Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 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 5 pm on Wednesday 4 February 2015.

The following question was received from Mr Andrew Brenson in relation to Item 5.1 - The Haven, Springfield Road, Sydenham SE26:-

‘Since six additional documents relating to this application were published on the Bromley website on 27th and 28th January 2015, and the statutory 14 day notice period required by “Paragraph 7(c) of article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order” requires that “the date by which any representations about the application must be made... shall not be before the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the information is published”, is it not the case that the closing date falls after this meeting and therefore Councillors cannot legally hear this application today?’

The Chairman responded as follows:-

‘The Planning Committee can legally hear this application today.

The timeframe given in Paragraph 7(c) of article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order relates to publicity for information regarding the initial application as set out in the other parts of Paragraph 7. There is no statutory requirement to consult in relation to amendments to a planning application, although Government advice in the National Planning Practice Guidance is that the Local Planning Authority should consider whether it might be appropriate to re-consult based on a number of criteria including the significance of the proposed changes.

The Council on 13^th January consulted on a number of documents received by the Council on that day seeking comments by 27^th January. Six additional documents were published on the Council’s website between 26^th and 28^th January, however none of these documents met the criteria to require re-consultation as the changes either reflected amendments introduced by the 13^th January documents or were of a minor nature. Therefore there is no restriction on how soon after their publication the Local Planning Authority can determine the application.’

Mr Brenson questioned the validity of the Chairman's response by referring to a revised landscape document submitted to the Council dated 20 January 2015 which he considered met the criteria for re-consultation.  The Chairman informed Mr Brenson that this was not a view shared by the Council.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ms Hazel Anderson on behalf of local residents.  Ms Anderson submitted the following points:-

It was inappropriate for Members to compare the current scheme against the previously refused application.  The site area was 406 sq mtrs less than the figure indicated in the report. 

Inadequate consultation had been carried out with residents being excluded from any site visit. 

The proposed 3 and 4 storey blocks were higher than the surrounding properties and would result in overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing.  One-third of the existing trees would be removed and the proposed new boundary trees would provide inadequate screening. 

The development would attract a large number of people to the area and additional cars would cause parking and traffic safety issues.

Ms Anderson considered the application to be unacceptable and contrary to the London Plan and requested that Members refuse the application.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Simon Chadwick, Managing Director of Signet Planning and Mr Mark Chapman, Architect at Dunnett Craven.  The following points were made:-

The report to Committee was comprehensive and dealt with all the relevant issues in terms of policy and related considerations. Members were aware they refused an earlier application on the site for 107 units the previous year and Kitewood has been working with officers to overcome the six reasons for refusal issued in relation to that scheme as outlined below:-

Reason 1 was about future tree loss and the Tree Officer has agreed this matter had been overcome.

Reason 2 alleged lack of information on ecology. The Ecological Consultant had agreed there was now sufficient information.

Reasons 3, 4 and 5 related to concerns about overdevelopment, design and layout and impact on amenity. The scheme had reduced in number to 46 units from 107 so was now at the lowest end of the indicative density range for housing on the site. There had been significant reduction in built form and officers’ suggestions about design changes had been taken on board.  All three reasons had therefore been overcome because of the reduction in built development and consequent design changes.

Reason 6 related to car parking and the maximum amount of car parking permitted by the Council's policy had now been provided.

It was therefore considered that all previous reasons for refusal that been overcome. 

Mr Chadwick and Mr Chapman responded to Member questions as set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.1

DRR15/015

In accordance with National Government Guidance, Members reviewed suggested amendments to the existing Local Information Requirements List to ensure it remained fit for purpose in the context of changes to National Legislation and development plan policies.

Referring to the requirements of site location plans (paragraph 3 at the top of page 60) and to the requirements of site plans or block plans (paragraph 3 at the bottom of page 60), one Member emphasised that this information should be required as a matter of course and submitted in the application pack.

Officers would consult with members of the public on the local information requirements document.  In previous years, a 21-day consultation had been carried out which had been advertised in the local paper and on the Council's website.

Although applicants were required to submit details of trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders, this information was not always included.  Officers carried out checks on the GIS system, looked at aerial plans and checked on site visits but inevitably, not all were identified. 

Members were informed that a quoted percentage figure for an increase in hardstanding and built footprint could be requested and in some cases officers carried out their own calculations.

Referring to the Affordable Housing Statement (page 66), it was reported that an increase in the affordable housing requirement from 10 or more dwellings to 11 or more had come into effect in November 2014 as a result of a change in the National Planning Guidance.

It was agreed that a Landscape/Townscape and Views Impact Assessment (page 78) should be required when an application concerns Areas of Special Residential Character. 

The section on Parking Provision for Cars and Bicycles (page 83) should stipulate that new developments must provide electrical power charging points.

Members suggested that the wording 'may be required' used throughout the document, be amended to read 'is required'.

Referring to the submission of scale drawings of proposed developments, it was suggested that a required scale of drawing be stipulated for individual applications.  It was also suggested that details of the provision of wheelchair access and facilities, details of listed buildings and provision of car parking spaces be required.

All drawings should be vetted and validated before being submitted for consideration by Committee.

RESOLVED that subject to Members' suggested amendments and comments:-

1)  Officers should consult on the local information requirements document and in the event that no significant representations lead to amendments, the document should be adopted.

2)  In the event that representations leading to amendments are received, an update should be reported to the DCC meeting in March 2015 subsequent to the document being formally adopted.

Report DRR15/010

Members considered an updating report on the Further Alterations to the London Plan and Implications for the Borough.

Members were informed that regardless of the Council's response to the London Mayor, the document cannot be altered at this stage.

With reference to Appendix 1 (page 101), it was noted that several Outer London boroughs were required to build less than Bromley.  The increase in Bromley's housing target to 641 was due to the historic rate of the number of small sites completed.

A copy of the Inspector's report on the outcome of the Examination In Public would be made available to Members.

With reluctance, Members RESOLVED that:-

1)  the intention of the Mayor to adopt the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) in March 2015 be noted;

2)  the recommendations of the Inspector and the issues for Bromley as set out in Section 3 be noted; and

3)  the requirement for the Council to be able to demonstrate conformity with the housing supply figure of 641 dwellings per annum be noted.

Report DRR15/016

In accordance with agreed procedures, the report advised Members of enforcement action authorised under delegated authority for alleged breaches of planning control.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

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 25 November 2014 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.