Fresh plans have emerged to concrete over protected open land in Sydenham as developers take on Bromley Council in a planning row.

This is the fifth time developers have tried to push through schemes for the former Footzie Social club in Lower Sydenham Road, but the plans have been blocked because of the use of protected land.

Planning chiefs have previously turned down a larger applications on the grounds it was “inappropriate” on the protected area known as metropolitan open land, and there have been a number of appeals turned down.

West and Partners proposed 151 homes in a block between three and eight storeys tall back in April, and also plans a public outdoor gym and play areas for children.

The developers then went over the council’s head to appeal to the planning inspectorate for a decision, as the council had not come to a conclusion in the five months since the plans were submitted.

Now, a new, slightly revised, scheme has been submitted by the developers as their appeal continues to take shape.

According to planning documents: “In essence in terms of layout, footprint, height and overall design this is identical to the application of March 2018 save for some revisions to the plan layouts of some of the units to address issues in respect of orientation and levels of light.”

The developers say the much-reduced scheme addresses concerns raised by an attempt in 2016 to build more than 200 homes on the site.

West and Partners claim the level of affordable housing proposed –  54 homes – would be close to double what has been achieved across the borough over the last three years.

Earlier this year the council confirmed it would be contesting the appeal.

Cllr Alexa Michael, chairman of the development control committee, said in September the council doesn’t want to lose its metropolitan open land.

Cllr Michael said: “We do not think the applicant has demonstrated the very special circumstances that would be required to grant a planning permission.

“We have previously rejected an application for residential development on this site and we will be outlining our strong principled positions to the planning inspector.

“We also consider that it is an inappropriate location for tall buildings and the scale and massing would also amount to overdevelopment.”