Agenda item

(19/00110/FULL6) - 82 Lynwood Grove, Orpington, BR6 0BH

Decision:

REFUSED

 

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing boundary wall and replacement with new boundary wall and access gate with the addition of new hard landscaping.

 

This application had been deferred without prejudice by Members of Plans Sub-Committee 1 held on 9 May 2019 in order to seek highway safety comments with particular regard to visibility at the junction of Lynwood Grove/Melbourne Close and, with regard to the bend in Lynwood Grove, and to obtain details relating to any planning history for boundary enclosures at the house opposite the site.

 

The Chief Planner’s representative informed Members that an Enforcement Officer had visited 85 Lynwood Grove. The boundary treatment at this property did not have planning consent and Planning Enforcement had opened an investigation into the matter. The total height of the wall and railing at No 85 Lynwood Grove was 1.6 metres.  The electric gate measured 1.5 metres in height and the brick pillars 1.6 metres.

 

 

Ward Member, Councillor Tony Owen, had circulated Planning Appeal Decision Notice (APP/G5180/C/14/2218528) dated 13 January 2015 to Members for a similar application at 57 Elm Grove, Orpington, and that appeal had been dismissed and the enforcement notice upheld and the gates had been removed, appended to these minutes as ‘Annex A’ to these minutes.  He explained that the proposed gates were on the curtilage of the site and any vehicle waiting for the gates to open would obstruct the highway on a blind bend and this would have an adverse effect on road safety.  Lynwood Grove is a cycle route and a busy short cut for traffic between Orpington and Petts Wood.

 

 

Councillor Owen referred to the Bromley Local Plan adopted on 16 January 2019 and drew Members’ attention to pages 117 and 118, Policy 37 (b), contained in Section 5, ‘Valued Environments’, sub-section, ‘General Design of Development on page 118.  He also referred Members to pages 314 - 316 which described the Knoll Area of Special Residential Character and read the following paragraph at the top of page 314 to Members.

 

“Lynwood Grove features a majority of white rendered, quirky and asymmetrically composed houses featuring steep rooflines, arched porches and pitch-roofed front elevations. The design of some of the houses includes unusual features and detailing such as balconies, octagonal, full circle and cased diamond panelled windows with shutters. Properties feature a mix of open plan or landscaped front gardens delimitated by low boundary walls or hedges. Creative use is often made of planted boundary walls and hedges to delimitate side boundaries and front gardens, as well as of paving materials for driveways. Variations in the topography of the streets allow for an. Gaps between houses combined with variations in roof shapes and the level of the street allow for interesting streetscape and perspectives as well as glimpses into rear gardens. The street features landscaped sidewalk verges lined up with the properties’ front gardens with a variety of trees species, including mature trees. There is a landscaped roundabout at street mid-point.”

 

Councillor Owen’s view was that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the Knoll Area of Special Residential Character.

 

Although no objection to the application had been received from Highways Division he explained the curtilage of the site was on a blind bend being adjacent to the junction with Melbourne Close and if a vehicle turned into an opening gate it would cause traffic to slow and queue which would have an adverse impact on road safety.

 

Councillors Suraj Sharma and Kathy Bance supported the application.

 

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed boundary wall and gate, by reason of their design, height and prominent siting, would fail to contribute positively to the special character and appearance of this part of The Knoll Area of Special Residential Character, contrary to Policies 37 and 44 of the Bromley Local Plan.

2.  The proposed sliding gates, by reason of their siting at the edge of the curtilage and near the bend/junction with Melbourne Close, would result in a dangerous impact on the free flow of traffic and conditions of general highway safety, thereby contrary to Policy 32 of the Bromley Local Plan.

 

Supporting documents: