Agenda item

Members considered the Mayor’s draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Housing which covered a number of areas including housing supply, quality and choice, affordable housing, stock and investment, social infrastructure and mixed use development.  Consultation on the SPG would end on 24 February 2012.

Mrs Mary Manuel, Head of Planning Strategy and Projects, outlined the report and emphasised that the SPG did not set policy but expanded upon it.  The comments section within the report was consistent with the Council’s comments on the AAP and the Draft London Plan and at the EIP.  Mrs Manual drew Members' attention to paragraph 3.11 and confirmed that the SPG included acknowledgement that the London Plan density matrix was a guide.

The Mayor had published draft guidance on affordable housing (considered at the last meeting) which would be incorporated into the Housing SPG.

Councillor Ince supported what he considered to be the Council's fairly robust responses stating that as a suburb Bromley’s density level was not comparable with that of Inner London.  With regard to housing supply (paragraph 3.4), Councillor Ince considered that the national requirement to demonstrate a 15 year supply of land (or even a 10 year supply), was an unrealistic figure.

In response to a question from Councillor Fookes, Mrs Manual informed Members that the Outer London Commission had reconvened to consider several issues including density and parking.

Councillor Joel raised the importance of room size and the potential for sub-division.

Referring to paragraph 3.62, Councillor Mrs Manning was pleased to note that office and industrial space would not be undermined but questioned whether the answer was robust enough.

Councillor Michael agreed with Councillor Ince's comments in regard to the unrealistic targets set for the supply of land.  Referring to housing standards, Councillor Michael stated that affordable housing should be subject to the same level of standards as market housing.  Councillor Michael emphasised that the meaning of the response at paragraph 4.8 of the SPG needed to be clarified.

Councillor Fawthrop commented on the following paragraphs:-

Paragraph 3.4 - concerned about land supply targets to be imposed and asked that the response be strengthened. 

Paragraph 3.9 - the guidance contained within the SPG relating to garden land development was relatively good.

Paragraph 3.19 -  it was very important that the Borough had the flexibility to accommodate more cars than it presently did. 

Paragraph 3.46 - if it was not viable for developers to provide social housing, they should be permitted to provide private housing.  The importance of economic realities needed to be included in a robust response regarding the provision of affordable housing.  However, if social housing was necessary, then a more robust response about the levels of affordable housing should be given.

At this point, Councillor Fawthrop reported that in previous years, motions on planning issues had been passed at meetings of the Full Council but the outcomes of those motions had never been reflected back to Members.  Councillor Fawthrop requested that a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee outlining all planning motions passed by Members at Full Council within the last four years, together with information on the outcome of those motions.

RESOLVED that:-

1)  Member comments be noted;

2)  the comments within the report form the basis of the Council’s response to the consultation which should be submitted to the GLA by no later than 24 February 2012; and

3)  a report be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee outlining all planning motions passed by Members at Full Council within the last four years, together with information on the outcomes of those motions.