Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Proposed outline development in respect of access, appearance, layout and scale for the demolition of 14-20 Knoll Rise and the erection of a part three, part four and part five-storey building to contain 58 flats with associate parking, access and amenity areas.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 23 April 2018 and that further objections to the application had been received together with comments from Environmental Health. 

Ward Member, Councillor Huntington-Thresher objected to the application on a number of aspects, scale, mass, being over-prominent and the general disturbance of privacy and outlook. He reminded Members that Vincent Close was a partial service road to Orpington High Street shops that generated noise and that daytime parking had not be taken into consideration.  Also evidence of bats and reptiles had been found on the site that should be preserved.

The Chief Planner’s representative referred Members to the comments from Highways in the Chief Planner’s report.

Councillor Fawthrop’s view was that suburban family housing was in short supply and the proposed development would be a back garden development. He respected Councillor Huntington-Thresher’s local knowledge of the area and reminded Members that the local residents had previously voted for it to become an area of special residential character which had not met the requirements of the Council but nevertheless the area had character.

Councillor Owen had called in the application as the proposed development would be out of keeping in a residential area.  He had highway and road safety concerns due to Post Office traffic movements in and out of Vincent Close. He also referred to the presence of underground streams in the vicinity of the Tesco site.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the following reasons:-

1.  The development, as proposed, would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, out of character with, overly prominent and harmful to the visual amenities of the area and suburban character of the wider locale which this site is considered to contribute positively to as a result of its size, scale and massing contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, policies 4 and 37 of the Draft Local Plan and policies 3.4 and Table 3.2, 7.4 and 7.15 of the London Plan and the Mayor's Housing SPG.

2.  The proposed development fails to provide a satisfactory standard of

living accommodation for future occupiers by virtue of the substandard

layout of internal communal space, extent of north facing single aspect

units, poor outlook from habitable rooms, transient pedestrian and

vehicular movements within close proximity to amenity and habitable

areas and loss of privacy as a result of the access, height and location of

the raised deck area contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary

Development Plan, policies 4 and 37 of the Draft Local Plan and policies

7.4 and 7.15 of the London Plan and the Mayor's Housing SPG.

3.  By virtue of the size, scale, massing and layout of external amenity areas the proposed development will result in an oppresive and harmful impact in respect of neighbouring owner/occupiers by reason of a loss of privacy and outlook and as a result of insufficient information to the contrary, would result in a harmful impact by way of noise and disturbance due to transient pedestrian and vehicular movements contrary to policy BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 27 of the Draft Local Plan and policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan and the Mayor's Housing SPG.

4.  Insufficient information has been provided as part of the application in the form of bat emergence surveys and measures to safeguard reptiles to properly assess the potential impacts of the scheme upon the protected species which, due to the demolition of existing buildings and the intensification of the site, may result in an prejudicial impact upon bats an reptiles contrary to Policies NE5 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy 72 of the Draft Local Plan and Policy 7.19 of the London Plan.

5.  The proposal, by reason of the insufficient information provided in the traffic statement, vehicular access from Vincent Close and service and delivery vehicles which use this road, loss of on-street parking bays and insufficient on site car parking, would result in prejudicial impact on road safety for road users and pedestrians and additional pressure on the provision of on-street car parking in the area, contrary to Policy T18 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 32 of the Draft Local Plan.

6.  The development will result in the loss of important Sub urban family housing at this location this being an essential characteristic of the residential form of the area contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, policies 4 and 37 of the Draft Local Plan 3 and 7.4 of the London Plan.

7.  The development will result in the loss of important back garden at this location this being an essential characteristic of the area contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, policies 4 and 37 of the Draft Local Plan and 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan.