DEADLINE: 25 July 2021Public Consultation on Bexley Local Plan
As part of their ongoing Local Plan review, the Council is seeking the views of Bexley residents and landowners.
As currently drafted, the Council’s policies will make it difficult to secure planning permission for small scale development of individual family homes on large suburban gardens – a pattern of development which is being embraced successfully in boroughs across London, with benefits for home-owners and prospective home-buyers alike.
The policies which are agreed in Bexley this year may affect the development potential of your property for a decade or more, so even if you are not actively interested in such matters today, ensuring that your views are heard now could improve your prospects if you ever wished to do so in years to come.
The deadline for receipt of submissions is Sunday 25 July. The full plan can be found here, or keep reading to find out more about the specific policies that may affect you.
Contact Us
Why should I make a submission?
The views of parties opposed to new development are typically well represented during the Local Plan review process, which can lead to more restrictive planning policies. For this to change, residents and landowners who own developable plots need to make sure their voices are also heard when writing these policies.
So take a break from trimming your hedges this summer to hedge your bets on increasing the future value of your garden.
Why did we write to you?
Our review of potential development sites across the Borough identified that your property may have potential to accommodate one or more new homes, most likely by subdividing a small portion of your side or rear garden from your main home.
This means that your garden could provide you with a windfall far more valuable than a basket of apples.
Keep reading for more information on the specific policies which may affect you:
Policy DP 2: Back Garden Land
The Council’s proposed policy includes a presumption against the development of residential back gardens, reducing the likelihood of being able to secure planning permission for small-scale developments by subdividing large suburban gardens in future.
Many other boroughs across London have adopted carefully considered policies which successfully balance the need for new development with the imperative to protect neighbouring residents and the environment from adverse affects.
However, the proposed Bexley policy makes it easier for the council to simply say ‘no’ than to engage constructively with carefully designed proposals on their own merits. If you agree with us, please feel free to re-use the wording below in your submission:
Policy SP 1.3: Sustainable Development Locations
The Council proposes to limit most suburban infill developments to a series of 'Sustainable Development Locations,' defined on the Council Planning Policy Maps
by a solid blue line. As you will see from the map, the highly theoretical formula used to define these zones creates arbitrary dividing lines, but which side of the line your house falls could have a major bearing on its future value.
If this plan is adopted as it stands, two identical properties standing next door to one another on opposite sides of the blue line could end up with very different outcomes if applying for planning permission for redevelopment. To check the implications for your property, please view the maps by clicking here.
Innovative Infill have prepared a series of detailed policy-based arguments to help property owners who may wish to make a representation to the Council on this matter. Please click here
to get in touch if you would like more information.
Draft submission regarding proposed Policies SP 8.1c and DP 2: Back Garden Land
The assumption that any proposed development on garden land is inherently harmful is flawed, as is the policy which seeks to restrict a pattern of development which many other London boroughs have found to be both sustainable and desirable. By contrast with the specific, evidence-based protection of listed habitats, open spaces, protected trees, etc, no supporting evidence is provided to justify the adoption of such a blanket approach to all garden land.
A more robust policy would acknowledge that gardens are vitally important in terms of environment, biodiversity and human amenity, but that as a strategic resource for the borough, they also have the potential to serve multiple goods across a variety of policy objectives. A better justified policy would acknowledge that opportunities exist to improve amenity, environment, biodiversity and local character through the sort of interventions that can be proposed and delivered as part of a new development.
The test of such an approach is to ask whether a new infill family home: sensitively designed, with carefully considered amenity spaces for both existing and new dwellings, high quality boundary treatment, extensive soft landscaping and a green roof with all species selected for biodiversity value, would deliver more of the positive outcomes that the borough seeks across many policy areas, than the protection of the disused garage, battered fence and grassed garden that it replaces.
The promise that each proposal will be considered on a site-by-site basis is welcomed, but for this to be credible, the underlying policy needs to be rewritten in a manner is at least neutral towards the principle of alternative uses for garden land, as opposed to the current wording, whose negative bias pre-ordains the likely outcome.