Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nicky Dykes and Michael Turner; Councillors Angela Page and Stephen Carr acted as their respective substitutes.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 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 5 pm on Wednesday 2 September 2015.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr Mark Hoskins.  Mr Hoskins made the following points:-

·  Having been selected to progress the regeneration of the Old Town Hall, Cathedral Hotels recognised that as well as providing a unique opportunity, there was also a significant responsibility for them to deliver a new scheme which would respect the historic identity of the building and its surroundings.  Extensive collaboration had taken place with key stakeholders including the Council’s officers, Historic England and CABE.

·  The proposed mixed-use development scheme fulfilled the aspirations for Site C of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan.

·  The diverse mix of boutique hotel, restaurants and residential uses would add to the vitality of the town centre.

·  The hotel and restaurant uses alone were expected to deliver 120 fte jobs.

·  In heritage terms, the proposed hotel and restaurant use for the Old Town Hall represented a very ‘good fit’ and would provide compatible uses for the existing building resulting in minimal physical change to the fabric of the Grade II listed structure.  It would also safeguard the viable reuse of a building which Historic England had identified as a ‘building at risk’.

·  The quality of design had been a paramount consideration since the inception of the project both in respect of the changes to the Old Town Hall and the new apartment building. All stakeholders had been integral to the process of design, evolution and refinement.

·  The proposals for the Old Town Hall would involve removal of the insensitive 1970s additions at the rear and replacing them with sympathetic extensions remaining wholly subservient to the host building.

·  The enabling residential scheme upon the South Street Car Park Site had been configured to knit with the existing urban environment, being of appropriate scale and mass, retaining a significant landscaped corridor fronting Tweedy Road and incorporating a cranked main elevation to enhance vistas towards the listed Town Hall and East Street.

·  The proposals complied with relevant planning policy in all respects. Furthermore, due to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.1

Members considered the following planning application report:-

The Chairman moved that the application be approved; this was seconded by Councillor Michael.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that LISTED BUILDING CONSENT be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr Christopher Francis.  Mr Francis made the following statement:-

“There is a political nettle in front of you this evening and I ask you to have the courage to grasp it.

Whilst there is wide-spread acknowledgement of the desperate need for additional new housing, particularly in London, you as a Council consistently say “not in our backyard”.  This I believe, is because you are seeking to preserve what you consider to be an essential facet of grand suburbia – detached and semi-detached houses with gardens – whilst ignoring the needs of the young and old who want one and two bedroom flats in accessible locations.

This site, close to Lower Sydenham Station is ideally located to provide a worthwhile boost to local housing provision without giving rise to any harm to the amenity of other established residential occupiers.

Elsewhere in the borough there would be loud and extensive objections to the development of c.300 new units so ask yourself why there is a lack of objection from residents to this scheme?  It has been well advertised; we consulted over 370 local residents and held an open evening: it featured on the front page of the South London Press and was also in the Bromley Shopper.

Yes the site is designated as MOL – this is a designation found in the 1976 GLDP based on a large grid square area on a diagrammatic plan not on any critical analysis of this site.  As our submission shows if such critical analysis is undertaken using the criteria now set out in the London Plan the site would not be designated as MOL as it:

i)  is not clearly distinguishable from the built up area;

ii)  does not include facilities which serve either the whole or significant parts of London; and

iii)  does not contain features or landscapes of national or metropolitan value.

If you decide to refuse this application you are saying to all Londoners including all Bromley’s residents, “we don’t care about the needs of your children and those who want to live in a well-served part of our borough; we only wish to keep the status quo, but by the way we will allow significant development in the MOL if it is for the likes of us” – just look at the cricket club up the road and 89 Kings Hall Road.

As politicians you will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.3