Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Fookes and Kate Lymer; Councillors John Getgood and William Harmer attended as their alternates respectively.  Apologies for absence were also received from Councillors John Ince and Russell Jackson.

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

The sixth paragraph on page 33 of the Minutes was amended to read:-

'Councillor Fawthrop requested that the Petts Wood area of special residential character be designated as saturated in terms of new housing.'

Subject to the above amendment, Members RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 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 6 January 2012.

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 three fundamental areas in which the application doesn't meet planning legislation?

2.  Please could Members explore how a figure of 26.5% has been noted as the land used for the proposed application?  From page 39 of the Supplementary Design and Access Statement the total site area is 104,293sqm of which 32,486sqm is being used for the proposed cricket ground development and 20,443sqm for the proposed residential development – this gives a land usage (and therefore loss to sporting use) figure of 50.7%.

3.  Please could Members question how only 4 football pitches will be lost if the planning application is accepted?  2 pitches have already been lost on the land described as “unused” and 4 pitches are currently in use on site – a total of 6 pitches.” 

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:-

This application was previously considered at a Development Control Committee meeting held on 17 November 2011 when Members deferred the application in order to give further consideration to submitted documents including a financial viability assessment.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Ron Condon, a local resident.

Mr Condon commented that the development breached the Council’s rules with regard to Metropolitan Open Land and that the case for special circumstances had not been proven.  If permitted, the development would create a dangerous precedent for developers to build on all protected land.

Mr Condon objected to what he considered were scaremongering tactics employed by the applicants to dissuade the public from objecting to the development.

The unused land referred to in the report had been the site of two football pitches until May 2011.  Combined with the removal of a further four playing areas, this equated to a total sporting land loss of six football pitches.

Mr Condon was concerned that KCCC would continue to operate at a loss as it would not be able to compete with the St Lawrence ground in Canterbury.  As a result, when the KCCC lease expired, Leander could submit a further application to develop yet more land.

Mr Condon completed his representations by saying that the erection of large houses at the end of his and his neighbours’ garden would have a direct impact on the value of their properties.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Peter Wilson of Leander Holdings Ltd.  Mr Jamie Clifford, Chief Executive of Kent County Cricket Club (KCCC) also attended to answer questions from Members.

Mr Wilson informed Members that KCCC had operated at the ground for the past 11 years at considerable expense.  The Business Plan drawn up included confidential figures in respect of capital values, building costs and cash flows which were agreed by auditors employed by the London Borough of Bromley (LBB).  The value of the residential land provided about two thirds of the costs of the sporting and leisure facilities; Leander would therefore be investing a substantial sum of money into the scheme.

There had never been a problem with car parking - even on match days; a good public transport system existed within the area. 

To account for any loss of sporting land, a financial contribution would be paid towards sports in and around the Borough which would be paid directly to LBB. 

Mr Wilson stipulated that there were currently four areas that could be used for football, one located within the cricket outfield and another to be incorporated into the much larger  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

As required by The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a draft Annual Monitoring Report  for 2010/11 had been submitted to the Secretary of State through the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG).  Members were requested to endorse the report which had been submitted before the end of December 2011.

Councillor Mrs Manning questioned why existing employment land was being lost on appeal, causing some concern amongst Members.  Councillor Mrs Manning suggested that reference to this should be highlighted in the report.

Referring to the graph at the top of page 56 of the report, Councillor Fawthrop suggested that the Director of Renewal and Recreation be requested in writing, to comment on what appeared to be a reduction of 50% in footfall for Orpington Town Centre after £2m had been spent on improving the number of visitors.

The Head of Planning Strategy and Projects informed Members that from 2012, there would be greater flexibility in the indicators that the Council use.  She understood that recent Orpington figures had increased and advised Members that the report mentioned that recent footfall figures had been affected by adverse weather conditions.

With regard to the loss of employment land, Councillor Joel was happy to see empty office blocks converted into affordable housing.

As a member of the Town Centre Steering Committee, Councillor Buttinger considered the reported footfall numbers to be deceptive as shops in town centres were seeing increased trade.  She suggested that if figures were to be calculated over a longer period time, Members would see a truer picture of footfall.  Councillor Tunicliffe agreed with Councillor Buttinger, commenting that consideration should be given to how data is collected.

Councillor Canvin was disappointed to note the number of shops which remained empty, especially in Beckenham.  He questioned the reason for this  considering Croydon Town Centre was doing exceedingly well.

Referring to page 64, paragraph 8.3 of the report, Councillor Michael asked if the quoted figure of 59.7% related to the proportion of land which had been developed or to the land that remained undeveloped.  The Head of Planning Strategy and Projects responded that those indicators were unavailable but in 2013 there would be greater flexibility to enable such indicators to be reported.

RESOLVED that the Annual Monitoring Report 2010/11 be agreed and that the Chief Planner confirm the decision of the Development Control Committee to the Secretary of State.

Members were requested to endorse the draft London Downlands Framework which covered the London Boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Sutton.  The Framework was part of the Mayor of London’s All London Green Grid for which he was consulting on Supplementary Planning Guidance.  The Mayor had invited comments on the All London Green Grid and the Geodiversity SPGs before 27 January 2012 and comments on the London World Heritage by 20 January 2012.

Councillor Scoates was pleased to note that the Mayor of London was consulting on this and that he had invited comments.  Referring to paragraph 3.4, 8^th bullet point on page 87 of the report, Councillor Scoates questioned what powers the Mayor had to implement the enhancement and protection of the Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land.  The Chief Planner informed Members that the Mayor's powers were set out in the London Plan.

When asked how the Mayor would pay for the initiatives, the Chief Planner commented that the initiatives set out in paragraph 3.4 would be promoted through the planning process.

RESOLVED that the London's Downlands Framework be endorsed and forwarded to the Environment PDS for joint endorsement and delivery.

Members were advised that the Government had made changes to Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (June 2011) which updated the definition of affordable housing to include affordable rented housing.  An addendum to the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Affordable Housing and Planning Obligations had been produced to update the definition of affordable housing and formed Appendix 1 to the report.

Members also considered the Early Minor Alterations to the London Plan in relation to housing.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  the addendum to the Council's Adopted SPDs on Affordable Housing (2008) and Planning Obligations (2010) updating the definition of affordable housing for the Borough to include affordable rent be agreed;

2.  the implications for UDP Policy H2 and the potential changes to the housing section of the London Plan through the Early Minor Alterations be noted; and

3.  the response to the Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance Note on Affordable Housing (GLA, November 2011) be noted and that the formal response agreed by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chairman for submission by 3 February 2012 be agreed.