Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Bromley Civic Centre

Contact: Lisa Thornley  020 8461 7566

Items
No. Item

29.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Samaris Huntington-Thresher and Vanessa Allen; Councillors Keith Onslow and Angela Wilkins attended as their respective substitutes.

30.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

Item 12 – Councillor Wilkins declared a non-pecuniary interest as an employee of Hestia which had at least one HMO in the Bromley area.

 

Item 7 – Councillor William Huntington-Thresher declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had a friend who owned a property in Prickley Wood but did not reside in it.

 

Item 6 – Councillor Harris declared a non-pecuniary interest as she was Chairman of the Langley Park Residents’ Association. Councillor Harris took part in the discussion but abstained from voting.

31.

QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING

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 14 May 2021.

Minutes:

Six oral questions and one question for written response were submitted at the meeting. A copy of the questions, together with the Chairman’s responses, can be viewed at Annex A to these Minutes.

 

32.

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 MARCH 2021 pdf icon PDF 332 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 March 2021 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

33.

MATTERS OUTSTANDING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES pdf icon PDF 286 KB

Minutes:

Report CSD21056

 

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

34.

PLANNING APPLICATION (19/01543/RECON1) - LAND AT JUNCTION WITH SOUTH EDEN PARK ROAD AND BUCKNALL WAY, BECKENHAM (KELSEY AND EDEN PARK WARD) pdf icon PDF 642 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Description of application – Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove condition 3 (requirement to enter into S106 planning obligation to secure viability review mechanisms) of permission ref. 19/01543/RECON for residential development comprising erection of 6 x four storey buildings consisting of 10 four 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 in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent who reported that the developer’s funders were not prepared to lend money due to the requirement for a late stage review. In an effort to resolve the situation when the application was considered in October 2020, the offer of an upfront payment in lieu of a late stage review had been offered and this still applied today. 

 

 The agent gave the following responses to Member questions:-

 

·  In regard to the Inquiry into the former Dylon site application, a letter from Barclays Bank had stipulated that that they would not be willing to lend funds if a late stage review were to go ahead.

·  The London Plan had now been adopted and it was acknowledged that there was a development policy which underpinned the late stage review requirement. However, there were other matters which weighed into the overall planning balance. The Secretary of State did say to the Mayor that there should be no barrier to the delivery of housing as there was an urgent need to provide more housing in London. At the Dylon Inquiry, the Inspector recognised that a late stage review could be a barrier to the delivery of new housing schemes.

·  When the offer in lieu of a late stage review was previously made, there was also a question of the outstanding appeal costs of £90k awarded against the Council which still remained unsettled. The £345k offered at the time was accompanied by an undertaking that the costs award would not be pursued. There was currently room for negotiation on this. If building costs and revenue stayed the same, the outcome of a late stage review would show that no money would be available to the Council for affordable housing. If things did change, there could be a further payment.

·  The developer had owned the land since 1999 after a land transfer with the Council in which he gave the Unicorn Primary School site at a cost to himself of around £5m because he had planning permission to develop that land. The Council had therefore benefitted from this transaction.

·  It was anticipated that the build programme would commence in the autumn and would take approximately 24-30 months to complete.

·  Guidance stated that as a draft plan went through the process, the weight given to policies increased with full weight being given once the draft plan had been adopted.

·  While the need for affordable housing was acknowledged, the situation was different today compared to when the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

35.

PLANNING APPLICATION (20/04226/FULL1) - 56 BOURNE WAY, HAYES, BROMLEY BR2 7EY (HAYES AND CONEY HALL WARD) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of the existing club house buildings, erection of a part four and part five storey building to provide 32 residential flats comprising of 13 x 1 bed and 19 x 2 bed with 23 parking spaces and enabling the approved redevelopment of Track Pavilion, Norman Park, Hayes Lane to provide a part single and part two storey multi-sports facility and associated works under planning reference (ref. 18/01660/FULL1).

 

Oral representations were received from Mr Stuart Davies who objected to the application on the following grounds:-

 

·  the unsafe nature of the site access;

·  the proposed scale of the development;

·  driver and visibility issues;

·  increased vehicle movements; and

·  the introduction of a traffic light system would not ensure driver/pedestrian safety.

 

In response to Member questions, Mr Davies said he was not road safety audit qualified but did provide highway design responses to road safety audits. In regard to ensuring access for emergency vehicles, Mr Davies considered this to be the responsibility of the applicant and pointed out that regulations required a pinchpoint of no less than 3.1m for this.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent who gave the following responses to Member questions:-

 

·  the applicant was prepared to accept a condition in relation to  active electric car charging points;

·  when vehicles entered the site, the holding area for exiting vehicles would prevent drivers meeting halfway. No holding area would be located on the public highway;

·  the Transport Statement outlined where the philosophy for the proposed traffic light system had originated. The system needed to co-exist with access proposals for large vehicles such as refuse lorries and fire engines; the emergency services had been consulted on the application and no objections had been raised.

 

Oral representations were received from visiting Ward Member Councillor Neil Reddin who suggested that Members defer the application to seek:-

 

·  a reduction in the scale and height of the proposed development. In its current form, it would be overbearing and out-of-character with the surrounding area;

·  widening of the proposed access road; and

·  safety improvements for pedestrians.

 

The Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments reported that one late objection had been received which raised similar issues to those already contained in the report.  Comments from Sport England in support of the application had been received and circulated to Members. A condition requiring 100% active vehicle charging points would be added.

 

Councillor Terry welcomed the provision of new homes located in an area with easy access to public transport networks. No objections had been received from the Highways Department or Sport England. Councillor Terry requested that a condition be added requiring the work at the Norman Park site to be completed before this development took place to avoid a situation where the housing was completed but the work in Norman Park was not. He also suggested a condition be added which required a viability assessment to be undertaken at a later date.

 

The Development Management Team Leader –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

PLANNING APPLICATION (20/04296/FULL1) - PROSPECTS HOUSE, 19 ELMFIELD ROAD, BROMLEY BR1 1LT (BROMLEY TOWN WARD) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of the existing building, erection of a 10 storey building plus basement to provide 1,759sqm office floor space Use Class Order Class E(g)(i) on the ground floor and first floor with 61 residential flats (9 studio, 38 x 1 bed and 14 x 2 bed) above and provision of 11 parking spaces (Amended Description).

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent who gave the following responses to Member questions:-

 

·  In terms of electric car charging points, all parking spaces would be 100% active.

·  The requirement for ‘greening’ of the side wall could be conditioned.

 

The Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments reported that two late objections, similar to those already contained in the report, had been received. A condition requiring 100% electric vehicle charging points was already included in the recommendations.

 

Councillor Terry welcomed the provision of new homes and extra office space. The landscaping proposals were good. The site was located in an area with easy access to public transport. He moved that permission be granted with a condition added for ‘greening’ the side wall. Councillor Terry asked that permitted development rights (PDR) be removed from all the office space.

 

The Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments confirmed that in order to prevent the loss of office space, the PDR condition would be strengthened. She also confirmed that TFL requested the Section 106 monies for street improvements.

 

Councillor William Huntington-Thresher supported the removal of PDRs to protect the high quality office space.

 

The Chairman supported the addition of this attractive, well-designed building in the business district of the borough and seconded the motion to grant permission.

 

The legal representative advised Members that authority could be delegated to officers to remove PDRs if they so wished. The Chairman moved that a PDR condition be added; Councillor Terry seconded the motion.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 AGREEMENT AND ANY DIRECTION FROM THE MAYOR OF LONDON as recommended and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

 

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that two further conditions be added to:-

 

·  remove PDRs to prevent the loss of office space; and

·  provide greening on the side wall of the building.

 

37.

DESIGNATION OF SHORTLANDS VILLAGE CONSERVATION AREA AND EXTENSION OF BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE CONSERVATION AREA pdf icon PDF 344 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report HPR2021/023

 

Members considered the designation of the Shortlands Village Conservation Area and an extension of the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed boundaries were informed by an independent assessment and were subject to public consultation between August and October 2020. Details of the representations received and how they had been addressed were set out in the report.

 

The Chairman was happy to accept the report and moved acceptance of the recommendations therein. This was seconded by Councillor Terry who drew Members’ attention to the e-mail sent from Ward Member Councillor Dykes in support of the proposals.

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

1  the designation of the Shortlands Village Conservation Area and the extension of the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area be endorsed;

 

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

 

3  recommend that the Executive approve the designation of the Shortlands Village Conservation Area and the extension of the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area.

38.

CONFIRMATION OF IMMEDIATE ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION TO REMOVE PART 1, CLASS AA PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR UPWARDS EXTENSIONS IN THE PETTS WOOD ASRC pdf icon PDF 324 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report HPR2021/026

 

Members were requested to confirm an immediate Article 4 Direction to withdraw the permitted development (PD) right which allowed the enlargement of dwellinghouses by up to two storeys. The immediate Direction applied to the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC) as designated in the Bromley Local Plan (January 2019). The Direction came into force on 23 February 2021 but to remain in force, it had to be confirmed  by 23 August 2021 by the Renewal, Recreation and Housing Portfolio Holder, after taking account of any representations received.

 

ASRCs were areas which added significant character and distinctiveness, linked to adopted policy in the Local Plan. The Article 4 Direction would help to protect this character and distinctiveness which was a positive benefit for local amenity.

 

In line with the requirements of legislation, representations on the proposed Directions had been sought. The Council was required to take into account any representations made before it confirmed the Article 4 Directions. No representations had been received.

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

1  the confirmation of an immediate Article 4 Direction (covering the Petts Wood ASRC as shown in the plan attached at Appendix 1) to withdraw the permitted development right granted by Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (“the GPDO”), Schedule 2 be endorsed;

 

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

 

3  it be noted that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal, Recreation and Housing would be asked to confirm the immediate Direction before 23 August 2021, to ensure that it remained in force.

 

39.

PROPOSED NON-IMMEDIATE ARTICLE 4 DIRECTIONS TO REMOVE PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR USE CLASS E TO RESIDENTIAL USE pdf icon PDF 550 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report HPR2021/024

 

Members considered the making of 46 non-immediate Article 4 Directions to withdraw the Part 3, Class MA permitted development (PD) rights which allows premises in Use Class E to change to residential use. These Directions would apply to a number of designated retail, service, office and industrial areas set out in the Bromley Local Plan. The Directions would come into force at least 12 months after being made, subject to confirmation by the Renewal, Recreation and Housing Portfolio Holder after taking account of representations received.

 

The areas selected for the Directions were locations identified in the Local Plan which would help to ensure that provision of retail in the Borough was maintained and that office and industrial floorspace was protected. Protecting these areas would help ensure provision of floorspace for jobs growth and for provision of essential retail and services for the Borough’s residents, workers and visitors. The Article 4 Directions would have a positive benefit on local amenity and wellbeing.

 

Councillor Huntington-Thresher asked for clarification on paragraph 3.5 as it appeared the existing Article 4 Direction would expire on 31 July 2022. He advised that the Eldred Drive shopping parade provided for the whole of Ramsden and should therefore be protected.

 

The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy confirmed that the new PDRs would supersede what was in place before. In regard to the inclusion of shopping parades, this came down to judgement on whether they were well connected to other areas. Those that were not were put forward for Article 4 Directions.

 

Councillor Wilkins asked if Anerley Road and Anerley Hill could be included. The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy confirmed that justification hinged on whether there was continued provision of retail and the impact that would have. As there was still reasonable access to other centres from that area, it was not included on the list. 

 

RESOLVED that:-

 

1  the making of 46 ‘non-immediate’ Article 4 Directions (covering the areas described in paragraph 3.41 of this report) to withdraw the permitted development rights granted by Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), Schedule 2 be endorsed;

 

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

 

3  it be noted that the Portfolio Holder for Renewal, Recreation and Housing would be asked to authorise the making of 46 non-immediate Directions (covering the areas described in paragraph 3.41 of this report) to withdraw the permitted development rights granted by Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), Schedule 2. The Directions would come into force 12 months from the day on which they were made, if they were subsequently confirmed following public consultation.

40.

HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION pdf icon PDF 230 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report HPR2021/025

 

This report contained information relating to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and the nature and scale of HMOs in Bromley. The report also set out the options available for controlling HMOs in the Borough and whether such options were justified given the available evidence.

 

Visiting Ward Member for Biggin Hill, Councillor Melanie Stevens reported that the type of houses being purchased were three bedroomed terraced, semi-detached or end-of-terrace family affordable properties which provided much-needed housing for families. While one or two HMOs would be acceptable, the area had been flooded with 20 within a very small area which tipped the balance in providing a mixed balance of housing stock to meet the needs of local residents. The room sizes were tight and the configurations awkward. Such poor quality accommodation should not be permitted. Although fitted out with the health and safety requirements, no thought had been given to insulating the properties and the increase in noise generated by this type of independent living would be a disturbance to neighbouring properties.

 

Councillor Stevens went on to state that transport in Biggin Hill was limited to public buses and did not allow easy access to potential work opportunities or support networks across the borough. The type of people moving into the properties would not be able to afford to buy their own vehicles and local residents were concerned about the type of people moving in and the effect this would have on the local community. In this regard, a petition had been started which had already obtained over 1700 signatures. With the full support of the Biggin Hill Residents’ Association, Councillor Stevens asked that the recommendations in the report include the introduction of an immediate Article 4 Direction as she believed there was an immediate threat to the local area.

 

Councillor Scoates stated the Council should be bolder in how this problem was resolved. He suggested that a recommendation be added to bring in a non-immediate Article 4 Direction across the entire borough giving a 12-month period in which to avoid potential legal action. He also suggested a further recommendation to bring in an immediate Article 4 Direction for Biggin Hill and Darwin on the basis that PTAL rates were too low in those areas. It was not acceptable to have people with low car ownership levels trying to get around the community to find work or visit job centres, medical practices or supermarkets.

 

Councillor Bear agreed with the issue of a non-immediate Article 4 Direction across the borough. There was currently a proliferation of HMOs across the borough. Cray Valley Ward had the highest proportion of HMOs in Bromley and about 25% were known to be problem HMOs. Problems arose when HMOs became concentrated in a particular area. As well as the recommendation for a non-immediate Article 4 Direction across the Borough, Councillor Bear suggested that licensing colleagues be asked to look again at the licensing requirements for smaller HMOs.

 

Councillor Fawthrop supported the making of immediate Article 4  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

41.

DELEGATED ENFORCEMENT ACTION - APRIL 2020 TO MARCH 2021 pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report HPR2021/022

 

Members considered action taken for the period April 2020 to March 2021 in regard to enforcement action authorised under delegated authority.

 

The Head of Planning and Development Support confirmed that a key to explain the abbreviations in the report would be included in future submissions.

 

Referring to page 266, item 18/00589, Councillor Huntington-Thresher advised that the site was situated in Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom Ward and not Darwin as stated. Although a PCN was issued in 2020, it appeared that clearance was still on-going. He asked where the site was actually situated and what the present position was in regard to works. The Head of Planning and Development Support confirmed the site was known as Wheatsheaf Hill near Knockholt Station. The PCN was served in 2020 but since then other action had been taken and would be included in the next report. Consideration was being given to issuing an injunction on the site.

 

The Head of Planning and Development Support advised Councillor Joel that an e-mail had been sent to him setting out the current position in regard to the Waste Transfer Site in Westerham Road/Shire Lane.

 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

ANNEX A pdf icon PDF 127 KB

Additional documents:

AUDIO RECORDING OF MEETING MP3 90 MB

42.

AUDIO RECORDING OF MEETING MP3 90 MB

 

Original Text: