Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Douglas Auld.

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct 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 5pm on Friday 4 April 2014.

No questions were received.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Simon Chadwick, Managing Director of Signet Planning.  Mr Chadwick submitted the following points:-

During recent correspondence, deferral of the application had been requested due to the very late objections submitted by the Tree Officer which resulted in a change to the recommendation.  It would, therefore, be reasonable for Members to grant a deferral.

The application was submitted in February and was the subject of significant pre-application discussion, part of which focussed on trees located at the site.  Meetings with the Council’s Tree Officer were sought on numerous occasions (before and after pre-submission) to discuss concerns raised.  Despite no meeting being offered, all other matters relevant to the application had been resolved through planning officers, including an amendment to the internal layout of the scheme to address concerns of the Housing Officer.  All other internal consultees (including highways and flood risk), were satisfied with the scheme.  The applicant responded to relevant consultation responses and dealt with matters to the satisfaction of consultees.

It was understood that up until the end of March, planning officers had been satisfied with the application and were going to recommend approval.  However, on 31 March, the applicant was informed that the recommendation had been changed following receipt of comments from the Tree Officer,.

Concerns raised by the Tree Officer could be overcome mainly by the imposition of conditions, i.e. by ensuring trees were protected during construction however, as a number of points were incorrect, the applicant would be willing to discuss and clarify these.  Rather than the Council pursue a refusal on the basis of what appeared to be erroneous assumptions about the scheme, it would be in the Council’s interest and the applicant’s, to defer a decision in order that matters could be resolved in the same way as concerns raised by the Housing Officer.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Chadwick formally requested that Members defer the application due to the lateness of objections from the Tree Officer and, more importantly, because the concerns raised could be resolved.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ms Hazel Anderson on behalf of local residents, the wider community and organisations including The Sydenham Society, St Christophers Hospice and The Sydenham Tennis Club.  Ms Anderson submitted the following points:-

The proposed scheme constituted an over-development of the site.  The quality of the application was poor, submitted plans were inaccurate and artists impressions were misleading.  There had also been a distinct lack of engagement by the applicant who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Will Edmonds, a partner in  Montagu Evans LLP who informed Members that an 18-month consultation period had been undertaken with Councillors, officers and the local community which had resulted in very significant changes being made to the scheme. 

Following the public consultation event which was attended by over 50 local residents, there had been overwhelming support for the development in terms of the restoration of the listed building, the proposed design of new residential units and the high quality landscaping scheme.  Only three objections had been raised by local residents, all of which focussed solely on traffic-related concerns.  No objections had been raised by Highways Officers.

Mr Edmonds considered the recommended grounds for refusal were not sustainable for the following reasons:-

1.  The reasons relating to ecology and impact on trees were misinformed and capable of resolution through the imposition of planning conditions.

2.  In terms of overdevelopment and the perceived suburbanisation, the scale and siting of the development had been carefully designed to ensure its open nature was protected and enhanced.  Importantly, the quantum of development was the minimum necessary to ensure the scheme was viable, a fact confirmed by the Council’s independent viability consultants as the officer’s report confirmed.

3.  In the opinion of  the client’s Heritage Advisor, the scheme would not harm heritage assets.  The alternative view presented by Council officers confirms that the harm was ‘less than substantial’.  Having reached this important conclusion, it would appear that the report was deficient in undertaking a properly balanced judgement on whether the perceived harm would be outweighed by public benefit despite this being a core requirement of national planning policy.

The decision for Members to make was quite simply whether any perceived harm was outweighed by the overriding planning and public benefits which included:-

·  the restoration of the listed building to its original residential use;

·  the demolition of inappropriate and unsympathetic extensions to the listed building, enhancing its setting;

·  the removal of over 44% of the hard surfacing across the site and replacement with high quality landscaping;

·  the creation of new public access through the site to the common land;

·  the delivery of 24 high quality new homes; and

·  a financial contribution of £275,000 towards affordable housing plus over £300,000 of other Section 106 contributions.

Mr Edmonds respectfully requested that Members overturn the officer recommendation and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Report DRR14/046

Members considered a draft Shopfront Design Guide for Chislehurst High Street, produced by the Chislehurst Town Team and supported by the Chislehurst Society.  It was anticipated that the Guide would provide a framework for existing and new owners to deliver a sensitive approach to shop front design and signage and protect buildings from insensitive change over time.

Members considered adopting the Guide as a basis for consultation on a borough wide shopfront Design Guide to be produced by the Council as part of the current Local Plan review.

The Chairman outlined the report and commended the Chislehurst Town Team for producing an excellent report.

Councillor Boughey echoed the Chairman's commendation.  She reported that the Chislehurst Town Team in conjunction with the Chislehurst Society had spent a great deal of time and effort in producing the document as could be seen in the completed article.  Whilst the report could not be included in the London Plan, Councillor Boughey commended the document as a blueprint to be used as guidance for the local borough.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the content of the Chislehurst High Street Shopfront Design Guide be noted; and

2)  the Chislehurst High Street Shopfront Design Guide be used as a basis for consultation on a borough wide Shopfront Design Guide to be produced by the Council as part of the current Local Plan review.

Report DRR14/045

Members were requested to endorse Appendix 1 as the Council’s Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for 2012/13 which, as required under the Localism Act 2011 (Section 13), contained information on the plan making process, the progress and effectiveness of the Local Plan and the extent to which the planning policies set out in the Local Plan documents were being achieved.

The Chairman informed the meeting that the Council was required to publish monitoring reports on an annual basis.  He was pleased to note that the Council was achieving the objectives set out in planning policies and was on track with development of The Local Plan.

Having enquired how climate change in Bromley was addressed (paragraph 3.3 on page 79 of the report), Councillor Ince was informed that this was achieved through the design of individual buildings.

Councillor Fawthrop was pleased to note that the number of homes built in the period 2012-2013 exceeded the London Plan target of 500 units. 

RESOLVED that Appendix 1 , in light of the Council’s duty under the Localism Act 2011, be agreed as the Council’s AMR for 2012/13.

The Chairman moved that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the item of business listed below as it was likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the Press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.