Agenda item

Members considered the following planning application report:-

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr Christopher Francis.  Mr Francis made the following statement:-

“There is a political nettle in front of you this evening and I ask you to have the courage to grasp it.

Whilst there is wide-spread acknowledgement of the desperate need for additional new housing, particularly in London, you as a Council consistently say “not in our backyard”.  This I believe, is because you are seeking to preserve what you consider to be an essential facet of grand suburbia – detached and semi-detached houses with gardens – whilst ignoring the needs of the young and old who want one and two bedroom flats in accessible locations.

This site, close to Lower Sydenham Station is ideally located to provide a worthwhile boost to local housing provision without giving rise to any harm to the amenity of other established residential occupiers.

Elsewhere in the borough there would be loud and extensive objections to the development of c.300 new units so ask yourself why there is a lack of objection from residents to this scheme?  It has been well advertised; we consulted over 370 local residents and held an open evening: it featured on the front page of the South London Press and was also in the Bromley Shopper.

Yes the site is designated as MOL – this is a designation found in the 1976 GLDP based on a large grid square area on a diagrammatic plan not on any critical analysis of this site.  As our submission shows if such critical analysis is undertaken using the criteria now set out in the London Plan the site would not be designated as MOL as it:

i)  is not clearly distinguishable from the built up area;

ii)  does not include facilities which serve either the whole or significant parts of London; and

iii)  does not contain features or landscapes of national or metropolitan value.

If you decide to refuse this application you are saying to all Londoners including all Bromley’s residents, “we don’t care about the needs of your children and those who want to live in a well-served part of our borough; we only wish to keep the status quo, but by the way we will allow significant development in the MOL if it is for the likes of us” – just look at the cricket club up the road and 89 Kings Hall Road.

As politicians you will be very aware that the direction of decision makers in Government and at the GLA is actively to address housing need.  The Inspector who recently overturned the Council’s decision to refuse the development of the HG Wells Centre made a particular point at the outset of his decision in noting that:

“The Government is seeking to significantly boost the supply of housing, as set out in paragraph 47 of the NPPF.”

We have submitted evidence, which each of you has received, which shows that Bromley does not have the required five year supply of identifiable housing land, let alone provision to exceed the London Plan targets as also required.  You only come to where you are as a result of permissions granted on appeal: 223 units at Dylon1 for example.  Permission for this current application will go to addressing this policy shortfall and therefore should be looked at favourably without having to go through the appeal process.”

Councillor Carr (Leader of the Council) challenged Mr Francis’ assertion that Bromley’s housing targets had not or could not be met, pointing out that the Borough had consistently met its London Plan targets and that the Council’s current statements on housing land supply and the draft Local Plan show how future housing targets would be met.  Mr Francis said his claim was evidenced by documentation put forward by Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners Ltd which indicated a shortage of identified land would render the targets unachievable.

Mr Francis further informed Members that an appeal would automatically be submitted should Members decide to refuse the application.

Supporting correspondence together with a package of documents was received from the applicant and circulated to Members. Appendices 1 (correspondence from the GLA) and 2 (comments from TfL) which were omitted from the published report were also circulated.

The final sentence of the second paragraph on page 89 of the report was amended to read:-

‘It could be used to establish that the benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm done by inappropriate development through very special circumstances, however the case for very special circumstances has not convincingly been made in this instance.’  (The remainder of the sentence was deleted).

In the third recommended ground for refusal on page 112 of the report, the semi-colon after the word ‘gain’ was removed and inserted to follow the word ‘open’ on the subsequent line.

The Chief Planner confirmed debate would always occur around housing targets however, the current figures reflected information contained within the recently adopted London Plan and its Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment so overall, officers had confidence that targets would be  achieved.

Speaking as Ward Member for Copers Cope, Councillor Mellor confirmed he was addressing the application with an open mind and without a predetermined opinion.  Having closely scrutinised the agenda item and papers sent to him from Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on behalf of the applicant, by letter of 28 August 2015 together with a detailed Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners review (August 2015) entitled Bromley Five Year Housing Land Supply Assessment dated 27^th August 2045, Councillor Mellor offered his personal opinion and objected to the application on the following grounds:-

·  the site was situated within MOL and should be protected as such;

·  inadequate car parking provision had been made;

·  the proposals would create an over-development of the site and result in a lack of amenity space;

·  there was a lack of infrastructure – e.g. education and health (in particular, there was no GP surgery in the Ward); and

·  there was a lack of adequate public transport with only a single bus service operating within the area and a limited train service from Lower Sydenham station.

Councillor Mellor congratulated the author of the planning report for producing a non-biased, well-crafted, detailed document which also contained a full list of referenced policies.

The Chairman also refuted Mr Francis’ statement that the housing targets would not be met and moved refusal of the application on the grounds set out in the report.  This was seconded by Councillor Michael who supported the Council’s role as a custodian of MOL and GB land. 

The proposed development was considered by Members to be of poor design and one which would result in an over-development of the site.

Whilst Councillor Bance would like to see affordable housing provided, the dimensions of a number of the proposed accommodation were too small.  The site was also designated as MOL and should remain so. 

Based on her knowledge of the area, Councillor Allen reported that the current site was in a dreadful state.  Many houses in the surrounding area had been converted into flats and whilst the site could be considered for housing, this particular application was of poor design and an over-development.  Councillor Allen suggested the application could be deferred.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner as follows:-

1. The proposed redevelopment of this site designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) for residential purposes is considered to be inappropriate development in principle. The applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances or that the proposal is a sustainable form of development. Furthermore the substantial level of harm that would arise from the development by way of harm to the MOL, design, and amenity and flood risk is considered to outweigh any housing land supply or other socio-economic benefits that would arise or benefits of opening up public access to the MOL and enhancing its landscape. As such the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and Policies 7.17 of the London Plan (2015) and G2 of the UDP (2006).

2.  This site is considered to be an inappropriate location for a tall building as its fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy BE17 of the UDP. Furthermore, the proposal by virtue of its scale, form and monolithic appearance, amount of development, adverse impact on the Landscape and the Skyline, poor response to the existing street network and connections, failure to improve or enhance the legibility and character of the area, adverse podium design, lack of active frontage and poor public realm amounts to overdevelopment of the site and fails to provide a scheme of high quality design contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012), Policies H7, BE1 BE4 and BE18 of the UDP, Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan, The Mayors Housing SPG and SPG1 Good Design Principles and SPG2 Residential Design Guidance.

3. The proposal by virtue of its podium design, poorly considered access arrangements, outlook for some of the ground floor units; and questions over the ability of single aspect flats to promote natural ventilation and mitigate solar gain or provide adequate amenity in terms of noise when windows are open; fails to demonstrate that a high quality living environment with satisfactory standards of amenity will be provided for future residents. Furthermore it has not been demonstrated that the development is capable of providing 10% wheelchair provision across all tenures, with suitable access, car parking and internal layout. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies H7 and BE1 of the UDP, Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.6 of the London Plan, The Mayors Housing SPG, SPG2 Residential Design Guidance and the Bromley’s Affordable Housing SPD (2008).

4. This site lies within Flood Zone 2 and 3 and meets the requirements for Sequential Test in the NPPF. Despite the ability of the design to mitigate flood risk, the approach taken has significant adverse effects on the quality of the development. As such it has not been demonstrated that an appropriate solution to mitigate potential flood risk can be achieved in accordance with the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and Policy 5.12 of the London Plan.

Councillor Mellor abstained from voting.