Agenda item

Member Comments, Questions and Suggestions

Officer Responses

It should be noted within the document that Site L: Former DHSS Building at Bromley South had been sold to the Education Funding Agency for the purpose of establishing a Free School.  This site had been previously earmarked within the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan as a site for mixed office and residential use.

Noted.

Page 115 – Conservation Areas.  Unlike the draft policy on Locally Listed Buildings, no reference is made to the Council having a policy of considering applications for Conservation Areas in the future.

Reference to potential new Conservation Areas could be made although this would be dealt with under a separate process.  Areas of Special Residential Character are considered through the Local Plan process.  The proposed continuation of Policy BE14 – Trees located within Conservation Areas, was omitted in error from the document.

Page 43 - Housing Supply:  There is potential here for non-conformity with the GLA.  470 additional homes per annum over a 15 year period is the correct one for Bromley.  The Council should continue to fight for this.

Noted.

Page 83 - Parking:  Whilst there is potential for non-conformity with the GLA, the minimum standard for Bromley is justified.  Flexibility should be maintained for parking in Outer London. 

Noted.

Page 56 - Conversion of non-residential buildings to residential:  That additional reference be made to not adding undue parking and highway pressures on the area.

Noted and additional clause to be included.

Page 100 - The Green Belt: This should highlight that the surrounding edge of Green Belt land is the most vulnerable because once that is developed, the remainder of the land then becomes vulnerable.

The Draft Policy on page 103 of the report refers to land adjoining Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land.  The Draft Policy on page 100 protects all Green Belt land however, supporting text could be supplemented.

Page 54 - Side Space Policy: The 1m side space which applied to buildings consisting of two or more storeys should also apply to one storey buildings.

The Side Space Policy was introduced to stop a terracing effect from appearing however, there are other policies which refer to layout and character of the area more generally which provides protection.

Applying side space policy to one storey would need to be considered in more detail and separately to this consultation.

Page 96 - Development and Trees:  The final sentence should be amended to read:- 'When trees have to be felled, the Council will seek suitable replanting of native species.'

Will be amended to read as suggested.

Page 97 - Conservation and Management of Trees and Woodlands: Reference should be made to ensuring there is sufficient room for trees to grow to their full size and potential.

Supplementary Planning Guide can provide information on detailed requirements.

Page 151 - Working in Bromley:  Comments regarding the loss of offices and the permitted developments rights to allow a change of use without seeking the Council’s consent, raised concerns as to whether there was  sufficient protection.

DCC had considered Article 4 requests for three areas within Bromley Town Centre namely, London Road, Bromley North Station and the extension at Bromley South.  These would be submitted for Portfolio Holder consideration at the Renewal and Recreation PDS meeting to be held on 28 January 2014.

Page 104 – There was concern that Urban Open Space would not have the same protection as Green Belt Land.

Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land have the same protection.  Urban Open Space has a different function and has protection but not at the same level.  The NPPF brought in a new designation - Local Green Space (LGS) and areas could be suggested for consideration as part of the Local Plan process.  Whilst small areas and all Urban Open Space could not be Local Green Space, areas of Urban Open Space could be considered against criteria for LGS.

Pages 183-184: It should be noted that the proposed development at Chipperfield Day Centre has commenced.  Although the proposed development at Grays Farm Production Village had been permitted, this was no longer going ahead and may affect the target for housing provision.

Noted.

The possible removal of Green Belt status had been omitted from the document.  This was discussed at a meeting of the Local Framework Advisory Panel on 4 December 2014. 

This would be reviewed and reported back to Members.

Page 65 - Crystal Palace Penge & Anerley Renewal Area: The transport infrastructure needs to be reflected.

Wording referring to transport infrastructure will be included.

Page 65 - Crystal Palace Penge & Anerley Renewal Area: The importance of this regeneration site should be reflected on page 139 of the document as a potential area for economic growth.

Whilst there is a level of growth for this area, it is not enough to be included in page 139 at present.  This will be monitored.

Page 11 - Draft Designation Schedule: It does not make sense to designate Bromley Civic Centre for retail use particularly while the Town Centre’s principal shopping centre in and around the High Street is suffering an element of decline.  Kentish Way, which lies between the two, would also act as a deterrent.  Any new retail use would need to be directly supportive of the existing shopping area.

The Civic Centre is part of Bromley Town Centre and national policy states that this is appropriate for retail use.  It would not be advantageous for Bromley if retail business was to migrate away from the Town Centre.

Pages 46/47 – Living in Bromley: Residential development schemes should contain a percentage of disabled units, bedsits, 1/2/3 and 4 bedroomed properties.  Flexibility on car parking should also be considered especially in developments consisting of 4 or more bedrooms.  Should encourage mixed development schemes in Town Centres.

Noted.

Page 81 – Burial Space:  The only available land that could be suggested as possible burial space is farmland.

Noted.

Page 100 – The Green Belt: Fracking could be undertaken on GB land however, this would be dictated by Government.

Noted.

Aviation-related activities need to be monitored re. expansion.

Noted.

Councillor Fawthrop reiterated his view that Petts Wood ASRC should be designated as ‘saturated’.

There will be a future Supplementary Planning Document relating to design which could be the most appropriate place to include this.  Evidence would also be considered for the next cycle of Local Plan consultation.

The practice of joining together two semi-detached houses to form a single detached house had an impact on Areas of Residential Character – this should be addressed via guidance.

Noted.

Page 177 – 2^nd paragraph.  Councillor Mellor requested feedback regarding the progress of discussions on the future of Fort Halstead.

An update would be reported to Members.