Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ms Hazel Anderson on behalf of local residents.  Ms Anderson submitted the following points:-

It was inappropriate for Members to compare the current scheme against the previously refused application.  The site area was 406 sq mtrs less than the figure indicated in the report. 

Inadequate consultation had been carried out with residents being excluded from any site visit. 

The proposed 3 and 4 storey blocks were higher than the surrounding properties and would result in overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing.  One-third of the existing trees would be removed and the proposed new boundary trees would provide inadequate screening. 

The development would attract a large number of people to the area and additional cars would cause parking and traffic safety issues.

Ms Anderson considered the application to be unacceptable and contrary to the London Plan and requested that Members refuse the application.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Simon Chadwick, Managing Director of Signet Planning and Mr Mark Chapman, Architect at Dunnett Craven.  The following points were made:-

The report to Committee was comprehensive and dealt with all the relevant issues in terms of policy and related considerations. Members were aware they refused an earlier application on the site for 107 units the previous year and Kitewood has been working with officers to overcome the six reasons for refusal issued in relation to that scheme as outlined below:-

Reason 1 was about future tree loss and the Tree Officer has agreed this matter had been overcome.

Reason 2 alleged lack of information on ecology. The Ecological Consultant had agreed there was now sufficient information.

Reasons 3, 4 and 5 related to concerns about overdevelopment, design and layout and impact on amenity. The scheme had reduced in number to 46 units from 107 so was now at the lowest end of the indicative density range for housing on the site. There had been significant reduction in built form and officers’ suggestions about design changes had been taken on board.  All three reasons had therefore been overcome because of the reduction in built development and consequent design changes.

Reason 6 related to car parking and the maximum amount of car parking permitted by the Council's policy had now been provided.

It was therefore considered that all previous reasons for refusal that been overcome. 

Mr Chadwick and Mr Chapman responded to Member questions as set out below:-

•  If the current application was approved, the appeal against refusal of the previous application would be withdrawn.

•  The provision of further car parking spaces could be considered.

•  The gated feature was not fundamental to the scheme and could be removed.

•  The Council's Tree Officer had considered the removal of the proposed trees to be acceptable and new planting would comply with technical guidance.

•  The sewage pipeline would be 300 cm in diameter and would divert to a modern sewer in line with technical requirements.

•  The proposed blocks of flats were in fact 2-storey buildings with a third designed into the roof space and would, therefore, be in keeping with surrounding properties.  The revised scheme incorporated substantially less flats than the previous application.

•  Play areas were subject to a landscaping condition and were in accordance with the size and nature of the surrounding area.

•  In relation to 15 Lawrie Park Crescent there was no proposal to move the boundary.

•  The applicant considered there was a demand for 4 bedroom accommodation.

•  If the current scheme was approved, the applicant did not intend to submit a further application to increase the development in the future.

•  For ease of manageability, housing associations preferred affordable units to be located in one specific area.  Although grouped together, the proposed units would not be isolated from the rest of the development.

•  Given the scheme's proximity to the Penge tunnel, a Construction Management Plan relating to the flow of traffic would be required.

The Planning Officer reported that further objections to the application had been received.  It was also confirmed that Network Rail had no objections to the scheme.

Ward Member Councillor Wilkins noted that whilst residents were not opposed to development of the site, they were concerned that consultation had been  carried out in a dark building by torchlight.  The application had to be considered on its own merits, not in comparison with the previous application.  The scheme would not provide a mixed and balanced community, especially with the separation of the affordable housing units.  Residents’ main concerns related to the height of the proposed buildings.  A scale model of the scheme had been requested but was never received.  The scale of the proposed buildings in Crystal Palace Park Road was vast and not in keeping with the surrounding area and the visual impact of the scheme would be staggering. 

Although there had been a reduction in density, refusal reasons 4, 5 and 6 of the previous application still applied.  Councillor Wilkins moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Buttinger seconded the motion for refusal.  The construction of a 4 storey building was inappropriate and would have an impact on the adjacent Conservation Area.  There would be a loss of amenity to residents and the removal of mature trees was undesirable.

The Chairman considered that the principle of development had been established and the scheme would contribute significantly towards Bromley's housing target.  Density of the scheme had been reduced by 50% and the height of the proposed blocks reduced by 25%; this was now in keeping with similar apartment blocks in the surrounding area.  The maximum amount of car parking spaces had been provided in accordance with the Mayor's London Plan.  Although the removal of trees was less desirable, replacement trees would provide screening for residents living in close proximity to the site.  The Chairman moved that the application be approved; this was seconded by Councillor Fawthrop.

Members were informed that the previous removal of trees at the site had not been in breach of Tree Preservation Orders as this action had taken place prior to the Orders coming into effect.

Should the application be approved, Members requested the addition of further conditions to cover boundary enclosures and works within the vicinity of the Network Rail tunnel.  It was also suggested that a full Construction Logistics Plan together with confirmation that Network Rail agreed the design, should be added however, Members were informed that this was covered by existing condition 16 in the report. 

The general consensus of Members was that the application was in keeping with the surrounding area, replacement trees would provide adequate screening and the impact on the surrounding area would not be excessive.

A vote to refuse the application fell at 3-13.

Following a further vote of 13-3, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A SATISFACTORY LEGAL AGREEMENT as recommended and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the addition of further conditions as outlined above.