Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations were received from Ms Debbie Aplin, Managing Director of Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd who submitted the following points in support of the application:-

·  The planning officers’ recommendation contained in the report caused surprise and disappointment.

·  As reported on pages 33 and 34 of the report, no objections had been received from consultees.

·  The proposal was in accordance with the objectives and policies of the Area Action Plan.

·  Through consultation, local residents’ views had been taken into consideration with regard to commercial use of the ground floor.

·  If Members approved the application, the applicant would be willing to accept the Section 106 Agreement and conditions imposed at the time the extant permission was granted in 2008.

Councillor Mrs Manning asked Ms Aplin why the public access route was placed in a position contrary to that advised.  In response, Ms Aplin said that Crest did not own the adjoining site at the point advised by the Council.  Using their experience, Crest had looked at the most practical place to position the access route and chose one which they thought complied with the Area Action Plan.

Councillor Fawthrop asked why the applicant had not built the development that was previously granted planning permission in January 2008.  Ms Aplin responded that the site was bought through a former section of the Crest Nicholson company which had since suffered financial difficulties.  Ms Aplin managed a separate section of the company and specialised in partnering local authorities to develop mixed use housing.  She viewed the current proposal to be an improvement upon the application previously permitted.

It was reported that no issues had been raised with regard to the provision of affordable housing and no further comments had been received from the Greater London Authority.

Councillor Dykes commented that this was an important site for Bromley Town Centre.  She raised concerns that the application conficted with the Area Action Plan, specifically in regard to the Churchill Theatre site and immediate surrounding area.  Having visited the site and spoken to representatives, Councillor Dykes stated that the development would be out-of-character with the surrounding area, overdominant and harmful to the amenities of local residents due to the loss of natural light and the development would result in an impact on traffic and parking.  Councillor Dykes moved that the application be refused.

The Chairman commented that the vision of the Area Action Plan was for the development of a bright and vibrant town centre.  The application before Members did not lend itself to the objectives and aims of the Area Action Plan, particularly in respect to the provision of retail space,  the height and bulk of the tower block and the design of the development. Councillor Dean suggested (and Members agreed), that should the application be refused, the second reason for refusal should be amended to incorporate ‘design’ as a contributing factor for refusal.  Councillor Dean seconded the motion for refusal.

Councillor Ince was disappointed to note that as a result of the financial viability assessment, the provision for affordable housing was 10% lower than the 35% required by Council policy.  The Deputy Chief Planner confirmed that an independent consultant had undertaken the financial viability assessment and the reasons given for the lower affordable housing provision were not deemed to be unreasonable.

Councillor Michael stated that the development would undermine the aims and objectives of the AAP in particular with the need to attract retail development to Bromley. The height of the development was taller than the previous proposal granted in January 2008 and the design was unsuitable and bulky. 

RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the following reasons:-

1  The proposed development would conflict with the Area Action Plan objectives for opportunity Site G, particularly in terms of the delivery of retail floorspace, permeability, the phasing of comprehensive development and the creation of a secondary street through the tie and is thereby contrary to Policy OSG and Policy BTC 30 of the Bromley Town Centre Action Plan.

2.  The proposed development, by reason of the design and excessive height and bulk of the blocks, would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area and appear dominant and overbearing when viewed from nearby residential properties contrary to policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and policy BTC17 of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan.

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that refusal of the application was subject to a possible direction of the Mayor of London in accordance with the powers under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.