Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Papworth.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2013 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 22 February 2013.

No questions were received.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr Robert Clarke.  Mr Clarke submitted the following points in support of the application:

·  The scheme conformed with parking standard requirements.

·  No objections to the application had been received from the Highways Authority.

·  The applicant was disappointed with the planning officers’ recommendation to refuse the application and appalled at the reasons given for refusal.

·  Information requested from the Council had not been received until 48 hours prior to this meeting.

·  The DTZ Retail and Office Study (2012) had been released only 24 hours prior to this meeting.

·  The date of the application report preceded that of the advice given by planning officers.

·  The reasons for refusal, as set out in the report, would be unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

·  Based on the information contained within the briefing note circulated to Members, the application should not be refused.

·  With regard to the impact on the view of Keston Ridge from the town centre, the application report contradicts itself; Keston Ridge would remain visible from Bromley High Street.

Councillor Michael questioned how the development of a low budget hotel could overcome the Council’s policies regarding affordable housing.  Mr Clarke responded that the need for a hotel was in direct response to site specific policy and the residential element of the application would subsidise the hotel.  There was no flexibility within the current finance package for a Section 106 element.

Oral representations were also received from local resident Mr Zameel Syed.  Mr Syed submitted the following points in objection to the application:-

·  The height of the design was taller than the existing building.

·  The proposal was out-of-character with the surrounding area.

·  As one hotel had already been permitted on an adjacent site, there was no requirement for a second.

·  Residents in Pinewood Road and Sandford Road would suffer a loss of privacy.

·  Residents living to the rear of the development would suffer a loss of natural light.

·  The proposal would have a negative impact on road safety, particularly as there were two schools in the immediate vicinity.  There would also be an increase in traffic and parking issues.

·  The development would have an environmental impact on the area with regard to noise, drainage, waste collection and removal of trees.

Mr Syed urged Members to take into account the needs of the local community when considering the application.

In reply to a question from Councillor Dykes, Mr Syed reported that the only time the applicant had engaged with local residents was during an open evening.  E-mails sent to the applicant had remained unanswered.

Officers informed Members that as a result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.1

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations were received from Ms Debbie Aplin, Managing Director of Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd who submitted the following points in support of the application:-

·  The planning officers’ recommendation contained in the report caused surprise and disappointment.

·  As reported on pages 33 and 34 of the report, no objections had been received from consultees.

·  The proposal was in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Area Action Plan.

·  Through consultation, local residents’ views had been taken into consideration with regard to commercial use of the ground floor.

·  If Members approved the application, the applicant would be willing to accept the Section 106 Agreement and conditions imposed at the time the extant permission was granted in 2008.

Councillor Mrs Manning asked Ms Aplin why the public access route was placed in a position contrary to that advised.  In response, Ms Aplin said that Crest did not own the adjoining site at the point advised by the Council.  Using their experience, Crest had looked at the most practical place to position the access route and chose one which they thought complied with the Area Action Plan.

Councillor Fawthrop asked why the applicant had not built the development that was previously granted planning permission in January 2008.  Ms Aplin responded that the site was bought through a former section of the Crest Nicholson company which had since suffered financial difficulties.  Ms Aplin managed a separate section of the company and specialised in partnering local authorities to develop mixed use housing.  She viewed the current proposal to be an improvement upon the application previously permitted.

It was reported that no issues had been raised with regard to the provision of affordable housing and no further comments had been received from the Greater London Authority.

Councillor Dykes commented that this was an important site for Bromley Town Centre.  She raised concerns that the application conficted with the Area Action Plan, specifically in regard to the Churchill Theatre site and immediate surrounding area.  Having visited the site and spoken to representatives, Councillor Dykes stated that the development would be out-of-character with the surrounding area, overdominant and harmful to the amenities of local residents due to the loss of natural light and the development would result in an impact on traffic and parking.  Councillor Dykes moved that the application be refused.

The Chairman commented that the vision of the Area Action Plan was for the development of a bright and vibrant town centre.  The application before Members did not lend itself to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.2

Report DRR13/041

This report was deferred from the previous DCC meeting in January 2013.

In June 2012, Members refused an application for planning permission and an application for listed building consent to extend The Glades Shopping Centre.  In January 2013, Members considered whether the ground of refusal relating to the impact on residential amenity should be defended at appeal.  The report was subsequently deferred to this meeting to enable officers to undertake further analysis of new information received and for a complete copy of an appeal to be appended. 

Councillor Mrs Manning was pleased to receive a complete copy of the Inspector’s report and pointed out that the only residents in the vicinity were people living on the opposite side of Kentish Way.  Councillor Mrs Manning moved that the ground for refusal be withdrawn.

Contrary to that stated in the report (page 49), Councillor Dykes was aware that objections to the development had been received from local residents.

In determining the application for the proposal, Councillor Michael had voted against permission but not on the grounds of loss of amenity to residents.  Councillor Michael thought it prudent, therefore, to withdraw that reason for refusal.

The Planning Officer confirmed to Councillor Fawthrop that no objections concerning the loss of amenity had been received.

Councillor Mellor voted against the application because he believed residential amenity would be affected and the development would take place in a conservation area.  He urged Members to bear in mind that the Abbaye application had not involved any construction work.  This application, however was a new construction which constituted an overdevelopment.  Councillor Mellor urged members to continue to maintain all grounds for refusal.

RESOLVED that the ground for refusal relating to the impact on residential amenity be withdrawn.