Page 41 - Archive in reverse date order

Brookworth Homes development: bullet points

• The application to build houses on the garden land at the rear of 22 St James
Way was rejected in 1967, again in 1973 both by Planning and the Planning
Inspector and yet again in 1985 as a form of undesirable backland development
detrimental to the amenities of adjoining properties. One out of character with
the existing development in the vicinity and one which would dominate and
overlook neighbouring properties as part of the site is on rising land. What is
different today that would justify planning approval this time around?
Especially as, since then, Bexley has produced a Policy document (CS17) that
promises to resist harmful backland development – which this clearly is.

• The application site is not previously developed land that might be regarded as
“brownfield” and so appropriate for a housing development. It is garden-land,
albeit it has been neglected and has some hard-standing. Building on garden
land was not the goverment's intention when it drew up its National Planning
Policy Framework. Moreover, such development is contrary to Bexley's Policy
CS17, which promises that Bexley will resist harmful backland development.

• The applicant argues that its development of five new houses would make a
key contribution to Bexley's housing supply. It would not – and at what cost to
local residents! Moreover, with the loss a few years ago of our school and
playing fields to make way for a large housing estate, and the recent decision to
allow a development six houses at 139 North Cray Road in our precious Green
Belt land, North Cray has already made a significant contribution to Bexley's
housing supply. Enough is surely enough!

• The formation of a new cul-de-sac of several houses on garden land at the rear
of houses in St James Way and The Grove would deprive the residents of
adjoining properties of amenities and privacy which they, very reasonably,
expect to enjoy. To have a road running at the foot of their garden, or houses
close to their rear boundary, is not what people want and will deprive them of
the peace and quiet enjoyment of their garden.

• The new access road and the passage of vehicles would be a considerable
nuisance to adjacent residents- especially to those who would have this road
running close to the bottom of their garden. And if it were to be a road with
street lighting, this would create an additional nuisance in the form of light
pollution. Not only this - a new vehicular access road on the presently closed
garden land between the houses in St James Way and The Grove would reduce
the present level of security that people have. Who would want to have a new
cul-de-sac and road created at the bottom of their garden and such a disturbing
activity introduced to their lives?

/The