Agenda and minutes

All Members were present.

No declarations of interest were received.

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 Friday 15 May 2020.

A total of 12 questions for written reply were submitted to the Chairman.  A copy of those questions, together with the Chairman’s responses can be viewed at Annex A to these Minutes.

Minute 67 – Planning Application (19/04644/FULL1) – National Westminster Sports Ground (page 11, first paragraph)

The Legal Representative confirmed that the one-off Section 106 payment would be set aside for carbon initiatives.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2020 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

(There are no matters outstanding from previous Minutes.)

Members noted there were no matters outstanding from the Minutes of previous meetings.

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

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL.

The reason for withdrawal of the report was due to the publication of very recent statutory Government guidance in respect of highways. This had raised considerable concerns about the proposal to reduce substantially the width of the public footway opposite the site as part of this application.

While the proposal also incorporated an increase in width of the pavement on the opposite side, the reduction was in basic terms entirely contrary to this guidance. The Highway Authority had raised serious concerns about this matter. While Lidl had provided their response supporting the benefits overall of their proposal, the Assistant Director Planning was not satisfied that the matter should be disregarded at this point.

The Council had yet to decide its corporate approach to this highways guidance. At this point, the Assistant Director Planning was not comfortable putting the application forward with the recommendation as set out in the agenda. He did not feel in these unusual circumstances that he could provide Members with a clear recommendation and therefore the application should be withdrawn from the agenda until such time as he could.

Additionally, the Assistant Director Planning intended to use this time to seek a review of the highways aspects of the proposal by an independent consultant as he was aware of the continuing concerns raised in this regard.

Description of application – Application for planning permission and listed building consent to enable minor demolitions, conversion, restoration and extension of the Old Town Hall (OTH) Building (extensions no greater than 3 storeys in cumulative height) to provide office space (Class B1), ancillary hotel bedrooms (x 24) (Class C1), and a food and drinking establishment within the Old Courthouse (Class A4); and

Five storey residential scheme consisting of 53 apartments (18 x 1 bed, 34 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed) (Class C3) with basement parking for 26 cars upon the former South Street Car Park Site (SSCP), along with provision of 160 cycle spaces across both sites. (72 spaces - Old Town Hall, and 88 spaces - South Street Car Park), landscaping, public realm improvements and ancillary development.

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

·  The proposals presented a unique solution for the delivery of strategically significant mixed-use development and would provide overwhelming economic, heritage and regeneration benefits to the Old Town Hall and South Street Car Park sites and for Bromley Town Centre generally.

·  The proposals were compliant with national, regional and local planning policy.  Other significant material considerations included:-

o  the existence of the recent planning permission for the site.  The residential proposals for the SSCP site remained fundamentally unchanged from the approved scheme;

o  the proposed mixed-use was consistent with the aims and objectives of the site-specific policy allocation under Opportunity Site C within the Adopted Area Action Plan;

o  the scheme would secure the long-term future and re-use of the Old Town Hall site, thus protecting the existing Grade II Listed Building, which was presently identified as a ‘building at risk’ by Historic England;

o  the proposed primary office use of the Old Town Hall site represented a “good fit” in respect of compatible uses resulting in minimal physical intervention and impact upon the fabric of the listed building to facilitate its re-use.

o  the proposed mixed-use would add to the diversity of use within the town centre, contributing to its vitality and viability. The office use in particular, would provide significant economic impetus within the town centre by providing a focused and innovative co-working employment hub;

o  the proposals for both the Old Town Hall and South Street Car Park sites would be acceptable in terms of its planning, operational and environmental impacts.

In summary, the application met the requirements of planning policy in all respects and was worthy of approval.

In response to questions  from Members, the applicant’s agent made the following statements:-

·  20% of the electric car charging provision would be active, leaving the remaining 80% to allow for adaptation in the future.

·  A balance was needed between the security needs of residents and public access to the two listed Council Chambers and the main entrance lobbies.  The Court House would be accessible to members of the public and the Chambers would be designated as a co-working space. The applicant was prepared  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Description of application – Application for planning permission and listed building consent to enable minor demolitions, conversion, restoration and extension of the Old Town Hall (OTH) Building (extensions no greater than 3 stories in cumulative height) to provide office space (Class B1), ancillary hotel bedrooms (x 24) (Class C1), and a food and drinking establishment within the Old Courthouse (Class A4), and

Five storey residential scheme consisting of 53 apartments (18 x 1 bed, 34 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed) (Class C3) with basement parking for 26 cars upon the former South Street Car Park Site (SSCP), along with provision of 160 cycle spaces across both sites. (72 spaces - Old Town Hall, and 88 spaces - South Street Car Park), landscaping, public realm improvements and ancillary development.

The Chairman moved that Listed Building Consent be granted; this was seconded by Councillor Mellor.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that LISTED BUILDING CONSENT BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control.

Description of application – Demolition of Wells House building and the redevelopment of the site to provide a part 7 and part 8 storey, comprising 10,598 sqm office floor space (Use Class Order Class B1(a)) with associated landscaping, cycle and parking spaces.

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

·  Over the past three years, the applicant had worked proactively with the Council following pre-application advice and by further refining the scheme post-submission.

·  The site comprised a 1970s office building, representative of much of the existing stock in Bromley Town centre. This dated design was no longer fit for purpose.

·  The aspiration of the Local Plan and AAP’s long standing designation of Elmfield Road as a Business Improvement Area had yet to be realised. The area was in need of investment to attract future occupiers in order to compete with regional office markets such as Croydon.

·  The proposed investment in the site provided an opportunity not previously seen in this Business Improvement Area.

·  The scheme optimised this town centre brownfield site by replacing the dated architecture with a modern office building designed to the British Council for Offices’ latest guidance.

·  The modest increase in height reflected the context of this town centre location, with a significant separation from the residential properties to the east of Kentish Way. There was no change in use and it had been demonstrated that there would be no harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents.

·  The high quality design was universally supported by Bromley officers and the GLA design officer.

·  This was underpinned by its sustainability credentials which achieved BREEAM Excellent and a 47% carbon energy reduction on site.

·  The building would incorporate green roofs, SUDS, 100% ECVP spaces, and had been future-proofed with cycle storage, shower facilities and spaces to draft London Plan standards.

·  The scheme would provide Bromley’s first purpose built Grade A office accommodation with an uplift of almost 7,000 sqm to provide an additional 450 jobs. It would assist the wider aspirations of driving footfall to the town centre and would also secure a financial contribution for wider public realm improvements.

·  The scheme accorded with planning policy at all levels and the proposed investment would provide substantial benefits for Bromley Town Centre.

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member Councillor Michael Rutherford in support of the application were received at the meeting and included the following points:-

·  Having visited the site at various times of the day, it appeared the scheme would have minimal impact on residents in Rafford Way.

·  The development would improve the quality of office space available in Bromley.

Councillor Joel asked whether one or two office floors could be divided into individual rooms for small businesses.  The agent responded that the proposed open floor plan fully adhered to office standards.  Division into smaller units was not something the applicant would wish to consider at this time. The aim was to attract larger companies who were looking to relocate outside of Central  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Description of application – Demolition of existing building and construction of part 3/part 4 storey block of 34 flats with associated car and bicycle parking, refuse and recycling storage and landscaping.

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

·  Various issues with the content of the report were raised in a letter to the Council dated 19 May 2020.

·  As outlined in the report, the development was acceptable except for the conflict with Policy 11 which sought to protect sites that provided specialist accommodation.  The report failed to note that the use of the building for the provision of specialist accommodation for older people ceased as of 1 May 2015 as set out on the application form that accompanied the application for the redevelopment of the site for 9 dwellings.  It was, therefore, a matter of fact that the provision of specialist accommodation for older people from this site ceased just over five years ago. It was not right that this policy was afforded the same degree of weight as if the application related to a building that had recently closed or moreover still active but proving unviable to continue. The Policy was only formally adopted 18 months ago, more than three years following closure of the site and when an alternative residential development had been approved. The use of the site for specialist accommodation had therefore long since ceased and any need for such provision had been met elsewhere by other developments.  There was, therefore, no net loss to the provision of specialist accommodation for older people as envisaged by the Policy.

·  Balanced against this, Members must consider that this scheme would deliver 34 new residential apartments of which 12 were to be provided as affordable housing. The report acknowledged that there was not a current 5-year housing land supply position and therefore the provision of housing should be afforded significant weight in favour of the proposals. This was accepted by Planning Inspectors when determining appeals in Bromley as well as generally within authorities lacking the necessary housing supply. While the application would see 12 of the 34 units being provided as affordable housing, the current discussions with interested purchasers of the completed scheme indicated it was likely that all 34 units would be delivered as affordable housing. The additional 22 units would need to fall outside of the scope of any Section 106 Agreement due to funding arrangements with housing associations.

·  If Members accepted there was no fallback position regarding the implementation of the 9 unit dwelling scheme, which was not accepted by the applicant, then Members should consider whether the full weight of Policy 11 was applicable to this site and in the context of the housing crisis and the lack of sufficient supply at present in this Borough. If Members considered there was conflict with the Policy, it should not singularly amount to such harm that it otherwise outweighed the benefits acknowledge in the report.

In response to questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Report HPR2020/009

Members were provided with details of action taken under authorised Delegated Authority for breaches of planning control during the period January  to March 2020.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

REPORT HPR2020/007

Members considered whether three non-immediate Article 4 Directions should be sought to withdraw permitted development rights (PDRs) for change of use from office to residential.  The Directions would apply to three Office Clusters shown in the Bromley Local Plan (January 2019) which were Crayfield Business Park (Cray Valley West), Knoll Rise (Orpington) and Masons Hill (Bromley Town).  The Directions would not come into force until 12 months had elapsed from the date the Directions were made, subject to confirmation by the Renewal, Recreation and Housing Portfolio Holder.

The Chairman reminded Members that removal of PDRs would not prevent development but would add an extra level of protection as the applicant would need to submit a planning application for permission.

Referring to the high quality office space in Knoll Rise, Orpington, Councillor Huntington-Thresher reported the site was listed in Bromley’s Local Plan and was definitely worth protecting.

Councillor Owen reported that the change of use from offices to flats in Orpington had seriously damaged lunchtime trade.

RESOLVED that:-

1  the making of three ‘non-immediate’ Article 4 Directions to withdraw the permitted development right granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), be endorsed;

2  the matter be referred to the Renewal, Recreation and Housing Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee for pre-decision scrutiny; and

3  Members note that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal, Recreation and Housing will be asked to authorise the making of the non-immediate Directions, which will come into force 12 months from the day on which they are made, if they are subsequently confirmed following public consultation.

Report HPR2020/006

Members were requested to recommend that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal, Recreation and Housing confirm the immediate and non-immediate Article 4 Directions on Land at New Years Lane which were made on 7 January 2020 following a decision by the Portfolio Holder as recommended by Members of the DCC.  The Directions restricted various permitted development rights, with the non-immediate Direction (v) not coming into effect until the required 12 month period of notification had elapsed (7 January 2021).

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal, Recreation and Housing be recommended to confirm the immediate and non-immediate  Article 4 Directions on the Land at New Years Lane, restricting the following permitted development rights, with the non-immediate Direction not coming into effect until the required 12 month period of notification had elapsed:-

 (i)  erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure (Class A of Part 2);

(ii)  formation, laying out and construction of means of access … (Class B of Part 2);

(iii)  provision of temporary buildings, etc. (Class A of Part 4);

(iv)  use of land for any purpose for not more than 28 days per year (Class B of part 4); and

(v)  use of land as a caravan site (Class A of Part 5).

REPORT HPR2020/005

This report outlined current controls relating to Homes in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and the nature and scale of HMOs in Bromley.  The report also assessed current and potential impacts of HMOs and set out potential avenues to address possible harm that may materialise, noting relevant processes, data requirements and the experience of other boroughs.

Visiting Member Councillor Michael Rutherford considered it would not be unreasonable for permitted development rights (PDRs) which currently allowed a change of use from houses to homes of multiple occupation (HMOs) to be withdrawn.  Conversion could still take place but developers would be required to submit a planning application which would allow consultation to take place.

Councillor Own agreed with the suggestion that PDRs be withdrawn to minimise the risk of attracting undesirable occupancy.

The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy reported that officers were liaising with the Licensing Department to consider methods of controlling and/or implementing additional licensing for HMOs.

Councillor Allen considered it made sense for the Council to bring itself into line with other boroughs.  Inspection of housing was needed to help protect residents. However, a certain amount of control was required.

While Councillor Fawthrop supported the work currently being undertaken, he believed the establishment of a blanket ban on PDRs should not be considered at this stage but could be reviewed at a later date. Councillor Huntington-Thresher agreed and suggested that different levels of control could be introduced with the classification of a large HMO being defined as four or more unrelated occupants as opposed to six as stated in the report.

The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy reminded Members that National Development Rights could not be amended.

Councillor Mellor urged Members and officers to act with great alacrity on this issue as change of use to HMOs was being used by developers for financial gain.

RESOLVED to note:-

1  the impacts of HMOs identified in the report;

2  that officers would undertake further work to:-

  (i)  establish an understanding of the trends and spatial distribution of HMOs across the borough and assess the justification for and implications of, further actions where necessary; and

  (ii)  consider the implications of emerging national and regional design guidance and observe any relevant outcomes from the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

…………………………………..

Following the completion of business, Members commended the Chairman for successfully hosting and controlling the first virtual meeting of the Development Control Committee which ran smoothly and uninterrupted.