Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2011 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

To hear questions received in writing by Democratic Services Team by 5 pm on Friday 24 June 2011 and to respond.

No questions were received.

The Committee considered the Chief Planner’s report on the following planning application:

Oral representations in objection to the application were made at the meeting by Mr Paul Norris on behalf of the Sundridge Park Golf Course.  Mr Norris sought clarification on conditions 26 and 27 (page 27 of the report) which, he believed, were effectively Grampian-style conditions as enforcement depended upon the developer reaching agreement with the Golf Club.

Mr Norris submitted that the reference to 'access' in condition 27 must have been be a reference to the access road leading from Plaistow Lane to the development site. No part of the access road was owned by the developers. Highway Officers had objected in the past to the absence of lighting along the access road and accordingly there was a need for the condition to be clarified in this respect to make it enforceable. 

Mr Norris also submitted that Condition 27 should be amended to require details of lighting to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development, not prior to first occupation.

With regard to Condition 26, Mr Norris assumed that reference to the Construction Management Plan referred to the Construction Traffic Management Plan dated July 2010 prepared by the Denis Wilson Partnership and submitted by the developer in support of the present application. The Plan contained 17 paragraphs under the heading ‘Control of Construction Traffic within the Sundridge Park Estate’. The Plan described how the traffic flow along the estate road was to be tightly controlled.  Mr Norris submitted that the developer had no right to control the traffic using the estate road; it simply had the right to pass and repass along the road. The Plan needed to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development, and not prior to first occupation.

Mr Norris requested that a further condition in relation to the use of the Leisure Centre be incorporated restricting its use solely to residents.

Following his presentation and in response to Members' questions, it was confirmed that Sundridge Park Golf Club had previously granted a licence to the Management Centre for the use of the land.  The existence of previously established parking bays made it almost impossible for two cars to pass each other. 

The Chief Planner explained that a grampian style condition required the completion of one action before the implementation of another.

Oral representations in support of the application were made at the meeting by Ms Mary Power on behalf of the applicant along the following lines:-

• The revised residential scheme incorporated the highest design quality and detail which was not significantly different from the previous design.

• The previous permitted scheme was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Planning Inspectorate had examined The Draft Replacement London Plan (DRLP) 2009 and concluded that the DRLP provided a sound basis for the planning of Greater London over the next 20 years.  The Council had responded to the original revised London Plan consultation and had submitted written statements for the Examination in Public.  Members considered those recommendations together with the subsequent responses/recommendations made by the EiP Panel to the Mayor of London.

Councillor Fawthrop was pleased to note that the EiP Panel had clarified the inclusion of Biggin Hill in the table of 'Strategic function(s) of greater than sub-regional importance' as "the reference to Biggin Hill does not trespass into aviation policy".

Referring to the section on Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) EiP Draft  - Table 3.2 Density Matrix (page 35 of the report), Councillor Fawthrop was disappointed to see that no change had been made to the density target of 35 units per ha and suggested that the Council continue to pursue its objection.  In response, the Chief Planner commented that no further contribution could be made by the Council as the Inspector's report was currently with the Secretary of State pending his consideration.  The Chief Planner did however, consider the EiP Panels' recommendation that the word 'maximising' be replaced with 'optimising' as a relatively positive response.

Councillor Michael was disappointed to note that Bromley Town Centre would not be designated an 'opportunity area' (paragraph 3.4, page 33 of the report).

Referring to 'presumptions against development on back gardens' (paragraph 3.7, page 34 of the report), Councillor Buttinger commented on the need for tighter control.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Following consultation on the preliminary draft Community Infrastructure Levy (8 February 2011 - Minute 83), the Mayor of London’s Charging Schedule had been published for consultation with comments to be received by 8 July 2011.  Members were requested to endorse the suggested responses and to formally request to be heard at the examination by an Inspector.

The Chief Planner informed Members that the Mayor had not made any changes in response to the Council's objections to the proposed charge for Bromley.

Councillor Mellor thought it unfortunate that Bromley had and would not benefit from Crossrail.  He objected to the fact that at the time permission was granted, Crossrail had been fully funded but now London Authorities were being asked to provide a further £300m. 

In response to a request by Councillor Mellor for clarification that the Mayor would make £50m available to authorities for funding other projects, the Chief Planner replied that currently the sole purpose of the CIL was to fund Crossrail.

The Chief Planner informed Members that a response to the second tranche of the consultation had not yet been compiled and he sought Members' approval to repeat the Council's previous objections.  He also sought authorisation to formally submit a request to enable him to make oral objections in person at the examination by an Inspector.

Councillor Fawthrop proposed (and Members agreed), that the Council continue to make known its strong opposition to the format of the CIL.

Councillor Michael agreed with the proposal to continue to lobby the Mayor, stating that Bromley was being unfairly penalised as Crossrail would not come anywhere near the Borough.  Councillor Michael stated that the Mayor should be called upon to look at the charges in proportion to boroughs which would benefit from Crossrail and those which would not.

It was proposed (and Members agreed), that a Freedom of Information request be submitted to obtain the statistical analysis used by the Mayor to set the proposed charges.

Provision would be made by the Mayor for the Council to retain 4% of contributions to assist with costs associated with collecting the charge and employing extra staff when necessary.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  the suggested responses in continued objection to the Mayor's stance on the proposed charging levy be endorsed;

2.  the Chief Planner submit a request that he make oral objections in person at the examination by an Inspector; and

3.  a Freedom of Information request be submitted to obtain the statistical analysis used to justify the Mayor’s quoted benefits.

Members considered the key features of the Government’s Gypsy & Traveller Policy outlined in the Localism Bill as they relate to the draft Planning Policy Statement.  Members also considered the Council’s suggested detailed response to the consultation questions set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

Councillor Scoates welcomed the proposal and referred to action carried out in a  recent case within his Ward where the Planning Inspectorate had given weight to the PPS during the hearing.  Councillor Scoates was hopeful that the policy would deter gypsies from coming to the area in future.

Councillor Ince also welcomed the proposal and commended Enforcement Officers for the great work and swift action taken by them when dealing with gypsies who had arrived overnight.

It was reported that the consultation period had been extended by a further four weeks (ending on 6 August) in order for an oral hearing to be implemented as part of the consultation process. The Chief Planner sought Members' authorisation to attend such a hearing.

The Chairman moved that authorisation be given for the Chief Planner to attend any hearing to convey the Council's views.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  the report be noted;

2.  the proposed responses set out in Appendix 1 of the report be endorsed; and

3.  the Chief Planner be authorised to attend an oral hearing to convey the Council's views.

As requested by the Improvement and Efficiency Sub-Committee at its meeting held on 20 April 2011 (Minute 45), Members considered the inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy generation measures in future developments across the Borough as part of the Local Development Framework. 

The Chief Planner confirmed that work had already been undertaken to promote the measures outlined in the report.

RESOLVED that the report and the work undertaken as part of the development of the Local Development Framework to promote the inclusion of energy efficiency and renewable energy generation measures in future developments across the Borough be noted.

Members considered an information report on the present position of Section 106 Agreements together with an update on the progress made in implementing the S106 PDS Working Group’s recommendations. 

It was reported that after five years, a developer could apply for a S106 agreement to be lifted.

Councillor Mellor commented that S106 agreements had recently increased in profile.  He stated that a firmer line should be taken in cases where planning  permission had been granted subject to such an agreement but at a later date, the developer seeks a variation to it because the scheme was no longer viable.

The Chief Planner commented that the updating reports on S106 agreements were also submitted to the Executive and Resources Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee.  Each report covered a period of 7 years and would, therefore, include information on S106 agreements which had or were due to expire.

RESOLVED that the report and the contents of Appendices 1-5 be noted.

At a Development Control Committee meeting heId on 13 January 2011 (Minute 70), Members agreed a 9-month strategy to review and replace current planning leaflets and fact sheets.

Following an update on 19 April 2011 (Min 107), Members considered a further information report on the progress achieved so far.

It was reported that 15 of the draft planning leaflets for on-line viewing had been prepared; the remainder would be completed and available to view by September 2011.

RESOLVED that progress be noted.

Members considered the reappointment of the Biggin Hill Heritage Centre Working Party and its membership for 2011/12.

The Chairman moved that Councillors Mrs Anne Manning, Julian Benington and Richard Scoates be appointed as Members of the Biggin Hill Heritage Centre Working Party.  Councillor Jackson seconded the motion.

RESOLVED that the Biggin Hill Heritage Centre Working Party be appointed for the 2011/12 Municipal Year and that the membership comprises Councillors Mrs Anne Manning, Julian Benington and Richard Scoates.