Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Simon Chadwick, Managing Director of Signet Planning.  Mr Chadwick submitted the following points:-

During recent correspondence, deferral of the application had been requested due to the very late objections submitted by the Tree Officer which resulted in a change to the recommendation.  It would, therefore, be reasonable for Members to grant a deferral.

The application was submitted in February and was the subject of significant pre-application discussion, part of which focussed on trees located at the site.  Meetings with the Council’s Tree Officer were sought on numerous occasions (before and after pre-submission) to discuss concerns raised.  Despite no meeting being offered, all other matters relevant to the application had been resolved through planning officers, including an amendment to the internal layout of the scheme to address concerns of the Housing Officer.  All other internal consultees (including highways and flood risk), were satisfied with the scheme.  The applicant responded to relevant consultation responses and dealt with matters to the satisfaction of consultees.

It was understood that up until the end of March, planning officers had been satisfied with the application and were going to recommend approval.  However, on 31 March, the applicant was informed that the recommendation had been changed following receipt of comments from the Tree Officer,.

Concerns raised by the Tree Officer could be overcome mainly by the imposition of conditions, i.e. by ensuring trees were protected during construction however, as a number of points were incorrect, the applicant would be willing to discuss and clarify these.  Rather than the Council pursue a refusal on the basis of what appeared to be erroneous assumptions about the scheme, it would be in the Council’s interest and the applicant’s, to defer a decision in order that matters could be resolved in the same way as concerns raised by the Housing Officer.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Chadwick formally requested that Members defer the application due to the lateness of objections from the Tree Officer and, more importantly, because the concerns raised could be resolved.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ms Hazel Anderson on behalf of local residents, the wider community and organisations including The Sydenham Society, St Christophers Hospice and The Sydenham Tennis Club.  Ms Anderson submitted the following points:-

The proposed scheme constituted an over-development of the site.  The quality of the application was poor, submitted plans were inaccurate and artists impressions were misleading.  There had also been a distinct lack of engagement by the applicant who had failed to carry out adequate consultation.

The proposed development would stand twice as high as surrounding buildings and would cause overshadowing.  The inclusion of balconies and roof terraces would lead to a serious loss of privacy.

The density and style of building was wholly inappropriate for its location which was characterised largely by two-storey homes.  The enclosed suburban site was too small to define its own character and any development would need to respect and compliment the surrounding area.

The scheme had been designed close to the maximum permitted density for the site and stood at minimal distance from existing residences.  It consisted of an unusually high level of built development and hardstanding. The allocation of 135 car parking spaces at the site were symptomatic of the over-intense approach.

The height and massing of the development would be out of scale with the form and layout of its surroundings, would detract from the existing street scene on all sides and would be clearly visible above trees from Crystal Palace Park.  Even though many mature trees had already been removed from the site it would be necessary to clear further TPO protected trees.

The proposals would result in a large increase of people to the locality.  Additional cars would cause parking and traffic safety issues along Springfield Road and Lawrie Park Crescent and would affect the ability of Tennis Club members, Hospice staff and visitors to park safely in the vicinity of these amenities.

Whilst the requirement for more housing in Bromley was acknowledged and the need to redevelop the site was understood, this should be at a scale that did not harm the amenity of residents and a scheme that respected the character of the area. 

Ms Anderson therefore requested that Members endorse the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse the report.

In response to questions from Councillor Papworth, Ms Anderson described the neighbourhood as a leafy area surrounded by wider streets with large detached houses, large gardens and a quiet street scene.  The area was not densely populated.  Parking was often problematic during the day due to the  number of visitors to the Tennis Club and Hospice.

The level of engagement undertaken by the applicant was minimal with only one open consultation session lasting 1½  hours being held.  A leaflet had been distributed to residents and having e-mailed the address allocated for submitting queries, Ms Anderson had received an inadequate and unhelpful response.

The Chief Planner reported that further correspondence from the agent and objections from local residents had been received, both of which reiterated points previously made.  He also informed Members that the site measured a total of 1.4 hectares as opposed to 0.78 as set out in the first bullet-point under the heading 'Location' on page 16.

Ward Member Councillor Papworth would have supported deferral of the application if the only concerns raised had been those of the Tree Officer,.  Whilst many residents had no objection to the site being developed, they considered that the existing proposal was not in keeping with the general character of the area.  The remaining trees on site should be protected.

Referring to the recommendation in the report, Councillor Papworth suggested the inclusion of further reasons to refuse the application as follows:-

1.  The proposal was a substantial over-development of a leafy, quiet and sparsely populated suburban site.

2.  The proposed buildings were bulky by nature and the local buildings of the same scale referred to in the report were some distance away.

3.  The development consisting of long blocks linked together, would be out of character with the suburban area.  Nos. 36, 38 and 46 Crystal Palace Park Road would be overlooked by 4-storey buildings resulting in a lack of privacy and there would be no access to the boundary wall at No. 38.  The development would also have a major impact on the residents of No. 15 Lawrie Park Crescent.

4.  The proposed number of parking spaces was inadequate.

Councillor Papworth moved that the application be refused for the reasons given above, together with the reasons outlined in the report.

Councillor Jackson seconded the motion for refusal stating that the volume of the proposed buildings and the height of the 4-storey blocks was astonishing.  It would prove difficult for drivers to navigate the surrounding roads to properties.  An increase in parking would impact on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.  Councillor Jackson considered the site would benefit from some kind of development however, the current proposal was too flawed.

Councillor Michael considered the site to be highly developable but agreed that the existing proposal would be an over-development of the site and would not be capable of sustaining all the proposed flats and houses without impacting on the surrounding properties.  There would be a large amount of bulk and massing of properties.  The proposed play area was located too close to the gates and would be awkward to get to.  Councillor Michael supported refusal as outlined by Councillor Papworth.

Referring to parking issues, Councillor Fawthrop calculated that the proposed number of dwellings would require a minimum of 200 car parking spaces and this would have a major impact on neighbours.

Councillor Mellor stated that if Members determined to refuse the application, an appeal against the decision could be submitted.  With this in mind, he requested that the reasons for refusal be significantly enhanced.

Councillor Fookes considered that affordable houses should also be provided.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report with the addition of a further 4 reasons to read:-

3.  The proposed development, by reason of the amount of site coverage with buildings and hard surfaces, constitutes a cramped overdevelopment of the site at an excessive residential density contrary to Policy H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.4 of the London Plan.

4.  The proposed development, by reason of its design and layout, would be seriously out of character and scale with the surrounding area contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7.4 of the London Plan.

5.  The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of adjacent dwellings by reason of loss of privacy from overlooking and smells from the bin stores contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

6.  The proposed development will lead to increased demand for on-street car parking in surrounding roads contrary to Policies BE1 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan.