Agenda and minutes

Minutes of 24 March - Minute 52, paragraph 3 (page 11) - LB Bromley Local Intermediate Housing Income Threshold Review

The first sentence was amended to read: 'One Member was concerned with the level being raised at a time when employment was low and salaries were not great.'

Minutes of 13 May - Minute 3(ii), (page 14) - Plans 2 Sub-Committee

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP to replace Councillor Ian Dunn.

RESOLVED that, subject to the amendments set out above, the Minutes of the meetings held on 24 March 2015 and 13 May 2015 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 Wednesday 3 June 2015.

The following written question was received from Mr Anthony Barnes, Heathfield Road, Keston:-

With regard to Agenda Item 9 of the Committee, are Councillors aware of the sheer weight of traffic that uses Croydon Road onto which this piece of land fronts?  This in turn leads to long tailbacks in all directions, heavy congestion and serious road safety concerns.

The Chairman’s response was as follows:-

Agenda Item 9 relates to a proposed Article 4 Direction to restrict permitted development rights on the land. It is acknowledged that this is a busy road which reflects its designation as a Strategic Route. The removal of permitted development rights is likely to result in a reduction in any additional traffic that may be generated by any development or use at this land.

Report DRR15/055

Members considered the five year housing supply position from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2020.

The National Planning Policy Framework specified that local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements.  This report concluded there was a suitable five year housing supply in the Borough, based on the latest London Plan housing policy.

The Chief Planner outlined the content of the report and drew Members’ attention to the circulated letter received from Robinson Escott Planning LLP in response to the new housing supply target.

The new target of 641 units in the London Plan was principally due to an increase in small sites allowance identified in the latest London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) SHLAA by the GLA and accepted by the Planning Inspector following an Examination in Public.  One Member questioned why this had not previously been predicted by the Council.  The Chief Planner reported that whist the Council’s concerns had been expressed, the Inspector had accepted the GLA’s SHLAA forecasts of what they considered could be provided and this underpins the London Plan housing policy.  This and the delivery of sites over the five year period can be clarified.

The Government had introduced Regulations in May 2013 to extend permitted development rights allowing for a change of use from B1(a) to C3 subject to a prior approval process up to May 2016 although the long-term future of this process is unclear.

The new 10 year housing delivery period had begun in April 2015.  Targets which had been exceeded in any one year, could normally only be carried over during this 10 year period and not beyond.

With regard to the five year housing land supply table on page 30 of the report, officers would liaise with Members who during the meeting, queried sites identified within their Wards, and make minor amendments in response to these and other matters raised at the meeting.

RESOLVED that, subject to liaison with Members concerning sites identified within their Wards,  the five year housing supply position from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2020 be agreed with minor amendments. 

Subsequent to the meeting, the Housing Supply table was updated; the amended version can be viewed at Appendix 1 to these Minutes with changes shown underlined in red.

Report DRR15/062

Members considered the Minor Alterations to the London Plan on Housing Standards and Parking Standards.  These were prepared to bring the London Plan in line with new national housing standards and car parking policy. 

Members also considered the Local Authority’s response to the Mayor of London in relation to the Minor Alterations to the London Plan.

One Member supported the continuation of pursuing the proposal that the DLR be extended into Bromley.

Whilst Members welcomed what they considered to be ‘a small step in the right direction’, they agreed that more flexibility in parking provision was required.  It was suggested that  the Local Authority’s response to the Mayor be strengthened to draw his attention to the fact that Members were far more knowledgeable of the needs and requirements within their own Wards.

The Head of Planning Strategy agreed to check and inform Members whether the target for water usage of 105 litres per day related to per household.

The following amendment was made to the Local Authority’s response to the Mayor of London:

Parking Standards, page 40, paragraph 1, final sentence:- ‘However, whilst the overall direction of the alterations is welcomed, ……..’

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2015 housing Standards and Parking Standards be noted; and

2)  subject to the amendment highlighted above, the proposed response to the Mayor of London in relation to the Minor Alterations to the London Plan be endorsed.

Report DRR15/059

All local Authorities are required under Section 13 of the Localism Act 2011, to produce an Authority Monitoring Report (AMR).  The AMR should set out progress achieved in the implementation of the Local Development Scheme, the progress and effectiveness of the Local Plan and the extent to which the policies set out in the Local Plan were being achieved.

In accordance with the requirement set out above, Members considered the Council’s Authority Monitoring Report for 2013/14.

Paragraph 5.6 (page 59) was amended to read:- ‘The total number of dwellings completed as affordable housing in 2013/14 was 117 units in comparison with 161 units in 2012/13 and 213 units in 2011/12.

Officers agreed to check and report back to Members on the following questions:-

·  page 50 - what was the confirmed total of Bromley’s Population 2011;

·  page 54, para 4.9 referred to five District Centres but only four were listed;  what was the fifth?

·  page 64, para 8.4 (Education) – Of the 86 applications lodged, 37 related to school provision and 3 related to day nurseries.  What did the remaining 46 applications relate to?

RESOLVED that the Authorities Monitoring Report for 2013/14 be agreed.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

The Development Control Manager provided Members with the following verbal update:-

This application is submitted by the London Borough of Bromley.

Since a variety of issues which are not generally material planning considerations have been raised in representations about this application, Members should ensure that the determination of the application is in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act which states that this must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The report sets out the key material planning considerations and in particular the relevant development plan policies.

A number of late representations have been received and are on the file. The matters raised are similar to those set out in the summary of objections within the report and in addition express concern about the process.

1. The second paragraph on page 82 – Statement regarding referral of tenants is incorrect – the applicant has confirmed “All referrals will be made solely by the Housing Team at the London Borough of Bromley” the Housing Team would have sole nomination rights to the accommodation and Orchard and Shipman cannot select tenants themselves or receive referrals from a third party.

2. In respect of references to Supported Housing the applicant has confirmed that the accommodation proposed is for specialist accommodation for homeless households with low to medium support needs, and would not be used for supported housing for those with high support needs such as pronounced mental health issues, ongoing addictions or ex-offenders. This could be the subject of a planning condition.

3. Reference to House In Multiple Occupation (HMO) – The Council’s Environmental Health Housing Officer has confirmed that the HMO is exempt from HMO restrictions will not be licensable and the legislation “Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England 2006) will not apply. The maximum occupation of the HMO units would be 102 persons if all units were at maximum occupation. The self-contained units would accommodate an additional maximum of 16 persons (total 118). The revised plans submitted in May overcome the concerns raised in the report about light and ventilation. This updates the reported comments on pages 85 and 86 of the agenda.

4. Page 84 last bullet point of summary of objections should refer to 5 years and not 5 days.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Ned Helme, Barrister for the Avalon Area Action Group (AAAG).  Mr Helme made the following points:-

  This was clearly a Local Authority application and Members were requested to be mindful of the required approach in determining the application and the issues of predetermination and bias.  The AAAG's letter to the Planning Department of 22 April raised some fundamental objections.  The application should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.1

Report DRR15/064

Members were requested to consider an Article 4 Direction in relation to land adjacent to The Drift, to remove permitted development rights for various classes of development.  This  land had been identified as being a sensitive area of Green Belt and vulnerable to development that may be carried out under permitted development which could harm the openness and character of the area.

Members were pleased to note the request for an Article 4 Direction to protect this sensitively located piece of Green Belt land.  Although already protected to a certain degree, development under existing permitted development rights could have a major impact on the land and lead to increased traffic congestion. 

RESOLVED that the proposed Article 4 Direction be endorsed and the  Portfolio Holder for Renewal and Recreation be recommended to authorise an Article 4 Direction for land adjacent to The Drift to remove permitted development rights for the following classes of development in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015:-

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

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

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

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

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

It was further recommended that the Direction be made with immediate effect for the classes of development specified in (i) to (v) as the Council considered that development could be prejudicial to the proper planning of the area or constitute a threat to the amenities of the area.

Report DRR15/045

Members were requested to consider Article 4 Directions in relation to three areas of Bromley Town Centre on the basis that it was expedient to do so to avoid harmful impacts upon the local economy. 

The effect of the Directions would be that a change of use from Office (Use Class B1(a) to Residential (Use Class C3) would require planning permission removing the ‘permitted development rights’ under Schedule 2 of the GPDO 2015.

As Ward Member for Bromley Town Centre, the Chairman reported that she and her Ward colleagues supported the making of the Article 4 Directions as a large amount of office use had already been lost to Bromley Town.

Whilst Councillor Bennett JP did not specifically disagree with the making of Article 4 Directions, he did recognise that the world was changing and in cases where offices had remained vacant for some considerable length of time, it could make more sense for a change of use to be implemented.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  the confirmation of the Directions on the basis that it was expedient to restrict the change of use from offices to residential in parts of Bromley Town Centre be endorsed;

2)  this matter be referred to the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee where the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:-

  a)  confirm the Article 4 Direction to remove the Permitted Development of Class J (now O) to come into effect on 1 August 2015 for the Bromley North Area (as shown on the map);

  b)  confirm the Article 4 Direction to remove the Permitted Development of Class J (now O) to come into effect on 1 August 2015 for the London Road Area (as shown on the map); and

  c)  confirm the Article 4 Direction to remove the Permitted Development of Class J (now O) to come into effect on 1 August 2015 for the Bromley South Area (as shown on the map).

Report DRR15/054

Members considered an update on the award of costs in planning appeals for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Members agreed it was important to reinforce their reasons for refusing applications as the majority of costs was awarded due to lack of evidence. 

Regarding Case Ref 14/00104 – 1 Edward Road (page 119), the Chief Planner agreed to check and report back to Members on the reason for non-determination of this application.

Councillor Fawthrop recommended that Members’ views and knowledge should be used on occasion to strengthen reasons for refusal.

(Amendment made on 13 July 2015) - Some Members commented that it should be the policy of the DCC that, where appropriate, the recommendation of “members views requested” be used in reports to Development Control and Plans Sub-Committees.

RESOLVED that the report be noted and Members’ views and knowledge be used to strengthen reasons for refusal.

Report DRR15/048

Consideration was given to an update on planning appeals received and decided for the year 2014/15.

Councillor Bennett JP was disappointed to note that Bromley had lost 48% of appeals compared to the national figure of 34%; this clearly indicated existing issues which needed to be addressed.

Councillor Michael reported that the Local Authority had won more cases with written representations compared to the national average.  The Local Authority dealt with more contentious applications due to issues such as the resulting impact on Green Belt land.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Report DRR15/057

The report outlined enforcement action and prosecutions authorised by the Chief Planner under Delegated Authority during the period 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2015.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Report DR15/058

The report provided an update of enforcement activity from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015.

With regard to the prosecution case being processed for Pickhurst Lane, West Wickham, the Chief Planner confirmed that information had been sent to relevant Ward Members however, as Ward Member for West Wickham, Councillor Bennett JP, was unaware of the case.  The Chief Planner agreed to check that the information had been sent to the correct Ward Members.

One Member suggested that direct actions undertaken by the Local Authority should be publicised as a warning to others that non-compliance with notices was not accepted.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Report DCS150079

Members were asked to consider proposed minor amendments to Development Control Committee delegations to authorise officers to act on behalf of the Council; if approved, this would be referred to Council for inclusion in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

It was reported that the proposed change to para. (vi) on page 145, was recommended to ensure that the Council would be able to appeal if necessary.  Councillor Fawthrop had concerns with regard to costs being awarded against the Council and recommended that the wording be changed to read:- ‘determine whether or not to contest an appeal against non-determination and where relevant provide grounds of appeal and contest all appeals including all action necessary to prevent or reduce the likelihood of an award of costs against the Council.

Paragraph (i) under the heading of ‘Notes’ (page 147) was amended to read:-  ‘No decision will normally be issued within 3 weeks of the date of the weekly lists supplied to Members.

RESOLVED that subject to the amendments outlined above, the proposed minor amendments to development Control Committee delegations be approved and referred to Council for inclusion in the Scheme of Delegation.