Issue - meetings

Description of application – Residential development comprising 15 four storey townhouses and 52 apartments in three and four storey blocks to provide a total of 67 residential units together with concierges office and basement car parking (OUTLINE APPLICATION).

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr John Escott, who reported the following:-

Designation of this site was downgraded to Urban Open Space in 2006 and the land currently served no particular function within the area.

The proposed scheme comprised 67 units, a sizeable reduction in comparison with the previously refused application of 105 units which was considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.  This was a high quality development which would have no impact on neighbouring properties.  No objections had been received from the Highways Division and there were now no active badger setts on site.  Mr Escott confirmed that an appeal regarding the previous application would be withdrawn should Members be minded to approve the scheme.

In response to Member questions, Mr Escott iterated that in regard to the Urban Open Space designation, the land had seen no specific use as urban open space for the past 15 years.

Councillor Scoates questioned the logic behind the applicant’s willingness to withdraw the application appeal for 105 units in favour of a scheme which provided just 67 units.  In response, Mr Escott explained that the present scheme would provide more houses and less apartments creating a pleasant mix of accommodation.  He confirmed the scheme was viable.

Councillor Fawthrop sought confirmation that should this scheme be approved, no further applications would be submitted.  Mr Escott advised that as this was an outline application, it was inevitable that further permutations of the present application may need to be submitted.

The following oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Geoff Brocklehurst:-

Neighbours of the site in question had raised concerns.  Urban Open Space was incredibly important to them as it protected residential properties from the spread of development.  Following refusal of a previous application, Mr Brocklehurst had spoken with Planning Officers who had confirmed there was no compelling evidence to show that the site was required to meet Bromley’s housing needs.  The evidence had not changed since and the application should, therefore, be refused.  Approval would leave the Council open to judicial review.

The Planning Officer had circulated an update informing Members that following publication of the report, additional representations in support of the application had been received.  In addition, the applicant had supplied an updated ecology report which concluded it was likely that badgers no longer used this site.  Further survey work was recommended prior to the commencement of clearance work to establish which species were using the site at the time. 

If the application was acceptable in all other respects, the further survey work recommended could be secured by condition.

Having regard to the above matters and the conclusion of the report, the Officer recommendation remained as set out in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6