Apologies were received from Councillors Brock, Fawthrop, Joel, Page, Owen, and Melanie Stevens.  Councillors Bennett and Terry attended as respective substitutes for Councillors Joel and Page.

Councillor Dean declared a non-pecuniary interest as a social member of the National Westminster Sports Ground.

Councillor Scoates declared a non-pecuniary interest as an employee of the National Westminster Group.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions that are not specific to reports on the agenda must have been received in writing 10 working days before the date of the meeting.

Questions specifically relating to reports on the agenda should be received within two working days of the normal publication date of the agenda.  Please ensure that questions specifically relating to reports on the agenda are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5 pm on Thursday 12 March 2020.

No questions were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2020, be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Report CSD20050

The Committee noted that all actions outstanding from previous meetings had been completed.

Members noted the letter from the Secretary of State to the London Mayor (concerning the intent to publish a version of the London Plan and a number of directions the Secretary of State wanted the London Mayor to take) which had been circulated under separate cover.

The Chairman reported that, in view of the Coronavirus, it had been suggested  that the meeting be kept as short as possible and that only the planning applications be considered with any other items dealt with under delegation.

In accordance with the rules of procedure Councillor Dean moved that the Committee only considered the planning applications on the agenda and curtail the agenda to be considered by Planning Officers under delegation.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Bennett put to the vote and unanimously CARRIED.

Description of application - Full planning permission for the demolition of the existing public house and erection of an A1 retail food store, with associated car parking, reconfigured site access, landscaping, servicing and other associated works.

The Chairman noted that a number of additional papers had been tabled for consideration by the Committee.

Oral representations from the applicant in support of the application included the following points:-

·  The site had been the subject of a previous Lidl proposal in 2013 which was refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal in 2014.  At that time the Planning Inspector accepted the important planning benefits that would be delivered by a food store on the site.  It was concerns around highway safety that led to the dismissal of the appeal.

·  The current planning application provided revised site access arrangements ensuring full visibility in both directions along Mottingham Road.  The Council’s Highways department approved the new design and raised no objection to the scheme.

·  The proposed scheme therefore addressed all the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in 2014.

·  The applicant did not embark upon the decision to pursue a second application lightly.  Time had been taken to explore alternative options to ensure that any new proposal was beneficial to the local community.

·  The scheme had received support from local residents both prior to and during the application process.  Almost 1500 residents had register their support for the new proposals.

·  Whilst it was clear that some local residents wished to see the site retained as a public house, the site had been marketed in 2016, with a 6 month period during which the community had the right to bid for the site.  The site had also been the subject of open marketing since November 2018.  No formal offers to return the site to its former pub use had come forward from local community groups or the open market.  An independent report had confirmed that the site was no longer viable as a public house.

·  It was not the case that the amendments to the footpath along Mottingham Road would endanger pedestrians.  The footpath would be a standard width ensuring pedestrian access at all times.

·  The proposal would have no impact on access to the library and wold deliver benefits through improved crossing facilities along Mottingham Road.

·  There were no adverse impact associated with the development and no objections had been received from statutory consultees.

·  The scheme would provide a rage of benefits for the site and Mottingham as a whole, widening consumer choice, securing the redevelopment of a vacant brownfield site, creating up to 40 new jobs which would  be available to the local community.

·  The proposal was a sustainable form of development, accessible by foot and public transport.

·  The application was in accordance with the Council’s Development plan and there were no outstanding planning reasons why the current planning application should not be approved.

In response to questions raised by Councillor Huntington-Thresher, the applicant confirmed that the scheme achieved a 35% reduction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Description of application – Erection of a covered full-size football pitch, creation of an artificial full-size pitch with floodlighting, and regarding of the site to create a full-size show pitch with spectator seating and six training pitches (two full-size, two ¾ size and two half size).  External alterations and lobby and link extensions to the existing buildings.  Installation of maintenance/store sheds, water tanks and under-pitch infrastructure.  Associated highway and landscaping works.

Oral representations from the Chairman of North Copers’ Cope Road Action Group in objection to the application included the following points:-

·  The proposed indoor pitch building was huge and could not be justified within Metropolitan Open Land.

·  The requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 academies were exactly the same as far as the indoor pitch size was concerned – Crystal Palace was currently Category 2 but it could equally be category 1.  The size of the building would not influence Crystal Palace’s chance of being promoted in the category stage.

·  The new development rules required a pitch to be a minimum of 55m x 35m – more or less the size of the current pitch being used at the national sports centre.

·  There needs to be very special circumstances to erect any building on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL).  Youth development rules may constitute very special circumstances if the new building met the minimum requirements laid down by the rules.  However the significant harm caused to the openness of the MOL by the much larger building proposed would undermine or even eliminate these very special circumstances.

·  The proposed building would enclose a full-sized pitch.  However it was emphasised that a full-sized pitch was not a requirement but instead a recommendation.  The proposed pitch of 160m x 81m was four times bigger than that required by the rules.  The planning harm caused by the much larger pitch undermined the very special circumstances.  The site in question was small and relatively open.  Consequently any building would have an enormous impact.

·  The building proposed by Crystal Palace was larger than any other Category 1 academy in the country.

·  Fulham FC had reduced the height of their building in response to local concerns. 

Oral representations from the Chairman of the Club in support of the application included the following points

·  The aim was to create a Category 1 elite academy for up to 200 boys at any one time who received not only a football education but also  mentoring and supervision – taking them through GCSEs and A-Levels.

·  The club was the focal point of all the clubs in the area and as a result kept a lot of young men active, off the streets and learning about the benefits of team work.

·  A great deal of effort had gone into identifying a site.  The proposed site was very near the first team training ground.  Efforts had been made to make the proposed design palatable to everyone in the area.  The scheme primarily utilised existing buildings.  The proposal did include a large indoor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Description of application – Construction of 13 units to be used for Use Classes B1(c), B2 and B8 together with access from Edgington Way, Sidcup  and creation of access from the Fitzroy Business Park, car parking and associated works.

Oral representations from a neighbouring business owner in objection to the application included the following points

·  Chancery Gate had perfectly good access and planning onto Edgington Way and there was no ned to have access through the Fitzroy Estate.

·  There were already issues with security and crime on the estate.  A security gate, controlled by a key pad, secured the site when businesses were closed.  The security gate would have to be removed and this would only result in higher levels of crime.

·  There was insufficient parking and the proposed scheme removed three parking spaces.

·  Sandy Lane, an already busy road, was unlikely to be able to cope with increased traffic flow.

Oral representations from the applicant’s agent in support of the application included the following points

·  Chancery Gate benefit from the same right of access for phase 2 of the development than the current occupiers of phase 1.

·  Following deferral at the last meeting the applicant sought to provide as much clarification as possible regarding the concerns that had been raised.

·  The proposed development would not cause a significant impact on the operation of the Fitzroy Business Park access onto Sandy Lane.

·  Electric Vehicle charging points would be provided in excess of current requirements.

·   Access arrangements had taken place with the owner of Fitzroy Business Park prior to the application being submitted.

·  Application itself represents an opportunity to bring forward a site which had long be allocated for development.

In response to a question from Councillor Bear concerning security, the applicant’s agent confirmed that an arrangement would be made with the owner of Fitzroy Business Park to provide secure access.  The gate would remain in place and would close at 9pm with occupiers of the estate being given a code of the gate.

In response to a question from Councillor Huntington-Thresher regarding parking, the applicant’s agent explained that they had been in discussion with TfL from the pre-application stage.  When the Fitzroy Business Park was approved in 2005/06 there was no provision for parking as it was the logical way of accessing the site.

The Assistant Director of Planning summarised the report in a brief presentation to the Committee which included the following

·  A similar application had recently been permitted where the primary difference was a single point of access.

·  The primary matter for the Committee to consider following the previous deferral was the access arrangements.

·  The highway authority had confirmed that it continued to raise no objection to the application.

·  The issue of access rights was a private matter.

·  Electric vehicle charging points were to be provided.

·  Proposal was for a policy complaint use in a strategic industrial location.

In opening the discussion local ward member, Councillor Yvonne Bear, thanked officers for the additional work that had been completed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Description of application – Discontinued storage of natural gas

(Hazardous Substances Consent Revocation application).

Councillor Michael moved from the Chair that consent be revoked, subject to confirmation that the site operator will not claim compensation and subject to referral to the Secretary of State.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Terry, put to the vote and unanimously CARRIED.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that CONSENT BE REVOKED, subject to confirmation that the site operator will not claim compensation and subject to referral to the Secretary of State.

This item was deferred to be considered under a future meeting of the DCC.

This item was deferred to be considered under a future meeting of the DCC.

This item was deferred to be considered under a future meeting of the DCC.

This item was deferred to be considered under a future meeting of the DCC.

This item was deferred to be considered under a future meeting of the DCC.

This item was deferred to be considered under a future meeting of the DCC.

This item was deferred to be considered under a future meeting of the DCC.