12 flats at Former Tennis Courts, Bexleyheath

What was proposed

The application proposed two residential blocks containing 12 flats, with parking, access, turning space, refuse storage and ecological enhancements.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the construction of two residential blocks (Blocks A and B) providing a total of 12 flats, comprising six one-bedroom and six two-bedroom units.”

“The scheme includes 12 on-site parking spaces situated between the two blocks, a new vehicular access from Old Manor Way with a turning head to accommodate large vehicles, two refuse storages within the site, and ecological enhancements integrated across the site.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The vacant former tennis-court site is heavily vegetated, below the road level, beside a railway nature site, allotments, homes and a play area.

“The application site is a vacant plot of land, formerly occupied by the Old Manor Way tennis courts, located to the rear of Nos. 1–37 Parkside Avenue. The site is heavily vegetated and contains substantial tree coverage. It is situated approximately 3 metres below the level of the adjacent highway.”

“There is pedestrian access into the site from Old Manor Way near its north-western corner. A children’s play area is located across the road on the western side of Old Manor Way, opposite the site. To the east of the site are allotments. The railway line to the north is situated on an embankment, while the southern boundary adjoins a foot path which separates the site and the rear gardens of residential properties on Parkside Avenue.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, concluding that the development complied with policy and that highway, ecological and viability matters could be secured or mitigated.

“That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.”

“The development is policy-compliant in terms of land use, design, residential quality, access, sustainability, and urban greening. Highways and ecological impacts are appropriately mitigated. The absence of affordable housing is justified by viability evidence, with future review secured. The proposal accords with the development plan, and there are no material considerations indicating otherwise.”

Officer report

Highway safety assessment

Officers considered visibility, speeds, accident data, parking and road-safety measures sufficient to avoid an unacceptable highway impact.

“The additional information includes a detailed reassessment of visibility splays in accordance with Manual for Streets. For a road subject to a 30mph speed limit, a minimum stopping sight distance of 43 metres is required. The submitted analysis demonstrates that visibility splays of approximately 54-55 metres can be achieved in both directions from the proposed access, thereby exceeding the required standard.”

“The Applicant has also undertaken an overnight parking stress survey within a 200-metre radius of the site. The results indicate that existing parking stress levels are approximately 41%, increasing to around 50% in a worst-case scenario with the addition of development-related parking demand. These levels remain well below the commonly accepted threshold of 85% at which parking stress is typically considered severe.”

Officer report

Main objections and support

Objections focused on access and pedestrian safety, overdevelopment, amenity, environmental harm, construction disruption and alternative community uses; one representation supported housing.

“Objections Addressed under... Highway Safety and Site Access Proposed access is on or near a blind bend under a narrow railway bridge with restricted visibility. High frequency of traffic accidents and near misses already reported in the immediate vicinity. Additional traffic from the development would worsen the risk of collisions (pedestrian and vehicular).”

“Impact on character and appearance of the area section of the report and Response to representations section Amenity Impact Development would overlook private gardens and invade the privacy of surrounding dwellings. Objections to loss of light, visual intrusion, and noise from new residents and traffic. Anticipated decrease in property values, especially for homes directly adjoining the proposed development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors, a ward councillor opposing the application and the agent speaking in support addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members considered the application, the speakers’ comments and the observations and comments before them.

“The Committee discussed the application, considered all observations, points and comments made by the speakers and noted the report and the Addendum item for this application.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee did not support the recommendation by 7 votes to 4, then voted 7 to 4 for refusal.

“Following their discussion, the Committee moved and seconded the recommendation as set out in the report before them, and as amended by the Addendum, but this was not supported on a vote of 7/4. Following further discussion, a motion contrary to the recommendation set out in the report, namely to refuse the application on the grounds of highway safety, was moved and seconded and the Committee RESOLVED on a vote of 7/4 to refuse the application.”

Minutes