12 family homes at 58-68 Lyndhurst Road, Bexleyheath

What was proposed

The application proposed 12 two-storey homes, with gardens, parking, landscaping, refuse and cycle storage, accessed by a new shared driveway.

“SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Erection of 12no two-storey semi-detached dwellinghouses with access road and associated parking, refuse storage and landscaping following demolition of existing side extensions to 60 & 62 Lyndhurst Road.”

“SUMMARY The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 12 two-storey residential dwellings on land to the rear of Nos. 58–68 Lyndhurst Road, Bexleyheath. The proposed mix comprises six 3-bedroom and six 4-bedroom houses, each with private garden space and one off-street parking space. The development would be accessed via a new shared surface private driveway formed by demolishing the side extensions of Nos. 60 and 62 Lyndhurst Road.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site included Nos. 60 and 62 Lyndhurst Road and rear garden land, adjoining homes and bungalows on Lyndhurst and Rudland Roads.

“The application site comprises 60-62 Lyndhurst Road and part of the rear garden land of Nos. 58 and 64–68 Lyndhurst Road, Bexleyheath. The main development area to the rear of no.’s 60-62 is broadly pentagonal, with some small garden areas excluded from the south western part of the site. The site extends northwards to include Nos. 60 and 62 Lyndhurst Road, which abut the public highway.”

“Front gardens along Lyndhurst and Rudland Roads have been predominantly hard surfaced to provide off-street parking. Over time, many properties have been extended with side additions and garages, reducing visibility into rear gardens and creating a perimeter block enclosing private garden spaces.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the development acceptable in land-use, design, amenity, transport, drainage, ecology and sustainability terms.

“RECOMMENDATION Grant planning permission subject to conditions and legal agreement.”

“REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION The proposed development is considered acceptable in land use terms and makes efficient use of a backland site to provide family-sized housing in a sustainable location. The layout, scale, and design are compatible with the surrounding suburban character, and the proposal meets policy requirements in relation to residential quality, accessibility, landscaping, biodiversity net gain, sustainable drainage, and energy efficiency.”

Officer report

Main concerns raised

Objections covered privacy, overbearing effects, character, parking, infrastructure, drainage, ecology, security, construction and affordable housing.

“Residential Amenity and Privacy o Loss of privacy due to overlooking from proposed two-storey homes. o Overbearing and overshadowing impacts on existing bungalows. o Reduced enjoyment of gardens and living spaces. ➢ Character of the Area o The development is considered out of keeping with existing character (predominantly bungalows and spacious plots). o Concerns about high-density housing disrupting the established street pattern.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors addressed the committee, a councillor spoke for residents, and the applicant spoke in support.

What members debated

Members considered the speakers’ points and the application, and proposed adding a condition for travel plan packs for future occupiers.

“The Committee discussed the application, considered all observations, points and comments made by the speakers and noted the report with the Addendum item for this application. During the discussion, it was recommended that a condition be added to secure further details of travel plan packs for future occupiers of the development.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to support approval with an additional travel plan condition failed, followed by a unanimous vote to refuse the application.

“Following their discussion a motion to support the recommendation, as updated by the Addendum and subject to an additional condition around the travel plan, was moved, seconded but not supported on a vote of 3/6.”

Minutes

Why approval was refused

The committee’s stated reason concerned the relationship between plot 12 and No. 65 Rudland Road, including outlook and overbearing impact.

“The key reason given for refusal was about the relationship between plot 12 of the development and No. Rudland Road, specifically regarding the impact on the outlook and overbearing impact on the property from the proposed development.”

Minutes