Agenda item

Item Number	Ward	Application Number and Address of Development
5.1	Bromley Town	(12/01339/FULL1) - Queens Gardens, Kentish Way, Bromley.
5.2	Bromley Town	(12/01340/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 (page 9)	Bromley Town	(12/01339/FULL1) - Single storey buildings and reconfiguration/change of use of part of shopping centre to provide 5 restaurants (Class A3), electricity substation, repositioned entrance to shopping centre and area for tenant 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 Tony Banfield, a local resident and Chairman of the Bromley Civic Society and The Friends of Bromley Town Parks and Gardens.

 

Mr Banfield raised the following points:-

 

•  The previous application was refused on Conservation Area grounds and the current scheme had not overcome the original objections either in principle or detail.

•  Queens Gardens had been gifted under a restrictive covenant to celebrate Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.

•  The Italian Garden was created in compensation for land which was given up to the Glades development.

•  The Glades Terrace was created as a condition of the permission given for the original Glades development.

•  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policies on heritage, open space and sustainable development, together with the Council's own conservartion area policies were overriding considerations and presented an overwhelming case against the development.

•  The siting of the proposal was a departure from the Adopted Area Action Plan (AAP).

•  There were concerns about damage, danger and loss of amenity.

•  The proposed design was out of keeping with the surrounding area.

•  The grass-creting of the emergency vehicle hardstanding area was no compensation for the loss of the Italian Garden.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Howard Oldstein, General Manager of Capital Shopping Centres.

 

Mr Oldstein raised the following points:-

 

•  Growth and prosperity in Bromley was important.

•  Bromley Town Centre was not fresh enough.

•  The vision set out in the AAP was key and the development would boost day and night time economy.

•  The development aimed to be family friendly.

•  The original footprint had been reduced by 50% and no part of the development would be constructed on historic ground.

•  The development would enhance eating areas across the town centre.

•  There would be 750 car parking spaces within a 500 yard radius of the scheme.

 

The final bullet point on page 9 of the report was amended to read:- 'reduction in overall floor space of 14%’.

 

Mr Oldstein confirmed that consultation with Bromley residents had been conducted via their web-site and directly with local residents.

 

The Chief Planner circulated plans showing the exact location of the proposed development.  Members were informed that the condition concerning the proposed opening hours was consistent with that received in February. If Members were minded to permit the application, the following amendments to conditions were suggested:-

 

•  Condition 7 - update approved plan reference number.

•  Condition 17 - delete plan numbers.

•  A condition relating to archaeology should be inserted.

 

Comments received from the Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas (APCA) stated that none of the concerns arising from the previous application had been resolved.  It was reported that a further 17 letters of objection had been received however, Bromley MyTime had withdrawn their objections to the application.

 

A further letter had been received from the applicant who suggested that the current application conformed to minimum requirements, did not encroach on the historic gardens and the impact on the conservation area had been addressed.  The Chief Planner confirmed that the land did not form part of the historic garden and was not deemed to be urban open space.  The terraced area was marked in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as site 11 and the proposal to extend the Glades had been carried forward into the AAP as site E.

 

It was confirmed that Condition J09 related to the proposed opening hours of 6pm - midnight, 7 days per week.

 

Councillor Dykes commented that the proposed scheme was an overdevelopment of the site which went beyond the AAP and the NPPF provided further grounds for refusal.  The application did not conform with Policy BE13 of the UDP with regard to conservation areas which should be a leading material consideration and the footprint of the development was unacceptably large.  Whilst Councillor Dykes was amenable to a single restaurant being constructed, she lay emphasis on the fact that once the land had been relinquished for development, it would be impossible to reclaim it.  Councillor Dykes moved that the application be refused.

 

The Chairman considered that the amended development scheme would have less impact on Queens Gardens.  As the site did not form part of the historic grounds and was a non-designated area, there would be no restrictions to prevent development of the site.  The scheme complemented the rear aspect of the Glades and the proposed restaurants would brighten up the area and attract more people to Bromley.  The Council was committed to improving the Town Centre and the scheme would have a major impact on the economy for Bromley.  The Chairman moved that permission be granted.

 

Councillor Joel raised the following points in support of the application:-

 

•  The overall size of the units had been reduced.

•  The issues raised concerning a means of emergency escape and refuse collection had been resolved.

•  There would be no loss of space.

•  A business plan had been carried out.

•  The scheme formed part of the AAP and there was a need for Bromley to expand, improve and move forward.

 

Councillor Joel seconded the motion for permission.

 

Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion for refusal of the application.

 

Councillor Owen noted that no provision had been made for customers who smoked.  He also raised concerns regarding licensing and the sale of alcohol.  For these reasons Councillor Owen urged Members to carefully consider the impact on the residential amenity of local residents.

 

Councillor Manning made the following points both in support and in objection to the application:-

 

•  The conservation area would be affected.

•  The opening of the pedestrian route at night time would be a good boost to Bromley.

•  The widening of footpaths was welcomed.

•  The applicants had not addressed the impact of the restaurants on the gardens.

•  The reduction in the depth of the building was minimal.

•  1 or 2 restaurants located on the site (with buildings adjusted to face 90 degrees the other way), would be preferable.

•  Views of the garden would be lost.

•  The scheme would be an overdevelopment of the site.

•  Bromley's open spaces should continue to be protected.

•  A3/A5 use should not be permitted.

•  There were no substantive reasons for granting permission.

•  If granted, permission should be subject to further conditions relating to:- odours emanating from the restaurants; music, external lighting and signage.

 

Councillor Michael commented that although the site may not be part of the historic area, it was, nevertheless, an open space and the development would have an effect on the openness of the gardens.  There was an intensive A3/A5 use and as a large quantity of restaurants already existed in Bromley North, the provision of only 1 or 2 restaurants would be sufficient.

 

Councillor Arthur supported the application and commented that this was a vibrant and creative scheme which would enhance shopping in Bromley and stimulate the economy.

 

Councillor Mellor considered the proposed development to be an overintensive use of the site and out of character with the surrounding area in relation to materials and design.

 

Although in favour of regeneration, Councillor Adams commented that Queens Gardens was an area of tranquility and should be preserved.  He also agreed that the scheme was at variance with the Conservation Area Policy and the AAP and would be an overintensive use of the site.

 

Councillor Fawthrop raised concerns with regard to the removal of four trees and the loss of green space.  He emphasised the need to keep the act of faith that had been created between residents and the Council at the time the gardens were first created.

 

Councillor Scoates was in favour of a reduction in size to 2 or 3 restaurants.

 

A motion to approve the application fell at 7-10. 

 

Following a subsequent vote to refuse the application (10-7), 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, the loss of openness and public amenity to Queens Gardens, and be detrimental to the amenities of residential properties in the vicinity of Queens Gardens, by reason of increased evening activity resulting in noise and disturbance, contrary to Policies BE1 and BE11 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy OSM of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan and the Conservation Area Statement.

 

Item No.	Ward	Description of Application
5.2 (page 31)	Bromley Town	(12/01340/LBC) - Relocation of gates and railings LISTED BUILDING CONSENT.

 

Councillor Fawthrop moved that the application be refused; this was seconded by Councillor Dykes.

 

Following a vote of 9-3, 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.