Venue: Bromley Civic Centre
Contact: Lisa Thornley 020 8461 7566
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kevin Brooks and Nicky Dykes; Councillors Angela Wilkins and Ellie Harmer attended as their respective substitutes.
An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Charles Joel.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were received.
The Legal Representative reported comments received from Councillor Dykes’ which stated she could not comfortably agree the Minutes as a true reflection on the meeting.
Councillor Dykes had received no satisfactory explanation as to why a refusal notice was issued when no vote had been taken. Whilst she understood the Council’s position in that refusal was inferred with the Committee not ratifying the decision, she questioned whether that was acceptable for such an important application.
There was a significant difference between “ratifying a motion to approve planning consent” and deciding retrospectively that in not ratifying the motion, it was refused.
Members were then advised that the decision made by the Committee on 25 January 2018 took immediate effect. The Minutes were simply a record of what had already taken place. The discussion was recorded by the Council, the Minute taker had listened very carefully to that recording and the Minutes set out what was said together with the terms of the resolutions. By law and the Council's Constitution, Minutes were submitted to the next meeting of the Committee for confirmation. The Council's Constitution was clear in that the Rules of Procedure (Regulation 16) set out that the Mayor (or Chairman in this case) would sign the Minutes of the proceedings at the next suitable meeting. The Chairman would move that the Minutes of the previous meeting be signed as a correct record. The only part of the Minutes that could be discussed was their accuracy.
The Legal Representative was aware of the complaint about the subsequent decision to issue a decision notice however, that was a complaint not about the accuracy of the Minutes but about actions taken subsequent to the meeting and was not an item on the agenda for discussion at this meeting. It would be very wrong to confuse the two. It was important that Members either agreed the Minutes or, if they believed the Minutes did not reflect their statements or the terms of the resolution, then a discussion could take place. However, it was not an item to raise new matters that were not before the original Committee and set out in the Minutes as a record of their decision. On that basis the Chairman was requested to put the Minutes to the meeting.
Whilst Councillor Bennett did not dispute the accuracy of the Minutes, he asked why the Council had issued a refusal notice following the previous meeting held on 25 January 2018 during which the only resolution made was not to ratify Members’ previous decision. It was agreed that a written response would be sent to Councillor Bennett.
Councillor Wilkins sought clarification on the Legal Representative’s statement that decisions ‘took immediate effect’ given that the Committee’s previous decision taken in October did not do so. Whilst she accepted the Minutes were, overall, an accurate record, she wished to make one minor change and also requested that scope be made for discussion under ‘matters arising’ as discussion was required on the serious issues that ... view the full minutes text for item 57.
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 5 pm on Wednesday 7 March 2018.
Two written questions were received from Mr Colin Willetts, Secretary of Longbury Residents’ Association. These questions, together with the Chairman’s responses are set out below:-
Could the Chairman tell us of all planning applications (to include dates/outcomes inc. updates) by Persimmon Homes to develop the frontage plot of land in Grays Farm Road (adjacent entrance to Stilwell Close)?
No planning applications were submitted by Persimmon Homes to develop the frontage plot of land in Grays Farm Road, adjacent entrance to Stilwell Close.
There has been one planning application for the site (16/05004/FULL1) submitted by Thomas Aston Homes Ltd for “Erection of 8 three bedroom terraced houses with 14 car parking spaces, cycle parking and refuse stores.” That application was granted planning permission on 18 April 2017.
Could the Council contact them to remove Herras fencing and replace with upgrade hoarding as the site now looks like a levelled bomb site 'eyesore’?
The heras fencing at the site is considered to be permitted development as it is a temporary hoarding around the site and as such, it would not be expedient for the Council’s Planning Enforcement team to take any further action in this instance.
This is a current development site with a planning permission in place DC16/05004/FULL1.
Arrangements could be made for an investigation to take place to ascertain whether the current condition of the land adversely affects the amenity of the area and whether it would warrant any action under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. However, this is a discretionary power and a decision will be made as to whether a notice under these provisions would be appropriate in this particular case.
Description of application – Demolition of existing nightclub building and other buildings and structures and removal of existing hardstanding and construction of new football ground comprising clubhouse and stands (max height approx. 8.4m) with floodlit artificial playing pitch, external grass sports pitches and 42 no. dwellings (26x3 bed two storey terraced dwellings, 12x2 bed flats and 4x1 bed flats set within 4 two storey blocks) with associated access, parking and landscaping.
Members were informed that further representations in support of the application had been received which raised no new points from those set out in the officer’s report.
Since publication of the report, an amended Energy Assessment had been submitted which officers considered acceptable. The carbon off-setting sum had been agreed with the applicant and as such, Members were advised that the third ground for refusal in the report no longer formed part of the officer recommendation.
Amended floorplans had also been received which indicated a wheelchair housing unit in line with relevant Building Control Standards. The floorplans were considered acceptable and should permission be granted, it was recommended that a condition be added to require detailed floorplans to be agreed prior to the start of the above groundworks.
Mr Hillman explained that Cray Wanderers was the second oldest football club in the world and one of the Borough's oldest sporting clubs whose future depended on finding a new 'home'. The application was supported by local community groups and residents' associations. All concerns raised by the Mayor of London and Members when the scheme was previously considered in 2016 had been addressed. During the past 10 years over 2,000 letters of support had been received including 570 for this particular scheme. The application included previously developed land and the four storey nightclub building. The height of the residential buildings and the clubhouse had both been reduced to two storeys. The more traditional design was also considered to be an improvement. The openness of the Green Belt had increased and the square footage of the residential and leisure elements had decreased. The nightclub building would be removed. The scheme provided 100% affordable (largely shared) ownership properties, a large football pitch, trees and planting to screen the housing from the football ground and an improved youth and community offering.
The new scheme substantially improved the development's overall viability and Planning Officers had accepted the amended energy strategy assessment. Overall, there was a much more robust case in planning terms to enable Members to again decide (as in 2016) that very special circumstances had been proven. This was a unique scheme that would turn an eyesore into a community asset. Twenty alternative sites had been explored in the last decade but this was the only viable option for the Club. Should the application be refused, Flamingo Park would continue to deteriorate and remain unavailable to the community for its original sporting use.
Members considered the Council’s proposed Authority Monitoring Report for 2016/17 which contained key information about the planning system in the London Borough of Bromley and the extent to which the Council’s planning policies were being implemented.
The AMR met the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended), the Localism Act 2011 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.
The Chairman advised that this report was annually submitted to Committee and amongst other things, reflected progress achieved on the Authority’s house building targets.
Councillor Michael referred to page 112 which stated the amount of footfall in all of the Town Centres had steadily declined between December 2016 and December 2017. She suggested this may be the result of more people shopping on line or travelling to other centres such as Lewisham. The Chief Planner confirmed that the statement was based on factual data however the precise reasons for the decline were unknown.
Referring to figure 8 on page 105 of the report, Councillor Allen noted the percentage figures for completed 1 and 2 bedroom units had been reversed in the graph’s supporting text. The sentence should read:- ‘39% were completed as 1 bedroom units and 47% as 2 bedroom units.’.
The Chief Planner confirmed to Councillor Allen that the total completion figures set out on page 104 of the report did include offices which had been converted into dwellings. In regard to Appendix 1 which set out completed Section 106 Legal Agreements, some of those had only recently been included however, information would be provided wherever possible to show monies paid or action taken as a result of those agreements. The Council’s E&R PDS Committee received regular updates on this, so more detail would be provided at the Scrutiny Committee.
RESOLVED that the proposed Authority Monitoring Report for 2016/17 be agreed.
Following submission of the Council’s Draft Local Plan to the Secretary of State in August 2017, a series of public Hearings were held in which representors were given the opportunity to make their concerns directly known to an independent inspector.
To address some of the issues raised at those Hearings, Members were now requested to consider some main Modifications to the Draft Local Plan and to review the classification of Minor Modifications to establish whether any of these should be considered as Main Modifications.
The Chairman explained that this was one of the final phases for the Local Plan to be accepted. The Chief Planner reported that in mid-2017, the Draft Local Plan was agreed for submission by DCC, the Executive and Full Council. It was then submitted to the Secretary of State in August 2017 for examination by the Secretary of State’s Independent Inspector. Hearings were held at the Civic Centre in December 2017. Through the hearing sessions and subsequent advice received from the Inspector, further main modifications to the Plan (Appendix 1) had been identified which were needed to make the Plan sound. Appendix 2 contained modifications proposed by the Council in 2017 which the Inspector had requested be reclassified as main modifications. A six-week period of public consultation would be required on these modifications and the responses would be submitted to the Inspector. Once the Inspector’s final report had been received the Council would have the option of accepting that report with its changes and modifications for soundness and adopting the final plan.
Referring to the removal of wording in relation to Tree Protection Orders on page 164, para 5.3.2, Councillor Buttinger sought clarification of Policy 43 as her understanding of the existing Plan was that if a tree was situated within a Conservation Area, it would automatically be covered by a blanket TPO. She was concerned that the protection of trees was being downgraded. The Chief Planner reported that all changes were agreed by Full Council in 2017 and nothing had altered since that time. Trees in Conservation Areas had a basic level of protection and Policy 43 set out the criteria for protecting them in the event that someone wanted to fell them.
Councillor Buttinger queried the rationale behind the removal of the words ‘of native species’ from Draft Policy 73 as the inclusion of ‘native species and local provenance’ had been included in other Policies. The Chief Planner advised that the inclusion of ‘native species and local provenance’ was to clarify what type of planting would be required in the event that new trees were to be planted under condition or through a planning obligation. In the case of Draft Policy 73, the words had not been totally deleted but simply been moved for inclusion in the supporting text.
Referring to the first paragraph on page 152 (Provision of Affordable Housing) which stated ‘the Council will seek affordable housing on all housing developments capable of providing 11 residential units or more….’ ... view the full minutes text for item 61.