Agenda and minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Lisa Thornley  020 8461 7566

Items
No. Item

42.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Minutes:

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Russell Mellor.

43.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

Visiting Member Councillor Will Rowlands declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 3 as he was related to Mr Ted Rowlands, Chairman of The Porcupine Development Group. Councillor Rowlands was permitted to remain in the meeting to speak as a Visiting Ward Member on The Porcupine application.

 

Councillor Christine Harris declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 4 as she had been Chairman of the Langley Park Residents’ Association for the past 15 years. Councillor Harris was permitted to remain in the meeting to speak and vote on item 4.

44.

PLANNING APPLICATION (19/01670/FULL1) - THE PORCUPINE, 24 MOTTINGHAM ROAD, MOTTINGHAM, LONDON SE9 4QW (Mottingham and Chislehurst North Ward) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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.

 

Oral representations from the applicant included reference to carbon emissions, highways issues, road safety, the realignment of pavements and marketing of the site.

 

The applicant and his colleagues from SCP and Walsingham Planning gave the following responses to Member questions:-

 

·  On average, two deliveries per day would be made using 16½ tonne vehicles.  The use of smaller vehicles would result in more deliveries being made.  A permit would be required during restricted hours.

·  Hours of operation were 8am – 9pm (Monday-Saturday) and 10am – 4 pm (Sunday).

·  The site had been marketed since 2013 and had been constantly marketed from the time the application had been drawn up.

·  The kitchen was removed by the previous occupiers when they vacated the site.

·  The lighting column on the north side would be relocated north towards the crossing point and positioned 2.8m from the nearest residential property and less than 30m from the next column.

·  The northern side of the pavement would be widened to 3.3m.

·  In accordance with the London Plan, 14 electric car charging spaces would be provided consisting of 7 active and 7 passive. If required, a rapid charger could be provided alongside the proposed fast chargers.

·  In regard to solar power, a wide variety of measures had been included in the design.

·  A 40% reduction in emissions re. transport had already been achieved and the applicant was aiming to reduce this by a further 20%.

·  The applicant was willing to discuss the signing of a Legal Agreement not to vary the hours of delivery for a reasonable number of years).

·  A total of 40 people would be employed, some part-time and some full-time, working staggered shifts during trading hours.

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from visiting Ward Member Councillor David Cartwright who reported the following:-

 

·  Road safety issues posed an unacceptable risk to the public and local community.

·  Ward Member views were based on personal knowledge of the area, gained over many years.

·  Not replacing the existing streetlamp at the pedestrian crossing (as stated in para. 2 on page 14 of the report), would result in a lower level of safety.

·  The accident statistics reported at para. 9.67, page 45 were disputed.  On average, there were at least 12 road accidents per year.

·  Paras. 69-71 (page 46), referred to sightlines.  The site was located alongside a very busy road where pavement widths were the minimal 2m measurement and  Greenwich Council had objected strongly on this issue.

·  There were also environmental issues including inadequate social distancing measures.

·  Traffic levels were 30% less at the moment due to Covid-19 restrictions.

·  The Council was under pressure to provide new homes and this site would be ideal for such provision.

·  Some smaller local shops would close and move away if the application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

45.

PLANNING APPLICATION (19/01543/RECON) - LAND AT JUNCTION WITH SOUTH EDEN PARK ROAD AND BUCKNALL WAY, BECKENHAM (Kelsey and Eden Park Ward) pdf icon PDF 773 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Description of application - Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove condition 3 (scheme to be submitted for the provision of affordable housing) of permission ref. 19/01543/FULL1 for residential development comprising erection of 6 x four storey buildings consisting of 10 four bedroom houses and 133 x one, two and three bedroom apartments together with concierges office. Construction of basement car park with 204 spaces. Central landscaped area with 10 visitor spaces cycle parking for 286 and refuse stores.

 

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

 

·  The assessment of financial viability was a complex process and the Council’s officers had confirmed in the report that the development was currently unviable.

·  A late stage viability review may still result in no payment to the Council.  As a solution, the applicant was willing to make an immediate payment of £345k to the Council in lieu of the provision of affordable housing.

·  This offer had come about due to a lower Mayoral CIL figure being required than was initially anticipated, which had resulted in the release of some additional funds.

 

In response to Member questions, the  agent reported that:-

 

·  The payment of £345k was being made to avoid the uncertainty that would result from a late stage review and uncertainty was something that funding institutions were wary of.

·  Monies received from the Funding Institute would enable construction to take place.

·  While the scheme was making a profit, it was at a significantly reduced level and one which proved unviable for the provision of affordable housing.

·  If permitted, the developer was ready to begin work in the New Year which would take approximately 24-30 months to complete.

·  No details of professional fees were currently to hand but these were the industry norms which included lawyers, estate agents, consultants’ fees, etc. as set by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and agreed as part of the viability guidance.

·  In regard to a late stage review, advice had been sought from David Elvin QC who suggested that it might not be possible to produce a satisfactory and lawful review mechanism in relation to affordable housing. The Draft London Plan policy could not be imposed as it conflicted with the current London Plan and there was no policy or legal basis for it to be required at the moment.

 

The Principal Planner confirmed the scheme was currently unviable and reported that the development would generate a deficit of £1,117,953 as shown in Table 1 on pages 342-343.

 

Furthermore, there had been no discussion during the application process as to how the figure of £345k in lieu of affordable housing had been arrived at (as set out in paragraph 6.64 of the report). The scheme was still unviable even when taking into account the Mayoral CIL figure which both parties had agreed on and as shown in Table 1.

 

Councillor Dean moved that Condition 3 be removed without the need for a late  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

 

Original Text: