Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Katy Boughey, Simon Fawthrop and Tom Papworth.

In relation to item 6, Councillor Fookes declared he was a member of Bromley Labour Club, formerly located within the defined area for the Article 4 Direction.  Although the Club had been sold he still remained a member.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 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 Wednesday 2 October 2013.

No questions were received.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations were received from Mr Zameel Syed speaking on behalf of local residents.  Mr Syed submitted the following points in objection to the application:-

·  Local residents objected to the proposal on the grounds that the layout and scale was detrimental to the amenities of local residents; this was previously acknowledged by the Council however, based upon the amended proposal, there appeared to be little difference.

·  An 11 storey building would be completely out of character with surrounding residential properties.  The height and semi ziggurat form of the tower would be incompatible with the setting of the adjacent listed and locally listed buildings.

·  Contrary to the Area Action Plan (AAP), there would be a detrimental impact on the protected view of Keston Ridge.  The evidence provided by developers showing how the view would not be impacted upon was inaccurate, if not misleading.

·  Residents located immediately behind the proposed development (particularly those in Pinewood Road and Sandford Road), would be subject to a serious loss of privacy due to the height and alignment of the building.

·  The proposal included a computer simulation of sunlight during the times of the day and months of the year.  Residents considered this simulation to be inaccurate and levels of natural light available to the rear of properties in Pinewood Road would be affected.  The timings of the sunlight simulation were also not extended enough and were, therefore, biased towards the development.

·  The proposal would have a negative impact on road safety and traffic volume in the local area.  There were two schools in the immediate vicinity with a large number of children and parents en route.  The Westmoreland Road junction was already busy and would become busier once the former Westmoreland Road car park regeneration scheme had been completed.  Therefore, should the proposal be approved, measures should be put in place to make the junction easier for pedestrians to traverse.

In summing up, Mr Syed reported that although residents agreed that the site required redevelopment, the amended proposal did little to address previous and current concerns.  Whilst he appreciated that in the current financial climate it was sensible to invest in schemes which would benefit the local economy, this should be done with a long term view and hand in hand with the local community.  Mr Syed urged Members to reject the proposal.

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

·  The principle of the proposed uses, in association with a tall building on site, was compliant with the Bromley Town  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.1

Report DRR 13/124

Members considered a request to endorse the making of a ‘non-immediate’ Article 4 Direction withdrawing permitted development rights for change of use from office to residential.  The Direction would apply to the Business Improvement Areas, as shown in the Area Action Plan and to nearby areas within a short distance of Bromley North and South Stations.  It was considered expedient to restrict the change of use in these areas in order to avoid harmful impacts upon economic development.

The Chairman outlined the report and explained that the issue of a non-immediate Article 4 Direction would minimise the risk of compensation claims against the Council.  He moved that the Article 4 Direction be endorsed.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Jackson.

Councillor Mrs Manning asked what the Council would do if there was a rush for change of use within the 12 month notice period.  The Chief Planner responded that where Article 4 Directions were concerned, this was not a risk-free option.  An immediate Direction could be issued if later considered necessary.

A revised map of the defined areas within Bromley Town was circulated to Members.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the making of a ‘non-immediate’ Article 4 Direction be endorsed in the terms described in the report, on the basis that it is expedient to restrict the change of use from offices to residential in parts of Bromley Town Centre; and

2)  the matter be referred to the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee and the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation to authorise the making of the Direction.

Report DRR/13/114

Due to recent changes in legislation, Members considered an updated document relating to local information requirements for the validation of planning applications.

As part of the validation process, Councillor Mrs Manning suggested that applicants be requested to submit site plans showing the position of neighbouring buildings on either side of the application site.  The inclusion of street scene drawings would also be useful and should include ground levels.  The Chief Planner agreed to include these suggestions. Councillor Joel suggested it would be helpful if applicants submitted a set of photographs (rather than drawings) to be held on file.

Councillor Fookes asked if figures were available to show the number of applications which had been rejected.  He was informed that officers work with applicants to resolve invalidity issues such as non-payment or incorrect payment of fees and inaccurate drawings.  Consequently, out of approximately 3,000 applications, only a small number were finally rejected.

The Chairman moved (Councillor Jackson seconded), that the document be approved.

RESOLVED that the updated local information requirements document be adopted subject to the inclusion of the following requirements:-

1)  Applicants should submit site plans showing the position of neighbouring buildings on either side of the application site; and

2)  Street scene drawings, including ground levels should be submitted.

.