Agenda and minutes

Members considered the following three planning application reports collectively:-

Oral representations in support of the applications were received from Mr Jamie Clifford, Chief Executive of Kent County Cricket Club (KCCC) and Mr Stuart Slatter (planning agent) as set out below:-.

Mr Clifford informed Members that he had been Chief Executive of KCCC for four years and had worked for the Club for nearly 12 years.

Worsley Bridge Road cricket ground had been vacant during the last year with only one member of staff to maintain the site.  Despite great efforts, the facilities currently offered had proved to be inadequate and this had prompted fears about the future viability of the site as a suitable home for Kent County Cricket Club. These fears were coupled with local concerns about site deterioration and vandalism.

The proposed development would vastly improve the current facilities and in light of the proposals, the Club had entered into a 20-year lease with The Leander Group to remain on site and enjoy first class cricket again from summer 2015.

The proposed development consisted of a range of sporting facilities that would be of huge advantage to the Borough.

The proposed indoor sports hall would accommodate a variety of different sports including netball, badminton and basketball as well as cricket. The outdoor multi-use games pitches would also permit tennis and football to be played. In addition, a sports medicine centre would be established to include physiotherapy and pilates. It was anticipated that a large number of local community groups and sports clubs would use all the facilities provided throughout the year.

In addition, the spectator stand would enable the Club to host regular high profile fixtures at the ground.

The facilities would be constructed to the highest specification and built using state of the art construction technologies to ensure they withstood increased demand.

Once  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.1

Please refer to Minute 32.1 for representations, considerations and resolution.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Chris Francis (agent) as follows:-

The redevelopment of the site with a residential led scheme was established as acceptable by the grant of permission on appeal.

The provision of 74 residential units would contribute to the identified housing need in the borough and across London in accordance with the minimum housing supply targets set by the Mayor.  20 flats would be covenanted to be held for a minimum period of 15 years as private sector rented initiative units, in line with the Government's drive to encourage more privately rented housing.

The report submitted with the current application showed that despite extensive marketing, no interest had been shown in the proposed office floor space.

The report also concluded that there was an oversupply of available office space within Bromley and Lewisham and no viable demand for such office accommodation in this part of the borough in terms of the reality of local and London wide contexts and that this was not going to change even with any general improvement in the economy.

In August 2013, officers advised that the applicant appeared to have met Policy EMP3 criteria however, this was not mentioned in the report.  The provisions of the NPPF indicate that as the original permission had been implemented, favourable consideration should be given to the current application.  The NPPF stated that where proven necessary, employment land should be protected.  It also stated that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there was no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

The viability appraisal submitted with the application showed that if a normal accepted level of developer profit was sought, the scheme would not be viable.  It concluded that the proposal could not provide any additional funding for affordable housing either on or off site.  Although not within the precept of normally accepted viability, the applicant was prepared to make a financial contribution of £400,000 to meet the CIL requirement with the balance going towards local education provision.

The proposal was in full accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and the provisions of all relevant policies in the London Plan and Bromley's UDP.

In response to a question from Councillor Fookes, Mr Francis confirmed that the current market rent would be charged on the 20 covenanted flats.

Negotiations to contribute £80,000 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing had taken place.

Councillor Jackson asked Mr Francis if the applicant intended to carry out the extant permission to provide offices if the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.4

Report DRR13/142

At the request of the Beckenham and West Wickham Working Group, Members considered the possibility of conjoining all existing conservation areas in Beckenham to form one single Beckenham Conservation Area.

Although Councillor Mellor agreed in principle with the review, he could not support it on the basis that if extended, the conjoined conservation areas were likely to include certain sections which lacked sufficient architectural and historical interest which would seriously undermine the ethos of conservation areas.  Councillor Mellor therefore moved not to support the recommendation. Councillor Michael agreed and seconded the motion.

Councillor Jackson took a contrary view and commented that conservation areas recognised the spatial standards of building lines and reflected the general feel of an area.  The areas under consideration held uniformity and the relationship between them supported the grounds for merging together.  For this reason, Councillor Jackson proposed that Members agree to the alterations to the Beckenham Conservation Areas.

Councillor Tickner, Ward Member and Chairman of the Beckenham and West Wickham Working Party, informed the Committee that as there were no legal constraints, it was entirely up to the Council to decide which parts of the Borough were designated as conservation areas.  Currently, Beckenham consisted of disjointed conservation areas which could be merged to form one entire area including the High Street.  If this was not done, it was possible that inappropriate developments could be constructed in the areas located between the individual conservation areas. 

Whilst Councillor Fawthrop agreed with the recommendation, he requested that the words ‘as a minimum’ be added to the end of the sentence relating to the consultation on a smaller High Street conservation area.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  Members did not support the proposed alterations to the Beckenham conservation areas; and

2)  consultation on a smaller High Street conservation area as a minimum be endorsed.