Agenda and minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Lisa Thornley  020 8461 7566

Items
No. Item

45.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Vanessa Allen, Eric Bosshard, Katy Boughey and Lydia Buttinger; Councillors Angela Wilkins, Catherine Rideout, Michael Rutherford and Samaris Huntington-Thresher attended as their respective substitutes.

46.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were received.

47.

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS HELD ON 16 NOVEMBER AND 13 DECEMBER 2017 pdf icon PDF 179 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings held on 16 November and 13 December 2017 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

48.

QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5 pm on Friday 19 January 2018.

 

Time limit 15 minutes.

 

Minutes:

Oral questions were received from Bromley residents, Rhian Kanat, Nancy Lengthorn and Andrew Ruck.  A copy of these, together with the Chairman’s  response, is attached as Appendix A.

49.

PLANNING APPLICATION 17/02468/FULL1 - ST HUGHES PLAYING FIELDS, BICKLEY ROAD, BICKLEY, BROMLEY pdf icon PDF 33 KB

(Report to follow – the report is expected to be published on Friday 19 January 2018.)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report DRR00000

 

Prior to the issue of a decision on the current planning application for St Hughes Playing Fields (17/02468/FULL1), Members were given the opportunity to consider new material planning considerations which had arisen since permission was granted for the application on 4 October 2017.

 

It was reported that contrary to that stated in the published agenda as Item 10, there was no Part 2 (Exempt) report for this Item.

 

The Chief Executive highlighted the Council’s unique position in regard to the application.  He fully recognised the concern that bringing this item back had raised both for the public and the Council.  Given some of the questions, he considered that bringing it back to the meeting this evening, the timescales and the details required, meant the process (timewise) had been unavoidable and this was the earliest it could be submitted to Committee.  The report itself was not published until Friday 19 January because the Council had been highly engaged with Counsel seeking legal advice about the Council’s current position.  He also recognised the issues this raised in totality for everyone but from his perspective as Chief Executive, in order to protect the Authority in the future, this needed to be reconsidered.

 

The reasons this had come back to Committee were set out in the report, particularly at paragraphs 3.3-3.8, and paragraph 5 on page 9 stated that Members having taken a decision on 4 October and given the material considerations raised by the Planning Inspector, there was no alternative but to bring the matter back to Members to see if these material considerations raised by the Planning Inspector's report would have a material impact on the decision that the Committee made on 4 October.  That decision was made in good faith and Members did not have to re-run the whole of that planning debate.  The reason the item was being considered this evening and the responsibility on Members, was to see if any items raised by the Planning Inspector would have a material impact on consideration of the decision made at that time.  These were material considerations and the officers had put them into context in the report.

 

Officers had brought forward the report and the Planning Development Control Officer had circulated a planning update.  It was clear from the update that whilst officers had recommended that Members could ratify the decision made on 4 October, obviously other decisions were open to Members in their normal decision-making. 

 

Counsel had confirmed that although a Judicial Review had been lodged, it had no bearing on Members' current consideration.

 

At this point, the Chairman moved that Members consider this as an urgent report as it contained new planning considerations arising since the resolution to grant planning permission for application 17/02468/FULL1 and offered Members an opportunity to take them into account prior to the issue of a decision.  It was necessary to consider the report before the next meeting of the Development Control Committee as a statutory time limit for determination of the planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

50.

MAYORAL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (MCIL2) DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE CONSULTATION pdf icon PDF 206 KB

Minutes:

Report DRR18/001

 

The Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (MCIL2) Draft Charging Schedule (DSC) public consultation towards Crossrail was due to end on 4 February 2018.  The report considered by Members contained background detail and outlined points and concerns from the London Borough of Bromley’s perspective, which enabled the suggested formal response attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

 

It was suggested that the Council object to the proposed Charging Schedule due to:-

 

·  the adverse impact on provision of local infrastructure such as education and health;

 

·  the limited benefit to Bromley residents of Crossrail 2; and

 

·  the impact on other transport projects.

 

Councillor Fawthrop referred to LBB v GLC 1981 (Fares Fair) which was overturned because benefits would not accrue into Bromley from a policy that was yet again top down centralisation and perhaps reference should be made to this in the Council's response. 

 

RESOLVED that the approach to object to the Charging Schedule and the suggested response be endorsed.

51.

BROMLEY'S RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT LONDON PLAN CONSULTATION pdf icon PDF 233 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report DRR18/002

 

The New Draft London Plan was released for public consultation in early December 2017.  When adopted, the new Plan would replace the current London Plan (2016) and, as part of Bromley’s Development Plan, would be used in decision making on planning applications along with the UDP/Local Plan and Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan. 

 

Members were requested to consider the key aspects of the Consultation Draft, together with officers’ comments (attached as Appendix 1).  Bromley’s response, based on these comments, would be prepared for Executive approval on 7 February and submitted before the deadline of Friday 2 March. 

 

The Chairman highlighted key elements of the document namely the suggested increase in housing supply, removal of the minimum parking standards, the increase in affordable housing (by possibly 50% in some cases) and the potential removal of the Docklands Light Railway potential for Bromley.

 

Councillor Michael noted the Mayor's proposal to remove all mention of building on garden land and considered that as a Borough, this was something which should be guarded against.  As far as she was aware, this was still a part of the National Planning Policy and as such suggested the Council request that reference to building on garden land be reinstated.  The Chief Planner confirmed that garden land was excluded from the definition of previously developed land as a national matter.  Were this eventually to become a London Plan policy, in most cases more weight would be given to the London Plan than the one at national level.  This had been acknowledged as a problem in the report currently before Members.

 

Policy SD7 (paragraph 5, page 44 of the report), referred to Petts Wood and West Wickham being given "medium" potential for residential growth.  Councillor Fawthrop queried how this had been determined within the draft London Plan as there was in fact, no potential at all for residential growth in the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character.  Even on the Petts Wood west side there was little or no scope for growth.  The Council's response should therefore be robust in pointing out that Petts Wood was an Area of Special Residential Character which was not suitable for residential development.  Officers agreed to draft some wording and consult with Councillor Fawthrop on this matter.

 

In regard to Town Centres and Residential Use (page 43), Councillor Brooks emphasised the need for caution as the majority of the Borough’s town centres operated as Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and it was essential to ensure development did not abut onto retail areas and reduce footfall as this would result in the provision of smaller shops and in turn lead to less money being put into BIDs which would be seriously detrimental to the Borough's high streets.  In this regard, a more robust policy was required.

 

Councillor Joel raised concerns with the proposed new housing provision target of 1,424 dwellings per annum. Whilst the erection of high rise blocks were being encouraged, he questioned where the majority of the required units  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.

DELEGATED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - JULY 2017 TO SEPTEMBER 2017 AND OCTOBER 2017 TO DECEMBER 2017 pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report DRR 18/003

 

Members were provided with an update on enforcement action authorised under delegated authority for breaches of planning control.

 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

53.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 AS AMENDED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) (VARIATION) ORDER 2006, AND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

Not applicable.

54.

PLANNING APPLICATION 17/02468/FULL1 - ST HUGHES PLAYING FIELDS, BICKLEY ROAD, BICKLEY, BROMLEY

(Report to follow – see item 5 above.)

Minutes:

As indicated in the public section of the meeting, there were no part 2 items.

ANNEX A - ORAL QUESTIONS RECEIVED AT THE MEETING pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Audio Recording of Meeting MP3 44 MB

 

Original Text: