The contentious proposal to build the dwellings on land south of 58 to 68 Lyndhurst Road was discussed at a meeting of Bexley Council’s Planning Committee on Thursday evening (April 24) for nearly an hour and a half.
Councillors voted to defer the final decision on whether to grant planning permission to the committee’s next meeting on May 22 pending a site visit.
The contentious proposal has garnered 50 objections from local residents as well as 16 letters of support.
The site plan for the 12-home proposal on Lyndhurst Road, credit: Lyndhurst Road Developments Ltd
Objectors were critical of the two-storey height of the proposed homes believing they would impact the privacy of residents living in adjacent properties, particularly those who live in one-storey bungalows on Rutland Road just south of the development site.
Mr Cooper, speaking on behalf of several residents who objected to the plans, said: “We are not objecting to building houses.
“We are objecting to an unnecessarily poor design. They are very prominent. They are street-scale houses… which do not belong in low-key private back garden areas.”
He suggested that the proposal could be made more accommodating and “neighbourly” by reducing the height of the homes and incorporating accommodation into the currently unused roof space, as well as changing the layout of the homes to fit around a cul de sac instead of either side of a straight road.
Councillor Sue Gower, representing her ward and the residents of Bexleyheath, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
She said: “Residents are concerned that the development will result in significant harm to their lives and their privacy.”
The applicant Ben Brading, Managing Director of Lyndhurst Road Developments Limited, was also present at the meeting and stated that the Lyndhurst Road site was a “sustainable development location” and “the principle of the development was acceptable”, something that was agreed upon by Bexley planners during the pre-application process.
He said: “Whilst I acknowledge that there are mixed feelings about the development, we have also had a substantial amount of letters in support of our application from local residents.”
Following the public speakers, councillors discussed the plans and posed many questions to Bexley planning officers, with many committee members reluctant to grant the planning permission recommended by planners.
Several of them called for more “clarity”, stating that a site visit would help them understand what impact the 12-home proposal could have on the amenity of nearby residents.
Cllr Chris Ball said: “I’m sitting here feeling uncomfortable because my instinct is that I should approve this based on planning guidance but I don’t want to based on the uncertainty that comes alongside.
“If it came back in [to committee] with that opportunity just to have those loose ends tied up, for me I would sit here much more comfortably and say yes.”
Cllr June Slaughter said: “I do not think that we ought to make a decision on this application without having a site visit so that we can get into the site itself so that we can stand where the new proposed dwellings intend to be and see how the existing properties are likely to be affected.”
Cllr Slaughter also took issue with the parking provision for the homes, stating that including just one parking space per home was “totally inadequate” and “not reasonable”.
Planning officers responded that they were bound by the London Plan and if more parking spaces were added to the development, it would go against the plan’s parking policies.
