Ravensbourne Valley Residents

Several letters of objection has been received for the reasons set out above in the consultation section above. The main objections relate to the height of the swimming pool which can be viewed from the rear gardens of No. 56-66 Ravensbourne Avenue, located 35m away and the issue this will have from a privacy and overlooking perspective.

The swimming pool building has been built higher than the approved plans and is therefore more visible from neighbouring gardens that back onto the development. A landscaping condition can be agreed to ensure that the landscaping proposed adequately meets the Council’s requirements that neighbours views down their gardens can be shielded from the increase in height of the swimming pool building.

The increases in height to the swimming pool building and the new office/garage are considered on balance to represent a small increase to take account of Environment Agency regulations. The 2m high fence and boundary screening will mitigate [sic] against some of the visual impact of the development. On balance, taking into account the small increases in height to the approved swimming pool building and the garage to take account of stipulations by the Environment Agency and a correct plan showing the change in ground levels is considered sufficient to allow the changes to be regularised. Neighbouring houses are located approximately 35m away and the 0.7m increase in the swimming pool building is not considered to significant affect neighbours visual enjoyment of their gardens to warrant the refusal of the application.

Having had regard to the above it was considered that the development in the manner proposed is acceptable and that it would not result in a significant loss of amenity to local residents.

I have visited the site with neighbours at 54 and 58 Ravensbourne Avenue and looked at the current state of the building works permitted under reference 16/00367/FULL6.

These already form a considerable visual obstruction. I will separately request consideration of the dimensions of the extensions already built. So far as the current application is concerned a key issue appears to be the need to raise the levels of the buildings so that they are at the same height as the current main building.

There is a request to alter the height of the proposed roof lights for the swimming pool from 3m to 3.35m in addition to the raising of the ground levels.

The combination of both now create a considerable visual barrier to neighbours on Ravensbourne Avenue and detrimental to their amenity. See plan D50 Feb 2018.

There is a further amendment to the previous approval now to include a 2m high fence along the boundary with neighbours gardens and in addition planting behind the fence. See plans D52 and D53A. The 2m fence is planned to be on the raised ground level, not the existing level, and is therefore likely to cause more of a visual obstruction than anticipated. There is also an issue about what kind of planting with the risk of trees growing too tall where there was no previous obstruction.

It is not clear that the proposal takes into account ownership of the existing fences on the boundary so is this intended to be a new fence behind the existing fences? At present I cannot see how this will work.

As I read the plans the proposal for the new fence and planting will affect several neighbours. If you consider the overall new development of this site then, save for a few metres between the extended garage and the front door of the main house, there is now a continuous run of buildings of about 65m. In those circumstances I submit that there should be no increase in the height any building for which approval has already been granted and the real height of the proposed fence and planting must be given very careful consideration.

An application, ref. No. 18/01766/FULL6, has been made for the erection of a swimming pool/gym and 3 outbuildings (comprising storage container, storage shed and greenhouse) in the rear garden of 46 Ravensbourne Avenue (amendment to previous application 16/04706/FULL6) at 46 Ravensbourne Avenue, Bromley BR2 0BP.

This application is being made in order to regularise the original approved drawings in terms of the height of the swimming pool and garage buildings. In addition a few “minor changes” have been included, as follows:

• Garage Building: Minor amendments to size and location of windows within office.
  
• Swimming Pool Building: Minor amendments to size and location of windows facing the garden.
  
• The proposed roof lights have increased in height from 3 m to 3.35 m from ground level due to the manufacturer's technical details and requirements.
  
• Boundary Treatment: The timber fencing along the SW boundary is to be replaced and additional screen planting has been introduced behind the swimming pool building.
  

The following documents are available from the planning file:

• Supporting Document – flood risk    
  
• Proposed swimming pool (as approved)       
  
• Location and block plan         
  
• Swimming pool elevations (as approved)      
  
• Proposed outbuildings (as approved)             
  
• Comparison plan      
  
• Swimming pool plans and elevations 2           
  
• Garage plan & elevations     
  
• Covering letter          
  
• Site location & block plan      
  
• Application form - without personal data      
  
• Swimming pool plan & elevations 1  
  
• Site levels
  

The neighbour consultation expiry date is Thursday 24 May 2018. As can be seen from the comparison plan, the swimming pool/gym is a lot bigger than you would expect to see on a site such as this. Mr John Carter of 54 Ravensbourne Avenue has already objected to the application, saying:

The size of the construction already completed for this swimming pool/gymnasium is far larger than one would have imagined necessary for ordinary domestic use, and certainly far too large for the site.

Like the main building, it seems to have been planned on an almost industrial scale.

As someone who has lived here since long before the original house was constructed (on a site designated for "horticultural use" according to contemporary restrictive covenants), I cannot believe that buildings of this scale were what the council had in mind when permission to expand was granted.

Others, I am sure, will have drawn your attention to flood risk. I will however, mention past difficulties relating to the building's connection to the main sewer in Ravensbourne Avenue. Drains which run uphill are not the ideal solution.

An application to build a bungalow behind 46 Ravensbourne Avenue has been received; details can be found on the Bromley planning site under ref. 09/01517.

No 46 itself lies behind the original houses, approx. Nos. 48-66 of Ravensbourne Avenue. The new bungalow will itself be behind Nos 66 and 68 Ravensbourne Avenue.

An earlier application at this site was refused and none of the four reasons given for rejecting the initial application have been remedied in this application. In particular we would point out the following:

1. there is a statutory requirement to consult the Environment Agency which appears not to have been done;
   
2. there is an absence of a Flood Risk Assessment as required by Central Govt PPS 25 and Policy ER12 of the UDP;
   
3. contrary to UDP policy BE1 and H7 the development would result in unacceptable piecemeal backland development; and
   
4. contrary to PPSs 1 and 9 and UDP policies ER17 and NE2 would have adverse impact on the ecology of the Ravensbourne River corridor.