Decision details

Description of application – Demolition of all existing buildings on site and redevelopment to provide residential development comprising a mix of dwelling houses and apartment blocks (part 3 and part 5 storeys in height), including provision of affordable housing, alongside the provision of public open space fronting Worsley Bridge Road, onsite play space and areas for public sports facilities, associated landscaping, car parking and ancillary works.

The Principal Planner – Major Developments gave a brief presentation, providing an overview of the application. An update was provided in relation to the planning obligations listed in paragraphs 6.12.3 and 6.12.4 (page 78) of the report. Members were informed that the Council’s Legal Department had advised that if the application was to be approved, matters relating to the ‘delivery and ongoing management of public open space, land for sports uses and play space’ and ‘delivery of a new puffin crossing on Worsley Bridge Road’ should be dealt with by conditions, rather than a S106 legal agreement. It was noted that the affordable wheelchair units would also be included in the affordable housing Heads of Term, rather than being separate, and the following revised Heads of Term had been circulated to Members:

The Principal Planner – Major Developments advised that the applicant had not agreed the principle of the proposed early and late stage affordable housing viability review Heads of Term, nor had a draft legal agreement been submitted. It was therefore proposed that an additional recommendation for refusal be added as follows:

8.  An acceptable planning obligation for provision of the affordable housing (including wheelchair accessible units for social rent), payment of carbon offsetting contribution, provision and operation of car club (including car club space), early and late stage affordable housing viability reviews and payment of monitoring fee and legal costs has not been entered into. The application is thereby contrary to Policies DF1 of the London Plan (2021) and 125 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).

It was also suggested that the first reason for refusal be amended, changing the word ‘substantially’ to ‘substantial’, and removing the word ‘greater’ to read as follows:

1.  The proposal would constitute inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land, and would result in substantial harm to its openness, both visually and spatially, undermining one of the essential characteristics of Metropolitan Open Land, which is permanence. The Very Special Circumstances proposed by the applicant do not justify this harm and as such the application is contrary to Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policy G3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 50 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).

The Principal Planner – Major Developments informed Members that since the publication of the report, 126 late representations of support had been received. It was noted that these representations included some addresses near to the application site; however a number were not nearby properties. The representations had not stated anything different to those already reported, and, while acknowledged, did not alter the officer recommendation for refusal. The Principal Planner – Major Developments advised that a letter of support had also been received from the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA). Sport England had been notified of this and had advised that, while they acknowledged the LTA’s support, given the significant loss of playing field here, they maintained their strong objection to the application. This was because the proposed tennis/padel courts were not considered to be of sufficient benefit to the community to outweigh the loss of flexible grassed playing field, particularly when there was no evidence that this playing field was surplus to requirements (according to the Bromley Playing Pitch Strategy). As set out previously, they were aware that there are sports clubs that would like to use these fields.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant, who gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

• Square Roots had been brought on board as a development partner, with the intention to deliver the scheme as 100% affordable. There were certain mechanisms as to how this would be achieved – they had wished to speak with officers regarding how this outcome could be delivered, but the request had been denied. In response, the Principal Planner – Major Developments said that the applicant had received extensive pre-application advice, and during the formal application process the applicant had requested a meeting regarding the 100% affordable housing. Officers had asked the applicant to agree that 100% affordable housing be secured by a S106 legal agreement, which was the usual mechanism but the applicant had not been willing to do so. The application documents stated 50% affordable by habitable room and no additional documents had been provided.
• The applicant advised that they had wanted the meeting with officers to discuss how the development could be occupied as 100% affordable. Square Roots would require a grant from the Greater London Authority (GLA) to deliver the increased outcomes, from 50% to 100%, and they needed to ensure that mechanisms were in place for the correct level of grant to be received. If the application was refused, the applicant stated they would not return to the Committee and commit to a S106 or the additional conditions.
• They would be willing to commit to 50% affordable units, which was above the Council’s target of 35%. Square Roots was a registered provider for affordable housing. They were content with offering a 100% affordable housing provision, with the additional grant from the GLA, as they felt it was the right thing to do.
• The applicant advised that Heads of Term had been included in their planning statement. In response, the Principal Planner – Major Developments said that some planning obligations that the applicant would be willing to put forward had been provided but not all those required had been included. The applicant had been asked to confirm the principles of these, but no response, or draft S106 legal agreement, had been received.
• With regards to the use of the site, historically it had been operated as a sports site with a club house, which housed a bar that generated income. Due to complaints from neighbours regarding late night noise, the club house had its licence revoked, which meant that the sustainability and viability of providing club facilities on the site was lost. A marketing exercise had been undertaken – offers had come forward, but had not been substantiated, mainly due to issues around contamination.
• The site was known as the former British Gas Sports Ground (or CEGAS) and there had been a number of works on it. As part of the normal process, intrusive testing had been undertaken and a level of contaminates had been found. They had been advised, and it was also stated by the LBB Environmental Health Officer in paragraph 6.10.19 of the report, that there was sufficient evidence of the need for remediation of the site either for housing, its existing use as a football pitch or for other use. There would be an associated cost for this work, and during the marketing exercise the offers received did not reflect this requirement.
• The Football Federation had visited the site and had met with the marketing agents but no offer had been received. Some offers had been received for keeping the site in its current use as a sports pitch, but as mentioned, did not take any of the remediation work into account or did not have the accounts behind it. A copy of the marketing report had been included in the planning application.
• The applicant confirmed that items relating to the recommendations for refusal, which were associated with insufficient information having been provided, had been discussed. It was noted that they would be prepared to provide further information in due course, in the right arena – they believed that sufficient information had been provided for officers to make a decision and had presented it to Members accordingly.

Councillor Tickner, local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee explaining that his local residents were extremely concerned about this application. Councillor Tickner said he had visited the site, which housed a run-down club house and some football pitches with goals – they were currently neglected but could easily be brought back into use. Councillor Tickner highlighted that the key point was that these playing fields were the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) that the Council should be protecting – they were the “lungs of London” and should be in use for healthy sport. One of the top reasons residents gave for living in the borough of Bromley was its green spaces and parks, and they needed to be protected. The applicant had not demonstrated any special circumstances for developing this MOL site.

In addition to objections from local residents, the GLA, Mayor of London, TfL and Sport England had all objected. The Football Federation, on behalf of the Football Association (FA), had highlighted that the playing fields were not surplus to requirements as suggested, as a number of organisations would be interested in using the fields if the owners would let them at a reasonable rate. Councillor Tickner urged the Committee to support the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Ross thanked the officers for their comprehensive report and noted the response to the application made by the North Copers Cope Action Group. Although she appreciated the efforts of the applicant to include some sports facilities and a 100% affordable housing scheme, there had been a number of objections from residents and playing fields were in short supply. Councillor Ross said she agreed with Councillor Tickner’s comments that they were the “lungs of London” and needed to be protected. The responses received from the applicant had not done enough to counter all the points raised, including those around urban design, and she therefore supported the officer’s recommendations as updated and moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Dean noted that this application would result in the desecration of MOL that the Local Authority had pledged to protect, and that special circumstances were required to contravene this designation. Those stated for this application related to it contributing to housing supply – if this was accepted it could lead to building being allowed across the Green Belt. Councillor Dean agreed with all eight recommendations suggested for refusal and seconded the motion for refusal.

Councillor Kennedy-Brooks considered that it was the right proposal, but in the wrong place – for an application to be permitted on designated MOL, it needed to extremely special. It was felt that this had not been demonstrated, and as a result Councillor Kennedy-Brooks said he supported refusal.

Councillor King said that he also agreed with the officer’s recommendations. It would result in a loss of playing fields, for which there was still a demand. Once a playing field was lost, it was lost forever.

Councillor Gabbert, while acknowledging that the playing fields were not surplus to requirements, highlighted that, due to the renting crisis, additional housing units in the borough were not surplus to requirements either. If the applicant had submitted the financial viability assessment to demonstrate their commitment to delivering 100% affordable housing, this was something that could be considered and she may have had a different opinion. However, this had not been forthcoming, and therefore she supported the officer’s recommendations for refusal.

Councillor Joel considered that if the 5 storey high blocks were reduced to 3 storeys and retained some sports facilities on this MOL, there may be some merits. It was noted that there had been similar developments on Sidcup Road and the Blue Circle Site at Bromley Common which eventually obtained approval. With the extensive number of points contained in the report recommending refusal, Councillor Joel said he saw no grounds to go against this and therefore endorsed refusal. The Chairman commented that each application was taken on its own merits.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED, as recommended, for the following reasons:

1.  The proposal would constitute inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land, and would result in substantial harm to its openness, both visually and spatially, undermining one of the essential characteristics of Metropolitan Open Land, which is permanence. The Very Special Circumstances proposed by the applicant do not justify this harm and as such the application is contrary to Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policy G3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 50 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).

2.  The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of existing playing fields at the site, and the applicant has failed to justify this loss in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policy S5 of the London Plan (2021), and Policies 20 and 58 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).

3.  On the basis of insufficient information, being the lack of a Financial Viability Assessment to demonstrate that the scheme would maximise the delivery of affordable housing, the application is contrary to Policies H4 and H5 of the London Plan (2021).

4.  The design of the proposed development, by reason of its layout, scale and massing, would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the site within which it lies, particularly given its designation as Metropolitan Open Land, and to the surrounding area; thereby contrary to Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies 4 and 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).

5.  Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed residential units would benefit from adequate daylight and sunlight, or that 10% of the units would meet the requirements of Building Regulation M4(3) ‘wheelchair user dwellings’. The standard of accommodation provided for the proposed residential units would therefore be unsatisfactory and would be contrary to Policies D6 and D7 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 4 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).

6.  In the absence of sufficient justification for the level of car parking proposed for the sports facilities and the impact on the strategic transport network, the proposal would undermine the strategic aims of the London Plan which are to reduce the dominance of vehicles on London’s roads and to promote sustainable modes of travel. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies T1, T2 and T6 of the London Plan (2021).

7.  Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate how biodiversity would be enhanced and a net gain secured, contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).

8.  An acceptable planning obligation for provision of the affordable housing (including wheelchair accessible units for social rent), payment of carbon offsetting contribution, provision and operation of car club (including car club space), early and late stage affordable housing viability reviews and payment of monitoring fee and legal costs has not been entered into. The application is thereby contrary to Policies DF1 of the London Plan (2021) and 125 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).