Agenda item

Description of application – Demolition of existing building and construction of a new building to create a part 3/part 4 storey block of 43 x 1 bedroom flats as specialist housing for the elderly, with associated parking, refuse store and landscaping (OUTLINE APPLICATION).

 

Oral representations from a local resident in objection to the application included the following points:-

 

·  Northolme Rise was a narrow road from the 1960s, constructed to serve 8 houses at the top.  The lower part was used by vehicles/pedestrians accessing Sherlies Avenue, particularly commuters and schoolchildren being dropped off or walking via an alleyway through to Orpington Station.

 

·  Ambulances were easily blocked by parked cars and refuse lorries reversed up the road. There was no pavement down the side of the proposed development and elderly residents from Lubbock House were regularly seen walking in the road.

 

·  The CGI impression of the proposal was not very accurate.  The plans showed the car park goes right-up to the south boundary and the large conifers and the trees to the west of the site were removed over a year ago. A more representative version showing the dominating effect on the surrounding properties and area had been provided to Members.

 

·  The proposed building extended much further down the site, resulting in a very bulky form.  There was no separation from the parking to the boundary, or parking to the building and elderly pedestrians were forced to walk through moving/parking vehicles contrary to LP Policy 4g.

 

·  The proposal represented a near 3-fold increase to 86 residents.  Much of the green space was unusable due to the slope of the site, the resulting accessible amenity space did not appear to satisfy Policy 4c considering 86 people, staff and visitors.  The internal communal space for a property designed for 86 elderly people was also very small.

 

·  The existing site only had a few parking spaces which were used by staff.  None of the elderly residents owned cars and visitors where directed to alternative parking (no longer available).  Increasing the number of residents 3-fold to 86 with deliveries/visitors etc. and 20+ parking spaces clearly represented a significant increase in vehicle movements and issues with the adjoining narrow roads.

 

·  The independent assessment found significant risk of side impact/shunts due to poor visibility.  Recent sight-line drawings confirmed the 43m clear visibility splay was still not met even after removing vegetation.  Nor did it appear to take into account that the entrance was to be changed to a 1:8 slope further limiting visibility.  This entrance was clearly not compatible with the significant change of use.

 

·  The proposal represented significant over-development of the site.  It failed many Local Plan Policies in respecting/enhancing an area, space around buildings and maintaining road safety. 

 

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

 

·  An application earlier in the year for a part three and part four storey block of 34 normal flats was refused by Members solely on the grounds of loss of specialist accommodation.  It was not refused on grounds of bulk, height, massing or overdevelopment of the scheme.

 

·  The architects had prepared a massing comparison plan which showed that the current scheme was of less height, massing and bulk than the previous scheme.

 

·  There was a significant increase in the separation to the bungalows in Woodhead Drive from a 5m separation to 16 – 17m and a separation of around 23m between habitable room windows of the development and Tubbenden Close.  The building would not project as far rearward as the south western projection of the existing building.

 

·  In relation to the actual reason for refusal of the last scheme regarding the loss of specialist accommodation, the current application proposed 43 specialist units for the elderly, all to be provided as affordable rent units. The previous reason for refusal had therefore been addressed and overcome.

 

·  The revised scheme also incorporated other changes previously discussed by Members in that electric vehicle charging points were proposed for all parking spaces and the changes made to the elderly persons’ accommodation would significantly reduce traffic generation.

 

·  It was currently a priority to increase housing supply in the Borough and this scheme would provide 43 additional older persons’ units for which there was a recognised need. Moreover, it would provide 43 affordable housing units for which there was also a recognised need.  The scheme now complied with Local Plan Policy 11 regarding specialist accommodation and Plan Policy 2 regarding affordable housing.

 

·  This was a well-designed residential redevelopment scheme on a site which already had a sizeable building on it of a different character than its immediate neighbours.  Members who had visited the site would have seen that there were some very large good quality trees around much of the boundary of the site which integrated the existing building into its context. These trees were protected by TPOs and would be retained and there was no reason to believe that they would not provide an attractive screen and landscape setting to the new building.

 

·  The proposal achieved the objectives of increasing housing supply, increasing affordable housing, increasing the supply of elderly persons’ accommodation (and Bromley has the largest ageing population in London) and doing this through a scheme which was less bulky than that previously considered by Members but not objected on design or bulk grounds.

 

The applicant’s agent confirmed that in relation to the protection and mitigation for badgers and bats, a control licence would need be obtained from Natural England.

 

The Development Management Team Leader gave the following updates:-

 

·  Members were advised to consider the updated 5 year land supply when considering the application.

 

·  On the Section 106 Heads of Terms tables, the amount of affordable housing secured should read 75% not 43 units. The reasons for this were outlined in the report.

 

Councillor Joel objected to the proposed development on the following grounds:-

 

·  The scale, size and bulk of the development which was detrimental to the residential area.

 

·  Over-dominance.

 

·  Issues with overlooking contrary to that stated in paragraph 6.3.3 on page 123 of the report.

 

·  The report acknowledged that the proposal was a bulkier form of development (paragraph 6.3.16, page 126).

 

·  The massing comparison drawing on page 126 was totally misleading.

 

·  The design was not complementary to the surrounding area.

 

·  The scheme would cause difficulties for refuse vehicles.

 

·  The proposal was clearly larger in scale.

 

For the reasons mentioned above, Councillor Joel moved that the application be refused.

 

The Chairman agreed that the proposed scheme was larger than the present site and asked officers how likely a refusal on the grounds of over-development would stand up at a future appeal.  The Development Management Team Leader informed Members that if acceptable on balance, then the Council should optimise sites where possible.  Appearance was held as a reserved matter.

 

Councillor Harris thanked officers for presenting a very informative report.  The scheme was originally turned down due to the loss of specialist accommodation for the elderly and Bromley had the highest ageing population.  No objections had been received from the Highways Department and she could see no reasons for refusing the application.  Councillor Harris moved that the application be granted.

 

The Chairman referred to the design element of the building and asked if the applicant could be requested to soften the appearance. The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that appearance was a reserved matter and that things could be done to soften the building’s appearance.

 

Members were informed that an energy strategy report demonstrated the development would achieve a 37.84% reduction of carbon emissions beyond the 2013 Building Regulations. Approximately 128 Photovoltaics (PVs) would be installed on the flat roof of the building.  A carbon offset payment was also included in the Section 106 Agreement.

 

Councillor Allen seconded the motion to grant permission.

 

Councillor Joel acknowledged that Bromley needed to provide more elderly accommodation.  His main concern was the size and bulk of the development.  If this could be reduced, the proposals would get more support from local residents and Ward Councillors.

 

Councillor Owen seconded the motion for refusal.

 

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT as recommended and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control.

 

Councillor Mellor’s vote against permission was noted.