Agenda item

In a written statement released on 6 September 2012, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced a number of proposed changes to the planning regime covering 10 specific areas.  Members considered and commented on the proposed changes paying particular attention to the proposal to undertake a consultation on increasing existing permitted development for extensions to homes and business premises in non-protected areas for a three year period. 

The Chairman welcomed the Council’s new Deputy Chief Planner, Jim Kehoe to the meeting.

The following comments were submitted by Members:-

Councillor Scoates criticised what he considered to be an outrageous policy decision and commented on the lack of localism involved.  With regard to point 4, he asked who would be responsible for deciding whether public sector land was indeed surplus.  In order to protect the Green Belt, he was adamant that under no circumstances should land be sold off even if it had been identified as serving no particular purpose.

Points 6 and 7 were referred to as European examples of unnecessary bureaucracy and a real cause for concern.

Councillor Scoates sought justification of how extensions up to 8m long could be permitted without neighbour consultation.  The current system allowed people to approach the Council with their objections and they should continue to be able to do so.  By implementing this proposal, social cohesion would be ruined resulting in less localism involvement.  It was not acceptable to allow the Planning Inspectorate to determine applications or to extend the fast track procedure. 

Referring to point 9, Councillor Mrs Manning commented that house extensions caused the most grief to local residents.  With the additional increase of permitted development, single storey extensions built up to the boundary would totally destroy the amenities of immediate neighbours and would impact on the amount of garden land being built upon.  The statement at point 8 had the potential for weakening Green Belt policy and the protection of domestic gardens was being set aside.  Whilst she agreed in principle with point 6, Councillor Mrs Manning was less keen to extend the fast track appeal process and she disagreed entirely with the introduction of permitted development rights to enable change of use from commercial to residential properties.

Councillor Fawthrop was pleased to see Bob Stewart, MP for Beckenham, in attendance at the meeting.  Referring to point 9, Councillor Fawthrop remarked that areas of special residential character were not protected areas and as such, if  the two end houses in a row of three were to build extensions, it would result in the centre house being totally 'blocked in'.  By increasing permitted development rights, the protection of amenities and garden land would be eroded.

Concerning point 6, Councillor Fawthrop stated that all decisions on planning applications should be made by local planning authorities without the option to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Councillor Michael commented that the Green Belt was an intrinsic part of the Borough’s make-up and if implemented, the proposed changes would weaken Green Belt policy.  Also, the proposal to extend development rights restricted the Council’s powers to protect garden space.

Councillor Mellor referred to the Authority’s current inability to cope with the housing needs in Bromley.  The situation would be exacerbated by the proposal to reduce planning.  Councillor Mellor criticised the fact that neighbours and local residents would be unable to express their opinion on applications considered via the fast track appeal system.  With regard to the final point, Councillor Mellor emphasised that the economy was in a semi-recession with city jobs also being reduced.  Commercial and industrial units remained vacant due to lack of finance not because of problems with planning.

Whilst supporting Members' comments, Councillor Boughey referred to the positive aspects of the changes such as increasing investment in the private rented sector, the provision of additional affordable homes and the intention to help first time buyers.

Councillor Papworth stated that European planning produced a higher standard of development and agreed that a higher level of localism should be introduced.  Housing costs had risen above inflation for 30 years and steps needed to be taken to avert the housing crisis before future generations were priced out of the housing market.

Councillor Dykes emphasised the importance of ensuring that the acceleration of large housing schemes be undertaken as a partnership between all parties concerned.

Councillor Huntington-Thresher said that the Council should encourage developers more in order to kick-start development and local economy.  He thought the time limit on permitted development should be reduced to one year with a set date imposed for completion.

Councillor Fawthrop pointed out that a lot of development required the infrastructure to go with it and planning decisions made at a local level took this into account.  He thought the payment of stamp duty inhibited the mobility of first and second time home buyers and should be scrapped during points of low economy.

Councillor Fookes agreed with the right of developers to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if sites were unviable because of the required number of affordable homes.

RESOLVED that the Leader of the Council and the Chairman of the DCC send a letter to the Secretary of State (copied to local MPs and the Mayor of London), informing him of Members’ reaction to the proposed changes.  It was FURTHER RESOLVED that a motion be submitted to Council to authorise the Leader and Members of the Executive to take further action on this matter.