The following Councillors declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.1, 96-98 Bromley High Street, London, E3 3EG. This was on the grounds that they knew Councillor Zenith Rahman who had a property interest in the land subject to the application and had objected to the application.

•           Councillor Kevin Brady

•           Councillor Tarik Khan

•           Councillor John Pierce

•           Councillor Val Whitehead

The Councillors made the declarations for transparency purposes only  as  they considered that they could determine  the application with an open mind in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and they would participate in the consideration and voting on the application.

The following Councillors declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.1. 96-98 Bromley High Street, London, E3 3EG. This was on the grounds of their association with Councillor Zenith Rahman.

•           Councillor Sabina Akhtar

•           Councillor Rabina Khan

•           Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE.

The Councillors indicated that they would leave the meeting room for the consideration and voting on this application.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 5^th November 2019.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 5^th November 2019 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To RESOLVE that:

1)   in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)   in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

3)    To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1)   In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)    In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

3)   To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.

None.

There are no items.

Proposal:

The redevelopment of 96-98 Bromley High Street, comprising the demolition of the existing building (two storey residential building) (use class C3) to construct a four storey residential building containing 4 x two bedroom units, 2 x one bedroom units and 1 x three bedroom unit with associated cycle parking spaces, private amenity space and other associated works.

Recommendation

Grant planning permission with conditions

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of the existing two storey residential dwelling and the erection of a four storey residential development comprising 7 new residential units.

He advised that the application was previously considered at the Development Committee meeting on 10 October 2019, where it was deferred for a site visit. At that meeting, three Members of the Committee disqualified themselves from participating and voting on the application The Council’s Constitution requires that in such circumstances, the application is referred to the Strategic Development Committee.

Piotr Lanoszka presented the application, highlighting the site location and the character of the surrounding area. The site was not in a Conservation Area and the existing building added little to the setting of the area.

Ten representations in objection and a petition with 39 signatures had been received regarding amenity impacts and the overdevelopment of the site.

Regarding the land use, the proposed redevelopment would optimise the development potential of the site and contribute to the housing supply. The standard of accommodation would meet or exceed the minimum space requirements. The proposed housing mix was acceptable given the small scale of the proposal. The height and design of the building would be broadly in keeping and would reflect the local context. This was assisted by the step backs at the upper part of the development.

In terms of the amenity issues, Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable. The development would have obscured glazing to protect privacy and limit overlooking. The primary aspect of the habitable rooms would be positioned away from neighbouring properties. The building line would be broadly the same as the existing house, with the exception of the 2m extension at the south side of the property. Whilst a number of neighbouring properties would experience significant loss of daylight, as detailed in the report and update, the retained levels of daylight would remain acceptable for an urban setting. Further details of the impact on 1A Priory Street were set out in the update report. Overall the proposal would have a minor to moderate adverse impact on daylight to the extension. Officers considered that the results did not justify a refusal of the application.

In terms of the heritage issues, Officers were satisfied  that the issues raised by Historic England Archaeology (GLAAS) could be managed by the conditions to safeguard the archaeological interest of the site

The proposal would be a car free development.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.

Registered speakers – objectors.

Susan Christopher and Keith Cunningham expressed concerns about the amenity impacts on residents’ properties, including:

·         A loss of privacy and outlook, given the breach in the policy on separation distances.

·         Increased traffic congestion and parking issues.

·         Disturbance from the construction work, adding to the existing problems from other developments. The works would disrupt in particularly the amenity of vulnerable residents

·         Increased ASB from the proposal.

·         Daylight impacts.  It was considered that the daylight assessment in the report was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of existing buildings and decontamination/remediation of the site to facilitate redevelopment to include the retention and refurbishment of two gasholder frames and a mixed-use development comprising 5 buildings ranging between 6-13 storeys (up to 63m AOD) to contain 565 residential dwellings and up to 4,000sqm (GIA) non-residential floorspace in flexible A1-A4, B1 and D Use Classes (max. provision of up to 175sqm A1/A2, up to 1,200sqm A3/A4, up to 2,500sqm of B1(a) and up to 600sqm of D1/D2 use class floorspace), together with access, car and cycle parking, associated landscaping and public realm, public open space and works to the existing canal wall, Pressure Reduction Station and existing gasholders.

Recommendation:

The Committee notes the contents of the report and pre-application presentation.

The Committee identifies any other planning and design issues or material considerations that the developer should take into account at the pre-application stage, prior to submitting a planning application.

The Committee noted the contents of the report and pre-application presentation