urban Design Team has commented that the landscape and planting details are considered acceptable and that the clubhouse, whilst significantly larger in footprint than the existing building, is not inappropriate in terms of bulk and scale in the landscape. The visual impact on views from Sidcup Road, Kemnal Road, Imperial Way and Molescroft would be minimal and new planting treatments would provide benefit as they mature. It is considered that the lighting columns would be no more intrusive than standard street illumination. In terms of Environmental Health, a use such as this will have an impact on local residents in terms of noise and the report does not attempt to convince us that inaudibility will be achieved. However on the basis of the information provided it is considered that the impact will be minimal and a suitable condition could be attached to control noise levels. Transport for London (TfL) are the highways authority for the A20 Sidcup bypass and they have no objections to the proposal. TfL would welcome a financial contribution towards upgrading the existing pedestrian bridge and/or junction improvements at the A20/Green Lane junction.

30

The London Borough of Bexley have commented that the proposal is likely to result in an increase in the number of pedestrians crossing the A20 at grade to access the proposed facility. There are no objections to the proposal from the Council‟s Highways Development Engineer. There are no objections from the Council‟s Sustainable Development Officer in terms of energy efficiency and renewable energy. There are no technical objections in terms of trees, regarding the effect of the proposal on public amenity. Technical comments on nature conservation issues are as follows:

there will be a loss of terrestrial habitat between the existing and proposed ponds

it is suggested that the planting schedule be amended and this can be secured by condition

there is no reference to how the remainder of the site (formally outside of the application) will be altered

there is a loss of „green‟ vegetation which may impact upon newt migration and reptiles

close proximity of football pitches to the eastern periphery is not ideal

insufficient reference is made to presence and/or migration for potential reptiles. The Greater London Authority (GLA) have provided Stage 1 comments which can be summarised as follows:

excessive increase in floorspace and the number of car parking spaces that makes the scheme inappropriate development and the applicants very special circumstances do not fully justify these increases

no major strategic concern in respect of biodiversity

scheme does not incorporate high quality design appropriate for the Green Belt and this is a major concern

the proposal does not accommodate inclusive design

no energy statement has been submitted with the application

no major strategic concern in respect of biodiversity

significant increase in car parking spaces needs to be justified and the information provided in respect of pedestrian routes, walking and cycling is poor

no employment and training strategy has been produced. The Football Association, though not a consultee, have provided support for the proposal as follows:

Greater London has just over 3% of the national stock of playing fields but 16% of the population

The FA estimate that approx. 3.5% of the London population aged 6-44 play organised football; this is 30% below the national average

31

to increase participation to the national average would require 3,500 additional teams with supporting facilities, however there is not enough space – facilities such as those proposed respond to a real need

lack of local facilities leads to a migration of people across boroughs to engage in sport resulting in increased congestion, pollution and cost

60% of all pitches are on local authority owned land but investment in such pitches is a low priority and teams struggle to find somewhere to play

there is a huge shortage of floodlit facilities for midweek use

the FA has seen the rapid growth of small sided football – 4.1 million adults and children play annually and further growth to 37,000 teams is predicted by 2012

the FA have a good relationship with Goals Soccer Centres who have committed themselves to achieving the FA‟s quality mark.

Planning Considerations There is a significant planning history relating to the site, much of which is in respect of the existing golf facilities. Whilst each case should be treated on its individual merits, it is worthwhile noting the Inspector‟s comments on a similar at playing fields adjacent to Elmers End Station, Beckenham (LBB ref. 02/03460). The proposal site was within an area of Metropolitan Open Land which is afforded the same protection as Green Belt. In dismissing an appeal against the Council‟s refusal of planning permission the Inspector stated that:

„The appeal site…represents only a small proportion of a very much larger area of open land. What is proposed…is eleven pitches – each just over 30m by 20m, surfaced with artificial turf, enclosed by 1.2m kick-boards plus catch-netting to 5.0m, and floodlit (one light at each corner of each pitch). In addition, there would be mesh panel fencing 1.2m high above the kick-boards round the perimeter of the overall pitch area. There would be a pavilion building, just over 30m by 16m and parking for 85 cars. It would be a much more intensive use of the land than formerly. Even when not actively being used, its nature would, on the face of it, be bound to be clear. The kick-boards and the floodlight columns around the pitches would signify an organised and intensive use. I doubt that the artificial grass would add particularly to that impact – though it would obviously retain its colour and lushness throughout the year. The mesh fencing around the perimeter, about the kick-boarding, would surely be apparent. On the other hand, I am not certain that the catch-netting around the individual pitches would be particularly noticeable in the majority of views from outside the site…In short, I consider that the character of the land would change significantly even if its essential openness might not. At dusk and after dark, the floodlit area would be obvious. Even with the type of lighting proposed (preventing any significant spillage beyond the area to be lit), the pool of light over the pitches would be bound to be obvious…At night, therefore, as during the day, I consider that the character of the land would change significantly.

The proposed building would provide only what, in my opinion, are essential facilities. It is smaller than one might expect for the numbers likely to be using the facility because the intention is to stagger the booking hours for the pitches…I do not believe that it comes within what is anticipated by the description „small

32

changing rooms‟ in PPG2. On the other hand, the building would be very well located; in the corner of the site next to the station and its car park, and it would be an attractively designed and relatively low single-storey building…In this respect, therefore, any inappropriateness in principle is largely outweighed by the merits of the building‟s sitting and design.

To sum up, I conclude that the proposals represent inappropriate development on MOL, not in principle but because the combined effect of the pitch surrounds, the floodlighting and the pavilion would go against the purpose of including the site within MOL. At the same time, I conclude that the actual harm would be modest, very modest in terms of the overall size of this particular area of MOL, and limited in different ways from different viewpoints. That, however, is insufficient in itself to enable the appeal to be allowed. Whether there are very special circumstances in support of the proposals becomes a critical consideration. Potentially, there are such circumstances. The intention is that the proposed facility would be made available, free of charge but subject to restrictions at different times of day, to schools, community groups and the leisure services departments of the London Boroughs of Bromley and Croydon. While designed primarily for five-a-side football, it would be capable of use for other sports. There is clearly a need for a facility of the type proposed. The Council‟s Director of Leisure & Community Services supports the principle of an all-weather facility on an appropriate site within the Borough and would support this proposal through a community use agreement if planning permission were granted. The proposal would contribute to meeting the Council‟s own Sports Strategy. That is not to say that another site could not achieve the same thing – but the evidence indicates that no other site of an appropriate size is preferable and available. In this general context, the support for the proposal expressed by Sport England, Crystal Palace Football Club and the Football Association is not lightly to be dismissed.‟

The Inspector concluded that very special circumstances had been demonstrated sufficient to outweigh very modest harm to MOL, however no legal agreement was forthcoming at the time of the appeal and it was dismissed. The Council granted planning permission for the scheme following a subsequent application accompanied by a legal agreement in July 2005 (ref. 05/01673). Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development states, at paragraph 8, that the plan-led system, and the certainty and predictability that it aims to provide, is central to planning and the key role in integrating development objectives. Where the development plan contains relevant policies, applications for planning permission should be determined in line with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The main policies of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan considered to be relevant to this application include: T1 Transport Demand T2 Assessment of Transport Effects T3 Parking T5 Access for People with Restricted Mobility T6 Pedestrians T7 Cyclists

33

T18 Road Safety BE1 Design of New Development BE7 Railings, Boundary Walls and Other Means of Enclosure NE3 Development and Nature Conservation Sites NE7 Development and Trees L1 Outdoor Recreation and Leisure G1 Green Belt ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development ER8 Noise Pollution ER10 Light Pollution ER13 Foul and Surface Water Discharges from Development.

There are a number of other relevant policy documents that come under the general category of other „material considerations‟. These include: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2: Green Belts PPS9: Nature Conservation PPG13: Transport. PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS22: Renewable Energy PPG24: Planning and Noise In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan policies are: 2A.1 Sustainability criteria 3A.17 Addressing the needs of London‟s diverse population 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities 3A.23 Health impacts 3A.26 Community Strategies 3B.11 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling 3C.23 Parking strategy 3D.6 The Olympic and Paralympic games and sports facilities 3D.9 Green Belt 3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation 4A.1 Tackling climate change 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.7 Renewable energy 4A.11 Living roofs and walls 4A.14 Sustainable drainage 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.8 Respect local context and communities. The site is designated Metropolitan Green Belt and Policy G1 states that permission will not be given for inappropriate development unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm by inappropriateness or any other harm. Essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation are considered appropriate

34

in the Green Belt. The policy goes on to state that the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt shall not be injured by any proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which might be visually detrimental by reasons of scale, siting, materials or design. As part of the pre-application process the applicant sought a screening opinion as to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment was required. The proposals constitute Schedule 2 development within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. After taking into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the Regulations and the terms of the European Directive, it was considered that the proposed development would not be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as nature, size and location. This opinion was expressed taking into account all relevant matters, including the information submitted with the request, advice from technical consultees, the scale/characteristics of the proposed development on the site. The applicants were advised accordingly.

Conclusions The five-a-side pitches will provide an outdoor sport and recreation facility, which is an appropriate Green Belt land use in accordance with Policy G1. However, in terms of the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt there will be artificial surfaces, boundary enclosures, floodlighting, additional car parking and a building of increased volume which will be harmful to openness, and which will therefore constitute inappropriate development. The main issues in this case are therefore considered as follows:

whether the proposal would result in undue harm to the open nature and character of the Green Belt and whether very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the harm by inappropriate development

whether there would be an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupants of nearby residential dwellings

whether the proposal would result in undue harm in terms of nature conservation

impact of the proposal on the local highway network and on highway and pedestrian safety.

A balancing exercise is necessary to assess whether the benefits that will arise from the proposal are sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The site lies on the urban fringe in an area of Green Belt characterised to an extent by the existing golfing facilities which constitute a relatively intensive use of the Green Belt land for sport and recreation purposes. The „kickboard‟ fences will be 1.2m high and the 5m high see-through nylon netting above should assist in maintaining openness to an extent. The proposal will result in clear benefits in terms of providing sporting facilities and in particular the free community use to be secured through a legal agreement. The application states that the pitch use times will be staggered to facilitate smaller changing facilities and that the clubhouse area is necessary to make the scheme commercially viable and therefore deliver the community benefits proposed. The Inspector‟s report relating to the Elmers End site indicates that the benefits of the proposal could represent very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. The GLA have expressed concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt, in particular by reason of the amount of car parking, the design and

35

location of the building and the increased floorspace of the proposed building. Since receipt of the Stage 1 comments the applicant has submitted revised plans detailing a reduction in the proposed car parking from 278 to 180 spaces, which represents a reduction in the impact of hard surfacing and car parking on the Green Belt. Consideration should therefore be given to whether very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm to openness. In terms of the impact on the residential amenities of nearby properties, the applicant has demonstrated that there will not be undue harm in terms of noise or light pollution. The GLA have expressed concern regarding inadequate information detailing how the proposal incorporates the principles of inclusive design. The proposal also conflicts with the London Plan due to the lack of an employment and training strategy. It is considered that, should the proposal be considered acceptable, these issues could be addressed through the imposition of suitable conditions. Transport for London have indicated that they would welcome a financial contribution towards upgrading the existing pedestrian bridge and/or junction improvements at the A20/Green Lane junction. A contribution has not been proposed, however this is not considered grounds for refusal of planning permission given a lack of substantiation regarding the need for the works and a lack of details of the nature of the works and their financial implications. In terms of ecology, there are concerns regarding the proposed landscaping and the migration of newts and reptiles. However no protected species have been identified on the site and appropriate planting can be secured through a landscaping condition. Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/02139, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 25.07.2008 21.08.2008 03.09.2008 09.09.2008

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A

LEGAL AGREEMENT AND ANY DIRECTION BY THE MAYOR OF LONDON

Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACB18 Trees-Arboricultural Method Statement ACB18R Reason B18 5 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 6 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 7 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03

36

8 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 9 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 10 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 11 ACH23 Lighting scheme for access/parking ACH23R Reason H23 12 ACK03 No equipment on roof ACK03R K03 reason 13 ACK07 Disabled access (see DI12) ACK07R K07 reason 14 ACK12 Badgers - no works close to sett ACK12R K12 reason 15 Before any works on site are commenced, a site-wide energy strategy

assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. The results of this strategy shall be incorporated into the final design of the buildings prior to first occupation. The strategy shall include on-site renewable energy generation sufficient to provide 20% of the predicted energy requirements of the development and the provision of combined heat and power (CHP) to supply thermal and electrical energy to the site or the building within the permitted development as may be agreed.

Reason: In order to seek to achieve compliance with the Mayor of London's Energy Strategy and to comply with Policy 4A.7 of The London Plan and Policy ER4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

16 Surface water control measures shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before development commences.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality. 17 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 LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA, details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with the approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters.

18 Noise from the operation of the soccer facility shall not result in period noise levels exceeding 45LAeq. (30 min) at any time when measured at the boundary of residential property in the vicinity.

Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of nearby properties and in order to comply with Policy ER8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

19 The floodlights shall only be used between 0900 hours and 2230 hours on Mondays to Thursdays and between 0830 and 2130 hours on Fridays to Sundays.

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

20 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) T1 Transport Demand T2 Assessment of Transport Effects

37

T3 Parking T5 Access for People with Restricted Mobility T6 Pedestrians T7 Cyclists T18 Road Safety BE1 Design of New Development BE7 Railings, Boundary Walls and Other Means of Enclosure NE3 Development and Nature Conservation Sites NE7 Development and Trees L1 Outdoor Recreation and Leisure G1 Green Belt ER4 Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development ER8 Noise Pollution ER10 Light Pollution ER13 Foul and Surface Water Discharges from Development. Policies (London Plan) 2A.1 Sustainability criteria 3A.17 Addressing the needs of London‟s diverse population 3A.18 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities 3A.23 Health impacts 3A.26 Community Strategies 3B.11 Improving employment opportunities for Londoners 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 3C.21 Improving conditions for walking 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling 3C.23 Parking strategy 3D.6 The Olympic and Paralympic games and sports facilities 3D.9 Green Belt 3D.14 Biodiversity and nature conservation 4A.1 Tackling climate change 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.7 Renewable energy 4A.11 Living roofs and walls 4A.14 Sustainable drainage 4A.20 Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.8 Respect local context and communities.

_______________________

38


Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : Just Flowers Station Square Petts

Wood Orpington Kent BR5 1LZ

Conservation Area:

Station Square Petts

Wood

OS Grid Ref: E: 544444 N: 167592

Applicant : Mr Stephen Atkins Objections : YES


Change of use from florist to delicatessen/cafe (Use Classes A1/A3)

Proposal The application site comprises a small single storey structure on the western side of Station Square adjacent to the Petts Wood Station entrance. The site falls within the Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area and is designated a Primary Shopping Frontage. The surrounding area is a mix of terraced properties comprising Class A1 uses, with some Class A2 and A3 uses. In the centre of Station Square there is a public house and a restaurant. The plot measures approximately a maximum of 8.5m in width by 15m in depth. This application seeks permission for the change of use of the premises from retail (Class A1) to a delicatessen/café (Class A1/A3). It is proposed to operate the premises with several covers and an outdoor forecourt area. The operating hours proposed are 0630 – 1730 on Mondays to Saturdays. No Sunday opening is proposed. The proposal includes no ventilation ductwork and would not involve the preparation and serving of any hot foods, concentrating only on the sale of tea, coffee and cold foods for consumption on and off the premises.

Consultations

Local representations, including a petition against the proposal has been received primarily concerned with the over-provision of eating establishments in Petts Wood Letters of support have also been received in respect of the application from local businesses, residents and visitors to the area. No technical highways objections are raised. APCA did not inspect the application. No Thames Water objections are raised, subject to an informative. No Network Rail comments have been received. No objections have been received from South Eastern Trains, subject to the existing station access not being obstructed.

39

No Environmental Health objections are raised subject to conditions preventing hot food preparation and evening operating hours. Any subsequent comments received will be verbally reported at the meeting.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with Policies BE1, BE11, S1, S9, T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Policy BE11 seeks to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas. Proposals for new development will be expected to respect and compliment the layout, scale, form and materials of existing buildings and spaces. Policy S1 relates to changes of use within Primary Frontages. Changes of use should not harm the retail character of the frontage and should generate pedestrian visits during shopping hours. The use should complement the shopping function of the area and should not result in a concentration of similar uses. No adverse impact on residential amenity should result. Policy S9 relates to proposals for restaurants and cafes and should not impact adversely on residential amenity, should not be out of character with the retailing function and should not cause undue traffic congestion. Policy T3 seeks to ensure that all off street parking provisions for new developments meet the requirements outlined in Appendix II of the Unitary Development Plan.

Policy T18 relates to highway safety. The Council will consider as appropriate the potential impact on road safety and will seek to ensure road safety is not adversely affected. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area provides further advice and guidance when considering planning applications within the conservation area. Para 3.2 states „The Council will expect all proposals for new development to conform with the general character of the conservation area, especially in regard to the scale and height of construction, design and materials used. It is hoped that all improvement works will take account of the character of the buildings and alter them as little as possible. Changes of use will be acceptable only where, in the opinion of the Council, they would have no detrimental effect on the character of the area.‟

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area, the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties, the impact on highway safety and the impact on the retail functioning of the primary frontage.

40

The site lies within a Primary Shopping Frontage and therefore must be considered in respect of Policy S1. The proposal is considered to attract shoppers within shopping hours and would provide a use that does not currently exist in Station Square. The proposed operating hours are within shopping hours only and it may be considered that the use of the building may complement the existing shopping function adding to the vitality of the area. There are a significant number of A2 uses on the Square, however the majority of uses are A1 and therefore the proposal is not considered to significantly harm the main retail functioning of the frontage or result in an over-concentration of A3 in the locality (with 2 nearby restaurants, including a change of use permitted adjacent to the Daylight Inn under ref. 97/01711). In addition, no significant impact on neighbouring amenities is considered to result, and no evening operating hours are proposed. The proposed delicatessen is not proposed to serve hot food and therefore no ventilation details are provided. The use can be conditioned accordingly. No technical highways objections are raised in light of the restricted operating hours and from a heritage and urban design point of view, no objections are raised. The proposed outside seating area is not considered to significantly obstruct the entrance to the station, and an informative is added regarding licensing for the use of this pavement area. Having had regard to the above it was considered that on balance the proposed change of use is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents, would not impact detrimentally on the character of the Station Square Petts Wood Conservation Area, highway safety or be significantly detrimental to the retail functioning of the primary frontage. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/02337, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACJ01 Restriction on use (2 inserts) a cold food delicatessen with

on-site seating A3

Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and S1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the area.

3 ACJ05 Rest. hours of use and ex. Sun (2 ins) 06.30 17.30 ACJ05R J05 reason S1 and S9 4 There shall be no preparation or cooking of hot food on the premises.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and S9 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of neighbouring properties.

5 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas S1 Primary Frontages

41

S9 Food And Drink Premises T3 Parking T18 Road Safety INFORMATIVE(S) 1 Thames Water recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat trap on

all catering establishments. We further recommend, in line with best practice for the disposal of Fats, Oils and Grease, the collection of waste oil by a contractor, particularly to recycle for the production of bio diesel. Failure to implement these recommendations may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and pollution to local watercourses. Further information on the above is available in a leaflet, 'Best Management Practices for Catering Establishments' which can be requested by telephoning 020 8507 4321

2 Licensing advice should also be sought regarding the use of the pavement as a sitting out area.

3 The applicant is further advised that any replacement advertisement signage may require Advertisement Consent.

_______________________


Bickley

Address : 104 Plaistow Lane Bromley BR1 3AS


OS Grid Ref: E: 541386 N: 169559

Applicant : Palmgrange Ltd Objections : YES


Two storey rear extension to existing nursing home for 12 new rooms providing

additional bed spaces/common room and staff training room in basement

Proposal This application seeks permission for an extension to Clairleigh Nursing situated at 104 Plaistow Lane. The extension is a two storey addition to the rear part of the existing building, extending across the site to form a more enclosed courtyard area to the L-shape existing buildings. The existing home has 24 rooms for 30 residents. The proposal is to create additional 12 rooms which will provide 6 additional bed spaces (by eliminating double rooms), a common room and staff training room in the basement. The proposal will also include a terrace at first floor level to the south eastern side, an additional staircase and a lift.

42

The extension will be approximately 9.5m in height, 20m wide and 11m deep. It will add 417sqm of floorspace to the existing 895 sqm. In support of the scheme the supporting statement explains that the proposal seeks to eliminate double bedrooms to provide more single bedspaces (total increase 6) to provide a more viable home. The increase in site coverage by buildings to 23.2% is suggested to be acceptable (currently 16.7%). A supporting statement from the operator explains how the need for single rooms will affect the viability of the home and that the economies of scale for 24 single rooms (which is likely to be the outcome of proposed changes to those placing residents in the home) would be difficult to manage.

Consultations Objections have been received from the Sundridge Residents Association which raises the following matters:

overdevelopment of the site

traffic hazard would result from additional staff and visitors

proximity to rear boundary of site unacceptable

visual amenities and privacy of adjoining dwellings would be affected No objections are raised from an Environmental Health or Trees aspect. Concerns have been raised from a Highways aspect regarding parking arrangements at the site and further information has been submitted to show parking provision at the site. Any further comments from the Highway Engineer will be reported verbally.

Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Polices BE1 (General Design), H4 (Supported Housing), T3 (Parking), T18 (Road Safety), C3 (Access for the disabled), C6 (Residential proposals for people with particular accommodation requirements) This Care Home has been extended previously with the addition of a large side wing in 1991 when the change of use to a nursing home was also allowed.

Conclusions The Council is generally supportive of proposals for specialist care homes where these meet the requirements of other planning policies. In this case the need for additional accommodation with regard to the changes to all single rooms is understood, however the proposal must also be examined in light of all of the policies set out above. In particular policies BE1, H4 and C6 explain, amongst other requirements, that the Council will require such developments to provide a high standard of amenity space for residents, easy access to shops and services and to avoid negative impacts upon residential amenities of surrounding properties and provide suitable space around buildings. This extension will add almost an additional 50% floorspace to the home. Whilst in itself this may not be considered objectionable, the overall bulk, siting and appearance of the extension gives rise to concern. The proposal will add significant built development in a currently open garden area of the plot, and although the proportion of the site covered

43

with built development will be around 23%, this does not take into account the size and bulk of the extension which is considerable. There will be a resulting reduction in the garden area which will additionally be overshadowed considerably more than at present, reducing the quality of the environment for residents. The siting of the extension is close to the rear boundary of the site, being sited 7 metres from the rear boundary at its closest point and the proposed extension would be highly visible from adjacent residential properties. In summary the need for this accommodation is not disputed, however the proposal does not meet the requirements of other policies in terms of overall design, layout and siting and on balance will have a negative impact upon adjacent properties and the character of the area in general. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 90/01583, 91/00546 and 08/02530, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 25.07.2008 12.09.2008


The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposed extension would, by virtue of its bulk, design, and siting constitute

a harmful overdevelopment of the site resulting in an unacceptable loss of amenity space and loss of lighting and prospect to the existing amenity space, detrimental to the character of the area and the amenities of occupiers of the care home, contrary to Policies C6, H4 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed extension, by virtue of its bulk, design and siting, would be

detrimental to the visual amenities of adjoining residential properties by reason of over-dominance and visual impact, contrary to Policies BE1 and H4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________

44


Copers Cope

Address : 111 Albemarle Road Beckenham Kent

BR3 5HS


OS Grid Ref: E: 538741 N: 169618

Applicant : Mr Phillip Saint Hilaire Objections : YES


Elevated timber decking to rear to a maximum height of 1.7m and timber screen

facing western flank boundary to an additional height of 1.8m RETROSPECTIVE

APPLICATION

Proposal The application site is a two storey detached dwelling located on the northern side of Albemarle Road. The properties along this side of the road are of similar designs on similar sized plots, with the majority of the properties are built to a regular building line. The application property has an area of existing decking which forms the subject of the retrospective planning application. The proposal comprises an area of elevated timber decking at the rear of the property, located towards the western property boundary. The floor of the decking is 1.7m from ground level at the highest point, and the entire unit of decking covers an area of approximately 7m in width and approximately 3.6m in depth. There is a privacy screen in place along the western edge of the decking, which measures at a height of approximately 1.8m from the floor level of the decking area to the very top. The decking area is located approximately 1.5m away from the western property boundary of the application site, which is shared with No. 109 Albemarle Road. There is existing decking on site at No. 113 Albemarle Road, the property adjacent to the application site to the east. This decking does not appear to be as deep as the decking at the application site, however there are open wooden railings as opposed to any form of privacy screen, as is proposed to be retained at the application site.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and below is a summary of the representations that were received:

loss of privacy for the residents of No. 109;

overlooking into garden and patio area of No. 109;

significantly impairs the enjoyment of the garden and home of No. 109;

the privacy screen does not provide adequate privacy;

the privacy screen does not cover the entire platform, only one end of the structure – the rest is glass;

loss of value to surrounding properties;

shrubs planted along shared boundary with No. 109 are not adequate.

45

Planning Considerations The proposal falls to be considered with regard to policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan. In terms of history there does not appear to be any planning history.

Conclusions The proposed decking provides access from the rear elevation of the host dwellinghouse into the rear garden. The occupant of No. 109 Albemarle Road (the objector) states that previously there was no door in the rear elevation of the application property, and that access was gained from the a door in the side elevation. Therefore they question the real need of the decking. However the elevational alterations to provide the door in the rear elevation of the property does not appear to have required planning permission and appears to have been carried out under building regulations approval. A privacy screen has been provided along the edge of the decking area facing the boundary shared with No. 109 Albemarle Road, which does provide a degree of privacy for the occupiers of both Nos. 111 and 109 Albemarle Road. There is also decking at No. 113 Albemarle Road which is of a similar design to the decking at No. 111, however at No. 113 the entirety of the decking is open with no privacy screening either in the form of a screen or vegetation. The objections and points raised during the consultation period have been carefully considered and are material to the making of this recommendation. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/02557, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

_______________________

46


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : 92 Crofton Road Orpington Kent BR6

8HZ


OS Grid Ref: E: 544888 N: 165849

Applicant : Mr Graham Lambourne Objections : YES


Two storey rear and single storey side extension

Proposal The application site is on the northern side of Crofton Road. The properties on Crofton Road are detached, with a group of semi-detached dwellings to the east. Although all have relatively large rear gardens, properties are located quite close to the side boundaries. No. 92 has an existing two storey rear extension and single storey side/rear extension. The application is for the erection of a two storey rear and single storey side extension. The single storey side extension will have a flat roof with a height of 3.4m and will extend 11m along the side of the property, projecting 3.5m beyond the rear of the property. The two storey rear extension will have a depth of 3.5m, with a hipped roof subservient to the main roof of the dwelling. This element of the extension will be set away from the boundary with No. 94 by approx. 1.2m when scaled from the submitted plans. No flank windows at first floor level are proposed.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representations have been received from the owners of No. 90 concerned with-

loss of light

loss of privacy and overlooking in respect of the proposal. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the Committee.

Planning Considerations The main policies relevant to this case are Policies BE1, H8 and H9 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE1 set out the design principles that would be applied when considering proposals for new development. Development should respect the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings. Development should not detract from the attractive townscape that the Council wishes to secure and should respect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

47

Policy H8 requires that the design of residential extensions should be in keeping with the local area in terms of scale, form and materials used. Any development should protect the privacy and amenities of adjoining properties, including daylight and sunlight. Policy H9 relates to side space and requires adequate separation between dwellings in order to prevent a cramped appearance.

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 proposed single storey side extension will be replacing an existing detached garage. This existing structure extends significantly to the rear of the property. As a result, the proposed single storey side extension, extending approx. 3.5m to the rear of the property is not considered to result in a significant additional impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property at No. 90. There is a ground floor flank window at No. 90 that would be affected by a loss of light due to the siting of the single storey side extension. This impact on sunlight will occur during the afternoons however this window appears to be a secondary window serving a living room. The garage will have a flat roof with a height of approx. 3.4m and this is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. The garage will have a false pitch to the front and is considered to be in keeping with the character of the dwelling. The proposed two storey rear extension will have a depth of 3.5m. Although this is a significant depth, the proposed property is detached and possesses a good separation to both neighbouring properties. In addition to this, the gardens of these properties face north and therefore light to the rear of these premises is already restricted by this orientation. In light of the separation and orientation, the proposal is considered not to significantly harm neighbouring amenities in this case. The roof is hipped and although significant in its height, is not considered to have a seriously detrimental impact on amenities or the character of the dwelling or wider area. On balance, 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. 08/02564, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) first floor flank extension ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) H8

48

4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space

_______________________


Clock House

Address : 109 Marlow Road London SE20 7XW


OS Grid Ref: E: 534858 N: 168882

Applicant : Ms H Morris Objections : YES


Two storey side/rear extension and conversion into 4 two bedroom flats with 2

car parking spaces at front and 2 at rear

Proposal The application site is to south-eastern side of Marlow Road, adjacent to the junction with Marlow Close. The site currently comprises a semi-detached property which was granted planning permission to convert into 2 flats in 1973, (ref. 73/03567). The site is located in a predominately residential area, comprising mostly of two storey terraced and semi-detached properties. Permission is sought for a two storey side extension and rear dormers to accommodate an additional 2 self-contained flats, to bring the total up to 4 flats on the site. The two storey extension will retain a minimum of 1.7m to the boundary with Marlow Close. It is proposed to have 4 car parking spaces, 2 at the rear of the site with access onto Marlow Close and 2 fronting Marlow Road.

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

scheme will have same overall affect

previous comments to refused scheme still applicable

increasing vehicular use of Marlow Close

disturbance of parking spaces to No.10 Marlow Close

49

objections due to size and type

negative impact on residents on Marlow Close- safety, security and quality of life

extension will create a tunnelling effect

affect on the price and sale ability of properties in Marlow Close

block light to No.10 Marlow Close

additional noise and disturbance

overcrowding

will alter No.111 from a semi-detached to end of terrace

effect on rear garden of No.111

From a Highways point of view, no technical objections are raised, subject to suggested conditions in their advice. From an Environmental Health point of view, no technical objections are raised.

Planning Considerations Member will recall that a similar application proposing a total of 5 flats was ref. 08/00817 was refused permission at Plans-Sub Committee on 17

th April 2008 for the

following reasons:

“The proposal would result in an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site due to the bulk and siting of the development and its prominent corner location, detrimental to the spatial standards and character of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

“The proposed development, by reason of the number of units proposed, would be out of character with the pattern of surrounding development, resulting in an overintensive use of the site and would therefore be contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The Applicant has appealed against the Council‟s decision and is currently awaiting a site visit date and decision from the Planning Inspectorate. No.109 was granted planning permission under ref. 73/03567 for the conversion of the property into 2 flats, including extensions to the property. Planning permission was refused under ref. 79/01959 for a detached block of 6 garages. In considering the application the main policies are H7, H9, BE1, T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan. These concern the density and design of new housing/new development, side space, the provision of adequate car parking and new accesses and road safety. Regarding the proposed density and amount of development proposed (Policy H7-Housing Density and Design) the proposal in an urban area along a transport corridor (Table 4.2 of the UDP- density/location matrix). The density appears to equate to approximately 70 units/hectare. The London Plan now also forms part of the development plan where Policies 4B.1, 4B.3, and 4B.7 are relevant. There policies promote the maximum use of sites, including good design, whilst respecting the existing context of the surrounding area.

50

Government guidance in the form of PPS3 “Housing” generally encourages higher density developments in appropriate locations, while emphasising the role of good design and layout to achieve the objectives of making the best use of previously developed land and improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas, but without compromising the quality of the environment.

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. Planning permission was refused under ref. 08/00817 for a similar proposal including a two storey side extension and an additional 3 flats bringing the total number on the site to 5. The application was refused due the proposal resulting in an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site due to the bulk and siting of the development and its prominent corner location, which would be detrimental to the spatial standard and character of the surrounding area. The proposal was also refused on the basis that the development by reason of the number of units proposed would be out of character with the pattern of surrounding development and would result in an overintensive use of the site. The Applicant now proposes an additional 2 flats, making a total of 4 flats on the site, a reduction of 1 flat compared to the previously refused scheme. The flat within the roofspace and rear dormers have now been deleted, as has the side porch feature. A minimum of 1.7m side space is still proposed adjacent to Marlow Close. Although the redevelopment of Nos. 105- 107 Marlow Road (ref.88/02569) resulted in a gap of approximately 1.5m being retained to the boundary, this does not warrant permission to be granted at No.109. It is considered that the proposed extension will be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and lead to a reduction in spatial standards. Regarding the proposed density and amount of development proposed (Policy H7) the proposal is in an urban area along a transport corridor (Table 4.2 of the UDP- density/location matrix). The site is measured at approximately 0.057ha and as such 4 units on the site would appear to result in a density of approx. 70 units per hectare. This proposal appears to fall within the ranges of 50-80 u/ha set out in the matrix (if that interpretation is acceptable). However, considering that the local area is predominately characterised by single dwellinghouses the proposal is considered out of character with the surrounding area. National guidance PPS3 “Housing” reinforces this position. Having had regard to the above it was considered that although attempts have been made to address the previous grounds of refusal, the proposal still constitutes a cramped overdevelopment of the prominent corner plot. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/00817, excluding exempt information.


The reasons for refusal are:

51

1 The proposal would result in an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site due

to the bulk and siting of the development and its prominent corner location, detrimental to the spatial standards and character of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed development, by reason of the number of units proposed, would

be out of character with the pattern of surrounding development would therefore be contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________


Farnborough And

Crofton

Address : Brambles Wood Way Orpington Kent

BR6 8LS

Conservation Area:

Farnborough Park

OS Grid Ref: E: 543313 N: 165817

Applicant : Mr Alan Cantwell Objections : YES


Single storey front extension and part one/two storey side and rear extension.

Proposal This application is for a single storey front and part one/two storey side and rear extension. An attached double garage would be added to the front of the main dwelling which would project approximately 6.5m beyond the front elevation. This would be up to 4.2m in height, including a pitched roof. The proposed single storey rear extension would enclose an open pool and also include a sauna, pool plant room and seating area. This would be approximately 23.5m deep and would be sited 2m from the south-eastern boundary with Hawthorn Hedges. At first floor level additional accommodation will be provided to the rear of the main dwelling along the southern side of the dwelling. This extension will have a rearward projection of approximately 2 metres, just short of the main rear elevation and would be flush with the existing flank wall of the houses. In addition, the ridge height will be raised along the southern side of the dwelling to bring it level with the main roof.

Consultations

52

At the time of writing no objections have been received. Any representations received will be reported verbally at the meeting. Objections have been raised by the Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas on the basis that the proposal results in an overdevelopment of the site and is of a poor design with excessive forward and rearward intrusion. From a conservation perspective, objections are raised on the basis that the rearward projection is excessive and that the forward projection of the building line is unacceptable given the strong building line of the houses to the south.

Planning Considerations Policies BE1, H8 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design; to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties; and to protect the overall character of conservation areas. Under ref. 98/03343 planning permission was granted for a two storey side and single storey side and rear extension, including a rear balcony. This permission appears to have been implemented in respect of the two storey side element and rear balcony. Under ref. 07/04258 planning permission was refused for a proposed two storey front extension with side dormer and an increase in the main roof height to incorporate a rear dormer. This was on the grounds that the two storey front extension would appear incongruous and obtrusive within the street scene, and that this element would be detrimental to the prospect and amenities of the residents of the neighbouring property at Hawthorn Hedges. Under application ref. 07/04280 the Council refused permission for a similar proposal as the current scheme, with the exception that a second storey was proposed above the front extension and that the rear extension boasted a greater rearward projection. The application was refused on the basis that the two storey front extension would appear incongruous and obtrusive within the street scene.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding Farnborough Park Conservation Area, and the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity. Brambles is a large property sited near to the roundabout at the end of Wood Way. Although the property is wide in its appearance as viewed from the road side, it does not appear over-dominant as the roof area on the southeast side of the property is lower in height and gives the impression that this part of the building is subservient. The proposed alterations to the roof would increase the height on the southeast side of the property so that it would be in line with the main roof thereby forming one continuous ridge level. This is likely to appear incongruous and harmful to the architectural integrity of the host dwelling. It is also considered that the proposed front extension would appear obtrusive (despite its reduction in height from two storeys) given its prominent siting.

53

In relation to the proposed single storey rear extension it is considered that the proposed depth of this element will appear excessive and visually intrusive, given its size and siting. This would also result in an overdevelopment of the site, and appear excessive in relation to the surrounding properties. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/04280 and 08/02656, excluding exempt information.


The reasons for refusal are: 1 The proposed front extension, by reason fo its prominent siting in advance of the

building line, would be an incongruous and obtrusive feature in the street scene, detrimental to the character of the Farnborough Park Conservation Area, contrary to Policies BE1, BE11 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed development, by reason of its size and siting, would be

detrimental to the prospect and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of Hawthorn Hedges due to its visual impact, thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 The proposed increased ridge height forming one continuous ridge level to the

dwelling would be harmful to the architectural integrity of the host dwelling, contrary to Policies H8, BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan

4 By virtue of the size, bulk and projection of the proposed rear extension, the

development constitutes an overdevelopment of the site, harmful to the character and spatial quality of the area, contrary to Policies H8, BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________


Cray Valley East

Address : 41 Chalk Pit Avenue Orpington Kent

BR5 3JJ


OS Grid Ref: E: 547675 N: 168976

Applicant : Mrs Sandra Ferris Objections : YES


Single storey rear extension

54

Proposal This application is for a single storey rear extension which would project 3.0m and measure up to 3.0m in height. It would be situated adjacent to the western flank boundary and project beyond an existing ground floor extension which projects 3.0m rearwards. The applicants have included a covering letter with the application stating that the extension would be built to provide space for a disabled member of the household who is suffering from a terminal illness.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. An objection was received in relation to the effect on the outlook from a neighbouring property.

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.

Conclusions Although the external appearance of the proposed extension is itself considered acceptable in comparison the existing bungalow, its impact is considered harmful to the amenities of the adjoining properties in that it will project beyond an existing extension (which appears to have been built under permitted development) resulting in a cumulative depth of approximately 6.0m in extensions beyond the original rear wall of the house and the neighbouring property, No. 39. By virtue of its depth it is considered that on balance the extension will restrict light and outlook to the rear of the adjoining properties. Whilst health grounds have been cited by the applicant in seeking to justify the proposal, Members will be aware that the planning system does not allow personal circumstances to be taken into account. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/02702, excluding exempt information.


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

adjoining property at No. 43 Chalk Pit Avenue might expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of loss of light and visual impact, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________

55


Chelsfield And Pratts

Bottom

Address : Woodrising Sevenoaks Road Pratts

Bottom Orpington Kent BR6 7SE


OS Grid Ref: E: 546814 N: 162811

Applicant : Mr R Smith Objections : YES


Double garage at rear

Proposal This application was deferred by the Planning Sub Committee of 11th September in order for the roof height of the proposed detached garage to be reduced. Revised plans have subsequently been submitted, and the previous committee report, subject to modifications, is repeated below. The application site lies along the northern side of Sevenoaks Road within an area characterised by detached properties of varying designs. This application is a revision for a detached building to one refused under ref. 08/00953. It is now proposed to amend the proposal with the omission of the first floor hobby room. The proposed structure would be located on a similar footprint as an existing garage, but with a larger footprint measuring 7.4m in length and 6.0m in width. The proposed structure would measure up to approximately 4.5m in height (to the apex) with a gable roof structure. The plans indicate that the structure would be located 1.75m away from the boundary with the neighbouring property, „Monterray‟.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. An objection was received from an adjoining property, „Monterray‟, prior to the revised plans being submitted, the contents of which may be summarised as follows:

the height of the structure could provide scope for conversion to living area in the upper space

the height and massing of the structure is too extreme to be classified as a garage, and given its size, it would affect the majority of the neighbouring garden

loss of sunlight, daylight and outlook, especially to the living room and conservatory at the neighbouring property

the proposed structure is set too close to the boundary to comply with Chelsfield Park Estate criteria

reduction in ground level may not be feasible and may disturb the roots of surrounding trees

there are no similar examples of garages located in back gardens in the area Any additional comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

56


Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan applies to the development and should be given due consideration. This policy seeks to ensure a satisfactory standard of design and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties. Previous planning applications proposing a two storey structure with a garage at ground floor level and hobbies room at first floor have been refused permission under refs. 07/03646 and 08/00953 on the following ground:

The height of the proposed structure would be excessive and seriously detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining properties by reason of loss of light and prospect, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Conclusions The main issues in this case are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity. In comparison to the previous scheme (ref. 08/00953) which was refused permission, the height of this (revised) proposal has been reduced by approximately 1.4m with the eaves level similarly lowered. The ridge of the proposed structure will itself be approximately 4.7m set away from the common boundary with the neighbouring property. Consequently the proposed structure is likely to appear less prominent from the adjoining property, and given the separation of the main structure from the boundary it is likely to appear less visually intrusive. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 07/03646, 08/00953 and 08/2712, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACI08 Private vehicles ACI08R Reason I08 3 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason 4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development T3 Parking

__________________________________________

57

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

_______________________


Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 26 Hayes Garden Bromley BR2 7DG


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 540199 N: 166050

Applicant : Mr S McDonald Objections : YES


Single storey rear and first floor side extension and half hip/rear dormer

Proposal

The application proposes a single storey rear and first floor side extension with half hip/rear dormer to this semi-detached property.

Consultations

Objections were received to the original application from the residents at No. 24 Hayes Garden (north) at lower level on the grounds of visual dominance by the flank wall and resulting impact on light and prospect. Updated comments upon the latest revisions will be reported at the meeting.


The proposals fall to be considered under Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the adopted UDP. Following on from planning objections to the original plans, the applicant‟s agent has now submitted amended plans dated 15.09.08 in an effort to overcome the original unacceptability of the indicated roof treatment. Members will observe from the street elevation plan sheet that the highway rises up from north to south with all semi detached dwellings having split level roof ridge lines to offset the site levels.

Conclusions

58

The revisions now indicate an improved roof detail, which is considered dwellings acceptable in terms of its design and impact on the pair of semi-detached dwellings. The required sidespace for two storey development is maintained and Members may consider that permission can now be granted. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/01634, excluding exempt information.

as amended by documents received on 15.09.2008 14.07.2008


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI09 Side space (1 metre) (1 insert) north ACI09R Reason I09 4 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) north extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1 5 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

_______________________


Hayes And Coney Hall

Address : 26 Mead Way Bromley BR2 9EW


OS Grid

Ref:

E: 540296 N: 167421

Applicant : Jayne Marles Objections : YES


Two storey front and part one/two storey side and rear extensions

Proposal

The application was presented to the Plans Sub-Committee on 31

st July 2008 and

deferred for the provision of a 1 metre side space and to replicate the roof design existing on the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. A two storey front and part one/two storey and rear extension is proposed.

59

Consultations

Surrounding residents were consulted and objections were submitted by the occupier of 73 Hoist Lodge, Fair Acres which is a block of flats to the north of the site. The objections can be summarised as follows:

existing parking spaces will be removed, making it a struggle for residents to find parking spaces

development would be totally out of character – another garden conversion.

Any further responses will be reported at the meeting.


The proposal falls to be considered under the following policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan: Policy H8, Residential Extensions, states that the design and layout of proposals should respect the host dwelling, compatible with development in the surrounding area and space between buildings should be respected or maintained when these contribute to the character of the area. Policy H9, Side Space, states that the Council will normally require a minimum 1 metres space from the side boundary for a proposal of two or more storeys. Policy BE1, Design of New Development, states that all proposals should be of a high standard of design and layout, and should be attractive, complement the scale, form, layout and materials of the adjacent buildings and respect the existing street scene. The extension of the two storeys does not accord with side-space policy H9 but is sited close to the rear boundary line of Nos. 211-219 Bourne Vale (east of site). Flank windows facing these properties will all be obscure glazed.

Conclusions

The application site is the last semi-detached property on Mead Way before it meets the corner with Bourne Vale. The property is not however, directly on the corner as it meets the rear gardens of the properties on Bourne Vale. It is considered that as this flank of the property is not adjacent to another property on this road, there will be no terracing effect and the amenities of neighbouring properties will not be unduly affected. The applicant cites a built extension opposite at No. 5 Mead Way (ref. 89/01101) apart from architectural appearance, does not accord with side space policy. It is also considered that the front extension aspect of the application will have little impact on the streetscene due to its size and as it does not protrude beyond the line of the existing dwellinghouse. The single storey element of the application has a rearward projection of approximately 1.7m. It may be considered that this projection will not have

60

a detrimental effect on the visual amenities enjoyed by the adjoining property and that it is not likely to result in a loss of light. Whilst the proposed two storey side aspect of the application is strictly against Council policy, Members may consider in this location, a relaxation of side space policy is reasonable, as a retention of the side space is not a necessity to maintain the open appearance of the area. Given its location adjacent to the rear gardens of Nos. 211 to 219 Bourne Vale, Members may also consider the proposal acceptable due to the fact that no terracing will occur from the development and no flank objections are submitted by adjoining residents. Resulting from the report to the Development Control Committee on 26

th August 2008

on side space policy (H9), Members will need to re-examine this case in the light of their decision not to relax the policy in such locations as in the present case. Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 08/01720, excluding exempt information.

as amended by documents received on 17.06.2008


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI12 Obscure glazing (1 insert) to the east flank elevation ACI12R I12 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1 4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

_______________________


Darwin

Address : Hazelbank Downe Road Keston Kent BR2

6AD


OS Grid Ref: E: 542305 N: 162869

Applicant : Mr And Mrs Hewitt Objections : YES


61

Erection of 2 storey three bedroom dwelling incorporating front and rear

dormers.

Proposal This is a retrospective application for a detached two storey 3-bedroom dwelling featuring front and rear dormers. The application site is situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt within an area of ribbon development. The proposal forms a replacement dwelling which will occupy a similar footprint to a property which previously existed on the site and which was recently demolished. At the time that the site was visited by the case officer work was underway with the initial brick courses being laid, and the eastern flank wall (serving a single storey side element) having been substantially completed. A planning report accompanying this application states that due to substantial structural defects, the original property would be incapable of accommodating enlarged accommodation at first floor level with front and rear dormers (approved under ref. 05/04046), and therefore the most appropriate option involved rebuilding the original property. The application dwelling will occupy a floor area of approximately 205 sqm. – approximately 10 sqm. additional to the demolished bungalow – as a result of a slight increase in the first floor living area. In terms of its location the eastern flank wall of the dwelling (which has been substantially built) is situated in the same area of the previous structure and will form part of a single storey side element. It will be up to 3.2m in height (an increase of approximately 0.2m in height compared to the previous structure), whilst a false pitch will be added toward the front. The ridge height of the main roof will be approximately 7.3m above ground level when scaled from the submitted plans, and this represents a reduction of approximately 0.3m compared to the approved application. The top of the chimney stack would be approximately 8.1m above ground level from the eastern side (compared to 8.2m on the permitted plans). The proposed rear dormer will have a flat top design (compared to the ridged design previously permitted). A side space of approximately 2.5m will be maintained between the western flank wall of the dwelling and the flank boundary of the property.


increase in height of chimney stack and angle of dormers to rear of the property will lead to a further loss of light and openness from the neighbouring property at Chanti Rosa

Planning Considerations Policies BE1 (Design of New Development), G1 (The Green Belt), G5 (Replacement dwellings in the Green Belt) and H7 (Housing Density and design) 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

62

overall character and amenities of the area, including the character and openness of the Green Belt. This application has been submitted following a previous grant of planning permission for extensions to the original dwelling under ref. 05/04046. These comprised a new roof with front and rear dormers, together with a false pitched roof to a single storey rear element. Those extensions were calculated to result in an increase in floor area of 14.45 sqm. at first floor level. Single storey extensions had previously been added to side and rear of the dwelling.

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. Previous planning permissions relating to the site also represent material considerations in determining this application. With regard to the impact on the Green Belt, a key consideration relates to the overall floor area of the scheme. Given that the footprint of the proposed dwelling is similar to the footprint of the extended dwelling approved in 2005, and that the additional floor area will be set at first floor level, the impact of this is unlikely to lead to a noticeable change in the bulk or overall appearance of the dwelling, compared to that permitted scheme. Whilst there will be a limited change in the design and appearance of the proposed house – in comparison to the original dwelling and the scheme permitted under the 2005 application – it is not considered that the changes involved in respect of the height or bulk will result in a change significant enough to lead to a loss of amenity greater than would resulted from the permitted scheme. With regard to the single storey side element of the application dwelling, this area has previously been occupied by such a structure whilst the main two storey element will be set approximately 4.7m off the boundary with “Chanti Rosi” in a similar footprint to the original dwelling. The enlarged rear dormer is unlikely to appear more dominant than that approved in 2005.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 04/02437, 05/04046 and 08/02760, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 2 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

Reason: In order to protect the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and prevent an overdevelopment of the site, in accordance with Policies G1, G5 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) eastern dwelling ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) H7 and BE1 4 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) first floor western dwelling

63

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

5 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to comply with Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development G1 Green Belt G5 Replacement dwellings in the Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open Land H7 Housing density and design

_______________________


Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 58 Petts Wood Road Petts Wood Orpington

Kent BR5 1LD


OS Grid Ref: E: 545185 N: 167839

Applicant : Mr C Nettle Objections : YES


Part one/two storey side/rear extension

Proposal The proposed development comprises an L-shaped part one/two storey side and rear extension. At ground floor level the proposed extension will be set 1.4m behind the front building line and 1.5m off the west flank boundary, whilst it will project 3.5m rearward. At first floor level the extension will project 3m beyond the rear elevation and align with the ground floor element along the flank elevation. However it will be set back approximately 4.4m from the front building line and 3m off the boundary with the adjoining property at No 56. Petts Wood Road. A detached garage located to the side of the main dwelling will be demolished.

Consultations At the time of writing this report one objection letter had been received from the owners of No. 56 concerned with loss of sunlight, daylight, privacy and outlook in respect of the proposal.

64

Any additional representations received will be reported verbally at the meeting.


Policies H8 (design of residential extensions), H9 (residential side space) and BE1 (design and layout of new development) of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory standard of design, ensure an adequate separation in respect of 2 storey side extensions, and are to safeguard the overall character and amenities of the area. In addition Policy H10, which relates to Areas of Special Residential Character, requires development to respect and complement the character of such designated areas. A previous application, ref. 08/01827, was refused planning permission on the following grounds:

The proposed first floor rear extension would prejudice the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling by reason of visual impact and loss of light and prospect, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan. The proposed two storey side extension would, by reason of inadequate side space provision, constitute a cramped form of development, out of character with the street scene, conducive to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which this Area of Special Residential Character is at present developed and contrary to Policies H8, H9, H10 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Conclusions The main issues for consideration relate to the impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring properties, and its impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC). In comparison to the previous scheme (ref. 08/01827) the proposal has been amended so as to address the two grounds of refusal. At first floor level the projection of the proposed extension has been reduced to 3.0m and set 3.0m off the boundary with the adjoining property at No. 56 Petts Wood Road. In terms of its impact on neighbouring amenities this element is considered acceptable in that it will maintain a 45 degree line of vision from the rear bedroom window at No. 56 and be adequately set away from that window to enable sunlight to continue to penetrate. It is acknowledged that there will be a limited loss of light to the neighbouring property and that the extension will be visible from No. 56; however given the separation of the extension from the neighbouring dwelling and the extent of its rearward projection it is not considered that the amenities of the adjoining residents at No. 56 would be significantly affected. With regard to No 60, given the level of separation between the two properties (approximately 4.0m), it is not considered that the amenities of this property will be significantly affected. With regard to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider Area of Special Residential Character, the extension will appear

65

subservient to the host dwelling given the height of the pitched roof above the two storey element. In comparison to the previous refused application the side space provision has been increased to 1.5m in an attempt to preserve the spatial standards which form an important characteristic of this ASRC. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/01827 and 08/02992, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) first floor flank extension ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) H8 and BE1 4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H8 Residential extensions H9 Side space H10 Areas of Special Residential Character

_______________________

66

SECTION 4 – Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS

_______________________


West Wickham

Address : 223 Pickhurst Rise West Wickham Kent

BR4 0AQ


OS Grid Ref: E: 539240 N: 166556

Applicant : Mr Neil Corners Objections : YES


Two storey front and side and single storey rear extensions together with side

and rear roof dormers

Proposal

This application proposes a two storey front and side and single storey rear extensions together with side and rear roof dormers. There is currently an access running between Nos. 223 and 225 which serves several garages to the rear. The proposals include development on this access, which would prevent vehicles from using it.

Consultations

Surrounding residents: Objections have been submitted by the occupier of No. 221 Pickhurst Rise (West) on the following grounds:

loss of established vehicular access to rear detached garages

effect upon surface water drainage in the right of way

loss of prospect from rear single storey extension Any other comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. Thames Water confirms no objections are raised.


These proposals which are architect designed, indicate among other things a two storey side extension (with accommodation in roof) utilising the current side vehicular

67

access. It is understood that the freehold of this access is owned by the applicant although several other residents use it to gain access to their garages at the rear. A single storey extension projecting some 3m is to be replaced with a new extension projecting approx 4.1m adjacent to the boundary with No. 221 Pickhurst Rise with an area of decking beyond this extending approx 3m. On the opposite flank, the extension will adjoin the reduced side access and have a length of 6.7m beyond the original rear wall of the house. The application falls to be determined under Policy H8 & BE1 of the adopted UDP and side space policy H9. The submitted design replicates the host dwelling but has a gable end. Large roof dormers face the side and rear.

Conclusions

The main issue regarding this proposal is the overall bulk of the extension and its impact on the streetscene and amenities of the adjacent residents. The two storey side extension, although designed to reflect the style of the existing house, will considerably reduce the gap between Nos. 223 and 225 Pickhurst Rise and in this respect will be detrimental to the character of the area. The rear extension adjoining No. 221 is considered excessive in terms of projection and with the additional decking is considered to harm the amenities of the adjoining residents. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 08/01684 and 06/03082, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 05.09.2008


The reasons for refusal are:

1 The proposed side extension would result in an overdevelopment of the site by

reason of its size, siting and height and would lead to a harmful reduction in the spatial standards of the area, contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2 The proposed single storey rear extension by reason of its siting, rearward

projection and visual impact would result in a loss of amenity and prospect to the adjacent dwelling No. 221 Pickhurst Rise contrary to Policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________

Documents

SECTION „1‟...2008/10/09 · 1 LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY TOWN PLANNING RENEWAL AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Committee (SC) on 9th October 2008 REPORT OF …