Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Eric Bosshard; Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP attended as substitute.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2016 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5 pm on Thursday 19 January 2017.

No oral questions were received.

Three written questions were submitted by Mr Clive Lees, Chairman, Ravensbourne Valley Preservation Society.  These questions, together with the Chairman’s responses were as follows:-

Question 1

In respect of 14 Highland Road BR1 about which a planning enforcement complaint was made on 26 January 2015 and a question asked of this committee on 9^th February 2016, we note that absolutely nothing has changed on the ground. What action is the Council proposing to take to ensure this development is completed according to the approved plan and  Conditions?

Chairman’s Response

As a result of the enforcement process  an application has been submitted to the Council under ref, DC/16/03890/MATAMD. This current application is pending consideration and is with Stephanie Gardiner, Planning Officer. Once a decision has been made either no further action will be required if approved or it will revert back to the enforcement team to pursue any further necessary enforcement action.

Question 2

In respect of 20 Blyth Road (fronting Bracken Hill Lane) where a retrospective application was Dismissed at Appeal, what action is the Council taking to enforce reinstatement of the wall (ie stopping up of the unpermitted  access)?

Chairman’s Response

The Council has contacted the owners of the property with a view to issuing an enforcement notice against the unauthorised development EN/14/00163/OPDEV.  We expect that the enforcement notice will be issued within the next 2 weeks.

Question 3

With regard to driveways being installed, what action is the Council taking to ensure that local companies install them with the proper drainage where required? (RVPS is aware of a number in the Shortlands area which do not comply with regulations and there seems to be an endemic casual disregard for requirements.)

Chairman’s Response

In order to investigate this matter it would be helpful if you could provide the addresses of the properties to the Council and this matter can be looked into further. Driveways being installed can fall within permitted development so long as it meets the permitted development criteria, this information is available online and there is clear guidance which companies who install them will need to consider. However if there are properties which install driveways that do not meet this then the Council may consider taking all necessary action to remedy the breach of planning control.  The responsibility lies with the owners of the property.

Description of application – Outline application for the erection of 2 buildings of two to three storeys comprising 13,508 square metres (Gross External Area) of Class D1 floorspace to provide an 8 form entry plus 6^th form school (up to 1,680 pupils) and sports hall, 17,200 square metres for playing fields, 2,190 square metres Multi Use Games Area with community use and associated development including car parking spaces, cycle parking spaces, floodlighting, new pedestrian and vehicular accesses, servicing and storage.  (AMENDED PLANS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION).

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Stuart Argent on behalf of the Balmoral Residents’ Group.

Mr Argent reported that for many years, the site had been used for leisure activities and was a refuge for thriving wildlife.  The applicant had made no effort to contact residents directly on a one-to-one basis especially those whose properties bordered or faced the site.  This showed considerable lack of respect for residents’ views and concerns.  The site and surrounding infrastructure was not able to cope with a development of this size. Residents’ concerns included:-

-  unacceptable disruption and noise generated by the development;

-  noise, congestion and litter generated as a result of 600 pupils walking past residents’ properties;

-  additional noise and disruption relating to the evening and weekend community use;

-  the main traffic congestion route was 2mtrs from residents’ properties resulting in overlooking and loss of privacy;

-  properties in neighbouring roads would also be overlooked by the development and be exposed to noise and light pollution particularly with the extended use of the multi-use games areas which should be time restricted, especially at evenings and weekends;

-  Balmoral Avenue was a small quiet, narrow residential road on which residents parked their vehicles; this reduced the width of the road to a single carriageway.  It was further compounded by the use of large vehicles such as delivery lorries and refuge collections which blocked the road.

-  increased noise, vibration and pollution from buses, coaches and delivery lorries servicing the school.  This would be particularly evident to property No. 45 where the only access road was situated just metres from its boundary.

-  the number of pupils and staff arriving by car would lead to Balmoral Avenue being subject to an additional 300 vehicles twice per day.

-  the drop-off point on site would cause further congestion in local roads, especially in Upper Elmers Road and Eden Park Avenue.

-  the development would add severe congestion to Balmoral Avenue and would bring the road and both main arteries to Eden Park Avenue and Upper Elmers End Road to gridlock which would have a knock-on effect to Croydon Road, Elmer’s End Green and Goddard Road. 

-  as a result of a public consultation exercise, the Committee voted to remove the allocation of secondary education at the site and agreed that it be removed from the draft Local Plan as a site for educational use.

-  as the site was designated Urban Open  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Description of application – Proposed erection of a 6FE Secondary Boys School comprising a part 2 storey, part 3 storey school building of 8,443m² including a sports hall (also for wider community use) together with hard and soft landscaping, creation of a new vehicular access on Chislehurst Road, 68 parking spaces, drop off/pick up area and associated works.  Erection of a temporary 2 storey classroom block on site for 12 months to accommodate 5 classrooms, a laboratory, offices and toilets.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Matthew Blythin, DHA Planning and Mrs Anne Gouldthorpe, Head Teacher Designate, Bullers Wood School for Girls.

Mrs Gouldthorpe emphasised that the decision made by Members was vitally important for schoolboys in the Borough.  As with Bullers Wood School for Girls, the aim was to create similar opportunities for boys.  Educational success and safety was at the heart of this proposal.  There was vital need for secondary places across Bromley.  An extra 1012 places were required by 2022 and the establishment of a boys school would help meet this demand.  More than 900 letters sent to the Council supported the proposal.  Efforts were being made to resolve highways issues.

Mr Blythin reported that the proposed site was already in school use.  The Council continued to propose and rely upon the site as a new school in its draft Local Plan.  A concern had been raised over the pedestrian crossing on Chislehurst Road however, the primary pedestrian entrance was on Bickley Road where a new puffin crossing would be provided.  Although the Chislehurst Road arrangement had been safety audited and found to be safe, the school was willing to increase the footway in Chislehurst Road if Members considered it necessary.  The Travel Plan was ready to implement from day one to manage traffic in the following ways:-  a) staff would oversee school entrances and exits and marshal the areas to avoid on-street drop-off along Chislehurst Road; b) deliveries would only be permitted outside peak hours;  c) someone would be on duty to manage parking during community use; and d) the school’s early start and finish times would ensure avoidance of traffic during peak hours.  In addressing highways issues, the team had sought to balance adequate provision whilst discouraging drop-offs and retaining trees to provide screening.  The team had explored different access options in detail.  The proposed route spread vehicles across two roads creating a safe pedestrian access and reflected the Council’s own Policy T11 on new access points.  Options for Bickley Road were explored but would cause greater disruption to this busy road and a suitable access could not secure the necessary agreement from TfL to move existing bus stops to the locations required.  Highway capacity and traffic impact were also raised and here local context was key.  If school places were not provided here, pupils would need to travel by car elsewhere adding traffic to local roads.  The need for school places would not go away; refusing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

This report was withdrawn by the Chief Planner following the withdrawal of the application by the applicant.

Report DRR17/010

Members considered a proposed Addendum to the Planning Obligations SPD to ensure that payments in lieu of on-site provision for carbon offsetting purposes were made in conformity with the LB Bromley and London Plan and national policies and guidance on carbon reduction for new major developments.

It was proposed that the Council use the Mayor’s established carbon offset price of £60 per tonne of carbon dioxide for a period of 30 years.

The Chairman explained that developers were required to limit the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere when building.  As this limit had recently been increased, it was necessary for the guidance to be amended to incorporate the change.  If developers were not able to achieve the limit required, a Section 106 Agreement could be initiated (or eventually a CIL) to rectify the situation.  The Chairman moved that the recommendation be agreed.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion.

Councillor Joel was informed by the Chief Planner that the charge applied to all major developments (9 or more housing units). 

The Chief Planner also confirmed the fee was charged on a London-wide basis and a lump sum payment would be required on commencement of development.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the Addendum to the Planning Obligations SPD be approved with immediate effect, for the purposes of meeting local and regional policies and guidance on carbon offsetting, in particular payments in lieu.

2)  the carbon offset price of £60 per tonne of carbon dioxide for a period of 30 years be approved.