Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Peter Dean.

Councillor Angela Page declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 14 – Petts Wood Conservation Areas, as she had relatives who resided in Little Thrift.

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 18 September 2020..

Two 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.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 July 2020 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Members noted that all matters outstanding from previous meetings had been completed.

Description of application – Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site by the erection of a four to eleven storey development comprising 254 residential units (130 one bedroom; 107 two bedroom and 17 three bedroom) together with the construction of an estate road and ancillary car and cycle parking and the landscaping of the east part of the site to form open space accessible to the public.

Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Mellor moved that the appeal be contested. Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion.

Having considered the report and objections, Members RESOLVED TO CONTEST THE APPEAL as recommended, on the grounds set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control.

[Note - this item was considered after Item 10 - Bromley Housing Trajectory 2020.]

Description of application – Refurbishment and upwards extension of Cranbrook Court to provide 33 units of temporary accommodation for the homeless (Sui Generis) and 12 units of residential accommodation (Use Class C3).

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

·  The proposal site was a former care home, converted to temporary accommodation for the homeless in 2012.  Since then, it had been operated by Orchard and Shipman in line with a legal agreement that afforded the Council first refusal for renting out units via a registered provider.

·  The site had the appearance of being ripe for redevelopment or at the very least, in need of investment. It was originally part of the same plot of land that was redeveloped for Sutherland Court by Hanover Housing and was notably smaller in height and mass than its neighbour, as well as clearly being of older stock. Furthermore, it was a corner plot and conveniently located, being equidistant from Penge East and Kent House railway stations.  It was also a short walk from Penge High Street in one direction and Cator Park in the other.

·  It was suggested at consultation stage that the site would be better developed for accommodation for the elderly. In this regard it should be noted that the existing use was essential to meeting the Council’s statutory duty to house vulnerable people and that the use was policy protected. A comprehensive redevelopment of the site had therefore always been a difficult prospect. As such, development options had always focussed on refurbishment and expansion of the existing building, with the use continuing throughout construction.

·  The end result of this proposal would be the improvement of the quality and quantity of temporary accommodation available to the Council, cross-subsidised by opening up part of the site to private housing. It would not be lost on Members that the provision of housing, particularly at the starter home end of the market, also met a critical need.

·  Initial enquiries about the site’s development potential began in early 2017 and a series of positive and proactive pre-application discussions followed. While the principle of development was never disputed, there was an ongoing concern regarding the proposed height at 4 storeys. The applicant made a number of design amendments seeking to address these concerns but ultimately the original proposal was refused. Although other issues were discussed in detail as part of a subsequent appeal, the determining factor of the appeal dismissal was the scale of development at four storeys.

·  The detailed report of the Planning Inspector set the parameters for the current development proposal. The scheme reduced the number of private units from 19 to 12 and reduced the scale of development from four storeys with a flat roof, to three storeys with a pitched roof. This brought the scheme in line with the scale of surrounding development and was an entirely appropriate addition on what was a prominent corner site.

·  The proposal would secure the future of the temporary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Description of application – Demolition of existing building and construction of a new building to create a part 3/part 4 storey block of 43 x 1 bedroom flats as specialist housing for the elderly, with associated parking, refuse store and landscaping (OUTLINE APPLICATION).

Oral representations from a local resident in objection to the application included the following points:-

·  Northolme Rise was a narrow road from the 1960s, constructed to serve 8 houses at the top.  The lower part was used by vehicles/pedestrians accessing Sherlies Avenue, particularly commuters and schoolchildren being dropped off or walking via an alleyway through to Orpington Station.

·  Ambulances were easily blocked by parked cars and refuse lorries reversed up the road. There was no pavement down the side of the proposed development and elderly residents from Lubbock House were regularly seen walking in the road.

·  The CGI impression of the proposal was not very accurate.  The plans showed the car park goes right-up to the south boundary and the large conifers and the trees to the west of the site were removed over a year ago. A more representative version showing the dominating effect on the surrounding properties and area had been provided to Members.

·  The proposed building extended much further down the site, resulting in a very bulky form.  There was no separation from the parking to the boundary, or parking to the building and elderly pedestrians were forced to walk through moving/parking vehicles contrary to LP Policy 4g.

·  The proposal represented a near 3-fold increase to 86 residents.  Much of the green space was unusable due to the slope of the site, the resulting accessible amenity space did not appear to satisfy Policy 4c considering 86 people, staff and visitors.  The internal communal space for a property designed for 86 elderly people was also very small.

·  The existing site only had a few parking spaces which were used by staff.  None of the elderly residents owned cars and visitors where directed to alternative parking (no longer available).  Increasing the number of residents 3-fold to 86 with deliveries/visitors etc. and 20+ parking spaces clearly represented a significant increase in vehicle movements and issues with the adjoining narrow roads.

·  The independent assessment found significant risk of side impact/shunts due to poor visibility.  Recent sight-line drawings confirmed the 43m clear visibility splay was still not met even after removing vegetation.  Nor did it appear to take into account that the entrance was to be changed to a 1:8 slope further limiting visibility.  This entrance was clearly not compatible with the significant change of use.

·  The proposal represented significant over-development of the site.  It failed many Local Plan Policies in respecting/enhancing an area, space around buildings and maintaining road safety. 

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

·  An application earlier in the year for a part three and part four storey block of 34 normal flats was refused by Members solely on the grounds of loss of specialist accommodation.  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Report HPR2020/027

Members were requested to consider the Bromley Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule for consultation and subsequent submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination.  Once adopted, the Community Infrastructure Levy would provide financial contributions from certain types of development to help fund new or improved strategic infrastructure required to support the growth identified in the Bromley Local Plan.

Referring to Bromley’s Draft Charging Schedule Rates set out on page 161 of the report, the Chairman asked what the other forms of development were that constituted a charge of £0 per sqm.  The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy stated that all other forms of development not mentioned in the table i.e. pubs and restaurants would be £0 per sqm as a charge rate would not be viable for those types of development.

Councillor Bear asked how Bromley’s rates compared with surrounding boroughs.  The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy reported that CIL was introduced in 2011/2012 and over time viability had fluctuated.  Charging rates of boroughs which had initiated CIL in 2013/14 would be different to those where CIL was introduced at a later date. Most had a £0 charge for other developments.  Overall, Bromley would be on par with most other boroughs.

In response to Councillor Huntington-Thresher in relation to permitted development as a conversion, the Head of Planning Policy and Strategy reported that while CIL did apply to permitted development, the charge was usually £0.  Councillor Huntington-Thresher suggested that freestanding blocks should be liable to pay CIL.

RESOLVED that the Executive be recommended to approve the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule for consultation and pending no changes following consultation, subsequent submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination (alongside all relevant supporting documents).

Report HPR2020/28

National planning policy required Local Planning Authorities to identify a supply of housing to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing target.  Bromley’s five-year housing land supply (FYHLS) position was agreed by the Development Control Committee in April 2019. 

Members considered an updated housing trajectory covering the period from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2025).

The report concluded that the Council could not demonstrate a FYHLS.  Where a minimum of five years housing supply could not be demonstrated, the presumption in favour of sustainable development was triggered.

The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy stated that the Council was required to provide an update on the housing supply position on an annual basis.  He referred to an appeal decision on land to the rear of the former Dylon International Premises in which the Planning Inspector had concluded that Bromley was unable to demonstrate a FYHLS.

Noting that the Council only had 3.31 years’ supply for the period covering 2020/21 to 2024/25, the Chairman asked whether any further sites were likely to materialise in the near future.  The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy referred to the appendix in the report which set out the current projected supply of sites, most of which were allocated in the adopted Local Plan. Any site coming forward would need to be deliverable as per the definition set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Further sites may be found when a review of the Local Plan was undertaken.

Councillor Allen referred to the  NPPF (2019) which set out in paragraph 11 a presumption in favour of sustainable development and asked what practical steps could be taken to bring sites forward.  The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy stated that while the housing supply position was given more weight, it did not outweigh the Local Plan; determining development applications was therefore, a balancing exercise.

Members were informed that the definition of ‘deliverable’ was solid evidence that a site would come forward in five years or that planning permission would be granted.  The Planning Authority was not in control of applications submitted.  The FYHLS did have a windfall position with various small sites coming forward.

Following discussion on mitigation, Members were informed that there was nothing the Council could do to bring sites forward except give more weight to the housing supply when considering planning applications; permitting more housing site applications was the only way to achieve the required supply.

RESOLVED that the Bromley Housing Trajectory, including the updated five-year housing land supply position for the period 1 April 2020 – 31 March 2025 be agreed.

Councillor Allen abstained from voting.

HPR2020/29

The Committee considered recently introduced Permitted Development (PD) rights which allowed blocks of flats to extend upwards by up to two storeys to provide new residential units. They also allowed existing office blocks to be demolished and rebuilt.  Members were requested to approve various restrictions on the use of these PD rights in relation to a number of potential impacts.

The report also provided an update on changes to the Use Classes Order and an update on proposed future PD rights relating to 5G.

The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy acknowledged the significant changes which undermined the Local Plan, the full impact of which would not be known for a couple of years and could be quite severe.

A report considering the introduction of Article 4 Directions for building houses/flats in certain areas would be submitted to the DCC meeting in November.

Councillor Fawthrop raised concern in relation to the conversion of agricultural buildings to residential accommodation and moved that an Article 4 Direction be considered in regard to protecting the Green Belt. Councillor Fawthrop also moved that Article 4 Directions be brought in to protect bungalows from upwards extension as this type of accommodation was much sought after by the older population and those people wishing to downsize their property in later life.  The Chairman seconded the motion.

RESOLVED that the details of the new planning legislation and the discussion of potential impacts be noted and that consideration be given to the introduction of Article 4 Directions in regard to the conversion of agricultural buildings to residential accommodation and to protect bungalows from upwards extension.

Members considered the Council’s proposed responses to the government’s “Planning for the Future” consultation which sought views on each part of a package of proposals for “reform of the planning system in England to streamline and modernise the planning process, improve outcomes on design and sustainability, reform developer contributions and ensure more land is available for development where it is needed”.

The Chairman confirmed that she had requested a copy of the full consultation document to be placed in the Members’ room for all Councillors to view. As yet, there was no copy in the Members’ Room for Councillors to read and she asked if one could be placed there as soon as possible.

Councillor Fawthrop requested the response at Q5 (paragraph 3.11) draw the Government’s attention to the importance of protecting Locally Listed Buildings and Areas of Special Residential Character.  National Guidelines should not override these.

He also asked that the response include a statement to emphasise that when the Government implements the new proposals, Councils be given a 12-18 month delay to allow them to designate areas accordingly.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control agreed to Councillor Fawthrop’s requests.

Councillor Allen considered the proposals removed a significant amount of control from the Council; a duty to co-operate was still needed.

In relation to the 5-year housing supply, Councillor Allen was not sure that brownfield sites would help in the delivery of housing or guard against environmental concerns.  However, she was satisfied that the Council was objecting in a constructive way in its response.

Councillor Huntington-Thresher raised the following points:-

·  In its response, the Council should state that it supports a designation of renewal and while there was still a chance for a poorly designed scheme to go ahead, special circumstances would need to be provided.

·  In terms of planning fees, it should be made clear that the Council needed to recover the costs of the planning authority.

·  The Local Plan should be updated via supplementary documents.

·  The Council was not able to confirm if CIL calculations were positive or not. The Authority could find itself in a position of not having enough CIL funding to cover new GP surgeries, public transport, crossings etc.  The Council’s response should, therefore, state that whatever is set by policy should deliver the Council with enough funds to cover infrastructure etc.

In relation to designations, the Chairman pointed out the considerable overlap between growth and renewal.  The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control stated there was not enough detail in the consultation and the proposed response was attempting to say that it was something the Council may support at a later date.

Councillor Owen suggested that the response include reference to the need for action to be taken where developers build without planning permission.

Councillor Owen also pointed out that many coming of the sites coming forward for development were small local sites.  The Council should, therefore, be able to determine what is best for the borough.

The Assistant Director,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Government had published a technical consultation which would run from 6 August 2020 to 1October 2020. The consultation proposed measures to improve the effectiveness of the current planning system (and was different from the fundamental reforms proposed in the Planning for the Future consultation which was the subject of a separate report on this agenda). This report proposed the Council’s formal responses to the technical consultation.

Referring to the ‘Delivering First Homes’ section (page 488), Councillor Allen believed the concept of First Housing to be outdated.  A good quality mix of all different shapes and sizes was required in terms of accommodation.

Councillor Allen did not support proposals for small to medium developments.

The Chairman stated that many young people still aspired to buy a property and therefore the provision of first housing was necessary.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control stated that the responses given were based upon those previously submitted by the Council.

Councillor Huntington-Thresher alluded to the importance of self-builds but could see no mention of this within the consultation.  The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy confirmed that self-build was exempt from CIL.

In relation to Question 3 (para. 3.4, page 488), the Head of Planning Policy and Strategy said it made sense to make sure people could afford to buy in the area in which they worked.

RESOLVED that the proposed responses be agreed as the Council’s formal response to the Government’s August 2020 Planning Technical consultation.

Report HPR2020/30

This report contained an historic assessment of the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) prepared by specialist heritage consultants (BEAMS).  The conclusions of the assessment would form the basis of a public consultation exercise seeking views on the designation of a new Conservation Area and the extension of an existing Conservation Area adjacent to the ASRC.

Councillor Fawthrop drew Members’ attention to the report which referred to ‘Ladywell Road’ throughout; this should in fact read ‘Ladywood Avenue’.

Having scrutinised the report, Councillor Fawthrop highlighted significant errors which can be viewed as Annex B to these Minutes.

The first photograph on page 499 of the BEAMS assessment was of The Covert.  However, this road had not been included as part of the new Conservation Area.  Councillor Fawthrop moved (and it was agreed) that The Covert covering the Noel Rees houses from Nos. 1-29, 2-48 but excluding 24-26b, be included as part of the new Conservation Area.  An application for the installation of roof lights at No. 44 The Covert was dismissed at appeal and enforcement action was undertaken.  The Inspector’s report referred to the unique setting of The Covert and alluded to the design heritage of the Noel Rees houses.  A copy of the appeal can be viewed as Annex C to these Minutes.

It was suggested that other clusters of Noel Rees houses such as those in Willett Way should also be included as they were important heritage assets.

Councillor Owen fully supported Councillor Fawthrop’s suggestion adding that further areas could be included following consultation.

Members were informed that page 497 of the BEAMS report confirmed that churches would be considered as a separate matter.  Article 4 Directions for locally listed buildings were currently being considered.

The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy agreed to consider the inclusion of The Covert in the new proposed Conservation Area.  He also confirmed that as this was a consultation, if Members wished to put forward other areas for consideration, they were at liberty to do so.

While Councillor Allen raised no objections to Conservation Areas, she was shocked to note the budget allocation and for this reason, found it difficult to support the recommendations.

Councillor Stevens emphasised that the Council must make it clear that members of the public were required to give precise details and justification as to why suggested areas should be included in the new Conservation Area.

Councillor Brooks supported the statement made by Councillor Allen in relation to associated costs.  There were Conservation Areas in most wards so potentially all of these may want to be extended too; this would be a costly exercise. 

Councillor Onslow stated that Petts Wood was known as a ‘garden suburb’ and was a unique Conservation Area.

RESOLVED that:-

1.  the historic area assessment report on the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character be noted;

2.  a public consultation exercise be undertaken to seek views on proposals to:-

·  extend the Chislehurst Road Conservation Area to include Birchwood Road to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Members were provided with information relating to Councillor ‘call-ins’ for planning applications which were reported to the Committee on a regular basis.

The report included data for 2019 and the first six months of 2020.  Most call-ins related to applications in Petts Wood; this was closely followed by applications in Chislehurst Ward.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control agreed to check the data given for Darwin Ward (specifically those applications overturned at Committee) and report back to Councillor Scoates.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.