Accessible five-bedroom home at Land Rear Of 88 North Cray Road, Bexley

What was proposed

A detached two-storey five-bedroom home, garage, access and garden would be built behind the existing house, with alterations to that house and its garage.

“SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Erection of a detached two storey dwelling with associated garage/facilities at the rear of 88 North Cray Road. External alterations to existing dwelling including changes to rear/side fenestrations and removal of attached garage to reinstate existing access track.”

“Planning permission is sought for the the erection of a two-storey, five-bedroom dwellinghouse with an associated private garden, a detached outbuilding providing garage and storage space, and an area of hardstanding for vehicular access and manoeuvring.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is grassed backland behind existing homes, with an access track, garage, trees, nearby Green Belt and the River Cray nature site.

“The application relates to 88 North Cray Road and land to the rear, comprising an area of undeveloped grassland situated behind Nos. 84–88 North Cray Road. Access to this rear parcel would be taken from an existing, currently disused access track located along the northern side boundary of No. 88. The land is predominantly grassed, although several trees that previously occupied the site were felled prior to submission of the application.”

“A small portion of the site lies within designated Green Belt land. Here the Green Belt boundary aligns with the boundary of a Minerals Safeguarding Area. Immediately to the west is the River Cray Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was considered acceptable overall and compliant with the development plan, subject to conditions.

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

“For the reasons set out in the report, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable. Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan, when read as a whole.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

The assessment considered housing, Green Belt, design, neighbours, trees, highways, ecology, drainage, sustainability and other matters.

“- Principle of Development – Housing Provision - Principle of Development – Green Belt - Design - Neighbour Amenity - Trees - Refuse and Recycling - Sustainable Transport (Cycling) - Highways Safety, Access and Parking - Ecology and Biodiversity - Sustainable Drainage - Sustainability Principle of the development – Housing Provision…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways officers withdrew their objections after changes improved vehicle movements, fire access and parking, while environmental health and contamination officers raised no objection subject to a condition.

“Cycle storage, refuse storage and two garaged on-site parking spaces (including one accessible EV-enabled bay) are provided in accordance with London Plan and Local Plan requirements. No further objections are raised by the Highway Authority.”

“Confirmed no objection. However, the presence of potential contamination due to a nearby former landfill site means mobile contamination may be present and thus a suitably scoped pre-commencement condition is advised.”

Officer report

Objections received

Five objections concerned Green Belt development, design and character, accommodation, ecology, highways, neighbour amenity, construction effects and consultation.

“Issue Addressed Concerns that the development will be on land designated as Green Belt This point is addressed under ‘Principle – Green Belt…”

“Concerns relating to loss of ecology and/or biodiversity as a result of the development This point is addressed under ‘Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from an objector and two applicants who spoke in support of the proposal.

The committee’s debate

Members considered the observations and speakers’ comments before discussing the recommendation and a contrary refusal motion.

“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

How the committee voted

The recommendation was not supported by five votes to four, and refusal was then approved by five votes to three.

“Following their discussion, the Committee moved and seconded the recommendation as set out in the report, and as amended by the Addendum, but this was not supported on a vote of 5/4. Following further discussion, a…”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because members considered the development inappropriate in the Green Belt and the proposed very special circumstances insufficient to outweigh the harm.

“The key reason given for refusal was that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and the very special circumstances which had been put forward, were not considered to outweigh the harm that had been identified there. However, at Members request, the reason given would be expanded to include that it was the impact of the development as a whole on the openness of the greenbelt, which was causing that harm.”

Minutes