Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Chris Francis (agent) as follows:-

The redevelopment of the site with a residential led scheme was established as acceptable by the grant of permission on appeal.

The provision of 74 residential units would contribute to the identified housing need in the borough and across London in accordance with the minimum housing supply targets set by the Mayor.  20 flats would be covenanted to be held for a minimum period of 15 years as private sector rented initiative units, in line with the Government's drive to encourage more privately rented housing.

The report submitted with the current application showed that despite extensive marketing, no interest had been shown in the proposed office floor space.

The report also concluded that there was an oversupply of available office space within Bromley and Lewisham and no viable demand for such office accommodation in this part of the borough in terms of the reality of local and London wide contexts and that this was not going to change even with any general improvement in the economy.

In August 2013, officers advised that the applicant appeared to have met Policy EMP3 criteria however, this was not mentioned in the report.  The provisions of the NPPF indicate that as the original permission had been implemented, favourable consideration should be given to the current application.  The NPPF stated that where proven necessary, employment land should be protected.  It also stated that planning policies should avoid the long-term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there was no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose.

The viability appraisal submitted with the application showed that if a normal accepted level of developer profit was sought, the scheme would not be viable.  It concluded that the proposal could not provide any additional funding for affordable housing either on or off site.  Although not within the precept of normally accepted viability, the applicant was prepared to make a financial contribution of £400,000 to meet the CIL requirement with the balance going towards local education provision.

The proposal was in full accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and the provisions of all relevant policies in the London Plan and Bromley's UDP.

In response to a question from Councillor Fookes, Mr Francis confirmed that the current market rent would be charged on the 20 covenanted flats.

Negotiations to contribute £80,000 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing had taken place.

Councillor Jackson asked Mr Francis if the applicant intended to carry out the extant permission to provide offices if the current application was refused.  In response, Mr Francis said that negotiations were continuing in this respect and would depend upon viability.

Similarly, affordable housing could not be provided due to viability issues.

Councillor Fawthrop questioned why office accommodation had previously been offered but was now considered to be unviable.  Mr Francis stated that the proposed office space had been based around good transport links and a satellite project with offices in Canary Wharf which had not materialised.  The offices would have been funded from profits made on the residential accommodation.

Ward Member Councillor Mellor accepted that the previous application had been permitted on appeal but questioned the economics of the costings which did not add up.  The Planning Inspector said there was no reason to suggest that offices would not be occupied which meant there would be a demand for office and industrial use.  Mr Francis replied that the application was based on evidence at that time which suggested that there was a considerable oversupply of office space which differed greatly to the situation in 2008/9.  Currently, there was no likelihood of any company coming forward to occupy the whole building. 

Councillor Mellor informed Members that having considered the report which covered all aspects of the proposal, he had serious concerns about the application.  For this reason, he moved that the appeal be contested.

Councillor Michael seconded the motion on the grounds set out in the report and suggested that ground number 2 be amended to reflect the loss of office space.  She requested that the words "unacceptable loss of employment land" be incorporated.  As ground 2 was the most important reason for contesting the appeal, Councillor Michael asked that grounds 1 and 2 be transposed.

Councillor Bosshard emphasised the need to supply and retain employment land as the Government was putting more pressure on the Council to develop office space.

In response to Councillor Joel's query as to why the application was not determined within the normal 13 week period, the Chief Planner explained that consultations had been on-going to find common ground in relation to the financial contribution offered.  This had not been finalised by the 13 week deadline at which point the applicant immediately submitted an appeal.

Councillor Fawthrop requested that the grounds for contesting the appeal be amended to reflect further the London Plan.

RESOLVED that THE APPEAL BE CONTESTED as recommended, on the following grounds:-

1  The site is located in a business area in the Unitary Development Plan and the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land and would be contrary to London Plan policies 4.1 and 4.4 and Policy EMP4 of the Unitary Development Plan as it does not provide Use Class B1, B2 or B8 floorspace and furthermore there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this cannot be provided.

2  The proposal would give rise to a requirement for affordable housing and a financial contribution towards education provision.  inadequate evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the development cannot support affordable housing provision and a sufficient healthcare and education infrastructure contribution contrary to Policies H2 and IMP1 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan.