plans sub-committee no. 1 thursday 13 june 2013 at …

To: Members of the

PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 1

Councillor Alexa Michael (Chairman) Councillor John Ince (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors Douglas Auld, Katy Boughey, John Canvin, Peter Fookes, Samaris Huntington-Thresher, Mrs Anne Manning and Harry Stranger

A meeting of the Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 will be held at Bromley Civic Centre on

THURSDAY 13 JUNE 2013 AT 7.00 PM MARK BOWEN

Director of Corporate Services

Copies of the documents referred to below can be obtained from www.bromley.gov.uk/meetings

BROMLEY CIVIC CENTRE, STOCKWELL CLOSE, BROMLEY BRI 3UH

TELEPHONE: 020 8464 3333 CONTACT: Rosalind Upperton

[email protected]

DIRECT LINE: 020 8313 4745

FAX: 020 8290 0608 DATE: 4 June 2013

Members of the public can speak at Plans Sub-Committee meetings on planning reports, contravention reports or tree preservation orders. To do so, you must have

• already written to the Council expressing your view on the particular matter, and

• indicated your wish to speak by contacting the Democratic Services team by no later than 10.00am on the working day before the date of the meeting.

These public contributions will be at the discretion of the Chairman. They will normally be limited to two speakers per proposal (one for and one against), each with three minutes to put their view across.

To register to speak please telephone Democratic Services on 020 8313 4745 ---------------------------------- If you have further enquiries or need further information on the content of any of the applications being considered at this meeting, please contact our Planning Division on 020 8313 4956 or e-mail [email protected] ---------------------------------- Information on the outline decisions taken will usually be available on our website (see below) within a day of the meeting.

A G E N D A

1

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

2

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 18 APRIL 2013 (Pages 1 - 6)

4

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

SECTION 1 (Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

Report No.

Ward

Page No.

Application Number and Address

4.1 Penge and Cator 7 - 20 (12/02798/FULL1) - Land rear of 190-200 Kings Hall Road, Beckenham.

4.2 Mottingham and Chislehurst North

21 - 24 (13/01289/FULL1) - Dorset Road Infant School, Dorset Road, Mottingham.

SECTION 2 (Applications meriting special consideration)

Report No.

Ward

Page No.


4.3 Farnborough and Crofton 25 - 28 (13/00374/FULL6) - 2 Ferndale Way, Orpington.

4.4 Shortlands Conservation Area

29 - 34 (13/00531/FULL6) - 20 Malmains Way, Beckenham.

4.5 Orpington 35 - 38 (13/00641/FULL6) - 99 Repton Road, Orpington.

4.6 Plaistow and Sundridge 39 - 46 (13/00655/FULL1) - 27 Edward Road, Bromley.

4.7 Bromley Town Conservation Area

47 - 54 (13/00676/ADV) - The Glades Shopping Centre, High Street, Bromley.

4.8 Shortlands Conservation Area

55 - 62 (13/00713/FULL6) - 23 Wickham Way, Beckenham.

4.9 West Wickham 63 - 72 (13/00766/FULL1) - Old Beccehamian Rugby Football Club, Sparrows Den Sports Ground, Corkscrew Hill, West Wickham.

4.10 Bromley Common and Keston Conservation Area

73 - 80 (13/00836/RECON) - Ravenswood School, Oakley Road, Bromley.

4.11 Bromley Common and Keston Conservation Area

81 - 90 (13/00839/FULL1) - Ravenswood School, Oakley Road, Bromley.

4.12 Farnborough and Crofton 91 - 98 (13/00857/FULL1) - 7 Willow Walk, Orpington.

4.13 Orpington Conservation Area

99 - 106 (13/00943/FULL1) - 73 High Street, Orpington.

SECTION 3 (Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

Report No.

Ward

Page No.


4.14 Copers Cope Conservation Area

107 - 112 (12/03084/TPO) - 10 Crab Hill, Beckenham.

4.15 Chislehurst 113 - 116 (13/00816/MATAMD) - Plot 2 Lyridon, The Drive, Chislehurst.

4.16 Chislehurst 117 - 120 (13/00832/FULL6) - 11 Walkden Road, Chislehurst.

4.17 Orpington Conservation Area

121 - 124 (13/00944/CAC) - 73 High Street, Orpington.

4.18 Petts Wood and Knoll 125 - 132 (13/01014/FULL1) - 2 Queensway, Petts Wood.

4.19 Kelsey and Eden Park 133 - 136 (13/01435/TELCOM) - Land adjacent to 343 Eden Park Avenue, Beckenham.

SECTION 4 (Applications recommended for refusal or disapproval of details)

Report No.

Ward

Page No.


4.20 Bickley 137 - 142 (13/00929/FULL1) - 102 Nightingale Lane, Bromley.

5 CONTRAVENTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES

Report No.

Ward

Page No.


NO REPORTS

6 TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

Report No.

Ward

Page No.


NO REPORTS

7 MATTERS FOR INFORMATION:- ENFORCEMENT ACTION AUTHORISED BY CHIEF PLANNER UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY NO REPORT

1

PLANS SUB-COMMITTEE NO. 1

Minutes of the meeting held at 7.00 pm on 18 April 2013

Present:

Councillor Alexa Michael (Chairman) Councillor John Ince (Vice-Chairman) Councillors Douglas Auld, Katy Boughey, John Canvin, Peter Fookes, Samaris Huntington-Thresher, Mrs Anne Manning and Harry Stranger

Also Present:

Councillors David Hastings and Paul Lynch

29 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE

MEMBERS

There were no apologies for absence; all Members were present. 30 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest reported. 31 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 21 FEBRUARY 2013

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2013 be confirmed and signed as a correct record. 32 PLANNING APPLICATIONS SECTION 1

(Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley)

32.1 BROMLEY COMMON AND KESTON

(12/03819/FULL1) - Keston CE Primary School, Lakes Road, Keston. Description of application – Single storey extension to provide 2 classrooms, play area with canopy, extension of parking area to provide 7 additional spaces, bin store and associated external works.

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT.

Agenda Item 3

Page 1

Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 18 April 2013

2

SECTION 2

(Applications meriting special consideration)

32.2 KELSEY AND EDEN PARK

(12/03904/FULL1) - Land Rear of 107-111 Monks Orchard Road, Beckenham. Description of application – Erection of 3 storey detached block comprising 1 x 3 bedroom flat and 7 x 2 bedroom flats; associated car parking, refuse store, bicycle store, landscaping and boundary enclosures on land to rear of Nos. 107 - 111 Monks Orchard Road. Oral representations in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Paul Lynch, in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.

32.3 BROMLEY COMMON AND KESTON

(13/00092/FULL1) - 58-62 Walpole Road, Bromley.

Description of application – Demolition of existing factory and erection of 3 two storey three bedroom terrace dwellings with associated parking and landscaping. It was reported that the Deputy Chief Planner’s recommendation on page 40 of his report should be amended to read, ‘Not to contest the appeal’. Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED TO CONTEST THE APPEAL on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, overlooking to No. 64 Walpole Road and noise and disturbance/loss of amenity.

32.4 CHELSFIELD AND PRATTS BOTTOM

(13/00188/FULL6) - Flintlock, Norsted Lane, Orpington. Description of application - Retention of detached garage to front.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.

Page 2


3


(13/00381/FULL6) - 52 Wickham Road, Beckenham. Description of application – Single storey rear extension. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Paul Lynch, in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.

32.6 DARWIN

(13/00416/FULL1) - 3 Layhams Farms Cottages, Layhams Road, Keston. Description of application – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement two storey four bedroom detached dwelling. Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.

32.7 PENGE AND CATOR

(13/00438/FULL1) - Penge Police Station, 175 High Street, Penge. Description of application - Conversion of former police station into 5 one bedroom and 2 two bed flats with associated car parking, revised vehicular access. Elevational alteration including new window, removal of watch tower and outbuilding. Replacement railing to Penge High Street and Green Lane and reinstatement of lamp to front elevation.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to seek a reduction in the number of units by 1 or 2 units so that the flats have larger rooms, and to increase the number of car parking spaces so that parking is commensurate to the number of flats proposed. Members agreed the principle of residential development on this site.

Page 3


4

32.8 PETTS WOOD AND KNOLL

(13/00447/FULL6) - 45 Petts Wood Road, Petts Wood. Description of application - Single storey side and rear extension (works to include conversion of garage to habitable room).

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.

32.9 PENGE AND CATOR

(13/00456/FULL1) - 2-4 Raleigh Road, Penge.

Description of application – Four storey side extension to accommodate new entrance lobby and staircase, elevational alterations including front and side balconies and conversion of first and second floor from snooker club (sui generis) to form 6 two bedroom flats; construction of mansard roof with rooflights to provide additional 2 x 2 bedroom flats. Alterations to ground floor wholesale unit to provide cycle storage; associated landscaping; bin store; provision of 6 car parking spaces; vehicular access; boundary enclosure and gates. Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. It was reported that on page 83 of the Deputy Chief Planner’s report that the first sentence of the fifth paragraph should be amended to read, ‘Having had regard to the above it was considered that the provision of a mansard roof is unacceptable in this instance as it does not complement the visual amenities of the host dwelling and would be detrimental to the streetscene and character of the area at large.’ Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.

32.10 BIGGIN HILL

(13/00515/FULL6) - 8 Sutherland Avenue, Biggin Hill. Description of application – 3 bay carport with wood cladding PART RETROSPECTIVE.

Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Gordon Norrie, in objection to the application were reported. Members having considered the report and

Page 4


5

objections, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to seek the removal of the wood cladding and an alteration to the colour of the roofing material to a more appropriate shade.


(13/00661/FULL6) - 20 Bucknall Way, Beckenham. Description of application – First floor side extension. Oral representations in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Paul Lynch, were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:- 1. The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and the symmetrical appearance of this pair of semi-detached properties, and would have a detrimental impact on the character and visual amenities of the area, contrary to polices BE1, H8 and H9 and SPG 1 and 2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

SECTION 3

(Applications recommended for permission, approval or consent)

32.12 CHISLEHURST

(12/03385/FULL1) - Sheila Stead House, Bushell Way, Chislehurst. Description of application – Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of 2 x 2 bedroom houses, 13 x 3 bedroom houses, 2 x 4 bedroom houses and 1 x 2.5 storey block with 3 x 2 bed flats (total 20 units), together with 42 car parking spaces, cycle parking and refuse/ recycling store and associated landscaping.

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT. 32.13 BROMLEY TOWN

(13/00386/FULL6) - 48 The Chase, Bromley. Description of application – Single storey rear extension and provision of raised terrace with steps leading to rear garden. Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for

Page 5


6

the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner with a further condition to read:- “4. The existing vegetative landscaping at the site shall be permanently retained. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the substantial completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species to those originally planted. REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to secure a visually satisfactory setting for the development.”

32.14 BROMLEY TOWN

(13/00540/FULL6) - 50 Hayes Road, Bromley.

Description of application amended to read, ‘First floor side extension’. Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Deputy Chief Planner.

The Meeting ended at 8.05 pm

Chairman

Page 6

SECTION ‘1’ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley

Description of Development:

Extension to existing car park to provide an additional 67 car parking spaces; associated landscaping

Update

This application was deferred without prejudice from Plans Sub Committee 3 on 21st March 2013 to seek the reorganisation of the car parking layout away from neighbouring residential properties, and to increase the buffer zone to properties in Bridgelands Close.

To this end revised plans were received on 1st May 2013 which increased the distance from a minimum of 38.5m from the rear elevation of properties on Kings Hall Road to the nearest car parking space to a minimum of 42m. The nearest car parking space would remain 14m from the rear elevations of Nos. 7 and 8 Bridgelands Close with a 7m buffer zone provided. The proposed amendments would result in a reduction in the number of car parking spaces from 70 to 67. Prior to this the planning application was deferred without prejudice on 21st February 2013 for a Members site visit which took place on 9th March 2013.

Concerns have been raised by local residents that the provision of electric charging points will not result in a reduction in emissions. In response to these concerns a further consultation was undertaken with the Environmental Health Division who state that concentrating an additional 67 car parking spaces in one location within an Air Quality Management Area is likely to increase Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. The Environmental Health Pollution Division state the long stay nature of the car park will mitigate this impact to some extent. Members may wish to consider whether the imposition of a condition requiring the provision of an electric charging points would adequately overcome these concerns.

Additional concerns have been raised by adjoining owners in respect of flood water at the underpass from New Beckenham to Park Road which the local resident believes demonstrates ground water level is high in the area around New Beckenham Station. However, investigations by the Highways Drainage Division

Application No : 12/02798/FULL1 Ward: Penge And Cator

Address : Land Rear Of 190 To 200 Kings Hall Road Beckenham

OS Grid Ref: E: 536697 N: 170282

Applicant : London Borough Of Bromley Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.1

Page 7

have found this flooding has been an issue since approximately 2006 and has been attributed to rainwater (rather than groundwater) entering this below ground level underpass. This rainwater cannot soakaway due to the impermeable nature of the surface and ancient drainage system which is now failing. Discussions are underway between Network Rail and the Local Authority with regards to the installation of a new drainage system to ameliorate the rainwater flooding in this location.

The previous report has been repeated below, subject to suitable updates.

Proposal

This proposal is for an extension to existing car park at New Beckenham Station to provide an additional 67 car parking spaces and associated landscaping.

Revised plans have been received which reconfigure the layout of the car park increasing the separation from the car parking spaces to flank boundaries with properties along Kings Hall Road. An approximately 7m providing a buffer zone between the application site and No.s 5 - 8 Bridgelands Way will also be provided resulting in the loss of a turning circle to the southern edge of the site which was originally proposed.

Location

The application site would be accessed via the existing commuter car park which leads onto Lennard Road in close proximity to the junction with Kings Hall Road. The application site is currently undeveloped and backs onto the rear gardens of No. 190 - 200 Kings Hall Road and Nos. 5 - 8 Bridgelands Close. To the west of the site is a railway line operated by Network Rail.

Comments from Local Residents

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

! site at present very green with several mature trees along railway line and backing onto Kings Hall Road, vital these are maintained as much as feasibly possible.

! it is crucial parking will be permeable to prevent increased rainwater run off.

! increased noise pollution and excessive vibrations already generated from train line which runs adjacent to rear garden of No. 196a Kings Hall Road.

! large quantity of mature trees have recently been removed which previously reduced noise and vibrations from trains.

! were proposal to be granted would wish re-introduction of a line of mature trees to separate residential gardens from new car park to obscure view from 2nd and 3rd floor windows of houses on Kings Hall Road and reducing noise, fumes and vibrations from cars and trains.

! such urban developments step in wrong direction for the area.

! concerns about lack of distance between car park/turning circle and rear boundary of No. 8 Bridgelands Close.

Page 8

! concerns in terms of security due to recent burglaries to properties in the area, trepassing and break-ins to cars in the station car park. Proposed car park would make it easy to jump garden fence with easy and create an easy and convenient escape route.

! in terms of privacy gardens of Bridgelands Close are only 20ft long making it easy to see into bedrooms of these properties.

! understand need for additional parking however, concerns over turning closest to Bridgelands Close would prefer a compromise of this being replaced with thick trees and shrubs to provide security and privacy together with reduced noise.

! there is already controlled parking zone along Kings Hall Road to junction with Bridge Road while commuters already park along Lennard Road to junction with Aldersmead Road and as such little incentive for users to pay extra parking charge as such concerns that this will not lead to relief of car parking pressure in adjacent streets as argued.

! contrary to paragraph 3.4 there has been no upkeep, repair or restoration by the Council of the fencing bordering the railway or backing onto the houses on Kings Hall Road. Council have failed to maintain any part of the woodland.

! concerns as the cost of the proposal would be £100,000 with little benefit for residents or commuters in financially constrained times.

! no direct access point to the site at present. Car park is unsupervised and station unoccupied and unstaffed beyond morning rush hour which would allow scouting of the vulnerable backs of houses during evening and night.

! an empty concrete car park will increase noise pollution compared to unkempt vegetation, undergrowth and trees at present which act as an acoustic barrier from noise of passing trains.

! unused land currently home to many species of bird species, insects, squirrels and urban foxes with a number of trees including walnut trees with preservation orders. Pockets of nature in suburban Beckenham should be preserved instead of levelling and concreting of site. Removal of trees and vegetation at the site has affected wildlife.

! detrimental effect on value of houses neighbouring railway due to loss of aspect and outlook.

! require appropriate buffer zone between properties at Bridgelands Close and end of car park to ensure fences do not get damaged/vandalised, property remains secure and continues to enjoy some privacy.

! concerns in relation to flooding as ground of site and surrounding area including rear gardens of Kings Hall Road are low lying with mostly clay subsoil. No. 190 Kings Hall Road has a damp cellar susceptible to regular flooding and garden liable to becoming water logged during periods of excessive rain with high water table level. Most of the trees have now been felled on the site which acted as a natural solution to control water table in the past.

! council carried out water survey to examine water table with bore hole drilled after 5 months of drought conditions and close to three remaining trees which was not considered to have been undertaken diligently.

! extending car parking will attract more cars to the area which already has major unresolved traffic problems.

Page 9

! concerns as to where lights would be installed or how they would be angled or whether additional trees would be planted to obscure lighting and noise of trains.

! access to car park is narrow and hazard to pedestrians and safe access to drive of No. 207 Lennard Road. Slowing traffic entering and existing car park needs to be considered.

! lighting to car park is poor and need to be improved in extension to ensure security and safety to cars and pedestrians.

! suggest CCTV be used to act as a deterrent to people visiting car park late at night driving recklessly and at speed and to provide additional security provisions.

! traffic calming measures would also provide significant benefit to pedestrian safety.

! turning circle is superfluous given three alternative cut-through planned and buffer zone should be installed instead.

! complaints as to the removal of mature trees and abundant flora and fauna at the site without notifying local residents.

! concerns vibrations of trains have caused cracks in neighbouring properties which needs to be investigated.

! concerns as to where further ticketing machines would be located.

! concerns as to whether new car park would be at same ground level as existing car park excavation may be required in this case.

! in terms of financial viability concerns on-going costs caused on to residents.

! already underused pay and display bays in the area, query the need for the scheme which will not alleviate problems experienced by local residents.

! consider responsibilities under Human Rights Act particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land which would be compromises by extension of car park.

! entrance to existing car park crosses cycle routes and pedestrian access. An increase in vehicles crossing this will endanger pedestrian and cyclist safety.

! proposal against Borough and Government policies to try to discourage car use and promote healthier greener modes of transport.

! site is host to many mature trees, plants and wildlife. One of the conditions on planning application for original car park was to "ensure that as many trees as possible are preserved at this stage in the interests of the amenity".

The full text of correspondence received is available to view in the file.

Comments from Consultees

The Council's Highways Drainage Division were consulted who state that there is no public surface water sewer near to the site, surface water will therefore have to be drained to soakaways. The site appears to be suitable for an assessment to be made of its potential for a SUDS scheme to be developed for the disposal of surface water. The site is within the area in which the Environment Agency Thames Region require restrictions on the rate of discharge of surface water from

Page 10

new developments into the River Ravensbourne or its tributaries. There is no groundwater flooding recorded in the area and the fact that the proposed soakaway will be built at 1.5m above groundwater will make the proposal acceptable. No objections are raised subject to conditions including the installation of petrol/oil interceptor prior to discharge of surface water run-off to the soakaway. In light of concerns raised from local residents the Highways Drainage Division stated the information provided was based on the data produced by British Geological Survey (BGS) which shows groundwater at this location likely to be less than 3 m below the ground surface for at least part of the year. In respect of the survey undertaken by the Environment Agency this is dependant on the time of year when the survey was undertaken. If this was undertaken in the dry season than the likely 6m to 8m below ground level would be correct and if the survey was carried out this year (the second wettest year in record) than a higher water table would be predicted.

The Environment Agency have been consulted and state the site is located over a Secondary Aquifer and within a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ2). They state that the planning application form indicates that land contamination is neither known nor suspected, but no evidence has been produced to support this. They also state from the form that a sustainable drainage system is proposed for surface water.

The Environment Agency hydrogeological mapping indicates groundwater between 6m and 8m below ground level (bgl), although the drilling logs The Council has sent information to the EA Groundwater & Contaminated Land Officer which show groundwater at around 3.5m bgl. Given that the soakaway is proposed to be at approximately 2m bgl, this is only just acceptable from the perspective of protection of Controlled Waters. The site is located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone, SPZ2, and the EA would want an absolute minimum of 1m between the soakaway and the groundwater level. The site currently appears to be undeveloped land and the EA would wish to see an appropriate oil-water interceptor (which should be adequately inspected, cleaned and maintained) installed prior to discharge of surface water run-off to the soakaway. Several conditions are recommended.

Thames Water raise no objections in terms of water infrastructure at the site.

The Council's Highways Division state the site is accessed from Lennard Road utilising the existing vehicular access arrangement. No objections are raised subject to conditions.

The Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor states that this is an extension to the Lennard Road Car Park run by the Borough, the existing car park has a Safer Car Parking award from the British Parking Association. The Metropolitan Police would expect the principles and standards of the Safer Parking scheme to be adopted to the extended car park if permission is granted in respect of this application.

The Council's Environmental Health Division states use of the proposed extended car park may increase noise for residents and lead to some loss of amenity,

Page 11

particularly for the houses on Bridgelands Close which are closest to the new spaces and will not benefit from the same acoustic attenuation over long gardens as the houses on Kings Hall Road.

The car park lies within the Council's Air Quality Management Area declared for NOx. Concentrating an additional 70 car parking spaces in one location within the AQMA is likely to increase NOx emissions in this area. The increase may be both through greater concentration of traffic at a location within the AQMA and by encouraging car use through increasing convenience and availability of parking spaces. Initially the Environmental Health Officer advised that there had been no attempt to mitigate the likely pollution impact (for example through provision of electric charging points - see NPPF para 35). In addition to these, concerns have been raised relating to the loss of amenity from artificial lighting although this could be controlled by a condition. In response to the revised plans received on 18.02.13 the Council's Environmental Health Division stated the updated proposal showed improvements. The distance to residential facades on Bridgelands Close has been approximately doubled which should lead to a 3dB reduction in specific noise level although some of the acoustic gain from this may be offset by the increased number of spaces on this boundary versus the previous proposal. A condition to require acoustic fencing of at least 2m in height along the southern boundary and south eastern corner of the site would achieve additional acoustic attenuation of up to 5dB at the first floor façade and greater in the gardens which would have no line of sight. It is presumed this is a 'long stay' car park but if not making the southern section 'long stay' would reduce vehicle movements and so to a small extent reduce loss of amenity from noise as well as slightly reducing the air quality impact.

Network Rail were consulted on this proposal and raise no objections subject to a number of conditions.

From a trees perspective concerns relate to the trees in the middle of the site and the potential impact of the construction works on their root systems. This can be overcome by using a no dig method of construction. If permission is to be recommended conditions are recommended.

Any additional comments received from Consultees will be reported verbally.

Planning Considerations

The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking T18 Road Safety NE7 Development and Trees

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1 General Design Principles

London Plan Policy 2.8 Outer London: Transport London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management

Page 12

London Plan Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage London Plan Policy 6.13 Parking London Plan Policy 7.3 Designing out crime London Plan Policy 7.13 Safety, Security and Resilience to Emergency London Plan Policy 7.14 Improving Air Quality London Plan Policy 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes London Plan Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature London Plan Policy 7.21 Trees and Woodlands

The National Planning Policy Framework is also a key consideration in the determination of this application

Planning History

In 1988 under planning ref. 88/03282, permission was granted for the laying out of commuter car park at New Beckenham Station.

Conclusions

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

Given its location to the rear of an existing car park and residential gardens the application site is not highly visible in the streetscene. There are a number of mature trees located on the site which add to the visual amenities of the area and were permission to be granted their retention would be secured by way of conditions. Overall the proposal is not considered to result in an unduly harmful impact upon the character of the area.

To the east of the site is a railway line resulting in a considerable separation between the application site and residential properties along Copers Cope Road and as such this application shall be primarily concerned as to the implications on the residential amenities of Nos. 188- 200 Kings Hall Road, No. 207 Lennard Road and Nos. 5 - 8 Bridgelands Close.

Nos. 188- 200 Kings Hall have rear gardens of a considerable depth of approximately 36m and although the outlook of these properties will be altered given the considerable distance which would be retained between the rear elevations of these properties to the application site this is not considered to result in a significant detrimental impact on the residential amenities of these properties.

The flank boundary of No. 7 Lennard Road abuts the existing car park and although this property may be somewhat affected as a result of the additional vehicles entering and exiting the site again this could be satisfactorily overcome by appropriate conditions.

The properties most impacted by this proposal would be Nos. 5 - 8 Bridgelands Close as these properties have rear gardens which are considerably smaller than those on Kings Hall Road with the result that the rear elevations of these properties

Page 13

would be sited a minimum of 7m from the boundary with the application site. To overcome concerns in relation to these properties revised plans have been received which propose an approximately 7m buffer zone within the southernmost section of the application site with the result that the nearest car parking space would be a minimum of 14m from the rear elevations of these properties. Although the residential amenities of these properties may be somewhat affected by the proposal it is considered that on balance given the revisions which have been made these could be satisfactorily overcome through the imposition of a number of conditions.

The applicant confirmed that they intend to erect a 1.8m high boundary fence which would be located within the curtilage on the site. It is considered that the provision of a boundary fence with sound reducing properties would provide an adequate level of screening and security for neighbouring properties, although the Local Planning Authority would encourage this to be a minimum of 2m in height which were permission to be granted could be secured by way of a condition. The Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor has been consulted who stated that the existing car park has a Safer Car Parking award from the British Parking Association. Were permission to be granted a condition would be attached to ensure the application complies with the principles of Secure By Design to limit the potential detrimental impact on the security of neighbouring residential properties.

Concerns have been raised by neighbouring properties in relation to drainage at the application site. Neighbours have stated the area is subject to flooding with cellars being regularly flooded as is the underpass at New Beckenham Station and also the area has a high water table. Local residents also raised concerns that the proposal would remove a significant amount of vegetation and trees which absorb a high proportion of rainwater at present and that were the area to be covered in hardstanding this would be liable to flooding and may also adversely affect the adjoining railway lines which are located on a lower ground level. The applicant has provided detailed calculations in terms of the soakage tests undertaken at the site and both the Council's Highways Drainage Advisor and Environment Agency are satisfied that the proposal will not result in a significant detrimental impact from a drainage perspective.

In terms of potential light pollution for neighbouring residential properties, the applicant has yet to finalise the lighting arrangements at the site but has stated that part of the design will be to minimise light pollution, this could be secured by way of a condition.

Having had regard to the above it is considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on file ref. 12/02798, excluding exempt information.

as amended by documents received on 07.12.2012 18.02.2013 01.05.2013

Page 14

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

Subject to the following conditions:

1 ACA01 Commencement of development within 3 yrs ACA01R A01 Reason 3 years

2 ACA04 Landscaping Scheme - full app no details ACA04R Reason A04

3 ACB03 Trees - no bonfires ACB03R Reason B03

4 ACB04 Trees - no trenches, pipelines or drains ACB04R Reason B04

5 ACB16 Trees - no excavation ACB16R Reason B16

6 ACB19 Trees - App'ment of Arboricultural Super ACB19R Reason B19

7 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord

with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan. 8 ACD06 Sustainable drainage system (SuDS) Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord

with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan. 9 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application

ACH03R Reason H03 10 ACH32 Highway Drainage

ADH32R Reason H32 11 ACI21 Secured By Design Reason: In the interest of security and crime prevention and to accord with Policy

BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 12 Prior to commencement of works on site details of an oil-water interceptor

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should include details as to the how the oil-water interceptor shall be inspected, cleaned and maintained. The scheme shall be implemented, maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details

Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan.

13 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, a remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved and reported to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: There is the potential for unexpected contamination to be identified during groundworks. The Environment Agency should be consulted should any contamination be identified that could present an unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters.

Page 15

14 Whilst the principles and installation of sustainable drainage schemes are to be encouraged, no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to Controlled Waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: Infiltrating water has the potential to cause remobilisation of contaminants present in shallow soil/made ground which could ultimately cause pollution of groundwater.

15 Before the external illumination becomes operational the detail of the type, orientation and screening of the lights shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and, shall be permanently maintained as such thereafter. These details shall include measures to minimise the potential light pollution for the adjoining residential properties on Kings Hall Road and Bridgelands Close.

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

16 The vehicle hardstanding and access drives hereby permitted shall be formed of permeable paving in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include proposals for the regular maintenance of the paving, which shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of surface water drainage and to accord with Policy 5.13 of the London Plan.

17 Before the car parking hereby approved is first used a suitable screen to protect the adjacent properties from noise of a height and type to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be erected in such a position along the boundary of the site as shall be agreed by the Authority and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure a satisfactory standard of residential amenity.

18 Storm/surface water must not be discharged onto Network Rail’s property or into Network Rail’s culverts or drains except by agreement with Network Rail. Suitable drainage or other works must be provided and maintained by the Developer to prevent surface water flows or run-off onto Network Rail’s property. Proper provision must be made to accept and continue drainage discharging from Network Rail’s property; full details to be submitted for approval to the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer. Suitable foul drainage must be provided separate from Network Rail’s existing drainage. Soakaways, as a means of storm/surface water disposal must not be constructed near/within 10 – 20 metres of Network Rail’s boundary or at any point which could adversely affect the stability of Network Rail’s property. After the completion and occupation of the development, any new or exacerbated problems attributable to the new development shall be investigated and remedied at the applicants’ expense.

Reason: In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 19 Where trees/shrubs are to be planted adjacent to the railway boundary

these shrubs should be positioned at a minimum distance greater than their predicted mature height from the boundary. Certain broad leaf deciduous

Page 16

species should not be planted adjacent to the railway boundary as the species will contribute to leaf fall which will have a detrimental effect on the safety and operation of the railway. We would wish to be involved in the approval of any landscaping scheme adjacent to the railway. Where landscaping is proposed as part of an application adjacent to the railway it will be necessary for details of the landscaping to be known and approved to ensure it does not impact upon the railway infrastructure. Any hedge planted adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary fencing for screening purposes should be so placed that when fully grown it does not damage the fencing or provide a means of scaling it. No hedge should prevent Network Rail from maintaining its boundary fencing. Lists of trees that are permitted and those that are not permitted are provided below and these should be added to any tree planting conditions:

Permitted: Birch (Betula), Crab Apple (Malus Sylvestris), Field Maple (Acer Campestre), Bird Cherry (Prunus Padus), Wild Pear (Pyrs Communis), Fir Trees – Pines (Pinus), Hawthorne (Cretaegus), Mountain Ash – Whitebeams (Sorbus), False Acacia (Robinia), Willow Shrubs (Shrubby Salix), Thuja Plicatat “Zebrina” Not Permitted: Alder (Alnus Glutinosa), Aspen – Popular (Populus), Beech (Fagus Sylvatica), Wild Cherry (Prunus Avium), Hornbeam (Carpinus Betulus), Small-leaved Lime (Tilia Cordata), Oak (Quercus), Willows (Salix Willow), Sycamore – Norway Maple (Acer), Horse Chestnut (Aesculus Hippocastanum), Sweet Chestnut (Castanea Sativa), London Plane (Platanus Hispanica).

Reason: In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 20 In view of the nature of the development, it is essential that the developer

provide (at their own expense) and thereafter maintain a substantial, trespass proof fence along the development side of the existing boundary fence, to a minimum height of 1.8 metres. The 1.8m fencing should be adjacent to the railway boundary and the developer/applicant should make provision for its future maintenance and renewal without encroachment upon Network Rail land. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged and at no point either during construction or after works are completed on site should the foundations of the fencing or wall or any embankment therein, be damaged, undermined or compromised in any way. Any vegetation on Network Rail land and within Network Rail’s boundary must also not be disturbed. Any fencing installed by the applicant must not prevent Network Rail from maintaining its own fencing/boundary treatment.

Reason: In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 21 Any lighting associated with the development (including vehicle lights) must

not interfere with the sighting of signalling apparatus and/or train drivers vision on approaching trains. The location and colour of lights must not give rise to the potential for confusion with the signalling arrangements on the railway. The developers should obtain Network Rail’s Asset Protection Engineer’s approval of their detailed proposals regarding lighting prior to the installation of lighting on the site.

Reason: In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway.

Page 17

22 The development must ensure any future maintenance can be conducted solely on the applicant’s land. The applicant must ensure that any construction and any subsequent maintenance can be carried out to any proposed buildings or structures without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon Network Rail’s adjacent land and air-space.

Reason: In order to ensure the continuous safe operation of the railway. 23 A minimum of two fixed charging points with dedicated spaces shall be

provided for electric vehicles. Details of the power supply and charging points shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the use commencing and shall be maintained as approved and in full working order thereafter. Provision of electric charging points shall be increased in future in line with demand for the facility at this location.

Reason: To minimise the Nitrogen oxide emissions in the area which is designated as an Air Quality Management Area, in line with the NPPF and Policy 7.14 of the London Plan.

Reasons for granting permission:

In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies:

Unitary Development Plan

BE1 Design of New Development T3 Parking T18 Road Safety NE7 Development and Trees

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1 General Design Principles

London Plan Policy 2.8 Outer London: Transport London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management London Plan Policy 5.13 Sustainable Drainage London Plan Policy 6.13 Parking London Plan Policy 7.3 Designing out crime London Plan Policy 7.13 Safety, Security and Resilience to Emergency London Plan Policy 7.14 Improving Air Quality London Plan Policy 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes London Plan Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and Access to Nature London Plan Policy 7.21 Trees and Woodlands

The National Planning Policy Framework is also a key consideration in thedetermination of this application

The development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the following:

(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area;

Page 18

(d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties;

and having regard to all other matters raised.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 If the applicant (and any future resident) needs to utilise Network Rail land and air-space to facilitate works. The applicant / resident would need to receive approval for such works from the Network Rail Asset Protection Engineer, the applicant / resident would need to submit the request at least 20 weeks before any works were due to commence on site and they would be liable for all costs (e.g. all possession costs, all site safety costs, all asset protection presence costs). However, Network Rail is not required to grant permission for any third party access to its land.

2 Where a proposal calls for hard standing area / parking of vehicles area near the boundary with the operational railway, Network Rail would recommend the installation of a highways approved vehicle incursion barrier or high kerbs to prevent vehicles accidentally driving or rolling onto the railway or damaging lineside fencing.

3 Before the use commences, the Applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Environmental Health & Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Applicant should also ensure compliance with the Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites Code of Practice 2008 which is available on the Bromley web site.

4 If during the works on site any suspected contamination is encountered, Environmental Health should be contacted immediately. The contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Authority for approval in writing.

Page 19

Application:12/02798/FULL1

Proposal: Extension to existing car park to provide an additional 67 carparking spaces; associated landscaping

"This plan is provided to identify the location of the site and should not be used to identify the extent of the application site"

© Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Ordnance Survey 100017661.

1:2,680

Address: Land Rear Of 190 To 200 Kings Hall Road Beckenham

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

Page 20

SECTION ‘1’ – Applications submitted by the London Borough of Bromley


Single storey side extension

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport SafeguardingLondon City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

The proposed extension will be built to the north-eastern corner of the school side, alongside an existing front extension. It will incorporate a timber clad finish.

Location

The school site fronts Dorset Road and is located within a predominantly residential area situated off Mottingham Road. The school also benefits from a read access fronting Portland Road, although the proposed extension could only be viewed from Dorset Road.


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.


Not applicable


Application No : 13/01289/FULL1 Ward: Mottingham And Chislehurst North

Address : Dorset Road Infant School Dorset Road Mottingham London SE9 4QX

OS Grid Ref: E: 542188 N: 172762

Applicant : Mrs J Hiller Objections : NO

Agenda Item 4.2

Page 21

Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan applies to the development and should be given due consideration. It seeks to ensure that new development does not adversely affect neighbouring amenity, and achieve a satisfactory standard of design.

Planning History

There is no relevant planning history relating to this application, although it is noted that the site has been the subject of previous applications for unconnected works.

Conclusions


The proposal is considered modest in scale and subservient in relation to the existing buildings occupying the site, in particular the existing single storey front extension (built forward of the original school building). It will maintain an adequate separation to neighbouring properties and so it is not considered that their amenities will be undermined.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents nor impact detrimentally on the character of the area.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/00267 and 13/00816, excluding exempt information.




2 ACC04 Matching materials ACC04R Reason C04

3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACC03R Reason C03

4 AJ02B Justification UNIQUE reason OTHER apps

Policy (UDP)BE1 Design of New Development

Page 22


Proposal: Single storey side extension



1:1,740

Address: Dorset Road Infant School Dorset Road Mottingham LondonSE9 4QX

CF

FW

1

PO

RC

UP

INE C

LO

SE

26

24

1

TEIG

N M

EW

S

1 to 6

Chesapeake House

45

Boro

Const a

nd L

B B

dy

13

a

FW

CF

FW

CF

Un

dU

nd

CF

CR

CF

FW

CW

CW

Und

FW

38

7

36

48

49

13

Motti

ngham

MO

TTIN

GH

AM

RO

AD

Met

h Ch

PCs

Hall

10

Dors

et R

oad In

fants

School

40.6m

61

Bou

rdillo

n Court

54 to

56

1

9

TCB

282

275

2

75

274

273

288

1 to 12

77

41.7m

276 to 2

80

1

281

3

43

5

12

PORCUPINE C

LOSE

4 to 9

PORTLAND ROAD

31

8

1 to 6

26

7 to 12

Hilla

ry C

ou

rt

28

1 to 3

41

1a

21

20 to 25

4

18

6

2

12

1

BE

AC

ON

SF

IEL

D R

OA

D

14

8 to 13

2 to 7

42.8m

7 to

12

1 to 6

14 to 19

Eve

rest C

ourt

93

Evans Court

1 to

6

John Hunt C

ourt

Tenzing C

ourt

13 to

18

CLARENCE ROAD

1

13

100

32

44.9m

25

110

12

21

2

120

10

54

43

31

SILVERDALE DRIVE

6

1

29

27

47

45

39

4m

LB

16 to 20

War Memorial

39.2m

31

Libr

ary

(PH)

29

28

TCB

Porcupine

38.8m

1 to 8

10

79

Stone 6

8

37

2

16

12

12

DEVONSHIR

E RO

AD

4

33

3

22

21

31

13

24

Scotts T

erra

ce

4

18

12

11

14

17

22

20

Close

Sycamore

5

13

19

15

16

21

262

DORSET

20

16

4

18

25

1

28

2

ROAD

14

22

24

25

30

15

42

PO

RTLA

ND

CR

ES

CE

NT

Hall

27

El Sub Sta

9

2

20

12

15

LULWORTH ROAD

7

Page 23

This page is left intentionally blank

SECTION ‘2’ – Applications meriting special consideration


First floor side extension

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport Safeguarding

Proposal

This application was deferred from Committee on 21st March 2013 to await the outcome of an appeal against an earlier similar scheme which was refused permission in December 2012 under ref.12/03419. The appeal was recently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in a decision dated 14th May 2013. The earlier report is repeated, suitably updated to address the Inspector's findings.

This corner property currently has a 5.4m wide single storey side extension on its southern side, which provides a 1.5m gap to the side boundary with Durrant Way.

It is proposed to add a first floor extension over part of the existing side extension, which would be set in 1.5m from the southern flank wall of the ground floor extension, thus giving a separation to the boundary at first floor level of 3m.

Location

This two storey semi-detached property is located on a corner plot adjacent to Durrant Way, and its large ground floor extension gives it a prominent appearance in the street scene.

The opposite side of Ferndale Way contains detached bungalows, with other semi-detached two storey dwellings in the close vicinity.


Application No : 13/00374/FULL6 Ward: Farnborough And Crofton

Address : 2 Ferndale Way Orpington BR6 7EL

OS Grid Ref: E: 544909 N: 164305

Applicant : Mr S Rowshankish Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.3

Page 25


! overlarge extension which would be out of character with the surrounding area

! property may be used for multi occupancy which would add pressure to parking in the close vicinity.

Local Ward Councillors have expressed support for the proposals.



BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space

Planning History

Single storey side extensions to this property were granted under refs. 83/01200 and 09/03540, and have been built.

Permission was refused in October 2012 (ref.12/02570) for the erection of a first floor side extension which extended over the full width of the ground floor extension, on the following grounds:

“The proposed extension would, by reason of its size, bulk and close proximity to the side boundary, result in a cramped form of development on this prominent corner site, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.”

Permission was subsequently refused on the same grounds (ref.12/03419) for a revised proposal which set the first floor back 1.2m from the side wall of the ground floor extension. The subsequent appeal was recently dismissed.

Conclusions

The main issues in this case are the impact of the revised scheme on the character and spatial standards of the surrounding area and on the amenities of the occupants of nearby residential properties.

In dismissing the appeal for the slightly wider first floor side extension (by 0.3m), the Inspector considered that it would project much further forward than the well-defined building line of the adjacent semi-detached dwellings within Durrant Way. He considered that “the substantial scale and sideward projection of the proposed first floor extension would appear much more prominent within the street scene

Page 26

than the existing single storey extension and side boundary treatment. It would fail to respond to the arrangement of the other two storey dwellings within the vicinity, and the feeling of spaciousness would be harmfully reduced as a result.” He concluded that “the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the street scene.”

The current scheme involves reducing the width of the first floor side extension by 0.3m compared with the dismissed scheme, thus increasing the separation to the flank boundary with Durrant Way at first floor level from 2.7m to 3m. However, the ground floor would remain at 1.5m from the side boundary, and the overall size of the extension is still considered to appear cramped and overdominant on this prominent corner plot, and would project significantly further forward than adjacent dwellings in Durrant Way. The current scheme would clearly not overcome the concerns raised by the Inspector in the previous scheme.

The proposed first floor extension would be located on the southern side of the dwelling, away from the adjoining dwelling and adjacent to Durrant Way, therefore, the amenities of adjoining occupiers would not be adversely affected.

The proposals are, therefore, considered to result in a cramped form of development which would be detrimental to the spatial standards of the surrounding area.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 12/02570, 12/03419 and 13/00374, excluding exempt information.

RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION BE REFUSED

The reasons for refusal are:

1 The proposed extension would, by reason of its size, bulk and close proximity to the side boundary, result in a cramped form of development on this prominent corner site, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the surrounding area, thereby contrary to Policies H8, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 27


Proposal: First floor side extension



1:1,000

Address: 2 Ferndale Way Orpington BR6 7EL

29

27

2

1

47

5

11

2

97.4m

4

El Sub Sta

1

33

2

20

16

28

6

15

19

24

5

93.8m

89.4m

SA

PH

OR

A C

LO

SE

FE

RN

DA

LE

WA

Y

DURRANT WAY

Page 28



First floor side/rear extension with juliet balcony

Key designations: Conservation Area: Park Langley Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport SafeguardingOpen Space Deficiency

Proposal

This proposal is for a first floor side/rear extension with Juliet balcony. The application site is a two storey detached dwelling located within Park Langley Conservation Area, an Edwardian 'garden suburb' development and later low density housing in a mature landscape.

Much of the character of the Conservation Area is derived from a spacious layout, typical of the Garden City movement. Streets are broad and often curving: the original designers strove to maintain at least 100 feet between the frontages of houses facing each other across the street. Mature trees remain from prior to the development of the estate. Many of the houses have extensive gardens with generous side space separating them from their neighbours.

The Park Langley SPG states "the Council will pay special attention to the landscape and spatial characteristics of the area and ensure that the green and spacious aspect of the estate is not eroded. It will achieve this objective through the development control process, where proposals that would bring about a reduction in the spatial standards of the area, most particularly an erosion of existing side space between dwellings, will normally be resisted".



Application No : 13/00531/FULL6 Ward: Shortlands

Address : 20 Malmains Way Beckenham BR3 6SA

OS Grid Ref: E: 538380 N: 168197

Applicant : Mr R Jewitt Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.4

Page 29

! the existing side space adjacent to proposed extension is significantly less than at the front and is below 1m which has not been shown on the plans. Therefore does not comply with Policy H9 (i).

! spacing from gutter edge of existing building to boundary wall is 0.5m which is not shown on plans.

! unacceptable significant reduction in natural light to main working surfaces of kitchen of No. 18.

! previous application ref. 98/0161 removed proposed extension to maintain daylight angle to side kitchen window. If built would severely affect daylight angle and right to natural light. Therefore contrary to UDP Policy BE (iv) and (v).

! No. 20 was originally built as a 3 bedroom property with wide separation at first floor level from side elevation and windows of No. 18. Separation significantly eroded in 1998 when fourth bedroom was added to No. 20. Current proposal would infill remainder of side space where wider separation exists contrary to Policies H9 (ii).

! loss of side space and amenity affecting No. 18, an original 1914 house, contrary to SPG for Langley Park Conservation Area.

! concern as application form is not correct version within a Conservation Area.

! light calculations provided to demonstrate angle from the centre of the side window of kitchen at No. 18 to the roof ridge of single storey element at No. 20 which at present is approximately 20 degrees. Proposed two storey structure would increase angle to approximately 54 degrees therefore breaching BRE guidance standards.

! the translucent sheeting over No. 18 sideway has less impact on daylight and sunlight through the window than would the proposed 1st floor flank wall and eaves/gutter projection above it, given limited side space.

In response to these objections further comments were received from the applicant which stated:

! there is a very tall boundary wall (approximately 2.7m) provided via a written agreement in 1998 between Nos. 20 and 18 at time of original building works which was original flank wall of extension which was built up to original boundary and subsequently demolished to make way for new building works to create space between properties as per UDP policy.

! there is an existing polycarbonate roofing at No. 18 which adjoins the boundary wall and the proposed extension would have less impact on light than this existing structure.

! proposed first floor extension was not part of original application and was not withdrawn to maintain daylight angle as stated by No. 18.

! existing ground floor extension is 1m from boundary at narrowest point. First floor extension will be set back a further 160cm from rear wall of original ground floor extension.


Page 30

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas have objected to the proposal as it was considered to be of poor design, contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11.

From a heritage perspective it was not considered this proposal would cause harm to the conservation area as it is almost entirely out of view from the public realm and retains an acceptable side space.



BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas H8 Residential Extensions

Supplementary Planning Guidance1 General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance 2 Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance Park Langley Conservation Area

The London Plan and National Planning Policy Framework are also key considerations in the determination of this application.

The above policies are considered to be consistent with the principles and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning History

In 1998 under planning ref. 98/00161, permission was granted for a part 1/2 storey side/rear extension and single storey rear extension plus first floor front extension with revised plans received.

In 1998 under planning ref. 98/02417, permission was granted for a first floor rear extension.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the Conservation Area and the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties.

The Park Langley SPG "the spacious layout of the estate does provide scope for the addition of sensitively designed extensions. However, a new extension should not dominate the existing host building or significantly alter the spatial characteristics of the road by taking up large amounts of side or front space. For this reason, the rear elevation will be the preferred location for extensions, but this does not preclude the possibility of alterations elsewhere".

In this instance the proposal would be sited behind the rear elevation of the approved part 1/2 storey side/rear extension (planning ref. 98/00161) and as such

Page 31

would be largely obscured from view within the streetscene. The proposal is considered to have been sensitively designed to respect the visual amenities of the host dwelling, replicating an approved first floor rear extension, and is not considered to impact detrimentally upon the character of the Conservation Area. Although the proposal would be 1m from the flank boundary with No. 18 within a Conservation Area where greater spatial standards are generally required, the proposal would not project beyond the outermost flank elevation. As such the proposal would not result in an additional detrimental impact upon the spatial standards of the area and is considered to comply with Policy H9 of the UDP.

The existing dwelling at No. 18 projects beyond the first floor of the application site at present with the result that the proposed extension would project marginally (approximately 0.6m) beyond the rear elevation of No. 18. Given this relationship the proposal is not considered to result in a significant loss of light for the windows located on the rear elevation of No 18. No windows are proposed to be located in the western flank elevation of the extension and as such the potential loss of privacy for No. 18 would not be significant.

In terms of the impact on the residential amenities of No. 18 the main objections pertain to the loss of light for a ground floor secondary window to a kitchen in the flank elevation. In the first instance it is essential to note that 'Right to Light' legislation (usually acquired under the Prescription Act 1832) is a common law matter independent of planning legislation. The Building Research Establishment's report BR209: Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: a guide to good practice (Littlefair, P.) provides guidance on how to ensure that adequate daylight and sunlight is provided for existing and proposed developments. Other matters that will be taken into consideration in assessing the potential overshadowing from an extension include:

! the design of the extension e.g. roof pitch and overall height;

! the nature and aspect of the affected room;

! the size of the affected window;

! whether the room has other affected windows; and

! whether the affected window is the primary light source for that room.

The affected window would be located on the eastern flank elevation and given the relationship with the proposed development a loss of light would occur in this instance. However, Members must consider whether on balance this loss of light would be within the realms of acceptability or whether the application should be refused on this basis.

In light of the above guidance, Members may firstly wish to consider the pitch of the roof which is hipped away from the application site with a ridgeline set approximately 0.85m below that of the main dwellinghouse with an overall height of 6.65m. During the course of the previous application in 1998 concerns were also raised from No. 18 with respect to loss of light. Since this time a polycarbonate lean to structure has been erected to the side of No. 18 adjoining the flank boundary wall, which still allows some diffused light to enter the kitchen. The sill of the kitchen window is located approximately 1.7m (5 ft 5 inches) above finished floor level and faces onto an approximately 2.65m high wall at its lowest point (as

Page 32

measured by the case officer). As stated above this window constitutes a secondary window for a kitchen and is not the sole source of light for this room, as such while some light will be lost during the morning, from a planning perspective it is not considered this would be of such an extent as to warrant refusal.

Given the considerable distance of the proposal from the flank boundary with No. 22 the impact on the residential amenities of this property would be minimal.








4 ACI13 No windows (2 inserts) western first floor flank extension ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H8



(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties; (c) the impact of the development on the character of the surrounding area and

in relation to the adjoining Conservation Area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties;


Page 33


Proposal: First floor side/rear extension with juliet balcony



1:1,730

Address: 20 Malmains Way Beckenham BR3 6SA

1a

WH

ITE

CR

OF

T W

AY

WH

ITE

CR

OF

T W

34

27

1418

MALMAINS WAY

10

1725

21

24

2624a

1 5

STYLES WAY

Abbotscroft

2

9

19

51.6m

15

63

10

14

32

1113

6

35

39

41

43

32

a

54.6m

30

31

49

52.7m2

53

1

62

50.6m

68

59

50.4m

61

64

12

16

20

ELWILL WAY

28

24

31

57

32

33

31

39

1

28

32a

37

30a

30

Page 34



Single storey rear extension, roof alterations including side dormer and front porch

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport SafeguardingLocal Distributor Roads

Proposal

Members deferred this application at Plans-Sub Committee 3 on 16th May 2012 in order to seek a reduction in the size of the side dormer and roof addition to have a more sympathetic design. Revised drawings have since been submitted.

Permission is sought for a single storey rear extension with a depth of 3 metres for the full width of the dwelling with hip to gable roof enlargement above to a height of 5.6 metres continuing the highest part of the roof. Two side dormers are also proposed to the southern flank elevation, with a porch to the front elevation.

Location

The application site features a single storey detached dwelling to the eastern edge of Repton Road. The two properties to the northern boundary, Nos.95 and 97, are two storey semi-detached dwellings, whilst Nos 101 and 103 to the southern boundary are similar single storey detached houses.



! the resident of No.99 raised concerns with regard to the previous design presented to Members on 16th May concerning the depth of the extension

Application No : 13/00641/FULL6 Ward: Orpington

Address : 99 Repton Road Orpington BR6 9HT

OS Grid Ref: E: 546253 N: 164818

Applicant : Mr G Mason Objections : NO

Agenda Item 4.5

Page 35

and the resulting overlooking, the impact upon daylight received, the extension being disproportionate and a loss of view.

Following the requested revision to the scheme residents have been re-consulted and any comments received will be reported verbally to Members.


Environmental Health have commented that in the rear garden there is evidence asbestos being buried and information received infers further areas of the garden has had material buried, an Abatement Notice is about to be served on this property to ensure clean up.



BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions

Supplementary Planning Guidance 1 and 2

Planning History

Application ref. 12/03824 for a 3 metre deep single storey rear extension with a gabled roof and two side dormers with front porch was withdrawn in February this year.

Conclusions


Following Members deferral of the previous proposal, the development has been revised to include two smaller flank dormers with a hipped roof design rather than one large dormer to the southern elevation to No.101. It is considered that the revision improves the scheme and results in a more acceptable design.

The proposal sees a creation of bulk to the rear elevation with a gable roof design over a 3 metre rear extension. To the southern boundary the primary impact to the residents of No.101 is considered to be upon any loss of prospect, with no daylight considered to be affected. No.101 benefits from a rear extension that exceeds that proposed with a 2 metre high close boarded fence also present to the boundary of No.101.

It is noted that the two properties share an access drive to the garages to the rear, with the southern boundary to the application site currently consisting of a low level wall and a 1.3 metre separation to the boundary line and 2.6 metres to the fence of

Page 36

No.101. Due to this degree of separation it is not considered that a significant level of prospect would be lost to the residents of No.101, while any additional overlooking to the rear garden is considered to be of an acceptable amount.

To the northern boundary the amount of daylight that would be affected to the residents to No.97 is considered to only be for a part of the day depending upon the season and would be to an acceptable degree. No.97 has a rear wall set behind that at No.99, although it is not considered that this is to an extent that the 3 metre depth proposed would be excessive.







3 ACI11 Obscure glaz'g/details of opening (1 in) in the southern and northern flank elevation ACI11R Reason I11 (1 insert) BE1


5 ACK09 Soil survey - contaminated land ACK09R K09 reason


Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions


Page 37


Proposal: Single storey rear extension, roof alterations including sidedormer and front porch



1:1,410

Address: 99 Repton Road Orpington BR6 9HT

121

2

10 MP 14.75

LB

90.9m

125

79

115

110

122

86.6m

107

86

98

55

SA

ND

HU

RS

T R

OA

D

48

53

70

58

67

103

REPTO

N R

OA

D

91

79

35

38

45

28

Ward

BdyCR

74

15

17

5

9

1

61

79.6m

62

67

50

Page 38



Detached two storey seven bedroom house with accommodation in the roofspace, integral garage and associated vehicular access and parking fronting Edward Road (on land adjacent to No.27 Edward Road)

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport SafeguardingLondon City Airport Safeguarding BirdsOpen Space Deficiency

Proposal

This application seeks permission for the construction of a detached two storey dwelling with accommodation in the roof space to provide 6/7bedrooms (including playroom) and integral garage.

Revised plans received on 15th May show alterations to the design of the dwelling and footprint to bring it more in line with the scheme permitted under ref. 08/03539 (renewed under ref. 11/03034) for a detached 6 bedroom house with basement, integral garage and accommodation in the roof space.

The current application is for a house of a similar footprint to the previously permitted scheme which includes alterations in the design, height, siting, footprint and removal of basement accommodation. The submitted plans show:

! height of the building approx. 9.6m and side space provision to each flank boundary to be approx. 1.5m,

! alterations to the footprint of the proposed dwelling including reduction in the depth of the house at the rear closest to No.31, increase in depth by approx.1m to the front corner adjacent to No.31, increase in depth of house to the front corner at single storey level, adjacent to No.27 and increase in

Application No : 13/00655/FULL1 Ward: Plaistow And Sundridge

Address : 27 Edward Road Bromley BR1 3NG

OS Grid Ref: E: 541061 N: 170521

Applicant : Mr Jayant Kapadia Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.6

Page 39

depth and width of the rear central projection of the house by approx. 1m and 0.8m respectively (when scaled from the submitted drawings).

The external materials of the proposed dwelling will comprise multi-red facing bricks with rendered detail at first floor level and multi-red plain hanging tiles to the front and rear gable features and main roof.

A detached bin store enclosure with bike storage is also proposed to be located in the rear garden of the site. The enclosure will be approx. 1.8m in height constructed of brick with timber louvre doors.

Location

The site comprises a building plot between Nos. 27 and 31 Edward Road which was formerly part of the garden area to No.27. The site has a slight cross fall in a south-west, north-east direction and it has been cleared including a detached garage which formerly stood on the site adjacent to No.27. The road is characterised by predominantly single dwellinghouses of varying designs and scales. There are some converted properties into flats along the road including residential care homes. The general pattern of development along the road also allows for varying degrees of separation between buildings with relatively deep front and rear garden areas. The site however is not located within a conservation area, nor an Area of Special Residential Character.


Letters of local objection have been received including comments submitted on behalf of the owners of Nos. 27 and 31 Edward Road in response to the plans originally accompanying this application. The comments are summarised below:

! the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene due to the increase in height and reduction of side space,

! minimal side space is proposed which does not reflect the spatial standards which prevail along the road for a property of this scale,

! the proposal will lead to the erosion of established building lines, the two storey wing will project beyond both neighbouring properties at the rear and to the front of No.27,

! overall scale and footprint providing 7 bedrooms represents an overdevelopment of the site which cannot be accommodated in this location,

! the bin store is unnecessary and inappropriate for a single dwelling – storage of this scale would normally be associated with flatted or commercial development,

! due to the side space, depth and height of the proposal access to daylight and sunlight from the flank kitchen window of No.27 will be obstructed creating a dominant and overbearing enclosure,

! the proposed house will cut across the window of the sun room to No.31 so will be visually intrusive in affecting rear site lines,

! the left flank wall of No.31 faces in south-westerly direction so the afternoon sunlight will be affected,

Page 40

! the proposal will also impact upon the privacy of the adjoining occupiers,

! concerns that the provision of a lift in the property will result in another residential home or commercial use.

Revised plans have since been received (15th May) in an attempt to overcome the concerns of the adjoining owners. Residents have been notified of receipt of revised plans but at the time of writing this report no third party correspondence had been received. Any letters of objection received will be verbally reported at the meeting.


From a drainage point of view, no objections are raised subject to imposed conditions to ensure restrictions on any surface water discharge.

From a highways point of view, no objections are raised subject to imposed conditions ensuring the details of parking are satisfactory, provision of wash–down facilities during construction and suitable highway drainage prior to commencement.

No technical objections are seen from Thames Water or from an Environmental Health (pollution) point of view.

No significant trees would be affected by the proposal.


The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan, The London Plan and National Planning Policy Guidance

BE1 Design of New Development H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T18 Road Safety


National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Planning History

Under planning ref. 06/00369 – Outline planning permission was refused for the erection of 1 two storey detached dwelling with integral garage adjoining No.27 Edward Road on grounds relating to the cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be out of character with the locality contrary to Policies H2, E1 of the UDP (1994) and Policies H6 and BE1 of the adopted UDP.

Page 41

Under planning ref. 06/02943, planning permission was granted for a detached five bedroom house with an integral garage.

Under planning ref. 08/03539 permission was granted for a detached two storey 5 bedroom house with basement, integral garage and accommodation in the roof space with associated access and parking. An extension of the time limit to implement this permission was subsequently granted under ref. 11/03034.

Conclusions

The principle of a two storey dwelling of a similar footprint has already been established through the grant of permission under refs 08/03539 and 11/03034. In this case, the main issues are whether the current proposal would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, out of character and appearance in the street scene/wider area and whether the amenities of the adjoining owners would be adversely affected.

Policies H7 and BE1 in the UDP require 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. The proposed development is of an acceptable density, providing adequate amenity space and parking. The design is sympathetic and complements neighbouring development, the character and appearance of the surrounding area and visual amenities of the street scene.

Policy H9 draws attention to the need to respect the spatial standards of the surrounding area. The characteristics of the area are predominantly that of detached dwellings located on spacious plots. Policy BE1 highlights the need for proposals to be of a high standard of design and layout complementing the scale, form and materials of adjacent buildings. In this case, the proposed footprint has been altered to increase the front projection at single storey level beyond the 2008 permission adjacent to No.27 and at two storey level to bring it in line with the front of No.31. The depth of the building has also been partly reduced adjacent to No.31 at the rear but its depth has increased by 1m to the rear centre of the building. The side space has also been reduced from 2m to 1.5m to each flank boundary and the height of the building has increased from 8.8m to 9.6m compared to that previously approved under ref. 08/03539. Despite the reduction in side space and slight increase in height of the building, the dwelling would be comparable in height to adjacent development and would not compromise the spacious characteristics of the area in general.

With regard to the impact upon residential amenity, those directly adjacent to the site would be most affected. Taking into account the extant permission granted under ref. 08/03539 the proposed dwelling would bring development 0.5m closer to the flank boundary and would provide a taller building in comparison. Whilst the footprint has been adjusted in places to lessen the impact upon No.31 the central rear projection has also increased by 1m. It is considered that, on balance these changes would not result in a greater degree of harm upon the living conditions of Nos. 27 and 31 in terms of loss of light, privacy and prospect given the approved

Page 42

scheme granted under ref. 08/03539, reasonable separation between the built development, orientation, roof design and positioning of fenestration.

The proposed bin enclosure and bike store would be located to the rear of the property adjacent to the boundary with No.27. Whilst such development is usually located to the front of a dwelling the applicant has been made aware that from a waste services point of view refuse collection is edge of curtilage only. That aside, the bin store would be screened from view by existing timber fencing along the 11/03034 boundary and located adjacent to the swimming pool enclosure within the rear garden of No.27. In light of this, it is not considered that the location of the enclosure would be detrimental to residential amenity.

On balance, Members may consider that the proposed dwelling is an acceptable form of development without detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the area and in terms of local visual and residential amenity.

In the event of planning permission being granted, it is noted that this development would be CIL liable (Community Infrastructure Levy).

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/00369, 06/02943, 08/03539, 11/03034 and 13/00655, excluding exempt information.

as amended by documents received on 15.05.2013 22.05.2013





3 ACC01 Satisfactory materials (ext'nl surfaces) ACC01R Reason C01

4 ACC03 Details of windows ACC03R Reason C03

5 ACD02 Surface water drainage - no det. submitt ADD02R Reason D02

6 ACH03 Satisfactory parking - full application ACH03R Reason H03

7 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16

8 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32

9 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining residents in order to comply with

Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 10 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) flank building

ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H7

Page 43

11 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan Reason: To protect the amenities of the adjoining residents in order to comply with

Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 12 A side space of 1.5m shall be provided between the north-east and south-

west flank walls of the building hereby permitted and the flank boundaries of the property. ACI10R Reason I10


In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space T3 Parking T18 Road Safety


(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene (b) the character of the development in the surrounding area (c) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (d) the safety of pedestrians and motorists on the adjacent highway (e) the provision of satisfactory living accommodation for future residents (f) the employment, housing, transport and environmental policies of the UDP


INFORMATIVE(S)

1 You should consult the Land Charges and Street Naming/Numbering Section at the Civic Centre on 020 8313 4742 or e-mail: [email protected] regarding Street Naming and Numbering. Fees and application forms are available on the Council's website at www.bromley.gov.uk

2 RDI25You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).

Page 44

If you fail to follow the payment procedure, the collecting authority may impose surcharges on this liability, take enforcement action, serve a stop notice to prohibit further development on the site and/or take action to recover the debt.

Further information about Community Infrastructure Levy can be found on attached information note and the Bromley website www.bromley.gov.uk/CIL

3 Before the use commences, the applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Environmental Health & Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Page 45


Proposal: Detached two storey seven bedroom house withaccommodation in the roofspace, integral garage and associated vehicularaccess and parking fronting Edward Road (on land adjacent to No.27Edward Road)



1:1,850

Address: 27 Edward Road Bromley BR1 3NG

Golf Club

Sundridge Park

1

41a

56.6m

41b

Sundridge Park Golf Course

LB

43

Cedars

Wyndways

35

33b

33

28a

28

31

33a

60.2m

39

41

GA

RD

EN R

OAD

30

36

40

Linkswood

SUNDRIDGE

42

27

Annecy

31

The Dell

Tudor House

Fairways

Beach House

22a

24

22b

26

Lodge

El Sub Sta

Ashdown

25a

22

15

17

15a

13a

21

2

13

Silverwood

23

16a

18

Regan's Roost

20

16

20a

14

Spring Ridge

The Willows

Englewood

Blackthorns

Rozel

Mullaway

Tiare

1

Woodside

Stillness

High Birch

The Jimmies

Treesway

Deoda

Dreyside

Park W

GA

RD

EN

LA

NE

Track

4

LODG

E R

OAD

Garden

Lodge

22

GARDEN ROAD

38

ED

WA

RD

RO

AD

25b

12

LO

DG

E R

OA

D

10

44

52

46

Page 46



5 Internally illuminated shopping centre entrance fascia signs (High street, Elmfield Road, Queens Gardens and Market Square) 1 non illuminated fascia sign above gates at Elmfield Road and 1 internally illuminated sign to car park entrance (Kentish Way).

Key designations: Conservation Area: Bromley Town Centre Areas of Archeological Significance Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaBromley Town Centre AreaLocal Cycle Network London City Airport SafeguardingLondon City Airport Safeguarding BirdsLondon Distributor Roads Primary Shopping FrontageProposal SitesUrban Open Space

Proposal

As a part of the rebranding of Capital Shopping Centres it is proposed to rename “The Glades” to “Intu Bromley”. The proposal is therefore for replacement signage to all access / egress points to the shopping centre as follows:

! High Street / Elmfield Road Sign- 1x fascia sign measuring 6.01m (w) x 0.64 (h) with applied 0.4m high black / orange lettering and part halo / part internal illumination to lettering (Existing signage etched into glazed first floor elevation of building fabric to be removed) ref. 8-E3

! Elmfield Road- 1 x fascia sign measuring 5.31m (w) x 0.58m (h) with 0.4m high black / orange lettering and part halo / part internal illumination to lettering (Existing signage etched into glazed first floor elevation of building fabric to be removed) ref.8-E65

Application No : 13/00676/ADV Ward: Bromley Town

Address : The Glades Shopping Centre High Street Bromley BR1 1DN

OS Grid Ref: E: 540364 N: 169136

Applicant : Mr Charles Forrester Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.7

Page 47

! Elmfield Road (above gates to pedestrian car park access) 1 x fascia sign measuring 3m(w) x 1m (h) with applied 0.4m high black / orange lettering non illuminated ref. 8-E121

! Queens Gardens (south) - fascia sign measuring 8.18m (w) x 0.58m (h) with applied 0.4m high black / orange lettering and part halo / part internal illumination to lettering (Existing signage etched into glazed first floor elevation of building fabric to be removed) ref.8-E72

! Queens Gardens (north) – fascia sign measuring 4.88m (w) x0.58m (h) with applied 0.4m high black / orange lettering and part halo / part internal illumination to lettering (Existing signage etched into glazed first floor elevation of building fabric to be removed) ref.8-E98

! High Street (White Hart Slip)- fascia sign measuring 7.78m (w) x 0.58m (h) with applied 0.4m high black / orange lettering and part halo / part internal illumination to lettering (Existing signage etched into glazed first floor elevation of building fabric to be removed) ref.8-E81

! Kentish Way /Stockwell Close Car Park - fascia sign measuring 7.04m (w) x 0.90m (h) with applied 0.4m high black / orange lettering and part halo / part internal illumination to lettering, ref.8-E110

The applicants agent has also submitted details (for information purposes only) of signage that will have been removed from the following locations:

! White Hart Slip / Market Square walk way canopy

! Widmore Road Canopy

! Glades Place Car Park

Location

The application site covers the Glades Shopping Centre which bounds Widmore Road in the north, Queens Gardens and Kentish Way to the east, Elmfield Road to the south and the High Street to the west.

Whilst the shopping centre itself is not within the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area the streets leading up to the centre are. This includes Queens Gardens and the area from Market Square along the high street down to its junction with Elmfield Road. The conservation area itself is made up of several components, each with its own character, they comprise:

! The retail core radiating along the main streets spreading from Market Square

! Several civic and institutional nodes, generally at the periphery of the retail heart;

! Several pockets of residential development from various eras of the towns growth; and

! The landscape and parkland setting reflecting Bromley’s historic siting and present context.

The predominant component of the Conservation area is the traditional retail heart of Bromley centred on Market Square, following the high street north and south

Page 48

with some radial off-shoots along Widmore Road and East Street. The retail heart of the town centre was largely formed during the twentieth century at a time of prosperous growth. This resulted in the loss of some original buildings however along the high street there are still a significant portion of buildings which retain a character and appearance that enhances and contributes to the interest and vitality essential to engender the ‘spirit’ so important to a town centre.

The conservation area was designated in 1987 around the historic Market Square and high street Bromley in order to retain and enhance the town’s late Nineteenth Century character. This character stems from the way Bromley developed around the focal point of the Market Square.

There are 7 signs that will be replaced, five out of seven will occupy a lower position at ground floor fascia level, a further 3 will be removed altogether,

This store is very prominently site at the confluence of Market Square and the north-western entrance to the Glades (indoor) Shopping Centre.


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and 1 local representation was received which can be summarised as follows:

! Garish, brash, and above all cheap-looking plastic signage which is inappropriate for what is supposed to be Bromley's premier shopping centre. There is no connectivity here to anything which would represent a Bromley town brand, just the replacement of a well known name for a rather crass corporate one. Also if this is going to become the acceptable standard for Bromley High Street you may as well forget your earlier pledge to improve shop signage in this town.


From a highways point of view no objections are raised.

From an environmental health point of view no objections are raised.

Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) – The proposed new signage does not reflect the original design of The Glades which was intended to signify a woodland theme. The existing name reflects that theme and the designof the building . The new proposal is at odds with that design, strong objections are therefore raised to the proposal.

Town Centre Development - Residents and users of Bromley Town Centre have always associated the identity of the town centre with the Glades. Therefore, it would have been expected that any significant rebranding of Bromley’s primary shopping destination would have been subject to consultation with stakeholders as well as the wider community. This is not the case. Although we are aware that the Intu rebranding has precedent in other boroughs, it is the opinion of the Town Centre Development team that the lack of consultation and the significant

Page 49

departure from the design and theme of the original branding of the Glades will have a negative effect on the local identity of the Bromley’s primary shopping centre and we are therefore inclined not to support this application.

Town Centre Management - No comment

Heritage & Urban Design

From a Conservation Area point of view the proposal would not cause harm to the conservation area and so no objections are raised. It is unfortunate that they have chosen this unusual name as The Glades had an interior design theme based upon trees and leaves which can be seen throughout the mall in the form of decorative metal work leaves and etchings in the glass.

From an Urban Design point of view the new ‘INTU Bromley’ name and signage for the Glades has a lower impact on the public realm than the current scheme, so would not increase the visual clutter in the town centre or impede its visual legibility.

However, the scheme could impact on people’s comprehension of the town when the name for the Glades is removed from signs and facades as people will be slow in the realisation that INTU Bromley and the Glades are the same thing.

The new band is out of keeping with the overall theme for the Glades and thus sits uncomfortably as a visual composition. i.e. the detailing of the Glades balustrades, lighting and panels etc. are Art Nouveau in style and the INTU Bromley sign is contemporary with modern colours form and font.

More pressingly, at a time of austerity when the challenges from internet competition are pressing high streets across the country; is this the best time to remove elements from the Borough which hold a positive relationship with its patrons?

All interventions which impact, [negatively or otherwise], upon the public perception must be scrutinized carefully. The town centre was impacted on in the past by the Bluewater shopping centre and the proposal for Westfield in Croydon will undoubtedly have an effect on the Bromley’s fortunes. Therefore, the Council should take a considered view on all interventions being developed or removed from the town.

Nationally the brand change for the INTU group makes sense but locally the benefits are reduced as people will generally review things from a personal and parochial perspective. The Glades is inextricably linked to the town centres identity and any name change is likely to have a detrimental impact on the town centre, as people generally do not like change and will view this intervention wearily.

A possible solution for Bromley could be to change the brand from ‘INTU Bromley’ to, ‘INTU the Glades’, as the shopping centre itself is probably the primary destination for the majority of visitors in the town centre.

Page 50


The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE11 Conservation Areas BE21 Control of Advertisements, Hoardings and Signs

Supplementary Planning Guidance - Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area

Policy BE21 requires adverts to have regard to the character of the surrounding area and be in keeping with the scale form and character of any buildings on which they are placed. Illuminated fascia sign, projecting signs and means of external illumination will not normally be permitted within conservation areas.

Policy BE11 states in order to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of conservation areas a proposal for new development will be expected to respect or complement the scale form and materials of existing buildings and respect and incorporate in the design existing landscape or other features that contribute b to the character appearance or historic value of the area.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance for the conservation area regarding The Glades states the following (p28):

“The Glades shopping centre, a large commercial development, has been well integrated into the town centre complementing rather than competing with the traditional grain and pattern of the High Street… The Glades Shopping Centre is a substantial structure stretching south from Widmore Road to Elmfield Road. The building has been designed and detailed to complement the town centre with differing but harmonious treatments to the various parts. The building has been excluded from the conservation area but still has an impact on its character as its eastern elevation dominates the Queens Gardens.”

It should also be noted that whilst five out of the seven signs proposed will occupy a lower position at ground floor fascia level, the existing signage at first floor level are effectively etched into the building fabric in an unobtrusive fashion. Therefore in spite of the first floor siting of some of the existing signs it is considered that they are in fact less conspicuous than the bold contemporary illuminated signage that is currently proposed.

The INTU rebranding has been rolled our across 14 other UK wide destinations, it is notable that of these 3 shopping centres in Manchester , Cardiff and Bristol appear to have retained their original names.

Conclusions

Page 51

The designation of a conservation area does not preclude the display of well sited, well designed advertisements that have a neutral/enhancing impact upon the character and appearance of a conservation area.

The application proposes corporate rebranding to “INTU” and has little regard to the appearance and design of The Glades. The signage therefore appears as a somewhat awkward add on.

Members may consider that from an Urban Design point of view signange that provides a link between “INTU” and The Glades may be more satisfactory . However, from a conservation point of view there are no objections raised and therefore refusal of the application may not be sustainable on the basis that the signage would not be so harmful to the visual amenities of character and appearance of the Conservation Area to warrant refusal of consent on this basis.


RECOMMENDATION: ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT GRANTED

subject to the following conditions:

6 ACF01 Standard 5 year period ACF01R Reason F01

7 ACF02 Rest. of luminance-(s) (2 in) High Street/Elmfield Road sign (ref. 8-E3) 250 ACF02R Reason F02

8 ACF02 Rest. of luminance-(s) (2 in) Elmfield Road sign (ref. 8-E65) 250 ACF02R Reason F02

9 ACF02 Rest. of luminance-(s) (2 in) Queens Gardens sign (south) (ref. 8-E72) 250 ACF02R Reason F02

10 ACF02 Rest. of luminance-(s) (2 in) Queens Gardens sign (north) (ref. 8-E98) 250 ACF02R Reason F02

11 ACF02 Rest. of luminance-(s) (2 in) High Street (White Hart Slip) sign (ref. 8-E81) 250 ACF02R Reason F02

12 ACF02 Rest. of luminance-(s) (2 in) Kentish Way/Stockwell Close Car Park Sign (ref. 8-E110) 250 ACF02R Reason F02

13 ACF07 Advert hoarding(s) - comply. with plans ACF07R Reason F07

Page 52

Application:13/00676/ADV

Proposal: 5 Internally illuminated shopping centre entrance fascia signs(High street, Elmfield Road, Queens Gardens and Market Square) 1 nonilluminated fascia sign above gates at Elmfield Road and 1 internallyilluminated sign to car park entrance (Kentish Way).



1:10,680

Address: The Glades Shopping Centre High Street Bromley BR1 1DN

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

! !

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!! !!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!!

Page 53



Conversion and extension of detached garage to rear into habitable room with roof alterations and elevational alterations and new side access gate

Key designations: Conservation Area: Park Langley Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport SafeguardingLondon City Airport Safeguarding BirdsLocal Distributor Roads

Proposal

This proposal is for the conversion and extension of detached garage to rear into habitable room with roof alterations and elevational alterations and new side access gate.

Location

The application site is located to the east of Wickham Way on the junction with Elwill Way and is a detached two storey single family dwellinghouse. The application site is located within the Park Langley Conservation Area.

Much of the character of the Conservation Area is derived from a spacious layout, typical of the Garden City movement. Streets are broad and often curving: the original designers strove to maintain at least 100 feet between the frontages of houses facing each other across the street. Mature trees remain from prior to the development of the estate. Many of the houses have extensive gardens with generous side space separating them from their neighbours.

The Park Langley SPG states "the Council will pay special attention to the landscape and spatial characteristics of the area and ensure that the green and spacious aspect of the estate is not eroded. It will achieve this objective through the development control process, where proposals that would bring about a

Application No : 13/00713/FULL6 Ward: Shortlands

Address : 23 Wickham Way Beckenham BR3 3AA

OS Grid Ref: E: 538151 N: 168386

Applicant : Mr Jon Samuel Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.8

Page 55

reduction in the spatial standards of the area, most particularly an erosion of existing side space between dwellings, will normally be resisted".



! concerns regarding consultation process undertaken by the Council and period of display of statutory Site Notice.

! proposal represents a form of backland development, overdevelopment of site due to location and distance to boundary with No. 1 Elwill Way.

! detrimental to character of the area and harmful to amenities of No. 1 Elwill Way, and as window in gable end of northern elevation would inserted at first floor level providing unacceptable views of garden area and side window serving bathroom and main working area, the kitchen of No. 1.

! would establish pattern for similar undesirable garage conversions and extensions resulting in retrograde lowering of spatial standards in Conservation Area, contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of UDP.

! proposal would not protect amenity of adjoining dwelling at No. 1 Elwill Way contrary to Policy BE1 of UDP.

! the benefits of providing residential accommodation are not considered to outweigh the impact on character, appearance and spatial standards of the area, therefore contrary to Development Plan policies, NPPF and other interests of acknowledged importance.

! location plan has not been updated causing confusion.

! location of proposed garage is at bottom of applicant's garden and would be possible to gain the space required to the western side of the garage without affecting view of No. 1 and resulting in loss of privacy for this property.

! proposed garage is a two storey development, contrary to Design and Access Statement.

! ambiguity as no clear measurements in terms of width and height of proposed garage extension shown on proposed plan.

! proposed gate causes confusion of garage conversion being first property of Elwill Way, undermining character of the Conservation Area establishing precedent for 'someone to seal up the site of a property' detrimental to harmony of area.


The Council's Highways Division were consulted who stated the site is located to the corner of Wickham Way and Elwill Way. The development will result in loss of one parking space by conversion of the garage to a habitable accommodation. However, there are spaces available within the site's curtilage which would be utilised for parking. Therefore on balance as it is a small development no objections are raised this element of the proposal.

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas raises no objections to the proposal.

Page 56

From a heritage perspective as there would be no increase in visual harm to the conservation area no objections are raised to this proposal.

From a trees perspective no significant trees would be affected.



BE1 Design of New Development BE11 Conservation Areas H8 Residential Extensions H9 Side Space

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1 General Design Principles Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 2 Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Park Langley Conservation Area

The above policies are considered to be consistent with the principles and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning History

In 1989 under planning ref. 89/01706, permission was granted for first floor rear extension and single storey rear extension.

In 1989 under planning ref. 89/02570, permission was granted for a part one/two storey rear and single storey rear extensions.

In 2012 under planning ref. 12/00481, permission was granted for a single storey and first floor infill rear extensions with roof alterations and elevational alterations.

In 2012 under planning ref. 12/03058, a Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for the installation of 4 photovoltaic panels on front/side elevation.

The planning history most relevant to the current application is planning ref. 12/03312 which was refused permission for conversion and extension of detached garage to rear into habitable room with roof alterations and to include side dormers and elevational alterations and new side access gate on the following grounds:

"The proposal, by reason of its height and forward projection, would be over-dominant when viewed from No. 1 Elwill Way and would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of adjoining properties might reasonably expect to be able continue to enjoy by reason of visual impact and loss of prospect, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The proposal which would involve the creation of a first floor would be not comply with the Council's requirement for a generous side space to be maintained to the flank boundary in respect of two storey development in the

Page 57

absence of which the extension would constitute a cramped form of development, out of character with the street scene, conducive to a retrograde lowering of the spatial standards to which the area is at present developed and contrary to Policies H9, BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan and Park Langley Supplementary Planning Guidance.

The proposal, by reason of its scale and location, would be capable of being severed to form a separate unit of accommodation, which would result in development of the site that would be harmful to the character of the Park Langley Conservation Area, contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan".

Conclusions


Although the proposal would result in loss of one parking space by conversion of the garage to a habitable accommodation there are spaces available within the site's curtilage which would be utilised for parking. Therefore on balance no objections are raised to the principle of the conversion from a parking point of view.

In terms of the previously refused application, concerns were raised as the proposal would have be sizeable in scale exceeding the London Plan standards for a studio flat, a 1 bedroom 2 person flat and a 2 bedroom 3 person flat. The cumulative impact of the increase in height and front extension resulted in a scheme which was not considered to be subservient or ancillary to the main dwellinghouse while also impacting detrimentally upon the residential amenities of No. 1 Elwill Way. The inclusion of features such as dormer windows in the flank elevations resulted in a scheme which could have been viewed as a separation residential unit, of a scale capable of being severed from the main dwellinghouse, thereby detrimental to the spacious character and visual amenities of the Conservation Area.

In respect of the current proposal, the dormer window extensions in the flank elevation have been removed and instead would be replaced with conservation rooflights in the western elevation overlooking the garden of the application site as opposed to neighbouring properties. No increase in height or front extension is currently proposed. The property would be increased by approximately 1m to the rear, however, although the structure has a sizeable height of 5m this extension would be modest in scale and unlike the previously refused application would not significantly increase the bulk of the outbuilding when viewed in the streetscene. As such the proposal is considered to have overcome concerns in terms of its visual impact upon the Conservation Area.

Although the proposal would include the provision of a first floor level within the outbuilding, there would be no increase in height proposed and the proposal would be sited no closer to the flank boundary than the existing structure and as such is considered to satisfy the requirements of Policy H9.

Page 58

In terms of the impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, concerns were previously raised in terms of the impact upon No. 1 Elwill Way owing to 2.5m forward projecting at a height of 5.5m (2.8m beyond the front elevation of this property). The proposal would no longer be extended to the front but would instead involve a 1m projection to the rear. Given the orientation of the site and distance retained to the flank elevation with No. 1 the proposal may be considered to overcome concerns in terms of loss of light and prospect for No. 1. No windows are proposed to be located in the eastern flank elevation and as such the loss of privacy for this property would not be considerable. In order to ameliorate against overlooking of the rear garden of No. 1 were permission to be granted a condition could be attached requiring the first floor window in the northern elevation to be obscure glazed.

A window would be located in the rear elevation at a first floor level which would be approximately 9m from the boundary with No. 21 Wickham Way. This may result in some loss of privacy and sense of overlooking for the rear garden of this property, however, in light of the condition recommended above this is not considered to be significant.

The internal space to be provided would be of a sizeable scale and would have a separate access via Elwill Way. Concerns remain that it would be capable of being severed to form a self-contained unit and Policy H8 paragraph 4.47 applies. Members are asked to consider whether the current proposal would satisfactorily overcome concerns relating to the potential for subdivision. Were permission to be granted a condition could be attached restricting the use of the outbuilding to the occupants of No. 23 Wickham Way. Members are asked to consider whether such a condition would be sufficient in preventing such subdivision from occurring or whether the application should be refused on this basis.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable in that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents. Subject to satisfactory resolution of the matter of severance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable.







4 ACI07 Restrict to members of household (1 in) at 23 Wickham Way

Page 59

ACI07R Reason I07 5 No windows or doors shall at any time be inserted in the flank elevation of

the development adjacent to No. 1 Elwill Way hereby permitted, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. ACI13R I13 reason (1 insert) BE1


7 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, the window to be inserted in the first floor rear (northern) elevation shall be obscure glazed in accordance with the details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the amenities of the adjacent properties.



(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relationship of the development to adjacent properties; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding Conservation Area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties;


Page 60


Proposal: Conversion and extension of detached garage to rear intohabitable room with roof alterations and elevational alterations and newside access gate



1:2,040

Address: 23 Wickham Way Beckenham BR3 3AA

Und

Def

MALMAINS WAY

10

Wa

rd B

dy

73

71

a

Court

2

NO

RT

H D

RIV

E

50.4m

1 to

10

Iveagh

50.0m

North Lodge

Jacanda Lodge

10

8

1

15a17

33

El Sub Sta

15

LOSE

1

16

Tennis Courts

24

20

Tennis Courts

44A

El Sub Sta

Tennis Courts

Tennis Courts

1

WICKHAM WAY

11

7

1

8

12

CR

Ward Bdy

5

37

WIC

KH

AM

WA

Y

50.3m

29

33

LB

28

32

25

2

39

BU

CK

NA

LL

WA

Y

CF

Wa

rd B

dy

23 25

7

1

50.3m

25a

13b

1313a

HAYES LANE

27

CL

OS

E

31

11

23

50.2m

17

13

2a2

9

21

610

1

9

43

50.6m

36

40

41

1

62

16a

17

14

18

HAYES WAY

16

13

12

16

ELWILL WAY

14

Page 61



Four 15m high floodlighting columns to "pitch 2"

Key designations:

Areas of Archaeological Significance Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaFlood Zone 2Flood Zone 3Green BeltLondon City Airport SafeguardingLondon LoopLocal Distributor Roads

Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of four 15m high floodlighting columns to pitch 2. The columns will have four floodlights each.

Amended plans were received on 29th May 2013, showing a reduction in the number of floodlighting columns from 6 to 4.

The application includes a Planning and Design Statement, and technical details of the proposed lighting. The Planning and Design Statement makes the following points in support of the application:

! Beccehamian RFC has been established at Sparrows Den since the 1960s and built the current club house on the site

! its membership is one of the largest in Kent and the South East

! as per the conditions of the appeal allowed for the installation of 14 roof-mounted floodlights on the pavilion, the Club operates its floodlights on 2

Application No : 13/00766/FULL1 Ward: West Wickham

Address : Old Beccehamian Rugby Football Club Sparrows Den Sports Ground Corkscrew Hill West Wickham BR4 9BB

OS Grid Ref: E: 538747 N: 165216

Applicant : Beccehamian RFC Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.9

Page 63

evenings per week between the hours of 7pm and 10pm, and only in the months from October-April inclusive

! the existing floodlighting, installed in 1999, are out-dated and not fit for purpose, only illuminating 1/6th of a pitch and, as such, this area of the grounds receives an unsustainable level of usage

! the Club has had to move one of their evening training sessions to Bishop Justus CE School every year to accommodate for pitch degradation and provide a full floodlit pitch necessary for completive training

! advances in floodlight technology have increased significantly in recent years. Light colours are more natural and louvers are designed to focus the light with minimum light pollution. The manufacturer has advised that a pitch can be successfully illuminated with minimum impact on neighbour amenity

! pitch 2 is the best position for floodlighting at the Club. It is a sufficient distance from properties on Corkscrew Hill and those on Wood Lodge Lane to minimise any impact on amenity

! it is proposed to operate the floodlights in line with the conditions of the second appeal, but an additional evening is requested every fortnight to allow for alternating minis and juniors to train occasionally mid-week

! it is requested that the Club be allowed to operate these floodlights on 2 evenings per week with an additional 1 evening every fortnight on these evenings only between the hours of 7pm and 10pm in the months from October-April inclusive

! the rising posts of the three rugby pitches currently on the site negate the appearance of the columns on the openness of these playing fields, with the floodlight pitch surrounding by pitch 1 and 3 and amidst an area containing tall vertical elements. It is therefore the Club's opinion that the proposal would appear inconspicuous in the existing landscape

The Statement concludes with the following points:

! the proposed floodlights are of a suitably high standard necessary to minimise any impact on neighbouring amenity while providing much needed facilities for the Club

! the floodlit pitch is surrounded by pitch 1 and 3 and as such is amidst an area containing tall vertical elements

! the Planning Inspector dealing with the retention of the existing floodlights commented that floodlighting for training purposes is appropriate development in the Green Belt especially as the site is designated for playing fields

! the proposal would serve to enhance the quality of facilities for local rugby players and contribute to the economic and social development of the Club to meet the needs of the community

! for these reasons the proposed floodlights would comply with the relevant planning policies and should be looked upon favourably.

A further supporting statement was received on 29th May 2013. This makes the following further points in support of the application:

Page 64

! the existing floodlit training facilities used at Bishop Justus School are less accessible and no washing or changing facilities are provided as part of the hire

! for the 2013-2014 season, floodlit training at Bishop Justus School will cost £120 per session (an increase of £10 per session from last year), with the running of two sessions per week between 26th August and 30th April costing £7,790 on facilities rental

! the hiring of this facility is currently costing 40% of the membership fees collected, which in conjunction with the cost of renting the Clubhouse and pitches (at Sparrows Den) from the Council means that the majority of club monies are spent on rent

! the Club is already charging comparable membership fees in line with other county clubs, and relies upon the support of its members and the local community to operate successfully

! the Club has been advised that subject to a Sport England grant, the erecting of floodlighting will cost approximately £25,000 to the Club, which is less than 4 years rent at Bishop Justus School, and would firmly establish the Club within the local community

! these are very special circumstances for both the club and the local community, and it is requested that the application is considered favourably as its success would enable a locally established playing field to operate for its full potential for a long established club

! the application is necessary for the provision of adequate training and, with this in mind, the Club has been prepared to reduce the scheme to a four column design

! whilst this will result in a reduced standard in terms of the "continuity of lux levels" across the pitch, it will at least provide sufficient lighting for training purposes, and maintain the long view of the wooded corridor, and would not detract from the experience enjoyed by all users of the site.

Location

The application site is located on the northern side of Addington Road, and comprises around 7.65ha of Green Belt land used by Beccehamian Rugby Football Club (RFC). The site is within an Area of Archaeological Significance and is part of the London Loop (orbital walk route).


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. A significant number of representations were received, including comments both in objection and in support.

The main points raised in objection can be summarised as follows:

! large conspicuous encroachment into Green Belt

! unacceptable visual impact of floodlighting and columns

! impact on Green Belt and area of special landscape character

! light pollution

Page 65

! land is public and only leased to rugby club and will detrimentally affect all users of the park

! floodlights could expand the use of the grounds

! additional impact of noise from vehicles and training

! previous refusal for similar proposal in 1996

! proposal is inappropriate Green Belt development

! floodlighting is not essential to operation of the rugby club

! impact of columns during daytime and lights at night

! proposal will harm openness and visual amenity of Green Belt standing in isolation in open ground, and rising well above the existing tree line

! impact on archaeology

! if permission is granted no evening match fixtures should be permitted

! floodlights will be fixed and permanent feature of landscape even out of season

! will result in urbanising effect on what would otherwise be an unbroken night sky

! no other structures of similar size or light levels in the surrounding areas

! the rugby club do not have exclusive use of Sparrows Den

! car parking is already a problem in surrounding roads, which will be exacerbated by this proposal

! proposal would blur boundary between edge of West Wickham and the Green Belt

! increased noise and disturbance in the evenings

! existing floodlights are adequate for club's training needs

! although lighting technology has improved the proposal will still illuminate a large area of the site

! impact on wildlife

! loss of privacy

The main points raised in support can be summarised as follows:

! will enable training in the evening and improve the club and teams

! will not affect local residents

! existing lighting inadequate and sometimes causes injuries

! floodlights will be used infrequently

! site well away from housing

! positive for community sport

! the club currently pays to use floodlit pitches elsewhere for training and the proposal would save this money

! will benefit youth players and children

! promoting healthy lifestyles

! lack of floodlighting is currently holding the club back

! adjacent car dealership has 24hr floodlighting

! will attract more players to the club and aid retention of senior players who often leave for clubs elsewhere with better facilities

The West Wickham Residents Association object to the application on the basis that it would be detrimental to the open character, appearance and visual amenity

Page 66

of the area, that light spillage will occur, that it would harm the Green Belt and Area of Special Landscape Character, without any special circumstances that would outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.


Environmental Health (pollution) raised no technical objections to the proposed floodlighting (6 column proposal), subject to a condition limiting the use of the floodlighting to 2 evenings per week between the hours of 7pm and 10pm between the months of October and April only. Further comments in respect of the amended 4 column proposal will be provided at the meeting.

Highways raised no objection.

English Heritage (Archaeology) was consulted on the application as the site is within an Area of Archaeological Significance. Any comments received will be reported verbally at the meeting.


The main planning policies against which the application should be considered are as follows:


BE1 Design of New Development G1 The Green Belt

London Plan

3.19 Sports Facilities 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes 7.16 Green Belt

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also of relevance; Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land' in particular.

Planning History

There is extensive planning history relating to the site. The following application is considered to be of particular relevance to this proposal:

96/00408 - planning permission refused for 8 x 12m high floodlighting columns (to pitch 2). An appeal against this decision was dismissed, with the Inspector finding that the bright illumination in the middle of the sports ground at night would be visible from a wide area, and more so in the winter months when the trees were without leaves. The Inspector considered the Green Belt at this point to be especially vulnerable, close as it is to the urban area, and found that the added effect of the illuminated floodlights would be to significantly increase the intensity of

Page 67

light in this area of low ambient light and to extend the urbanised appearance of the area southwards into the Green Belt, reducing its openness.

In addition to the above, planning permission was granted at appeal in 2000 for floodlights on the clubhouse building, following the issuing of an enforcement notice by the Council. The use of these lights is controlled by condition, to be used on 2 evenings per week between the hours of 7pm and 10pm between the months of October and April only. A further condition imposed by the Inspector prevents the use of mobile floodlighting on the site.

Conclusions

The main issues for consideration in this case will be the impact of the proposed floodlighting and supporting columns on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the amenities of residents living near the site in Corkscrew Hill and Wood Lodge Lane. A further consideration is the impact of the proposal on conditions of highway safety.

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF advises that the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries is an exception to inappropriate development as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The proposed floodlighting may therefore be considered an appropriate facility to support the outdoor sporting use of the site; however it is necessary to consider whether any actual harm would arise to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt at this open site, both by reason of the supporting columns and the floodlighting itself.

The proposed floodlighting columns will, at 15m in height, result in a degree of visual impact, although in view of the reduced number of columns now proposed (4 in total) and the relatively slender appearance of these structures, it is considered that the open nature of the site will not be significantly compromised, with open views maintained across the site to the south-west and along the wooded corridor. Members will note that planning permission was refused at appeal in 1996 for eight 12m high floodlighting columns to 'pitch 2', with the Inspector finding that the increase in the intensity of light in this area of low ambient light would extend the urbanised appearance of the area into the Green Belt. The proposal currently under consideration is for half the number of floodlighting columns considered by the Inspector, and may therefore result in a less intensive level of illumination with the lighting concentrated at either end of the pitch. In addition, the club is seeking to use the floodlighting on a relatively limited number of occasions, in this case 2 evenings per week (with an additional 1 evening per fortnight) between the hours of 7pm and 10pm in the months from October-April inclusive. In this instance therefore, the degree of harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt arising from the illumination will be limited.

In support of the application, the Club has stated that the floodlighting is required to meet their training needs during winter months. Whilst there is a limited level of floodlighting already at the site (mounted to the club house), this only illuminates approximately 1/6th of the pitch with the ground therefore receiving an unsustainable level of usage. The Club currently meets its training needs through

Page 68

hiring an existing all-weather pitch elsewhere in the Borough (Bishop Justus School) at considerable cost (around 40% of the membership revenue), at a site some distance away from the ground and without changing or washing facilities. The proposal would provide the Club with the training facilities they require at their own ground, the cost of which would, together with a Sport England grant, be covered by the cost of 4 years further rental of the Bishop Justus facility. In this case, it is considered that the benefits which would be afforded to the club would outweigh the limited degree of actual harm to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt identified, demonstrating the very special circumstances required to allow planning permission to be granted in this case.

With regard to the impact on the amenities of local residents, there will be some limited visual impact arising from the columns themselves although they will be sited a good distance from the nearest dwellings in Corkscrew Hill and Wood Lodge Lane. With regard to the floodlights themselves, Environmental Health have reviewed the technical specification (of the six column proposal) and raised no objections. Clearly the lighting will be visible from neighbouring dwellings although again the separation distances involved are such that direct spillage is not anticipated to be problem. There could be an increase in noise and disturbance experienced by local residents, arising from increased the use of pitch 2 in the winter months as a result of the illumination, although having regard to the limited use of the lights for which approval is sought, and the fact that the Club already benefits from some lighting (mounted on the roof of the club house) it is not considered that this will be significantly detrimental. In light of the above it is not considered that a significant loss of amenity to local residents will arise in this case.

From the technical Highways perspective, no objections have been raised to the proposal, although a condition has been requested to require details of the lighting. The site has existing off-street parking available and it is not anticipated that the proposal will give rise to a significantly greater demand for parking on the site, since it relates to a single pitch and is intended to facilitate training only.

Members will need to carefully consider the acceptability of this application having particular regard to the local representations, however may agree that on balance the proposal would not result in a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents or conditions of highway safety, and that on balance any limited harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt would be outweighed by the benefits for the club and demonstrate the very special circumstances required to allow planning permission to be granted in this instance.





Page 69

2 The floodlighting hereby permitted shall not be used other than a maximum of 2 evenings per week with an additional 1 evening per fortnight (no more than 5 evenings in every 2 week period), and on these evenings only between the hours of 7pm and 10pm and only in the months from October to April inclusive, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 ACJ23 Details of floodlights ACJ23R J23 Reason

4 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason




BE1 Design of New Development G1 The Green Belt

London Plan

3.19 Sports Facilities 7.8 Heritage Assets and Archaeology 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes 7.16 Green Belt


(a) the impact of the development on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the very special circumstances demonstrated

(b) the character of the development in the surrounding area (c) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (d) the community policies of the development plan (e) the design policies of the development plan (f) the transport policies of the development plan


Page 70


Proposal: Four 15m high floodlighting columns to "pitch 2"



1:9,680

Address: Old Beccehamian Rugby Football Club Sparrows Den SportsGround Corkscrew Hill West Wickham BR4 9BB

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

Page 71



Removal of Condition 5 of permission ref. 10/00987 (granted for alteration of site levels, retaining walls and all weather sports pitch with 3m high fencing) which restricts use of the pitch for sporting activities in association with the use of the school only and for no other purposes without prior approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority

Key designations: Conservation Area: Bromley Hayes And Keston Commons Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaGreen BeltLondon City Airport Safeguarding

Proposal

Planning permission was granted under ref. 10/00987 for an all-weather sports pitch, with 3m high fencing. Permission is sought for the removal of Condition 5 of the original permission for the pitch, which restricts its use to sporting activities in association with the use of the school only and for no other purposes (without prior approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority). The reason for this condition being imposed was as follows:

"In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure that the use does not generate additional activity that could adversely affect the amenities of the residents of nearby residential properties or the parking provision on the site."

An application has also been submitted for the addition of eight 16m high floodlighting columns and floodlights to the pitch, and is pending consideration under ref. 13/00839. This application is the subject of a separate report which is also to be found on this agenda.

Application No : 13/00836/RECON Ward: Bromley Common And Keston

Address : Ravens Wood School Oakley Road Bromley BR2 8HP

OS Grid Ref: E: 541797 N: 165342

Applicant : Ravens Wood School Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.10

Page 73

The proposed use of the pitch will be as follows:

! Monday - Friday - School use from October to March from 15.15 - 18.00

! Monday - Friday - Partner Organisations year round from 18.00 - 21.30

! Saturdays - School or Partner Organisations 08.00 - 18.00

! Sundays - No use proposed

The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, which advises that the removal of the condition would allow the community use of the facilities out of normal school use, primarily for the School's partner organisations and those associated with pupils. The Statement makes the following points in support of the application:

! the removal of Condition 5 of the current planning consent is sought, to allow community use of the facilities out of normal school use. This would primarily be for the School's partner sports organisations and those associated with our pupils

! the All Weather Pitch has been one of the biggest assets to the pupils experience and development in recent years. However the maintenance and eventual replacement in approximately 8 years is very costly and money obtained from the potential community club use will be essential in the up keep and continuation of the facility. Any additional monies obtained would enable further educational development of the school

! it is known that other schools in the local vicinity, ( Langley Park Boys, Langley Park Girls, Darrick Wood, Ravensbourne and Bishop Justus to name a few ) already have both floodlighting to their all-weather pitches and the ability to offer the facilities for local community use. While all locations are slightly different, each local school is set in similar surroundings with both residential and Green Belt issues to consider. The School believes that should permission not be granted its pupils will be restricted in a way that other local pupils are currently not

! the School has consulted with local residents and generally have had very positive comments, and will continue to work with residents regarding the usage of the pitch and will consider any additional measures required to ensure neighbours maintain the view and privacy already enjoyed

! floodlight usage times will be reasonably set in line with other local schools. Lighting will only be required for school use during the winter months, and will only be used throughout the year when required

! while potential noise is a recognised concern, the school will agree to reasonable usage times, in line with the residents, other local schools and LBB conditions

! with only one pitch for hire, community use at any one time will be for a limited number of occupants only. For this reason noise is not expected to exceed current levels already associated with school activities, during the day or weekends. School activities will continue to take priority over community bookings. Normal community use will be for training so will not generally attract any additional spectators.

! hire of facilities is intended for Partner Organisations and clubs that the school currently work closely with, or directly benefit our local students

Page 74

! many of the clubs expressing an interest are Youth Teams so community use would not be much different to the day to day use of the school

! the hire of the facilities will be managed on site at all times and any contravention to lighting times or excessive noise will not be tolerated

A further statement in response to local representations has been submitted by the Applicant (received 15th May 2013). The main points in relation to this application are as follows:

! In times of austerity schools are increasingly employing entrepreneurial strategies to increase revenue. We firmly believe that our students deserve the right to access first class facilities in line with their counterparts at many other Bromley schools. We conducted a thorough face to face consultation with adjoining residents.

! Many perceptions seem to have been based upon residents experiences of entirely different local sports facilities, in particular Homesdale FC. We should like to reassure residents that our application is significantly smaller in scale and cannot therefore be compared to such venues. Our application applies to only one single rugby/football pitch and therefore a maximum of approximately 30 participants at any given time.

! Concerns over excess noise - a freedom of information request has revealed that similar school facilities in Bromley have incurred just one associated complaint in the past 3 years. Additionally, it should be noted that a typical school weekend at Ravens Wood will see several hundred sports participants using the school field and we are yet to receive a single complaint in respect of excess noise. Our evening facility manager will also be responsible for participant's adherence to a strict noise and behaviour usage policy that will be in place.

! Concerns over security - Residents may not be aware that the school is currently open until 10pm during week days. Should permission be granted, it is our intention to employ an evening facility manager who will be responsible for onsite security and management of the pitch. This will be in addition to the onsite caretaking provision currently in operation.

! Concerns over excess traffic - The highways agency have raised no concerns in this respect. We would like to reiterate that we do not expect a noticeable increase in traffic due to the low numbers of participants. We have more than adequate onsite parking to facilitate bookings. Participants will not be permitted to enter the site via Barnet Wood Road.

! Concerns over late night usage - We have proposed that the final booking end at 21.30.

Location

The school and playing fields are located to the south of Barnet Wood Road, to the west of Oakley Road and to the north of Croydon Road, close to the junction known as Keston Mark. The site lies wholly within the Green Belt and there is a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation to the east.


Page 75

Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application by letter, a site notice displayed and an advertisement published in the local press. Representations received can be summarised as follows:

! increased noise and disturbance

! increased traffic (including use of Barnet Wood Road)

! unacceptable impact on Green Belt

! conditions on original permission restrict addition of floodlighting and use of pitch

! school will benefit from proposal at expense of amenities of neighbours

Supporting comments were received from the Kent Schools' Rugby Football Union, and Petts Wood Football Club.


Highways raised no objections to the application.

Environmental Health (pollution) have advised that a 9.30pm curfew Mon-Fri is acceptable on balance as no activity on Sundays is more important. It is further advised that a Management Plan is a useful tool particularly in ensuring that a credible complaints procedure is established which should include the right to exclude groups who give rise to a large number of complaints.


The application should be considered against the following policies:


BE1 Design of New Development G1 The Green Belt C8 Dual Community Use of Educational Facilities NE2 Development and Nature Conservation Sites

London Plan

3.19 Sports Facilities 7.15 Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes 7.16 Green Belt

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is of relevance; Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land' in particular. The NPPF advises Local Authorities to plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, including the provision of opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation (para. 81).

Planning History

There is extensive planning history at the site. Of recent relevance is the grant of planning permission under ref. 10/00987 for an all-weather sports pitch, with 3m

Page 76

high fencing. An application for a minor-material amendment to this permission was approved under ref. 11/02890 to allow an increase in the height of the perimeter fencing to 5m.

Members may wish to take note that planning permission was recently granted at appeal (Feb 2013) for a new all-weather pitch (for dual community and school use) with floodlighting at Bishop Justus School (located around 1.5km to the north-east of the site and within the Green Belt) following the refusal of planning permission by the Council under ref. 12/00642.

Conclusions

The main issues for consideration in this case will be the acceptability of the removal of Condition 5, with particular regard to the reason for it being imposed on the original grant of permission under ref. 10/00987, as follows:

"In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and to ensure that the use does not generate additional activity that could adversely affect the amenities of the residents of nearby residential properties or the parking provision on the site."

Members will also need to bear in mind that a separate application has been submitted to provide floodlighting to the pitch, which will, in conjunction with the removal of Condition 5, be likely to result in a more intensive use of the existing facility at the School. The specific impacts of that proposal are assessed within a separate report, also to be found on this agenda.

In broad terms, the proposed community use of the pitch, to be facilitated by the removal of Condition 5, would comply with the aims of Policy C8, which seeks to permit proposals which would bring about the beneficial and efficient use of educational land and buildings for the community, provided that the privacy and amenities of any adjoining properties are adequately safeguarded, and the proposal does not have an unsatisfactory impact on on-street parking and highway safety.

Concerning residential amenity, as noted above the proposed removal of Condition 5, together with the floodlighting proposed (pending consideration under ref. 13/00839) will be likely to result in a more intensive use of the pitch, which would potentially give rise to an increase in general noise and disturbance. To ensure that this is controlled and does not result in a loss of amenity to local residents, it is recommended that further conditions be imposed to restrict the hours of operation, and to require the submission and approval of a management plan for the use of the pitch. In respect of hours of operation, the School have proposed that the pitch be used up until 9.30pm on weekday evenings and 6pm on Saturdays. No use is proposed on Sundays. Whilst the Environmental Health Officer has indicated that a 9pm finish would be preferable Monday-Friday, the offer of no use at all on Sundays is considered to outweigh the additional 30 minutes on weekday evenings, by guaranteeing at least 1 day a week being free from activity. Members will note that at present, the use of the pitch is not restricted on Sundays (provided it is used by the school). In respect of the use of the pitch, the School has

Page 77

indicated that the pitch will primarily be used by partner organisations and teams (and not the general public). The requirement to submit a management plan, to detail partner organisations and teams that will use the pitch, and detail a complaints procedure (to include a mechanism for the exclusion of groups who give rise to a significant number of complaints), will allow the Council the opportunity to approve the details of users and ensure that a satisfactory complaints procedure is in place, which includes a means to exclude teams or groups that cause particular problems.

With regard to traffic, parking and highway safety, the school has ample parking within the site to cater for any additional demand created by the proposal removal of Condition 5, and Members will note that no technical Highways objections have been raised. Whilst concerns have been raised locally regarding the use of Barnet Wood Road, the School's car parking is reached via the main access from Oakley Road, and it is not anticipated that vehicles would be any more likely to travel to the site via and/or park in Barnet Wood Road, which is a narrow country lane, as a result of this proposal.

Having regard to the above Members may agree that the proposed removal of Condition 5 is acceptable, subject to further conditions to control the use of the pitch and its hours of operation.


RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL



2 The all-weather pitch shall not be used on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, and shall not be used before 08:00hrs and after 21:30hrs Monday to Friday and shall not be used before 08:00hrs and after 18:00hrs on Saturdays, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 Details of a scheme for the management of the all-weather pitch, to include details of partner organisations and teams that will use the pitch, and details of a complaints procedure to include a mechanism for the exclusion of groups as necessary and a mechanism for review, shall be submitted to the Local planning Authority for approval within 3 months of the date of this decision. The all-weather pitch shall thereafter be operated in accordance with the approved management scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residential properties and to comply with Policies BE1 and C8 of the Unitary Development Plan.


Page 78




London Plan



(a) the impact on conditions of highway safety and parking provision (b) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (c) the community policies of the development plan (d) the design policies of the development plan (e) the transport policies of the development plan


Page 79

Application:13/00836/RECON

Proposal: Removal of Condition 5 of permission ref. 10/00987 (granted foralteration of site levels, retaining walls and all weather sports pitch with 3mhigh fencing) which restricts use of the pitch for sporting activities inassociation with the use of the school only and for no other purposes



1:11,070

Address: Ravens Wood School Oakley Road Bromley BR2 8HP

!

!!!! ! !!

!

! !

!!!

!!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

! ! !!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

! !!

!

! !

!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !!

!! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! !!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!! !!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

Page 80



Eight 16m high floodlighting columns to existing all weather pitch

Key designations: Conservation Area: Bromley Hayes And Keston Commons Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaGreen BeltLondon City Airport Safeguarding

Proposal

Planning permission was granted under ref. 10/00987 for an all-weather sports pitch, with 3m high fencing. Permission is now sought for the addition of eight 16m high floodlighting columns and floodlights to the pitch. In addition, permission is sought for the removal of Condition 5 of the original permission for the pitch, which restricts its use to sporting activities in association with the use of the school only and for no other purposes (without prior approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority). This application is the subject of a separate report which is also to be found on this agenda.

The proposed use of the pitch will be as follows:

! Monday - Friday - School use from October to March from 15.15 - 18.00

! Monday - Friday - Partner Organisation year round from 18.00 - 21.30

! Saturdays - School or Partner Organisations 08.00 - 18.00

! Sundays - No use proposed

The application is accompanied by technical details of the floodlighting, a Design and Access Statement, and supporting letters from the School's Principal, the Rugby Football Union's Area Facilities Manager for London and South East, the General Secretary of the Kent School's Football Association, the Treasurer of

Application No : 13/00839/FULL1 Ward: Bromley Common And Keston

Address : Ravens Wood School Oakley Road Bromley BR2 8HP

OS Grid Ref: E: 541797 N: 165342

Applicant : Ravens Wood School Governing Body Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.11

Page 81

Orpington Football Club, as well as a number of e-mails in support from parents of pupils at the school and coaches of local sports clubs.

The Design and Access Statement makes the following points in support of the application:

! the proposal is for the installation of floodlights to illuminate the All Weather Sports Pitch, allowing extended use during the winter months for school use. In addition, the removal of Condition 5 of the current planning consent is sought, to allow community use of the facilities out of normal school use. This would primarily be for the School's partner sports organisations and those associated with its pupils

! the All Weather Pitch has been one of the biggest assets to the pupils experience and development in recent years. However the maintenance and eventual replacement in approximately 8 years is very costly and money obtained from the potential community club use will be essential in the up keep and continuation of the facility. Any additional monies obtained would enable further educational development of the school

! it is known that other schools in the local vicinity, ( Langley Park Boys, Langley Park Girls, Darrick Wood, Ravensbourne and Bishop Justus to name a few ) already have both floodlighting to their all-weather pitches and the ability to offer the facilities for local community use. While all locations are slightly different, each local school is set in similar surroundings with both residential and Green Belt issues to consider. The School believes that should permission not be granted its pupils will be restricted in a way that other local pupils are currently not

! lights will be positioned to give maximum light to the pitch with minimum light spillage. Technical calculations have confirmed that 16m is the optimum height required to give the required lux levels to the playing surface whilst causing the minimum light spillage.

! the School has consulted with local residents and generally have had very positive comments, and will continue to work with residents regarding the usage of the pitch and will consider any additional measures required to ensure neighbours maintain the view and privacy already enjoyed

! floodlight usage times will be reasonably set in line with other local schools. Lighting will only be required for school use during the winter months, and will only be used throughout the year when required

! the lighting has been chosen and designed to achieve maximum playing conditions whilst having minimum light spillage and impact on the openness and visual amenities. Technical data provided shows no or minimal light spillage into neighbouring properties. It is also believed that, the lower pitch and higher elevation of the New Hall in relation to the proposed lighting, will detract from the view of the lighting columns. It is therefore believed that the lights will not impact significantly on the residents' current view. Time restrictions will be installed within the lighting units to prevent usage after the predetermined time

! while potential noise is a recognised concern, the school will agree to reasonable usage times, in line with the residents, other local schools and LBB conditions

Page 82

! with only one pitch for hire, community use at any one time will be for a limited number of occupants only. For this reason noise is not expected to exceed current levels already associated with school activities, during the day or weekends. School activities will continue to take priority over community bookings. Normal community use will be for training so will not generally attract any additional spectators.

! hire of facilities is intended for Partner Organisations and clubs that the school currently work closely with, or directly benefit our local students

! many of the clubs expressing an interest are Youth Teams so community use would not be much different to the day to day use of the school

! the hire of the facilities will be managed on site at all times and any contravention to lighting times or excessive noise will not be tolerated

! with regards to the openness of the surrounding view, the School does not envisage this being significantly affected by the erection of the floodlights. The pitch is located in the more built up corner of the site, bordering to the south, the New Hall and Sports Facilities. The location of the pitch itself is not currently seen to affect the openness of the school playing fields to the east or the residential property to the west, or subsequent woodland further to the west. It is not envisaged that, despite the required height of the columns, that these will have any additional impact on openness than the buildings already in this location

! the 8 columns themselves are narrow in diameter with the 2 lighting units suspended from a horizontal beam. The narrow diameter of the columns, the size and construction of the lighting units, the column spacing of approximately 30m apart and sympathetic colour and design to the surroundings mean that there is not expected to be a significant impact to the surrounding environment.

A further statement in response to local representations has been submitted by the Applicant (received 15th May 2013). This is as follows:

! In times of austerity schools are increasingly employing entrepreneurial strategies to increase revenue. We firmly believe that our students deserve the right to access first class facilities in line with their counterparts at many other Bromley schools. We conducted a thorough face to face consultation with adjoining residents.

! Many perceptions seem to have been based upon residents experiences of entirely different local sports facilities, in particular Homesdale FC. We should like to reassure residents that our application is significantly smaller in scale and cannot therefore be compared to such venues. Our application applies to only one single rugby/football pitch and therefore a maximum of approximately 30 participants at any given time.

! Concerns over excess noise - a freedom of information request has revealed that similar school facilities in Bromley have incurred just one associated complaint in the past 3 years. Additionally, it should be noted that a typical school weekend at Ravens Wood will see several hundred sports participants using the school field and we are yet to receive a single complaint in respect of excess noise. Our evening facility manager will also be responsible for participant's adherence to a strict noise and behaviour usage policy that will be in place.

Page 83

! Concerns over light spillage and impact on wildlife - Our light spillage surveys conclude that light spillage is well within permitted guidelines and no concerns have been raised by the environmental planning officer. This efficiency can be attributed to the modern technology that we propose to use.

! Concerns over security - Residents may not be aware that the school is currently open until 10pm during week days. Should permission be granted, it is our intention to employ an evening facility manager who will be responsible for onsite security and management of the pitch. This will be in addition to the onsite caretaking provision currently in operation.

! Concerns over excess traffic - The highways agency have raised no concerns in this respect. We would like to reiterate that we do not expect a noticeable increase in traffic due to the low numbers of participants. We have more than adequate onsite parking to facilitate bookings. Participants will not be permitted to enter the site via Barnet Wood Road.

! Concerns over late night usage - We have proposed that the final booking end at 21.30.

Location

The school and playing fields are located to the south of Barnet Wood Road, to the west of Oakley Road and to the north of Croydon Road, close to the junction known as Keston Mark. The site lies wholly within the Green Belt and there is a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation to the east.


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application by letter, a site notice displayed and an advertisement published in the local press. Representations received can be summarised as follows:

! increased noise and disturbance

! floodlights will detract from views and privacy

! undesirable visual impact and light spillage

! increased traffic (including use of Barnet Wood Road)

! unacceptable impact on Green Belt

! conditions on original permission restrict addition of floodlighting and use of pitch

! school will benefit from proposal at expense of amenities of neighbours

! loss of outlook

! concerns that floodlights will create security risk for neighbours by illuminating back gardens

! negative impact on wildlife in adjacent woodland and gardens

A letter of objection, signed by a number of residents of Barnet Wood Road was also received.

One letter of support, from the Kent Schools' Rugby Football Union, was received.

Page 84


Environmental Health (pollution) raised no objections in principle to permission being granted. However, it was suggested that a condition be imposed, to restrict the times and days of use, consistent with other sports pitches in the area where residents are so close.


The application should be considered against the following policies:



London Plan


The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is of relevance; Section 9 'Protecting Green Belt land' in particular. The NPPF advises Local Authorities to plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, including the provision of opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation (para. 81).

Planning History

There is extensive planning history at the site. Of recent relevance is the grant of planning permission under ref. 10/00987 for an all-weather sports pitch, with 3m high fencing. An application for a minor-material amendment to this permission was approved under ref. 11/02890 to allow an increase in the height of the perimeter fencing to 5m.

Members may wish to take note that planning permission was recently granted at appeal (Feb 2013) for a new all-weather pitch (for dual community and school use) with floodlighting at Bishop Justus School (located around 1.5km to the north-east of the site and within the Green Belt) following the refusal of planning permission by the Council under ref. 12/00642.

Conclusions

The main issues for consideration in this case will be the impact of the floodlighting and columns on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the amenities of neighbouring residential properties (both in terms of any light spillage/glare and visual impact, and noise and disturbance arising from the increased use that the lights will facilitate). Members will also need to bear in mind

Page 85

that a separate application has been submitted to remove the restrictive condition imposed on the original grant of planning permission to allow community use of the pitch, which will, in conjunction with the floodlighting, result in a more intensive use of the existing facility at the School. The specific impacts of that proposal are assessed within a separate report, also to be found on this agenda.

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF advises that the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries is an exception to inappropriate development as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The proposed floodlights could, in light of this guidance, be considered an appropriate facility to support outdoor sport and recreation, and may therefore be considered as acceptable Green Belt development in principle. Whilst the lighting columns would, at 16m in height, result in a degree of harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt, Members will note that the proposal would provide improved training facilities for the School itself, allowing greater levels of use during the darker winter months. In conjunction with the proposed removal of Condition 5 of the original permission for the all-weather pitch, community benefits will also arise, allowing access to a high-quality sports facility for local sports clubs and organisations. Therefore, whilst the proposal would give rise to a degree of actual harm to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt by virtue of the height and number of floodlighting columns proposed, it may be considered that the benefits to the school and community that will arise would outweigh this harm, and constitute the very special circumstances to allow planning permission to be granted.

Turning to the impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residents, the proposal will have a visual impact, again as a result of the height and number of floodlighting columns, and the illumination itself when the lights are on. This will particularly be the case for the dwellings at Woodside, Nos. 1 & 2 Foresters Cottages, Woodside and Beeson, Barnet Wood Road, all of which adjoin the site the north/north-west. The columns will however be relatively slender structures, and any visual impact will be limited. With regard to the lighting, the application includes a technical specification, which has been reviewed by the Environmental Health Officer who has raised no technical objections, subject to condition. Having regard to this advice it is not expected that the lights will give rise to a significant loss of amenity through light spillage/glare, although it is recognised that the properties in question will look out over an area of bright illumination, which would previously have been in darkness during the evenings. For this reason and having regard to the advice of the Environmental Health Officer, it is recommended that if Members are minded to grant planning permission for the lights, their use cease at 9.30pm Monday to Fridays and 6pm on Saturdays, with no use at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays, to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

With regard to any noise and disturbance arising from the use of the pitch, the floodlighting will facilitate its use over longer hours, particularly during winter months. This will inevitably give rise to a degree of additional noise, although it is anticipated that the School would be able to exercise a degree of control over the behaviour of its pupils to seek to keep noise to a minimum. As above, the

Page 86

requirement for the operation of the lights ceases at a reasonable hour will serve to control the use of the pitch and therefore the degree of noise arising.





2 The floodlighting hereby permitted shall not be used after 21:30hrs Monday to Friday or after 18:00hrs on Saturdays, and shall not be used at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays, without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, and to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 ACK01 Compliance with submitted plan ACK05R K05 reason





London Plan



(a) the impact of the development on the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the very special circumstances demonstrated

(b) the character of the development in the surrounding area (c) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties (d) the community policies of the development plan (e) the design policies of the development plan

Page 87

(f) the transport policies of the development plan


Page 88


Proposal: Eight 16m high floodlighting columns to existing all weatherpitch



1:11,070

Address: Ravens Wood School Oakley Road Bromley BR2 8HP

!

!!!! ! !!

!

! !

!!!

!!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

! !!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

! ! !!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!

! !

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

! !!

!

! !

!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! !

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! !!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !!

!! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! ! !

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! !!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!! !!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! ! !

! ! !

! ! !

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

! ! !

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!! !

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

Page 89



Demolition of existing dwelling and workshop and erection of three 3 bedroom two storey detached dwellings

Key designations:


Proposal

Permission is sought for the demolition of a detached two storey dwelling (No.7) and a single storey workshop which is attached to the southern flank elevation of No.10 and the erection of three two storey three bedroom detached dwellings.

Each property has a depth of 8.2 metres and a width of 8.45 metres with two parking spaces for dwellings 'A' and 'B' and one space for dwelling 'C'. The site has an area of 0.054 hectares giving the development a density of 55.5 units per hectare.

Location

The application site is located to the western edge of Willow Walk with the rear of the site being set to the eastern edge of Starts Hill Road. Further to the west beyond Starts Hill Road is the eastern car park of Princess Royal University Hospital. To the east of Will Walk is Farnborough Recreation Ground.



Application No : 13/00857/FULL1 Ward: Farnborough And Crofton

Address : 7 Willow Walk Orpington BR6 7AA

OS Grid Ref: E: 543546 N: 165095

Applicant : Beechwood Properties Ltd Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.12

Page 91

! the residents of No.4 have objected on the grounds that the nearest property would result in an invasion of privacy and the construction activity would be 7 days a week with a resulting detrimental impact.

A petition has been submitted by the residents of Willow Walk and Parkside Terrace commenting that:

! the cottage is historic and is one of the few remaining ties with the Romany community in north Kent and was once the home of two well-known 19th and 20th century gypsies. This represents the demolition of a culturally important building. the proposal would not be aesthetically pleasing. The existing Beechwood Properties Ltd workshop and building do not fit with the Common and have a poor quality appearance, should permission be granted this should be improved as part of the development.

! Will Walk is an unadopted road maintained at residents' expense, how will Beechwood Properties Ltd address this problem.

! the additional housing will result in confusion with house numbering

! the development will cause dust and the existing properties should be cleaned by the developer after construction.


Environmental Health has commented that the utility rooms to each unit do not appear to be provided with natural ventilation via a window. Adequate means of mechanical ventilation should therefore be provided.

Highways have stated that there is unlikely to be a significant increase in trip generation over and above the current uses. The site is within low PTAL area (2a) and while there is adequate parking for the houses proposed any additional vehicles may lead to parking on the grassed area opposite. A construction management plan should be submitted should permission be granted.

The Council's Crime Prevention Officer has advised that although no consultation has taken place by the developer, the proposal should be able to achieve Secure by Design accreditation and a condition requiring this should be included on any permission.


The application falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development EMP5 Development Outside of Business Areas H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T18 Road Safety

Page 92


London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential London Plan Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments Mayor of London's Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework

Planning History

Applications ref. 00/01486 and ref. 00/02974 (with subsequent approval of details) granted permission for the erection of four semi-detached dwellings to the area to the south of No.7, which was implemented and now features the properties of Nos 1-4 Parkside Terrace.

Conclusions

It falls to be considered whether the loss of the existing detached dwelling and small workshop is outweighed by the erection of three detached family dwellings on this site, with consideration given to the resulting impact upon the character of the area, the amenities of neighbouring residents and the level of car provision.

The proposal gives a density of some 55 dwellings per hectare which is well within the 35-65 dwellings per hectare expected within a suburban area with a PTAL level of 2 to 3 and the number of habitable rooms being provided, as outlined by Table 3.2 of Policy 3.4 of the London Plan. However, densities should not be applied mechanistically and regard must be given to the prevailing character of the area, the design of the proposal and transport capacity. It is considered that the proposed properties are in-keeping with the character of Willow Walk and could not be reasonably seen as being out of context with the previously permitted dwellings at Parkside Terrace whilst the design of the dwellings is of a common vernacular with suitable levels of amenity area that.

The properties maintain a relatively consistent level of side space with the unit adjoining No.4 allowing for a 1 metre separation and a 1.75 metre side space to the remaining business unit to the north. This is considered adequate and would maintain the levels allowed for and previously allowed at Parkside Terrace. It is also noted that there are no first floor flank windows to No.4 Parkside terrace - with one small ground floor window - and as such there would be no issue of the introduction of harm to the daylight received with the introduction of a two storey development at this boundary.

The existing dwelling is attractive and allows for a large degree of spaciousness between the business use to the north and the residential units commencing at Parkside Terrace. However, the predominant amenity feature is that of hardstanding with an absence of a garden area and, whilst the property is attractive, it is considered to make inefficient use of the site. Objections have been raised as to the cultural importance of the property, however the site is neither statutory or locally listed and is not considered to be of any particular architectural merit. As such the principle of its replacement is accepted and on balance the net

Page 93

gain of two dwellings of the current proposal is considered to outweigh the loss of this period dwelling.

The workshop is currently in use as a small sign making firm and the applicant has stated that the tenant is being relocated to a more modern unit also under their ownership in Hastings Road and given their intention to re-develop the site - which they consider to be dilapidated and not fit for modern needs - no marketing has taken place. Policy EMP5 states that the redevelopment of such business sites will be accepted provided that the size, configuration, access arrangements or other characteristics make it unsuitable of Classes B1, B2 or B8 as well as a full and proper marketing has been undertaken that shows the unsuitability and non-viability of the site.

Members must therefore consider whether the poor state of the existing workshop, its suitability for modern business uses, and the relocation of the current tenant by the applicant to a modern premise within their ownership are suitable circumstances to warrent an exception to the marketing requirements of Policy EMP5. It is considered that the more efficient use of the proposal site for three detached family dwellings represents a benefit to the area and outweighs the loss of this small and dated business premises. It is also noted that the remaining business premises to the north of the site, also within the applicant's control, are to be retained and as such the loss of business uses at this site is not considered to be significant.

It is considered that the proposal is, on balance, acceptable and that the loss of the existing dwelling and workshop are outweighed by the efficient use of the site to provide three detached family dwellings. The level of impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents is not considered to be harmful while there would not be a harmful impact upon the character of the area.






3 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07



6 ACH02 Satisfactory parking - no details submit ACH02R Reason H02

7 ACH19 Refuse storage - implementation

Page 94

ACH19R Reason H19 8 ACH29 Construction Management Plan

ACH29R Reason H29 9 ACI01 Restriction of all "pd" rights Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residents and the

character of the area and to accord with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

10 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the proposed window(s) to the first floor of the southern and northern elevations of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be obscure glazed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and details of any openings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall subsequently be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details. In the interests of the privacy of adjoining properties any openings should be at high level. ACI11R Reason I11 (1 insert) BE1 and H7

11 ACI17 No additional windows (2 inserts) southern or northern dwellings ACI17R I17 reason (1 insert) BE1 and H7

12 ACI21 Secured By Design ACI21R I21 reason


Policies (UDP) BE1 Design of New Development EMP5 Development Outside of Business Areas H1 Housing Supply H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking T18 Road Safety


London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential London Plan Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments Mayor of London's Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant

Page 95

land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).



Page 96


Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and workshop and erection ofthree 3 bedroom two storey detached dwellings



1:1,060

Address: 7 Willow Walk Orpington BR6 7AA

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

6

6a

8

106.4m

8a

1210

a10

yal

pital

100.9m

Summ

erlands S

urgery

Pavilion

Broadstreet Green

Posts

Post

106.9m

4

6

4a

STA

RTS

HILL R

OA

D

3

7

WIL

LO

W W

ALK

2

104.3m

2a

Parkside Terrace

1

4

Farnb

Willow

Walk

Allotme

10

11

1

2

Page 97



Demolition of the existing car tyre sale shop buildings to rear of 73 High Street, Change of use of land to residential (Class C3) and erection of 5 two storey terraced houses with accommodation in roof space and associated car parking.

Key designations: Conservation Area: Orpington Priory

Joint report with application ref. 13/00944

Proposal

! The proposal seeks to demolish the existing car tyre sales building which is currently attached to the back of No. 73 and remove the associated paraphernalia on the site.

! The proposal seeks to erect a row of 5 terraced two storey houses with accommodation in the roof space. Each house will provide four bedrooms.

! The row of houses will have a total length of 25.1m and a depth of 11.2m. The roof height will be 8.5m (6.0m to eaves height).

! The dwellings will possess a rear garden of between 7.0m and 11.2m in length due to the widening of the site. Access will be provided via a pathway to the front of the row.

! 6 car parking spaces (including one disability space) will be provided to the west of the houses within the existing yard area, served by the existing accesses onto the High Street that will provide an "in and out" access arrangement.

Location

The site is located on the Eastern side of the High Street behind the main buildings at No. 73 and 75. The site currently comprises a car tyre sale business operating from a building attached to the rear of No. 73. The site lies within the Orpington Priory Conservation Area and within Urban Open Space. The site is also within Flood Zone 3 and an Area of Archaeological Significance.

Application No : 13/00943/FULL1 Ward: Orpington

Address : 73 High Street Orpington BR6 0JF

OS Grid Ref: E: 546487 N: 166654

Applicant : Mr Mike Hutley Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.13

Page 99


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

! incorrect land ownership certificate signed

! increase in local traffic

! inadequate access and parking arrangements

! noise, disturbance and pollution

! impact on amenities of neighbouring properties

! overlooking and loss of privacy

! excessive height

! impact on character of the conservation area

! poor architectural design

! inadequate access for emergency vehicles

! possible subsidence issues

The Orpington & District Archaeological Society has commented that the site is within an Area Of Archaeological Significance and therefore archaeological conditions would need to be imposed.


Technical highways comments have been received asking for clarification as to whether the existing car parking for Nos. 73-75 will be lost, and for further information on the access/egress arrangements and waste collection. Further information has been provided by the applicant confirming the suitability of the parking and access arrangements, and further comments from engineers will be reported verbally at the meeting.

No technical Drainage objections are raised subject to a standard condition.

No Thames Water objections are raised subject to informatives.

The Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) has not objected to the proposal and has stated that there seems to be little provision for storage.

No Environmental Health objections are raised subject to a standard condition and informatives.

The Crime Prevention Officer has suggested a 'secure by design' condition.

The Environment Agency has commented on the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (received 30/04/13) and raises no objections subject to suitable conditions concerning risk assessment, contamination, remediation and sustainable drainage.

Page 100

English Heritage (Archaeology) has been consulted following the submission of an archaeological desktop study. Their comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

The Bromley Museum Service has commented that it is possible that surviving archaeological remains may be present at the site.

Waste Services has stated that suitable access widths for vehicles should be achieved. Notes for developers should be sent to the applicant.


Policies relevant to the consideration of this application BE1 (Design of New Development), BE11 (Conservation Areas), H7 (Housing Density And Design), H9 (Side Space), NE7 (Development And Trees), G8 (Urban Open Space), T3 (Parking) and T18 (Road Safety).

The above policies are considered to be consistent with the principles and objectives of The National Planning Policy Framework, which is a material consideration.

London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential London Plan Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments London Plan Policy 5.12 Flood Risk Management

The Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for the Orpington Priory Conservation Area are also considerations.

Planning History

There is no recent planning history on the site.

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the Orpington Priory Conservation Area, the impact on the openness of the Urban Open Space, the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties and the impact on highway safety. Suitable drainage along with flood risk potential are also considerations, as is the possible impact on trees.

The principle of developing sites for housing schemes in a sustainable manner is encouraged by Paragraphs 47-55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Particularly, the Council will encourage suitable housing developments in Town Centre locations. The NPPF makes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, subject to local character. The proposal will erect a row of 5 terraced dwellings that is considered to reflect and complement the character of the area, which comprises two storey terraced dwellings set within relatively small plots.

Page 101

Although the dwellings will be tall at 8.5m in height, with a contemporary architectural design, the proposal is not considered to be out of scale or character with the general layout and form of other development in the locality. Each dwelling will be provided with a garden of between 7 and 11m in length and this is considered to be a limited amenity area, however, the dwellings will be sited in close proximity to Priory Gardens and this is considered to provide further outdoor amenity. The garden sizes proposed are also not considered to be small in relation to other nearby residential development. The proposed row of dwellings will exceed the height of older nearby residential dwellings, however they would not dominate the area or appear excessive as they would be set back from the highway. The modern architectural design is also considered to add visual interest to other public areas at the entrance to the park.

Table 3.2 of Policy 3.4 of the London Plan gives an indicative level of density for housing developments. In this instance the proposal represents a density of 47 dwellings per hectare with the table giving a suggested level of 35-65 dwellings per hectare in urban areas. This is consistent with the London Plan Guidance and it is therefore considered that the development would not compromise the character of the area due to the acceptable density of housing proposed.

Table 3.3 of Policy 3.5 of the London Plan states that new dwellings of this type should have a minimum of 113 square metres of Gross Internal Area (GIA). In this case, the houses provide this minimum standard. Overall, the proposal would result in an intensity of use of the site that would be consistent with the local area and the London Plan.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) for the Orpington Priory Conservation Area states:

'3.1 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. It is hoped that all improvement works to buildings constructed prior to 1945 will take account of the character of the buildings and alter them as little as possible, except where accurately reinstating or restoring buildings to a known earlier state. Changes to post-1945 buildings, which make a positive contribution to the area, should reflect the building's architectural or historical significance and respect its scale, form and style.

3.14 Any new development within the conservation area (whether on the site of an existing building, on vacant land, or proposed to replace an existing building) should address and respond appropriately to the form, scale and materials characterising the conservation area generally and particularly in the immediate locality of the site.

3.15 The area's layout and spatial characteristics (i.e. the spacing between the houses and their relationship with their landscape setting) are both of great importance to the character of the area. When considering development

Page 102

proposals, the Council will pay special attention to plot widths, the scale and bulk of proposed buildings and their relationship with adjacent buildings. Proposals for increased development density and/or height, or the development of additional buildings between existing frontages, which could damage the character of the area, will be strongly resisted.

4.2 Other sites between premises in High Street and the Priory Gardens are being canvassed for redevelopment. Whilst falling outside the Conservation Area boundary, development in these areas can impact considerably on the Area. With appropriate design attention, development of these sites could contribute to and enhance the character and value of the Conservation Area, providing visual and functional linkages between the sub-areas of the Priory Gardens and High Street premises.'

From a heritage perspective, although there is no objection to the demolition of the existing buildings or the principle of developing this untidy site, the proposal will utilise a site that currently contributes to the open setting of the adjacent park. Despite this, the proposal is not considered to impact harmfully on the setting of the locally listed buildings to the south on Aynscombe Angle and would not impact harmfully on the character and appearance of the Orpington Priory Conservation Area. It is considered that the special features, important views and appearance of the conservation area, which centres around the High Street and south end of the park including the museum, would be retained by the proposal. The design of the houses is considered to be attractive with an unusual gable frontage and large glazing allowing for natural light. The dwellings will be distinct from other development in the area and could create an interesting contrast in their own right. It may also be considered that the development could provide a visually attractive feature which will border the entrance to the park.

The site falls within an area of Urban Open Space (UOS) which includes the Priory Gardens to the north and east. The site forms the edge of this area and the land to the south and west falls outside of it. It is considered that the site may have historically formed an open area, hence its inclusion within the UOS, however the site is now developed and enclosed, therefore separated from the main park. Any new development must be related to the existing use, small scale and supporting existing outdoor recreation. Replacement buildings must also not exceed the site coverage of the buildings they replace. The proposed residential development would not fall within these particular circumstances.

The development of the site would be contrary to Urban Open Space policy. The site may at some point in the future have its Urban Open Space designation removed, however at the current time this process is in its nascent stages. As a result, it is considered that it would be premature to permit the application on the site contrary to existing policy designation.

The proposed row of houses will be sited 21m-23m from the rear elevation of the dwellings to the south on Aynscombe Angle. This back-to-back separation is considered to be suitable to avoid undue visual impact, and is typical of the back-to-back relationships of dwellings in the residential area to the south. The separation, coupled with the orientation, is considered suitable to avoid harmful

Page 103

loss of outlook or light. The proposed roof accommodation however will provide an untypical vantage point towards the rear of properties on Aynscombe Angle and this may be considered to result in a significant degree of overlooking. The proposed second floor windows facing rearwards can be obscurely glazed by condition in order to prevent overlooking. The relationship between dwellings on Aynscombe Angle and the proposed first floor rear windows is considered to be typical of the area to the south and Members may consider this not to be unacceptably harmful to the privacy of adjoining residents.

The proposal will utilise the existing accesses onto the High Street and only a left turn is available from one of the accesses. It is considered that the proposal will provide ample car parking for the number of houses proposed, given the Town Centre location and good accessibility to public transport. The site will provide a suitable manoeuvring area for vehicles to prevent dangerous reversing onto the highway along with suitable refuse collection arrangements. A refuse store is also provided at the site and technical highways comments will be reported verbally at the meeting.

The Environment Agency has provided comments concerning the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application. The proposal is not considered to result in a significant additional flood risk, subject to suitable safeguarding conditions. The site falls within Flood Zone 3, however due to the fact that is has been previously developed and contains a large area of hardstanding, the potential for additional flood risk is considered capable of being mitigated by appropriate measures. The site also lies in an Area of Archaeological Significance. English Heritage has been consulted on the proposal and their comments will be reported verbally, which is likely to include the suggestion of planning conditions concerning archaeologically investigation.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposal would impact harmfully on the open character of the Urban Open Space. It is therefore recommended that Members refuse planning permission.




1 The proposal would impact harmfully on the open character of the Urban Open Space and the development of the land for the purpose proposed would be premature while the land continues to be designated as such, therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policy G8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE(S)

Page 104

1 You are advised that this application may be liable for the payment of the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) and the Planning Act 2008. The London Borough of Bromley is the Collecting Authority for the Mayor and this Levy is payable on the commencement of development (defined in Part 2, para 7 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010). It is the responsibility of the owner and /or person(s) who have a material interest in the relevant land to pay the Levy (defined under Part 2, para 4(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010).



Page 105


Proposal: Demolition of the existing car tyre sale shop buildings to rear of73 High Street, Change of use of land to residential (Class C3) anderection of 5 two storey terraced houses with accommodation in roof spaceand associated car parking.



1:1,800

Address: 73 High Street Orpington BR6 0JF

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

Ward BdyCR

Leal

21

31

9

26

109a

51.4m

113

107

6

11

1

15BRUC

11a

64

Lych Gate

A

ChaffinchCourt

CourtRedwing

RIVER PARK VIEW

HIGH

Park View

7 to 12

13 to 18

1 to 6

98

100

2

CR

War

d B

dy

TCB

40

7

16

46

120

6

123

136 to 1

44

TCB

109

1

Pond

76

STRE

5

Playground

Depot

Shel

Priory Gardens

Museum

Library

11

Posts

The Priory

Posts

RAMSDEN ROAD

Garden ofRemembrance

134

Temple Gate

132

128

111

Depot

115

59

73

88

61

House

1 to

26

27 to

33

58

86

Surgery

Priory

52.0m

Curtis Court

112

122

90

106

105

104

126

96

99

102

HIG

H S

TR

EE

T

53.6m

97

101

Barn

Hawe

Shelter Pond

Samuel Palmer Court

1

2

LB

3 to 5

6 to 9

2

Clinic

44

Builder's

55

153

41

10 to 12

Yard

34

6

36

ELM

CRO

FT RO

AD

51

25

53

41

29

32

Tham

es House

ESS

Precista Court

OO

RFIELD

RO

AD

25

HIT

E H

AR

T R

OA

D

Hart House

TIONS WAY

El

Sub Sta

36

29

32

1

39

7

53.9m

26

21

34

4

24

11

2

16

13

9

7

41

55

8

2

El Sub Sta

1 to 6

WH

ITE HA

RT R

OA

D

88a

Bank

1

PH

PH

118

108

TCB

13

53.8m

4

12

CHURCH HILL

5

1

Ware

ho

use AY

NS

CO

MB

E A

NG

LE

85

52.7m

AYNSCOMBE ANGLE

30

21

83

PH

Gar

age

Club

23 17

2a

Holme

21

Page 106

Section ‘3’ - Applications recommended for PERMISSION, APPROVAL or CONSENT


Fell one oak tree (T.1) in front garden SUBJECT TO TPO 2459

Key designations: Conservation Area: Downs Hill Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport SafeguardingLondon City Airport Safeguarding BirdsTree Preservation Order

Proposal

Felling of one oak tree (T.1)

Location

Front garden of 10 Crab Hill


There has been a considerable number of comments from local residents and these can be summarised as follows:

! the property where the trees are growing was underpinned in 1990 and there has been no further problems, the subsidence was not attributed to the trees

! there are issues of subsidence in the area because the soil is a shrinkale clay

! felling is unwarranted, it is proposed by insurance companies because they are risk averse

! felling should be the last resort, not the first

! the installation of a root barrier as an alternative should be explored

Application No : 12/03084/TPO Ward: Copers Cope

Address : 10 Crab Hill Beckenham BR3 5HE

OS Grid Ref: E: 538574 N: 170150

Applicant : MWA Arboriculture Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.14

Page 107

! the cause of the problem has not been established without doubt and the exceptionally dry weather in 2010 and 2011 is a major factor

! the trees are irreplaceable and society as a whole will be the loser

! foundations on the clay soil are inadequate

! the trees enhance the environment for generations and make Beckenham a pleasant place to live

! concerns as to what may happen next if there is further subsidence after the felling

! trees provide charm and character and the loss would be have a negative effect

! the trees are at the accepted limit of possible influence


This application has been made by an arboricultural consultant acting for insurers of the adjoining property, no.8 Crab Hill. Originally the application was to fell two oak trees in the front garden of no.10. It was alleged that the trees are implicated in subsidence of no.8. The two oak trees are growing on the front boundary of the front garden of no.10, they are both about 18 metres in height, have been previously pollarded and have regrown a full canopy. They are in a reasonably healthy condition, are highly visible in the street scene and are at the end of a line of oaks in several front gardens. The trees that are the subject of this application are numbered 1 and 2 in the reports accompanying the application; no.1 is that which is closest to the area of damage. The trees are 15 and 18 metres from no 8. This is a two storey detached house of traditional construction with rendered walls and hipped tiled roof built in the 1930s, it has two conservatories at the rear and an attached garage at the side closest to no.10. The damage to the property is to the front elevation and the front of the attached garage where there is downward movement.

Cracking was first noticed in September 2011 and became rapidly worse. The damage falls within category 3 which is described as moderate (the categories run from 1, very slight to 5 very severe). The pattern and nature of the cracks is indicative of subsidence. The drains and water main have been investigated and are not a contributory factor.

Trial holes have been dug at the front of the property and the foundations are 750mm under the front bay and 800mm beside the front corner of the house adjacent to the garage. The soil in both was found to be desiccated highly shrinkable clay. Roots were also found in both trial holes and have been identified as oak.

Level monitoring has been carried out and this indicates seasonal movement, with upward movement as the clay swells during the wetter winter weather and downward as the clay shrinks in the drier summer months.

As there were two oak trees implicated DNA tests were requested. Twig samples were taken from both trees and were compared to root samples taken from both trial holes. These results show that the roots from T.1 (closest to no.8) were those found in the trial hole. There was no correlation with T.2. On the basis of this the

Page 108

application has been amended to the felling of one oak tree only, the tree proposed to be felled is T>1, the tree closest to no.8.

Concerns have been raised that a root barrier could be installed rather than felling the tree. The agent has confirmed that a root barrier will only be considered if the Council refuse consent. However root barriers are expensive and disruptive to install and are not always successful.

There have been a considerable number of objections to this application, including the owners of the trees. They have advised that their property was underpinned in 1990 and several other properties in the road have also been underpinned. During the 1990s and earlier it was not was not necessary to fell trees and insurance companies carried out underpinning. However recent cases involving trees and subsidence almost always seek felling if implicated trees. If implicated trees are felled properties are repaired and no underpinning is done. However where trees are retained properties are almost always underpinned and if the tree is covered by TPO and the Council has refused consent compensation for the additional costs of underpinning are sought form the Council.

Concerns have been raised that the level monitoring used a temporary benchmark on the side of no.8. The fact that this is part of the house which is moving rather than using a stable fixed point was queried with the agent and he has replied that the test results show a clear pattern of movement and there is no sign that the readings are inaccurate because of the temporary benchmark. This datum point was chosen by specialist monitoring contractors as appropriate. The movement relative to the datum point is measured rather than movement to a fixed point.

The clay soil in this area has the ability to swell and shrink during wet and dry periods of weather and this movement can be exacerbated by the presence of trees. The evidence in this case shows that there is movement to number 8 and this is related to shrinkage of the clay under the foundations. The evidence also shows that roots from T.1 have been found under the foundations of no.8 and are implicated in the movement. Whist other roots (the source is unidentified) have been found there is undisputable evidence that roots from T.1 have been found in both bore holes beside the house and the tree is an influencing factor in the movement of the property.

As indicated above, under the terms of the legislation protecting trees, an owner can claim compensation where consent to work on a protected tree is either refused or given subject to conditions. Compensation is only payable if it can be demonstrated that any loss or damage is as a result of the Council's decision. Where a tree is implicated in subsidence compensation payments are based on the additional costs of repairing the building, this is usually underpinning. In this case the comparative costs of repairs have been estimated at £12,000 if the tree was to be removed and £88,000 if the tree was retained. Therefore if consent were to be refused a compensation claim could be in the region of £76,000 that is the costs of underpinning and other associated costs. Also if consent was refused the Council could not insist on the installation of a root barrier.

Conclusion

Page 109

There is clear evidence showing that no.8 has suffered subsidence and there is also clear evidence linking this damage to T.1. However the DNA evidence does not show a link to T.2 and this tree has been removed from the application.

RECOMMENDATION: CONSENT GRANTED FOR TREE WORKS


1 ACB09 Tree consent - commencement ACB09R Reason B09

2 ACB06 Replacement tree(s) ACB06R Reason B06

Page 110

Application:12/03084/TPO

Proposal: Fell one oak tree (T.1) in front garden SUBJECT TO TPO 2459



1:3,160

Address: 10 Crab Hill Beckenham BR3 5HE

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!! !

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

Page 111



Application for minor material amendment to approved dwelling at Plot 2 to enable provision of 4 rooflights to rear elevation

Proposal

This minor material amendment is proposed in respect of four rooflights which are sought in order to serve habitable rooms within the loft space. These will be situated along the rear roof slope (the northern elevation).

Location

The application dwelling forms one of two houses which have been built on land which formerly formed part of the garden associated with "Lyridon". Access to the houses is via The Drive, a residential cul-de-sac situated off Leesons Hill. The application property adjoins 1 Robin Hood Cottages along its northern boundary.


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application. Representations were received from the Chislehurst Society which raised concerns on the basis that the proposed rooflights may result in the overlooking of neighbouring gardens.


Not applicable


Policies BE1and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration. These policies seek to ensure that new development does not adversely affect neighbouring amenity, and achieve a satisfactory standard of design.

Application No : 13/00816/MATAMD Ward: Chislehurst

Address : Plot 2 Lyridon The Drive Chislehurst

OS Grid Ref: E: 545508 N: 168975

Applicant : Modium Developments Ltd Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.15

Page 113

Planning History

The site is the subject of a considerable planning history. Following various refusals, planning permission was granted for the application dwelling (together with one other dwelling ("Plot 1") under ref. 12/00267. This was subject to a legal agreement which was subsequently implemented.

Conclusions


The application site was visited by the case officer and the aims and objectives of the above policies, national and regional planning guidance, all other material planning considerations including any objections, other representations and relevant planning history on the site were taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.

Given its orientation and relationship to the neighbouring dwellings at "Robin Hood Cottages" and "Finchfield" it is not considered the proposed rooflights will adversely affect neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. The northern site boundary will contain vegetative screening, which will restrict views in the direction of "1 Robin Hood Cottages". Furthermore, the number of rooflights proposed is limited to four, and in view of their position within the roof slope it is considered that potential overlooking will be adequately restricted.

No objection is raised in terms of the impact of the rooflights on local character, particularly given their position along the rear elevation.








4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

Page 114

Application:13/00816/MATAMD

Proposal: Application for minor material amendment to approved dwellingat Plot 2 to enable provision of 4 rooflights to rear elevation



1:1,040

Address: Plot 2 Lyridon The Drive Chislehurst277

89.4m

273

91.5m

7

212

91.0m

BR

IDG

EW

AT

ER

CL

OS

E

210

204

279

KE

NL

EY

CL

OS

E

1

1

7

6

1a

Holly L

od

ge

Huntingfield

THE DRIVE

Lyridon

200

Helida

1

Robin Hood Cottages

A

ath

(um

)

Brackenwood

4

Finchfield

2

Robin Hood

Cottages

2

CottageFir Tree

197a

Redwood

3

Page 115



Roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer and roof lights to front, single storey rear extension, garage to rear and formation of vehicular access and hard standing

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLondon City Airport SafeguardingLondon City Airport Safeguarding Birds

Proposal

Planning permission is sought to enlarge the existing ground floor area at the rear by approximately 3m and to enlarge the existing roof which will incorporate a partial hipped end with a rear dormer.

Permission is also sought for a garage to be built to the rear of the dwelling alongside that of No 9 and which would also be partially elevated relative to the local ground level.

Location

The application dwelling form on half of a pair of semi-detached bungalows and is situated along the western side of Walkden Road, a residential street comprising of both one- and two-storey houses.


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and the following representations were received:

! additional bulk and massing will result in a dwelling out of scale and keeping with the host dwelling and adjacent dwellings

Application No : 13/00832/FULL6 Ward: Chislehurst

Address : 11 Walkden Road Chislehurst BR7 6DX

OS Grid Ref: E: 543350 N: 171480

Applicant : Mr Marijus Kuklys Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.16

Page 117

! proposal will unbalance the elevation associated with this pair of semi-detached bungalows

! overlooking resulting from proposed rear dormer toward neighbouring properties including adjacent conservatory at No 13

! encroachment onto neighbouring property [Agent who submitted the application has confirmed that this will not occur]

! concerns regarding impact on structure of adjoining semi


No technical Highways objections have been raised.


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 which complements the qualities of the surrounding area; and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Planning History

There is no relevant planning history relating to the application property.

Of note, gable-end roof extensions have been added to the neighbouring dwellings at Nos. 3 and 5: these having been approved under refs. 00/03189 and 03/00360 respectively.

Conclusions


As noted above the application dwelling forms one half of a pair of semi-detached bungalows. The majority of the extension will be provided within the roof area and whilst the roof profile of the existing roof will be altered, it is considered that the incorporation of a partial hipped end will enable a satisfactory balance to be maintained between the application and adjoining dwellings. Furthermore, the submitted plans show that the ridge height of the enlarged roof will be unchanged.

Although objection have been raised in relation to loss of privacy it is considered that the proposal will be relatively modest in scale and that the provision of a rear dormer will not lead to excessive overlooking in the direction of neighbouring houses. Such an arrangement may be considered typical within such suburban locations.

With regard to the proposed garage, this will align with an existing structure at No 9 and so it will appear fairly discreet from within surroundings.

Page 118







4 AJ01B Justification GENERIC reason FULL6 apps

Page 119


Proposal: Roof alterations to incorporate rear dormer and roof lights tofront, single storey rear extension, garage to rear and formation ofvehicular access and hard standing



1:1,200

Address: 11 Walkden Road Chislehurst BR7 6DX

CF

nd

Und

BS

Def

0.91m RH

Un

d

BP

Def

CF

4

18

90

16

Shelter

13

2

9814

15

1

2

13

2

1

12

79.2m

12

86.2m

MAINRID

GE ROAD

20

33

23

2

4

House

8412

7

113

heila Stead

74.4m 86

2a

76.4m

99

1

8

2

46

12

12

46a

2

Stone

1

56

BUSH

ELL WAY

3

70

13

111

97

2b

81.3m

48

109

82

95

60

75

93

87

1

3

WA

LK

DE

N R

OA

D

11

3

59

WH

ITE H

OR

SE H

ILL

1

LB

34

GREENWAY

HIL

LVIE

W R

OA

D

HEV

1

12

12

LYD

STE

P R

OA

D

1614

Court

Eileen

12

Page 120



Demolition of the existing car tyre sale buildings to rear of 73 High StreetCONSERVATION AREA CONSENT (AMENDED DESCRIPTION)

Key designations: Conservation Area: Orpington Priory Areas of Archeological Significance Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaFlood Zone 2Flood Zone 3London City Airport SafeguardingLondon Distributor Roads London Distributor Roads Secondary Shopping Frontage Urban Open Space

Joint report with application ref. 13/00943

Proposal

! The proposal seeks Conservation Area Consent to demolish the existing buildings on the site

! The buildings comprise a car tyre sale building that is currently attached to the rear of No. 73.

Location

The site is located on the Eastern side of the High Street behind the main buildings at No. 73 and 75. The site currently comprises a car tyre sale business operating form a building attached to the rear of No. 73. The site lies within the Orpington Priory Conservation Area and within Urban Open Space. The site is also within Flood Zone 3 and an Area of Archaeological Significance.

Application No : 13/00944/CAC Ward: Orpington

Address : 73 High Street Orpington BR6 0JF

OS Grid Ref: E: 546487 N: 166654

Applicant : Mr Mike Hutley Objections : NO

Agenda Item 4.17

Page 121


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and no representations were received.


None.


The application falls to be determined in accordance with S.72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that conservation area. The following policies of the Unitary Development Plan are further considerations:

The proposal falls to be considered with regard to Policy BE12 of the Unitary Development Plan regarding demolition in Conservation Areas.

From a heritage perspective, no objection is raised to the demolition of the existing structures.

Planning History

There is no recent planning history on the site.

Conclusions

The main issue relating to this application is the effect that the demolition of the buildings would have on the character and appearance of the Orpington Priory Conservation Area.

The existing buildings are not considered to be of architectural or historical importance and make a neutral contribution to the character of the conservation area.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the demolition of the existing buildings would not impact detrimentally on the character and appearance of the Orpington Priory Conservation Area and would have some benefit in light of the Urban Open Space designation. It is therefore recommended that Members grant Conservation Area Consent.


RECOMMENDATION: GRANT CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT


Page 122

1 ACG01 Comm.of dev-Listed Building and Con.Area ACG01R Reason G01

Page 123

Application:13/00944/CAC

Proposal: Demolition of the existing car tyre sale buildings to rear of 73High StreetCONSERVATION AREA CONSENT(AMENDED DESCRIPTION)



1:1,800

Address: 73 High Street Orpington BR6 0JF

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!

!

!!

Ward BdyCR

2

120

6

El

Sub Sta

109a

CR

War

d B

dy

TCB

Samuel Palmer Court

1

2

LB

3 to 5

6 to 9

2

Clinic

44

Builder's

55

153

41

10 to 12

Yard

34

6

36

ELM

CRO

FT RO

AD

51

25

53

41

29

32

Tham

es House

ESS

Precista Court

OO

RFIELD

RO

AD

25

8

2

El Sub Sta

1 to 6

WH

ITE HA

RT R

OA

D

HIT

E H

AR

T R

OA

D

Hart House

TIONS WAY

36

29

32

1

39

7

53.9m

26

21

34

4

24

11

2

16

13

9

7

41

55

88a

Bank

1

59

73

88

61

House

1 to

26

27 to

33

58

86

Surgery

Priory

52.0m

Curtis Court

112

122

90

106

105

104

126

96

99

102

HIG

H S

TR

EE

T

53.6m

97

101

Barn

Hawe

PH

PH

118

108

TCB

13

53.8m

4

12

CHURCH HILL

5

1

Ware

ho

use AY

NS

CO

MB

E A

NG

LE

85

52.7m

AYNSCOMBE ANGLE

30

21

83

PH

Gar

age

Club

23 17

Holme

21

Leal

21

31

9

26

51.4m

40

7

16

46

Shelter Pond

1

Pond

76

STRE

5

Playground

Depot

Shel

Priory Gardens

Museum

Library

11

Posts

The Priory

Posts

RAMSDEN ROAD

Garden ofRemembrance

134

Temple Gate

132

128

123

136 to 1

44

TCB

109

111

Depot

115

113

107

6

11

1

15BRUC

11a

64

Lych Gate

A

ChaffinchCourt

CourtRedwing

RIVER PARK VIEW

HIGH

Park View

7 to 12

13 to 18

1 to 6

2a

100

98

Page 124



Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of pair of two/three storey semi-detached 5 bedroom houses with associated parking (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaFlood Zone 2London City Airport SafeguardingLocal Distributor RoadsLocal Distributor RoadsRiver Centre Line

Proposal

The proposal is for a pair of two/three storey semis which will be sited a minimum 7.0m off the Queensway frontage and a minimum 3.0m off Tudor Way. A separation of approximately 3.5m will be maintained between the dwelling at "Plot 1" which will occupy the northern part of the site and the neighbouring dwelling at No 4. That gap will be occupied by an access drive leading to a parking area for two cars at the rear of the proposed dwelling at "Plot 2" which will serve that property.

Together, the proposed pair of houses will incorporate a maximum width of 13.0m and a maximum depth of 13.5m, although their rear projections will be recessed relative to the front part. The development will rise to a maximum height of approximately 8.6m (as scaled from, the submitted plan) which will enable further accommodation to be provided within the roof/second floor area, although no second storey fenestration will be incorporated along the front elevation of either house.

Application No : 13/01014/FULL1 Ward: Petts Wood And Knoll

Address : 2 Queensway Petts Wood Orpington BR5 1EA

OS Grid Ref: E: 544575 N: 167244

Applicant : Mr Gordon Baldwin Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.18

Page 125

In design terms the proposed houses will incorporate a symmetrical appearance of traditional design with pitched roofs, part rendered and part timbered elevations, and stock brickwork.

Parking to "Plot 1" for two off-street spaces will be at the front of the site, utilising the existing vehicular access fronting Queensway. Two off-street parking spaces for "Plot 2" will be at the rear of the site, accessible via the aforementioned proposed access drive and existing vehicular access. The southern corner of the site fronting Tudor Way and Queensway will be landscaped.

The application is supported by a Design & Access Statement, a Swept Path Analysis and Flood Risk Assessment.

Location

The application site occupies a prominent corner plot, measuring 0.075 hectare in area, and fronting the mini-roundabout junction of Queensway, Tudor Way, Towncourt Lane and Rycroft Road. It is situated approximately 250 metres to the south of the commercial district centre of Petts Wood.

The surrounding streetscene is predominantly characterised by two storey pairs of semis which have been intermittently enlarged or altered, although these properties have generally maintained their original form.



! proposed houses will not conform to local character, by reason of height, scale, building line, plot sizes and design

! proposal increases floor risk due to increase in built-up area within the plot

! harmful to existing visual amenities of the area, and loss of open prospect to rear of the site

! overdevelopment of site; plot is too small to accommodate proposed houses

! building works will lead to traffic disruption and could pose a road safety hazard

! proposal will increase road safety risks on what is already a busy and traffic-prone junction

! disruption to free flow of traffic

! "Plot 2" dwelling will obstruct drivers' view of Tudor Way from Queensway

! ground level would appear to be lower than existing which may result in provision of retaining wall alongside boundary with No 4

! noise and disturbance associated with proposed access drive alongside No 4

! overlooking and loss of privacy


Page 126

From a Highways perspective no objection is raised in principle, subject to conditions.

No objection has been raised by the Environment Agency, subject to flood-related conditions

No objection has been raised by the Council's Drainage Consultant, subject to conditions

No objection in principle has been raised from an Environmental Health (Pollution) perspective


Policies BE1 (Design of New Development), H7 (Housing Density and Design), H9 (Side Space), T3 (Parking) and T18 (Road Safety) of the Unitary Development Plan apply to the development and should be given due consideration.

The National Planning Policy Framework is also a material planning consideration.

Planning History

Three planning applications concerning redevelopment of the site have been submitted since 2006. These are summarised below.

Under ref. 06/03118, a proposed three storey block comprising 4 two bedroom and 2 one bedroom flats together with associated car parking and formation of 2 vehicular accesses was refused on the following grounds:

"The proposals constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site, by reason of the bulk, height and layout of the development proposed, detrimental to the spatial standards and character of the surrounding area, and thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan."

"The parking area in Tudor Way has poor visibility as submitted and would seriously affect the safety and free flow of traffic on this road, contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan."

Subsequently, under ref. 07/04481, and application for a three storey block comprising 3 two bedroom and 3 one bedroom flats together with associated car parking and formation of vehicular accesses was refused on the following grounds:

"The proposal would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the bulk and layout of the development, detrimental to the spatial standards and character of the surrounding area and thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan."

"The on-site car parking facilities proposed are inadequate and will fail to meet the perceived needs of the development, therefore being likely to increase the demand for on-street parking to the detriment of road safety

Page 127

along the adjacent Local Distributor Roads, and thereby contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan."

The 2007 application was subsequently dismissed at appeal, the Inspector also raising concerns in respect of the road safety implications of the proposal, and in terms of its impact on the streetscene and local character, in particular that the "height, depth and elevated position relative to Tudor Way would make it a dominant feature of the street scene".

More recently, under ref. 11/03638, and application for two detached part two/three storey six bedroom houses and for the formation of new vehicular access was refused by the Council on the following grounds:

"The proposed development, located as it is on this prominent corner site, would be out of character and scale with the surrounding street scene and would constitute a cramped overdevelopment of the site by reason of the bulk and layout of the proposed houses, and their relationship to adjacent development, thereby detrimental to the spatial standards and character of the surrounding area, and contrary to Policies H7, H9 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan."

"The proposed vehicular access and associated intensification in use would be detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic along Queensway and the mini-roundabout junction with Tudor Way, Towncourt Lane and Rycroft Road, thereby contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan."

Conclusions

The main issues relating to the application are the effect that it would have on the character of the area, the impact that it would have on the amenities of the occupants of surrounding residential properties, and its impact on highway safety.

In comparison to the previously refused planning application for the site (ref. 11/03638) the main changes introduced in this scheme relate to the form, siting and design of the proposed houses, as summarised below:

! pair of semis now proposed in lieu of two detached houses and associated reduction in bulk of development, and roof and elevational alterations

! ridge height reduced from a maximum of 9.1m to 8.6m with both houses now presented as two storey dwellings along their frontage

! gap between the houses and both flank boundaries increased

! "Plot 2" dwelling parking re-sited to rear of the site so that existing vehicular access is shared by both houses, thereby avoiding it being relocated

Following the above changes it is considered that the two grounds of refusal cited by the Council in relation to the 2011 application have satisfactorily been overcome.

With regard to local character it is considered that this proposal will respect the scale and form of surrounding development, with particular regard to the adjacent

Page 128

two storey houses situated to the north of the site. Although the external appearance of the proposed pair of houses will be somewhat varied, the semi-detached form of the houses, as well as their height, scale and separation to the flank boundaries should result in a development largely sympathetic to and in keeping with its surroundings. In view of the separation between the proposed houses and neighbouring dwellings it is not considered that their amenities will be adversely affected.

As noted above the Council's Highways Engineers are satisfied that previous concerns relating to road-safety implications on the surrounding roads have been overcome, as a result of revised access arrangements. Whilst concerns have been raised in relation to the proposed access drive, on balance this is considered an acceptable approach to overcome previous highway-related objections; and since this will not constitute or relate to backland development, this approach may be regarded as acceptable. Furthermore, since it will only lead to the parking area associated with one of the houses its use will be limited.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 06/03118, 07/04881 11/03638 and 13/01014, excluding exempt information.




2 Details of a surface water drainage system (including storage facilities where necessary) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced and the approved system shall be completed before any part of the development hereby permitted is first occupied, and permanently retained thereafter.

In order to check that the proposed storm water system meets the Council's requirements, we require that the following information be provided:

! A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks and any attenuation soakaways.

! Where infiltration forms part of the proposed storm water system such assoakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted inaccordance with BRE digest 365.

! Calculations should demonstrate how the system operates during the 1 in 30 year critical duration storm event plus climate change. ADD02R Reason D02

3 The proposal should be carried out in accordance with the flood risk assessment by Encon Associates, ref ENV/0201/12FRA dated February 2012, and the mitigation measures contained therein, in particular:

Page 129

! finished floor levels of the ground floor should be set no lower than 76.38mAOD;

! the drainage scheme set out in sections 5.24-5.28 should be implemented fully.

Reason: To prevent flooding elsewhere through displacement of floodwater by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided.

4 The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to ensure that the proposed development would result in no net loss of flood storage volume has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme; or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent flooding elsewhere through displacement of floodwater by ensuring that compensatory storage of flood water is provided.


6 ACK05 Slab levels - no details submitted ACK05R K05 reason


8 ACA07 Boundary enclosure - no detail submitted ACA07R Reason A07


10 ACH09 Restriction on height to front and flank ACH09R Reason H09

11 ACH16 Hardstanding for wash-down facilities ACH16R Reason H16

12 ACH29 Construction Management Plan ACH29R Reason H29

13 ACH32 Highway Drainage ADH32R Reason H32

14 ACI02 Rest of "pd" Rights - Class A, B,C and E Reason: To enable the Council to control future development, in order to prevent

overdevelopment of the site, and to safeguard the amenities of the area, in accordance with Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Reasons for permission:

In granting permission the Local Planning Authority had regard to the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development H7 Housing Density and Design H9 Side Space T3 Parking

Page 130

T18 Road Safety

The development is considered satisfactory in relation to the following:

(a) the appearance of the development in the street scene; (b) the relation of the development to the adjacent property; (c) the character of the development in the surrounding area; (d) the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent and nearby

properties;(e) the light and outlook of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties; (f) the privacy of occupiers of adjacent and nearby properties.

INFORMATIVE(S)

1 You should consult the Land Charges and Street Naming/Numbering Section at the Civic Centre on 020 8313 4742 or e-mail: [email protected] regarding Street Naming and Numbering. Fees and application forms are available on the Council's website at www.bromley.gov.uk

2 If during the works on site any suspected contamination is encountered, Environmental Health should be contacted immediately. The contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the Local Authority for approval in writing.

3 Before the use commences, the Applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Team of Environmental Health & Trading Standards regarding compliance with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and/or the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Applicant should also ensure compliance with the Control of Pollution and Noise from Demolition and Construction Sites Code of Practice 2008 which is available on the Bromley web site.

Page 131


Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of pair of two/threestorey semi-detached 5 bedroom houses with associated parking(AMENDED DESCRIPTION).



1:1,290

Address: 2 Queensway Petts Wood Orpington BR5 1EA

TO

WN

CO

UR

T

RTH ROAD

33

40

9

16

MP 12.75

42

11

14

78.1m

17

26

15a

32

78.9m

19

75.2m

2

Sig

nal G

antry

SL

1

87

24

13

5

TU

DO

R W

AY

14

83

14

4

4

15

6

2

2

6

1

117

2

146

75.5m

21

123

134

Surgery

1

RY

EC

RO

FT

RO

AD

20

75.8m

13

ADDISON CL

12

1

11

5

Foot Brid

ge

12

1

Sig

nal G

antry

120

Page 132



Replacement of existing mast with a new 15m high street works column and installation of 1 no. new equipment cabinets. CONSULTATION BY VODAPHONE LIMITED AND TELEFONICA UK LIMITED REGARDING NEED FOR APPROVAL OF SITING AND APPEARANCE.

Key designations:


Proposal

This is an application submitted on behalf of Vodafone and Telefonica 02 UK Limited which seeks a determination as to whether prior approval will be required for the siting and appearance of the replacement of an existing telecoms mast with a new 15m high pole mast and 1 additional equipment cabinet on land adjacent to 343 Eden Park Avenue.

The proposed replacement mast will be sited in its current position adjacent to the back edge of the footway and chain link fencing to the railway embankment behind. The new equipment cabinet will be 1.3 x 0.7m x 1.4m in height (when measured from the submitted plans) and will be sited adjacent to the existing equipment cabinets on the back edge of the footway, adjacent to the railway bridge.

Both the mast and equipment cabinet are to be painted green to match the existing street furniture.

Location

Application No : 13/01435/TELCOM Ward: Kelsey And Eden Park

Address : Land Adjacent To 343 Eden Park Avenue Beckenham

OS Grid Ref: E: 537300 N: 167631

Applicant : Vodafone Limited Objections : NO

Agenda Item 4.19

Page 133

The application site is located a short distance from the junction of Eden Park Avenue with Upper Elmers End Road and Links Way. It lies to the back of the footpath on the eastern side between a 2/3 storey commercial building to the south on the corner of the junction and a railway bridge to the north. The railway embankment rises to the rear with high chain link fencing to the boundary with the road.


At the time of writing this report no letters of objection have been received.


No technical objections area raised from an Environmental Health or Highways point of view.


The relevant planning legislation relating to this application is Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001.

The application also falls to be determined in accordance with the following policies of the Unitary Development Plan:

BE1 Design of New Development BE22 Telecommunications Apparatus

The London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework are material considerations in respect of the application.

Planning History

Under planning ref. 02/04204, the approval and siting of a 12.1m high telecommunications monopole and 2 equipment cabinets was allowed on appeal. The Inspector concluded that the development would not result in any material damage to the character or appearance of the area or to the outlook for neighbouring occupiers.

Conclusions

The main issue relating to the application is the effect that it would have on the character and visual amenities of the area and adjacent residential properties.

The principle of a telecoms mast and associated equipment cabinets has already been established through the approval of planning ref. 02/04204. This application seeks approval for the replacement of the existing mast with a new 15m high column and 1 additional cabinet.

Page 134

Both the cabinet and mast would be located behind the line of the supporting wall to the railway bridge. The location of the mast is urban in its character and appearance, adjacent to a 3 storey commercial building and railway bridge of which this structure is a particularly dominant element in the street scene and views along the road. The mast would be seen to varying degrees from neighbouring residential and commercial properties, from the railway and from the open space to the north. Due to the increase in height of the replacement mast, it is considered that the top of the pole would be most noticeable but it would not appear unduly out of keeping in the context of its location with the intervening built form of the railway, including fencing and platform lighting. It is not considered that the development would be unacceptably overbearing or will be detrimental upon the outlook and of nearby residents or the visual amenities of the street scene in general.

The proposed additional cabinet is not uncommon development seen on a roadside location. The additional cabinet will be placed adjacent to existing cabinets, the railway bridge and the railway embankment at the rear. The cabinet will be set back from the road and would allow for the freeflow of pedestrian movement along the pavement without obstruction. The proposed painting of the cabinet would match existing street furniture in this location and it is not thought that the provision of an additional cabinet would be lead to an unacceptable concentration of street furniture or be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene.

The one of the benefits of this application is that 2 operators will “mast share” one site. This is in line with central government and local policy, providing that the environment is not unduly harmed by such a development.

As with all telecommunications applications, there is a balance between technical requirements and the need to safeguard the amenities of the area. On balance, this application appears to be acceptable in this location.


RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF SITING AND APPEARANCE NOT BE REQUIRED

1 The siting and appearance of the telecommunications column mast and equipment cabinet shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted drawing(s) unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. ACM01R Reason M01

2 ACM03 Removal of equipment after redundancy ACM03R Reason M03

3 ACM06 Anti graffiti/general maint. condition ACM06R Reason M06

Page 135

Application:13/01435/TELCOM

Proposal: Replacement of existing mast with a new 15m high street workscolumn and installation of 1 no. new equipment cabinets. CONSULTATIONBY VODAPHONE LIMITED AND TELEFONICA UK LIMITEDREGARDING NEED FOR APPROVAL OF SITING AND APPEARANCE.



1:70

Address: Land Adjacent To 343 Eden Park Avenue Beckenham

Page 136

Section ‘4’ - Applications recommended for REFUSAL or DISAPPROVAL OF DETAILS


Erection of part subterranean detached 3 bedroom dwelling with associated access road at land at rear of 102 Nightingale Lane.

Key designations:

Biggin Hill Safeguarding BirdsBiggin Hill Safeguarding AreaLocal Cycle Network London City Airport SafeguardingLondon City Airport Safeguarding BirdsOpen Space Deficiency

Proposal

Planning permission is sought to construct a part subterranean dwelling within the rear part of the plot at 102 Nightingale Lane, within what currently forms part of its rear garden. The dwelling would be accessed via a “grasscrete” drive between Nos. 102 and 104 Nightingale Lane (within land situated within No 102’s existing curtilage). The proposed dwelling would be of irregular shape and occupy a fairly central position within its plot and incorporate a flat roof with the lower level accommodation partly visible below the proposed upper floor.

One off-street parking space is proposed within the development.

The application is accompanied by a Design & Access Statement which also sets out the environmental credential associated with the proposed development.

Location

The application site forms part of the rear garden area of a detached two storey dwelling and is 0.1ha in area. The surrounding area is wholly residential area in character and is characterised by individual houses, the majority of which are set within generous plots.

Application No : 13/00929/FULL1 Ward: Bickley

Address : 102 Nightingale Lane Bromley BR1 2SE

OS Grid Ref: E: 541262 N: 169111

Applicant : Mr Faisal Younus Objections : YES

Agenda Item 4.20

Page 137

The site contains a large detached house constructed in the early-Twentieth Century which fronts Nightingale Lane. The property forms part of a distinct cluster of detached houses which, on the whole, incorporate substantial rear gardens and maintain a generous separation to the neighbouring buildings. The site also adjoins the properties Nos. 17 and 19 Wanstead Road – located to the west – also substantial houses surrounded by large areas of garden. The eastern site boundary adjoins a flatted development at Field Close which forms a self-contained development of 14 apartments set within a large open plot.


Nearby owners/occupiers were notified of the application and at the time of writing no representations had been received.


Technical Highways objections have been raised, summarised as follows:

! site plan show that the access to the proposed building and emergency vehicles is via the existing driveway at number 104 Nightingale Lane. The gate at the entrance is too narrow and it looks like that the layout of access is not going to work because of the gate / sharp turning and will also have an effect on parking of No 104 Nightingale Lane

! the area has a low PTAL rating. At least two off-street parking spaces should be provided

Comments have been raised by Environmental Health: adequate means of ventilation should be provided to the bathroom and en-suite

The Council’s Drainage consultant has raised no objection, subject to conditions.


Policies BE1, H7, T3 and T18 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 which complements the qualities of the surrounding area, and which does not adversely affect neighbouring amenity; to ensure the provision of adequate parking; and to ensure that new development does not adversely affect road safety.

The National Planning Policy Framework also constitutes an important material consideration.

Planning History

Various planning applications for proposed extensions to the existing dwellinghouse at No. 102 Nightingale Lane have been submitted to the Council since 2010.

Residential extension applications

Page 138

Under ref. 10/03306, planning permission was granted for two storey side and rear extensions to the existing dwelling at No 102. This followed an earlier application for more substantial extensions under ref. 10/01318 which was refused and dismissed at appeal. More recently, under ref. 13/00177 planning permission was granted for a more modest part one/two storey side and rear extension and two rear dormers

Within the adjoining site planning permission was granted under ref. 11/00697 to demolish the bungalow at No 104 and construct a detached two storey 5 bedroom dwelling. Alternative proposals, involving the provision of a first floor addition to the existing structure, were permitted under refs. 09/03548 (subsequently renewed under ref. 13/00327) and 13/00185.

Previous application for new residential development on the site

Under ref. 11/01751, an outline application involving the erection of 2 detached two storey dwellings with an associated access road at land at the rear of 102 Nightingale Lane was refused by the Council on the following grounds:

“The proposed development, which would result in the loss of undeveloped garden land, constitutes a cramped and unacceptable form of backland development, out of character with adjoining development and harmful to the visual amenities of the area, thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing (2010).

The proposed access would harm the living conditions of the existing properties at Nos. 100 and 102 Nightingale Lane by reason of noise and disturbance, contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan”.

A subsequent planning appeal was dismissed, the Planning Inspector raising the following points:

“Development of the appeal site would change the character of the immediate area through the introduction of buildings on an otherwise open area of domestic garden. Although the site would be visible from private rather than public views this erosion of the open character would be harmful to the identity of the area.” (Para 7)

I conclude on the first issue that the proposed development would create a cramped form of backland development harmful to the character of the area. (Para 9)

The proposed access drive would be close to both existing dwellings and adjacent to the rear garden of No 100. The introduction of vehicles to the rear of Nos. 100 and 102 would introduce a degree of noise and disturbance that would affect the living conditions of the occupants of those dwellings.(Para 12)

Page 139

I conclude on the second issue that due to the proposed separation distances between buildings and the proximity of the access drive to dwellings, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings.” (Para 13)

As noted above, the Inspector raised an additional concern on the basis of the proximity between the proposed buildings and neighbouring properties which would be harmful to their living conditions.

Conclusions


The application site is occupied by a detached dwelling fronting Nightingale Lane and incorporates a substantial rear garden which adjoins other properties to the side and rear.

In support of the application, the agent refers to the size of the plot, arguing that this is similar to neighbouring properties. A plot ratio is used to illustrate this point. However, in contrast to neighbouring units, the proposed development would rely on the creation of a dedicated access road which would be situated between Nos. 102 and 104 Nightingale Lane. Such an arrangement is considered uncharacteristic of the surrounding area.

The Council’s UDP Housing chapter states, in Paragraph 4.40, that: “Backland development, involving development of land surrounded by existing properties, often using back gardens and creating a new access, will generally also be resisted. Private gardens can be of great importance in providing habitats for wildlife, particularly in urban areas.”

In the case of the 2011 application (ref. 11/01751) it was recognised by the Planning Inspector that the site is within a “well established suburban area … characterised by its residential nature and its well-kept and mature gardens. …the area has a varied appearance in building character and plot size. Development of the appeal site would change the character of the immediate area through the introduction of buildings on an otherwise open area of domestic garden. Although the site would be visible from private rather than public views this erosion of the open character would be harmful to the identity of the area.”

Section 6 of the NPPF (Paragraph 53) states that: “local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.” This would appear to reinforce the provision laid out in the Council’s UDP in relation to backland development.

Despite the differences between this proposal and the dismissed 2011 scheme it is considered that the principle concern, regarding the development of the rear part of the garden at No. 102 with a new dwelling, would not be overcome. The proposal

Page 140

would involve the loss of the existing rear part of the garden with a new dwelling which would erode the open suburban character of the site, and introduce more intensive activity on to the site, as is associated with housing development. This proposal could also be used to justify such development within similar residential garden sites, thereby undermining established spatial standards and associated development patterns.

Further concerns are raised on the basis that the proposed access would, by reason of its close proximity, harm the living conditions of the existing properties at Nos. 102 and 104 Nightingale Lane though noise and disturbance; and on the basis that the gate at the entrance is too narrow and it looks as if the layout of access will be impractical because of the gate / sharp turning. In addition, given that the area has a low PTAL rating the provision of a single off-street parking space in considered inadequate.

Background papers referred to during production of this report comprise all correspondence on files refs. 09/03548, 10/01318, 10/03306, 11/01751, 13/00185, 13/00327 and 13/00929, excluding exempt information.



1 The proposed development, which would result in the loss of undeveloped garden land, constitutes a cramped and unacceptable form of backland development, out of character with adjoining development and harmful to the spatial characteristics of the area, thereby contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and Paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The proposed access would harm the living conditions of the existing properties at Nos. 102 and 104 Nightingale Lane by reason of noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3 If permitted the development would be likely to set a pattern for similar undesirable backland development which would undermine the character and spatial standards associated with the area, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

4 The layout of the access roads and turning arrangements to the proposed dwelling is inadequate and as such would be prejudicial to vehicle movement within the development, contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5 The proposal lacks adequate on-site car parking and will be likely to lead to increased demand for on-street car parking in surrounding roads detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents and prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway, thereby contrary to Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Page 141


Proposal: Erection of part subterranean detached 3 bedroom dwellingwith associated access road at land at rear of 102 Nightingale Lane.



1:1,820

Address: 102 Nightingale Lane Bromley BR1 2SE

CF

7

9 11

14

8

10

FIELD

CL

OS

E

13

12

56

107

Tennis Court

117

19

21

57.7m

104

8456.0m

LB87

99

NIGHTINGALE LANE

88

27

46

1

13

FERNDA7

6775

66

Centre

56

54.9m

Widmore

The

LYNSTEAD CLOSE

15

46

38 2

214

27

13

Bickley Primary School

CW

CF

Ward BdyC

R

CR

13

12

12b

ll

WA

NS

TE

AD

RO

AD

10

2425

23

10

30

9a

1

6

1

51a

33a

5

CE

D

38

58

26

516.2m

ROCHESTER AVENUE

12c

26

71

61

14

52

66

60

12

2

70

78

59.0m

12

6

1

6

3

11a

2 451

11b

15

11

13

GR

EE

NF

IEL

D D

RIV

E

LB

50

El Sub Sta

Page 142

plans sub-committee no. 1 thursday 13 june 2013 at …

Documents