Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Lydia Buttinger.  An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Russell Jackson; Councillor William Huntington-Thresher attended as his substitute. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Item 5.1 - Planning Application by GlaxoSmithKline, page 17

Councillor Mellor requested confirmation that action was progressing with regard to his suggestion that the employment contribution paid via a Section 106 Agreement be ringfenced towards finding future industrial sites elsewhere in the Borough.  He was informed that the Section 106 Agreement was currently being negotiated and that further updates would be sent when available.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 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 Friday 14 September 2012.

No questions were received.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations were received from Mr Gary Hillman, Chairman of Cray Wanderers Football Club.  Mr Hillman submitted the following points in support of the application:-

·  This was a unique site and a unique opportunity for Bromley.

·  There was no possibility of the development encroaching onto Green Belt land as the site was landlocked.

·  Public pathways would be improved and new public transport links would be introduced to the area.

·  An Environmental Impact Assessment had been completed.

·  Unique very special circumstances existed for developing the land.

·  The Club’s current lease would expire in 2014 at which point an alternative site would need to be sought.

·   St Paul’s Cray needed regenerating and the development would benefit the area.

·  1,100 letters in support of the application had been submitted.

·  Many applications to develop Green Belt land had been approved for sporting purposes.

·  The application was in outline form only so there was room for manoeuvre with regard to social housing, car parking etc.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Hillman reported that discussions had taken place with Transport for London to introduce a bus route into the area, however the financial aspect of this had not been raised.  Transport links would be essential to accommodate hotel patrons, employees, residents and users of the leisure facilities.  A total of 14 alternative locations had been looked at however, the application site was well situated next to the A20 motorway and within walking distance for local people.

Oral representations were also received from Ward Member Councillor Peter Fortune who, before submitting his comments, thanked Mr Hillman and Cray Wanderers Football Club for the great work they carried out within the community.

Councillor Fortune made the following comments:-

·  The proposed application had been debated for some time and residents had been consulted on the issue.

·  Whilst it would be beneficial for the Club to move back to the area, the proposal was for development of Green Belt land which should be protected.

·  A total of 2,500 leaflets had been delivered to local residents with a response rate of 3%.  Over 90% of the responses were in objection to the application.

·  Local residents took great pride in the community however, St Paul’s Cray had a fragile infrastructure and local people sought projects of regeneration not obliteration.

·  Rural identity was important and needed to be protected.

The Chief Planner informed Members that a letter of support had been received from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.1

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations were received from Mr David Roach, agent acting on behalf of the applicant.  Mr Roach submitted the following points in support of the application:-

·  There was a demand for modern retail units in Orpington.

·  The proposal comprised well-known family chain restaurants.

·  Existing walnut trees would be replaced.

·  Improvements would be made to the open air market.

·  The scheme would be completed by the end of 2013.

·  The proposal was a unique opportunity for employment and regeneration of the area.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Roach stated that discussions had taken place with high quality restaurants and stores who had shown interest in opening units at the site should planning permission be granted.

There were current issues with root growth from the two existing walnut trees and there was no alternative location for them to be moved to.  As both were classified Category C trees, they would be removed and replaced with two mature trees.

The Chief Planner reported that Highways had suggested the addition of a standard condition relating to a Car Park Management Plan to secure extended opening hours for the Walnuts car park and a further condition relating to a Construction Management Plan.

English Heritage recommended the approval of the archaeological report and the imposition of a condition.

The Principal Tree Officer had suggested that provision would need to be made for the replacement of the two sycamore trees at the rear of the site.

Members noted that a separate application had been submitted for the demolition of Crown House and for this reason, the description of the current application had been amended to omit the wording 'Demolition of Crown House and'.

The application had been amended by plans received on 18 September 2012 showing an escape stair enclosure on the western elevation at full height (to correspond with floor plans originally submitted).

Should the application be granted, the following additional conditions were suggested:-

Details of a scheme for the management of the car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is first occupied and the car park shall be operated in accordance with the approved scheme at all times unless previously agreed in writing by the Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan and to avoid development without adequate parking or garage provision, which is likely to lead to parking inconvenient to other road users and would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.2

In a written statement released on 6 September 2012, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced a number of proposed changes to the planning regime covering 10 specific areas.  Members considered and commented on the proposed changes paying particular attention to the proposal to undertake a consultation on increasing existing permitted development for extensions to homes and business premises in non-protected areas for a three year period. 

The Chairman welcomed the Council’s new Deputy Chief Planner, Jim Kehoe to the meeting.

The following comments were submitted by Members:-

Councillor Scoates criticised what he considered to be an outrageous policy decision and commented on the lack of localism involved.  With regard to point 4, he asked who would be responsible for deciding whether public sector land was indeed surplus.  In order to protect the Green Belt, he was adamant that under no circumstances should land be sold off even if it had been identified as serving no particular purpose.

Points 6 and 7 were referred to as European examples of unnecessary bureaucracy and a real cause for concern.

Councillor Scoates sought justification of how extensions up to 8m long could be permitted without neighbour consultation.  The current system allowed people to approach the Council with their objections and they should continue to be able to do so.  By implementing this proposal, social cohesion would be ruined resulting in less localism involvement.  It was not acceptable to allow the Planning Inspectorate to determine applications or to extend the fast track procedure. 

Referring to point 9, Councillor Mrs Manning commented that house extensions caused the most grief to local residents.  With the additional increase of permitted development, single storey extensions built up to the boundary would totally destroy the amenities of immediate neighbours and would impact on the amount of garden land being built upon.  The statement at point 8 had the potential for weakening Green Belt policy and the protection of domestic gardens was being set aside.  Whilst she agreed in principle with point 6, Councillor Mrs Manning was less keen to extend the fast track appeal process and she disagreed entirely with the introduction of permitted development rights to enable change of use from commercial to residential properties.

Councillor Fawthrop was pleased to see Bob Stewart, MP for Beckenham, in attendance at the meeting.  Referring to point 9, Councillor Fawthrop remarked that areas of special residential character were not protected areas and as such, if  the two end houses in a row of three were to build extensions, it would result in the centre house being totally 'blocked in'.  By increasing permitted development rights, the protection of amenities and garden land would be eroded.

Concerning point 6, Councillor Fawthrop stated that all decisions on planning applications should be made by local planning authorities without the option to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Councillor Michael commented that the Green Belt was an intrinsic part of the Borough’s make-up and if implemented, the proposed changes would weaken Green Belt policy.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Members considered an information report setting out the current position with regard to Section 106 Agreements.  Each Section 106 Agreement was recorded in one of three appendices as follows:-

Appendix 1-  agreements including negative/restrictive obligations;

Appendix 2-  agreements including positive non-financial contributions; and

Appendix 3 - agreements including positive financial contributions.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Any Other Business

Before bringing the meeting to a formal close, the Chairman reminded Members of the planning update evening to be held on 24 September 2012 which would focus on the Localism Act, the National Planning Policy Framework and the latest changes.