Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

 

Item No.	Ward	Description of Application
5.1 (page 9)	Bromley Town	(12/02385/OUT) - Demolition of existing building and erection of a 4 to 11 storey building comprising a 110 bedroom hotel (Class C1, 49 residential units (Class C3) and 592 sqm retail use (Class A1-A5) with associated landscaping, servicing, 41 car parking spaces and bicycle parking OUTLINE ADDITIONAL PLANS RECEIVED.

 

Oral representations were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr Robert Clarke.  Mr Clarke submitted the following points in support of the application:

 

·  The scheme conformed with parking standard requirements.

 

·  No objections to the application had been received from the Highways Authority.

 

·  The applicant was disappointed with the planning officers’ recommendation to refuse the application and appalled at the reasons given for refusal.

 

·  Information requested from the Council had not been received until 48 hours prior to this meeting.

 

·  The DTZ Retail and Office Study (2012) had been released only 24 hours prior to this meeting.

 

·  The date of the application report preceded that of the advice given by planning officers.

 

·  The reasons for refusal, as set out in the report, would be unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

 

·  Based on the information contained within the briefing note circulated to Members, the application should not be refused.

 

·  With regard to the impact on the view of Keston Ridge from the town centre, the application report contradicts itself; Keston Ridge would remain visible from Bromley High Street.

 

Councillor Michael questioned how the development of a low budget hotel could overcome the Council’s policies regarding affordable housing.  Mr Clarke responded that the need for a hotel was in direct response to site specific policy and the residential element of the application would subsidise the hotel.  There was no flexibility within the current finance package for a Section 106 element.

 

Oral representations were also received from local resident Mr Zameel Syed.  Mr Syed submitted the following points in objection to the application:-

 

·  The height of the design was taller than the existing building.

 

·  The proposal was out-of-character with the surrounding area.

 

·  As one hotel had already been permitted on an adjacent site, there was no requirement for a second.

 

·  Residents in Pinewood Road and Sandford Road would suffer a loss of privacy.

 

·  Residents living to the rear of the development would suffer a loss of natural light.

 

·  The proposal would have a negative impact on road safety, particularly as there were two schools in the immediate vicinity.  There would also be an increase in traffic and parking issues.

 

·  The development would have an environmental impact on the area with regard to noise, drainage, waste collection and removal of trees.

 

Mr Syed urged Members to take into account the needs of the local community when considering the application.

 

In reply to a question from Councillor Dykes, Mr Syed reported that the only time the applicant had engaged with local residents was during an open evening.  E-mails sent to the applicant had remained unanswered.

 

Officers informed Members that as a result of further consultation, an additional 11 letters of objection had been received, most of which iterated objections already reported.

 

Subsequent to a site visit on 21 February, officers had received two requests for information from the applicant and some officer comments had been provided in response.

 

Ward Member Councillor Dykes and her Ward Member colleagues had engaged with local residents.  She commented that although the Town Centre Area Action Plan identified the site as land suitable for a tall building, the proposal raised the following planning issues.

 

•  The view of Keston Ridge (as identified in the Development Plan) would be compromised.

 

•  The view of St Mark's Church Tower would be adversely affected.

 

•  The proposal would result in an intensification of car parking.

 

•  The visual amenity of Bromley High Street would be compromised.

 

Councillor Dykes commented that this was a premium site for office space and should be utilised as such.  Councillor Dykes moved that the application be refused.

 

The Chairman stated that the principle for redevelopment was set within the Area Action Plan which maintained that the site should provide replacement of existing office space, an element which the present application did not contain.  Councillor Dean seconded the motion for refusal on the grounds set out within the planning report.

 

Councillor Ince queried the robustness of the financial viability assessment as he preferred to see affordable housing incorporated within the proposed 49 flats.  The Deputy Chief Planner reported that the assessment had been undertaken by an independent consultant and the evidence therein could be relied upon.

 

Councillor Bosshard stated that as the cost to the Council for providing bed and breakfast was significantly high, the erection of a hotel would not compensate for the lack of affordable housing.  Councillor Bosshard also commented that the provision of 40 car parking spaces was insufficient; there should be at least 70-80 available spaces.  As a result, there would be an overspill of parking into the surrounding area.  This was a prime opportunity to redevelop the site to provide office space, a much needed element within Bromley Town Centre.

 

Councillor Michael commented that the site was a gateway into the town centre and development of office space as identified in the Area Action Plan would attract companies and workers into the Borough and thereby promote economic growth.

 

Councillor Fawthrop stated there could never be enough parking spaces in the Borough.  Sufficient parking was an important element of a vibrant town centre.  Councillor Fawthrop also sought clarification of Mr Clarke's statement that the requested reasons for the objections to the hotel had been received just 48 hours prior to this meeting.  The Deputy Chief Planner responded that all issues relevant to the application were conveyed to the applicant at the pre-application stage of the planning process, including the issue around replacement of office floorspace.  The onus was on the applicant to decide how much detail they wanted to submit.  Issues represented in the report were indicated to the applicant prior to an informal presentation in February.

 

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

 

1  The proposed development is not acceptable, by reason of the absence of a robust and well evidenced Financial Viability Statement, resulting in failure to meet the requirements for the provison of S106 contributions for the purposes of affordable housing, education and health contrary to Policies IMP1 and H2 of the Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Planning Obligations and Housing and Policies 8.2 and 3.12 of the London Plan.

 

2.  In the absence of a robust and well evidenced appraisal of the office market in Bromley, the proposal is unaccpetable, by reason of the lack of suitable replacement office development, contrary to Policies BTC 5 and OSL of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan.

 

3.  The indicative proposal, by reason of its scale and height, would detrimentally impact on protected long distance views of the Keston Ridge contrary to Policies BTC 19 and OSL of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan and Policies BE17 and 18 of the Bromley Unitary Development 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.