Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

The Development Control Manager provided Members with the following verbal update:-

This application is submitted by the London Borough of Bromley.

Since a variety of issues which are not generally material planning considerations have been raised in representations about this application, Members should ensure that the determination of the application is in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act which states that this must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The report sets out the key material planning considerations and in particular the relevant development plan policies.

A number of late representations have been received and are on the file. The matters raised are similar to those set out in the summary of objections within the report and in addition express concern about the process.

1. The second paragraph on page 82 – Statement regarding referral of tenants is incorrect – the applicant has confirmed “All referrals will be made solely by the Housing Team at the London Borough of Bromley” the Housing Team would have sole nomination rights to the accommodation and Orchard and Shipman cannot select tenants themselves or receive referrals from a third party.

2. In respect of references to Supported Housing the applicant has confirmed that the accommodation proposed is for specialist accommodation for homeless households with low to medium support needs, and would not be used for supported housing for those with high support needs such as pronounced mental health issues, ongoing addictions or ex-offenders. This could be the subject of a planning condition.

3. Reference to House In Multiple Occupation (HMO) – The Council’s Environmental Health Housing Officer has confirmed that the HMO is exempt from HMO restrictions will not be licensable and the legislation “Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England 2006) will not apply. The maximum occupation of the HMO units would be 102 persons if all units were at maximum occupation. The self-contained units would accommodate an additional maximum of 16 persons (total 118). The revised plans submitted in May overcome the concerns raised in the report about light and ventilation. This updates the reported comments on pages 85 and 86 of the agenda.

4. Page 84 last bullet point of summary of objections should refer to 5 years and not 5 days.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Ned Helme, Barrister for the Avalon Area Action Group (AAAG).  Mr Helme made the following points:-

  This was clearly a Local Authority application and Members were requested to be mindful of the required approach in determining the application and the issues of predetermination and bias.  The AAAG's letter to the Planning Department of 22 April raised some fundamental objections.  The application should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. 

  The site was not a sustainable location.  The proposed facility would be served by just one bus service operating on a circular route.  With regard to traffic and parking, as the facility would essentially provide accommodation for families, this was likely to generate more traffic in the immediate locale and the proposed provision of 17 car parking spaces would result in a lower parking level than that provided at Bellegrove.

  For reasons of over-intensification, unsustainability, parking levels, impact on local services, security and impact on character and amenity, Members were urged to reject the application.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Jim Bailey, agent for the applicant.  Mr Bailey made the following points:-

  The proposal would meet social need as an alternative to costly hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation.  The amenity of neighbouring residents would be protected by ensuring that high standards of behaviour were achieved and maintained by tenants.  The existing bus route was sufficient to serve the site and parking standards had been met. 

In response to Member questions, Mr Bailey confirmed that the maximum number of tenants at the facility would not exceed 118.  With regard to obtaining Secure by Design Certification, following the advice of the Secure by Design Officer, security cameras and secure locks on all windows and doors would be implemented and completed prior to occupation of the building.  Mr Bailey believed the proposal was comparable with the existing Bellegrove facility which was operated by the same company and provided the same type of accommodation.  He was not aware of any problems arising at Bellegrove.  Tenants would remain at the facility until the Local Authority found them more permanent accommodation.  The proposed one-bedroom units would primarily be utilised by single pregnant women or women with children.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the Portfolio Holder for Care Services, Councillor Robert Evans.  Councillor Evans made the following representations:-

  Whilst Care Services was operated as efficiently as possible, there was currently great financial pressure to save money in all service areas of the Council.  However, that being said, it remained vitally important to support the Borough's vulnerable residents.  There were currently about 1,000 homeless family units, 70-80% of which included at least two children. The Council had a duty to accommodate homeless people until a more permanent residence was found.  The use of redundant care homes as temporary accommodation would save the Council from having to pay for nightly accommodation - often out-of-Borough - which was expensive and quite often ruinous to families. 

  Manorfields would provide a similar arrangement to Bellegrove which had proved to be a financial success.  Whilst the fears of local residents was understandable, potential tenants would be thoroughly vetted to ensure that no problematic clients were placed at Manorfields and in this respect, they would be required to sign a tenancy behaviour agreement.

In response to Member questions, Councillor Evans reported that a cross-section of residents would be placed at Manorfields with each application being assessed individually.  The facility was located at a reasonable distance from Orpington Town Centre. 

Oral representations were received from Ward Member Councillor William Huntington-Thresher.  Councillor Huntington-Thresher commented that in light of the updates provided at the meeting, it was only reasonable for residents to have an opportunity to challenge and respond to any further conditions that may be attached to the proposal.

Councillor Fawthrop considered the provision of 12 bathrooms and 3 kitchens shared by 118 people to be insufficient.  In his opinion, the application was an over-intensification of the site which could be developed into something more suitable and accommodating.  For this reason he moved that the application be deferred to seek a reduction in units.

Councillor Arthur moved that the application be granted provided a robust vetting process of tenants was implemented.  This was seconded by the Chairman.

Councillor Auld seconded the motion for deferral.  Whilst not entirely against the proposal, the application as it currently stood, would result in a development which would be out of character with the area and would result in an increase in traffic.

The following points were generally agreed:-

•  there would be no increase in the footprint of the site;

•  the Council had a social duty to help homeless people in the Borough;

•  the facility was located within reasonable distance of Orpington Town Centre and served by a bus route operating every 15 minutes;

•  there were no reasons to refuse the application on planning grounds.

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.