Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Lydia Buttinger; Councillor Jane Beckley attended as Councillor Buttinger's alternate.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings held on 18 May and 30 June 2011 be confirmed and signed as a true record.

To hear questions to the Committee received in writing by the Democratic Services Team by 5 pm on Friday 2 September 2011 and to respond.

Development of Biggin Hill Airport

The following question was asked by Ms Andrea Britz, resident of Chislehurst:

“Would you consider that the current level of development at Biggin Hill is in sympathy with the surrounding area?”

In response the Chairman stated that the current development of Biggin Hill had either been the result of planning permission granted by the Council or permitted by the General Permitted Development Order. Any further development which needed permission would be the subject of a planning application. The impact of development would be considered at that time on its merits.

Ms Britz then asked the following supplementary question:-

"I noted that you voted in favour of allowing Biggin Hill Airport to vary the terms and conditions of its lease to run more flights before, during and after the Olympic Games in 2012 when the vote was taken at Full Council earlier in the year. How do you suppose that the infrastructure would cope to allow this increase in the number of flights, either on a temporary or a permanent basis?"

The Chairman informed Ms Britz that the lease was owned by Bromley Council and the resulting impact of any proposal to vary the lease would have been considered by the Council at the time of the application.

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

Oral representations in support of the application were made at the meeting by Mr Nigel Cronin, Technical Director of SLR Consulting, an environmental consulting business. 

SLR Consulting had provided technical support for the application specifically on air quality, dispersal modelling, noise and alternative site assessments together with advice on highways and landscape.

Since 2001, the site at Cookham Road had provided waste management services to the Borough via a simple small scale composting operation.  Since that time, the site had continued to develop as a key asset within Bromley, assisting in the diversion of garden waste from landfill. The current application sought to bring the operation to the forefront of waste technology to enable the treatment of a wider range of organic materials including food waste generated by householders and commercial businesses within the Borough. The proposed technology of Anaerobic Digestion (AD), was the Government’s and the UK Environment Agency’s preferred solution for treating organic waste and would enable a move away from open windrow composting.

AD technology was entirely self-contained, encompassing tried and tested processing equipment which produced a high quality natural compost product as well as a nutrient rich liquid fertiliser.  As part of the proposal, much of what is produced would be utilised by directly adjacent agricultural users. The process also captured significant volumes of renewable energy in the form of gas which would be converted on site into electricity. This would enable the site to operate self-sufficiently in terms of energy and any surplus energy would be exported to the National Grid. 

During the application process, SLR Consulting had engaged with Council Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers within Bromley, Bexley and Sevenoaks, the Highways Authority and the GLA on a variety of matters including government policy and environmental impacts, in particular, air quality concerns. All parties were fully satisfied by the inclusion of mitigation measures where required in order that all reasonable design and operating measures were incorporated within the application.

There were no objections from any statutory consultee on the proposal and Bromley’s Waste Management officers were keen to see such a facility developed within the Borough rather than have to rely on the current ‘out of Borough’ solution that impacted on travel times, carbon efficiency and costs. 

SLR Consultancy were happy to be given the opportunity, via the proposed planning conditions, to enhance the scheme further by discussing landscaping and colour finishes on the main process buildings as suggested within the report’s recommendation. This would run in tandem with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Members considered whether an Article 4 Direction should be issued to withdraw permitted development rights for the insertion of roof lights in properties situated within The Chenies conservation area.  The recent development of one property had given rise to concerns that an increase in similar proposals could result in potential harm to the conservation area.

The Chairman gave an overview of the options available to Members with regard to the issuing of Article 4 Directions.

Councillor Fawthrop thanked the Chairman and the Chief Planner for bringing this report for Member consideration.  Councillor Fawthrop reported that the key issue was that the Chenies was one of the most picturesque roads within a conservation area and should be protected to ensure that it remains so.  He therefore moved that a non-immediate Article 4 Direction be sought.

Councillor Auld seconded the motion, commenting that the issue under consideration referred to the Chenies in its entirety, not as individual houses. As the Direction would relate solely to the installation of rooflights, Councillor Auld could see no great difficulty with issuing a non-immediate Article 4 Direction.

Councillors Boughey, Jackson and Michael supported the motion reiterating the need to retain the character of the area.

Councillor Fookes suggested that residents of the Chenies should be consulted.  The Chief Planner informed Members that if the recommendation to seek an Article 4 Direction was approved, then residents would be advised and kept informed of proceedings.

RESOLVED that the Executive be requested to consider the issue of a non-immediate Article 4 Direction withdrawing permitted development rights for roof lights in The Chenies, Petts Wood, Conservation Area.

To complement the implementation of the Bromley Town Centre AAP, a Conservation Area Statement had been prepared which would replace the existing Supplementary Planning Guidance for Bromley Town Centre. 

Members were requested to adopt the Conservation Area Statement which had been finalised on completion of a public consultation exercise.  A review of the Local List had been carried out and changes were made to the document as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

Councillor Mrs Manning had taken a keen interest in this project since its implementation but was disappointed to note that the report currently before Members did not contain a copy of the document referred to.  Upon obtaining a copy, Councillor Mrs Manning observed that not all of the amendments previously suggested by Members had been incorporated and those that had been incorporated were not highlighted. However, Councillor Mrs Manning was delighted to note the addition of 29 new buildings to the Local List and moved that Members agree with the recommendation in the report.

Councillor Dean seconded the motion.

The Chief Planner noted Councillor Mrs Manning's observations relating to the amended document.  He reported that no comments had been received from The Civic Society.

In response to a question from Councillor Fawthrop, the Chief Planner reported that the 29 buildings set out in Appendix 1 of the report were all new entries on the Local List and that no comments had been received from the owners of any of the buildings.

RESOLVED that the representations, subsequent amendments and additions to the Local List be noted and that the Conservation Area Statement be adopted.

In July 2011, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for consultation.  The NPPF would replace up to 1000 pages of existing planning policy. 

Members were asked to agree that paragraphs 3.5, 3.6 and Appendix 1 of the report, form the basis of the Council’s response which should be agreed by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Chairman of Development Control Committee and submitted by the 17 October deadline.

Councillor Scoates commented that he was frustrated by and disappointed with the NPPF and considered that the proposals would be disastrous for the Green Belt.

Whilst Councillor Scoates was in favour of reducing planning policies to make them clearer for people to understand, a reasonable balance had to be sought between over-regulating every likely possibility and under-regulating with the combination of an appeals service where there was so much ambiguity that neither the applicant, objecting local residents, planning officers or Members would know which way the policies were directing them.  Instead of making planning policies localised and assessing the applications in terms of what was best for local communities, it was likely that Members would approve inappropriate applications to avoid paying costs awarded by the Planning Inspectorate. 

Councillor Scoates believed that planning would only appear to be localised through the Local Development Framework but would, in fact, be under greater control by the Planning Inspectorate, as highlighted in paragraph 7.3 on page 80 of the report.  If Members wished to have 60 pages of ambiguity and true localism, then the Planning Inspectorate should be replaced with a separate appeals committee within the Council.

Councillor Scoates commented that he understood the Government's aims for a presumption in favour of development in inner-City London even though Government should never be permitted to use the planning system as a tool to instigate an economic recovery.  Many residents in rural and Green Belt communities were likely to feel deeply betrayed unless adequate Green Belt protection was ensured by applying a clearer variance between the countryside and urban areas.

Councillor Scoates proposed that the Chairman write a letter on behalf of the Committee (to be submitted in conjunction with the consultation document), to remind the government of the vital points he had raised and should seek assurances as to how the Green Belt could be protected in the strictest way possible thereby allowing many of those elected in the Council and Parliament to abide by their political mandates.

Councillor Michael stated that she was happy when the Government amended PPS3 and talk of localism was welcomed however, the NPPF  appeared to be saying something entirely different.  Councillor Michael agreed with Councillor Scoates on the need to ensure there was good balance between over-regulating and under-regulating and shared his concern regarding presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 2.3) which did not appear to be localism and undermined planning authorities.

Councillor Michael would like to see the response at paragraph 2.4 strengthened  in relation to power being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The following reports were submitted for information purposes only.

Further to the Draft Replacement London Plan EIP Panel Report Summary submitted to the Development Control Committee meeting held on 30 June 2011 (Minute 6, page 6), Members considered an update highlighting the publication of the London Plan on 22 July 2011 and its status as the spatial development strategy for London.

The report also contained the Mayor’s response to the EIP Panel’s comments with regard to specific policy points raised by Bromley and reported at the Committee meeting in June 2011.

RESOLVED that the publication of the London Plan on 22 July 2001 and the Mayor's response to the EIP Panel's comments with regard to the specific policy points made by Bromley and reported to the Committee in June 2011 be noted.

Members’ attention was drawn to the publication of a consultation document in July 2011, issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government relating to Local Planning Regulations.  The document proposed revisions to regulations governing the process by which local councils prepare development plans in response to anticipated reforms of the Localism Bill.

Bromley would not respond individually to the consultation but would, where appropriate, contribute to the London Councils’ response which would need to be submitted by 7 October 2011.  It was anticipated that the Government would respond to the consultation by 1 November 2011.

RESOLVED that the publication of the suggested changes to the Local Planning Regulations by the Government be noted.