Agenda item

(21/03120/RESPA) - Y Buildings, Bromley Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley

Decision:

PRIOR APPROVAL GRANTED

Minutes:

Description of application – Change of use of Class B1(a) office to Class C3 Residential to form 73 residential units. (56 day application for prior approval in respect of transport and highways, contamination, flooding, noise impacts, natural light to habitable rooms under Class O Part 3 of the GPDO.)

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting. The Speaker referred to a Court case that in his opinion indicated the issue was whether there was an intimate connection between the old Palace building and the Y buildings. He said the Y buildings were their own planning unit, had a different architectural style and were separated by a clear line of trees.  In response to a question from the Chairman, the speaker confirmed that there was a separate entrance to the Y blocks from a different part of the site and a separate car park which pointed to a physical separation.

 

The Head of Development Management clarified with respect to paragraph 7.3.1 in the report that the proposals did comply with internal space standards.

The report did not cover the other prior approval matters - these were transport and highways impact, contamination risks, flooding risks, impact of noise from commercial premises, and provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. These matters needed to be considered if Members accepted the curtilage point. He also reported that there had been late objections from local residents and the Bromley Civic Society and comments from Highways and Environmental Health.

 

The Sub-Committee’s Legal Advisor informed Members that the issue of whether a building was within a curtilage was a matter of fact and degree for the decision-maker, subject to the normal principles of public law, and the three key factors that had to be taken into account (as set out in the Challenge Fencing case) were physical layout, ownership (past and present) and use or function of the land or buildings, past or present. In response to a question, he advised that three counsel’s opinions had been sought, all of which advised that the Y blocks were within the curtilage of the old Palace.  The decision was one for Councillors to make, but they had to take a decision which was reasonable (as defined in the Wednesbury case.)

 

Councillor Suraj Sharma considered that the fact that there was a separate entrance to the Y blocks from Rafford Way was quite key – users would not use the main entrance, there was also a line of trees separating them from the old Palace, and there had been functional separation for many years. The architectural language of the Y blocks was very different to the old Palace, and he saw ownership as less relevant. He took the view that the Y buildings were outside of the curtilage of the old Palace.

 

Councillor Simon Fawthrop commented that this was a very difficult decision. He did not see the two entrances as meaning there were separate curtilages, but focussed on the degree of separation. Historically the area had been part of the old Palace. Although the Y blocks were a separate building and had been used for different purposes he was not certain that this meant that they were in a separate curtilage. 

 

Councillor Tony Owen stated that as Deputy Mayor he had recently spoken to former students of the Teacher Training College on the site from 1971 – they had lived in the Y blocks, but had only visited the old Palace once in three years.

 

Councillor Keith Onslow agreed that it was significant that the Y blocks had originally been used as student accommodation, and he felt that there was a separation between the Y blocks and the old Palace, but he also remarked that it was not unusual for a palace to have more than one entrance. He argued for a further deferral, but officers pointed out that the Council only had 56 days (expiring on 3rd September 2021) to determine the application before it would be allowed by default.

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the applicants could submit a planning application, which the Council would have to allow or refuse on planning grounds. The Legal Advisor informed members that they should focus on whether the Y blocks were within the curtilage of the listed building or not, and should not speculate on other options open to the applicants. He also explained that the legislation had been drafted to require that if a site was within the curtilage of a listed building then permitted development rights would not automatically apply and any proposals would therefore require individual  consideration under a planning application. 

 

The Chairman summed up by stating that if Members granted the application they would be agreeing that the Y buildings were not within the curtilage of the old Palace, that there was no intimate connection between the buildings and the site had been divorced from the old Palace for many years, that the architecture of the buildings was very different, there was physical separation from the line of trees, and there were separate entrances. The Head of Development Management reminded Members that if they accepted that the Y blocks were not within the curtilage of the listed building they would also need to be satisfied that the development was acceptable on the other matters he had listed earlier.

 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, for the reasons summarised by the Chairman considered that the Y buildings are not within the curtilage of the old Palace and RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL BE GRANTED in respect of transport and highways, impacts of the development, contamination, flooding risks on the site, impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development and the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwelling houses under Class O Part 3 of the GPDO, as the details submitted were satisfactory.

 

Members also resolved that the Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control be given delegated authority to determine the conditions to be imposed on the prior approval.

Supporting documents: