Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were received.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings held on 10 April 2014 and 4 June 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 Thursday 3 July 2014.

No questions were received.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

The following oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Marc Myers, General Manager, Intu Bromley:-

·  The proposal to introduce a boutique cinema and casual dining cluster to the Centre was part of a £24m investment that encompassed an internal refresh which was currently under way and the proposals for a restaurant terrace by Queens Gardens.  The cinema and restaurant proposal would create 60 permanent and 130 temporary jobs in the town.

·  Consultations had shown that both the shoppers and retailers who Intu were trying to attract to the Centre, agreed that Intu Bromley and the town centre, were in need of more casual dining and leisure facilities in order to revive the evening economy and restore Bromley to its place in the market as a metropolitan town centre.  Intu wanted to provide a safe and seamless transition from traditional daytime commercial activities to evening activities.

·  The Council’s 2012 Retail and Leisure Report demonstrated a substantial level of unmet demand within the town.  Despite the establishment of the restaurant terrace by Queens Gardens, Bromley would still rate well below the national average for retail and leisure for a town of its size.

·  Although Bromley residents wanted to support their town, they were increasingly driven to spend their money and leisure time elsewhere, ie. Bluewater, Greenwich and the West End.  With the impending development of Westfield in Croydon, immediate action would be needed to ensure that Bromley did not lose out.  Bromley deserved this development and needed it to continue to compete.  The proposed 220 seater cinema would go some small way to address the gap which would still exist even after the completion of developments at Bromley South and Orpington.

·  It was necessary to increase dwell time in the town and in order to do this, trading hours would need to be extended not just for restaurants and leisure but for retailers who would want to capitalise on the increased footfall delivered through the potential new leisure development; this would ‘smooth the peaks’ in trading because once shoppers were aware that the Centre remained open for longer, they would be more inclined to make their journeys outside peak times.

·  Provision of adequate parking was fundamental to the success of Intu Centres.  Intu would not propose a scheme which resulted in a detrimental impact on the attractiveness  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

(Report to Follow)

Members considered the following planning appeal report:-

The Chairman introduced the item, referring to the planning history relating to the site.

The Chairman moved that the appeal be contested for the reasons given in the report of the Chief Planner.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion.

Councillor Dykes commended officers for presenting a well thought out and detailed report and emphasised the need for business space to continue to be protected.

The Chief Planner drew Members’ attention to the modified financial contributions by comparison with a previous application, as set out in the agenda.

RESOLVED TO CONTEST THE APPEAL as recommended on the following grounds:-

1  The proposal has not satisfied the tests in National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 22 and would therefore result in the loss of a valuable employment opportunity and the long-term protection of the site should continue.  The proposal is contrary to the Borough’s employment strategy and Policies EMP3 and EMP4 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policies 4.1 and 4.2 of the London Plan.

(Report to Follow)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Two errors within the report were identified as follows:-

•  The first paragraph on page 36 should read: 'Permission is sought for a part one, part two storey side extension and a part one/part two storey rear extension.'.

•  The final sentence of the penultimate paragraph on page 37 should read: 'It is not considered, therefore, that any overlooking or harm to the amenities of the residents at No. 30 would result from the proposal.'.

The following oral representations in objection to the application were received from neighbour, Mr Robert Payne:-

•  A great deal of information had been gathered and provided to support objections to the application however, the planning report failed to reflect any of the points raised.

•  There was a distinct lack of care which could be seen in the way the report for 34 Copse Avenue had been pasted into the previous report for 32 Copse Avenue.  The neighbouring house number had also been incorrectly pasted.

•  Contrary to what was stated in the report, the proposed extension at 32 Copse Avenue was not similar to the extension at 34 Copse Avenue, it was completely different and in this respect, the application had not been properly reviewed.

•  Councillors had a difficult job in reviewing such residential plans and Members were respectfully asked to take Mr Payne’s very strong objection into account when considering the application.

•  Mr and Mrs Payne had resided at their property for 18 years during which time they had enjoyed a high level of privacy.  The proposed first floor enormous patio style set of full height opening windows, together with the Juliet type balcony, would totally compromise that level of privacy, would tower over Mr Payne’s property and would look straight onto his rear terrace.

•  There would be a total removal of sunlight and reduction in daylight to Mr and Mrs Payne’s six foot square stairway window.  Copse Avenue was situated on a hill and No 34 was already approximately 1 metre higher than Mr and Mrs Payne’s house.

•  A precedent would be created by building an overbearing two storey structure totally out-of-character with the rear garden scene in the area.

•  A precedent would also be created by the over-development of the existing host building by 80%.

•  The application, if approved without modification, would affect the lives of Mr and Mrs Payne in a totally unacceptable way.

In summing up, Mr Payne asked Members to take into account his considerable concerns and refuse the application.

Councillor Joel reported that he had been Chairman of the Plans 4 Sub-Committee when this application was previously considered.  At that time he had visited the site and concluded that what was being proposed was no different to other extensions in the immediate vicinity and for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5d

Report CSD14095

Members considered an application to register land comprising the triangular area of ground bounded by Upper Elmers End Road, Croydon Road and Elmerside Road in Elmers End as a Town Green.  As the registration authority for Bromley, it was the duty of the Council to decide the application for registration of the land as a new Town or Village Green.

The Chairman of West Beckenham Residents’ Association (WBRA), Ms Marie Pender, spoke in support of the application and made the following representations:-

"I hope you have been able to read my letter, see the old maps and the support we have had from local people and other local organisations - Copers Cope Area Residents’ Association and The Beckenham Society.

Your legal advice concludes that “it is not considered that the application can succeed”. But, you know - it can - if you want it to. The legal advice also says that you, as registration authority, “may decide to register - or decline - on the basis of the application and the evidence before you”. It is therefore within your discretion to accept the implied compliance with the spirit of the 2006 Act, by accepting our case. Or by proceeding to register the green voluntarily - as owners of the land.

The spirit of the Act is surely that open land that has been enjoyed by local people for only 20 years should continue to be available for that enjoyment. The only real restrictions in the spirit of the Act are that the enjoyment must be legal and without the use of force or subterfuge, and that the owner should not be forced to have the land registered against its will.

Your legal advice is that the burden of proof lies in “the civil standard of balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities does not require written testimony – that would be 100% proof. The balance of probabilities is most certainly that this land - never built on and in existence for 300 years – has been used, as the Act describes, for much longer than 20 years.

My letter and the maps show the history of this land. I also emphasise that, for much more than 20 years, the council provided benches for people to sit on – why would you do that if the green were not used for passing the time? Your signs say “don’t let your dog foul the grass” – why, if there is no dog walking? This land has been enjoyed legally and without the use of force for centuries.

The Council are owners of the land, so why would you object to its protection through registration? There need not be costs involved. If the Council were to agree, there is, for instance, no need for any public inquiry, as suggested by the legal advice.

We understand the Council has rightly been persuaded to register Beckenham Green under the Act. Though the initial legal reaction to that application was also a loud 'no'!  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report DRR/14/064

Members considered whether the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation should be requested to confirm the making of an Article 4 Direction to remove permitted development rights for specific classes of development on land at New Barn Lane, Westerham. 

Located within the Green Belt, this land had recently been advertised for sale and whilst it was considered to have limited development potential, there was concern that in the foreseeable future, the land could be divided and sold in the form of separate plots.

Ward Member Councillor Scoates reported that situations such as this were becoming increasingly frequent.  Part of the land being considered was an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and should be protected.  The making of an Article 4 Direction would prevent the land from being partitioned into separate plots.  Councillor Scoates emphasised the need for the Direction to be made with immediate effect and moved in favour of the proposal. 

Councillor Michael agreed with Councillor Scoates and seconded the motion.

It was reported that any forthcoming compensation claims were likely to be relatively low in value when compared with other forms of development.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation be requested to authorise the making of an Article 4 Direction for land at New Barn Lane, Westerham, to remove permitted development rights for the following classes of development:

(i)  the erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure (Class A of Part 2);

(ii)  the formation, laying out and construction of means of access (Class B of Part 2);

(iii)  the provision of temporary buildings, etc. (Class A of Part 4);

(iv)  the temporary use of land for any purpose for not more than 28 days per year (Class B of Part 4); and

(v)  the use of land as a caravan site (Class A of Part 5).

For (i) and (iv) above, this would be a Direction with immediate effect and for (v) the earliest possible effect (as explained in Section 7 of the report).

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Report DRR14/065

Members considered the Council’s response to a consultation document produced by Sevenoaks District Council on the first stage of the preparation of its Gypsy and Traveller Plan.  The consultation asked neighbouring local authorities whether they were able to assist Sevenoaks District Council in meeting its identified need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in the Sevenoaks District.

Two sites identified by Sevenoaks District Council were relevant to Bromley due to their proximity to the borough boundary.  These were located at land east of Knockholt Station and Holly Mobile Park, Hockenden Lane (east of the Swanley By Pass) 

As Bromley Council was currently producing its local plan and developing site allocations to meet the Borough’s own needs, it did not have sufficient capacity to additionally meet the needs of adjacent Boroughs.

The Chairman reported that it was encumbent upon Sevenoaks Council to let this Authority know their future plans and to request assistance from Bromley where possible.  Bromley would need to do the same next year and would likewise be approaching Sevenoaks Council.

The Chairman moved in favour of the recommendation; this was seconded by Councillor Auld.

Councillor Buttinger alluded to a particular area close to her Ward which Sevenoaks was looking to intensify (land east of Knockholt Station).  Whilst Councillor Buttinger understood Sevenoaks' predicament, it was of the utmost importance that Green Belt land remained protected. 

At the suggestion of Councillor Scoates it was agreed that the response to question 11 be reinforced by including the fact that the land in question was located within a recognised flood zone.

In response to a question from Councillor Fawthrop, the Chief Planner confirmed that the site at Hockenden Lane, Swanley  was currently a temporary site which Sevenoaks was hoping to make into a permanent site.

Councillor Bosshard requested that any maps or graphs included in future reports to the Committee, be more clearly defined.

RESOLVED that the proposed site options close to the Bromley boundary be noted and the responses to the consultation questions be endorsed, subject to the reinforcement of the response to question 11 to include the fact that the land near Knockholt Station was located within a recognised flood zone and a comment be added to the Hockenden Lane, Swanley site about restricting intensification.

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.

RESOLVED that the exempt Minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.