Update – 5 October 2015
A decision in relation to the planning conditions, ref. No. 14/03219/CONDIT, has been issued. The following conditions have been approved:

Condition 2 - External materials
Details: as per drawing titled Proposed materials dated 5.8.15

The following conditions have been refused:

Condition 3 - Details of windows
Reason for refusal: We require level of obscurity using the Pilkington Range from 3 and above.

Condition 6 - Surface water drainage (highways) and Condition 8 - Surface water drainage.
Reason for refusal: The Council's Drainage advisor still requires full details to be submitted. It may be advisable for you to discuss this matter directly with Mr Samir Bougacci [sic] on 0208 313 4547 or samir.bougacia@bromly.gov.uk [sic]

Condition 10 - Slab Levels
Reason for refusal: The slab level information submitted indicates adjacent levels are based upon visual inspection only. Accurate information is required in order to correctly consider the matter.

Condition 11 - Balcony screening
Reason for refusal: Please provide an elevation of the proposed screening. Please also advise the level of obscurity and include any manufufactures [sic] details where available.

Update – 10 August 2015
The following information in relation to the conditions, ref. No. 14/03219/CONDIT, is also available:
Update – 25 July 2015
The council is now publicising and seeking public comment on the the conditions submitted in relation to planning permission of this application at 28 Downs Hill, Beckenham BR3 5HB:
  • Condition 2. External surfacing
  • Condition 3. Details of the windows
  • Condition 4. Parking bays
  • Condition 5. Vision splay
  • Condition 6. Surface water from private land shall not discharge on to the highway
  • Condition 8. Surface water drainage system
  • Condition 10. Slab levels
  • Condition 11. Visual screening from terrace
The following documents, ref. No. 14/03219/CONDIT, are available:
Update – 27 November 2014
The application for the demolition of 28 Downs Hill, Beckenham and erection of a replacement single family dwelling has been allowed. The following are available:
Update – 29 August 2014
The council’s website has now been updated with full details of the new application for the demolition of the existing house and erection of a replacement single family dwelling. See in particular the following:
We are currently reviewing this new application but one of the changes since the last refused application is that the bay window at ground floor level (as opposed to basement level) has been removed. Comments must be received by the council by 16 September 2014 and may be made here. If you value our work, please do not hesitate to join us here.

Proposed rear elevation

Update – 26 August 2014
The council’s website has now been updated to show that a further application for the demolition of the existing house and erection of a replacement single family dwelling with associated excavation, landscaping and front boundary treatment was received on 15 August 2014.

Update – 16 August 2014
The council’s website has now been updated to show that the application has been refused. See here for the decision.

28 Downs Hill, Beckenham – 19 July 2014
As residents will know, 28 Downs Hill is rather an eyesore, and no one would be disappointed by a sensitive redevelopment. A proposal for redevelopment has just been considered and refused by the council and we expect a revision, or an Appeal, to be forthcoming in due course. Details of the refused development can be found here(At the time of writing the council’s website has not been updated to show that the application has been refused, but we know that it has.)

3D view – front elevation

The recommended reasons for refusal were given as:
  1. The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the limited side space to the southern boundary (given the height and design of the proposed replacement dwelling) which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the Downs Hill Conservation Area contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan.

  2. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development could be undertaken in a satisfactory manner, so as to not result in unsatisfactory levels of overlooking, especially given the changes in level on the site, thereby contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
3D view – rear elevation