Agenda item
Jolles House, Bromley High Street, Blue Anchor Public House, 67 Bromley High Street and 67A Bromley High Street, London, E3. (PA/17/03015)
Decision:
It was noted that Councillor Helal Uddin did not participate in this decision.
An update report was tabled.
Councillor Pierce proposed, Councillor Ruhul Amin seconded and on a vote of 6 in favour and 0 against it was
RESOLVED
That the application for the Demolition of existing Jolles House and vacant Blue Anchor public house and Affordable housing led redevelopment comprising two linked 6 storey residential buildings comprising x64 affordable units and x6 private units; with associated landscaping and play provision enhancements BE GRANTED subject to the obligations and conditions set out in the report.
Minutes:
It was noted that Councillor Helal Uddin did not participate in this decision.
An update report was tabled.
The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report, which concerned an application to demolish Jolles House and the vacant Blue Anchor Public House and erect an affordable housing-led development comprising two linked six-storey residential building comprising x64 affordable units and x6 private units with associated landscaping and play provision enhancements.
The Committee was advised that no objectors had registered to speak on this application. Therefore, in accordance with Council’s Constitution, that where a planning application has been recommended for approval by officers and no objectors or Members have registered to speak then, the applicant or their supporter will not be expected to address the Committee.
The Planning Case Officer then presented his technical report which outlined key features of the application. He advised that six letters of objection had been received concerning issues of loss of light and loss of the public house.
Consideration was given to these representations. Concerning loss of light it was assessed that this was not significant and effects had been mitigated in the design by assigning affected rooms as bedrooms. Concerning the impacts of the loss of the public house and it had been assessed that the demolition of the premises was acceptable in the context that the premises were of limited historic significance and had been vacant for a long period against the benefits of the proposed scheme in terms of quality of the build and the provision of affordable housing.
Officers responded to Members’ questions providing the following information:
Noting a Member’s concern that the representative images showed the development in pale brick, while the surrounding area was characterised by red London brick, the Committee was advised that a request to incorporate red London brick into the design could be taken back to the developer since brickwork had yet to be conditioned.
Concerning daylight testing, this had been undertaken with and without the existing balconies and it was found that the most severe impacts were due in part to balconies of existing development overhanging windows below rather than the proposed development.
Concerning loss of daylight, testing had been carried out and 101 of 157 windows, on assessment, met the BRE guidance. Of the windows that failed, the design had been adapted to ensure that these windows were assigned as bedroom windows in the units affected. Testing undertaken concerning daylight, sunlight and overshadowing was discussed in full at paragraph 7.10 of the report.
Councillor Bustin asked for the impacts of daylight on dwellings, not just windows, to be reported to Committee in all future application reports.
Concerning what assurances officers had been able to obtain relating to the reuse of the public house:
· Members were advised that there had been some offers in advance of the redevelopment however the works that would be required rendered the option to reinstate the public house unviable.
· Discussions around the reinstatement of a public house within the development did not form part of the application since the development was not in a town centre location.
· At the time the application was submitted an historic buildings assessment was undertaken. The result indicated that the existing premises had limited historicity. Officers acknowledge that the loss of the public house was detrimental however the overall benefits of the proposed development outweighed this detriment.
Having discussed matters of concern the Committee moved to vote on the application:
Councillor Pierce proposed, Councillor Ruhul Amin seconded, and on a vote of six in favour and nil against the Committee:
RESOLVED
That planning permission for demolition of existing Jolles House and vacant Blue Anchor Public House and affordable housing led redevelopment comprising two linked six-storey residential buildings comprising x64 affordable units and x6 private units with associated landscaping and play provision enhancements, BE GRANTED subject to:
A. The prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:
Financial Obligations:
a) A contribution of £19,042.80 towards employment, skills, training and enterprise during the construction stage;
b) A contribution of £2000 (£500 per each substantial Head of Terms) towards monitoring compliance with the legal agreement.
Total Contribution financial contributions £21,042.80
Non-financial contributions
a) Delivery of 96% Affordable Housing comprising of 66% intermediate units 28% rented units, and 6% private
b) Car and permit free agreement
c) Wheelchair accessible bays and maintaining as wheelchair accessible bays as and when required
d) 3 construction phase apprenticeships
e) Access to employment and construction - 20% local goods/service procurement and 20% local jobs at construction phase;
f) Implementation and monitoring of the carbon emission reductions (Energy Strategy);
B. That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
C. That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated authority to recommend the following conditions and informatives in relation to the following matters:
D. Any other conditions considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Place
Compliance’ Conditions –
a) Compliance with plans
b) 3 year time limit for implementation
c) Withdrawal of permitted development rights for painting of brickwork and erection of fences & gates
d) Compliance with energy and sustainability strategies
e) Noise insulation standards for residential units and noise limits for plant
f) Provision and retention of wheelchair accessible parking spaces, electric vehicle charging points
g) Inclusive access standards for residential units, provision of lifts
Pre-commencement –
h)Construction Management Plan including working hours restrictions and other measures to protect amenity and minimise noise & air pollution
i) Land contamination remediation
j) Details of surface water drainage & SUDs
k) Details of biodiversity measures
l) Archaeological Investigation works
Pre-superstructure -
m) Samples of all facing materials
n)Details of landscaping including soft & hard landscaping, street furniture & play equipment, gates & fences, lighting, wayfinding, visitor cycle parking, security measures and inclusive access provisions
o) Details of cycle parking
p) Details of waste storage facilities
q) Details of Secured by Design measures
r) Details of wheelchair accessible units
Prior to occupation –
s) Delivery & Servicing Plan, Waste Management Plan (in consultation with TfL)
t) Details of highway works (S278 agreement)
Informatives
1. Subject to s106 agreement
2. CIL liable
3. Thames Water informatives
E. Any other conditions or informatives as considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Place.
Supporting documents: