Agenda item

Description of application – Construction of a builders’ merchants building (Sui Generis use) and associated storage and loading areas, creation new vehicular access to Homesdale Road, a new substation, 6no. residential dwellings, with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and associated highways works.

Oral representations were received from the applicant’s agent who urged Members to reject the recommendation to contest the appeal.

In response to Member questions, the agent reported that the appeal had not yet started. Therefore, if the application were to be deferred, he would be willing to enter into negotiations with the Council to resolve issues and bring forward a further application.

The Head of Planning Policy and Strategy confirmed that the site met the definition of ‘developable’ within the NPPF and it remained in the Bromley Local Plan as an allocated site.

Referring to the second recommendation to contest the appeal (page 51), the Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments informed Members that work could continue with the agent and Environmental Health Department to resolve the issues regarding noise impact. If successful, then Recommendation 2 would not be included as a ground for appeal.  In regard to the third recommended ground, the Environment Agency was a statutory consultee, so suggestions would be passed to them. For this reason, recommendation 3 should remain.

The Chairman noted that the site was allocated in the Bromley Local Plan for 60 houses; this was a commercial-led development with only six residential dwellings which appeared to be a token attempt for a housing site. In a letter circulated to Members, the applicant made a point that the land was contaminated and could not, therefore, be used for housing. The Chairman considered that, regardless of the future use, the land would still remain contaminated.

The Chairman moved that the appeal be contested on grounds 1 and 3 as set out in the report.

The Development Management Team Leader reported that an engineering assessment had been requested from the applicant. While a lot of correspondence had taken place, to date no assessment had been submitted. The Environment Agency still had a standing objection.

Councillor Fawthrop suggested that the appeal be contested but further discussions be undertaken with the applicant to seek a new application for more residential dwellings. If this proved to be unsuccessful, then the appeal would go ahead.

Councillor Allen preferred the site to be used for housing. However, due to advice given by Health and Safety officers, she was not convinced the site was developable at all.

Councillor Dean seconded the motion to contest the appeal.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED TO CONTEST THE APPEAL as recommended, on grounds 1 and 3 set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

It was FURTHER RESOLVED that ground 2 recommended in the report, be delegated to officers for attempts to be made to resolve issues with the applicant and Environment Health Department. If unsuccessful, ground 2 would be included in the grounds for contesting the appeal.