Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application:-

 

Item No.	Ward	Description of Application
16.1 (page 9)	Bromley Town	(13/01202/FULL1) - 25 Elmfield Road, Bromley: Demolition of existing building at 25-27 Elmfield Road and erection of 16 storey mixed use building to comprise 2 commercial/retail units at ground level (Class A1/A2/A3/B1) and office accommodation (Class B1) at the first floor level with 82 residential units on upper floors (32 one bedroom, 46 two bedroom and 4 three bedroom flats).  Associated part basement/part surface car parking (including 2 on-street car club spaces in Palace View), cycle and refuse stores and landscaping.

 

Oral representations from Mr Will Edmonds, agent in support of the application made the following comments:-

 

•  The residential led mixed use scheme was the result of over two years engagement and extensive consultation with Councillors, officers and the local community, including three exhibitions.  The feedback received resulted in very significant changes to the scheme.

 

•  The grounds for refusal set out in the report were misleading for the following reasons:-

 

•  The development was wholly compliant with policy that simply required no net loss of office space in new developments.  This development would double office space on site.

 

•  As required by officers, the scheme incorporated 14 affordable housing units - the maximum viable number.  A commuted sum of circa £1.2 million would prove more beneficial  to the Borough as a whole and could be renegotiated if necessary.

 

•  In terms of height, as a matter of principle officers accepted that a tall building in this location would not be contrary to policy.  By definition therefore, it must be accepted that new development can give rise to noticeable change in the townscape and skyline.

 

  The scheme would not harm heritage assets, amenity or open space and the building would not be visible from the High Street.  It would only have a material impact from three locations.  From Kentish Way and Masons Hill, the proposed building would be of a scale expected in a town centre location.

 

  Views to the town centre from the Palace Estate already encaptured the Kentish Way flyover and existing buildings in Elmfield Road which were of a scale taller than the prevailing heights found in residential areas.  Against the existing townscape, any harm would, at its worst, be minimal and should be assessed against the significant planning benefits that would arise from the scheme.

 

•  There was no technical justification to refuse the scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment and loss of amenity.  If the scheme was considered acceptable in townscape terms, it was incumbent on new developments to make effective use of previously developed land, particularly in highly accessible locations such as this.

 

•  The scheme had undergone design changes including reorientation of balconies and narrowing of windows specifically to address local residents' concerns in regard to overlooking.

 

Approving the scheme would not in any way set a precedent.  The circumstances of the application were unique and could not be replicated on other sites within the Business Improvement Area.

 

In response to Member questions, Mr Edmonds confirmed that negotiations with several housing providers had taken place for the provision of shared ownership units.  With regard to the provision of just 52 car parking spaces for 82 dwellings, Mr Edmonds commented that the location could not be more accessible as there was excellent public transport facilities in the area and options to establish a car club were being investigated.  Councillor Fawthrop suggested that the issues concerning parking needed to be addressed.

 

Mr Edmonds stated that only a maximum of 14 affordable housing units could be provided due to viability reasons and confirmation from officers was currently awaited on this.  When the original application was submitted, a commuted sum had been offered towards providing units elsewhere within the Borough.

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr John Harvey, Chairman of the Palace Estate Residents Association.  Mr Harvey made the following points:-

 

1.  The substantial public response to the proposals showed an overwhelming opposition by residents to the plans.

 

2.  The proposed development was adjacent to one side of the Palace Estate which comprised solely of low rise two storey houses with gardens and in particular, was next to and would tower above and overlook Rafford Way and Palace View.

 

3.  Information from experts in the Planning Department and elsewhere provided many technical and regulatory reasons why the proposal did not comply with agreed plans for the area.

 

4.  Residents’ principal objection was that, at sixteen storeys high, the building would be far too dominant in its location which would be immediately adjacent to the low rise houses on the Palace Estate and would cause a major infringement of privacy for those residents.

 

5.  The situation would be particularly aggravated by the residential nature of the proposals because unlike office properties, residents of the block would be at home at the same time as residents of adjacent houses and properties would be fully overlooked from the flats and in particular, from the balconies.

 

6.  There were many areas within the Borough where flats were predominant and satisfactorily grouped together however, the heights of those developments were kept within reasonable bounds and were not in locations where low rise properties were seriously affected.

 

7.  There were precedents for other developments where firm guidelines had indicated that the height of the buildings should be "tapered" so as not to affect the amenity of adjacent low rise properties.

 

In conclusion, Mr Harvey commented that although Palace Estate residents accepted the site would be developed, it should be on the basis that it was as an appropriate, acceptable and desirable improvement to the current outdated buildings.  The proposed development would be far too high and dominant for the location and too close to the low rise houses.

 

Oral representations from Ward Member Councillor David Hastings were received.  Also speaking on behalf of fellow Ward Members, Councillor Hastings objected to the application for the following reasons:-

 

•  The proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site which would undermine quality of life for the following reasons:-

 

•  The development contradicted the vision of the Town Centre Business Area and Bromley Town Centre’s Area Action Plan (BTCAAP).  The character of the area should be retained.

 

•  The site was in an ideal position for premium office space and the proposal would have an impact on the ability to provide employment opportunities in the area.

 

•  The height and bulk of the development would be overdominant resulting in harm to the appearance and character of the area.

 

•  There would be a detrimental impact on residential properties in the vicinity.

 

•  The number of affordable housing units offered did not accord with Bromley's housing targets.

 

•  There was a distinct lack of parking provision.

 

Councillor Hastings concluded by saying that the proposal would result in a negative impact on the surrounding area and on business office space.  There was demand for Grade A space and the BTCAAP stated the need to work towards the provision of a thriving and vibrant town centre.

 

Councillor Buttinger was fully supportive of development on the site where a mix of low level and high rise buildings would be appropriate.  However, this proposal was of poor design and would result in an overdevelopment of the site.  Insufficient consideration had been given to the impact on local residents and the applicant should reconsider the design of the building and provide adequate car parking facilities.

 

Councillor Michael stated that any development at the site would need to be appropriate for Bromley Town Centre.  This proposal was excessive in height, of poor design and out of keeping with the surrounding area.  There were issues concerning the lack of affordable housing and car parking space and the development may be more acceptable if the height of the building was reduced by three or four storeys.  Councillor Michael moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Councillor Ince agreed with the comments made by other Councillors and stated that if the building were to be reduced by several storeys, then the number of affordable housing units offered (which fell below Bromley's target of 35%), may become acceptable.  Councillor Ince seconded the motion for refusal.

 

The Chief Planner reported that, taking account of the updates received since the writing of the report, including the advice of the Council’s advisor on affordable housing viability, there were no changes to the recommendation.  He also confirmed that the site was located within the Town Centre Area Action Plan.

 

The Chairman agreed that this was a developable site, a key part of Bromley Town Centre and should be considered as if it was an Area Action Plan application.  Issues relating to affordable housing could be resolved through negotiation.  In the present economic climate, office space was difficult to rent out.  Every building must contribute to the visual character of the area by virtue of its architectural design and should be impressive.  The reasons for refusing this application were justified however, the first reason for refusal should be amended to include more emphasis on the architectural design of the building.

 

Councillor Bennett believed that granting the application as it stood would set a precedent on height within the area along Kentish Way.

 

Councillor Fawthrop stated that the issues around provision of office space should be examined as demand had changed over time e.g. many people now worked from home.

 

Councillor Joel supported and encouraged mixed developments.  People living in the proposed units would probably understand there was little car parking provision and would use public transport.  The applicant could look to reduce the height of the building and the provision of shared affordable housing should be looked into as during oral representations it was noted that the applicant was waiting for guidance from officers which showed a willingness to progress.  The Council should give developers an opportunity to help make Bromley a better place to live.

 

Councillor Arthur liked the idea of mixed development and commented on the need to accept that it must be viable and market-led.  There was a good deal about the application to commend and he suggested that negotiations should continue.

 

Councillors Auld and Boughey had attended a presentation given by the applicant and had concluded that whilst some issues needed to be addressed, overall they were satisfied that the proposal was acceptable.

 

Following a vote of 10-5 Members RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report with condition 1 amended to read:-

 

‘1   The proposed development would, by reason of its height, scale, siting and design which would not be of the outstanding architectural quality required by the development plan, appear as an unduly prominent and overbearing addition to the town centre skyline, out of character with the scale, form and proportion of adjacent development, giving rise to an unacceptable degree of harm to the character and appearance of the area including the adjacent Palace Estate, contrary to Policies BE1 and BE17 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policy BTC19 of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan and London Plan Policy 7.7.’