Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

The following oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Marc Myers, General Manager, Intu Bromley:-

·  The proposal to introduce a boutique cinema and casual dining cluster to the Centre was part of a £24m investment that encompassed an internal refresh which was currently under way and the proposals for a restaurant terrace by Queens Gardens.  The cinema and restaurant proposal would create 60 permanent and 130 temporary jobs in the town.

·  Consultations had shown that both the shoppers and retailers who Intu were trying to attract to the Centre, agreed that Intu Bromley and the town centre, were in need of more casual dining and leisure facilities in order to revive the evening economy and restore Bromley to its place in the market as a metropolitan town centre.  Intu wanted to provide a safe and seamless transition from traditional daytime commercial activities to evening activities.

·  The Council’s 2012 Retail and Leisure Report demonstrated a substantial level of unmet demand within the town.  Despite the establishment of the restaurant terrace by Queens Gardens, Bromley would still rate well below the national average for retail and leisure for a town of its size.

·  Although Bromley residents wanted to support their town, they were increasingly driven to spend their money and leisure time elsewhere, ie. Bluewater, Greenwich and the West End.  With the impending development of Westfield in Croydon, immediate action would be needed to ensure that Bromley did not lose out.  Bromley deserved this development and needed it to continue to compete.  The proposed 220 seater cinema would go some small way to address the gap which would still exist even after the completion of developments at Bromley South and Orpington.

·  It was necessary to increase dwell time in the town and in order to do this, trading hours would need to be extended not just for restaurants and leisure but for retailers who would want to capitalise on the increased footfall delivered through the potential new leisure development; this would ‘smooth the peaks’ in trading because once shoppers were aware that the Centre remained open for longer, they would be more inclined to make their journeys outside peak times.

·  Provision of adequate parking was fundamental to the success of Intu Centres.  Intu would not propose a scheme which resulted in a detrimental impact on the attractiveness of the centre to customers, many of whom, despite the convenient location of Intu Bromley, come by car.

·  Intu Bromley currently had a very good car parking ratio and even with the loss of some spaces, it would still compare favourably with similar centres in the region.  For the vast majority of the time, Intu Bromley car park retained sufficient capacity to meet demand however, on the rare occasion that full capacity was reached, shoppers would be able to use alternative town centre car parks which, in turn, would lead to increased footfall and activity in those parts of the town.

·  In terms of visual impact, the cinema would be situated well back from the building edge so views of the proposed development would be limited.  The design would be of a contemporary nature and high quality materials and finishes would be used which would sit well within the wider built environment.

In response to Member questions, Mr Myers informed the Committee that if the application was successful, detailed discussions would take place with  retailers affected by the development concerning options for relocation.

The boutique cinema would remain open until 11 pm or 12 am.

With regard to the impact of the proposals on Bromley South, analysis had shown that the development together with the cinemas at Orpington and Bromley South would still leave Bromley 2,000 seats short of what was required.  Members were asked to bear in mind that this proposal was for a boutique cinema not a multi-complex.

The analysis also showed that Bromley would not be ‘over-restauranted’.  People wanted choice and the proposals before Members would provide just that.

Mr Myers acknowledged the need to advertise alternative car parks in Bromley on occasions when the Intu car park had reached full capacity.  He suggested that, if successful, the Bromley BID could look into this matter.  The proposed loss of 118 car parking spaces equated to 7% of the overall Intu capacity.

Ward Member Councillor Dykes considered the proposals to be beneficial especially in light of other exciting developments that were also planned for Bromley.  The establishment of a boutique cinema would give Bromley an up-market edge.  Whilst the loss of 118 car parking spaces was a concern, other car parks in the town were under-occupied so this would not cause a major impact.  Councillor Dykes moved that permission be granted.

Councillor Rutherford agreed that this was a high quality scheme.  Having held discussions with residents, it was clear there was a demand for Bromley to go 'up-market'.  The development would benefit businesses in the Town Centre and the proposed restaurants would encourage people to stay for lunch.  Footfall at night would increase and combined with cinemas already in Bromley would contribute towards a safer environment.  Councillor Rutherford seconded the motion for permission to be granted.

Whilst supporting the application, Councillor Fawthrop alluded to the need to ensure that the car parking situation was fully addressed. 

Councillor Michael was concerned at the possible loss of retail use, which was contrary to the Area Action Plan which identified a need to attract retail to Bromley.  In particular, the loss of Waterstone's bookshop and the 'niche' shops in the arcade area was undesirable and Councillor Michael asked that special consideration be given to relocate these elsewhere in the centre.

Councillor Auld was concerned that if permission was granted, the development may have an impact on the rest of Bromley by virtue of the fact that this would be established three years ahead of developments planned for other opportunity sites identified in Bromley.  For this reason, together with his concerns around the loss of car parking spaces, Councillor Auld moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Arthur considered the development to be well thought out and of an innovative design which would provide a much needed boost to Bromley.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the following conditions amended to read:-

‘3  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 3494 AL(01)0780 P03 (Site Location Plan); 3494 AP(02)0915 P01 (Block Plan of Site); 3494 AP(02)0900 P01 (Existing Basement Level Plan); 3494 AP(02)0901 P01 (Existing Lower Mall Plan)

3494 AP(02)0902 P01 (Existing Mezzanine Plan); 3494 AP(02)0903 P01 (Existing Upper Mall Plan)

3494 AP(02)0904 P01 (Existing Car Park Level 1 Plan); 3494 AP(02)0905 P01 (Existing Car Park Level 2 Plan); 3494 AP(02)0906 P01 (Existing Roof Level Plan); 3494 AP(02)0910 P01 (Existing Elmfield Road Elevations); 3494 AP(06)0911 P01 (Existing Sections AA, BB & CC); 3494 AP(02)0912 P01 (Existing Kentish Way Elevation); 3494 AP(04)0921 P01 (Proposed Lower Mall Plan); 3494 AP(04)0922 P01 (Proposed Mezzanine Plan); 3494 AP(04)0923 P01 (Proposed Upper Mall Plan); 3494 AP(04)0924 P01 (Proposed Car Park Level 1 Plan); 3494 AP(04)0925 P01 (Proposed Cinema/Car Park Level 2 Plan); 3494 AP(04)0926 P01 (Proposed Roof Level Plan); 3494 AP(05)0930 P01 (Proposed Elmfield Road Elevations); 3494 AP(05)0931 P01 (Proposed Cinema/Car Park Level 2 South, East & North Elevations); 3494 AP(05)0932 P01 (Proposed Cinema/Car Park Level 2 North West & South West Elevations); 3494 AP(05)0933 P01 (Proposed Kentish Way Elevation)

Reason: In order to comply with Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of the visual and residential amenities of the area.

6  Details of a scheme of external lighting (including the appearance, siting and technical details of the orientation and screening of the lights and the means of construction and laying out of the cabling) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented before the development hereby permitted is first occupied and the approved scheme shall be permanently maintained in an efficient working manner and no further external lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to comply with Policy ER10 of the Unitary Development Plan and in the interest of amenity and public safety.

10  Before any works on site are commenced, a site-wide energy assessment and strategy for reducing carbon emissions, in accordance with the submitted Sustainability Statement, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The results of this strategy shall be incorporated into the final design of the buildings prior to first occupation. The strategy shall include measures to allow the development to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of 25% above that required by the 2010 building regulations.

Reason: In order to seek to achieve compliance with the Mayor of London's Energy Strategy and to comply with Policy 5.2 and 5.7 of the London Plan 2011.

It was reported that the applicant had requested condition 1 be amended to read that the development must be begun not later than the expiration of 5 years (as opposed to the 3 years stated in the report).

The Chairman moved that this request be denied; Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion.

RESOLVED that Condition 1 remain as set out in the report of the Chief Planner.