Eight residential units at Land Adjacent To 1 - 18 Evans Court Sherman Close, Crayford

What was proposed

The application sought changes to approved plans for two buildings containing eight homes, while keeping the number and type of units unchanged.

“SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission Ref: 21/01708/FUL for the Erection of 2 x 2 storey buildings with rooms in roofspace to provide 1 x 2 bed duplex, 6 x 1 bed and 1 studio apartment, with associated amenity space, parking, secure bin and cycle storage.”

“This Section 73 application seeks permission to vary Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission ref. 21/01708/FUL to allow for amendments to an approved residential scheme comprising 8 units. The changes include modest alterations to the building footprints, reconfigured internal layouts, revised fenestration, enlarged dormers, an additional dormer, and improved fire escape arrangements.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site lies at the eastern end of a gated area accessed from Sherman Close, beside residential properties, with construction underway.

“The application site is located to the east of Crayford High Street, accessed via a private access road (Sherman Close) situated approximately 60 metres north of the junction with Bexley Lane. The area of the proposed building is located at the far eastern end of the site, within a gated area.”

“To the north, the site adjoins the rear gardens of residential properties on Rectory Close, which are situated at a higher ground level than the application site. To the south, it abuts the rear gardens of properties on Green Place, which are located at a lower level. The Iron Mill Lane Conservation Area is located to the north-west of the site and directly abuts the northern boundary of the access road from Crayford High Street.”

Officer report

Earlier planning decisions

Permission for the eight-home scheme was granted in January 2022, followed by approved condition details and a refused amendment seeking an additional dwelling.

“21/01708/FULMIN01 Non material amendment to alter rooflights of approved application 21/01708/FUL which allowed the Erection of 2 x 2 storey buildings with rooms in roofspace to provide 1 x 2 bed duplex, 6 x 1 bed and 1 studio apartment, with associated amenity space, parking, secure bin and cycle storage. Approved on 28.03.2024”

“The alterations to create an additional dwelling would not constitute a non- material amendment. The proposed alterations to divide a unit into two would be a materially different proposal to that which originally obtained planning permission under reference 21/01708/FUL, and as such cannot be treated as a non-material minor amendment. The proposed changed would therefore require an application for planning permission.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

The amendments were considered proportionate, compatible with the approved permission, and acceptable for design, accommodation, neighbouring amenity, fire safety and highways.

“The amendments are considered to be proportionate, do not materially alter the external scale or massing of the buildings, and preserve the established character of the development. The scheme continues to provide a high standard of accommodation, with all units meeting or exceeding relevant space standards. The impact on neighbouring amenity remains acceptable, and the proposals raise no new highways concerns.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while neighbours objected over ownership, structural safety, privacy, design, parking, environmental harm and consultation.

“Category Summary of Objections Procedural and Legal Concerns regarding Land Ownership and Boundary Encroachment Construction began before planning permission was granted without pre-commencement conditions being discharged. Site ownership notification requirements not fulfilled. Application changes require a new full application. Boundary disputes unresolved with multiple Rectory Close properties. Encroachment onto private land without consent.”

“Disruption to peaceful enjoyment of outdoor spaces. Overdevelopment and Inappropriate Design Development scale disproportionate to site size. Incompatible design (e.g. three-storey height, large dormers). Additional units compared to previous applications. Visual impact and townscape harm. Parking and Access Issues Only 6 parking spaces provided for 8+ units. Existing local parking capacity already full. Pedestrian path being used for vehicle access is unsafe.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors addressed the committee, followed by the agent speaking in support.

Committee discussion

Members considered the application, the speakers’ comments, other observations and the addendum, and requested a further retaining-wall condition.

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

“The Committee requested an additional condition regarding details of the construction of the retaining wall.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee voted 8/2 to approve the application in line with the recommendation, incorporating the addendum and additional condition.

“Following their discussion, the Committee RESOLVED on a vote of 8/2 to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation as set out in the report before them, and as amended by the Addendum and the additional condition.”

Minutes