In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting. Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Tuesday 5 July 2016.
Minutes:
The following oral question was received from Mr John Ince on behalf of CRA20ten Residents’ Association, St Paul’s Cray in relation to the “Living in Bromley” Draft Policy: Housing Supply/Bromley Valley Gym, Chipperfield Road:-
‘In noting the public responses and especially in the light of the recognition by a national developer that the surrounding housing area is of a low density nature, would you (Chairman/Members) agree that the inclusion of a specific figure of 200 units is arbitrary, inappropriate and misleading for what is a policy document, when this and other details should be left to the relevant Committee once a formal application is received?’
The Chairman gave the following response:-
‘The Committee will be considering all of the housing proposals at a later stage of the agenda and it would not be right to give a separate response on one site in advance.
In general, the Council does need to meet a housing target of over 641 new homes each year. To do so in line with national guidance it needs to be able to show that it can justify this at a site-by site level, so it is important to include a figure in the policy proposals in this consultation draft Local Plan.’
Mr Ince then submitted a supplementary question as follows:-
‘I understand the Council’s need to conform to policy but would the Chairman/Members agree that providing a specific figure of 200 instead of merely stating “an element” of housing is a clear invitation for a developer to use as a planning guideline, where no site capacity appears to have been addressed?’
The Chairman responded with the following:-
‘This is a matter which Members may discuss under the appropriate section of this agenda.’
The following written question was submitted by Mr Clive Lees, Chairman, Ravensbourne Valley Preservation Society:-
‘Further to the Chairman’s response to my written question at the DCC meeting held on 9 February 2016, I would like to ask the following:-
No valid application has yet been made. The Society note that the properties in this development were sold approximately 18 months ago yet still:-
· neighbours are blighted by a loss of privacy (privacy screens have not been installed);
· cyclists have nowhere satisfactory to park their bicycles (there is no roof on the ‘cycle shed’);
· the driveway has none of the promised soft landscaping and is therefore rather an eyesore next to what is otherwise a fine, locally listed building; and
· permission has not yet been granted for an unauthorised additional window in the north flank.
Additionally, since our last question to DCC, Mike Hammond, Highway Development Engineers, has also identified that the drive may not have been constructed in accordance with the permitted application and so this is a further complaint.
We should be grateful if the Council would now insist that the matter is regularised as a matter of urgency and advise us of what progress is being made in this respect.’
The Chairman responded as follows:-
‘The application received was never made valid for a number of reasons including no fee being received. The matter has now been passed back to the Planning Investigation Team who are investigating all of the issues raised and will update you as soon as possible.’