Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Vanessa Allen and Kathy Bance; Councillors Angela Wilkins and Kevin Brooks acted as their respective substitutes.

No declarations of interest were received.

Minute 11 - Planning Appeals - Costs 2014/15 (page 10)

The final paragraph was amended to read:- ‘Some Members commented 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 subject to the amendments set out above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 June 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 Tuesday 7 July 2015.

No questions were received.

Members considered the following planning application report:-

The Planning Development Control Officer reported the following:-

1.  Late objections in respect of both applications received on behalf of KEPA, including a Transport Report by independent consultants, raised concerns about the impact on residential amenity for the secondary only application including use of the MUGA. In respect of the primary and secondary application, concerns about the impact on the conservation area through views of the site and the associated increased activity, unacceptable highway impacts including parking stress, harm to residential amenity through noise and disturbance and flaws in the educational need argument in particular relating to the proposed school at Langley Park which it was argued had not been taken into account and the possibility of the use of permitted development rights to open a school elsewhere to accommodate the need.

2.  A number of other late objections had been received raising issues as summarised in the committee report and additionally the issues raised in the KEPA objection.

3.  There were also some late letters of support, including one from the Central  Beckenham Residents Association.

4.  The Council’s Highway Engineer had provided comments on the Transport Report received with the late KEPA objection. He confirmed that the Highway Authority maintained no objection to either application. He pointed out that the focus of the objection was flaws in the parking stress survey methodology which claimed that the 200m distance used in the assessment was not correctly followed. In fact the Lambeth Methodology for parking surveys allowed for a 500m distance for commercial development and the 200m distance was for residential schemes.

5.  The Education Authority’s Head of Strategic Place Planning had provided comments on the educational need issues raised in the late KEPA objection. He pointed out that there were many risks relating to the school expansion programme in Bromley and there was no guarantee that any of the schemes without planning permission would progress. He considered that the argument for need had been made clear and there would be a deficit without Harris Beckenham. The actual demand for this site had been evidenced through the admissions process.

None of the late information and responses received altered the recommendations as set out in the agenda. Copies of all of these documents were available on the application files.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Mark Batchelor on behalf of Kelsey Estate Protection Association.  Mr Batchelor made the following points:-

•  The development would have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.1

Members considered the following planning application report:-

The commentary contained in Minute 5.1 also pertains to this report.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner with conditions 6 and 20 amended to read:-

‘6  (i)  A detailed scheme of landscaping which shall include:-

-  details of replacement trees;

-  details of bird and bat boxes;

-  details of log piles;

-  details of ecological improvements to the existing pond;

-  details and samples of any hard surfaces (NB: No loose materials shall be used for surfacing of the parking and turning area hereby permitted);

-  full details of boundary treatments;

-  proposed plant numbers, species, location and size of trees and tree pits;

-  furniture and lighting; and

-  details of the management and maintenance of the landscaping for a period of five years;

  shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction of any above ground works.

  (ii) The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented in full and all planting, seeding or turfing shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development hereby approved, in accordance with the approved scheme under part (i).  Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason:  In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal and to comply with Policies BE1, BE7, NE3, NE5 and NE7 of the UDP.

20  The Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) hereby approved, shall only be used between the hours of 08:25 and 18:00 on any day Monday to Sunday inclusive and for the avoidance of doubt there shall be no floodlighting erected or used at any time.

Reason: In the interests of protecting neighbouring residential properties from activities that could result in excessive noise and disturbance outside of normal school hours and in accordance with Policy BE1 of the UDP (2006).’

A further two conditions were added as follows:-

22  Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending, revoking and re-enacting this Order) no buildings, structures, alterations, walls or fences of any kind shall be erected or made within the curtilage of the school buildings hereby  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Report DRR 15/075

National Government Guidance required local planning authorities to undertake a regular review of their validation requirements for planning applications.  It was necessary to ensure that the list remained fit for purpose in the context of changes to National Legislation and development plan policies.

In this respect, Members were asked to formally adopt a revised Local List of Validation Requirements.  The revised list included amendments requested by Members at a meeting of the DCC on 10 February 2015 as well as addressing issues arising from an 8 week period of public consultation.

It was agreed that the word ‘generally’ be deleted from the second sentence of the paragraph headed ‘General guidance for drawings’ (page 97); the sentence was therefore amended to read: ‘Drawings which say ‘Do not scale’ are not acceptable.’.

RESOLVED that, subject to the amendment referred to above, the revised Local List of Validation Requirements be formally adopted.

Report CSD15091

As requested by Members at a full meeting of the Council held on 29 June 2015, DCC Members considered a petition submitted by the Bull Lane Action Group with 801 validated signatures calling on the Council to designate the Bull Lane Allotments in Chislehurst as Local Green Space. 

Ward Member Cllr Boughey supported the petition as she considered the allotment land fully met the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework for designating land as Local Green Space.

It was generally agreed that the land should be protected and the allotments retained.

RESOLVED to recommend to the Executive that the merits of designating the Bull Lane Allotments as Local Green Space be formally considered through the Local Plan process and the Petition be included as a submission seeking this change.

Councillor Arthur abstained from voting.

(A copy of the ‘Local Plan – Potential Sites, Draft Policy and Designation Alterations’ referred to as Appendix 1, will be made available in the Members’ Room and published on the Council’s website shortly.  A paper copy will also be available at the meeting.)

Report DRR15/070

Members were requested to endorse Appendix 1 as the consultative ‘Local Plan – Potential Sites, Draft Policy and Designation Alterations’ stage in the preparation of Bromley’s Local Plan.  Members were also asked to refer the document to the executive for approval for the purpose of consultation with residents, partner organisations and the wider community.

The Chairman reported that progress in drafting the Local Plan had been reviewed by the Local Development Framework Advisory Panel. The Potential Sites, Draft Policy and Designation Alterations’ stage focussed on designating sites in Wards for particular purposes.  The latest updates incorporated an increased housing target of 641 units; minimal parking provision and variations to the Biggin Hill SOLDC.

The following comments were made:-

•  Living in Bromley (page 135) - the first sentence within the coloured table should read 'The Council will make provision for at least 641 additional homes per annum over the fifteen year Plan period which will be facilitated by: ….'.

•  Getting Around (page 136) - with regard to the provision of off-street parking for 1-2 bedroom accommodation, clarification was sought on what constituted 0.7 space.

•  Safeguarding land for transport investment (page 136) - One Member was pleased to note the Council's proposal to explore with TfL the potential for improvements at the junction of the A232 Croydon Road and the A233 Westerham Road and Oakley Road as currently this was an extremely precarious junction.  Feedback on progress achieved in this matter was requested.

•  Potential Draft Site Allocations and Designations (Table 1 - page 139) - One Member was unhappy with the proposal to redesignate land at Turpington Lane for educational use due to the winding nature of the surrounding roads and the inability to prevent vehicles from speeding.

•  Potential Draft Site Allocations and Designations (Table 1 - page 140) - The Maybury Works in Worsley Bridge Road was currently industrial, commercial and employment use.  The former Dylon site located adjacent to this had been designated for commercial use.  Redesignating The Maybury Works to mixed residential would result in an over-intensive use and a request to retain its current designation was requested.  Members were informed that retaining the site's current designation would be difficult because whilst it provided employment for 40-60 people, approximately one third of the site remained unused.

•  Potential Draft Site Allocations and Designations (Table 1 - page 140) - in regard to Bromley Civic Centre, the words "and other town centre uses" was vague and should be clarified.

•  Potential Draft Site Allocations and Designations (Table 1 - page 141) - One Member opposed the expansion of the site at Higham Hill Farm, Layhams Road, Keston.  The land was used as a buffer between the road and the showman's site.  A long-term strategy was required to locate plots elsewhere.

•  School sites should be safeguarded and one Member asked whether this could be done at the determination stage of an application.  The Chairman reported the Education Department considered it necessary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.