Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Rob Sargent, Director, Cobalt (Bromley South) Ltd.  Mr Sargent made the following points:-

The application represented three years of design and consultation.

Two pre-application meetings had taken place and consultation had been undertaken with officers, Members, CABE, The GLA, the EA, the Metropolitan Police, immediate neighbours and local stakeholders.  A public exhibition had also been held.

The proposal delivered a 17 storey landmark building and represented a substantial investment which would give rise to numerous benefits to Bromley.

The scheme was a further private sector endorsement of the regeneration of Bromley Town Centre.  The development would provide a modern inclusive community/social facility, 15,000 sq ft of the highest quality, state of the art office space and 52 luxury apartments.

The proposal not only provided an exceptional landmark building at the gateway to Bromley from the South, it would also bring to life the rather gloomy cul-de-sac adjacent to Bromley South Station.

It was very disappointing that officers did not support the scheme as the applicant firmly believed that all the quoted reasons for refusal had been positively addressed.

St Marks Reach had excellent access for deliveries from St Marks Road, which as a cul-de-sac enjoyed minimal traffic movement. The scheme provided zero parking, other than for disabled occupants, and it was expected that the Council would condition a prohibition on resident parking permits. The proposal therefore, did not create unacceptable traffic movements or add to congestion on St Marks Road.

St Marks Reach would be managed on a daily basis through a residential concierge and a commercial business reception, thereby providing a solution to both residential and commercial occupiers’ individual servicing requirements.

Officer comments regarding the provision of onsite affordable housing as a reason for refusal appeared to have been drafted prior to

the most recent exchanges between the applicant's and the Council's viability consultants.

This matter was currently in the hands of the Council’s consultants, to whom the applicant had responded in a way that would readily allow an agreement to be formalised.

Dealing with reasons 1 and 2 together, the report suggested that in terms of bulk, mass, design and impact on the setting and neighbouring residents, the proposal would be unacceptable and detrimental.  In this regard, the applicant emphasised that the site presented probably the single most appropriate opportunity within Bromley Town Centre to construct a tall building, sitting at the Town’s lowest topographical point to the South.  This opinion was supported by the CABE report dated 22 March 2013, which was provided to Officers as a result of a process instigated by the London Borough of Bromley and was further echoed in the GLA stage 1 response of 27 November 2013.

The comments made by CABE, Officers, Councillors and neighbouring owners, served to inform the design brief provided to John Thompson Partners (the applicant's award winning international architects), from whom Members received a presentation in February 2014.

In reality, the Officers’ comments regarding the design and quality of St Marks Reach were at best highly subjective. They were not reflective of the detailed process undertaken by the design and architectural team and the report identified no significant harm to either local townscape or residential amenity. The low number of objections and letters of support received clearly underlined that point.

St Mark's Reach incorporated one of the most expensive and highest quality blends of materials, yet to be used within any new development in the Borough, let alone the Town Centre. From the light reflective alucabond cladding, quality brick finishes, thermo reflective glass and bespoke interior design, Members had the opportunity to consent to a building that would not just be an outstanding addition to the Town Centre but would also be an important addition to the wider South East London Townscape.

St Marks Reach was readily deliverable and provided a balanced and exciting mix of uses in what, until now, had been an impermeable, sadly neglected and uninspiring corner of the Town Centre.

Mr Mark Gibney, planning partner at bptw Partnership was also in attendance and responded to Member questions as set out below:-

•  The provision of only six affordable housing units was due to viability issues.  A confidential viability report had been submitted which had identified that the scheme could provide 11% of affordable housing; the Council's independent assessor believed a maximum of 14% could be achieved.

•  The lack of parking provision for small sites such as St Marks Reach was a common element of modern-day development proposals.  Potential purchasers would be aware there was no parking provision so ultimately it would be their choice whether to move to the site or not.

•  In terms of creating a landmark building, the high quality design and use of high quality materials would contribute to what would become an imposing building which would sit well within the location and be noticed.  The external colour of the building would change subtly throughout the day.

•  Three disabled parking spaces would be provided.  Storage space would also be available for wheelchairs, mobility scooters etc.  All residential units would be built to the 'Lifetime Homes' standard, 10% of which would be wheelchair accessible. 

The Development Control Manager gave an update in respect of the recommended third ground for refusal concerning affordable housing.  Members were informed that dialogue had taken place between the applicant and the Council's consultants as to whether it would be viable for the scheme to make a greater contribution.  Although unwilling to consider a mix of tenures, preferring to retain the shared ownership offer on site, the applicant had agreed to provide the proposed six units plus a payment of £515k in lieu which officers deemed to be an acceptable offer.  In light of this, it was recommended that the third reason for refusal be withdrawn.

Whilst Councillor Dykes was pleased to note the application included the provision of office space, she was concerned that the height and scale of the development was excessive and would lead to an overdevelopment of the site.  On this basis, Councillor Dykes moved that the application be refused as recommended (after Officer update).

Although Councillor Rutherford considered the site to be appropriate for development, it was too small to accommodate the proposed scheme.  He also questioned elements of the design of the building.  For reasons of overdevelopment, scale and design, Councillor Rutherford seconded the motion for refusal.

Councillor Fawthrop referred to the lack of parking provision stating that although a high rating had been given to the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of the site, it was wrong to assume that everyone was against car travel.

It was noted that the site was not included in Bromley Town Centre's Area Action Plan as a location for taller buildings.

Following a vote of 15-0, Members RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED as recommended, for the following reasons:-

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, incongruous 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, 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.

2   The proposed development would, by reason of the height, scale and footprint of the building constitute an overdevelopment of the site, with very limited space retained at street level to offset the significant mass of built development and provide a satisfactory setting for the development, and would give rise to a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents with particular regard to an unacceptable and detrimental perception of overlooking and loss of privacy, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan Policy 7.7.

3   The proposed development would lack servicing arrangements for the proposed commercial uses which would result in a detrimental impact upon road and pedestrian safety and highway management contrary to Policies T17 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy BTC29 of the Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan.