Agenda item

(Report to follow)

Description of application – Redevelopment of the site to provide 280 residential units (Use Class C3), a Use Class C2 care home for the frail elderly, retention of the sports pavilion, retention of the spine road, provision of open space and associated works.

The applicant’s agent gave oral representations in support of the proposal which included the following points:-

·  The application site had the benefit of previous permission.

·  Significant pre-application discussions had taken place with Planning Officers and the GLA.

·  The applicant had actively engaged with the Local Authority and other stakeholders.

·  The development complied with the density ranges set out in the London Plan, UDP Policy and Draft Local Plan Policy.

·  Requirements of the London Plan, the UDP and the emerging Draft Local Plan were met in terms of the provision of affordable housing.

·  No objections were raised by local Residents’ Associations and local residents were keen for the proposal to proceed.

·  Transport assessments had been carried out and no objections were raised in terms of highways safety.

·  The car parking provision complied with Policy requirements.

·  If permission was granted, Bromley would benefit from a state of the art Care Home facility.

The Agent’s Responses to Questions From Members

The previously permitted scheme was not completed due to a change in the market at which time the property owner deemed the development to be unviable.

Whilst the current application excluded the previously proposed D1 Medical Centre element, high quality care would be provided for residents within the care home.

Chief Planner’s Update

Page 75 of the report - Issues regarding site-wide energy would be addressed by way of a relevant clause in the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Bullet points two and three of the recommendation  on page 82 of the report had been amended to read:-

‘The finalisation of the detailed wording of the clauses of the S106 Agreement and the conditions to be delegated to the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chairman and the Director of Corporate Services.  In the event that final terms cannot be agreed, the matters will be reported back to Members for further consideration.’

Members’ Discussion

Councillor Dean (Ward Member), had supported the previous application for development of the site.  This was a commendable scheme in that it:-

·  contributed to the Borough’s housing supply;

·  the care home would be a useful facility in Bromley;

·  the MOL element had been retained as a sports facility;

·  adequate parking would be provided; and

·  there was an excellent ratio of affordable housing.

However, the increase in dwellings from the previous 179 units to almost 400, in addition to the 4-5 storey tower blocks on the site would impact on the local surroundings and the increase in traffic would result in significantly increased congestion.

Councillor Dean moved refusal of the application on the grounds of over-development of the site; loss of amenity as a result of the tower blocks; bulk and design and the impact on traffic.

Councillor Fawthrop considered the provision of parking to be inadequate for the number of units proposed.  There was a lack of innovation on the part of the applicant to make the design greener and more energy efficient.  He seconded the motion for refusal on environment grounds, traffic impact and an over-development of the site.

The Chief Planner referred to paragraph 2 on page 68 of the report which concluded that the provision of car parking spaces met with the Council’s Policy.

Referring to Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs), Councillor Fawthrop stated that Transport for London assumed people who live next to a train station would travel by train; similarly those living by bus stops would use the bus but those living near a road would not wish to travel by car.  PTALs were flawed because they were not based on where people wished to travel to - it was the destination point that was important.

Councillor Harmer supported the application.  He considered the number of parking spaces to be adequate and stated that the majority of people were well aware of the parking provision when buying property.  Whilst the density range was at the lower end of requirements, refusal on this ground would be difficult to defend at appeal.  The scheme contributed to the Borough’s housing supply.

If Members were minded to grant the application, Councillor Terry requested that S106 monies be used for improvements to the pathways between Creswell Drive and Eden Park Station and to ensure the pathway near the lake was kept secure.  The Chief Planner reported that this could be discussed with the applicant in consultation with the Chairman.

Councillors Allen and Brooks supported the application and expressed the importance of establishing a care home within the Borough along with the provision of affordable housing.  A condition could be added in relation to the installation of charging points for electric cars.

The Chairman considered there were no sustainable grounds on which to  refuse the application.  MOL would be retained, the proposal provided a much needed care home within the Borough and a replacement tree scheme would be conditioned.

The Chairman moved that the application be granted; this was seconded by Councillor Harmer.

A vote to refuse the application was lost at 6-10.

Following a subsequent vote (10-6) to grant the application, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended, subject to the following conditions:-

·  Referral to and any direction by the Mayor of London.

·  Prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement relating to matters set out in the report.

·  The finalisation of the detailed wording of the clauses of the S106 Agreement and the conditions to be delegated to the Chief Planner in consultation with the Committee Chairman and the Director of Corporate Services.  In the event that final terms cannot be agreed, the matters will be reported back to Members for further consideration.