Agenda item

 

Item Number	Ward	Application Number and Address of Development
5.1	Bromley Town	(11/03466/FULL1) - Queens Gardens, Kentish Way, Bromley.
5.2	Bromley Town	(11/03467/LBC) - Queens Gardens, Kentish Way, Bromley.

 

 

The Committee considered the Chief Planner’s reports on the following planning applications:-

 

Item No.	Ward	Description of Application
5.1	Bromley Town	Description amended to read: “(11/03466/FULL1) - Single storey buildings and reconfiguration/change of use of part of shopping centre to provide 5 restaurants (Class A3), 1 kiosk unit (Class A1, A3 or A5) electricity substation; repositioned entrance to shopping centre and area for plant on roof, with landscaping works and relocation of gates and railings at Queens Gardens, Kentish Way, Bromley.”

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Glen Shipley, a local resident and Vice-Chairman of the Bromley Civic Society and a member of the Friends of Bromley Town Parks and Gardens.

 

Mr Shipley reported that many residents and local organisations were deeply concerned at the Council’s proposal to sell part of Queens Gardens for commercial development.  As a result, an application had been submitted for the open spaces involved to be designated as a Town Green.  Members were requested to bear this in mind as a material consideration.

 

Mr Shipley contended that the proposed development conflicted with the statutory and local conservation area policies which governed the area and was a major departure from the Area Action Plan (AAP) as it was proposed to build on land not identified for development or discussed with AAP Inspectors.  The proposal also involved the development of green space which the AAP did not permit. 

 

Queens Gardens was gifted to the residents of Bromley in 1897 to celebrate Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee.  Mr Shipley referred to a local newspaper article reporting that Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee would be marked by the Council selling off and building upon part of the open space belonging to Queens Gardens.

 

The Italian Garden was created as an extension to Queens Gardens as compensation for the land built upon for the Glades development.  The adjacent terrace was the only public space on the site itself.  At that time the Council had deemed the extension to the open space to be an integral part of the shopping centre development and a reason for the choice of developer.

 

Concerning the relocation of the ornamental gates, Mr Shipley stated that their present position in the Italian Garden was far more suitable as an ornamental feature.  He was pleased to note the proposed greening of the emergency vehicle hard-standing area but stipulated that this should be done as a matter of course and should not be dependent on the outcome of the submitted application.

 

Mr Shipley urged Members to save and protect the Borough’s open spaces by refusing the proposed application and added that a small discreet café or kiosk for park users, as envisaged by the AAP Inspector, would be welcome.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Jonathan Ainsley, Director of Asset Management Capital Shopping Centres (CSC) at The Glades Shopping Centre.

 

Mr Ainsley reported that CSC were prepared to invest £6.2m in developing the proposed restaurants which would create 62 full-time jobs.  Over a period of 12 months, extensive consultation had taken place with both the Planning Authority and the wider community.  It was anticipated that a new family friendly restaurant offer to complement the existing offer in Bromley High Street would bring life and activity to the area.

 

The proposed buildings would be of high quality design and through sensitive landscaping and the location of the proposed development on the south side of the gardens, there would be no nett loss of green space.  The historic part of Queens Gardens would not be built upon.

 

The proposed development was of great importance to The Glades and Bromley Town Centre.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Harmer, Mr Ainsley reported that results of the most recent consultation had shown that a wider catering offer in Bromley would be welcomed.

 

Councillor Mrs Manning queried how members of the public would be encouraged to walk around to the proposed restaurants.  Mr Ainsley commented that signposts would be located along routes leading to the restaurants and access would also be gained through the nearby car park.

 

Councillor Scoates asked how the need for restaurants in Bromley had been assessed.  Mr Ainsley replied that specific customer research on both visitors and non-visitors to The Glades had been undertaken and comparisons with other shopping centres had also been made.  As the footfall in Bromley was 15-16 million per year, the need for catering was high.

 

Mr Chris Evans, Manager of the Major Developments Team, reported the following updates and suggested amendments to the conditions should Members decide to grant the application:-

 

1)  Late objections had been received, none of which raised any additional concerns. 

 

2)  Issues relating to the objection submitted by Mytime Active with regard to the effect on light to the swimming pool.  Mytime Active had been in discussion with the applicants and withdrawn its objection.

 

3)  Press notices regarding the revised location of the gates would expire on 15 February.  Members were therefore requested to make their decision subject to the Chief Planner giving consideration to any representations received after the meeting and before the expiry of 21 days after the publication date of the notice.

 

4)  The Section 106 Agreement should be amended to read:- "A contribution of £20,000 towards Town Centre improvements including a strategy for improved pedestrian signage and wayfinding strategy, a lighting strategy and lighting implementation plan, relocation of the dinosaur structures to Crystal Palace Park and location of replacement and additional benches and lighting within Queens Gardens.".

 

5)  Conditions 7, 13 and 14 should be amended.

 

6)  A further two conditions should be included; and

 

7)  The first informative on page 29 of the report should be deleted.

 

Mr Evans confirmed that no part of the proposed building would be erected on Urban Open Space, there would be no detrimental effect on the visual appearance of the site and the tranquil areas of the gardens would remain.  Although an area of 631sq m would be developed, an equal measure of land would be greened over.

 

Councillor Harmer was opposed to the Authority’s willingness to sell covenanted land.  His primary concern however, was how the application fitted in with the AAP as it appeared to go beyond the scope of what had been drawn up.

 

Councillor Mrs Manning commented that whilst Queens Gardens was not green land or protected by law, it was open land which had already been affected by the town centre redevelopment and the development along Kentish Way.  The gardens were attractive and should be protected.  However, Councillor Mrs Manning was not opposed to the establishment of one or two cafes and suggested that it would be more appropriate to develop along the eastern side of The Glades.  The proposed development from the north end of the gardens would undermine the view of the Pavilion and the higher part of the walking area would encroach further into the gardens.  Councillor Mrs Manning was dissatisfied with the materials to be used. For the reasons outlined above, Councillor Mrs Manning moved that the application be refused.

 

Councillor Fookes moved that permission be granted commenting that the Authority would struggle to find sufficient grounds to warrant refusal and that a decision to refuse the application was likely to be overturned on appeal.  Councillor Fookes welcomed the creation of 62 full-time jobs at a time when unemployment figures were high.

 

The Chairman referred to the revitalisation of Bromley Town Centre, stating that the AAP identified a number of sites designed to bring Bromley into the 21^st century.  There would, of course, be objections to those sites identified as they affected everyone in the Borough.  The proposed development would not result in a loss of open space because the land identified was already built upon and was not part of a conservation area.  There were few top quality restaurants in Bromley and it was not unreasonable for some to be located around the main shopping area.  The Chairman could find no sustainable grounds for refusal and therefore seconded Councillor Fookes' motion that the application be granted.

 

Although Councillor Ince agreed with the points raised by Councillor Mrs Manning, he did not think there were sufficient grounds to warrant refusal of the application.

 

Whilst Councillor Michael supported the revitalisation of Bromley Town Centre, she considered the development to be excessive and detrimental, taking considerable open space from what was a delightful recreational area.  The proposal to open five restaurants was also excessive as there were already a number of chain restaurants located in Bromley however, Councillor Michael was not opposed to the establishment of one or two eateries.  Whilst the creation of 62 full-time jobs would be welcomed, the development went beyond the scope of the AAP and, if permitted, would ruin the gardens.  For the reasons set out above, Councillor Michael seconded Councillor Mrs Manning's motion to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Jackson commented that although the gardens were attractive, the development would only take up a small amount of land which had already been developed.  He thought the area as it currently stood was one of the most drab and miserable parts of the Centre which held no visual merit.  The proposed development would improve economic life within the Borough. Councillor Jackson supported permission.

 

Councillor Joel was impressed by the points given for and against the proposal.  He emphasised the need to consider Bromley in its entirety. The design of the proposed buildings was simplistic, the development would be located within a quadrangle of high buildings and new footways would be incorporated.  The development would not, therefore, be out-of-character with the surrounding area and would be an enhancement to the locale.  Councillor Joel emphasised the need to encourage visitors to use the grounds.  For the reasons outlined above, Councillor Joel would be supporting the application.

 

Councillor Buttinger supported the application on the grounds that more restaurants were needed in Bromley and that the proposal was an appropriate contribution towards the development of Bromley Town Centre.  There would be no loss of mature trees, no nett loss of green space and the current hardstanding area was not particularly well used at present.

 

Councillor Auld sought legal advice with regard to a section of covenanted land within Queens Gardens.  Approximately, 20 years ago, part of the land had been taken to build The Glades and in compensation for this, a portion of the land to the south of the area was given over for garden use.

 

The Legal Adviser informed Members that any legal issues arising from the selling of covenanted land would be a matter of civil law and not one which should be taken into consideration when debating the application.

 

Councillor Auld stated that the proposal was a separate entity entirely from the 12 sites identified in the AAP; development of the site was not suggested to the AAP Inspector during the consultation period five years ago.  He commented that if the application was granted, the restaurants would draw visitors away from Bromley High Street (which was already well served by restaurants) and from Bromley North.  Councillor Auld would not be supporting the proposal.

 

Councillor Fawthrop agreed with Councillor Jackson's view that the proposed area of development was an unattractive piece of land which could be improved.  Attempts should be made to protect the area because if the proposal was permitted, the opportunity for improvement would be lost.  Councillor Fawthrop supported refusal of the application.

 

Councillor Scoates was concerned that the development was not in keeping with the AAP.  The land had been gifted to the Local Authority in honour of Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee and should be preserved.  Councillor Scoates had no objection to restaurants being established in Bromley but the extent of the development in this particular area would close off the surrounding land.  Councillor Scoates supported refusal.

 

Councillor Mellor said he could find no inappropriate established precedent relating to, or in support of the application.  He was concerned with the lack of space.  The Italian Garden contained beautiful flowerbeds and was vital to the centre of Bromley.  The development would result in an intensification of retail use.

 

A motion to approve the application fell at 7-8. 

 

Following a second vote to refuse the application (8-5), Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

 

The proposal would be an overintensive development of the site, detrimental to the character and appearance of the Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area by reason of its size, site coverage, design and the loss of openness and public amenity to Queens Gardens, contrary to Policy BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy OSM of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan and the Conservation Area Statement.

 

The following informative was also added:-

 

INFORMATIVE: The drawings that are subject of this decision are as follows: 3366AP(04)1500-P08, 1501-P07, 1502-P06, 1503-P06, 1504-P04, 1505-P04; 3366AP(05)1600-P04, 1601-P04, 1602-P03, 1603-P05, 1604-P02; 3366AP(06)1700-P04, 1701-P04, 1702-P05, 1703-P04, 1704-P05, 1705-P05, 1706-P04; 329/300RevP1, 339/100RevP2,  339/101RevP2, 339/103RevP2.

 

The Chairman's vote against refusal was noted.

 

Item No.	Ward	Description of Application
5.2	Bromley Town	Description amended to read:- (11/03467/LBC) - Relocation of gates and railings LISTED BUILDING CONSENT.

 

Mr Evans informed Members that should listed building consent be granted, condition 5 should be amended.

 

Councillor Mrs Manning moved that the application be refused; this was seconded by Councillor Michael.

 

Following a vote of 9-1 against, Members RESOLVED that LISTED BUILDING CONSENT BE REFUSED for the following reason:-

 

The relocation of the gates and railings would be premature in the absence of any planning permission for development on their existing site.

 

The following informative was also added:-

 

INFORMATIVE: The drawings that are subject of this decision are as follows: 3366AP(04)1504-P04, (04)1505-P04, (05)1603-P05, 339/103RevP2.