Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Installation of a fuel tank for the storage of heating oil (retrospective application).

The Principal Planner - Major Developments reported that if Members were minded to approve the application, an additional condition was recommended in relation to an updated energy strategy, which would be specifically linked to the combustion of fuel from the tank.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting. Oral representations in support of the application were also received from the agent, who gave the following responses to Members’ questions:

·  It was not known if a structural survey of the cesspit had been undertaken – it was highlighted that structural considerations were not usually a planning consideration. There may be a building control certificate, however this was not something that he would necessarily  be aware of.

·  The boiler/plant related to the under-pitch heating for Pitch No. 1, which would only be used at the very coldest points in winter to prevent it from freezing. This application was for the stationing of the tank, and storage of fuel – the use of the boilers was controlled by the main permission for the whole site. They would be looking to reengage with officers regarding the lawfulness of the use of the infrastructure.

·  Three conditions were associated with the use of the plant/boiler in the main planning consent – air quality, noise and energy/carbon emissions. The air quality condition had been discharged and, in relation to the other two conditions, they intended to provide officers with more information to ensure they were content.

·  It was anticipated that the Football Club would be prepared to undertake additional landscaping, interwoven in the trellis, to hide the tank.

Oral representation from visiting Ward Member Councillor Michael Tickner in objection to the application were also received at the meeting. Councillor Tickner highlighted that the fuel tank had been placed in an Area of Special Residential Character (ASRC), and immediately adjacent to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). It was proposed that the tank be sited on top of an Edwardian cesspit which was still in use by the Bowls Club. There were safety concerns as the tank would contain 10,000 litres of heating oil, which weighed 8 tonnes when full. There were also issues around visual amenity – it was questioned whether it was correct for Members to agree to a fuel tank being located above ground, with no housing, in an ASRC. The fuel would be used for under-pitch heating and should be located underground, if possible. Placing the fuel tank in the proposed location was considered to be contrary to policy 53 of Bromley’s Local Plan and D13 (Part E) of the London Plan. In summary, Councillor Tickner highlighted that there were serious safety concerns, and, from a planning view, the fuel tank would harm the visual amenity. It was noted that the fuel linked to the boiler plant, which was refused by the Local Authority on 3^rd March 2022. Councillor Tickner urged the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to questions, the Principal Planner - Major Developments clarified that the cesspit itself was not a planning consideration. The application site was technically within the ASRC boundary; however it was understood that it should have been removed, and the boundary would be redrawn in the next Local Plan.

Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Connolly said that Crystal Palace Football Club was hugely valuable to the Borough, and did a lot for young people. However there were safety concerns in relation to the cesspit, which were connected to the integrity of the concrete base. There were also concerns around air and noise pollution which could not be tested until there was an approved application for the boiler/plant. Councillor Connolly moved that the application be deferred to align with the use of the boiler.

Councillor Thomson said that the application should be deferred until the boiler was approved and checks could be undertaken in relation to air quality and emissions – he also agreed with the comments made by Councillor Tickner regarding the ASRC. Councillor Thomson seconded the motion for deferral.

The Motion for deferral was put to a vote and LOST.

In response to questions, the Principal Planner - Major Developments clarified that, in relation to the impact on residential amenity, Planning Policy covered air quality, noise and other nuisances, but not structural integrity, which was covered under separate Building Control legislation and could not be duplicated. Similarly, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) dealt with the storage of fuel over a certain volume, and the application did not meet this threshold.

Councillor Fawthrop moved that the application be refused on grounds relating to the visual impact on the MOL.

Councillor Owen seconded the motion for refusal.

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

The fuel tank, by reason of its siting and design, results in a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the adjoining Metropolitan Open Land; thereby contrary to Policy 53 of the Bromley Local Plan (2019).