london borough of bromley environmental services …rich... · 2010. 2. 16. · relevant policies...

1

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Committee (SC) on 1st March 2007 REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNER SECTION „1‟ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley NO APPLICATIONS

2

SECTION „2‟ - Applications meriting special consideration

_______________________

1. Application No : 06/03484/FULL2 Ward :

Darwin

Address : Lower Hook Farm Shire Lane

Orpington Kent BR6 7HH

Conservation Area:NO

OS Grid Ref: E: 542982 N: 163377

Applicant : B+S Ventures Ltd Objections : NO

Description of Development:

Change of use of 3 existing site buildings to class B1 (C)/B8 uses with

associated parking

Joint application with ref. 06/04162

Proposal The application site is situated to the south of Shire Lane set back from the road, behind Lower Hook Farm house. The site was previously used as a Dairy Crest depot and comprises three large modern buildings and associated hard surfaced yard. These buildings are now disused. This proposal is for the change of use of 3 existing site buildings to Class B1(C)/B8 uses with associated parking. This application is linked with application ref. 06/04132 for the alterations to building 3, sited nearest the road, by re-constructing the walls to the eastern and western elevations to enclose the building.

Consultations Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and representatives were received which are summarised as follows:

adverse impact on traffic levels along Shire Lane

out of keeping with the proposed World Heritage Site There are no objections from Thames Water with regards to waste and water infrastructure. Comments from the Environment Agency and on the proposed World Heritage aspect have yet to be received.

3

From a highways point of view, comments have been based on the scenario of all units being B1(C). Overall traffic generation is unlikely to exceed the historic level of traffic and therefore should not significantly impact on traffic levels during peak hours. The access arrangements are adequate for the type of vehicle needed to access/egress the site although conditions would need to be attached regarding visibility. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal is acceptable from a highways point of view, it is considered that the opportunity should be taken to improve visibility at the junction and improve the width. A width of about 8m for the first 20m of its length measured from its junction with Shire Lane is recommended although this would impact on the hedgerows. Parking provision is considered acceptable although it is advised that cycling facilities should be provided From the building control aspect, it is considered that all three buildings could be satisfactorily converted to the proposed use and no objection is raised to soakaway in this location subject to percolation test being carried out by the developer and proving satisfactory.

Planning Considerations Relevant policies are G1 – development in the Green Belt, BE1 – design of new development, BE3 – buildings in rural areas, NE6 – World Heritage Site, and T3 - the provision of parking in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2006). Relevant planning history includes an outline application for the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of three detached single storey buildings comprising milk bottling garage/amenity room also garage/store (ref. 86/0929), details pursuant to above outline application were approved in 1987 (ref. 86/3620), and an application for a detached building to provide a creamery and engineering works to form an embankment permitted in 1995 (ref. 94/0454).

Conclusions The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area and the open and rural nature of the Green Belt and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties. Neither Policy G1 of the UDP nor PPG2 are against the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt, however any proposal must conform to specific criteria to ensure it does not impact on the openness and rural nature of the Green Belt. With respect to these criteria, it is considered that, after consultation with Building Control, the buildings are suitable for conversion. Furthermore, the design, access and planning statement states that only minimal change to the appearance of the buildings is proposed and in the case of the northern building (Unit 3) the alterations proposed under application ref. 06/04162 do not reduce the openness of the Green Belt as no additional floor area is being added to the existing footprint and the reconstruction of the walls would be carried out in keeping with the rest of the building and the other two units. With regards to the highways issues, the hardstanding for the proposed parking is already in place, and the amount of parking proposed is considered acceptable. Whilst the means of access are also considered acceptable, given that the nature of traffic generated is likely to be similar to that of the previous use and appropriate conditions can be attached, it is recommended to use this opportunity to improve visibility. However, this would impact on the hedgerows, an important feature of the proposed

4

World Heritage Site. The applicant is keen not to have a detrimental impact on the hedgerows and considers the means of access acceptable as proposed. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 86/0929, 86/3620, 94/0454, 06/03484 and 06/04162, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 4 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 5 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt ACD04R Reason D04 6 ACH01 Details of access layout (2 insert) 2.0m x 60m 1m ACH01R Reason H01 7 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 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 ACJ01 Restriction on use (2 inserts) B1 (C)/B8 B1

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

12 No additional floorspace at mezzanine level shall be created without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan, to accord with the terms of the application and to prevent overdevelopment of the site.

13 While the development hereby permitted is being carried out, provision shall be made to accommodate operatives' and construction vehicles loading, off-loading, parking and turning within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and such provision shall remain available for such uses to the Authority's satisfaction throughout the course of the development.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan and in order to ensure potential impact on road safety is not adversely affected.

14 Prior to the first occupation of the units hereby permitted the developer shall submit written certification to the Local Planning Authority that the courtyard/parking areas have been lit in accordance with BS 5489 - 1:2003 and that such lighting will be maintained thereafter.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy T15 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure road safety in residential areas.

5

15 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development BE3 Buildings in rural areas NE6 World heritage site G1 Development in the Green Belt T3 Provision of parking

_______________________


Darwin

Address : Lower Hook Farm Shire Lane

Orpington Kent BR6 7HH


OS Grid Ref: E: 542982 N: 163377

Applicant : B+S Ventures Ltd Objections : YES


Alterations to existing building (3) to re-construct walls to eastern and western

elevations.

Joint application with ref. 06/03484

Proposal The application site is situated to the south of Shire Lane set back from the road, behind Lower Hook Farm house. The site was previously used as a Dairy Crest depot and comprise three large modern buildings and associated hard surfaced yard. These buildings are now disused. This proposal is for the alterations of building 3, sited nearest the road, by re-constructing the walls to the eastern and western elevations to enclose the building. The materials used will match the adjacent units. This application is linked with application ref. 06/03484 for the change of use of 3 existing site buildings to Class B1(C)/B8 uses with associated parking.


Subject to the following conditions:

6

1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04 3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan

Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and G1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to prevent inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development G1 Development in the Green Belt NE6 World Heritage Site T3 Provision of parking

_______________________


Cray Valley East

Address : Telephone Exchange Chislehurst Road

Orpington Kent BR6 0DB


OS Grid Ref: E: 546336 N: 166859

Applicant : British Telecommunications Objections : YES


2 aluminium louvres on eastern elevation

Proposal This application relates specifically to the installation of two aluminium louvres on the Orpington Telephone Exchange along the eastern elevation of the building. Permission to insert two louvres on this flank was originally granted on appeal under reference 06/00095. This current application essentially seeks to amend the position of one of the louvres and Members of Plans Sub Committee No 1 on 2nd November resolved to grant permission for this subject to a legal agreement to revoke the appeal permission (so as to prevent the partial implementation of both permissions, resulting in 3 louvres on the wall). This application is being returned to the Plans Sub Committee following the applicant‟s reluctance to complete a legal agreement. The applicants have said that they would not implement the appeal permission but they do not wish to become involved in formal legal procedures, which have cost implications.

7

The louvres themselves would be installed in place of existing glazed windows and would have dimensions of approximately 3.1 metres high by 2.4 wide. It has been stated by the agent that the louvres would enable ventilation for additional cooling equipment servicing telecommunication equipment, and would not relate to mobile phone masts.

Consultations

Letters of objection has been received, raising the following issues:

unattractive design;

questioning the real intention of the louvres;

whether a sufficient number of local residents have been informed of the proposal

No technical objections have been raised to the proposal from an Environmental Health point of view.

Planning Considerations Policy BE1 (design and layout of new development) 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 is intended to safeguard the character and amenities of the area. As stated above, a previous application (ref. 06/00095), which was also for the installation of two aluminium louvres on eastern elevation, was granted permission on appeal. Under ref. 05/03823 permission was refused for four louvres on the eastern and western elevations, on the following grounds:

The proposed louvres, given their size and siting, would be out of character and visually intrusive in the streetscene, causing harm to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residential properties, contrary to policies E.1 of the Unitary Development Plan and policy BE1 of the Draft Unitary Development Plan.

Conclusions The proposed louvres would be located to the south of a stairwell that fronts Perry Hall Road. These louvres would have a distinct appearance compared to the window designs. However, they are unlikely to result in a detrimental impact on the character of the area. Given that the principle of two louvres has been granted permission on appeal, under ref: 06/00095, it is considered that the proposed amendment to the positioning of the louvres is acceptable. In the event that a third louvre is added (as permitted in the previous application, ref. 06/00095) in view of the fact that that earlier application would still be valid, Members are asked to consider whether such a development could harm the amenity of neighbouring properties.

8

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 05/03823, 06/00095 and 06/03463, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 The ventilation louvres shall not be installed until details of acoustic attenuation

arising from their use have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and any such equipment shall thereafter be installed before the louvres are first used and retained according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policy (UDP) BE1 Design of new development D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1. In the absence of a legal agreement to revoke the appeal permission ref.

06/00095, the cumulative effect of the proposed louvres, given their size and siting, would result in development out of character and visually intrusive, causing harm to the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring residential properties, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________

4. Application No : 06/03527/ADV Ward :

Chelsfield And Pratts

Bottom

Address : Flower Beds At Roundabout ( Jct With

Rushmore Hill) Sevenoaks Road Pratts

Bottom Orpington Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 547124 N: 162733

Applicant : Marketing Force Limited Objections : NO


9

3 x non illuminated signs

Proposal

This case was presented to the Plans Sub Committee held on the 1

st February 2007.

Members resolved to defer this application to await the outcome of other street furniture applications at the Development Control Committee held on the 6

th February 2007.

These applications were also deferred for a Members site visit. The body of the previous report is repeated below.

This application is for 3 non illuminated signs on the roundabout at the junction with Sevenoaks Road and Rushmore Hill.

Consultations No local objections have been received during the consultation process. Transport for London ( TfL) is the highway authority for the A21. They advise that “the proposed signs do not direct or inform drivers of potential traffic conditions and consequently are of no direct benefit to road users. They would be a distraction and not conducive to road safety. They could also be construed as using an area of public highway for advertising which in time could result in displays from less laudable concerns In the circumstances, TfL recommends a refusal on the grounds of highways and public safety.

Planning Considerations Advert proposals have to be considered in terms of their impact on highway safety and visual amenity, and against policies BE1 and BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy BE21 relates specifically to the control of advertisements.

Conclusions As stated above, the main issues appear to be whether the proposed signs would be significantly harmful to the appearance of the area and highways safety. In respect of their visual impact, the signs are of modest dimensions and will be sited forward of existing planting in the centre of the roundabout. As such, their effect on visual amenity should not be significant. Members will note the comments made by TFL in respect of this case. However, it must also be noted that there are many similar locations throughout the borough where similar adverts have been granted consent. In this case, bearing in mind the TFL comments Members views are requested. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 06/03527, excluding exempt information.

10

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 6 ACF01 Standard 5 year period ACF01R Reason F01 D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested: 1. The proposed signs would be detrimental to the highway and public safety in

that they do not direct or inform drivers of potential traffic conditions and would be a distraction, contrary to Policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________


Biggin Hill

Address : 49 Sunningvale Avenue Biggin Hill

Westerham Kent TN16 3BX


OS Grid Ref: E: 541558 N: 159490

Applicant : Kent Design And Build Ltd Objections : YES


2 detached four bedroom houses/ 10 semi detached three bedroom houses with

integral garages/ 4 terraced four bedroom houses/ 2 terraced three bedroom

houses including associated parking and access from Sunningvale Close

Proposal

The proposal seeks full permission for a scheme consisting of 18 residential dwellings. The site comprises two existing residential plots with an area of 1.19 hectares (as taken from application form). At approximately 81 habitable rooms per hectare (based on the inclusion of the kitchen/diner as one room) the proposal falls below minimum density ranges. The site is situated on the east side of Sunningvale Avenue and to the north of Sunningvale Close. The land rises steeply from the east towards Jugg Hill which is classified as Urban Open Space, although the development site is not designated in the Unitary Development Plan. The site is also the subject of Tree Preservation Orders 73, 655, 665 and 1517 and comprises a significant area of wooded hillside and is semi-

11

rural in location and character. There is a substantial badger sett in the north of the site, however, this part of the site is not subject to development proposals. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement as well as a Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development Statement and an Arboricultural and Planning Integration Report. The Design Strategy includes the following points:

the access road is now proposed at the top of Sunningvale Close, which is more appropriate to the topographical nature of the site and alleviates the need for significant excavation of earth

the northern spur of the site will not be developed in view of the Planning Inspector‟s comments following the previous appeal regarding loss of privacy at Nos. 35a and 35b Sunningvale Avenue

the affordable housing within the scheme will be located to the northeast of the site and is sited to reflect the topography of the ground and to respect the respect the residential amenities of Nos. 45 and 47 Sunningvale Avenue

the dwellings located within the Sunningvale Avenue street scene have been designed to respect the size, scale and height of the existing, adjoining properties

the design and layout of the scheme allows greater retention of trees than the appeal proposal in response to the Inspector‟s comments

the proposed site layout reflects the contours of the land and allows a constant staggered cover of mature landscaping. This assists in retaining the wooded and rural character of the site and is a response to the Inspector‟s comments following the earlier appeal.

The Sustainable and Energy Efficient Development Statement outlines the measures that will be taken to promote energy efficiency and accord with the principles of sustainable development. The Arboricultural and Planning Integration Report contains a survey of the subject trees and outlines the integration of the proposed development with the retained trees. As part of the application process, negotiations have taken place to enable the completion of a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing provision and the adoption of Sunningvale Close. This is now nearing completion.

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

overdevelopment

loss of trees and effect of development on remaining trees/roots

loss of flora and fauna

loss of wildlife habitat (bats, birds, badgers, deer)

out of character

harm to visual amenity

houses would appear bulky, dominant and obtrusive

houses on plots 13-18 would be particularly prominent

12

steep slope of land emphasises intrusion

overlooking/loss of privacy

detrimental visual impact from across the valley

existing drainage and sewage infrastructure is inadequate

increased pressure on services and infrastructure

detrimental impact of required excavation

Sunningvale Close is privately maintained and is inadequate for increased traffic

there will be flooding at nearby properties

surface water will run down to Sunningvale Avenue

there will be further deterioration in condition of roads, particularly from construction traffic

potential for landslides

increased noise and disturbance

harm to badger setts

construction traffic and machinery will disturb badgers

site office, delivery point and machinery store is sited close to badgers

increased traffic and pressure on parking on a narrow, congested road

loss of rural environment

light pollution

no need for additional houses in Biggin Hill

backland development

post development pressure to fell further trees

layout of development suggests that a second phase is planned

detrimental impact on highway/pedestrian safety

undesirable precedent in the area

proposal does not reflect Inspector‟s comments following previous appeal

Arboricultural and Planning Integration report is inaccurate

supporting information is misleading

previous applications have been accompanied by inaccurate plans

inadequate information has been submitted for the proper assessment of the proposal.

There are no objections in terms of drainage. The proposal is considered acceptable from an urban design point of view. Following an initial consultation, there are no objections from a highways point of view. Sunningvale Close would have to be made up to adoption standard as part of this proposal under the provisions of the Private Street Works Code of the Highways Act 1980 and this would require the applicant to enter into a Section 106 agreement. The estate road would be suitable for adoption under a Section 38 agreement. Further responses to consultations, including comments on badgers and any impact on Biggin Hill Airport, will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations There is extensive planning history attached to this site, it has been the subject of previous applications as well as the subject of an appeal.

13

Planning permission was refused under ref. 89/03583 for 2 detached houses with an access road at 37-41 Sunningvale Avenue. The subsequent appeal was dismissed. The Inspector considered that the site formed a prominent and attractive feature of great importance in the wider landscape and that the proposed development would be damaging to both character and appearance of the area. The Inspector also found that the degree of overlooking and loss of privacy would be unacceptable, given the sharply rising nature of the land. An application for 5 detached houses and 18 semi-detached houses with associated parking and access road at 41 and 49 Sunningvale Avenue (ref. 04/00522) was refused on the following grounds: 1. The proposal would be overdominant and would be detrimental to the amenities

that the occupiers of adjoining properties might reasonably expect to be able to continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and overlooking, contrary to Policy H.2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and H6 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

2. The proposed development, would create an unacceptable amount of

disturbance to a badgers sett, creating the risk of future abandonment, contrary to Policy G.23 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and NE2 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

3. The proposed development would necessitate an unacceptable loss of protected

trees which contribute to the visual amenities and character of the surrounding area, contrary to Policy G.26 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy NE6 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

4. The scale of the proposed development is considered to be excessive and

would amount to overdevelopment within the context of the significant physical constraints of the site, including protected woodland, active badger setts and steep gradients, which restrict the extent of the developable part of the site, contrary to Policies H.2 and E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan

A subsequent appeal was dismissed. The Inspector commented that:

„The group value of the trees on the appeal site is attributable in part to the rural ambience that they bring to the street scene of this part of Sunningvale Avenue. However, of even greater importance, in my judgement, is their prominent presence in the wider landscape and, in particular, their contribution to the vistas available over longer distances from Arthur Road, Oaklands Lane and the rising valley slope to the west. In these views, the trees on the appeal site merge indistinguishably with the woodland above and behind them and thus form an integral part of an important landscape feature. Although the steep wooded escarpment rising behind the appeal site would remain untouched in longer views from the west, there would be considerable erosion and masking of foliage at its base, above the roofline of existing frontage properties in Sunningvale Avenue. Rather than reading as a simple restoration of an overgrown domestic landscape and being assimilated into the area with minimal impact, the proposed development would, in my judgement, seriously diminish the scenic quality of the hillside. Neither the bespoke design of the

14

dwellings, carefully chosen materials nor additional planting could mitigate visual detriment on such a scale. The appeal scheme would thus amount to an unwelcome and excessive intrusion of built development into an important wooded vista and would be harmful to the wider landscape.‟

The Inspector also commented that there would be an unacceptable degree of overlooking of Nos. 33B and 35A Sunningvale Avenue and an unacceptable loss of outlook at No. 47 Sunningvale Avenue. Planning permission was again refused under reference 05/02385 for 10 semi-detached and 8 detached houses with associated parking and access road at 41 and 49 Sunningvale Avenue on grounds 1-3 as per the previous application and the following grounds:

The proposed does not include on site provision of affordable housing units and would therefore be contrary to Policy H2 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002) and Policy 38.A of The London Plan.

Development in the manner proposed will infringe Biggin Hill Airports protected surface and compromise conditions of safety contrary to the Civil Aviation Authority's guidelines for safeguarding the airport.

In relation to this proposal, Central Government advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing, seeks more efficient and effective use of land whilst not compromising the quality of the environment. The existing density levels of the land should not dictate that of any proposed new development. In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan policies are 4B.1 which sets out strategic principles of design, 4B.3 requires maximising the potential of any site with good, sustainable design consistent with its location, accessibility, etc whilst respecting local contexts and communities, natural environment and built heritage. 4B.7 requires development to respect local distinctiveness and preserve or enhance the social, physical, cultural, historical and environmental characteristics. The proposal therefore falls to be determined with regard to Policies H2, H7, NE7, T3, T18 and BE1. Policy H2 seeks to ensure a provision of 35% affordable housing in respect of schemes of 10 units or more. 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 NE7 requires the suitable replanting of trees that have to be felled to facilitate development. 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.

15

Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

Conclusions

The main issue to be considered is whether this proposal overcomes the previous grounds of refusal. The Inspector‟s report relating to the appeal case identified the key issues as loss of outlook and privacy at neighbouring properties and the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities of the area. The proposed layout is considered to overcome previous concerns regarding living conditions. The principle issue is therefore the impact of the proposal on the “scenic quality of the hillside‟. The terrace of six houses will be the most intrusive part of the development in this respect. However, there has been a reduction in the number of trees that will be affected and also in the scale of development at the most sensitive part of the site at the base of the escarpment. It is therefore considered that, whilst there will still be a degree of harm, the impact on the landscape is now acceptable. Affordable housing is to be provided and the proposal is therefore now compliant with Policy H2 of the Unitary Development Plan. With regard to the impact of the proposal on badgers and air safety, the relevant parties have been consulted and comments will be reported verbally at the meeting. Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 04/00522, 05/02385 and 06/04524, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A

LEGAL AGREEMENT

and the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 4 ACB01 Trees to be retained during building op. ACB01R Reason B01 5 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing ACB02R Reason B02 6 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires ACB03R Reason B03 7 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains ACB04R Reason B04 8 ACB13 Trees - excavation by hand (a) ACB13R Reason B13 9 ACC01 Satisfactory materials

16

ACC01R Reason C01 10 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 11 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt ACD04R Reason D04 12 ACH01 Details of access layout (2 insert) ACH01R Reason H01 13 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 14 ACH05 Garage dimensions ACH05R Reason H05 15 ACH10 Provision of sight line (3 inserts) 2.4m x 45m the junction of

the estate road with Sunningvale Close 1m ACH10R Reason H10 16 ACH10 Provision of sight line (3 inserts) 2.4m x 90m the jucntion of

Sunningvale Close with Sunningvale Avenue 1m ACH10R Reason H10 17 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 18 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

Reason: In the interests of the visual and residential amenities of the area. 19 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason 20 ACK10 Badgers - protective fencing ACK10R K10 reason 21 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H2 Affordable housing H7 Housing design NE7 Development and trees T3 Parking T18 Road safety INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI10 Street Naming and Numbering 2 RDI16 Layout of Crossovers etc 3 RDI18 Advise DC Re commencement

_______________________

17


Chelsfield And Pratts

Bottom

Address : Norsted Manor Norsted Lane Pratts

Bottom Orpington Kent BR6 7PB


OS Grid Ref: E: 546296 N: 161393

Applicant : Mr And Mrs R A Edmondson Objections : NO


Part one/two storey extension

Proposal

This proposal is for a substantial part one/ two storey extension to be built beyond the northern flank of Norsted Manor. Existing single storey extensions added to the northern side of the property, would be demolished, whilst the original two storey house, which also contains accommodation in the roofspace, would be retained. The floor area of the proposed extensions would be 210 square metres, as compared to 264 square metres for the existing extensions, to be removed. The proposed L-shaped extension would project 3 metres beyond the northern flank of the main house and would include a hipped roof rising to 6.6 metres in height – approximately 0.5 metres below the eaves of the roof on the main house. The extension would project 1.5 metres beyond the front building line of the main house and would be 17 metres wide. It would include a hipped roof and include a mezzanine floor with 3 south-facing dormers, and it would also be 6.6 metres in height. The remainder of the extension would be located to the east of the current northern extension and would project 13 metres beyond it. It would be 6 metres wide and would encompass a lower ground floor to accommodate a triple garage. From ground floor level it would be 9.2 metres in height, including a hipped roof. A new access would be provided along the east and west of the property in order to provide vehicular access to the garage.

Consultations Consultation letters, regarding this proposed application, were sent to adjoining residents. No objections have been received to date, although one correspondent has said that the existing flat roof extension was built without planning permission and that the proposed extensions appear to represent over 10 per cent [Green Belt] permitted allowance under planning rules. No objection to the proposal was received from the Tree Officer.

Planning Considerations

Policies H8, BE1 and G4 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure a satisfactory

18

standard of design and are to safeguard the overall character and amenities of the area, including the character of the Green Belt.

Conclusions The main issue for consideration is whether the proposed extension will harm the open nature of the Green Belt and whether it will be more visually intrusive than the current extension. The application property is a substantial dwelling and forms a prominent feature within the locality. The proposed extension is considered to be subservient to the main property and of sympathetic design. However, in spite of its more limited floor area (as compared to the existing extension), it is of bulkier appearance given its substantial hipped roof and L-shaped design. Members should consider whether the reduction in floor area and design of the proposed extension is more acceptable than the current extension. Although it would appear that the existing single storey extension was built without planning permission, a sufficient number of years has expired to deem the extension lawful. Whilst it is unlikely that such a substantial extension would have been granted planning permission without modification, it is now lawful status and its existence is an important material consideration. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 06/04282, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 4 ACI07 Restrict to members of household (1 in) at Norsted Manor,

Norsted Lane, Pratts Bottom ACI07R Reason I07 5 ACI08 Private vehicles ACI08R Reason I08 6 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development G4 Extensions in the Green Belt H8 Residential extensions T3 Parking D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested:

19

1. The proposed extension would, by virtue of its design, bulky appearance and

location, have a detrimental impact on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy G4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________


Biggin Hill

Address : Land Adj To 12 Rosehill Road Biggin

Hill Westerham Kent


OS Grid Ref: E: 541379 N: 158743

Applicant : Firdale Properties Ltd Objections : YES


Erection of part two/three storey block of seven flats (6 two bedrooms and 1 one

bedroom) with associated parking to the rear

Proposal

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a part two/three storey building comprising of 7 bedroom flats. (6 two bedrooms and 1 one bedroom) The application site is currently a vacant parcel of land located immediately to the east and north of a small shopping centre. The proposal will be attached to the existing units on one side. The plans indicate a pitched roof that will be above the existing flat roof of the unit to the west of the site. It should be noted that a planning application was granted at the site for a detached two storey office building under application ref. 02/00206 and for ref. 03/03759 for a two storey building for offices on ground and mezzanine level and two 2 bed flats at first floor level with car parking. Members will also note that a planning permission was granted for 8 dwellings under ref. 06/02342 at the adjacent site at 2 Rosehill Road. This site has not been developed as yet and a revised application has been received. This case has not been determined at the time of compiling the report.

Consultations

20

There have been local objections to this case. The comments are summarised as follows:

overdevelopment of the site

too high for the area

too many units

too many flats

impact on drainage

lead to antisocial behaviour

lack of parking

impact on traffic Any highways comments will be reported verbally.

Planning Considerations

The site has no specific designation in the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal should be determined with regard to policies including H7, H2 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan together with Supplementary Planning Guidance No1 (General Design Principles) and 2 ( Residential Design Guidance). Policy H7 of the UDP addresses housing density and design of new housing development. The Council will seek to resist obviously poor designs that are out of scale or character with the surrounding area. Policy BE1 of the UDP addresses the design of all new development and comments that the Council will expect a high standard of design and layout. Policy H2 relates to affordable housing. In determining this application account must also be taken of national planning advice issued by Central Government. The most significant Central Government publications are PPS1 and PPS3. PPS1 gives general guidance in respect of development. PPS3 provides strategic guidance on a range of issues relating to housing development. This guidance states that local planning authorities should provide wider housing opportunity and choice and a better mix in the size, type and location of housing than is currently available. The guidance also stresses that priority should be given to re-using previously developed land within urban areas and the more efficient use of land through reviewing planning policies and standards. However, this is balanced with whether the development results in the unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The London Plan is also a material consideration. More specifically policies 4B.1, principles of design and 4B.3, maximising the potential of sites apply and should be taken into account.

Conclusions

The major considerations of this case appear to be whether the principle of development is acceptable, whether the proposal sits comfortably within the site, whether the resulting impact on adjoining properties is not unduly harmful.

21

Central Government Advice Planning Policy Guidance seeks more efficient use of land but at the same time not comprising the quality of the environment. This application clearly a case that needs to be assessed in the light of this guidance. As stated above, permission was granted for a two storey building at this site with applications in 2002 and 2003. The proposal takes up a similar footprint as previous approvals. There are concerns that the building is close to the boundary. However, the previous applications have a similar relationship. The proposal appears to use land that is both underutilised and vulnerable to social issues. Members may agree that bearing in mind the recent history of the site a

building on the site appears to be acceptable in principle. There is concern that the design of the building which has a pitched element which would be above the flat roof design of the rest of the shopping area. However, the location is to the corner of the shopping area and is seen as a design improvement. There is concern about the balcony feature on the upper floor. However, this element is positioned to limit the harm to neighbouring amenity. Accordingly, subject to any issues from a highway point of view, this proposal appears to be on balance acceptable. Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 02/00206, 03/03759 and 06/04369, excluding exempt information.


Subject to the following conditions: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 3 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 4 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 5 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 6 ACH04 Parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 7 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 8 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 9 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in

complete accordance with the plans approved under this planning permission unless previously agreed in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, to accord with the terms of the application and prevent overdevelopment of the site.

22

10 No additional floorspace shall be provided within the building hereby permitted

without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, to accord with the terms of the application and prevent overdevelopment of the site.

11 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) H7 Design of housing development BE1 Design of new development

_______________________


Orpington

Address : 1 Orchard Grove Orpington Kent BR6

0RX


OS Grid Ref: E: 545946 N: 165921

Applicant : Linden Homes SE Ltd Objections : YES


Redevelopment of Nos 1-23 (odd) Orchard Grove with 2 four storey blocks

comprising 5 one bedroom/ 59 two bedroom/ 12 three bedroom properties and 16

three storey three bedroom houses together with 86 car parking spaces and

formation of vehicular access

Proposal

The application site is located on the western side of Orchard Grove and is occupied by 10 detached and a pair of semi-detached two storey houses with long rear gardens. The site has a frontage of approx. 145m, sloping downwards from north to south towards Station Road, and extends over an area of 0.96 ha. It also rises significantly towards the rear and culminates in a 2m high bank beyond which are properties in Elm Grove. The existing gardens are well established and include a number of important trees, particularly along the western boundary of the site and in the south west corner of No. 1 where there is a large cedar protected by a TPO. To the north of the site is No. 25 Orchard Grove, another detached two storey house, to the rear (west) are the gardens of properties in Elm Grove and to the south is a four storey flat roofed block of flats with access and garaging abutting the application site.

23

On the opposite side of Orchard Grove is the multi-storey car park which is subject to redevelopment proposals for a Tesco supermarket, car parking and residential units. The application proposes the demolition of the 11 houses and the erection of 2 four storey blocks of flats fronting Orchard Grove and 10 semi-detached and 6 terraced houses to the rear served by a central access road. The development will comprise 76 flats (5 x 1 bed; 59 x 2 bed and 12 x 3 bed) of which 34 (in Block B) are to be affordable. A total parking provision of 86 spaces, including 4 disabled spaces, is proposed. The density of the scheme would be 96 dwellings per ha, 311 habitable rooms per ha within the density range of the London Plan and the adopted Unitary Development Plan. The application is accompanied by a Planning and Design Statement, a Statement of Community Involvement, an Ecological Assessment, a Tree Preservation Strategy, a Sustainability Statement and a Transport Planning Assessment. The Planning and Design Statement examines the area and sets out the details of the scheme, the public involvement, the relevant planning policies, the design principles adopted and the merits of the proposal. It concludes that the application site is a highly sustainable location for residential development on the edge of Orpington Town Centre. The proposals will make more efficient use of land and provide a choice of affordable and market housing in a highly accessible location. It is also submitted that the density of development is appropriate for its location and there will not be harm to the residential amenities of No. 25 Orchard Grove or the properties in Elm Grove. It is also stated that the proposals have been designed in accordance with principles set out in Government guidance, the London Plan and the Unitary Development Plan. The Statement of Community Involvement refers to the pre-application discussions that have taken place and details amendments made to the proposal following consultation. It also explains that over 700 local residents were invited to a public exhibition in January 2007. Members of the committee together with Ward Members undertook a site visit on 10

th February 2007.

The Ecological Assessment concludes that the site provides suitable opportunities for nesting birds, roosting bats and foxes and consequently care must be taken to protect identified habitats. It is also stated that a further assessment is recommended to ascertain the presence, location and type of bat roosts within the site. The Tree Protection Strategy states that the design of the scheme allows for the retention of those trees on the site of significant amenity value and which form the rear and western boundary groups. One of the trees to be removed has more moderate amenity value whilst the remainder will have little amenity value or prominence. The Sustainability Statement sets out various energy saving measures including increased insulation beyond normal Building Regulation requirements, use of condensing gas boilers and installation of solar heating panels in a number of the flats. Finally, in respect of the Transport Assessment, it is stated that traffic impact would be insignificant in terms of safety and capacity, access and parking is in accordance with local guidance and there should be no significant impact on the local highway network resulting from the implementation of this scheme and the Tesco development.

24

As part of the application process, negotiations have taken place to enable the completion of a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing provision and a contribution towards education and locally required health care facilities. This is now nearing completion.

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

increased environmental pollution

excessive residential density

overdevelopment

out of character and scale with adjoining area

blocks will appear bulky, dominant and visually obtrusive

harm to visual amenities of the area

blocks are poorly designed and excessively high

increased traffic and congestion in an already busy area

increased pressure on parking

additional pressure on already stretched local infrastructure and services

detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety

increased crime

greater risk of flooding due to site coverage with hard surfaces

increased noise and disturbance

development will add to the impacts of proposed Tesco superstore

inadequate parking

excessive parking

increased use of „rat-runs‟ in surrounding area

access road is narrow

lack of capacity at Orpington railway station

insufficient amenity space

loss of light, prospect and privacy at neighbouring dwellings

undesirable precedent in the area

unsatisfactory loss of sound family housing

impact on wildlife

loss of trees/foliage/green space

disturbance from construction at same time as the Tesco development

transport assessment is flawed

plans and supporting documents are misleading and inaccurate.

An objection was also received from a Ward Councillor which includes the following points:

poor design

cramped accommodation

excessive density

inadequate parking

inadequate infrastructure and services in surrounding area

inadequate measures proposed in terms of sustainability, security and crime prevention.

25

John Horam, MP has commented that the proposed development is too large and intrusive. Following initial highways comments, there are no objections to the proposal. The level of parking provision is considered appropriate. The layout of the site will require large vehicles, including emergency vehicles, to reverse around 60m into the site. However, whilst this is not ideal it is not an issue that should lead to a refusal of planning permission. Any further highways comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting. Whilst it is considered that the proposal is an overdevelopment, the building styles and treatments are considered acceptable from an urban design point of view. Thames Water has raised no objections to the impact of the development regarding sewerage and water infrastructures, neither are there any technical objections to the scheme. There are no objections in terms of drainage. From a crime prevention design point of view, there are concerns regarding the lack of play/communal amenities on the site because the proposal and the Tesco development opposite will result in a large increase in the number children and youths in the area. Furthermore, cars parked in the spaces to the north of Block B may be vulnerable to crime. Bromley NHS have expressed concerns that the development will have an impact on health requirements and that there is no additional capacity within the existing primary care infrastructure to meet the expected demand. Given the existing provision and demands made on local G. P. practices, it is stated that a contribution via a Section 106 agreement should be sought to enhance health services and this is included in the legal agreement. There are no objections from a sustainable development point of view. Further responses to consultations will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations Planning permission was refused under ref. 06/01968 for the demolition of existing houses and erection of 3 three storey detached buildings comprising 36 flats together with associated car parking and new vehicular access at Nos. 1-7 (odds) Orchard Grove on the following grounds:

The proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site and due to the size and siting of Blocks B and C and the location of rear car parking areas, would be harmful to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of No. 9 Orchard Grove, by reason of visual impact, loss of prospect and general disturbance, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. The proposal, due to the siting of Block B in proximity of the rear gardens of properties in Elm Grove, would be harmful to the amenities currently enjoyed by

26

the occupants of those properties by reason of visual impact and overlooking, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

An appeal against the Council‟s decision is currently outstanding. Planning permission was granted under ref. 04/03193 for the demolition of existing multi-storey car park and healthcare building on Earls Way and erection of part 5/ 6 storey building, for a mixed use development comprising retail (Class A1), 73 residential units (Class C3) and non-residential institutional use (Class D1), together with 947 (approx) car parking spaces (including basement parking) servicing area, formation of new vehicular accesses to Station Road and Augustus Lane, landscaping and other related works. A revised proposal is currently pending consideration under ref. 06/01277. Proposed amendments include the provision of additional retail floorspace on a mezzanine level. In strategic terms the most relevant London Plan policies are 2A.1 (Sustainability criteria), 4B.1 which sets out strategic principles of design, 4B.3 requires maximising the potential of any site with good, sustainable design consistent with its location, accessibility, etc whilst respecting local contexts and communities, natural environment and built heritage. 4B.7 requires development to respect local distinctiveness and preserve or enhance the social, physical, cultural, historical and environmental characteristics. The proposal falls to be determined with regard to Policies H1, H2, H5, H7, T3, T5, T18 and BE1. Policy H1 (v) seeks to make most effective use of land in accordance with the density/location matrix in Table 4.2. Policy H2 seeks to ensure a provision of 35% affordable housing in respect of schemes of 10 units or more. Policy H5 requires a 10% provision of residential units suitable for wheelchair users within developments of 20 or more dwellings. 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 T3 seeks to ensure that off street parking provisions for new development are to approved standards. Policy T5 requires that all development is designed to ensure ease of access for people with restricted mobility. Policy T18 requires that issues of road safety are considered in determining planning applications. Policy BE1 requires a high standard of design in new development generally, and seeks to protect the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

27

Central Government advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing and Planning Policy Statement 3 seeks more efficient use of land whilst not compromising the quality of the environment. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport seeks to integrate planning and transport policies to promote accessibility to employment, shops, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling to reduce the need to travel, particularly by car. Maximum parking standards are advocated with low provision encouraged in more accessible locations. It is considered that the main issues relevant to the determination of this application are the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the amenities enjoyed by surrounding residents. Members should also have regard to the impact on traffic and parking in the local area and the contribution of the site to both the Borough‟s housing requirements and affordable housing provision.

Conclusions The site is in a sustainable location close to Orpington town centre, the railway station and bus stops so that a higher density development is considered appropriate. The proposed density is in line with that envisaged in The London Plan and the adopted Unitary Development Plan. In terms of impact on the character of the area, the principle of four storey flats is considered acceptable at this location given the proposed Tesco development granted planning permission under ref. 04/03193. The blocks will have a staggered frontage and Block A will be approx. 60m wide and Block B will be approx. 50m wide. The maximum depth of the blocks is approx. 19m whilst the maximum height to the eaves is approx. 13m. Members are asked to consider whether the impact of the proposal on the street scene is acceptable in terms of bulk and scale. A significant amount of the site will be covered by hard surfaces for car parking spaces and there will be limited amenity space for occupiers of the flats, however this can be considered acceptable given the requirement to make efficient use of land. In terms of impact on residential amenities, the siting of the buildings is not considered to result in any serious overlooking or loss of light and outlook at nearby properties. The depths of the rear gardens to the houses exceed 10m and the differences in ground levels serve to reduce overlooking. There will be car parking close to the boundary with No. 25 Orchard Grove and Nos. 12 and 14 Station Road, however any increased noise and disturbance that will result from this arrangement is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission. The proposed houses were included in the scheme following a consultation with local residents. Occupiers of adjoining properties expressed a preference for private residential gardens across the rear of the site, which will provide greater security. It is considered that the proposed blocks will appear somewhat dominant when viewed from the new houses, however they will be separated by a distance of over 20m from the houses and this impact is therefore considered acceptable. In terms of traffic and parking, no objections have been raised. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

28

In terms of the contribution of the site to housing provision, this development will provide considerable benefits locally and will exceed the affordable requirements of the Unitary Development Plan. Background papers referred to during the production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/01968 and 06/04545, excluding exempt information. as amended by documents received on 03.01.2007 26.01.2007

RECOMMENDATION: MEMBERS' VIEWS ARE REQUESTED 0 D00002 If Members are minded to grant planning permission, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, the following conditions are suggested: 1 ACA01 Commencement of development 3 years ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years 2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04 3 ACA06 Size and type of trees ACA06R Reason A06 4 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07 5 ACB02 Trees - protective fencing ACB02R Reason B02 6 ACC01 Satisfactory materials ACC01R Reason C01 7 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03 8 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ACD02R Reason D02 9 ACD04 Foul water drainage - no details submitt ACD04R Reason D04 10 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03 11 ACH04 Parking bays/garages ACH04R Reason H04 12 ACH10 Provision of sight line (3 inserts) 90m x 4.5m x 90m the

Orchard Grove access 1m ACH10R Reason H10 13 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16 14 ACH17 Materials for estate road ACH17R Reason H17 15 ACH18 Refuse storage - no details submitted ACH18R Reason H18 16 ACH22 Bicycle Parking ACH22R Reason H22 17 ACH23 Lighting scheme for access/parking ACH23R Reason H23 18 ACH24 Stopping up of access ACH24R Reason H24 19 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E

29

Reason: In the interests of the visual and residential amenities of the area. 20 ACK03 No equipment on roof ACK03R K03 reason 21 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason 22 Development shall not begin until details of the following have been submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the buildings are occupied, and the relevant works shall be retained thereafter:

a) a scheme of energy efficiency measures and the generation of renewable energy;

b) dwellings capable of occupation by wheelchair users and dwellings designed as

"lifetime homes".

Reason: In order to seek compliance with the Mayor of London's Energy Strategy and to comply with Policies 4A.7, 4B.1 and 4B.5 of The London Plan and Policies H5 and ER4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

23 The development hereby permitted shall incorporate measures to minimise the risk of crime and to meet the specific security needs of the application site and the development. Details of these measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with the approved details. The security measures must incorporate the principles and objectives of Secured by Design to improve community safety and Crime Prevention. Any security measures to be implemented in compliance with this condition shall seek to achieve the "Secured by Design" accreditation awarded by the Metropolitan Police.

Reason: In order to protect the amenity and general wellbeing of future residents thereby to comply with Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

24 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of new development H2 Affordable housing H5 Accessible housing H7 Housing design NE7 Development and trees T3 Parking T5 Access for people with restricted mobility T18 Road safety Policies (The London Plan) 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city 4B.3 Maximising the potential of sites 4B.7 Respect local context and communities INFORMATIVE(S) 1 RDI16 Layout of Crossovers etc 2 It is the responsibility of the developer to make proper provision for drainage to

ground, water courses or surface water sewer. It must not be allowed to drain to the foul sewer as this is the major contribution to sewer flooding. In the disposal of surface water, Thames Water recommends the developer a) looks to ensure

30

that new connection to the public sewerage system do not pose an unacceptable threat of surcharge, flooding or pollution b) check the proposals are in line with the DETR which encourages, wherever practicable, disposal on site of without recourse to the public sewerage system - for example in the form of soakaways or infiltration areas on free draining soils c) looks to ensure the separation of foul and surface water sewerage on all new developments.

3 There are 3 public sewers crossing the site, therefore no building work will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewers without Thames Water's approval. Should you require a building over application form or other information relating to your building/development work, please contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777.

4 Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx. 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water's pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

D00003 If Members are minded to refuse planning permission the following grounds are suggested:

1. The proposal, by reason of the scale and design of the blocks, will be an

overdevelopment of the site, out of character with the area, thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

_______________________


Biggin Hill

Address : Biggin Hill Airport Ltd Churchill Way

Biggin Hill Airport Biggin Hill

Westerham Kent TN16 3BN


OS Grid Ref: E: 541744 N: 160173

Applicant : Biggin Hill Airport Ltd Objections : YES


Hotel (with approximately 100 beds) and restaurant and associated access road

together with service area and car parking

Proposal The application site occupies the south western corner of the airport and lies entirely outside the Green Belt. It is situated within South Camp and comprises several sub-standard buildings and an existing car parking area. The site presently accommodates

31

4 flying clubs, plus RAS Completions, Biggin Hill Helicopters, Aveley Car and Van Hire and Scrambles Café. The footprint of the buildings and hard surfaces is in the order of 7000 square metres and the parking area accommodates about 150 cars. This is a revised application to that previously refused under application ref. 06/00220 which sought permission for a hotel (with approximately 100 beds) restaurant, service areas and car parking for 190 vehicles. This application seeks permission for a hotel building with a footprint of approx. 1,520sq.m. and will be part one/ three storeys in height, (excluding a small basement area) with a low pitched roof. The proposed design comprises a „V‟ shaped building which will now be set further away from the boundary with Main Road by approx. 39m when compared to the previous scheme which proposed a set back of only 13m. The applicant‟s architects state that the main building elements will be brick to match surrounding buildings, with interspaced rendered panels to reduce the apparent visual impact of the building with areas of glazing to the public areas. A shallow pitch has been adopted to allow the building to conform to safeguarding restrictions as well as to reflect the similar low pitched roofs on the light industrial units within adjoining business park. Access to the site is to be provided via the existing access on Churchill Way furthest from the junction with Main Road. The nearest residential properties are at a lower level on the opposite side of the A233. To the East of the site lies existing hangars (Gold Air) and to the South is a substantive building (Sapphire House) which has a business use with associated car parking. The planning application is accompanied by a number of related drawings and documents including; Planning, Design and Access and Transport Statements, Sequential Site Assessment, Hotel Need and Impact Assessments. A summary of the conclusions in the Planning Statement which the applicants have submitted to justify the acceptability and need of the proposed hotel development, is set out below. The full versions of the documents are available on file for Members information.

There is a need to provide a hotel at LBHA to serve passengers, flight crew, staff and others associated with business at and adjoining the Airport.

A Needs and Impact Assessment, together with a Sequential Site Assessment have been submitted which conclude that there is unmet demand within the area, and that users of the Airport will utilize the hotel accommodation rather than having to travel further afield, as is the case currently. Although the site is an out of centre location, there is no sequentially preferable site within the area studied.

In the future, need is highly likely to increase with the aspirations of the airport set out in the Airport‟s Master Plan and the 2012 Olympic Games in London. The London Hotel Demand Study (2006) estimates that the London Borough of Bromley will need an additional 550 rooms to meet future demand until 2026

The UDP indicates that South Camp is an appropriate location for an airport related hotel use. The site is previously developed land, currently in a run-down

32

condition, and the proposal would greatly enhance this part of South Camp. The site would not be appropriate for direct airport related activity, since there is no airside access and there are limitations on the building sizes on the western part of the site due to safeguarding restrictions

The position of the building, set back from the road frontage, would allow a considerable area of planting to the fore of the hotel. Further, the hotel on the Main Road frontage has been designed to appear two storey, with the basement making use of the change in levels within the site, and a pitched roof to reflect the residential scale opposite. Thus the lower height on this elevation, together with the distance from the nearest residential properties (70m) and the landscaped frontage would ensure that there is no detriment to adjoining residential occupiers

A Design and Access Statement accompanies the application and demonstrates that the proposal satisfies all the key national, regional and local policy tests.

The Design Statement also asserts that:

“The proposed hotel has a tower appearance which is designed to imitate the airport control tower, (which dates from the Second World War), by using glass and an overhung roof structure in the design of the corner tower of the proposed hotel. Not only is the appearance of the proposed hotel directly related to its surroundings but the actual construction of the building also employs a number of techniques predominantly associated with the automotive and aeronautical industries. The hotel rooms are designed as prefabricated components, which are delivered to the site as a 'pod' and lifted into position. Biggin Hill Airport has an extensive history of prefabricated buildings, which almost serve as a catalogue marking the advancements within the construction industry towards high quality prefabricated building units.”

The Transport Assessment accompanying the application which was produced by Capita Symonds Limited, concludes the following:

At present the site accommodates up to 150 cars at any given time. As a general guide, the flying clubs account for up to 75 vehicles on the site, the car and van hire company for up to 30 vehicles, the cafe for 25 vehicles, Transcity for 15 vehicles and Biggin Hill Helicopters for 5 vehicles

The hotel is being developed primarily to cater for demand from airport-related businesses and adjacent off-site industrial areas. The TRICS database has been used to calculate potential trip rates. However, the net effect of the new hotel is likely to be a reduction in the overall vehicle-kilometres traveled as people will be able to stay in the immediate area rather than travel further afield. This accords with the policies of PPG 13, which aims to reduce overall car journeys

The flight business operations centre will provide replacement accommodation for the airports existing flying clubs, who are to be relocated due to the hotel application, hence vehicle movements associated with them will remain on Churchill Way in the future

The peak time for vehicular activity associated with the flying clubs tends to be at weekends, particularly during the summer months. As a consequence,

33

it is unlikely that there will be any significant traffic generation associated with the clubs during the traditional commuter peak hours of 8.00 - 9.00 hrs and 17.00 - 18.00 hrs

The site is reasonably well served by public transport with four local bus services passing the site. These provide links to railway stations at Bromley North, Bromley South, Hayes and Orpington as well as the Croydon Tramlink terminus at New Addington

In addition to these scheduled services, Biggin Hill Airport Limited is willing to accept a condition requiring the airport to provide a shuttle bus service between the hotel on South Camp and the terminal building. LBHA will provide cycle parking facilities within the development to encourage staff and visitors to use this sustainable mode of transport

The net increase in traffic likely to result from the development would be approximately 2.0% of current traffic levels at the A233 / Jail Lane junction. This increase is considered to be negligible as it falls below the Institute of Highways and Transportation guidelines for significant traffic impact

Taking into account current traffic movements associated with the site, it is contended that the development is unlikely to have any significant effect in respect of traffic impact on the local highway network. If LBB consider that it is necessary, and are minded to approve the planning application, LBHA are willing to accept a planning condition requiring the production of a Green Travel Plan associated with the proposed development. However, it is considered that the Traffic Assessment demonstrates that there would be no significant adverse impacts arising from the proposed development.

Consultations There have been a number of representations, the great majority objecting to the proposals although some letters of support have also been received. Correspondence has been received from local residents associations, including Flightpath, Cudham Residents' Association, Farnborough Park Estate Ltd, The Grange Residents‟ Association, The London Green Belt Council, Crofton Residents' Association, Hayes Village Association, The Association of Men of Kent and Kentish Men and Bromley Friends of the Earth. The main concerns raised by local residents are summarised as follows:

the location of the hotel is inappropriate/local authorities are encouraged to approve

hotels in town centres

the size/need/demand for the hotel have not been justified and the proposal conflicts

with Para. 3 Annex B of PPG13

the hotel is out of character/inappropriate for Biggin Hill

the proposed development is not sustainable

the development is not in accordance with Policy BH3

the hotel will be at risk from airport safety/Public Safety Zone

the building removes the possibility of the site being used for aviation related activities and thus increases pressure on the Green Belt

increase in the amount of traffic with inadequate transport infrastructure to support the proposal

34

there will be a loss of jobs, not new jobs

the hotel will lead to the expansion of the airport

air crew already have contracts with other local hotels

detrimental impact on infrastructure of Biggin Hill

little difference from that scheme previously refused under ref. 06/00220

concerns about safety of occupiers given the proximity to the airport

detrimental impact on businesses

it will spoil the area

contrary to the Council‟s Lease. Furthermore, „Flight Path‟ and Farnborough Park Residents Association highlight that the Mayor of London stated in question time at City Hall (21.02.06) that he saw “no justification for growth at Biggin Hill “ (airport), adding that “any expansion would require a high speed rail link to the airport which was not logistically viable”. In addition, Mr Bob Neill MP, when a member of the London Regional Assembly stated; “Biggin Hill Airport is totally unsuited for expansion, which would have appalling consequences in terms of traffic, noise and other environmental issues” All of these statements indicate no support or reason for a hotel at Biggin Hill (Farnborough Park Estate Ltd.) In addition, the applicant‟s agent has submitted a written statement in response to the concerns raised by local residents and amenity groups and is available on file. The Civil Aviation Authority states that the aerodrome, under Condition 3 of its licence, should have informed the Authority‟s inspector ahead of any planning application and sought the inspector's agreement; part of this notification would have ensured that the 'safeguarding' of the aerodrome and its airspace would have been satisfied. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and Thames Water raise no objections to the development subject to safeguarding conditions. No technical objections have been raised in respect of the principle of the development from an Environmental Health, Drainage and Highways point of view subject to safeguarding conditions. At the time of writing this report comments had not been received from the Environment Agency and any received will be reported verbally at the meeting.

Planning Considerations In respect of the previous applications for a hotel on the site (refs. 01/03291 and 06/00220), it is considered the proposed development is not "EIA development" within the meaning of the 1999 Regulations. It is considered that the same applies in respect of this case. The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policies of the Unitary Development Plan these include BH1, BH2, BH3, BE1, L10, T2, T3 and ER4. Policy BH1 states that the Council will seek to protect as far as practicable the amenities of local residents and will ensure that harm and disturbance to the local environment is minimised.

35

Policy BH2 states that the Council will generally direct development of the airport to the main area of existing development as shown on the proposal map of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. Policy BH3 specifically relates to proposals for new development on the South Camp of the airport as the primary location for airport related facilities and activities, including hangers, aircraft maintenance, aircraft parking and flying club facilities. The policy also states that there is potential for a hotel/restaurant facility, however the relationship to the airport related business should be explicitly justified and be an appropriate scale. Policy BE1 states that all development proposals, will be expected to be of a high standard of design and layout to safeguard public amenity and improve the quality of life in the borough with new development relating well to the character of its surroundings. Policy L10 (Tourist Related Development) states that the Council will look favourably on proposals to build new hotels provided that they meet certain criteria which relate to character of the locality, noise and residential amenity, traffic generation and adequate off street parking. Policy T2 states that where an application is likely to generate travel, the Council will require a Transport Assessment and developers will be expected to draw up and implement Travel Plans. Policy T3 relates to the Councils maximum parking standards. Policy ER4 expects non-residential developments of 1000sq.m. or more to include the use of on-site renewable power generation equipment. The London Plan is also a key material consideration in the determination of this case. Policy 3D.6 states that Boroughs should identify capacity for new hotel provision in town centres and other locations beyond the Central London Sub-Region including international and national transport termini. The most relevant Central Government planning guidance is contained within PPS1 and PPG13. PPS1 sets out the general aims and objectives of the planning policy and emphasises amongst other things the need for sustainable development. PPG13 concerns transport issues. The main objectives are to promote sustainable transport choices, to promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities etc and to reduce the need to travel, especially by car. Annex B - Aviation advises that local planning authorities will need to consider:

"the growth of regional airports.... The New Deal for Transport encourages regional airport growth to cater for local demand where it is consistent with sustainable development...

the role of small airports and airfields in serving business, recreational, training and emergency service needs”.

The advice also gives examples of operational, related and less directly related development. Operational needs include aircraft maintenance, related development includes administrative offices, short and long stay parking and less directly related development includes hotels conference and leisure facilities.

36

The Government White Paper, The future of Air Transport was published in December 2003 and recognises the important contribution made by small airports in the South East such as Biggin Hill. Planning History There is an extensive planning history relating to the airport and the most relevant applications are listed below: An outline application under ref. 01/03291 was refused for the erection of 100 bedroom hotel, 3 hangers, aviation centre and 194 car parking spaces on the application site on the grounds that it was contrary to Policy BHA.5 in the adopted UDP (1994) as the Council has already provided for a hotel at 'Proposal Site 21' in the adopted Unitary Development Plan, the proposal would displace directly related airport development to other parts of the airport and increasing development pressures, and that there was insufficient information to justify the development was of an inappropriate scale relative to core airport related activities. More recently a similar proposal comprising a 2/3 storey hotel with approx. 100 bedrooms, restaurant and associated access road together with service area and car parking was refused under ref. 06/00220 for the following reason: 1. The proposed hotel building, by reason of its size, location and design will be

out of character with the area, contrary to Policy E.1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy BE1 of the second deposit draft Unitary Development Plan (September 2002).

An appeal has been lodged in respect of application ref. 06/00220 and is still pending consideration by the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal is being dealt with under the written representations procedure and although written statements have been sent to the Inspectorate, at the time of writing this report an Inspectors site visit date had not been arranged and it is envisaged that the appeal will not be determined until later this year. Under ref. 01/00555 permission was granted for a part 2/3 storey 50 bedroom hotel with associated restaurant, conference facility and 75 parking spaces to extend the period of implementation on land south of Fayreholm, Main Road with entrance to Biggin Hill Airport. This application has not been implemented and under ref. 06/03035 an application to renew this permission has been submitted. The renewal application was presented to the Plans Sub-Committee on the 2

nd of November and Members

resolved to defer determining the application pending the outcome of the appeal lodged against application ref. 06/00220. In addition to this, there are a number of airport related developments which are permitted by virtue of the criteria set out in Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995.

Conclusions

This application seeks permission for a revised scheme following the refusal of permission for ref. 06/00220 for a similar hotel development. The previous grounds of refusal related to size, design and location of the development and as such, the

37

principle of a hotel use on this part of the site may be considered acceptable in line with the supporting text of Policy BH3 in the adopted UDP. With respect to the impact on residential amenity, the nearest dwellings are some distance away on the opposite side of the A233 and it is not considered that sufficient harm (in terms of visual impact or increased activity) would be caused to warrant a refusal of planning permission. Whilst the concerns of some local residents and Fligh

london borough of bromley environmental services …rich... · 2010. 2. 16. · relevant policies...

Documents