17 October 2013
At long last a conclusion has been reached at this site. Last week the Council approved a much reduced development. RVPS were successful is significantly reducing the footprint, scale, mass and design of this development over the last 2 years from a 4 storey 9 apartment development to a 3 storey 6 apartment development much more in tune with the streetscape and skyline. submitted plans are here.
The Ravensbourne Valley Preservation Society (RVPS) notes that following the dismissal at appeal of the proposed development at 44-46 Bromley Hill (11 May 2012) a fresh slightly revised application has been submitted by the developer.
The RVPS has a paid membership of 500 households in the Ravensbourne Valley in which the proposed development falls. Having consulted immediate residents and more widely within the Ravensbourne Valley area the RVPS object to this application for the following reasons: -
The parking provision is inadequate and will lead to on-street parking overspill and congestion in the immediate area. The developer envisages - in the design statement - that only the occupants of the two 3 bed flats will own a car. This is clearly disingenuous. The parking provision will in fact have a detrimental effect on overspill parking and highway safety. It will entail dangerous ingress/egress to/from Bromley Hill (A21) with possible congestion on a designated red route and pedestrian safety. The site with ingress/egress to the A21 is not suitable for a high-density (6 flats) development.
It would set an unwelcome precedent for similar large scale development on similar potential sites (semidetached pairs of houses) on Bromley Hill which may be acquired by the same or other developers. Layout, scale and massing. The proposal fails to deliver the high quality design sought by policy URB3 of Lewisham LDP and Framework which requires all developments to be of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of existing developments. The scale and massing is too great for the to be created "in-fill" site (by demolition). The architectural design creates a post-wat social housing utilitarian appearance; the protruding central stair-core and the full width second floor balconies giving the appearance of post-war GLC housing stock. The side elevation drawings (east and west) depict an unbroken mass of red-brick running the full height and full depth of the development akin to industrial buildings design.
The visual impact on the sight-line running up and down Bromley Hill will be dramatic. The rear first and second floor Juliette balconies give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy and amenity to the occupiers of properties in Coniston Road, immediately to the rear of the proposed development. It is ironic that screening on the ground floor is highlighted as a merit of the design whilst the upper floors do the opposite by having full length windows with balconies.
The height and depth of the building would detract from the suburban character of the rear gardens. The standard of accommodation is poor with small room sizes leading to cramped living environment; approx. 800 square feet for a 3-bedroom home whilst within Parker-morris standards is not be aspirational. The proposed development is demolishing 2 substantial family homes.
The answer to question 5.1 (have existing buildings been occupied for 6 of the previous 12 months) has been answered negative. Residents are quite sure the houses have been occupied consistently other than immediately close to a planning application decision date. This needs closer scrutiny. If the answer to this question is false the application would need to be re-submitted. If it is not there would be grounds for judicial review.