Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Paul Lynch.

There were no declarations of interest.

Page 57, final paragraph and first two paragraphs on page 58

Councillor Russell Mellor was informed that the documents relating to the application in question had been sent to the Planning Inspectorate.  Councillor Mellor was advised that he should write to the Inspectorate personally with regard to his enquiries.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2011 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

To hear questions received in writing by the Legal, Democratic and Customer Services Department by 5pm on Wednesday 2 March 2011 and to respond.

No questions had been received.

In January 2011, the Local Development Framework Advisory Panel (LDFAP) endorsed the approach taken on the development of a Core Strategy Issues Document.  The LDFAP also requested that Development Control Committee consider the developing Bromley Borough area pen portraits and overall structure and approach of the document which would be issued for consultation purposes in preparation for the development of Bromley’s Core Strategy.  The Core Strategy would form the principal policy within the suite of documents constituting the Local Development Framework (LDF). 

The report contained draft outlines of the key elements proposed for the Core Strategy Issues Document; visions and objectives for the Borough; 13 of the 21 area pen portraits (a further 3 area pen portraits were e-mailed to Members and were also circulated separately before the meeting) and strategic issues and themes.  The remainder of the pen portraits would be available for Member comments at the next meeting of the Development Control Committee on 19 April.

Mr McQuillan, Chief Planner, gave a brief outline of the report and reminded Members that the document was not yet complete.  Member comments would be reported to a meeting of the LDFAP on 24 March (which has since been moved to a proposed new date of 4 May 2011).  Meanwhile, Members could forward any comments or amendments direct to Mr McQuillan by 24 March).  A final decision on the document would be taken by the Executive Committee at a meeting to be held on 25 May.

The area pen portraits were a direct result of three workshops held in 2009/2010 and although the depicted areas were not an exact mirror of existing Ward boundaries, they were detailed enough for Members to determine relevant issues within particular Wards.

Member views and suggested amendments for the three appendices are set out below.

Appendix 1 - Bromley in 2025

Community facilities (page 18) - Members were disappointed to note that reference to libraries had been omitted but were mindful of the current situation with regard to the intended closure of some Ward facilities.  It was agreed that libraries would be referred to where appropriate.

Built Heritage (page 19) - The first sentence was amended to read: ‘Our man-made heritage assets - areas of distinctive character, listed buildings, conservation areas and monuments - are protected and enhanced.  It was agreed that a further objective be added to read:- ‘Encourage a proactive approach to the improvement of heritage assets’.

Climate Change and environmental issues (page 19) - Councillor Fawthrop suggested that the objective ‘Ensure carbon reduction is a priority of any new development’, should be more specific.  Councillor Fawthrop also alluded to the fact that no mention had been made about the use of methane or other deadly greenhouse gases.  Mr McQuillan responded that the use of such gases would be covered by the first objective ‘Design and construct any new buildings to help reduce impacts of a changing climate’.

Transport (page 19) - Councillor Fawthrop stated that while it was good to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Members considered an update on the latest budget monitoring position for the Planning Division for 2010/11 based on expenditure and activity levels up to 31 December 2010.  It was noted that the latest projections indicated an underspend of £127,000. 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Members reviewed proposed changes to the pre-application advice service and the suggested increase of non-profit making fees charged for major developments consisting of 10 or more dwellings or developments of over 1000 sq m and 1 ha.  Charges for the service had remained static for the past three years.

Councillor Richard Scoates stated that the Planning Department should be self-sufficient.  He suggested the use of time sheets to provide evidence of the amount of office time spent on giving advice. 

The Chief Planner reported that time sheets had been used and that the proposed charges were a result of officer time spent giving advice together with the comparison with fees charged by other Boroughs.  He reminded Members that the service was optional but only a limited number of applications had been considered where advice had not previously been sought.

Councillor Fawthrop suggested (and Members agreed) that the proposed charges set out in paragraph 3.15 should be set higher at £1750 (including VAT) for 10-25 dwellings of 1000-2000m² and £4,000 (including VAT) for major developments of more than 25 dwellings/2000m². 

Councillor Mrs Manning emphasised the need for consistency and suggested that the total fee charged (including VAT) should be clearly stated at all times to avoid any misunderstanding.

Councillor Mellor suggested that fees be increased proportionate to the overall cost of individual developments.

RESOLVED that:

1)  the proposed charges set out in paragraph 3.15 of the report should be increased to £1750 (including VAT) for 10-25 dwellings of 1000-2000m² and £4,000 (including VAT) for major developments of more than 25 dwellings/2000m²; and

2)  the proposed increases at set out in 1) above be referred to the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation.

Members were requested to endorse the introduction of a charging structure for pre-application meetings in relation to non-major developments (i.e. minor and household proposals).  Prior to this, no fee had been levied for the provision of such advice.

The report outlined the suggested fees to be charged for specific types of developments and included a table of projected annual income.

The three categories for which a fee would be charged were:-

•  Householder proposals and small scale minor applications;

•  1-4 residential units; and

•  5-9 residential units.

For smaller scale minor applications, it was suggested that fees should reflect the scale of the proposals.

A review would be undertaken in six months to establish how effective the charging system had proved to be, and upon completion a further report would be submitted for consideration by Members.

Councillor Mrs Manning was concerned that some householders would not pay for the advice or were unaware of the need for advice, which could result in an inordinate amount of retrospective applications coming before Planning Committees.  The Chief Planner stated that should an application prove to be defective where no pre-application advice was sought, the Planning Department would not seek to remedy that application.  Brief pre-application advice would still be free to householders for non-complex issues but a charge would be levied for in-depth pre-application advice.  A section entitled 'Terms of Trade' would be placed on the Planning website for information purposes. 

Councillor Fawthrop suggested (and Members agreed), that the proposed fee for 5-9 residential units/up to 1000m² be increased to £875.  Councillor Mrs Manning emphasised the need for consistency and suggested that the total fee charged (including VAT) should be clearly stated at all times to avoid any misunderstanding.

RESOLVED that:

1)  the principle of charging for pre-application advice for non-major development proposals be agreed;

2)  the proposed fees (including VAT which must be clearly and consistently shown at all times), be agreed.  (See amended table of costs attached as Appendix 1); and

3)  a recommendation on the above proposals be made to the Portfolio Holder.

Changes to Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport, had resulted in the elimination of maximum residential parking standards.  Local authorities would become responsible for setting their own residential parking standards to reflect circumstances in different parts of the Borough.  A more flexible approach would need to be adopted for the provision of off-street parking for new residential developments and all planning applications would need to be considered on individual merit.

Councillor Fawthrop commented that he would like to see the policy defined as trying to minimise on-street parking with consideration given to the surrounding area.  For this purpose there should be a general principle policy.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  work be continued on gathering evidence to develop an appropriate set of residential parking standards to reflect circumstances in different parts of the Borough and that such standards are incorporated into the Local Development Framework in due course;

2)  a more flexible approach be adopted to the provision of off-street parking spaces in new residential developments and that planning applications are considered on their individual merits in the light of the particular circumstances of the locality; and

3)  parking provision for new developments should be consistent with the character of the area to minimise on-street parking and reduce impact where possible.

The Chairman to move that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

RESOLVED that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business referred to in the following Minutes as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

The following summaries

refer to matters involving

exempt information

Members considered a proposal put forward by the developer of the former Blue Circle Site in Bromley in relation to a joint use education payment 106 contribution.

RESOLVED that the report be deferred to negotiate an increase in the level of payment.

Members considered an information report outlining the details of a legal challenge issued in the High Court against the decision made by the Secretary of State in respect of applications for Crystal Palace Park.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.