Ravensbourne Valley Residents

A further planning application, ref. No. DC/20/116174, is an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for Minor Material Amendments for the variation of wording relating to Condition (5) (A, B & C) of the planning permission (DC/18/108282) dated 27 July 2018 for the construction of 2 two-bedroom maisonettes and 2 four-bedroom houses, together with associated landscaping and provision of refuse stores, car parking and cycle spaces at 50 Ashgrove Road, Bromley BR1 4JW in order that the contamination remediation works are to be completed prior to the occupation of the residential units.

As you can see from the planning statement, the four houses are now complete and ready to be sold. We are told they will provide much needed new family homes.

Ref. No. DC/18/110175 

An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a Minor Material Amendment in connection with the planning permission dated 5th October 2018 (ref. DC/18/108282) in order to allow the following:

• amended roof form - flat/green roofs
  
• resited photovoltaic panels
  
• change in facade brickwork
  
• omit glazed walls at entrance locations and replacement with solid front door with vision panel and mix of metal panelling and glazed openings
  
• change in size and location of windows and doors and integrated metal panelling to areas adjacent to windows
  
• ground level doors and a kitchen window proposed on flank wall of semi-detached houses along with first floor semi-translucent glazed bathroom window
  
• patio, refuse/recycling and cycle enclosures rationalised
  
• internal reconfiguration of accommodation
  

Ref. No. DC/19/110459 

Details submitted in respect of Condition 6 (External materials and finishes) of planning permission (DC/18/108282) dated 5 October 2018

Ref. No. DC/19/110460 

Details submitted in respect of Condition 7 (cycle parking facilities) of planning permission (DC/18/108282) dated 5 October 2018 

5 October 2018 Decision notice

12 September 2018 QC opinion

17 August 2018 Letter from fire brigade

1. Access

In regard to the suitability of the width of the accessway, the Inspector noted that with the proposal to use imprint paving to distinguish between an area for pedestrians and vehicles, the width of the access road should not be considered insufficient as to warrant withholding planning permission on these grounds.

In regard to the ability for a fire appliance to turn on site and exit in forward gear, the Inspector was unconvinced that this could take placed [sic] and therefore dismissed the appeal on this basis. This revised application outlines how this issue has been addressed and is in accordance with BS9991:2015.

2. Employment Land

The Inspector agreed with the appellant’s case demonstrating that the loss of the B1 and B8 use was justified and acceptable in regard to planning policy. The quality of marketing evidence and length of time the site had been marketed was considered suitable and it was agreed that on the basis of the information submitted, the application met the requirements of Policy CS5 and DM11 and should be considered acceptable in principle.

I [sic] was also noted that the Written Ministerial Statement 2016 which sets out that tariff style contributions should not be sought from small scale development, constitutes the most up to date planning policy and should be given material weight. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to support the Council’s requirement for a payment to be made to mitigate the loss of employment floorspace.

3. Living Conditions

In regard to noise generated by users of the refuse collection point located along Ashgrove Road, the Inspector agreed with the appellant that this would not lead to a significant source of noise or disturbance for residents at 48 Ashgrove Road. Accordingly, the position of a refuse collection point in this location is considered acceptable.

We have asked Lewisham Council on various occasions to notify us via e-mail about new search results for planning applications, but they always fail to do so. Maybe this makes life easier for them, as our residents do not get to hear about planning applications until it is too late to do anything.

A typical example is a new application, ref. No. DC/17/100897, made on 28 March 2017 for the demolition of the building at 50 Ashgrove Road, Bromley BR1 4JW and the construction of 2 two-bedroom maisonettes and 2 four-bedroom houses, together with associated landscaping and the provision of refuse stores, car parking and cycle spaces. The following are available on the file:

• Decision notice
  
• 50 Ashgrove Road proposed site lighting drainage block plan and materials.
  
• T105 – Track 3A - car into and out of parking space 1:100@A3
  
• Green roof specification
  
• Green roof vegetation details
  
• Green roof maintenance
  
• Proposed green roof plan and section
  
• Archaeological assessment report
  
• Application form
  
• Marketing report appendix 8 – condition report
  
• Archaeological assessment report
  
• Condition report
  
• Marketing report
  
• Marketing report appendix 7 – commercial details
  
• Proposed maisonette flats plans sections and elevations
  
• Sustainability statement
  
• Road site location plan
  
• Transport statement
  
• Arboricultural impact assessment
  
• Arboricultural appendices
  
• Tree protection plan appendix
  
• Tree survey plan appendix
  
• Phase 1 PRA report
  
• Planning statement
  
• Existing site survey
  
• Existing plans and elevations
  
• Proposed site plan and cross sections
  
• Proposed site lighting drainage block plan and materials
  
• Proposed houses plans sections and elevations
  
• Design and access statement appendix 8 – pre-application version
  
• Design and access statement appendix 9 – submitted drawings
  
• Phase 1 PRA report
  
• Design and access statement
  

1. The principle of residential use cannot be determined as the application fails to sufficiently justify the loss of the established employment site, contrary to Core Strategy Policy 5: Other employment locations (2011), and DM Policy 11 Other employment locations of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
   
   
2. The accessway into the site, by reason of its length and limited width would fail to provide sufficient space for two vehicles to pass, whilst the width of the pedestrian footpath would be inadequate. Subsequently, the proposal would create potential pedestrian and vehicular conflict, and would fail to provide sufficient access for a fire emergency vehicle, contrary to Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Development of the London Plan (adopted March 2015, incorporating March 2016 Minor Alterations), Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the Core Strategy (2011), and DM Policy 29 Car parking, DM Policy 30 Urban design and local character, and DM Policy 33 Development on infill sites, backland sites, back gardens and amenity areas of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014).
   
   
3. The proposed waste and refuse storage provision for the 6 proposed dwellings, by reason of its design and location is likely have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers No. 48 Ashgrove Road though noise and disturbance contrary to DM Policy 32 Housing design, layout and space standards, of the Development Management Local Plan 2014.

50 Ashgrove Road, Bromley - 24 January 2015
Local residents will be pleased to know that the proposal to convert old buildings at 50 Ashgrove Road, Bromley BR1 4JW (the old Masons Scaffolding yard) to residential dwellings has been refused at Appeal. Details of the Inspector's decision can be found here.

In conclusion:

• The appeal site is approached over a narrow, single track roadway with no separate footway. It provides insufficient space for two vehicles to pass and for the provision of pedestrian refuges, or for bin storage in a location to meet the requirements of the Council’s refuse service and for access by emergency vehicles.
  
• National policy [states] that: “Plans and decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be delivered for all people …”
  
• For all of these reasons, the potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and concerns regarding the storage and collection of waste provide justifiable reasons why prior approval should not be granted.