Agenda and minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Lisa Thornley  020 8461 7566

Items
No. Item

8.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from the Chairman, Councillor Peter Dean.  Councillor Richard Scoates acted as Chairman for the meeting.

 

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Eric Bosshard; Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP attended as substitute.

 

Apologies for absence were also received from Councillors Douglas Auld, Nicky Dykes and David Livett.

9.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were received.

10.

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS HELD ON 11 MAY 2016 AND 2 JUNE 2016 pdf icon PDF 29 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meetings held on 11 May and 2 June 2016 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

11.

QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING

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 5 July 2016.

 

Minutes:

The following oral question was received from Mr John Ince on behalf of CRA20ten Residents’ Association, St Paul’s Cray in relation to the “Living in Bromley” Draft Policy: Housing Supply/Bromley Valley Gym, Chipperfield Road:-

 

‘In noting the public responses and especially in the light of the recognition by a national developer that the surrounding housing area is of a low density nature, would you (Chairman/Members) agree that the inclusion of a specific figure of 200 units is arbitrary, inappropriate and misleading for what is a policy document, when this and other details should be left to the relevant Committee once a formal application is received?’

 

The Chairman gave the following response:-

 

‘The Committee will be considering all of the housing proposals at a later stage of the agenda and it would not be right to give a separate response on one site in advance.

 

In general, the Council does need to meet a housing target of over 641 new homes each year. To do so in line with national guidance it needs to be able to show that it can justify this at a site-by site level, so it is important to include a figure in the policy proposals in this consultation draft Local Plan.’

 

Mr Ince then submitted a supplementary question as follows:-

 

‘I understand the Council’s need to conform to policy but would the Chairman/Members agree that providing a specific figure of 200 instead of merely stating “an element” of housing is a clear invitation for a developer to use as a planning guideline, where no site capacity appears to have been addressed?’

 

The Chairman responded with the following:-

 

‘This is a matter which Members may discuss under the appropriate section of this agenda.’

 

The following written question was submitted by Mr Clive Lees, Chairman, Ravensbourne Valley Preservation Society:-

 

‘Further to the Chairman’s response to my written question at the DCC meeting held on 9 February 2016, I would like to ask the following:-

 

No valid application has yet been made.  The Society note that the properties in this development were sold approximately 18 months ago yet still:-

 

·  neighbours are blighted by a loss of privacy (privacy screens have not been installed);

 

·  cyclists have nowhere satisfactory to park their bicycles (there is no roof on the ‘cycle shed’);

 

·  the driveway has none of the promised soft landscaping and is therefore rather an eyesore next to what is otherwise a fine, locally listed building; and

 

·  permission has not yet been granted for an unauthorised additional window in the north flank.

 

Additionally, since our last question to DCC, Mike Hammond, Highway Development Engineers, has also identified that the drive may not have been constructed in accordance with the permitted application and so this is a further complaint.

 

We should be grateful if the Council would now insist that the matter is regularised as a matter of urgency and advise us of what progress is being made in this respect.’

 

The Chairman responded as follows:-

 

‘The application received was never made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

THE STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (SCI) RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION AND PROPOSED REVISIONS pdf icon PDF 170 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report DRR16/041

 

Members considered responses to the six week public consultation period undertaken earlier this year, regarding the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (2016).  Members were also requested to recommend that the revised SCI (set out as Appendix 2 of the report) be referred to the next meeting of the Executive on 20 July 2016 for approval.

 

The draft revised SCI was agreed for consultation by the DCC on 10 December 2015 and the Executive on 13 January 2016.  The SCI set out how the Planning Authority proposed to engage with stakeholders and residents in the development plan-making process and planning application process.  In total, 8 responses were received.

 

The Local Green Space consultation ran concurrently with the revised SCI to which 70 responses were received.

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

1)  the responses to the consultation on the draft revised Statement of Community Involvement 2016 be noted; and

 

2)  the draft revised SCI attached as Appendix 2 of the report, be referred to the meeting of the Executive on 20 July 2016 for approval.

 

13.

BROMLEY'S PROPOSED DRAFT LOCAL PLAN FOR CONSULTATION pdf icon PDF 279 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report DRR16/059 – (Page references in these Minutes refer to the DCC agenda unless otherwise stated)

 

Members were requested to endorse the Draft Local Plan, subject to alterations agreed by the Chief Planner in consultation with the Leader of the Council and finalisation of supporting documents, for a six weeks consultation in compliance with Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012.

 

The Chairman directed discussion through the sections contained in the Draft Local Plan.  The following comments and proposed amendments were made by Members for the purposes set out in the recommendations:-

 

Chapter 1 - Introduction

 

·  Page numbers to be included against each chapter listed on page 61.

 

·  Agreed that a general description of areas within the Borough (i.e. suburban, urban, rural) be added to the introduction section.

 

Chapter 2 – Vision and Objectives

 

The Chairman referred to the ‘boxed’ text on page 70 (Vision – Bromley 2031) which had been strengthened in regard to the protection and enhancement of conservation areas and heritage assets within the Borough.

 

·  Design and the Public Realm (page 72) – It was agreed that a clarified definition such as ‘good quality’ public art be included to avoid any misunderstanding that graffiti may be considered as such.

 

Chapter 3 - Spatial Strategy

 

This chapter focused on employment and growth of specified areas such as the economic growth of the Biggin Hill SOLDC, the Cray Business Corridor and changes to Green Belt boundaries in regard to education sites.

 

·  It was noted that whilst taking land from the Green Belt to accommodate the expansion of schools was not ideal, some protection would be retained by its reclassification as Urban Open Space or Metropolitan Open Land.

 

·  Page 77 - Members voted in favour of this paragraph being amended to read:- Paragraph 5: ‘The London Plan 2015 imposes the minimum housing target …’

 

·  Conformity with the London Plan (page 77) - It was noted that the forecasted increase in employment growth of 13.6% incorporated all methods of employment including home working.

 

Chapter 4 – Living in Bromley

 

The Council would provide a minimum of 641 additional homes per annum.  The Housing Supply Policy identified and allocated sites for residential development and outlined the timescales involved in delivering schemes.  The Greater London Authority was satisfied that Bromley was achieving its housing target. 

 

·  It was necessary for a predicted number of units to be set against each development scheme as a way of planning how housing targets could be met. 

 

·  It was suggested that the proposed bus station development at Bromley North could be transferred to nearby sites.  The Chief Planner explained that the Bromley North site allowed for a variation in the mix of development however, this should include transport.

 

·  Ravensbourne, Plaistow, Sundridge Renewal Area Policy (page 119) – Whilst acknowledging that PTAL ratings were taken from the London Plan, Councillor Turner disagreed with Downham being categorised as an area of deprivation and the statement that transport links were ‘relatively poor’.  Grove Park was the nearest Railway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.