Agenda item

Description of application – Demolition of existing building and construction of part 3/part 4 storey block of 34 flats with associated car and bicycle parking, refuse and recycling storage and landscaping.

Oral representations from the applicant’s agent in support of the application included the following points:

·  Various issues with the content of the report were raised in a letter to the Council dated 19 May 2020.

·  As outlined in the report, the development was acceptable except for the conflict with Policy 11 which sought to protect sites that provided specialist accommodation.  The report failed to note that the use of the building for the provision of specialist accommodation for older people ceased as of 1 May 2015 as set out on the application form that accompanied the application for the redevelopment of the site for 9 dwellings.  It was, therefore, a matter of fact that the provision of specialist accommodation for older people from this site ceased just over five years ago. It was not right that this policy was afforded the same degree of weight as if the application related to a building that had recently closed or moreover still active but proving unviable to continue. The Policy was only formally adopted 18 months ago, more than three years following closure of the site and when an alternative residential development had been approved. The use of the site for specialist accommodation had therefore long since ceased and any need for such provision had been met elsewhere by other developments.  There was, therefore, no net loss to the provision of specialist accommodation for older people as envisaged by the Policy.

·  Balanced against this, Members must consider that this scheme would deliver 34 new residential apartments of which 12 were to be provided as affordable housing. The report acknowledged that there was not a current 5-year housing land supply position and therefore the provision of housing should be afforded significant weight in favour of the proposals. This was accepted by Planning Inspectors when determining appeals in Bromley as well as generally within authorities lacking the necessary housing supply. While the application would see 12 of the 34 units being provided as affordable housing, the current discussions with interested purchasers of the completed scheme indicated it was likely that all 34 units would be delivered as affordable housing. The additional 22 units would need to fall outside of the scope of any Section 106 Agreement due to funding arrangements with housing associations.

·  If Members accepted there was no fallback position regarding the implementation of the 9 unit dwelling scheme, which was not accepted by the applicant, then Members should consider whether the full weight of Policy 11 was applicable to this site and in the context of the housing crisis and the lack of sufficient supply at present in this Borough. If Members considered there was conflict with the Policy, it should not singularly amount to such harm that it otherwise outweighed the benefits acknowledge in the report.

In response to questions from Members, the agent confirmed the following:-

·  Discussions had been undertaken with Housing Associations to take on all 34 units.  However, 22 of the units would remain outside the Section 106 Agreement for viability reasons.

·  The option to appeal in the event that the application was refused had not been discussed.  The applicant would take the either/or principle in regard to which application scheme had been approved.

·  The provision of electric car charging points would be policy compliant.  A condition imposed by Members for 100% provision would not be justified as it was not a policy requirement in the London or Local Plan.

The Principal Planner reported the following updates:-

·  Policy 11 of the Bromley Local Plan still applied to sites not currently being used as specialist accommodation.

·  No marketing had been undertaken to establish that there was not a continued demand for specialist accommodation at the site.

·  Further objections had been received following re-consultation which was sent out on 7 May 2020.  While some of the objections were similar to those already reported, others raised issues concerning:-

o  the reduction in parking;

o  the assertion that traffic flow would be reduced was difficult to believe, bearing in mind that the 30 original flats were occupied by extra care residents who generally did not drive;

o  some improvement in landscaping at lower end of the site adjacent to Woodhead Drive;

o  the introduction of a play area would result in noise disturbance;

o  confirmation needed from the Council that application 16/04956/FULL1 for nine houses had now expired;

o  the two active applications required more transparency from the developer;

o  the notification letter was not received until 18 May 2020.

·  The Council’s Tree Officer had submitted the following  comments in relation to verge works:-

o  The low level vegetation fronting Northolme Rise comprised weed species. The tidying of the verge to improve the visibility splays was supported.

o  The retention of trees on the frontage and vegetation/scrub clearance could be addressed in the Arboricultural Method Statement which would be required by condition.

·  The following update on land contamination had been received from Environmental Health:-

o  The items raised had all been addressed in a satisfactory manner and the changes appeared to continue through the report and into the conclusions and recommendations. 

o  The revised report could be accepted in support of the application with the imposition of conditions as highlighted in the report.

Councillor Joel was disappointed to note that no marketing had been undertaken to find a provider willing to take on the site and retain the use as older persons’ accommodation. The proposal was detrimental by way of its bulk and mass which would impact on the surrounding residential area.  The scheme would also result in road network and traffic problems. There was no justification for the building to be demolished.

For the reasons given above, Councillor Joel moved that the application be refused.  Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion, adding that a lack of sufficient electric vehicle charging points would  have an impact on the peaceful enjoyment of neighbouring properties.

Councillor Owen agreed that the development was out-of-keeping with the surrounding area and would result in a building which looked far worse than the one currently in situ.  The site was more suited to development as family housing which was in short supply.

Councillor Allen questioned the recommendation for refusal as the existing building could not be of any use in regard to specialised accommodation whereas granting the application would bolster the Council’s housing targets.  There was every chance that the Council would lose should the applicant decide to appeal.

Councillor Brooks agreed, stating that an opportunity to add to the provision of affordable housing should not be missed.  He asked how long a site designated for specialist older persons accommodation needed to stand vacant before being deemed acceptable for change of use.  The Principal Planner reported that such sites remained designated regardless of how much time had elapsed.

The Principal Planner informed Members that the reasons for refusal put forward by Councillors Joel and Fawthrop would not be sustainable.

The Chairman moved that the application be refused solely on the ground set out in the report as the application conformed to all other planning policies. Councillor Dean seconded the motion.

A vote to refuse the application for the reasons set out by Councillors Joel and Fawthrop FELL.

The motion put forward by the Chairman to refuse the application for the reason set out in the report was put to the vote and CARRIED.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that the application BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reason set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control.