Agenda item

Description of application – Demolition of 5 existing houses and associated structures and erection of 28 residential units comprising an apartment block with 9x1 bed and 11x2 bed units and 8x3 bed houses, together with basement car parking with access from Saltwood Close, surface level car parking, cycle parking, refuse and recycling facilities and associated landscaping.

Oral representations from a neighbour in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent. The Construction and Logistics Plan submitted by the applicant addressed most of the issues raised by the objector.

In response to questions from Members, the agent reported that:-

·  the applicant would accept a condition that the Construction and Logistics Plan be used as a minimum level when agreeing a Construction Management Plan with the Council;

·  the payment offered in lieu of affordable housing would not change; and

·  an ‘allocated parking’ sign would be sufficient to ensure security of the four parking spaces adjacent to 2 Saltwood Close.

The Development Manager Team Leader reported the following:-

·  further objections had been received, some of which had already been addressed in the report;

·  an addendum to the report had been circulated to Members outlining new concerns and responses from officers;

·  the overall parking stress (referred to on page 81 of the report), should read 55/59%. There was an error in the assessment when five restrictive bays should have been identified. This was still below the 85% threshold when issues may arise;

·  no objections were received from transport officers;

·  a slab level condition would be required;

·  a Management Plan for outside communal space would be required; and

·  the waste condition would be expanded to include the entire development for houses and flats.

Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Huntington-Thresher considered the density of the proposal to be significantly out of place with the London Plan as it stood at the time of the appeal. While the parking stress was only at 50%, Charterhouse Road was on a bus route and if the level of parking increased as foreseen, the Council would put yellow lines on the road to allow the buses to pass through. It was acknowledged that the Council was not likely to allow a flatted development with limited parking spaces to apply for Parking Controlled Zones. While the applicant had submitted a Construction Logistics Plan, the recommended condition did not go into any detail on this.

Councillor Huntington-Thresher moved that the application be permitted as recommended and requested the following:-

·  condition 3 be expanded to say that no development should commence on site until a Construction and Management Plan had been submitted to and approved by the Local Authority;

·  condition 9 should require waste and recycling details for the whole development to be submitted;

·  a condition stating that if any future CPZ were to be introduced, the occupiers would not be eligible to apply for permits; and

·  a condition requiring 100% electric car charging points be provided.

Councillor Dean noted there were no objections from the agencies consulted. The previous application was dismissed at appeal on a formality only.  This application would improve Bromley’s housing supply. He seconded the motion to permit the application.

The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that details of the provision of air source heat pumps were contained in condition 15 of the recommendations. She also advised it was not reasonable to add a condition regarding future parking permits.

Committee Members would add an informative regarding CPZ in future.

Councillor Harris considered that the design of this proposal was a great improvement and the development would not detract from the street scene. Her comments were supported by Councillor Boughey and the Chairman.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT as recommended and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that:-

1)  condition 9 include the requirement that  waste and recycling details for the whole development to be submitted;

2)  a further condition be added requiring a Construction, Management and Environmental Plan to be submitted;

3)  a further condition be added requiring 100% electric car charging points to be provided; and

4)  an informative be added to state that should a future CPZ be introduced, it was unlikely the Council would allow residents to apply for permits.

The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that early and late stage reviews would be included as part of the Section 106 Agreement.