In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Thursday 7^th November 2013.

No questions had been received, but the Chairman allowed Mrs Marie Pender, Chair of the West Beckenham Residents Association, to make a brief presentation to the Committee concerning the former public toilets at Elmers End (item 14a of the exempt part of the agenda).

Mrs Pender explained that the building was in the centre of designated Urban Open Space. It was a focus of Elmers End having stood on a triangle of land for a number of years. A commercial enterprise was not wanted for the public space. There could be long term financial risks if the building was sold to a private buyer; the building could be sold on and there would be a sole reliance upon planning considerations to influence any future use.

In the event that a purchaser was not successful in gaining planning permission, Mrs Pender questioned who might be liable for the site, suggesting the Council would have costs for work to clear a derelict building. She also questioned how any shops or offices with obtrusive signing could support recreational purposes.

There were already a number of restaurants, cafes and take away food outlets nearby. There was a desire to see the land remain green. Mrs Pender recommended that the building be demolished and the green provided with flower beds.

Responding to a question from Councillor Will Harmer, Mrs Pender suggested that residents would consider potential uses other than a café or offices. She was particularly concerned that customers of a café would spill out on to the green.

Following Mrs Pender’s presentation the Chairman permitted Councillor Dean to make a statement.

Councillor Dean explained that the site was not at the edge of the green belt or on a high street, but rather positioned on a triangular piece of land, large enough to be considered a park. If sold, the site would need change of use consent, and if granted, Councillor Dean was concerned for what might be provided in future. There were also a number of issues to consider with a change of use e.g. highways and the safety of pedestrians crossing to any commercial premises. There would also be loss of amenity and loss of prospect. He felt that a sale of protected land would set a precedent for L B Bromley, adding that numerous local residents opposed a sale. He felt that to sell would be a betrayal of trust. 

Councillor Bennett referred to public conveniences being on the site with no highway issues. He suggested the position would be no different with commercial premises. Councillor Will Harmer suggested there might be an opportunity for a restaurant, so attracting more people to the site as a park area.

The Chairman highlighted that Councillor Phillips had written objecting to any sale of the site. This included concerns about access to green space and traffic hazards should there be commercial premises. She favoured demolition of the building and a return to open space. If the site were sold it would then, effectively, be outside of Council control with a risk that there could be a derelict building.

Councillor Milner was also concerned that the Council would lose control of the site if sold - particularly the freehold which he felt was not suitable for disposal. He would be prepared to consider a leasehold arrangement if the Council could exercise control. He suggested having a sponsored flower bed at the site.

The Chairman advised that Councillor Lynch had also written opposing a sale which included highway safety concerns. Local residents were opposed to a sale and a sale would also set a precedent.

Councillor Bennett asked if there was a difference in receipt by selling the site as freehold compared to having a 999 year lease. In response, it was considered acceptable to offer on a long lease; if a bid was unconditional, it would be a mismatch. It was possible to put a covenant on freeholds and restrictions could be applied on leasehold. A design would need to be appropriate to achieve planning permission on change of use.