Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATION (19/01543/RECON1) - LAND AT JUNCTION WITH SOUTH EDEN PARK ROAD AND BUCKNALL WAY, BECKENHAM (KELSEY AND EDEN PARK WARD)

Minutes:

Description of application – Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove condition 3 (requirement to enter into S106 planning obligation to secure viability review mechanisms) of permission ref. 19/01543/RECON for residential development comprising erection of 6 x four storey buildings consisting of 10 four bedroom apartments together with concierges office. Construction of basement car park with 204 spaces. Central landscaped area with 10 visitor spaces, cycle parking for 286 and refuse stores.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent who reported that the developer’s funders were not prepared to lend money due to the requirement for a late stage review. In an effort to resolve the situation when the application was considered in October 2020, the offer of an upfront payment in lieu of a late stage review had been offered and this still applied today. 

 

 The agent gave the following responses to Member questions:-

 

·  In regard to the Inquiry into the former Dylon site application, a letter from Barclays Bank had stipulated that that they would not be willing to lend funds if a late stage review were to go ahead.

·  The London Plan had now been adopted and it was acknowledged that there was a development policy which underpinned the late stage review requirement. However, there were other matters which weighed into the overall planning balance. The Secretary of State did say to the Mayor that there should be no barrier to the delivery of housing as there was an urgent need to provide more housing in London. At the Dylon Inquiry, the Inspector recognised that a late stage review could be a barrier to the delivery of new housing schemes.

·  When the offer in lieu of a late stage review was previously made, there was also a question of the outstanding appeal costs of £90k awarded against the Council which still remained unsettled. The £345k offered at the time was accompanied by an undertaking that the costs award would not be pursued. There was currently room for negotiation on this. If building costs and revenue stayed the same, the outcome of a late stage review would show that no money would be available to the Council for affordable housing. If things did change, there could be a further payment.

·  The developer had owned the land since 1999 after a land transfer with the Council in which he gave the Unicorn Primary School site at a cost to himself of around £5m because he had planning permission to develop that land. The Council had therefore benefitted from this transaction.

·  It was anticipated that the build programme would commence in the autumn and would take approximately 24-30 months to complete.

·  Guidance stated that as a draft plan went through the process, the weight given to policies increased with full weight being given once the draft plan had been adopted.

·  While the need for affordable housing was acknowledged, the situation was different today compared to when the development was first conceived in 2010/2011.

·  If an agreement could be reached through negotiation in regard to the amount of money paid up front, then the current appeal would be withdrawn.

 

The Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments reported that the appeal was based on non-determination and would proceed to appeal irrespective of the outcome. If it did go to appeal, the Inspector’s decision would be final and the applicant would need to submit a new application for negotiations to take place. This would need to be undertaken within statutory time limits. There was no policy justification for the offer and it could lead to a precedent being set for similar developments on other sites. In this regard, officers recommended that Members followed the policy approach outlined in the report and that the viability review mechanisms for an early and late stage review remained on the scheme. The London Plan had been adopted and was the most up-to-date development plan for the London Borough of Bromley and carried full weight. The viability review mechanisms  were outlined in Policy H5 of the London Plan. 

 

Councillor Dean had previously supported the removal of Condition 3 and while he regretted the fact there would be no affordable housing, he acknowledged that the applicant had reached that conclusion using a perfectly legal mechanism. Housing supply in the Borough was very important and the addition of 143 properties would have made a significant contribution to the Council’s housing supply. With the proviso that condition 3 could only be removed if a late stage review took place, Councillor Dean fully understood why the funders were not willing to finance the scheme. Councillor Dean moved that the appeal be contested.

 

Councillor Harris previously supported removal of the Section 106 condition. She advised that attention should be paid to the outcome of viability assessments undertaken by experts in this field. Councillor Harris preferred not to contest the appeal and favoured negotiations being held in an attempt to resolve the issue.

 

In response to Councillor Terry, the Legal Representative agreed with the statement given by the Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments. There was a policy background for late stage reviews which came from the London Plan. Issues around supplementary planning guidance in the old London Plan had been resolved by the London Mayor in the new London Plan which had now been adopted. Although there was a solid policy justification for late stage reviews, there was also statutory guidance that planning applications had to be determined in accordance with the Local Plan unless material circumstances indicated otherwise. In regard to appeal costs, there was a policy background for the condition so he would not anticipate an award of costs being made against the Council.

 

Councillor Terry seconded the motion to contest the appeal.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED to CONTEST THE APPEAL for the reason set out in the report of the Assistant Director, Planning.

Supporting documents: