Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Demolition of existing house and erection of part two/part three/part four storey building comprising 5 x two bedroom and

2 x one bedroom flats with 7 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse storage.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Kate Lymer, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

Councillor Lymer referred to the history of the site, the application permitted on appeal (18/01062/FULL1), the impact on surrounding residents and to the many objections from local residents who had been dismayed at the appeal decision. She also referred to the design and access statement with regard to two additional bedrooms at the new third floor level that would overlook the ‘Blanding ‘ site to its left, and also number 36 Sundridge Avenue to the rear, with the possible loss of mature vegetation.  Although the Inspector had suggested that the rear balconies would not adversely affect the amenity of housing on Mavelstone Road, the additional proposed balcony at an additional floor level would do so. It would overlook numbers 34, 36 and 38 Mavelstone Road and significantly detract from their amenity and privacy.  A four storey development immediately adjacent to the highway in place of a chalet bungalow style building, which was former Gatehouse from the late nineteenth century, would be out of keeping with the character of the vicinity and detrimental to the street scene.  Sundridge Avenue was a busy primary distributor road and the application site was located on the bend in the road.  The application was for one parking space per flat with no allowance for visitor or delivery parking without blocking access to the ground floor garage. The front forecourt was too shallow to allow turning therefore vehicles would have to reverse into the busy fast moving road, causing a significant traffic hazard. There was also a cycle lane in front of the property.

Councillor Lymer’s view was that the proposed development was

• an incongruous cramped overdevelopment due to its increased height and bulk in roof floor, its refigured garage level with inadequate space for refuse, cycles, disabled spaces and electronic points, its inadequately small forecourt for a development this large,
• out of character and detrimental to the street scene due, to its inconsistency with the roof ridgeline in the road, its largeness far closer to the road than its neighbours, the density of the development and its overall bulky appearance,
• detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring residents in terms of increased overlooking and lack of privacy to all neighbouring properties due to the extra floor with additional windows and balcony and
• inadequate parking and road safety concerns based on local knowledge. 

The Chairman also referred to the permitted appeal decision and agreed the  proposed development would be out of character and a significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties and his view was that highways/safety issues had not been addressed and the provision for parking was inadequate and he objected to the application.

The Assistant Director (Planning and Building Control) representative reminded Members to determine the application on its merits and, if they were to refuse the application and it were to be appealed, the Council may be liable for costs as the Planning Inspector had found the parking provision acceptable. 

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

“1.  The proposed development, by reason of its increased height and bulk in the roof, would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site that appears at odds with surrounding buildings and out of keeping with the character of the area and the appearance of the street scene. This is contrary to policies 4 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan.

2.  The proposed development, by reason of the increased height, the creation of an additional unit in the roof space and the addition of roof windows, would result increased overlooking, a loss of privacy and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of nearby neighbours. This is contrary to policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan. 

3. The proposed development would result in an intensification of use of an inadequate vehicle access, inadequate parking provision (including electric charging points) and space for manoeuvring and would provide insufficient space to access the cycle and refuse stores. This is contrary to policies 30 and 32 of the Bromley Local Plan.”