Issue - meetings

(Hayes and Coney Hall Ward)

Description of application – Change of use of the existing bowls pavilion to D1 (non-residential institution use), and erection of a 3 storey building plus basement to provide a 60 bed care home (Use Class C2), with associated outdoor and indoor amenities, parking spaces and landscaping.

Oral representations from the applicant in support of the application included the following statements:-

·  A successful development would create 67 new jobs.

·  There was an acute need for care home facilities within a five mile radius and a demand for 1000 beds within the area.

·  The pavilion building would be occupied by a local charity.

·  Marketing of such a property on the basis of the existing sport use was extremely limited and no interest was shown.

·  In regard to access, the applicant would be willing to provide a footpath link.

Oral representations from the owner of a nearby property in objection to the application raised the following issues:-

·  The site was designated as Urban Open Space (UOS) and should remain as such.

·  The existing car park was used by visitors to nearby residential properties.

·  The development would be out of keeping with the surrounding properties, resulting in a loss of privacy and intrusion on residents’ living conditions.

·  The increase in traffic caused by staff vehicles and deliveries would produce excessive exhaust fumes and considerable noise disturbance.

In response to Member questions, the objector confirmed that the lease for residents of Burton Pynsent House contained the right to use part of the proposed site for visitor parking.

Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor Neil Reddin in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  While he agreed there was a need to provide more care homes in the Borough, as the site was designated UOS, it was not suitable for such a development.  The application documents referred to the derelict nature of the site.  However, this did not mean it could be built on.  The footprint of the development was two-thirds larger than nearby Burton Pynsent House.  Ward Members had stipulated they had no objections with CASPA.  The proposal would result in an increase in traffic spread over a longer period of the day. 

For the reasons outlined above, Councillor Reddin supported refusal of the application.

The Head of Development Management summarised the report in a brief presentation to Committee and outlined both the advantages of the application and the reasons for the recommendation of refusal.  A document of site photographs and key drawings from the application was circulated to Members.

The Committee was also advised that following publication of the report, Officers had been copied into correspondence between the applicant and the Council’s Education, Care and Health Services team which indicated that the terms on which the 10 bed spaces offered for Bromley residents may be revised.  This did not affect the overall conclusions of the report or the recommendation. 

Further comments had been received from Sport England following confirmation that the bowls club and cricket club operated as separate units.  While their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24