Issue - meetings

Beckenham Town and Copers Cope Ward.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16