Agenda item

Description of application - Full planning permission for the demolition of the existing public house and erection of an A1 retail food store, with associated car parking, reconfigured site access, landscaping, servicing and other associated works.

 

The Chairman noted that a number of additional papers had been tabled for consideration by the Committee.

 

Oral representations from the applicant in support of the application included the following points:-

 

·  The site had been the subject of a previous Lidl proposal in 2013 which was refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal in 2014.  At that time the Planning Inspector accepted the important planning benefits that would be delivered by a food store on the site.  It was concerns around highway safety that led to the dismissal of the appeal.

·  The current planning application provided revised site access arrangements ensuring full visibility in both directions along Mottingham Road.  The Council’s Highways department approved the new design and raised no objection to the scheme.

·  The proposed scheme therefore addressed all the concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in 2014.

·  The applicant did not embark upon the decision to pursue a second application lightly.  Time had been taken to explore alternative options to ensure that any new proposal was beneficial to the local community.

·  The scheme had received support from local residents both prior to and during the application process.  Almost 1500 residents had register their support for the new proposals.

·  Whilst it was clear that some local residents wished to see the site retained as a public house, the site had been marketed in 2016, with a 6 month period during which the community had the right to bid for the site.  The site had also been the subject of open marketing since November 2018.  No formal offers to return the site to its former pub use had come forward from local community groups or the open market.  An independent report had confirmed that the site was no longer viable as a public house.

·  It was not the case that the amendments to the footpath along Mottingham Road would endanger pedestrians.  The footpath would be a standard width ensuring pedestrian access at all times.

·  The proposal would have no impact on access to the library and wold deliver benefits through improved crossing facilities along Mottingham Road.

·  There were no adverse impact associated with the development and no objections had been received from statutory consultees.

·  The scheme would provide a rage of benefits for the site and Mottingham as a whole, widening consumer choice, securing the redevelopment of a vacant brownfield site, creating up to 40 new jobs which would  be available to the local community.

·  The proposal was a sustainable form of development, accessible by foot and public transport.

·  The application was in accordance with the Council’s Development plan and there were no outstanding planning reasons why the current planning application should not be approved.

 

In response to questions raised by Councillor Huntington-Thresher, the applicant confirmed that the scheme achieved a 35% reduction in emissions and the applicant had done all it could to comply with the draft London Local Plan and achieve a sustainable development.  Parking would be managed by an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system with vehicles being tracked on entry and exit to the car park.  It was felt that the 90 minutes allowed would enable ample time to shop in the store and also visit shops in the vicinity.  The 90 minute restriction had been included to prevent abuse of the car park.

 

In response to questions raised by Councillor Bennett, the applicant confirmed that the scheme had been tracked to enable an articulated lorry of up to 16.5m to be able to successfully and safely deliver to the site.  The direction of access by service delivery lorries could be covered by one of the existing proposed conditions covering the service delivery strategy.  Customer access to the site would be from both directions – turning right across Mottingham Road and coming from the Eltham direction and turning left into the site.

 

In response to a question raised by Councillor Terry, the applicant reported that the proposed design for this store was not in line with the standard specification for Lidl stores but was more in-keeping with the surrounding area.  It would be a new building built to up-to-date energy standards and therefore used modern, more sustainable materials which would look more modern compared to the surrounding period properties.  The applicant highlighted that the fundamental element of the design of the building had been found to be acceptable by Planning Officers and were found to be acceptable by the planning Inspector in 2014.

 

In response to a question raised by Councillor Harris, the applicant confirmed that an agent who specialised  in pub properties had been appointed to market the site.  The site had been advertised in various pub commercial journals and publications.  A marketing board was placed on site and there had been advertising on various social media outlets.

 

Oral representations (attached at Annex A) from local ward councillor, Councillor David Cartwright, raised the following issues

 

·  Main traffic and road safety issues included: the width of the road and road markings, speed and density of traffic, and lack of local parking.

·  Local ward councillors questioned the need for such a food store.

·  The previous application, submitted over 6 years previously, was refused by the Council and the subsequent appleal was dismissed by the Planning inspector who cited significant road safety concerns.  In the opinion of local ward councillors and local Mottingham residents,  the road safety concerns identified with the previous application had not been addressed in the current application.

·  The site was situated within a couple of meters of a busy roundabout with heavy traffic volumes, fast traffic speeds, and was a known ‘hotspot’ for road traffic accidents.

·  The width of the road through the village was restricted with significant differing pavements widths.

·  Roads leading to and including Mottingham Road were used daily as a cut through by local traffic trying to avoid the busy A20 which ran parallel.  This caused significant traffic problems in the village during morning and evening rush hour with the close proximity of local schools exacerbating the problem.

·  In terms of road safety, only two adjustments had been made to the 2013 scheme which had been refused.  However, it was felt that these adjustments did not address the significant road safety concerns.

·  The loss of a 6.6m street lamp which ensured full illumination of the refuge and roundabout was a serious road safety issue and had not been addressed in the report and was misrepresented in the artists impression of the development.

·  The proposed realignment of the pavement could impact on local mains utilities which were sited under the pavement and at a depth less than normal.  This could cause significant damage and disruption to the local area.  This was drawn to the attention of Planners but had not been addressed in the report.

·  There was little evidence that detailed consideration had been given to parking.  The 33 parking spaces provided (10 of which were allocated to disable drivers or parents with children) were inadequate for such as store and as a result the proposed parking restrictions would need to be strengthened to prevent indiscriminate parking.

·  The proposal would have an adverse effect on the quality of life of residence living in the vicinity of the proposed store.

·  The issues that had been raised were material and required detailed consideration.

 

[During Councillor Cartwright’s presentation to the Committee the Director of Corporate Services highlighted to the Committee that whilst the time restrictions of three minutes imposed on public speakers were not applicable to ward councillors addressing the Committee, however Members were reminded that the usual speaking time without leave of the meeting was 5 minutes for Members for any presentation in any forum]

 

Oral representations from local ward councillor, Councillor Will Rowlands, raised the following issues

 

·  Local ward councillors were disappointed with the handling of the application when it was due to be handled at the last meeting in January.  The quality of the report was so poor that the application had to be withdrawn from the agenda.

·  The proposed development was in contravention of both the Bromley Local Plan and the London Local Plan, specifically policies 20 and 23.

·  The scheme would result in the loss of a community facility and no proposals had been put forward to replace the community facility of the public house, a key community facility until its closure.

·  Surrounding properties would be affected by light pollution from the six 6m light columns that were proposed for installation in the car park.

·  Other proposals for development had been put forward, including a small housing development with social housing and a micro pub.

·  The Committee should remain consistent with the policy and objectives set out in the Local Plan.

 

Oral representations from local MP, Sir Bob Neill, raised the following issues

 

·  The involvement of the local MP reflects the volume and level of concern raised by local residents which was far beyond the norm.

·  This site had previously been registered as an asset of community value and the current application made no attempt to replace the community meeting facility or broader social benefit  that would be lost.

·  Consideration needed to be given to whether the previous marketing of the site had been adequate.

·  For these reasons and the reasons set out by local ward councillors the application should be refused.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning summarised the report in a brief presentation to the Committee which included the following

 

·  The report summarised the rationale behind the recommendation.

·  The primary consideration was the previous appeal decision in 2014 for an almost identical proposal by the same applicant.  The only issue the Planning Inspector had found relevant in the dismissal of that appeal was the access arrangements for the site.  In that case in 2014 the Highway Authority had objected to the application.

·  The proposed access arrangements were now found technically acceptable to the Highway Authority.

·  There were no highway reasons to refuse the application and Highways Officers would not be able to support a refusal at appeal.

·  Local concern about the application was fully appreciated but further grounds for refusal were unlikely to be able to be supported by Officers at appeal.

·  The Local and Policy circumstances had not significantly changed since the previous appeal and any ground of refusal revisiting any of the matters previously considered to be acceptable ran the risk of the Council losing any subsequent appeal and a potential award of costs.

 

In noting the introduction from the Assistant Director, Councillor Huntington-Thresher considered that one material difference was that the London Plan had moved forward.  In July Bromley Council had resolved to be carbon neutral for its own direct activities by 2029.  The draft London Plan was a material consideration and Policy S 12 – minimising greenhouse emissions – was consistent was with London Plan to be carbon neutral by 2050.  The store would be there for some considerable time and Councillor Huntington-Thresher did not feel that the scheme was ambitious enough in terms of carbon reduction and instead the proposals should aim to meet new carbon reduction targets.  Whilst it was not impossible for Lidl to meet the revised targets, Councillor Huntington-Thresher, felt that there should be an opportunity for the scheme to meet the new targets.  On that basis Councillor Huntington-Thresher moved deferral on the grounds of providing the applicant with the opportunity to return with a detailed strategy setting out how the zero carbon target could be met within the energy framework to be in compliance  with Policy S.12.

 

Councillor Terry understood  both the concerns around the marketing of the pub which represented a material planning consideration and the concerns raised in relation to road safety and there were still some outstanding issues that required full consideration and if the Committee did resolve to defer the application these issues should also be given further consideration.  In respect of the marketing, the Assistant Director of Planning confirmed that Officers considered that the policy requirements had been met in this case.  The Assistant Director of Planning further confirmed  that the Highways Authority had found the scheme acceptable.

 

Councillor Bennett noted that the pub had been closed for 7 years and in that time no progress had been made.  There had been the opportunity to purchase the site as a community asset and this was not advance.  In Councillor Bennett’s issue the only issue the Committee could decide was on the question of highways and traffic and from the evidence heard any of the issues could be addressed through conditions to the planning application.  If the Committee failed to make a decision the Council could be at risk of losing an appeal as a result of non-determination.  On that basis Councillor Bennett moved that the application was approved.

 

Councillor Boughey noted the presentations and endorsed the comments by Councillor Terry.  As highways issues were possibly the only grounds on which the application could be refused the Committee needed to be very sure of its reasons for refusing the application on these grounds.  If the application was going to be deferred on the basis of the carbon reduction issue the opportunity should also be taken to look specifically at the points raised by local ward Councillor Cartwright – i.e. access arrangements for the articulated lorries and the issue of the street lamp.

 

Councillor Allen noted that some of the conditions that had been raised, such as the traffic light, could be dealt with by conditions.  It was difficult to classify the building as a community facility when it had been empty for 6 years with no one seeking to do anything with it.  In relation to car parking, the proposed arrangements were the same as in most other supermarkets.  Councillor Allen felt that there were limited planning reasons to refuse the application and on that basis was happy to second the motion to approve the application moved by Councillor Bennett.

 

The motion for deferral, moved by Councillor Huntington-Thresher and Seconded by Councillor Boughey was put to the vote and CARRIED.  (Consequently the motion moved by Councillor Bennett and seconded by Councillor Allen fell)

 

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration to enable further consideration of the following issues:

·  Carbon reduction

·  Outstanding road safety issues

·  Marketing of the property.