Agenda item

Ward	Application Number and Address of Development
Plaistow and Sundridge	(10/02308/FULL1) - Sundridge Park Management Centre Ltd, Plaistow Lane, Bromley.

 

The Committee considered the Chief Planner’s report on the following planning application:

 

1.  PLAISTOW AND SUNDRIDGE

(10/02308/FULL1) Four/five storey building comprising 20 two bedroom, 41 three bedroom and 6 four bedroom dwellings and including basement car parking, garage block for 5 cars and single storey building comprising health spa for residents’ use with tennis court on roof at Sundridge Park Management Centre Ltd, Plaistow Lane, Bromley.

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were made at the meeting by Mr Paul Norris on behalf of the Sundridge Park Golf Course.  Mr Norris sought clarification on conditions 26 and 27 (page 27 of the report) which, he believed, were effectively Grampian-style conditions as enforcement depended upon the developer reaching agreement with the Golf Club.

 

Mr Norris submitted that the reference to 'access' in condition 27 must have been be a reference to the access road leading from Plaistow Lane to the development site. No part of the access road was owned by the developers. Highway Officers had objected in the past to the absence of lighting along the access road and accordingly there was a need for the condition to be clarified in this respect to make it enforceable. 

 

Mr Norris also submitted that Condition 27 should be amended to require details of lighting to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development, not prior to first occupation.

 

With regard to Condition 26, Mr Norris assumed that reference to the Construction Management Plan referred to the Construction Traffic Management Plan dated July 2010 prepared by the Denis Wilson Partnership and submitted by the developer in support of the present application. The Plan contained 17 paragraphs under the heading ‘Control of Construction Traffic within the Sundridge Park Estate’. The Plan described how the traffic flow along the estate road was to be tightly controlled.  Mr Norris submitted that the developer had no right to control the traffic using the estate road; it simply had the right to pass and repass along the road. The Plan needed to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development, and not prior to first occupation.

 

Mr Norris requested that a further condition in relation to the use of the Leisure Centre be incorporated restricting its use solely to residents.

 

Following his presentation and in response to Members' questions, it was confirmed that Sundridge Park Golf Club had previously granted a licence to the Management Centre for the use of the land.  The existence of previously established parking bays made it almost impossible for two cars to pass each other. 

 

The Chief Planner explained that a grampian style condition required the completion of one action before the implementation of another.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were made at the meeting by Ms Mary Power on behalf of the applicant along the following lines:-

 

• The revised residential scheme incorporated the highest design quality and detail which was not significantly different from the previous design.

 

• The previous permitted scheme was no longer viable. One option could have been to appoint a new architect to substantially redesign the scheme to reduce costsand seek to present a case for a nil affordable housing contribution. Millgate thought neither would be acceptable to the Council given the exceptional circumstances of the Sundridge Park site – Grade I and II listed buildings, listed Repton landscape terraces, historic park and MOL.

 

• Although the revised scheme represented an increase in floorspace to the rear courtyard building, this was not visible from the lawns in front of the pavilions, the adjacent listed building, or in long distant views from outside the site’s tree-lined boundary and MOL.

 

• Part of the floorspace was for an underground residents health spa and the increase in units followed a change to the mix from large houses to smaller apartments to reflect current housing market requirements.

 

• A financial viability assessment had been undertaken which demonstrated that the revised scheme generated a lower developer profit than currently required by funders in difficult market conditions. Despite the reduced viability, Millgate increased its contribution for the delivery of off-site affordable housing.

 

• The Council appointed an independent consultant to interrogate the assumptions costs and values to ensure that the maximum contribution had been sought. Millgate accepted that it had to write down the price paid for the land in 2007 and accept a reduced profit margin of 15% which included the affordable housing contribution. This demonstrated that Millgate was accepting significant risks to move the project forward to implementation.

 

• The assessments showed that a higher level of contribution could not be afforded. Ministerial statements urged local planning authorities to negotiate viable S106 contributions in order that schemes could afford to be implemented and deliver jobs and homes to help kick-start the economy.

 

• The grant of permission for the revised scheme would unlock the uncertainty of the future of the site, deliver new homes, affordable housing, new construction jobs and investment in the Borough contributing to local social and community benefits. Millgate was committed to the implementation of the development as quickly as possible to deliver those benefits promptly.

 

• The revised scheme met the very special circumstances demanded by the Council’s Metropolitan Open Land policies in the following ways:

 

·  a very high quality design by Robert Adam retaining all of the key features of the proposed development already permitted by the Council;

 

·  An affordable housing contribution of £2,021,000;

 

·  An excellent landscape scheme that would restore the listed Repton Terraces and reintegrate the site into the wider Historic Park and Gardens as was intended by Nash himself;

 

·  A scheme that addressed the special historic and architectural character of the adjacent Grade I Mansion House and Grade II listed Coach House. All of those factors were a unique circumstance relevant to Sundridge Park alone.

 

Following her representations and in response to Members' questions, Ms Power confirmed that use of the spa by residents only could be controlled by planning enforcement in conjunction with the management company.

 

Members were informed that in 2005 and 2007, the provision of affordable housing had been considered but deemed unfeasible.

 

A profit of 25% had been expected from the 2007 development which had decreased to 15% with the current scheme.

 

With regard to the demolition of the Butten building, Ms Power explained that subject to the discharge of a previous condition, demolition had taken place but due to the economic downturn, construction had ceased.

 

It was noted that the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 17 of the report referred to '69 residential flats'.  This was amended to read '67 residential flats'.

 

It was reported that the Environment Agency had no objections to the scheme but had suggested that if permission was granted, a condition relating  to a sustainable drainage system should be attached.

 

Thames Water had no objections to the scheme.

 

Referring to condition 27, the Chief Planner suggested that the words 'before construction' be replaced with ‘prior to commencement'.

 

Councillor Mrs Manning was pleased to note that the design was almost the same as the previous scheme and moved that permission be granted with the addition of a further condition restricting the use of the spa to residents only.

 

Councillor Jackson concurred with Councillor Mellor's views that the increased footprint due to the addition of further units would have a greater impact on Metropolitan Open Land and moved that the application be refused for that reason.  Councillor Buttinger seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Fawthrop supported refusal on the grounds of poorly designed parking facilities.

 

Councillor Joel seconded the motion for permission adding that he was pleased to note that the design had incorporated conservation area/green space consideration.

 

Councillor Ince would have considered the proposal to be excessive if it had covered a larger footprint than the previous Butten building.  He stated that the site was lower than the surrounding areas and the impact on Metropolitan Open Land was no greater than the previous planning permission.  He supported approval of the application.

 

Councillor Boughey commented that this was a viable scheme which had minimal visible impact on Metropolitan Open land.  The Chairman concurred with this view and reminded Members that the previous application had been approved under very special circumstances which had not changed.

 

The Chairman reminded Members that they should be conscious of the previous approval and he supported the motion for  planning permission.

 

Councillor Bosshard was concerned that part of the access road was a bottle neck for traffic and suggested the implementation of a condition.  The Chief Planner explained that such an action could not be carried out as it was a private matter between the developer and the land owner.

 

A vote to refuse the application fell at 7-9.

 

Following a vote for permission (9-7), it was RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the amendment of condition 27 to read:-

'27  Details of lighting to the car park and access certifying compliance with BS 5489=1:2003 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by or on behalf of the Local Planning authority prior to commencement and shall be permanently maintained as such thereafter.’

A further 2 conditions were also added as set out below:-

33  Details of the proposed slab levels of the building(s) and the existing site levels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work commences and the development shall be completed strictly in accordance with the approved levels.

REASON: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

34  The Health Spa hereby permitted shall be used by residents of the approved flats and by no other persons without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In order to comply with policies BE1 and T3 of the Unitary Development Plan and to protect the amenities of residents in respect of noise and activity and additional parking demand.