Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Nicky Dykes.  An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Russell Mellor and Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP attended as substitute.

Councillor Mrs Manning declared a personal interest in Item 9 as her son was a Planning Director at G L Hearn.

Prior to this meeting, an Urgency Committee was convened to consider a dispensation request from Councillor Jackson to permit him to address Members on the planning application relating to Item 5.2 - 49 Shortlands Road in which he had a prejudicial interest as the owner of a neighbouring property. An unconditional dispensation was granted and Councillor Jackson spoke as a member of the public but did not  take part in the discussion or vote.  The speaker in support of the application had no objection to this.

As Councillor Buttinger also had a prejudicial interest in Item 5.2, the Urgency Committee resolved that she could remain in the meeting but should refrain from taking part in the discussion or vote.

Cllr Nicholas Bennett declared a personal interest in Item 5.1 as he was a member of the Bromley Conservative Club who were tenants of the building. Cllr Bennett said that the Club had sold the building some three years ago and remained there on a peppercorn rent for up to 5 years. The Club would have no financial benefit in any development or otherwise. The Chairman asked whether the applicant or the objectors had any objection to Cllr Bennett remaining and taking part in the proceedings. Both parties indicated that they had no objection.

.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 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 6 September 2013.

The following oral question was received from Mr Tony Banfield on behalf of The Friends of Bromley Town Parks and Gardens and Bromley Civic Society:-

  “In the absence of a mention in tonight’s report, are Members clear that in respect of the Italian Garden, the Town Green Inspector found that three out of the four statutory criteria were fulfilled and that the question mark over the 20 year use up to the time of the application has in real terms been well overtaken by the present date.  Would Members therefore consider registering the Garden or deferring the matter for a more informative report before reaching a decision?”

The Chairman responded as follows:-

  “The Inspector, in his preliminary remarks at the Inquiry, made it clear to all parties that it would be very hard for the Council to reject the recommendations of the Inspector when his report was submitted. He considered all of the evidence. It is a core requirement that the 20 year use at the time of the application is established. He found that this was not the case, as explained in the very detailed report. Indeed, a few days before the Inquiry commenced, you considered whether you should withdraw the application as you had become aware of evidence which suggested that the 20 years use could not be proved.

  Whilst the Inspector found that the application fell at this hurdle, he did, for completeness give his conclusions in relation to the other criteria which fell to be considered in the event that the 20 year use had been satisfied. It is not as clear as you assert, that the application would clearly have succeeded if the 20 years had been satisfied. In paragraph 211 of the report, the Inspector states that “Should the fate of this application have depended on it, I would have advised that future representations have been sought on the as of right issue in relation to the Italian Garden”. He goes on the say that “Happily nothing turns on any of this in the instant matter as the application must fail in any event for the reasons explained above”.

  The application falls to be determined in respect of information at the date of the application. If Members were minded to overturn the recommendation in the report, they would require to have a sustainable reason to do so.”

In a supplementary statement Mr Banfield requested that Members consider the officer’s report which suggested there was an option to decline the recommendations of Mr Paul Wilmshurst.  The Chairman responded that Members would fully consider the matter during discussion of Item 7 and would come to a decision at that time.

Members considered the following planning application:-

Oral representations from Mr Will Edmonds, agent in support of the application made the following comments:-

•  The residential led mixed use scheme was the result of over two years engagement and extensive consultation with Councillors, officers and the local community, including three exhibitions.  The feedback received resulted in very significant changes to the scheme.

•  The grounds for refusal set out in the report were misleading for the following reasons:-

•  The development was wholly compliant with policy that simply required no net loss of office space in new developments.  This development would double office space on site.

•  As required by officers, the scheme incorporated 14 affordable housing units - the maximum viable number.  A commuted sum of circa £1.2 million would prove more beneficial  to the Borough as a whole and could be renegotiated if necessary.

•  In terms of height, as a matter of principle officers accepted that a tall building in this location would not be contrary to policy.  By definition therefore, it must be accepted that new development can give rise to noticeable change in the townscape and skyline.

  The scheme would not harm heritage assets, amenity or open space and the building would not be visible from the High Street.  It would only have a material impact from three locations.  From Kentish Way and Masons Hill, the proposed building would be of a scale expected in a town centre location.

  Views to the town centre from the Palace Estate already encaptured the Kentish Way flyover and existing buildings in Elmfield Road which were of a scale taller than the prevailing heights found in residential areas.  Against the existing townscape, any harm would, at its worst, be minimal and should be assessed against the significant planning benefits that would arise from the scheme.

•  There was no technical justification to refuse the scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment and loss of amenity.  If the scheme was considered acceptable in townscape terms, it was incumbent on new developments to make effective use of previously developed land, particularly in highly accessible locations such as this.

•  The scheme had undergone design changes including reorientation of balconies and narrowing of windows specifically to address local residents' concerns in regard to overlooking.

Approving the scheme would not in any way set a precedent.  The circumstances of the application were unique and could not be replicated on other sites within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.1

Members considered the following planning application:-

This application was previously considered by Members of the Plans 1 Sub-Committee on 8 August 2013.  As a decision could not be reached, Members resolved that the application be deferred and submitted for consideration by Members of the Development Control Committee.

As stated in the declarations previously given, Councillor Jackson was granted unconditional dispensation to speak as a member of the public.  As the owner of No. 51 on the first floor of the building, Councillor Jackson made the following representations in objection to the application:-

•  There was an existing extant permission to convert the building into four flats and by the intensification of side and rear extensions, this application sought to increase the number of flats to five.

•  The addition of a fifth flat would push the scale of the building a bit too far resulting in limited parking at the front and outside.

•  As the site was located within Shortlands Conservation Area, unique and special standards needed to be upheld.  The current proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area.

•  The application included the erection of a 1.8m fence which would change the spatial standards and amenity space of the communal back garden.  If the application were to be granted, a condition should be included to retain the openness of the area. 

In conclusion, Councillor Jackson requested that the application be refused on the grounds of impact on the Conservation Area and overintensification of the site. 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Mehta, Agent for the applicant.  Mr Mehta submitted the following comments:-

•  The proposal was for the addition of a new residential flat at ground floor level including a low-level single storey side and rear extension. The ground floor would consist of 2 residential flats, comprising 1 and 2 bedrooms, with access to the large garden.  Both flats would be dual aspect and generous in size with modest extensions.

•  No objections were received from local residents. The initial application for a similar but larger proposal had been refused earlier in the year and no objections had been made at that time.

•  Having taken on board Councillors’ thoughts and comments during the previous Committee meeting, the design team had reviewed the proposal to try and enhance the scheme further.  In particular, altering the design of the roof on the single-storey side extension.  Having reviewed the proposal and the Council’s policies on side extensions, it appeared that the proposal met with the requirements expected by the Council.  Furthermore, the proposal was subordinate and subservient to the host property and it was considered to be of an acceptable standard.

•  There would be provision for one car parking space  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.2

Report DRR 13/108

Members considered a request to endorse the making of an Article 4 Direction to remove specific forms of permitted development in regard to plots of Green Belt land offered for sale via the internet.  The land, situated within a Conservation Area just off Kemnal Road, Chislehurst, was regarded as a site of importance for nature conservation.  In order to prevent the erosion of the amenity of the area and to protect the appearance and character of the countryside, it was deemed necessary to seek an Article 4 Direction.

Councillor Bosshard emphasised the need to preserve Green Belt land and moved that the Article 4 Direction should be approved.  Councillor Boughey seconded the motion.

Concerns were raised in regard to the length of time it would take for the Direction to come into force (12 months).  The option to issue the Direction with immediate effect was discussed.  However, Members were informed that an Immediate Direction carried the risk that claims for substantial compensation would be sought against the Council.  The Chief Planner advised that a Non-Immediate Direction was proposed in the report and recommended a Non-Immediate Direction as this minimised the risk of compensation being payable.  In any event, should it prove necessary, an Immediate Direction could be issued at a later date.  The Chief Planner tabled a slightly revised plan of the area.

Councillor Fawthrop urged the Council to be proactive in its protection of the Green Belt and moved an amendment to the recommendation for the Article 4 Direction to be issued with immediate effect.  This was seconded by Councillor Buttinger.

Following a vote of 11-5, Members RESOLVED that the making of an Article 4 Direction be endorsed.

Following a further vote, Members RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation be requested to authorise the making of the Article 4 Direction to be issued with immediate effect.

Report RES 13150

Members considered an application to register land comprising The Italian Garden and Glades Terrace, Kentish Way, Bromley as a Town Green.  A Public Inquiry to consider the application and to hear objections, was held in May 2013 by Mr Paul Wilmshurst, a barrister with expertise in this area.  In July 2013, the Council received Mr Wilmshurst’s report containing his summary recommendations. 

The Chairman reported that the Council had fulfilled its statutory obligations in holding a Public Inquiry.  He agreed with the findings in Mr Wilmshurst's report and moved that the report be accepted and the application be declined.  Councillor Auld seconded the motion.

Following a vote of 13-2, Members RESOLVED that:-

1)  The report prepared by Mr Paul Wilmshurst on the application to register the land comprising The Italian Garden and Glades Terrace, Kentish Way, Bromley as a Town or Village Green be accepted; and

2)  The application to register the land in whole or in part be declined for the reasons set out in Mr Paul Wilmshurst’s report dated 31 July 2013.

Report DRR 13/015

In January 2013, Members endorsed a revised Outline Planning Improvement Plan as a framework for improvement.  Customer Service and Planning Enforcement were identified as priority areas.  This report contained updates on the progress achieved so far and Members considered proposals to support economic growth.  An updated version of the Improvement Plan was also attached.

At the DCC meeting held in June 2013, it was agreed that a Panel Group be formed to assist with the preparation of an action plan to minimise future planning appeal costs awarded against the Council.  Members received an update on the progress achieved so far; they were also requested to endorse informal Guidelines for Members sitting on Planning Committees.

The Chief Planner reported an improvement in customer service had been achieved and difficulties experienced in contacting officers had eased with the introduction of a new ‘hunt’ telephone system.  To ensure the continuance of efficiency, it would be necessary to employ two additional members of staff. 

Councillor Michael stated that one-third of people who responded to the customer satisfaction survey were dissatisfied with the ease of contacting the service however, once they had done so, 85% of people were satisfied with the service they received.  Councillor Michael agreed that temporary staff should be employed to alleviate difficulties.

It was noted that whilst the processing of major applications had improved, the performance of minor applications had not achieved the 65% target.

Councillor Bosshard suggested that Penge and Anerley be included as an economic growth area.  The Chairman confirmed that he too had recommended the inclusion of several other areas in the Borough.

Having noted that  Bromley undertook far more enforcement action than Sevenoaks or Tandridge (Appendix 1, page 55), Councillor Michael stated it would be useful to compare the number of staff in each Council Enforcement Team to see if Bromley carried out more work with less staff.  The Chief Planner reported that as an average, Bromley employed 4.5 members of staff compared to 5.5 members of staff elsewhere.

The Chairman advised that meetings of the Enforcement Member Working Party would take place every two months.  At the previous meeting, several cases had been individually studied and an informal guidance setting out proposed methods of good practice for Members had been produced.  Various concerns were raised with the content of the guidance and it was agreed that the document be withdrawn, reviewed and amended, to incorporate Member comments and suggestions.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the Planning Service improvements be noted;

2)  the next priorities set out in the report be endorsed; and

3)  the informal Guidelines for Committee Members set out in Appendix 3 of the report, be withdrawn, reviewed and amended to incorporate Member comments and suggestions.

Report DRR 13/103

Members considered an updated version of the Local Development Scheme (LDS), the project management document for the production of the Local Plan for the Borough.  The latest version reflected the move to preparing a Local Plan rather than the Local Development Framework in line with the Government’s Planning Reforms and National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the changes in resources.

The Chairman commented that this was a very clear, straightforward, easy-to-follow document - one of the best reports he had read relating to the Local Plan. 

Councillor Bosshard thought the timing for the production of the scheduled preparation time for the draft CIL charges appeared to be rather late and suggested bringing this forward by 3-6 months.  He was informed that CIL regulations had changed and with further changes planned for the autumn, the timescale would be brought forward if possible.  Councillor Arthur commented that considerable income could be obtained with the introduction of a CIL and suggested that a variable levy be imposed to enable individual control of residential, retail and business areas. 

Members were advised that the South London Partnership had undertaken research with regard to the Mayoral CIL however, this was inconclusive on the impact of CIL within boroughs.

RESOLVED that the revised Local Development Scheme for 2013/15 as the formal management document for the production of the Bromley Local Plan, be recommended to the Executive as acceptable.

Any Other Business

Councillor Mrs Manning attended an Urban Design London conference relating to housing standards and had brought back a copy of the London Housing SPG which she thought Members may find of interest.