Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Kate Lymer; Councillor William Harmer attended as a substitute.  An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Pauline Tunnicliffe.

There were no declarations of interest.

Item 43, Planning Application - Kent County Cricket Ground

Page 41 - penultimate paragraph

During consideration of the application, Councillor Mellor commented that inappropriate use of the land had already been established by the erection of the Pavilion in 2002 and therefore the current application could not be deemed inappropriate use.

Subject to the insertion of the above comment, Members RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2012 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 5 pm on Wednesday 8 February 2012.

No questions were received.

The Committee considered the Chief Planner’s reports on the following planning applications:-

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Glen Shipley, a local resident and Vice-Chairman of the Bromley Civic Society and a member of the Friends of Bromley Town Parks and Gardens.

Mr Shipley reported that many residents and local organisations were deeply concerned at the Council’s proposal to sell part of Queens Gardens for commercial development.  As a result, an application had been submitted for the open spaces involved to be designated as a Town Green.  Members were requested to bear this in mind as a material consideration.

Mr Shipley contended that the proposed development conflicted with the statutory and local conservation area policies which governed the area and was a major departure from the Area Action Plan (AAP) as it was proposed to build on land not identified for development or discussed with AAP Inspectors.  The proposal also involved the development of green space which the AAP did not permit. 

Queens Gardens was gifted to the residents of Bromley in 1897 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee.  Mr Shipley referred to a local newspaper article reporting that Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee would be marked by the Council selling off and building upon part of the open space belonging to Queens Gardens.

The Italian Garden was created as an extension to Queens Gardens as compensation for the land built upon for the Glades development.  The adjacent terrace was the only public space on the site itself.  At that time the Council had deemed the extension to the open space to be an integral part of the shopping centre development and a reason for the choice of developer.

Concerning the relocation of the ornamental gates, Mr Shipley stated that their present position in the Italian Garden was far more suitable as an ornamental feature.  He was pleased to note the proposed greening of the emergency vehicle hard-standing area but stipulated that this should be done as a matter of course and should not be dependent on the outcome of the submitted application.

Mr Shipley urged Members to save and protect the Borough’s open spaces by refusing the proposed application and added that a small discreet café or kiosk for park users, as envisaged by the AAP Inspector, would be welcome.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Jonathan Ainsley, Director of Asset Management Capital Shopping Centres (CSC) at The Glades Shopping Centre.

Mr Ainsley reported that CSC were prepared to invest £6.2m in developing the proposed restaurants which would create  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Members considered an update on the latest budget monitoring position for the Planning Division for 2011/12 based on expenditure and activity levels up to 31 October 2011. 

Mr Tony Stewart, Development Control Manager, outlined the report and advised that the latest projections indicated an overspend in the Planning Division of £19k.  He confirmed that the shortfall of income in Building Control, Land Charges and Planning were being partly offset by savings from management action in all parts of the Division and by holding posts vacant.  Mr Stewart informed Members that the budget situation may change in the event that local authorities were able to set their own fees for planning applications.  To date the Government had not made a decision in this regard.

In response to a question from Councillor Scoates, Mr Stewart confirmed that figures were calculated on a year by year basis.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

At a Committee meeting held on 8 March 2011, Members reviewed charges made for pre-planning application advice for Major Developments and agreed the introduction of charges for pre-planning application advice for non-major developments.  Members requested that a review of the charging system be undertaken after six months.

Members considered an updating report outlining the amount of income received in respect of pre-planning advice in the 10 months from April 2011-January 2012.  A revised schedule of fees was also attached to the report.

Mr Stewart informed Members that some complaints had been received since the Planning Division began charging for the customer service it provided and made reference to the issues set out in the report.

All current fees charged for advice would be subject to a 4.5% increase.  In particular, Members were requested to note the introduction of a revised arrangement for householder advice.  There would now be a fee of £44 for basic advice on the relevant planning policies, the planning process and other material considerations and a fee of £188 for more detailed advice and guidance following a visit to the applicant’s premises.

A schedule of pre-planning application advice service fees (inclusive of VAT) was set out in Appendix 2 of the report.  Some new charges had been incorporated and these were highlighted in italic print. 

Councillor Fawthrop proposed and Members agreed, that the householder proposals, shop front advertisement and other non-householder proposals fees be increased to £48 (including VAT).

Councillor Auld was concerned with the content of advice given for the current £42 fee for householder developments.  He referred to a recent case within his Ward where one householder having paid the fee, received statements and technical information drawn from the Unitary Development Plan.  Councillor Auld questioned what sort of advice householders would receive if they paid the higher charge.

Mr Stewart replied that the £42 fee was paid for general advice given to householders with little or no knowledge of the planning process.  It was not intended to provide detailed guidance on a particular scheme as this would normally require a site visit and a greater commitment of officer time.  The higher fee of £180 would be charged when more detailed advice on a specific scheme is required.  In such cases a site visit will be made and officers will be able to give an indication of the likely outcome of a planning application.

Having noted that the fee for changes to use over 2,000 sq m of floor space was 30-50% higher than that for comparable developments in other Boroughs, Councillor Fookes believed that Bromley's £4k fees should be reduced as the Authority ran the risk of developers going to other Boroughs.

Mr Stewart responded that in the context of overall development costs and benefits £4k was not a lot of money to pay for such large scale development proposals and the charge had willingly been accepted by those seeking this type of advice.

Councillor Joel referred to instances where fees had been paid for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Members considered a report setting out the Council’s suggested response to a consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs on the implementation of the Sustainable Drainage Systems provisions of the Flood Water Management Act 2010.  As the existing Lead Local Flood Authority, the Council would be requested to approve and adopt sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS).

The consultation included proposed National Standards for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of SUDS, statutory instruments (Regulations and Orders) which together provided details of how the process would work.  The Impact Assessment included in the consultation explained why government intervention was necessary.

Councillor Mrs Manning expressed concerns about various issues associated with surface water drainage, about the condition of existing sewers and that historically, development had increased the amount of hard surfaces in built-up areas leading to increased surface water run-off.  She agreed that the proposal would augment the existing restrictions on the paving of front gardens and mentioned her own personal experience of flooding in the vicinity of her property.

Mr Evans reported that following  consideration by the Environment Portfolio Holder and PDS Committee, copies of the Council's response would be sent to DEFRA.

A short discussion took place on the methods used to discharge surface water and the condition of old Victorian sewer pipes.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the suggested responses to the consultation questions be agreed subject to the comments and amendments outlined above;

2)  the report and suggested responses together with the comments made by Members, be referred to the Environment Portfolio Holder and PDS Committee for comments and noting;

3)  the formal responses to the consultation be agreed by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chairman once the Environment Portfolio Holder and PDS Committee have considered the report; and

4)  the formal responses be submitted by the deadline of 31 March 2012.

Members considered the Mayor’s draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Housing which covered a number of areas including housing supply, quality and choice, affordable housing, stock and investment, social infrastructure and mixed use development.  Consultation on the SPG would end on 24 February 2012.

Mrs Mary Manuel, Head of Planning Strategy and Projects, outlined the report and emphasised that the SPG did not set policy but expanded upon it.  The comments section within the report was consistent with the Council’s comments on the AAP and the Draft London Plan and at the EIP.  Mrs Manual drew Members' attention to paragraph 3.11 and confirmed that the SPG included acknowledgement that the London Plan density matrix was a guide.

The Mayor had published draft guidance on affordable housing (considered at the last meeting) which would be incorporated into the Housing SPG.

Councillor Ince supported what he considered to be the Council's fairly robust responses stating that as a suburb Bromley’s density level was not comparable with that of Inner London.  With regard to housing supply (paragraph 3.4), Councillor Ince considered that the national requirement to demonstrate a 15 year supply of land (or even a 10 year supply), was an unrealistic figure.

In response to a question from Councillor Fookes, Mrs Manual informed Members that the Outer London Commission had reconvened to consider several issues including density and parking.

Councillor Joel raised the importance of room size and the potential for sub-division.

Referring to paragraph 3.62, Councillor Mrs Manning was pleased to note that office and industrial space would not be undermined but questioned whether the answer was robust enough.

Councillor Michael agreed with Councillor Ince's comments in regard to the unrealistic targets set for the supply of land.  Referring to housing standards, Councillor Michael stated that affordable housing should be subject to the same level of standards as market housing.  Councillor Michael emphasised that the meaning of the response at paragraph 4.8 of the SPG needed to be clarified.

Councillor Fawthrop commented on the following paragraphs:-

Paragraph 3.4 - concerned about land supply targets to be imposed and asked that the response be strengthened. 

Paragraph 3.9 - the guidance contained within the SPG relating to garden land development was relatively good.

Paragraph 3.19 -  it was very important that the Borough had the flexibility to accommodate more cars than it presently did. 

Paragraph 3.46 - if it was not viable for developers to provide social housing, they should be permitted to provide private housing.  The importance of economic realities needed to be included in a robust response regarding the provision of affordable housing.  However, if social housing was necessary, then a more robust response about the levels of affordable housing should be given.

At this point, Councillor Fawthrop reported that in previous years, motions on planning issues had been passed at meetings of the Full Council but the outcomes of those motions had never been reflected back to Members.  Councillor Fawthrop requested that a report be submitted to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Members considered a report outlining the Mayor’s progress in introducing the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which would be collected by the Authority from 1 April 2012. 

Despite representations made by the Authority objecting to the Mayoral CIL at both consultation stages in 2011 and the Examination in Public (EiP), the Examiner recommended to the Mayor that the charging schedule be approved.

Councillor Fookes asked how fees would be calculated on mixed developments.

Mrs Manual informed Members that the rates were fixed according to the amount of additional net floor space. The charges applied to all types of development.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.