Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Peter Fookes; Councillor John Getgood attended as Councillor Fookes’ alternate.

Councillors Mrs Anne Manning, John Ince, Katy Boughey, Richard Scoates and Peter Dean all declared an interest in Item 5 as they had accepted hospitality from Kent County Cricket Club (KCCC).  Councillor Mrs Manning's husband was a non-voting member of KCCC and Councillor Ince was a former non-voting member.

Councillor Kate Lymer had submitted an apology for absence for the meeting held on 29 September 2011; this had not been recorded.

Subject to the amendment above, Members RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2011 and the Minutes of the special meeting held on 29 September 2011 be confirmed and signed as a true 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 Friday 11 November 2011.

The following questions were submitted in writing by Mr Peter Whiteland in relation to Item 5 of the agenda - planning application for Kent County Cricket Club:-

1)  Would a dangerous precedent not be set for further development on Metropolitan Open land in the Borough if planning permission is granted to this application on the grounds of tenuous “very special circumstances”, given that the planning report identifies four fundamental areas in which the application doesn’t meet planning legislation?

2)  Given that one argument of the “very special circumstances” case is that the site is currently loss making, would it be appropriate for public planning legislation to be overridden so that two private companies (KCCC and Leander Sports and Leisure Ltd) can generate profits by building on Metropolitan Open Land?

3)  Another argument of the “very special circumstances” case is continued sporting use.  However, does the Committee agree that the application will lead to less sport being played at the ground with the loss of 6 football pitches (including 2 on the “unused” area of land) and 1 cricket pitch?”

In response, the Chairman stated that all three questions related to material planning considerations which the Committee would have regard to before determining the application.

Mr Whiteland did not attend the meeting and would, therefore, receive a written response.

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

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr John Cossa, resident of Worsley Bridge Road who spoke on behalf of a local protest group.

Mr Cossa referred to Policy G2 of the Unitary Development Plan in relation to development of Metropolitan Open Land and to paragraph 3D.10 of the London Plan.  Taking these paragraphs into account, Mr Cossa believed there were no special circumstances for the ground to be changed from sport and recreational to housing use.

Mr Cossa then referred to the Supplementary Design and Access Statement and commented on the proposed scheme in general.  He ended his representations by outlining the reasons why he thought the application should be refused.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Andrew Braddon, Chairman of Leander Holdings Ltd.  Mr Jamie Clifford, Chief Executive of Kent County Cricket Club (KCCC) was also in attendance.

Councillor John Ince asked whether the applicant would be prepared to reduce the amount of new build by amalgamating two buildings into one.  Mr Braddon replied that having analysed four projects over the last two years, the application before Members was the minimum amount of build required to make the project sustainable in the forthcoming years.

Mr Braddon informed Members that 26.5% of the land would be used for the proposed application, of which 10.6% would be residential build.  The figure of 26.5% included all sports buildings, houses, gardens and highways.

In response to a question from Councillor Simon Fawthrop, Mr Clifford agreed that profit made from the sale of the residential units would enable the club to become sustainable. 

Mr Clifford stated that with the new scheme in place, the indoor facilities would attract an increase in participation and although the cricket programme changed year on year, he envisaged an increase in the amount of first class cricket played in the Borough.

Mr Clifford confirmed that four football pitches would be lost if the application was granted.

In response to a question from Councillor Mrs Manning in relation to the lack of affordable housing, Mr Braddon confirmed that, as agreed by the Council's auditors, no offer in lieu of affordable housing would be made.

Councillor Russell Jackson asked Mr Clifford how he proposed to balance membership levels with the rising costs associated with county cricket.  In response, Mr Clifford stated that the club would be playing a certain number of games and that infrastructure costs on a day to day basis were high.  However, players were on short-term contracts and due to the current economic climate, player salaries were decreasing. 

Mr Braddon informed Members that funding in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

At a meeting held on 27 September 2011, the Adult and Community PDS Committee (A&C PDS Committee) and Portfolio Holder considered the current housing market supply and need position within Bromley and the proposed initiatives and direction undertaken to address the disparity between that need and supply which had resulted in an increased use and cost of temporary accommodation and associated budgetary pressures.

As part of its recommendation, the A&C PDS Committee resolved that the report be referred to the Development Control Committee meeting for members to note matters raised within the report and to consider what action the Council could take to assist when developing and applying its planning policies.

Councillor John Getgood emphasised the Borough’s need for more affordable housing and to ensure that housing standards were met at all times.

Councillor Fawthrop suggested that one way of alleviating the pressure of housing supply would be for housing associations to implement the right to buy schemes and he emphasised the need for social housing to be kept in good repair.

Councillor Michael stated that the Council had exceeded its targets to supply new housing and considered that the Council should not be held responsible if developers were not constructing new builds.

Councillor Michael enquired about the progress made in providing accommodation above shop premises and whether the Council still sought volunteers to share their accommodation with young vulnerable people who were on their own.  Councillor Mrs Manning commented that the Council were looking at the properties it owned to assess whether such properties were appropriate for residential use. 

The Chief Planner advised Members that initiatives to address problems had not been abandoned and that the Council was continuing to do all it could.

RESOLVED that the matters raised in the report, the pressures faced by the Council in meeting its statutory housing duties and the general matters raised concerning the housing market in Bromley be noted. 

On 10 October 2011, the Government implemented a consultation on detailed proposals and draft regulations for reforms to the Community Infrastructure Levy.  The proposed reforms were the result of changes to the levy proposed by the Localism Bill in its final stages through Parliament (providing for a new neighbourhood planning regime).  Members were asked to note the consultation together with the questions attached at Appendix 1 of the report.

As the issues covered by the consultation extended beyond just planning, it was anticipated that a report outlining the suggested corporate response would be submitted to the Executive in time to meet the deadline of 30 December 2011.

The Chairman outlined the report and stated that the Council would levy a charge however, it had not been formally agreed as to how this would be made up.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the publication of the consultation and question at Appendix 1 be noted; and

2)  the intention for a report to go to the Executive in December 2011 with a suggested corporate response to meet the deadline of 30^th December 2011 be noted.

On 13 October 2011, the Government (Department for Communities and Local Government) issued a consultation on ‘Neighbourhood Planning Regulations’ which sought views on proposed new regulations governing aspects of the powers proposed within the Localism Bill.  In particular, views were sought on the process for establishing neighbourhood areas and forums; the preparation of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders, together with community right to build orders.

Members were requested to agree the Council’s draft response attached at Appendix 2 of the report.  The formal response would be finalised by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chairman in time to meet the deadline of 5 January 2012.  It was anticipated that once the Localism Bill had been enacted and the regulations adopted in respect of planning implications, officers would prepare a briefing to be submitted to a future meeting.

The Chairman outlined the report stating that the initiative had been brought about by the change of legislation and that the Council had been requested to respond to the consultation exercise.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  appendix 2 form the basis of the Council's response to the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations and that the formal response be finalised by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chairman; and

2)  officers provide a briefing for the Committee after the Localism Bill is enacted and that the regulations be adopted with respect to the planning implications.

Consultation had been undertaken between July and the beginning of October 2011 on a Core Strategy Issue Document. 

The timescale and changing context for the preparation of the Core Strategy was set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

The Chairman gave a brief summary of the report and drew Members' attention to paragraph 3.3 which identified ways in which the consultation process had been carried out.  Attention was also drawn to paragraph 3.5 which outlined the key issues needed to be taken into consideration during the next stage of the consultation process.

Referring to page 74 - paragraph 3.5, first line of the second bullet point (Areas of Special Residential Character), Councillor Russell Jackson asked that the words 'Chelsfield Residents Association' be amended to read 'Chelsfield Park Residents Association'.  Councillor Jackson looked forward to the consideration of that matter.

In relation to English Heritage and the historical character of the area, Councillor Mrs Manning emphasised the importance of ensuring that this was highlighted as a key issue.

Councillor Michael commented on the need to retain areas specifically for new businesses and industrial use.  Referring to the subject of town centres (page 81), Councillor Michael stated that town centres should be safe and welcoming at all times of the day or night and suggested that the borough needed to provide family-friendly venues and that the Council should use its licensing controls with regard to the sale of alcohol etc.

Councillor Jackson commented on the viability of village life as a distinct element of Bromley and asked that this be reflected somewhere within the document.

Councillor Ince stated that urban open space should be included in the first category of paragraph 3.5 (Green Belt and other protected open space).

Councillor Fawthrop requested that Petts Wood be included as an area of special residential character in terms of its housing.

The Chairman informed Members that a further report would be submitted to the Local Development Framework Advisory Panel in March 2012.  The Chief Planner advised that the report would reflect all the comments made by Members and would explain the reasons why some would not be pursued.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  Member comments be reflected in a further report to be submitted to the Local Development Framework Advisory Panel in March 2012; and

2)  the timescale and changing context for the preparation of the Core Strategy as set out in Appendix 2 of the report be noted.

At a meeting of the Biggin Hill Heritage Centre Working Party held on 3 November 2011, it was considered necessary to update the group’s Terms of Reference. 

DCC Members were requested to note and endorse the updated Terms of Reference (attached as Appendix 2 to the report).

RESOLVED that the updated Terms of Reference for the Biggin Hill Heritage Centre Working Party be endorsed.

Due to the resignation of former Councillor George Taylor in August 2011, it had become necessary to appoint a replacement Member to serve on Plans Sub-Committee No 1 for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2011/12.

Councillor Fawthrop formally nominated Councillor Joel; this was seconded by Councillor Boughey.

Councillor Joel confirmed his willingness to serve as a Member of Plans Sub-Committee No.1.

RESOLVED that Councillor Joel be appointed to serve as a Member of Plans Sub-Committee No. 1 for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2011/12.

Members were requested to note the Renewal and Recreation Business Plan 2011/12 which was adopted by the Renewal and Recreation Portfolio Holder on 5 July 2011.

RESOLVED that Renewal and Recreation Business Plan 2011/12 be noted.

Members considered an update on the latest budget monitoring position for 2011/12 for the Planning Division based on expenditure and activity levels up to 31 August 2011.  Latest projections indicated an underspend of £127k.

Councillor Fawthrop highlighted a discrepancy between the quoted underspend figure of £127k (page 177) and the quoted overspend figure of £84k stated in paragraph 5.2 (page 179). The Chief Planner explained that these were two separate issues - the overspend of £84k did not relate to strategy and renewal or other elements of the department and was compensated by the underspend of £127k which included all elements of the department. The Chief Planner was confident that a balance would be achieved within six months.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Members considered a report which provided an update on planning appeals statistics for the second and third quarters of 2011, including a breakdown by category of appeal in comparison to the figures for 2010.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The report provided an update on planning enforcement for the second and third quarters of 2011 together with an overview of enforcement activity undertaken during that time.

RESOLVED that the report  be noted.

The Government had recently published a document entitled ‘Developing a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation: Scoping Document’, with the aim of defining the debate as the Government developed its long-term policy for UK aviation.  An initial response from the Chairman had been made to the Government (Appendix 1 of the report).

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

At a meeting held 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 30 June 2011 (Minute 12), Members considered a further information report on the progress achieved so far.

Councillor Mrs Manning emphasised the need for additional leaflets relating to:-

•  solar panels;

•  front gardens; and

•  certificates of lawful use.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Any other business

The Chief Planner continued to receive feedback on issues arising from the relocation of the Planning Reception and asked that patience continue to be exercised whilst work continued.