Planning@coperscope.org.uk

The Localism Bill, the provisions of which were fully expected to continue to be discussed beyond the timeframe originally allocated, did in fact receive Royal Assent on 15 November and therefore have become embodied in law as the Localism Act 2011.

Letter about the Draft National Planning Policy Framework Document written by CCARA to The Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP. Read it here
and read the reply from The Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP here.

Casebook Notes (Area Updated 20th January 2012)

The Beckenham Kent County Cricket Ground, Worsley Bridge Road: Following many months of consultation between local residents and Leander Sports and Leisure (who own the site) on their proposals to improve facilities and ensure greater financial viability for the club, the outline application was validated on 20th July 2011 seeking consent for three detached buildings for use as an indoor cricket training centre, a multifunction sport and leisure facility and health and fitness centre, a conference centre, a permanent stand for several thousand spectators, an all-weather floodlit pitch, on-site car parking and 48 low density two storey detached houses in a gated development towards Brackley Road. Whilst most people, even those who agree to some development, would really prefer the grounds to remain as they are now, maybe local residents remembering abuse and dereliction of the site when vacated by the Lloyds Bank Sports Club in the early 1990s can also understand why the Kent club is seeking changes which they believe will assure its future in Beckenham. The CCARA Chairman wrote to Bromley Council’s Chief Planner to confirm the range of comment received from association members and other local residents. We are aware that this is an outline application and more detail will come with a subsequent application, should the outline proposal be approved. However, we have been concerned to establish the height, bulk and general appearance of the commercial buildings to assess the impact on residents in Worsley Bridge Road and a few properties in Stumps Hill, Overbrae and Pool Close. If consent is given clearly this must be a matter for close scrutiny at a later stage.
The application was considered by Bromley Council's Development Control Committee (DCC) on 17th November 2011. Following almost two hours of discussion proposals for approval and refusal were each defeated and it was decided that the case would be deferred without prejudice to any future consideration, for Members to give fuller consideration to all material documents in particular, the financial viability document. The application is to be returned to the DCC on 12th January 2012 and the most recent CCARA comments are included in the Executive Report to DCC Members. These include: The CCARA recognises a wide range of views both in favour and against; concerns that representations by the two Ward Members who spoke at the November meeting are not reflective of views and opinions of the wider community; insufficient debate took place regarding the case for Very Special  Circumstances to allow for full consideration either of their particular nature or their significance in taking a decision; would like to be sure that DC Members are aware of the state of dereliction, trespass and vandalism that followed the departure of Lloyds Bank Social Club from the site in the 1990s; concern that such deterioration might lead to a development application similar to that on the former Blue Circle Sports Ground on Bromley Common where consent was given on appeal for around 850 units in the Green Belt. However, on 22nd December 2011, Stuart Lamb, the Regional Facilities & Investment Manager (South East) for the FA lodged a formal objection to the scheme, stating additionally that the FA has concerns only for football and has no interest in cricket. The Chair of Palgrave Estate has copied to the FA Chairman the letters from Palgrave and from the CCARA pointing out that, should consent be refused, not only football would disappear from the site but the grounds would be unavailable for all other forms of sport so Mr Lamb seems to be expressing a rather blinkered view. It is impossible to assess the impact of this late objection.
As scheduled, the application was again discussed at the Bromley's Development Control Committee on 12th January 2012. After lengthy debate, when two of our three Ward Councillors spoke in favour of the application, the proposal received outline planning consent. It is now subject to direction by the Mayor of London.

Land R/O 86-94 High Street: On 30th March 2011 an application was lodged for an extension of time for implementation of consent granted on appeal in 2006 for a 1/2/3 storey block of 39 flats with 32 parking spaces. This application  involved no request for changes to the original scheme but now appears to be still pending decision. In May 2011 the developer held a public consultation exercise at the Beckenham Halls with a view to a revised application to reconfigure the site. It was suggested that by adding a fourth storey the required number of flats could be provided but it would be possible to create a more open aspect, retaining more trees and allowing more light to penetrate the site. In general there were comments that a revised layout might be more acceptable, though some residents of Church Avenue and The Drive considered that the fourth storey would be intrusive and overlook their rear gardens. A revised application was received by the Council on 1st July and this was based on the plans exhibited during the consultation exercise but with limited revisions that could be accommodated as a result of views expressed by local residents and local businesses. Undoubtedly, some residents will take the view that no development should be permitted on the site but we need to understand that there is an extant appeal consent so there is little doubt that development of some kind will take place and in these circumstances changes to create a more open appearance might be considered the lesser of two evils.
The application for extension of time for work to start on the original scheme was given permission at a Plans-Sub-Committee on 24th November 2011 but decision was deferred on the application for the revised development scheme submitted in July 2011. However, on 22nd December, the applicant registered an appeal against the Council’s non-determination of the application and Members must now consider whether to contest the appeal.  The application was returned to a Plans Sub Committee on 19th January 2012 with the recommendation that the applicant be invited to withdraw the appeal, in which case permission will be granted subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement. However, before any discussion at the meeting on 19th January 2012 the Chair explained that, since the case was now subject to appeal, jurisdiction for decision had now passed to the Planning Inspectorate and the LBB no longer had the powers to determine whether or not this application should be permitted. The only decision that the Plans Committee could take during the meeting was whether or not the Council should contest the appeal and, should they decide to contest, this would have to be on the basis of  their probable grounds for refusal had this been their decision whilst still within their jurisdiction. Urged by two of our Ward Councillors, the decision was taken to contest the appeal.

80 High Street: Planning permission was granted in 2009 for the use of the first and second floors as a restaurant and staff accommodation and earlier in 2011 for the use of the first floor flat roof area as garden terrace. A more recent application sought to implement the use granted under the previous applications and to include the external area as part of the restaurant bar. The two earlier consents remain valid but this additional proposal was considered at a Plans Sub-Committee on 24th November 2011 and  refused on grounds that the proposed addition of a bar / drinking establishment element would result in an undesirable and over-intensive use of the site detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents.

R/O 80 High Street: Consent was given in July 2010 to an application by the Diocese of Rochester for reinstatement of the building extensively fire-damaged in 2008. Then in September 2010 plans submitted with a Building Regulations application indicated that the works proposed would involve an increase in height and alterations to the elevational appearance and therefore that these changes would require planning permission. An amended plan sent more recently to the LBB showed the increase by four courses of bricks to the height of walls to eaves level prior to reconstruction of the roof. A complaint that work was already in progress, followed by a site visit early in September 2011 led to consideration as to whether it was expedient for the Council to take enforcement action. The agent for the owner was reminded that planning consent was required and was invited to submit an application. Works on site were suspended, the retrospective application was received by the Council in October and the matter was therefore discussed again at a Plans Committee on 13th October. As the new application was to be considered in due course by a future Plans Committee, it was decided to retain the authority to serve an enforcement notice if works recommenced meanwhile. A further complaint was received on 16th November alleging that works had resumed on site and a site visit confirmed that 3 of the 4 courses of new brickwork had been removed and works had commenced on the new roof structure in advance of the determination of the current application. However, the roof currently being constructed appeared to be in accordance with the submitted plans and substantially lower than the building permitted in 2010.  Therefore, following legal advice, it was decided that, given the latest application was ready for determination, the matter should be referred to Members for their instructions. The proposal was given urgent consideration at a Plans Sub-Committee on 24th November 2011 and, subject to a number of conditions, consent was given for removal of the fire-damaged buildings and for a replacement building for light industrial  and leisure use as a dance studio.

182 High Street: This application for change of use, refurbishment of the existing building, to include a side extension, and a raised terrace and garden area, was refused at Plans Committee on 22nd December 2011 on grounds that it would be detrimental to the privacy of near neighbours and would result in over-concentration of food and drink establishments and also that there was insufficient evidence of an appropriate marketing strategy prior to making the application.

73B Copers Cope Road (Copers Cope Road Conservation Area): Earlier this year permission was given for roof alterations, rooflights in side and rear elevations and conversion of the roofspace to provide an additional bedroom and living space. More recently a revision to this proposal for conversion of the roofspace to provide a one bedroom flat was refused consent. This later decision is now subject to appeal and the CCARA intends to support the LBB in contesting this appeal.

194 Bromley Road: An application in 2007 to demolish the rather dilapidated existing building, originally the Coach House to the former Oaklands Manor House, was strongly resisted by near neighbours with the support of one of our Ward Councillors. The proposal was refused and an appeal against this decision dismissed in December 2007. A subsequent application that had taken account of the Inspector’s comments on the design quality of the scheme and failure to take the opportunities for improving the character and quality of the area was approved by an LBB Plans Committee in 2008. The building on the site was demolished about a year following the consent and more recently some work started on the permitted scheme. Various applications earlier this year for amendments to this consent have not succeeded but a more recent request that appears to take account also of comments from local residents was permitted at Plans Committee on 27th October.

Land rear of 91-117 Copers Cope Road: This is The Old Nursery where consent was given after the LBB refused the application, then contested the Inspector’s decision to uphold the appeal but lost the case in the High Court. A later application that would have made it unnecessary to demolish houses on the road frontage was refused for reasons of access and pedestrian and vehicle safety. Site clearance took place during the spring of 2011 and a further revised application for some reconfiguration of the site was approved at a Council Plans Committee on 9th June. Subsequently, an application for variation of conditions related to replacement of the same number but of different trees from those that had been stipulated in the original proposal and this amendment was approved on 18th October. Since that date building has started, though some further applications for minor-material amendments have been agreed and some appear to be awaiting consent.

Site of 84-86 Overbury Avenue: An application was recorded for a part two/three storey block to comprise two and three bedroom flats with vehicular access onto Stanley Avenue and Overbury Avenue, 13 parking spaces, detached car ports, storage, etc. These are amendments to a permitted scheme from 2007 which would allow a detached two-storey four bedroom house with integral garage and a part two/three storey terrace comprising 2 five bedroom and 4 four bedroom houses with associated access and parking. This revised application was considered by a Plans Committee on 13th October and consent was refused for the reasons of size and bulk, constituting cramped over development detrimental to the character of the area. A  new amendment to the 2007 consent includes alterations to elevations to incorporate alternative design to porch, windows and balconies, relocation of gable features and internalisation of chimney. The case was returned to Plans Committee on 22nd December, it was reported that further objections had been received and the case was deferred for the applicant to produce more accurate elevational drawings. Revised documents were received on 4th January 2012 and the application was therefore considered by Plans Committee 1 on 19th January 2012.  Attention of Members was drawn to documentation extending back to 2007 and the proposal recommended for permission. Permission was granted on the basis that the main changes to a permitted 2007 scheme may be considered to improve on the design of that application and were unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or amenities of local residents and that most grounds for refusal of the second proposal in 2011 had now been overcome.