Description of application – Demolition of 5 existing houses and associated structures and erection of 28 residential units comprising an apartment block with 9x1 bed and 11x2 bed units and 8x3 bed houses together with basement car parking with access from Saltwood Close, surface level car parking, cycle parking, refuse and recycling facilities and associated landscaping.

Oral representations from a local resident in objection to the application raised the following issues:

·  The scheme had not been reduced in size as requested.

·  The overall development was not in keeping with the surrounding area.

·  The three storey building would overlook Nos. 2-14 Winchester Road.

·  Local residents would prefer a scheme consisting of terraced houses with gardens.

·  The junction by the BP garage was very busy and especially dangerous to parents walking their children to school.

Oral representations from the applicant’s agent in support of the application included the following points:

·  The site was currently underused.

·  The scheme consisted of high quality new homes much needed for young professionals and young families.

·  33 parking spaces would be provided, the majority to be located in a basement car park.

·  The scheme supported the aim of redevelopment of small sites.

·  A CIL contribution would be made.

·  There would be passive provision of electric vehicle charging points.

·  None of the units would be used as HMOs.

·  A help-to-buy scheme would be made available.

·  The development was only marginally viable due to the high land value which was more than twice that envisaged by the Council.

In response to a question from Councillor Boughey, the agent explained that the provision of 35% affordable housing could not be factored into the scheme because the existing land value equated to more than twice the value envisaged when the Council looked into the viability process. However, a sum of £99,000 would be paid as a contribution to affordable housing.

Councillor Page asked why the applicant had designed a scheme that was so out of keeping with the character of the area. The agent advised that Saltwood Close included a flatted development area whereas Charterhouse Road consisted of more suburban-type properties. The proposed scheme therefore complemented the current layout of mixed dwellings.

The Development Management Area Team Leader summarised the report in a brief presentation to the Committee which included the following:-

·  Site photographs, site plan and CGI from the application submission were circulated to Members.

·  Planning permission was sought for the demolition of a total of 5 existing detached and semi-detached houses.

·  Erection of a 3 storey block of 20 flats located at the junction of Winchester Road/Charterhouse Road and Saltwood Close.

·  Erection of a terrace of 3 bedroom houses comprising 4x3 storey units and 1x2 storey unit facing Saltwood Close.

·  Erection of a terrace of 3 x 2 storey houses facing Winchester Road

·  A total of 28 residential units.

·  The application would provide a net increase in housing which was a meaningful contribution of 23 additional units towards the housing supply in the Borough.

·  The application had been assessed against the relevant policies of the local plan and all other material considerations.  The layout, form, scale and appearance of the development was acceptable and would not have a significantly adverse impact on the local character of the area or the street scene. 

·  Details of the standard and quality of accommodation including mix, unit size, accessible units, daylight and sunlight and noise were considered to be acceptable and together with the form of development.

·  The impact on the amenities of existing residents close to the site and representations received had also been taken into account and it was not considered that the development would lead to a significant loss of residential amenity.

·  In addition, the development would provide health, education and affordable housing financial contributions and a contribution towards the Orpington to Green Street Green Cycle route.

·  The application was recommended for permission, subject to conditions and the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement.

Oral representations from visiting Member Councillor William Huntington-Thresher in objection to the application were received at the meeting and included the following points:-

·  The delivery of an average of 121 dwellings per hectare was above the density range specified in the matrix.

·  The development exceeded policy guidelines in relation to the number of units and habitable rooms per hectare.

·  The scheme did not respect the current building line and would result in a complete change of character to the area.

·  While he was not against redevelopment of the site, any scheme would need to accord with guidelines and be in keeping with the surrounding area.

·  The development was backland/garden development and would result in loss of character, amenity space and landscaping.

·  The affordable housing provision was not met due to the financial cost of the underground car parking. 

While Councillor Fawthrop welcomed the applicant’s willingness to provide 100% electric vehicle charging points, he considered the scheme did not contribute positively to the character of the area.  There were ways to design a more attractive site which could still provide a profit for the applicant.

Councillor Fawthrop moved that the application be refused on the grounds of density matrix not complying with that suggested in the London Plan Policy 3 – Back garden development and Policy 4 – Design, in that the scheme did not contribute positively to the character of the area.

Although Councillor Dean had previously considered the application at the time of deferral and had not supported the scheme, he advised that strong, sustainable reasons would be required for Members to refuse the application.  The main objections were density and the fact that the scheme was out of character with the surrounding area.  In his opinion, the density issue could be overridden by the fact that the Council had a requirement to improve its housing supply in Bromley and this application would bring an additional 23 units, specifically aimed at young professionals and young families with the aid of a help to buy scheme.  This would overcome the density issue in the final analysis.  He considered the Council would not be successful at appeal stage should Members choose to refuse the application.  Councillor Dean therefore moved that permission be granted.

Councillor Brooks was disappointed with the proposals in terms of non-provision of affordable housing and the unattractiveness of the design.  However, he doubted that the application could be refused on merit as there were no material planning considerations.  He encouraged Members to listen to the advice of planning officers.  Councillor Brooks seconded the motion for permission.

Councillor Joel supported the application.  In an effort to avoid Orpington becoming a ghost town, attempts were being made to turn it into a major town centre. In this regard, an increase in the number of dwellings in the area could contribute to the creation of jobs and trade within the town centre.  Underground car parking was a very expensive exercise and should be welcomed as the extra cars would be hidden from view.  The proposed houses would have their own amenity space with some having front gardens while flats would have balconies.  This would comply with the requirements of housing standards.

Councillor Turner seconded the motion for refusal.  There was very little to commend the scheme.  In his view, Members’ hands should not be tied as to whether or not the Council may lose an appeal.

Councillor Owen agreed that the scale and mass of the development was completely out of keeping with the area and supported refusal of the application.

In stating that the design of the development was subjective and therefore not a material planning consideration, Councillor Allen supported the application and urged Members to take into account the planning officer’s comments and recommendations. 

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED on the grounds of density, Policy 3 – Back garden development and Policy 4 – Design, in that it did not contribute positively to the character of the area.