Issue - meetings

PRIOR APPROVAL GRANTED

Description of application – Change of use of Class B1(a) office to Class C3 Residential to form 73 residential units. (56 day application for prior approval in respect of transport and highways, contamination, flooding, noise impacts, natural light to habitable rooms under Class O Part 3 of the GPDO.)

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. The Speaker referred to a Court case that in his opinion indicated the issue was whether there was an intimate connection between the old Palace building and the Y buildings. He said the Y buildings were their own planning unit, had a different architectural style and were separated by a clear line of trees.  In response to a question from the Chairman, the speaker confirmed that there was a separate entrance to the Y blocks from a different part of the site and a separate car park which pointed to a physical separation.

The Head of Development Management clarified with respect to paragraph 7.3.1 in the report that the proposals did comply with internal space standards.

The report did not cover the other prior approval matters - these were transport and highways impact, contamination risks, flooding risks, impact of noise from commercial premises, and provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. These matters needed to be considered if Members accepted the curtilage point. He also reported that there had been late objections from local residents and the Bromley Civic Society and comments from Highways and Environmental Health.

The Sub-Committee’s Legal Advisor informed Members that the issue of whether a building was within a curtilage was a matter of fact and degree for the decision-maker, subject to the normal principles of public law, and the three key factors that had to be taken into account (as set out in the Challenge Fencing case) were physical layout, ownership (past and present) and use or function of the land or buildings, past or present. In response to a question, he advised that three counsel’s opinions had been sought, all of which advised that the Y blocks were within the curtilage of the old Palace.  The decision was one for Councillors to make, but they had to take a decision which was reasonable (as defined in the Wednesbury case.)

Councillor Suraj Sharma considered that the fact that there was a separate entrance to the Y blocks from Rafford Way was quite key – users would not use the main entrance, there was also a line of trees separating them from the old Palace, and there had been functional separation for many years. The architectural language of the Y blocks was very different to the old Palace, and he saw ownership as less relevant. He took the view that the Y buildings were outside of the curtilage of the old Palace.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop commented that this was a very difficult decision. He did not see the two entrances as meaning there were separate curtilages, but focussed on the degree of separation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37