Agenda item

REFUSED.

Description of Application: Outline application for demolition of existing dwellings (51 and 53 Jail Lane), formation of access off Jail Lane and construction of up to 50 new Discount Market Rent (DMR) dwellings (Use Class C3) with priority for ex-service personnel, forces families and key workers, comprising a mix of houses and maisonettes together with associated parking, amenity space, landscaping and refuse. All matters reserved.

The Planning Officer gave a brief presentation, providing an overview of the application and update on the report.

Oral representations from visiting Ward Member, Councillor Sophie Dunbar objecting to the application were received at the meeting.  Councillor Dunbar explained that she was speaking on behalf of local residents, business owners and the Aperfield Green Belt Action Group who all strongly opposed the application.  Councillor Dunbar stated that in her view, the developer had not demonstrated the very special circumstances that were required for the development of land that was designated as Green Belt.  The Member also objected to the planning application in relation to the increased pressure that 50 new households would place on local services, including General Practitioner and dental surgeries and local schools that were already at capacity, as well as to the road network and increased demand for on-street parking.  Public transport in the Biggin Hill area was generally poor, relying on infrequent bus services with no train, tube or tram links, and the area was largely unsuitable for cycling due to steep inclines.  Additionally, the site proposed for development was an ecologically diverse open space that hosted a range of wildlife such as badgers, owls, bats and slow worms, although this had not been adequately captured in the ecological survey.  The development would also require the felling of mature trees to the rear of the site that served as a natural screen and sound barrier to the adjoining airfield and would impact the quality of life of existing and new residents if removed.

The Chairman invited Councillor and Ward Member Melanie Stevens to open the debate. Councillor Stevens voiced support for the points made by Councillor Dunbar and underlined that, while she agreed that housing was needed in the Borough, this particular site was designated as Green Belt and no very special circumstances had been demonstrated that would outweigh the harm caused by the development.  The site plan showed the removal of two Category B mature trees and the natural habitat of an area that was teeming with wildlife would be eroded.  There were also concerns around the impact of the new estate on the surrounding area including the safety and security arrangements of London Biggin Hill Airport and by placing additional pressure on an already struggling water and waste management infrastructure that would be further exacerbated by the soakaway arrangements for the development and could increase the risk of intermittent flooding.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop agreed with the points raised and stated that in his view, both the principle of development and the impact on green infrastructure and heritage from the proposed development were unacceptable and that the developer had not demonstrated very special circumstances for the development of land designated as Green Belt.  Councillor Jonathan Andrews reported that local residents in Darwin Ward had also raised concerns regarding the proposal to develop Green Belt land.  This site was part of a wider stretch of open land benefitting many parts of the Borough and should be preserved. 

Councillor Melanie Stevens moved that the planning application be refused as recommended in the report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Simon Fawthrop. 

Councillor Alisa Igoe had recently visited the site and suggested it could provide an excellent location to deliver much needed affordable housing in Bromley.  She had not experienced any issues with parking on her visit and had seen that several houses in Hawthorne Avenue backed onto the airfield which could mitigate some of the security concerns.  Despite this, there remained a number of issues with the proposed development including a lack of disabled parking bays and the size of the 18 studio apartments which were very small and would not allow for storage or amenity space.  Councillor Tony McPartlan similarly recognised good elements to the application but stated that it raised a number of issues and questions that had not been answered.

Councillor Tony Owen asked about the air quality of the site, bearing in mind its proximity to the airfield.  The Planning Development Management Team Leader – Major Developments advised that the site was not within the Air Quality Management Area, but that due regard must be given to the London Plan and Local Plan which required new developments to be air quality neutral and that this had not been demonstrated by the developer.

In summation, the Chairman stated that one motion had been proposed and seconded.  The motion that permission be refused as recommended for the reasons set out in the report was put to the vote and CARRIED.

RESOLVED: That PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended for the reasons set out in the report of the Assistant Director: Planning.