Minutes:
The Committee considered confidential information relating to the Part 1 item on this agenda.
Members supported the recommendations in the report.
ANNEX A
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY VISITING MEMBER COUNCILLOR FAWTHROP IN REGARD TO ITEM 6b – PROPOSED NON-IMMEDIATE ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION TO REMOVE PART 1, CLASS B AND C PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN PETTS WOOD ASRC
Mr Chairman,
I just wanted to address you tonight on the amendments moved and supported unanimously at the development Control Committee last week. Can I just start by saying my representations are supported wholeheartedly by both Cllrs Onslow and Owen.
The first amendment to introduce a recommendation 2.4 to confirm that the existing A4D will remain in place until the new A4D is in place at which point the existing A4D will be cancelled, should be fairly uncontroversial.
In regard to recommendation 2.1 the addition of the words and Conservation Areas (CAs), refers specifically to two CAs “The Chenies and Chislehurst Road CAs”.
During the debate at DC I made reference to the Garden Suburb, to clarify the Petts Wood Garden Suburb covers both the Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) and CAs. In many respects they are indistinguishable, apart from their planning status.
To put this in context there is work being undertaken to enhance parts of the ASRC to expand the Chislehurst Road CA, and to create two new CAs one called the Thrifts and another called The Covert. It would be inconsistent if these CAs had an A4D in place but other CAs did not.
The whole point about the Petts Wood Garden Suburb being intertwined, is that the policy application should be consistent across the Garden Suburb, whether that is an ASRC or a CA.
The whole point of the A4D is to ensure protection against uncontrolled development applies equally across the ASRC and by definition as that is part of the Garden Suburb it should also apply to the CAs. The aim is to protect the openness and Character of the ASRC and CA. Every point made in this paper that refers to the ASRC also by definition refers to CAs as they are both synonymous with the Petts Wood Garden Suburb. Siamese twins if you like joined at the hips.
Part of that openness is the ability to see the mature trees in the gardens across the areas. The current hipped roof enhances that feel of openness and tranquillity of the garden part of the garden suburb being visible from the street. As was mentioned in the debate the view from the street scene has been threatened by roof lights and extension set 6 inches back from the front roof. Consequently there has been a proliferation of sheds on side roofs, deteriorating the character and nature of the Garden Suburb. We also expect to see a consistency of materials, so pink. White or grey roof tiles would be out of keeping for example.
As a general rule the openness and character of the area is defined by the view from the street scene, there is no objection in principle to loft conversions, or other development to the rear roofs of properties, quite often sensible half-hip extension at the front and side can also be sensitively included in development, but these have to be assessed on their own individual merit.
The final element of this is to ensure that the street scene is not unbalanced, with one pair of a semi-detached not being symmetrical with its pair, as the rhythm of the street scene is an important part of the character, whether that be in the ASRC or in the CA. We also know that some unsightly and inappropriate development has taken place in the past and this is also to prevent the view that two wrongs will make a right, and prevent previous errors being compounded.
Mr Chairman in short the Garden Suburb is what is being protected by the A4D and it is what this particular amendment seeks. The aim is to have a consistent approach across the whole Garden Suburb Area.
To that end I have asked that a copy of this statement be appended to the minutes so there can be no doubt about the context and scope of this amendment.