3.70 In planning the layout of both new development or alterations to existing buildings, applicants must consider the balance between:

• Building footprint
• Amenity space related to the building
• Access routes
• Areas dedicated to wildlife and nature
• Storage of waste, bikes and vehicles
• Areas of public realm (see Fig.81).

3.71 The necessary space required for each of the above uses will be affected by several factors such as connectivity, adjacency to natural features, the size of dwellings, or proximity to a Town Centre.

3.72 Applicants should refer to the above policies to determine the appropriate quantum of car and cycle parking, waste storage and amenity space for the development. Some of these standards differ from other locations in London, and applicants should refer to the emerging Technical Handbook for further guidance specific to Bexley.

3.73 Applicants should demonstrate that these uses have been correctly calculated and how this informs the site layout and capacity – see Fig.80 for how to calculate these factors.

3.74 The provision of ancillary spaces for schemes should accurately reflect the quantum of development as per the standards defined in Fig.80. The accommodation of such spaces need not be limited to the ground floor and may be accommodated in innovative ways, for example the adoption of an underground waste system, or solutions such as undercroft parking. See D32 and D33 respectively for more information.

3.75 The safe removal of waste and recycling is a significant constraint on the development of many sites. A strategy for the storage and collection of waste must be considered from the outset in any proposal. Refer to the Template Recycling and Waste Management Strategy at ReLondon for guidance on how to provide this.

3.76 Bin stores or dedicated space for bins should be designed in to all developments early in the design process. The type and number of waste collections may differ from other boroughs. Bin stores should not be too constrained to allow for potential changes to the types of collection that may be required in future.

3.77 The plot ratio can be higher within Town Centres and should generally be lower in Maintain areas. This should be informed by the urban grain and typical building types as covered in the Context section.

3.78 Developments that result in a plot ratio that is not relative to the immediate townscape and context, and do not allow sufficient space for necessary ancillary uses are unlikely to be supported.

3.79 Development proposals should use a variety of approaches to accommodate private cars in order to reduce the visual effect upon the public realm - see Fig.82.

3.80 Proposals should demonstrate how the parking design relates to the approach to massing, the journey from the street to building entrances, the definition of public and private spaces, and street typology. These considerations equally apply to proposals where the use of existing buildings is being intensified, leading to the potential for additional parking activity.

3.81 Car parking should not overly dominate the building frontage or rear spaces. Car parking provision should consider the layout of homes and not negatively affect the use and enjoyment of habitable rooms or outdoor amenity spaces.

3.82 Where required, the introduction of car parking should not negatively affect the biodiversity of a site by removing existing greening, for example, the redevelopment of a front garden to provide on-plot parking

3.83 Where the conversion of a building into multiple residential occupancy is proposed, applicants should demonstrate how the proposed approach to parking has been developed to avoid increased parking stress in the wider area to the detriment of amenity and highway safety.

3.84 Recommended dimensions and layouts of each type of parking space including disabled access, electric vehicle (EV) charging and garages will be provided in the Technical Handbook that will form Part 2 of the Design Guide SPD.

3.85 Applicants should demonstrate that parking provided as part of a development is flexible in use as outlined in Fig.85 overleaf.

3.86 Arrangements such as on-plot parking layouts, where the parking spaces are located within the curtilage of individual dwellings, should be avoided where possible and should only be considered for family housing units. Parking spaces in the public realm provided communally should not be allocated to individuals and will not be permitted within the highway.

3.87 Where on-plot parking already exists, the frontage must be a sufficient size to avoid vehicles overhanging the public highway and causing obstructions or hazards to pedestrians.

3.88 The use of visually intrusive road markings for parking bays should be avoided, particularly for residential uses. There is a preference for bays to be marked by materials such as a change in sett colour rather than painted in bright colours.

3.89 Where undercroft or basement parking is provided, this should not result in long blank frontages and entrances should be integrated into the façade. Where relevant, changes in topography should be used to accommodate undercroft parking.

3.90 The density of a site should not be used as justification for a car-dominated public realm.

3.91 It is preferable for sites within Town Centres to accommodate the majority of parking bays within the footprint of the building or within podiums.

3.92 Parking courts for five or more spaces to the rear of building should be avoided unless it can be justified that they are safe and well- overlooked.

3.93 Disabled parking spaces must take priority over other car parking needs. These spaces should be designed to ensure that disabled drivers and passengers can enter and exit vehicles with ease. Level routes to the building entrances should be provided and it is recommended that spaces for disabled people are located as close to these entrances as possible.

3.94 Applicants should balance the negative aspects of storage areas with the need to encourage the proper disposal of waste, promote recycling, and incentivise cycling. Arrangements that are likely to result in fly- tipping, lack of use or poor security will not be supported.

3.95 Storage areas should generally be integrated into the footprint of the building and accessed from the street, especially in apartment blocks for security reasons. Corridor and door widths should be in accordance with requirements of the London Cycling Design Standards.

3.96 If it is not possible to integrate storage into the building, for example where an existing single dwelling house is being converted into multiple occupancy, these features should be positioned so that they are sympathetic to the existing building and the wider area and do not obscure the front façade or windows.

3.97 Communal bin stores should be safe, well- lit, on hard standing, easy to clean, away from windows or other sources of heat, and properly secured. They should be designed to be accessible to elderly and disabled residents and arranged to promote recycling. Further guidance on the design of the disposal, storage, and collection of waste will be provided in the Technical Handbook that will form Part 2 of the Design Guide SPD.

3.98 Apartment buildings with 25 dwellings or more should provide bulky waste stores in addition to general bin stores. For buildings with fewer than 25 dwellings, a bulky waste storage area can comprise designated space within a bin store for household waste.

3.99 Detailed information on calculating the number, size and type of bins required will be provided in the Technical Handbook.

3.100 Cycle parking should be arranged to prevent cycle theft and encourage use by residents. Refer to the London Cycling Design Standards for standard dimensions and arrangement of on-street cycle parking and guidance on cycle parking provision within buildings. Refer also to the Cambridge Cycle Parking Guide for New Residential Developments.

3.101 Doors should not open outward onto the public footpath or cause obstructions when open but should be able to be easily held open when accessing bins or bikes.

3.102 Stores that are separate to the building should be of high-quality material which is sympathetic to the design and materiality of the host dwelling. Screening and soft landscaping can be used to improve their visual appearance.

3.103 Storage areas must be clearly shown on plans and sufficient design detail provided to ensure the facility will be sufficient in terms of size, access, layout, and materials, including an accommodation schedule.

3.104 The Council encourages the use of innovative waste systems for high density developments, such as Underground Refuse Systems or Automated Vacuum Collection Services. These should be discussed with the Environmental Services team at the pre- application stage.

3.105 All new and improved streets should be lined with trees to increase canopy cover across Bexley.

3.106 Applicants should consider and respond directly to the site information gathered as set out in D03 in the development of tree strategies.

3.107 It is important to retain as many existing trees on site as possible. The Council does not support the removal of healthy trees within the public realm solely for the reason of facilitating development.

3.108 Advice should be sought from a Council Tree Officer on which trees should be retained and protected and any proposed removal justified through a Tree Removal Strategy. Developers must not pre-empt development by removing any trees from the development site.

3.109 In situations where a site’s biodiversity value is deliberately reduced, including where individual trees are removed on sites before a planning application is submitted, he planning authority will take the earlier habitat state as the baseline for the purposes of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). In most cases, the methodology used to account for removed trees in the BNG metric will result in greater costs and burdens to the developer. Refer to D24 and the BNG PPG for information on how habitat degradation will be dealt with when calculating the pre- development biodiversity value of onsite habitat Biodiversity Net Gain.

3.110 In some instances, some trees will have additional protections - refer to Fig.87 for this list of trees.

3.111 The Government has committed to protecting ancient and veteran trees, and the principles of this policy are set out through its Keepers of time policy. This is now the basis for policies covering veteran and ancient trees/woodlands nationally, regionally, and now locally as set out below.

3.112 In addition to those listed in Fig.87, veteran and ancient trees also have protected status that applicants should be aware of when proposing new development. These trees can be individual or groups of trees found in historic parkland, hedgerows, parks and other areas. Typically, they are found outside of Ancient Woodland and contribute greatly to biodiversity and have rich cultural and historical value.

3.113 Ancient trees are an incredibly valuable feature based on characteristics such as their age, size, or cultural and biodiversity values. Veteran trees have significant decay features such as hollowing which contribute to their value.

3.114 Both ancient and veteran trees are irreplaceable and it is vital that development does not result in the loss or deterioration of these trees. In line with NPPF Policy 186c, applications that demonstrate such loss or deterioration will be refused, unless the applicant can demonstrate wholly exceptional circumstances and a suitable compensation strategy.

3.115 A minimum five metre root protection zone beyond the tree canopy of every veteran tree is implemented by Forestry England and applicants should be considerate of this when proposing new development.

3.116 Existing trees should be surveyed in line with British Standard BS5837 and proposals must seek to retain all good quality trees. Where a tree is proposed to be removed, the applicant must justify this decision in terms of the tree’s quality, health amenity value and age and the site conditions.

3.117 It is desirable for proposals to implement a one-for-one replacement rate for any trees affected by development. Proposed replacements should be of a size and species appropriate to the location and the trees being replaced.

3.118 New and existing street trees and planting should be planned to ensure they can thrive in their locations with a reasonable level of maintenance. Higher quality planting at a lower quantity is preferable to low quality provision with low retention rates.

3.119 A financial contribution may be payable to the local planning authority for trees of high or good value or where considered by the Council to be of importance to amenity and biodiversity.

3.120 London Plan Policy G7 Trees and woodlands recommends that if trees have to be removed for development that tree replacement should be undertaken based on a valuation such as Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees (CAVAT).

3.121 CAVAT provides a methodology for calculating the monetary value and/or compensation where a tree is felled or damaged. The developer should provide the Council with calculations of the CAVAT value for the tree(s) removed. For further information see the London Tree Officers Association for resources on CAVAT.

3.122 The maintenance of street trees should be assessed from the outset to ensure high retention rates. The selection of species and layout should consider the risk of:

• foliage obstructing visibility
• the canopy and leaf fall affecting pedestrian and vehicular movement
• root growth undermining services or underground structures such as the existing public sewerage system and water supply infrastructure

3.123 The placement and species of new street trees should be considered alongside road safety requirements set out in D29. Applicants should consider access, maintenance and operational requirements for bodies such as TfL and Thames Water when locating trees on pedestrianised areas.

3.124 Provisions should be put in place to ensure trees are maintained and outlined in suitable aftercare maintenance plans. Street trees may incur a commuted sum for future maintenance or a licence to allow continuing upkeep.

3.125 Developments should ensure adequate soil volume that is free from significant soil compaction to avoid unnecessary tree removal. Refer to Fig.88 overleaf for recommended tree planting guidance in Bexley.

3.126 Applications for proposals in areas at risk of flooding should consider this constraint early in the design process and develop an approach that suits this type of site, both to ensure safety and create good streets and internal spaces.

3.127 Developments close to main rivers and flood defences should refer to Environment Agency (EA) proposed minimum setbacks and buffer zone design requirements to ensure adequate protection to these developments. Early engagement with the Environment Agency as part of the design process is encouraged.

3.128 The EA recommend a minimum 16 metre setback between any built development, including a basement, and the full extent of a flood defence, including any buried elements of structure. Further guidance will be provided in the Area Types document and the Technical Handbook that will form Part 2 of the Design Guide SPD.

3.129 Standard building types that have not been designed to be flood resistant and/or flood resilient within areas at risk of flooding will likely not be appropriate.

3.130 All habitable rooms within residential proposals such as bedrooms must be located above the flood water level. There should also be a safe, unimpeded route through buildings up to this safe level.

3.131 The internal layout and finishes of the building must be designed to minimise the negative effect of a flooding event, for instance by placing electrical and heating systems above the flood level and specifying appropriate construction materials below the flood level. Refer to the Code of practice for property flood resilience by CIRIA for further detail.

3.132 Applicants must ensure new developments are accessible regardless of flood risk requirements in accordance with Part M of the Building Regulations and Policy D7 Accessible housing in the London Plan.

3.133 In buildings where living areas must be raised, developments must not create continuous blank frontages at street level or long ramps and podium areas to provide access to the building. These features do not typically contribute to a positive streetscape.

3.134 The preferred approach for dwellings is to incorporate maisonettes with ‘own door’ access from the street as an alternative to raised apartments on a podium. The ground floor area can be used for storage and other non-principal living spaces.

3.135 Where compliant with policy, some commercial and community uses may be suitable below flood levels in developments in flood risk areas because they do not have uses considered to be ‘vulnerable’ and they can create active frontages. Refer to the flood vulnerability classification list for more detail.

3.136 Refuse stores, bike stores and car parking can be placed in the ground level of buildings in flood zones, however this approach must not result in long blank walls as outlined in D11. See the wider Layout section for more guidance on ground floor arrangement.

3.137 Basements, including for parking, are not suitable in flood zones 2 or 3 regardless of use type. Refer to DP32 Flood risk management in the Bexley Local Plan for requirements for basements in other locations.

3.138 In all new basements where a waste outlet is required, e.g. from a bathroom or toilet, applicants should allow for the installation of a suitable pumped device to mitigate and protect against sewer flooding risk. Applicants should provide the Council with details of this device in submitted planning information.

3.139 Where flood defences are required, applicants should consider the potential impact on adequate light levels reaching windows of existing and proposed development. In development locations that may be impacted, applicants should assess future flood defence raisings in their initial Character Appraisal as set out in D01.

3.140 The design of flood defences should be incorporated into the public realm and allow for views of the water. This can be achieved by providing walkways above the flood level.

3.141 Where setbacks are required between development and flood defences, this area can be used to accommodate communal amenity space and the Council encourages this approach as supported by the EA Riverside Strategy Approach. Applicants should ensure that the provision of any amenity within this space does not impede the maintenance of the flood defences and should be designed to accommodate such access alongside amenity provisions.

3.142 Where new soft landscaping is proposed in flood defence zones, their planting should not damage the integrity of the flood defences and trees should be installed with tree root protection measures to ensure the roots do not damage the flood defence structure. The location of new trees should be considered to ensure easy access to maintain flood defences. Trees planted close to flood defence structures should be provided with root containment and located with a suitable offset relative to their mature canopy spread extent.