Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Douglas Auld and Kevin Brooks; Councillors Nicholas Bennett JP and Angela Wilkins attended as their respective substitutes.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2017 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 5pm on Thursday 28 September 2017.

Four oral and three written questions were received from members of the public.  A copy of these, together with the Chairman’s responses are attached as Appendices A and B.

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, 69 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 (amended submission of application DC/16/03315/FULL1).

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Matthew Blythin, DHA Planning and Mr Simon Moon, DHA Transport.

Mr Moon reported that the first application for Bullers Wood School for Boys was refused due to concerns over increased traffic  movements and the effects these may have on road and pedestrian safety.  Those concerns were addressed in the current application with a new proposed footway outside the school, a crossing point on Chislehurst Road, further drop-off spaces within the site and a full review of the school’s start and finish times.  An independent Road Safety Audit had accepted the proposals and although it was agreed with the Council, its findings had been misrepresented within the Committee report.  There were no outstanding highways safety concerns associated with the proposals.

The current application was subsequently made in good faith on the strength of constructive and positive pre-application discussions with officers and the previous reason for refusal had been addressed.  However, the agents raised significant concerns with the report submitted to Members, despite late changes being made to rectify them.  As a starting point, Members should recognise the very clear policy approach which should be adopted.  Consideration should also be given to the presumption in favour of school development, the fact that refusal would be deemed unreasonable conduct unless supported by clear and cogent evidence and the fact that proposals should only be refused where demonstrable negative impact substantially outweighed the need.  As all available evidence showed and as confirmed by the Council and the GLA, there is a significant need.  Any perceived negative impact must therefore, substantially outweigh the meeting of the significant need which itself must be given great weight.  The bar, therefore, could not be set any higher yet the report contained a suggested reason for refusal which did not fairly reflect the available evidence, nor did it conclude that the impacts were severe.  If officers were not convinced, how can it possibly be used as a basis for stating that the very clear benefits were substantially outweighed?

Whilst the Council’s independently commissioned peer review concluded that local impacts were low and could be acceptable to the Local Authority, the report did not fairly reflect or acknowledge those findings.  More alarmingly, the report referred to safety issues raised by the Road Safety Audit without fairly confirming that the independent audit concluded there were no outstanding safety concerns.  Despite raising this with officers, this point had not been rectified by any amendments to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report DRR17/050

Members were advised of the action taken under delegated authority for breaches of planning control during the period April to June 2017.

Councillor Mellor offered his congratulations to Jim Kehoe, Chief Planner and to John Stephenson, Planning Investigation Officer, for dealing with several serious vexatious issues within his Ward.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Report DRR17/049

Members were requested to agree Bromley’s proposed responses to consultations undertaken by the London Borough of Croydon and Sevenoaks District Council having regard to Bromley’s Local Plan requirements, as part of the Duty to Co-operate.  Croydon’s consultation related to Main Modifications which arose as a result of examination of its Strategic Policies (Partial Review) Submission Version and to the Detailed Policies and Proposals (2017).  Sevenoaks District Council had consulted on its Issues and Options (2017), an early stage in the preparation of its own Local Plan.

The Localism Act 2011 introduced the Duty to Co-operate on local planning authorities to engage constructively and on an ongoing basis on cross boundary matters.

The Chairman reported his only area of concern was that Croydon had not allocated sufficient land for educational use however, this concern had been drawn to Croydon’s attention by way of the Council’s response.  All other responses were to the Chairman’s satisfaction.

Councillor Allen referred to item 14 on page 100 of the report where housebuilding was mentioned and reminded Members that one of Bromley’s responses to the housing targets in London was to assume that other boroughs would make provision.  It appeared, therefore, that all Councils were making the same assumptions.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the suggested response to the London Borough of Croydon’s Local Plan Main Modifications consultation be agreed; and

2)  the suggested response to Sevenoaks District Council’s Local Plan Issues and Options consultation be agreed.

Report DRR17/048

Members considered the amended Local Development Scheme (LDS) for 2017-19 which set out the revised timescale for the preparation of Bromley’s Local Plan.  As outlined in the report, current legislation for the LDS required the Council to include only those development plan documents (DPD) which were subject to independent examination.  For Bromley this included the borough-wide Local Plan, submitted in August 2017 to the Secretary of State for examination and the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan to be reviewed following the Council’s adoption of the Local Plan.  The LDS also showed an indicative timescale for the preparation of a local Community Infrastructure Levy and a new Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

The Chairman confirmed that Bromley’s Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State in August 2017 with adoption potentially taking place in June 2018.  A Review of the Bromley Area Action Plan would be commenced in June/July 2018.  The next big policy project involved the Bromley Community Infrastructure Levy with documents being prepared for consultation by January 2018.  Documentation on planning obligations and affordable housing were due to go out in the first quarter of 2018. 

Councillor Fawthrop asked if Appendix 1 to Policy H10 (relating to Areas of Special Residential Character) was included in the saved policies of the 2006 UDP and if so, where was it in the draft Local Plan.  The Chief Planner confirmed that a cross-reference to Appendix 1 was mentioned in the 2006 UDP.  The Head of Strategy and Planning Projects confirmed that Guidelines for ASRCs were set out on page 312 of the Local Plan.

Councillor Joel asked about the timescale for finalising and implementing the draft Local Plan and was informed that it had been submitted to the Inspector.

RESOLVED that Members of the Executive be recommended to approve the revised Local Development Scheme for 2017-2019 as the formal management document for the production of the Bromley Local Plan and the review of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan.

Report CSD17145

Following the appointment of a new Leader of the Council, the majority group announced proposed changes to Committee memberships including the appointment of Councillor Russell Mellor to this Committee. 

Changes to various Sub-Committees were also announced including the appointment of Councillors Russell Mellor and Keith Onslow to serve as replacements for Councillors Colin Smith and Samaris Huntington-Thresher on the Plans 3 Sub-Committee.

The Chairman moved that the proposed changes to Members of the Plans 3 Sub-Committee be approved.  This motion was seconded by Councillor Bosshard.

RESOLVED that Councillors Russell Mellor and Keith Onslow replace Councillors Colin Smith and Samaris Huntington-Thresher as Members of the Plans 3 Sub-Committee.