Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of Application: Erection of a new building to provide 26 residential units (Use Class C3), together with associated car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, tree removal, boundary treatment, access, utilities and other associated works on Land Opposite 165 to 193 Isabella Drive, and the provision of play space to the rear of No’s 138-150 Broadwater Gardens and front of No’s 2-16 Isabella Drive.

The Planning Officer highlighted that the application would result in 26 new residential dwellings which would represent a moderate contribution to the supply of housing within the borough. It was also the case some of the proposed dwellings would be affordable social rented housing. The proposal would also provide accessible and adaptable homes which would meet the minimum internal space standards. The Planning Officer explained that there would be dedicated play areas for children, as well as landscaping and ecological enhancements. There would not be any significant harm to residential amenity and there had been no objections received from Highways. There were no adverse implications that would outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.

It was noted that three late representations had been received, two of these were objections and one was in support of the application.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.

A letter was presented to the Committee which stated that there were no plans for further house building to be undertaken at Darrick Wood. The letter was dated 2009.

A Member expressed the view that the proposed new play areas would be a significant loss of amenity space which would be difficult to justify. The agent for Keniston Housing Association said that the provision was beyond the minimum requirements of planning policy. The Member expressed concern at the lack of face to face consultation with residents and the possible loss of light to those residents facing the proposed development, as it seemed as if the development was being built on a hill. The agent responded that a daylight survey was undertaken which indicated that there would be no noticeable impact.

The Committee also discussed matters relating to electric car charging points and water conservation.

The Chairman stated that the residents had put in an application for a community green. He asked the agent for Keniston if he was aware of this and whether or not Keniston would be prepared to delay this application until the application for a community green had been dealt with. The Council's legal representative said that processing the application for a community green could take up to two years. The agent consulted with representatives from Keniston who indicated that they did not wish to delay the application.

A Member stated that this area of land was a communal area for the local community and was not just a children’s play area. There was also a section of the current development that had been built specifically for residents with disabilities who currently benefited from ease of access to a field. Biodiversity may also be impacted with the possible loss of hedgehogs and badgers. The application had many positive aspects but it was in his view being proposed on the wrong site.

Councillor Kevin Kennedy Brooks moved that the application be refused. This was seconded by Councillor Julie Ireland. The Committee agreed unanimously that the application should be refused. 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1) Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the open space is surplus to requirements and an alternative enhanced provision has not been demonstrated in an equally accessible location to continue to meet the needs of the community it serves. The development is therefore contrary to Policy 20 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policy S1 of the London Plan (2021) and the aims and objectives of Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

2) The proposal, by reason of its bulk, size, and overall footprint, would result in an overbearing form of development which would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring residents. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the aims and objectives of paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

3).The proposal would, due to its location in an area with a low PTAL rating, result in residential development that is excessively dependent on the use of private car and fails to provide inclusive neighbourhoods which allow people to move around safely and easily by active travel modes. The proposal is therefore inconsistent with the overarching strategy of promoting sustainable transport and minimising greenhouse gas emissions, thereby contrary to Policies 31 and 33 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policies T1, D5 and SI 1 of the London Plan (2021) and the NPPF (2021).

4) .An acceptable planning obligation for provision of the affordable housing (including wheelchair accessible units), affordable housing viability reviews, payment of contributions in respect of carbon offsetting, and the payment of monitoring and legal costs has not been entered into. The application is thereby contrary to Policy 125 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019), Policy DF1 of the London Plan (2021), and Bromley Planning Obligation Supplementary Planning Document (June 2022).