Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Melanie Stevens.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Melanie Stevens.

There were no additional declarations of interest.

Councillor Colin Hitchins declared that his partner was the Conservative candidate for the Beckenham and Penge Parliamentary Constituency and had provided representations to Item 5: (23/00178/FULL1) Blenheim Shopping Centre, High Street, Penge.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, members of the public may submit one question each on matters relating to the work of the Committee. Questions must have been received in writing 10 working days before the date of the meeting - by 5.00pm on Tuesday 20 February 2024. 

Questions seeking clarification of the details of a report on the agenda may be accepted within two working days of the normal publication date of the agenda – by 5.00pm on Wednesday 28 February 2023. 

No questions were received.

No questions were received.

APPROVED.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2023 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

PERMISSION, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London.

Description of Application: Phased development including demolition of existing buildings and erection of four blocks to facilitate a mixed-use development providing up to 230 dwellings, up to 2,714sqm of commercial/town centre floorspace and associated communal amenity space and play space, cycle parking, refuse storage and plant space in four buildings ranging between 3 and 16 storeys. Provision of public realm and new pocket park at ground floor with associated landscaping improvements. Provision of 24 commercial car parking spaces and 8 blue badge spaces for the residential accommodation.

The Planning Officer gave a brief presentation, providing an overview of the application and update on the report.

Oral representations objecting to the application were received from the Chair of the Penge Forum who gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

·  At 16-storeys, the proposed development was too tall in an area where buildings did not typically rise above 3-storeys and would overshadow a large number of local residential dwellings.  Penge residents would prefer a development scheme that allowed the retail environment to thrive and did not increase density in an area which already had the highest density housing in the Borough.  Local people also wanted at least 50% affordable housing and a higher proportion of Social Rented than Shared Ownership units offered in any development which was not the case with this scheme.

·  Local traders were concerned about the reduction of retail space which almost halved the available retail space in the Penge SE20 Business Improvement District (BID).  It was also considered likely that the trade of destination shops in the area would be affected by the reduction in commercial car parking spaces.  The existing car park at the Blenheim Shopping Centre was fairly well used and usage was certainly in excess of the 24 commercial car parking spaces provided by the development. 

·  The Penge Forum had recently held a public meeting to discuss the difficulties in accessing medical care in Penge and Cator Ward.  The Penge Forum estimated that, allowing for a couple in one bedroom per unit and one person in other bedrooms, the proposed development could bring approximately 602 new residents into the area which would increase pressure on existing General Practitioner and dental services.  School capacity was also an issue with no secondary school for boys in the local area.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the Agent who gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

·  The developer was committed to delivering 35% affordable homes with its partner, Clarion Housing Association, which was a policy compliant proportion on a per-room basis and would provide 37 Social Rented and 36 Shared Ownership units.  Social Rented homes required significant additional subsidy to be viable and the developer would continue discussions with the Greater London Authority regarding the feasibility of increasing the proportion of affordable housing.  A policy compliant level of cycle spaces had been included and the scheme would also deliver a 10% provision of wheelchair accessible dwellings and 3% provision of wheelchair accessible parking totalling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

RESOLVED: That the proposals set out in Paragraphs 3.1-3.8 of Report CSD24037 and the related changes in the appended Local Planning Protocol and Scheme of Delegation be approved and that Council be recommended to approve them.

Report CSD24037

The Committee considered a report setting out changes proposed as part of a new annual review of the Local Planning Protocol and the Scheme of Delegation to Officers related to the Development Control Committee.

In addition to the changes set out in the report, the Chairman proposed that Paragraph 1A.2 of the Local Planning Protocol be amended as set out below and this was supported by the Committee:

“Substitute Members at planning committee meetings should be impartial and

no more than two Members sitting on a committee should be representing any

particular ward at any time. This does not include visiting Members who cannot vote.  For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that a Member has called in an application to committee which appears on the agenda of a planning committee meeting shall not by itself preclude such a Member from serving as a substitute Member of that planning committee meeting or from fully participating in the meeting on the same terms as ordinary Members of that Committee.”

A Member suggested that Section 9 of the Local Planning Protocol also be amended to state that due weight should be given to Members’ local knowledge, and this was supported by the Committee.  Another Member queried the proposal to limit the representations of Visiting Councillors to a three-minute time period in line with the time allocated to members of the public.  Following discussion, the Committee supported the introduction of a five-minute time period for Visiting Councillors and agreed that the Committee should have the opportunity to ask questions of Visiting Councillors.

In considering the proposed changes to the Scheme of Delegation, the Assistant Director: Planning advised that a Member had submitted alternate wording for Section 16.5(b)(i) but that it was not recommended to accept this as it did not include every change requested by Members and the Committee supported this approach.  Another Member asked that the readability of Section 16.5(b)(i) be reviewed to ensure it was accessible and this would be taken forward after the meeting with all proposed changes to be provided to the Committee via e-mail circulation.

RESOLVED: That:

1)  The proposals set out in Paragraphs 3.1-3.8 of Report CSD24037 and the related changes in the appended Local Planning Protocol, Scheme of Delegation, Addendum and further changes as set out above be approved; and,

2)  Council be recommended to approve the proposed changes to the Local Planning Protocol and Scheme of Delegation.  

RESOLVED: That Councillor Josh Coldspring-White be appointed to the memberships of Plans Sub-Committee No. 2 and No. 4.

Report CSD24020

The Committee considered a report requesting that Councillor Josh Coldspring-White be appointed to Conservative Group vacancies on the memberships of Plans Sub-Committee No. 2 and No. 4.

In response to a question from a Member, the Chairman advised that from the start of the 2024/25 municipal year, the number of Plans Sub-Committees would be reduced from four to two with meetings of these committees held alternately on a monthly basis.  This reflected the reduction in the number of planning applications presented to Plans Sub-Committees in recent years.  The Planning Advisory Service had also commented that there were too many planning committees and that the Council should consider reducing them.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Josh Coldspring-White be appointed to the memberships of Plans Sub-Committee No. 2 and No. 4.

NOTED.

The Committee considered the performance of the Planning Service against various Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as at December 2023.

RESOLVED: That the update be noted.