Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATION (19/04588/FULL1) - 70 HIGH STREET, BROMLEY BR1 1EG (BROMLEY TOWN WARD)

Minutes:

Description of application – Demolition of existing buildings (No.66 to 70 High Street), construction of 12 storeys to provide 256.4 square metres retail floorspace on the ground floor and 47 residential units above with associated disabled car parking spaces, cycle parking and refuse storage area.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent. In response to Member questions, the agent stated that:-

 

·  as set out in the financial viability report, 21% affordable housing was the maximum that could be provided at this point in time;

·  the footprint of the site was too small to accommodate more than three active electric car charging points;

·  in regard to addressing the harm to the Conservation Area and surrounding area, the proposed building had been significantly reduced to respect the high street scale and frontage;

·  If the application were to be refused, it was likely the applicant would appeal;

·  the retail provision was reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic;

·  provision of child play space had been reduced due to the reduction in size of the development. The proposed private amenity space met with current guidelines;

·  while the design and character of the development was not typical of Bromley High Street, the traditional element had been retained at the front of the building;

·  design changes relating to the colour and type of materials used could be conditioned.

 

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member Councillor Will Harmer in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Councillor Harmer considered the proposal to be a speculative piecemeal application which did not comply with any form of plan and breached Council planning policy. The Local Plan clearly stated that any development on the site should be accompanied by a Masterplan. The adjacent site was designated for a tall building, not this site. On the grounds of over-dominance, scale and massing, Councillor Harmer urged Members to refuse the application.

 

The Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments reported that a further 45 objections to the application had been received and circulated to Members, together with one letter in support.

 

On the grounds of over-dominance of the street scene and surrounding area, insufficient affordable housing, scale and massing, impact on the view of the area, detrimental to the conservation area and lack of amenity child play space, Councillor Fawthrop moved that the application be refused. The motion was seconded by Councillor Page.

 

Councillor Huntington-Thresher referred to the Council’s requirement to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. While there were aspects of the proposal he was not satisfied with, he considered that given the site was earmarked in the Area Action Plan for development, Members had no option but to approve the application.

 

Councillor Allen was concerned that should the application be refused, it was likely to be granted on appeal. Stating the need to consider the provision of tall buildings to meet housing supply, Councillor Dean also believed the Planning Inspector would grant permission. While the proposal would detract from the character and outlook of the area, Members should bear in mind that this was likely to happen anyway at some point in the future.

 

Councillor Brooks moved that the application be granted permission.

 

Councillor Stevens moved that the application be deferred to seek an improved design proposal. This motion was seconded by Councillor Boughey.

 

The Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments reported that the provision of child play space amenity met with planning policy and that the affordable housing element had been viability assessed. Members agreed not to include these as grounds of refusal before the vote was taken. Details were also submitted which showed that development did not preclude the development of the adjacent sites.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED on the following grounds:-

 

1)  the application did not follow/was not accompanied by a Masterplan;

 

2)  the adjacent site was allocated for a tall building but not the application site;

 

3)  the scheme was over-dominant in scale, bulk and massing;

 

4)  poor design and use of materials; and

 

5)  the development was detrimental to the Conservation Area and surrounding area.

 

Supporting documents: