Agenda item

Description of application – Residential development comprising 15 four storey townhouses and 52 apartments in three and four storey blocks to provide a total of 67 residential units together with concierges office and basement car parking (OUTLINE APPLICATION).

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr John Escott, who reported the following:-

Designation of this site was downgraded to Urban Open Space in 2006 and the land currently served no particular function within the area.

The proposed scheme comprised 67 units, a sizeable reduction in comparison with the previously refused application of 105 units which was considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.  This was a high quality development which would have no impact on neighbouring properties.  No objections had been received from the Highways Division and there were now no active badger setts on site.  Mr Escott confirmed that an appeal regarding the previous application would be withdrawn should Members be minded to approve the scheme.

In response to Member questions, Mr Escott iterated that in regard to the Urban Open Space designation, the land had seen no specific use as urban open space for the past 15 years.

Councillor Scoates questioned the logic behind the applicant’s willingness to withdraw the application appeal for 105 units in favour of a scheme which provided just 67 units.  In response, Mr Escott explained that the present scheme would provide more houses and less apartments creating a pleasant mix of accommodation.  He confirmed the scheme was viable.

Councillor Fawthrop sought confirmation that should this scheme be approved, no further applications would be submitted.  Mr Escott advised that as this was an outline application, it was inevitable that further permutations of the present application may need to be submitted.

The following oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Geoff Brocklehurst:-

Neighbours of the site in question had raised concerns.  Urban Open Space was incredibly important to them as it protected residential properties from the spread of development.  Following refusal of a previous application, Mr Brocklehurst had spoken with Planning Officers who had confirmed there was no compelling evidence to show that the site was required to meet Bromley’s housing needs.  The evidence had not changed since and the application should, therefore, be refused.  Approval would leave the Council open to judicial review.

The Planning Officer had circulated an update informing Members that following publication of the report, additional representations in support of the application had been received.  In addition, the applicant had supplied an updated ecology report which concluded it was likely that badgers no longer used this site.  Further survey work was recommended prior to the commencement of clearance work to establish which species were using the site at the time. 

If the application was acceptable in all other respects, the further survey work recommended could be secured by condition.

Having regard to the above matters and the conclusion of the report, the Officer recommendation remained as set out in the main agenda.

Councillor Dean considered the site to be virtually scrubland and served no particular purpose.  A significant reduction in the number of proposed units had been made and the plot was ripe for development.  The application was well-defined, provided adequate parking and contributed well towards the provision of affordable housing.  He moved that approval be granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

Councillor Michael disagreed that the site served no purpose.  The area was  designated in the Local Plan as Urban Open Space and should be protected as such in particular the protection of trees and native animal species.  The site also lay within an air-quality tested area.  For this reason and the overdevelopment and density of the site, Councillor Michael moved that the application be refused.

In seconding the motion for approval, Councillor Joel considered there was scope for development of the land and advised that a full application should cover protection of any badgers or other native species on the site.

Councillor Scoates’ views remained the same as with the previous application.  The Local Plan should be considered a sacrosanct document and the land should, therefore, remain protected as Urban Open Space.  Before any application could be considered for development, the applicant should first submit an application for the land to be redesignated.  Councillor Scoates supported refusal.

Councillor Buttinger suggested that as compensation for the loss of Urban Open Space, the scheme could be adapted to incorporate green roofs to complement the environment.  The Planning Officer reported that the detailed design of the scheme would be considered with a future application at which point green roofs could be secured by condition.

Whilst Councillor Mellor was fully aware of the need to meet the Council’s housing requirement, areas designated within the Local Plan should remain protected.  He agreed with the recommendation for refusal on the grounds of over-dominance of the development.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner.