LBB/LP/010

London Borough of Bromley – Local Plan Examination 2017

Council’s Post Submission Documents

Inspector’s Issue 10

Are the policies relating to valued environments justified, consistent with national policy and will they be effective? (Questions 39 to 49)

Inspector’s question 39

Are the policies covering the historic environment consistent with national policy in terms of the NPPF and PPG?

Council’s response

Yes Local Plan policies covering the historic environment are consistent with Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment and the associated PPG on the Historic Environment which provides further guidance as how to apply and interpret the Framework in relation to heritage assets and will be used alongside para 127 to 140 of the NPPF to determine planning applications.

Section 1 (Introduction) subsection 1.3 Vision and Objectives- of the Draft Local Plan includes the vision and objectives for the Borough’s built heritage- which includes the range of its heritage assets, areas of specific character and monuments- to be protected and enhanced. Objectives are in line with para. 126 of the NPPF and specifically make reference to ensuring that no historic features are considered at risk. The situation of heritage at risk is monitored through Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register which is regularly updated using feedback from Bromley Council. Policies DP105 related to the West Camp Area of Biggin Hill Strategic Outer Development Centre (SOLDC) supports proposals which include a sensitive re-use and repair of the heritage assets on the site, some of which are on Historic England’s At Risk Register. In line with para 004 of the PPG, proposals in the Local Plan also identify opportunities for development which can make a positive contribution to the setting of heritage assets as for site allocations in Appendix 10.2 for example for the Land Adjacent to Bromley North Station, and the Hill Car Park and Adjacent Lands or Draft Policy 111 Crystal Palace Strategic Outer London Development Centre.

Section 5.1 Built and Historic Environment of Chapter 5 Valued Environments of the Draft Local Plan reiterates the NPPF’s requirements and includes the range of Bromley’s policies (38-46) which seek to deliver a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment. These include policies to manage the impact of development on the significance of Statutory Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas designated under the Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Act (Policies 38, 41, 42 and 43). As per NPPF requirements, it also includes policies seeking to manage and mitigate the impact of development on nationally protected Historic Parks and Gardens (Policy 45), Scheduled Monuments and Areas

1

LBB/LP/010

of Archaeological Significance (Policy 46), which are not designated under planning powers.

Conservation Area Guidance is available from Bromley’s Heritage and Urban Design Team. These are evidenced by Conservation Area Planning Statements ensuring consistency with the NPPF requirement in para 127 that no areas lacking special architectural or historic interest should be designated and detailing their particular significance in compliance with paras.128 and 129. In addition, Historic England’s web based National Heritage List for England details the significance of all nationally protected historic buildings and sites (inc. Statutory Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Registered Parks and Gardens). The Council maintains a Local List which is available to view on the Council’s website. Heritage Statements, field evaluations and desk based assessments as appropriate are required through the Council’s Development Control checklist.

Drat Local Plan Conservation Area policies 41 and 42 require new development on or in the setting of Conservation Areas to preserve or enhance their characteristics and appearance or setting in line with para 137 of the NPPF.

In line with para 002 of Planning Policy Guidance on the Historic Environment, other statutory policy frameworks relevant to the designation and management of heritage assets are signposted under the relevant policies to ensure that they are taken into consideration alongside Local Plan policies and the NPPF. This includes the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 under Draft Policies 41 Conservation Areas and Statutory Listed Buildings as well as the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 under Draft Policy 46 Scheduled Monuments and Archaeology.

The relevant tests for considering the impact of developments on the significance of heritage assets depending on their importance and on the nature of the harm are referenced within the relevant policies in the Draft Local Plan in line with para.132 of the NPPF.

2

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s question 40

Policy 44. Explain the need for a policy on Areas of Special Residential Character and the status of the areas covered.

Council’s response

Draft Policy 44 Areas of Special residential Character is largely a continuation of the established UDP policy H10 Areas of Special Residential Character as supplemented by General Guidelines in Appendix I to the UDP.

The policy is needed to protect the local character of areas which are distinctive and have special qualities but which do not have the special architectural or historic interest which would justify Conservation Area status.

The ASRC policy and the associated Area description and Guidelines as set out in Appendix 10.6 of the Draft Local Plan translate some of the aims set out in paras 58, 59 and 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) around “Requiring Good Design” and of London Plan (LP) policies 7.4 “Local Character” and 7.6 “Architecture”.

The policy fulfils the NPPF and LP aims for Local Plans to enable development to adequately identify, respond to, enhance and strengthen the character of their area:

• NPPF para 58 sets out that for “Local […]Plans should develop robust andcomprehensive policies that set out the quality of development that will beexpected for the area […]based on stated objectives for the future of the areaand an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics”, whichshould “respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of localsurroundings and materials” as well as “add to the overall qualities of the areanot just for the short term but over the lifetime of the plan”.

• NPPF para 60 adds that “it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce localdistinctiveness” through planning policies.

• Whilst London Plan Policy 7.4 likewise encourages boroughs to “consider thecharacter of their areas to identify […] places where that character should besustained, protected and enhanced through managed change”.

The policy also fulfils the NPPF and LP aim for development to create attractive places:

• NPPF para 58 sets out that planning policy should ensure that developments“Establish a strong sense of place using streetscapes and buildings to createattractive and comfortable places to live work and visit” and “are visuallyattractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping”.

• Para 59 adds that “design policies should concentrate on guiding the overallscale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, material and access of newdevelopment in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more

3

LBB/LP/010

generally”. This is facilitated through the combination of the ASRC policy, ASRCs Areas descriptions and the Guidelines.

The level of protection afforded to Areas of Special Residential Character through the associated policy is not as strict as that which Conservation Areas benefit from as set out in Draft Local Plan Policy 41 where the impact of development proposals on an area’s significance is required to be assessed though the relevant tests in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The character of Areas of Special Residential Character is the result of “special” and “distinctive” qualities which create a sense of place. Their overall quality however may result from a combination of characteristics which can include a level of historic and/or architectural interest as well as other features contributing to their street scene such as for example regularity in their layout, plot size and ratio, the overall pattern created by the bulk, massing, type, style, design and materials of properties and the area’s setting and landscaping.

Draft Policy 44 on Areas of Special Residential Character recognises these qualities and requires any re/development in these areas to “respect, enhance and strengthen their special and distinctive qualities “as set out the Area Descriptions included in Appendix 10.6, expected to inform and influence the design/landscaping/amenity standards of development proposals. A description is made the positive characteristics of these areas and may include one of the elements which detract from it overall quality as appropriate, where the character should be strengthened through redevelopment.

The policy is supplemented by Guidelines in the same Appendix seeking to ensure that development adequately responds to these areas overall characteristics. ASRCs will be identified on the Policies Map along with other planning designations.

The Local Plan Background Paper “Potential Areas of Special Residential Character Spatial Character Assessments” (SD52) supports the proposed designation and associated detailed description of additional ASRCS including the “Chelsfield Park” and “Marlings Park” ASRCs whilst the “North Copers Cope Road and The Knoll Areas of Special Residential Character Spatial Character Assessment” Background Paper (SD53) supports further proposals to designate both “The Knoll” and “North Copers Cope Road”. These Background Papers include the detailed assessment and resulting descriptions of the characteristics of the area put forwards against the criteria for the designation of ASRCs.

Conclusion

Draft Policy 44 ASRCs responds to the need for a policy to protect these residential areas whose character is informed by special and distinctive qualities important to the local community but do not have the level of special historic or architectural interest necessary to be granted Conservation Area Status. The level of protection afforded to ASRCs is less strong than which Conservation Areas benefit from where NPPF tests apply. The policy seeks to protect and reinforce these special and distinctive qualities set out in the Area Descriptions included in Appendix 10.6, in

4

LBB/LP/010

combination with the Guidelines for ASRCs of the same Appendix. It fulfils the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (paras 58-60) and of the London Plan (Policies 7.14-7.16) for Local Plans to enable development to adequately identify, respond to, enhance and strengthen the character of their area and for development to create attractive places.

5

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s Question 41

Are the policies for tall buildings and the skyline (policies 47 and 48) consistent with the London Plan?

Council’s response

Draft Policy 47 - Tall and Large Buildings

Yes the Draft Policy 47 - Tall and Large Buildings is consistent with the 2016 London Plan which forms part of Bromley’s Development Plan; and this policy will be used alongside London Plan policy 7.7 Location and Design of Tall and Large Buildings to determine planning applications relating to Tall Buildings.

Draft Local Plan 47 emphasizes the importance of the design of tall buildings, requiring proposals in Bromley to enhance their surrounding area and be appropriate to their location and historic context. This is in conformity with London Plan Policy 7.7 which states in A that “Tall and large buildings should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings” and under B defines criteria which planning decisions for tall buildings should consider including locational as well as design-led criteria. Draft Policy 47 requires proposals to follow the relevant Historic England Guidance (currently Historic England’s Advice Note 4: Tall Buildings) which updates and supersedes 2007 Guidance by English heritage and CABE and promotes a plan led approach to the identification of sites suitable of tall buildings, recognising that this will mainly be informed by the character of the area, in conformity with the Mayor’s approach. Proposals for tall and large building in suitable locations will be assessed against the criteria set out in London Plan Policy 7.7 as well as the Historic England Guidance.

London Plan Policy 7.7 also sets out that “Boroughs should work with the Mayor to consider which areas are appropriate, sensitive or inappropriate for tall and large buildings and identify them in their Local Development Framework”. The Mayor was consulted on all matters of relevance to Tall Buildings including site allocations and the Tall Buildings policy at the various stages of the Local Plan process. The supporting text of Draft Policy 47 identifies that most of the Borough is not appropriate for tall buildings due to the established suburban character of the Borough but that there may be potential in town centres, locations with good public transport accessibility and areas with the appropriate character. It references Bromley’s Town Centre Area Action Plan (The AAP, SD 22a to e) which identifies potential sites for tall buildings (see especially Diagram 4.3 of the document) in Bromley Town Centre which is also designated as an Opportunity Area in the London Plan. This overall approach to identifying suitable locations to tall and large buildings is in conformity with criteria (a) and (b) of London Plan Policy 7.7 of relevance to location.

Draft Policy 48 - Skyline

Yes, Draft Policy 48 - Skyline is consistent with the London Plan. It seeks for development proposals to protect or enhance the views of local importance, landmarks, and skyline ridges listed in the supporting text, by informing their impact

6

LBB/LP/010

through design using the appropriate assessment. These views are considered to form an important part of the Borough’s character and the policy responds to the strategic aim of London Plan policy 7.4 Local Character for “development to have regard to the form, function and structure of an area” and the requirement for the Local Plan to “consider the different characters of their areas to identify landscapes […] and places […] where that character should be enhanced through managed change”. It also helps with assessing proposals against criterion (b) listed under the Planning Decisions section of the same London Plan policy which seeks to ensure that buildings […] provide a high quality design response that “contributes to a positive relationship between the urban structure and natural landscape features, including the underlying landform and topography of an area”. In addition, the policy makes reference to the criteria (b) and (c) set out in London Plan policy 7.12 Implementing the London Views Management Framework for assessing the impact of proposals “views to be considered to ensure intrusive elements are not introduced whether in the foreground, middle ground or background”, thus seeking to ensure consistency in the way the impact of proposals on local views are being assessed.

7

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s Question 42

Is the Plan consistent with the London Plan in terms of the balance between Green Belt, open space and residential development? How is this reflected in the evidence base?

Council’s response

The Draft Local Plan is consistent with the London Plan in terms of the balance between Green Belt, space and residential development and the foundations of this balance are the contents of the evidence base, in particular the SHLAA.

The London Plan gives a clear policy lead on the Green Belt and London’s protected green spaces. The first policy of the London Plan, Delivering the Strategic Vision and Objections for London, states:-

‘Growth will be supported and managed across all parts of London to ensure it takes place within the current boundaries of Greater London without:

a encroaching on the Green Belt, or on London’s protected open spaces

b having unacceptable Impacts on the environment...’

So growth is to take place without encroaching on the Green Belt and on London’s protected open spaces, such as Metropolitan Open Land.

That Strategic Vision was reflected in the London SHLAA which initially assigns sites formally identified as Green Belt MOL and Urban Open Space as unsuitable for residential development due to the Policy Constraint (SD29 p29).

This approach in the SHLAA is consistent with the long standing national policy of the permanence of the Green Belt and the similar status of the MOL in London policy. The SHLAA ultimately assesses the land availability in Bromley Borough as an average of 641 per annum (SD29 Appendix 1, page 109). This after taking Green Belt and open space constraints into account as an inherent part of the SHLAA method, applied to the single London market.

This approach is justified – as a London wide strategy, adherence to Green Belt restrictions means that some growth takes place in more predominantly non Green Belt locations, as envisaged by NPPF paragraph 14 which identifies Green Belt as ‘restricted’ as a matter of policy.

8

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s Question 43

Policy 49 largely repeats paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. Is this policy necessary?

Council’s response

In view of the fact that we have a Green Belt designation on the Local Plan Map, it is considered essential that there is a corresponding policy which can be referred to.

As far as the repetition is concerned, as the Local Plan will be used by a wide range of people including the public and residents’ associations who may not be as well versed as planning professionals and developers who deal with the NPPF on a daily basis.

It is considered that as far as possible the Local Plan should contain sufficient detail in the policies and supporting text to guide users when applying them to a proposed development without having to search for additional detail relating to how a policy should be applied from other sources.

9

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s question 44

Does the 2014 review of the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Urban Open Space (UOS) represent an adequate basis for the positive planning of development in the Borough?

Council’s response

It is considered that it does. The reasoning and justification for the approach are set out below.

The 2012-2014 (SD58) review of Green Belt, MOL and UOS does represent an adequate basis for the positive planning of the Borough in particular when the role of the London Plan is considered.

The NPPF refers to ‘positively prepared’ as follows:-

Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development; (NPPF paragraph 182 extract)

The ‘strategy’ that is referred to is in this instance largely provided by the London Plan. The London Plan has assessed objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements in the single market area of London. The London Plan has considered the approach to the Green Belt, MOL and UOS in terms of the restrictive policy 1.1 (B) and through the SHLAA process. The London Plan has in effect struck a balance between the total amount of development – residential in particular – in and beyond the GLA boundaries. It has also struck a balance of residential development between the London Boroughs, treating London as a single market area.

The Inspector’s report on the Examination in Public into the FALP sums up the situation at paragraph 19 of his report (SD38 p6).

19. However, in a two tier system there should be no need for each part of thedevelopment plan to include the full range of policies necessary to accord with all parts of the NPPF or PPG, provided that together they do (as far as is necessary) and are consistent with national policy. The PPG advises that there should be no need to reiterate policies that are already set out in the NPPF in Local Plans13. It seems to me that the same principle should apply to a spatial development strategy. Further, to avoid unnecessary duplication and potential confusion, there should be no need for a local plan in London to reiterate policies set out in the FALP.

In this context, the scope of the Green Belt, MOL and UOS review in the draft Local Plan is proportionate and appropriate, especially where linked with selected further topic-based consideration of Green Belt/MOL release for: education, travellers, Biggin Hill Airport, and major employment sites (SD63).

Whilst it is considered that the demand for land for most uses, especially residential, can be met within the built up area, certain sites have been removed from the Green

10

LBB/LP/010

Belt and Urban Open Space and designated for specific purposes (i.e. Gypsy and Traveller sites and land for new schools or school expansion).

In addition, the numerous sites currently having an open space designation which were put forward through the call for sites exercise which would require the designations to be removed were examined closely. The majority have been rejected as they did not prove that any exceptional circumstances existed to warrant their exclusion.

A substantial proportion of planning applications involving development on sites designated as open space of any description on the UDP Proposals Map are refused where they do not conform with the policies and a significant of appeals which ensue are dismissed by Planning Inspectors. Members are satisfied that the open space designations which have resulted from the approach adopted are fully justified. It is considered that housing targets set in the plan can be achieved without any release of land currently designated as open space. The latter issue will be addressed elsewhere during the proceedings.

The changes to the open space designations proposed were reported to the appropriate committees and approved for inclusion in the Draft Local Plan the relevant documentation has been included as SD58a Review of GB MOL and UOS boundaries in the set of Examination Documents. The majority of the proposed changes included as part of the Local Plan Draft Policies and Designations Consultation in 2014 (set out in the supporting documents) with the reasons for each change, were initially considered by Members in 2012.

In the case of each open space designation, the following types of site considered:

• Those which were the subject of representations during the last UDP Reviewbut where no changes resulted;

• Those which had been proffered by owners or agents as suitable fordevelopment since the adoption of the current UDP;

• Sites which were the subject of representations on the Core Strategy IssuesDocument consultation;

• Sites which have been developed since the current UDP was adopted, as theresult of appeal decisions, or re-configuration of developments following theadoption of the UDP;

• Sites (mainly urban Open Space) which on further consideration warrantdesignation because of their importance to the local community.

In the case of Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land (which the London Plan equates to Green Belt) the following criteria were applied:

• Land is not included which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;• The boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan

period; and;• The boundaries are defined clearly, using physical features that are readily

recognisable and likely to be permanent;

11

LBB/LP/010

• Any changes would be make other sites more vulnerable – i.e. there would bea risk of further encroachment

In the case of Urban Open Space:

• All open space of public value, which offer important opportunities for sportand recreation, both passive and active or are of importance to the localcommunity in terms of the visual amenity they provide.

The greater proportion of the land along the GB boundary is in private ownership, although a substantial number of sites are in some form of public ownership and accessible to the public. Much of the land beyond the built-up area in Bromley forming the Green belt is either woodland, land which is actively farmed or in use for recreation in the form of parks and private clubs. Most of the private woodland is subject to TPOs and there are numerous sites of significant interest for nature and have been designated as such (SSIs and SINCs). All these uses fulfil the functions of being designated as Green Belt within the terms set out in the NFFP and have been retained.

Whilst it is considered that the demand for land for most uses, especially residential, can be met within the built up area, certain sites have been removed from the Green Belt and Urban Open Space and designated for specific purposes (i.e. Gypsy and Traveller sites and land for new schools or school expansion).

12

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s question 45

Is policy 50 consistent with the definition of MOL in the London Plan?

Council’s response

The Glossary of the current London Plan defines MOL as ‘Strategic open land within the urban area that contributes to the structure of London’, this is identical to the definition in the 2004 London Plan Glossary, which was the one which we adhered to when drafting the MOL policy for the current UDP (adopted in 2006).

The London Plan policy on MOL is set out in its Policy 7.17 and supporting text 7.56 (copied in the Appendix A below for convenience).

The draft Local Plan Policy 50 on MOL is copied below in Appendix B. The extent of MOL is defined on the draft Local Plan Policies Maps, as are any changes. In brief, the changes made to the Local Plan maps are either due to factual updating or very minor changes.

In terms simply of the definition of MOL in the London Plan, the draft Local Plan shows land already formally defined in the UDP (2006) as MOL to continue as MOL. This is consistent with the ‘permanence’ approach to Green Belt in NPPF paragraph 79. The first sentence of the London Plan paragraph 7.56 states that the paragraphs79-92 of the NPPF on Green Belts applies equally to MOL, so there is also consistency in the application of policy 50 and the London Plan policy 7.17 in that respect.

The wording of this policy has been constructed using paragraphs A and B of Policy 7.17 of the London Plan ipso facto it is consistent with the London Plan.

Appendix A

London Plan:

‘Policy 7.17 Metropolitan Open Land

Strategic

A The Mayor strongly supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), its extension in appropriate circumstances and its protection from development having an adverse impact on the openness of MOL.

Planning decisions

B The strongest protection should be given to London’s Metropolitan Open Land and inappropriate development refused, except in very special circumstances, giving the same level of protection as in the Green Belt. Essential ancillary facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they maintain the openness of MOL.

LDF preparation

13

LBB/LP/010

C Any alterations to the boundary of MOL should be undertaken by Boroughs through the LDF process, in consultation with the Mayor and adjoining authorities.

D To designate land as MOL boroughs need to establish that the land meets at least one of the following criteria:

a it contributes to the physical structure of London by being clearly distinguishable from the built up area

b it includes open air facilities, especially for leisure, recreation, sport, the arts and cultural activities, which serve either the whole or significant parts of London

c it contains features or landscapes (historic, recreational, biodiversity) of either national or metropolitan value

d it forms part of a Green Chain or a link in the network of green infrastructure and meets one of the above criteria.’

London Plan paragraph 7.56 ‘The policy guidance of paragraphs 79-92 of the NPPF on Green Belts applies equally to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). MOL has an important role to play as part of London’s multifunctional green infrastructure and the Mayor is keen to see improvements in its overall quality and accessibility. Such improvements are likely to help human health, biodiversity and quality of life. Development that involves the loss of MOL in return for the creation of new open space elsewhere will not be considered appropriate. Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL. Green chains are important to London’s open space network, recreation and biodiversity. They consist of footpaths and the open spaces that they link, which are accessible to the public. The open spaces and links within a Green Chain should be designated as MOL due to their London wide importance.’

Appendix B

Policies and supporting text as evidence for comparison:

Bromley Local Plan

‘Draft Policy 50

Metropolitan Open Land

The Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) will be given the same level of protection as Green Belt. The exceptions to inappropriate development are consistent with Green Belt policy and permission will not be given for inappropriate development except in very special circumstances.

14

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s Question 46

How has the 10% net increase in floorspace for extensions or alterations to dwellings in Green Belt or MOL in policy 51 been determined?

Council’s response

Policy 51 of the Draft Local Plan is substantially a continuation of the UDP (2006) Policy G4, including the 10% net increase in floorspace figure.

The relevant part of the NPPF is paragraph 89 which states that

‘a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are:.......

(3rd bullet point) the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.’

One purpose of the Draft Policy 51 is to provide a clear local policy on ‘disproportionate additions’. This has the advantage of creating a greater degree of certainty in the local situation where there is a substantial proportion of the Borough designated Green Belt/MOL and relatively high property prices creating pressure to extend homes in the Green Belt.

This policy has been tested on appeal as recently as January 2017, where it was found that:-

‘Unlike UDP Policy G4, the Framework does not include a threshold to assess the proportionality of extensions and the floor area of an extension is only one aspect of size. In considering the proportionality of extensions, the Framework refers to buildings as opposed to just dwellings but does not require assessment of their effect on the building’s form or character. However, notwithstanding these differences, the aims of UDP Policy G4 are broadly consistent with the Framework’s approach that disproportionate extensions are inappropriate in the Green Belt and it can be afforded moderate weight as a result.’

A copy of this appeal is attached at Appendix A.

It is apparent that Permitted Development rights may enable larger extensions to be achieved. However, this position is not unique to Green Belt residential extensions, for example it applies to changes of use from Offices to Residential use also outside the constraints of some development plan policy. In addition, the Council could consider the option of an Article 4 Direction in the future.

This policy approach is a long standing one, dating from the 1984 Borough Plans, has given a clear policy lead to residential extensions in that time and should continue to do so.

15

LBB/LP/010

Inspectors Question 47

Is policy 55 consistent with the paragraph 74 of the NPPF, which does not allow for educational development on such sites without equivalent or better provision elsewhere to mitigate the loss?

Council’s Response

Urban Open Space is a Bromley specific designation and includes built development for a range of uses, which, as draft Local Plan para 5.2.29 highlights this includes approximately 40% of the Boroughs schools. The Boroughs education infrastructure is currently under extreme pressure to address the recent sharp increase in pupil numbers.

Policy 55 Urban Open Space facilitates limited built development in areas designated as Urban Open Space. Notably it seeks to facilitate educational buildings for which there is a demonstrable need.

The NPPF Glossary defines Open space for the purposes of the framework as “All open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water (such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs) which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can act as a visual amenity.”

In this context para 74 does not place a blanket protection over all open areas designated as Urban Open Space which includes private land, built development, spaces between buildings, car parking etc. and will not therefore necessarily offer important opportunities for sport and recreation or act as a visual amenity

With regard to open space of public value which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation, where proposals on such areas which lie within designated Urban Open Space will be subject to draft Local Plan Policy 58 ‘Outdoor Sport, Recreation and Play’ which is consistent with paragraph 74 of the NPPF. The importance of minimising impacts on open space, particularly playing fields is also reiterated in draft Local Plan Policy 27 ‘Education’.

The supporting text to Policy 58 ‘Outdoor Sport, Recreation and Play’ (para 5.2.37) references Sport England as statutory consultees on all planning applications affecting playing field land. Sport England has not made representations in respect of draft Policy 55.

The draft Local Plan para 5.2.26 acknowledges that the primary purpose of the Council’s UOS policy is to protect the open character of these smaller open spaces and draft Policy 55 the requires that where there is a demonstrable need for additional educational buildings sensitive design and siting will be sought to ensure that the impact on the open nature of the site is limited as far as possible without compromising the educational requirements.

16

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s question 48

Explain the methodology for the Local Green Space allocations in policy 56 and the selection of sites to be protected including Site 46, Bull Lane.

Council’s response

Background to the methodology for the designation of Local Green Space

Bromley’s Local Green Space designation responds to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states in para 76 that “local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them”. The NPPF in paras 76 and 77 defines broad criteria and conditions to designate Local Green Space as part of the planning process.

The detailed methodology for the assessment of sites put forward for the Local Green Space designation is set out in the Local Green Space Background Paper (2016) (SD 54) which explains the designation of the sites proposed as Local Green Space listed in policy 56 of the Draft Submission Local Plan. Section 1.2 Background of the Introduction to SD54 sets out the extent and the purpose of the Local Green Space Consultation which took place on Local Green Space in February/March 2016. Recognising that the National Planning Policy Statement para 77. states that “Local Green Space is not appropriate for most green areas or open spaces”, the variety of protective planning designations which exist on green/open spaces in the Borough and to ensure that the Local Green Space designation provides additional protection to green spaces and is justified and effective in the context of Bromley, Bromley developed and specifically consulted on its own Local Green Space Policy and Criteria (set out in in Section 2 of the Background paper) for the Assessment of Sites proposed for the Local Green Space designation. These are consistent with paras. 76 and 77 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and reflect National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Local Green Space. Representations made in response to the Local Green Space Consultation were taken into account in order to refine the policy and criteria which feature in the Local Plan together with the methodology for the assessment of Local Green Space.

Bromley’s Draft Local Criteria for the Assessment of Local Green Space are set out below. A summary of the Methodology for the assessment of sites against each one of these criteria has been included in Appendix 1.

Criterion 1. The nomination is submitted through the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan process and is supported by the local community.

Criterion 2. There is no current planning permission which once implemented would undermine the merit of a proposed Local Green Space designation.

17

LBB/LP/010

Criterion 3. The proposed Local Green Space site is not on land allocated for development in Bromley’s Development Plan or it can be demonstrated that its designation would not prevent the allocation being delivered. Where development sites are still emerging, nominations for Local Green Space will be taken into account along with other site constraints and opportunities.

Criterion 4. The site proposed for designation is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

Criterion 5. Where the proposed site is publicly accessible, it is within walking distance of the community, or where the proposed site is not publicly accessible, it is within reasonable distance of the local community.

Criterion 6. The space being proposed for designation is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance because of “special qualities” relating to, for example, its beauty, its historic significance, its recreational value, its tranquillity or its richness of wildlife.

Criterion 7. The Local Green Space designation would provide protection additional to any existing protective policies and its special characteristics could not be protected through any other reasonable and more effective means.

Criterion 8. The site’s special characteristics and any uses or activities which form part of the case for its designation can be maintained and managed beyond the Local Plan period.

Sites have been selected and designated as Local Green Space where the assessment as shown in Section 4 of the Local Green Space Background Paper shows that they meet ALL of Bromley’s Local Criteria for the Assessment of Local Green Space, considering the methodology outlined in Section.3 of the Paper. The section shows the relationship between the NPPF, PPG on Local Green Space and Bromley’s Local Criteria for Designation, considering the local context. It also sets out how sites were assessed against each criterion, considering the information required and provided by local community representatives in support of their nomination together with the further information used by the Council to assess the merit the sites. Considerations arising from the site assessment process itself enabled the methodology to be refined in light of the nature of some of the sites submitted.

The criteria for the Assessment of Sites Nominated as Local Green Space and the methodology enable the effective selection of sites to be designated where the Local Green Space Policy can usefully be applied. The policy seeks to ensure that

18

LBB/LP/010

development which would harm the demonstrably special qualities of Local Green Spaces described in the Statements of Significance is only allowed in very special circumstances, a level of protection commensurate with that afforded to the Green Belt, in accordance with para 76 of the NPPF. Sites proposed for the Local Green Space designation will often be subject to other policy designations, where appropriate, and the policy has to be read as part of the Plan as a whole.

In accordance with of the broad criteria set out in para.77 of the NPPF and Bromley’s Local Criteria for the Assessment of Local Green Space 4 and 6, the “special qualities” of Local Green Space are not limited to the material qualities of a space but also related to the use(s) which are made of the space by the local community as well as to its local significance and character.

Of the 46 sites nominated as part of the Local Green Space designation, 21 were assessed as meeting all of the criteria and are proposed for designation as Local Green Space and listed under policy 56.

Bull Lane Allotments

The Council received a petition from the Bull Lane Action Group on June 29 2015 which the Council’s Executive on July 15 2015 considered resolving “that the merits of designating the Bull Lane Allotments as Local Green Space be formally considered through the Local Plan process, and the petition included as a submission seeking such a change”. The site was then nominated by the Action Group as part of the February/March 2016 Local Green Space consultation nominated with additional support provided by local residents and community groups through letters, emails and written testimonies.

An assessment of Bull Lane Allotments is set out p.60-63 of the Local Green Space Background Paper and shows that the site is proposed for Local Green Space because it meets ALL of the criteria for designation. The Assessment is set out in Appendix 1. Points of the methodology which are relevant to Bull Lane and clarifying how the site meets the criteria in some instances have been added.

Bull Lane allotments was specifically assessed in the Education Background Paper 2016 (SD44a) and ranked D meaning that it is a site which is not considered a realistic opportunity to meet need due to a range of site specific issues.

19

LBB/LP/010

Appendix 1

Assessment of Bull Lane Allotments against Bromley’s Criteria for the Assessment of Local Green Space (sourced from the Local Green Space Background Paper 2016)

Bull Lane Allotments Site 7 Ward Chislehurst

Nominated by The Bull Lane Action Group

Site Description An open, green plot of land used exclusively for allotments. The site is bounded by residential properties, including flatted development, on three sides and by high hedges and Bull Lane to the south east.

Size 1.56ha

Ownership Private – Diocese of Rochester

Leased to the London Borough of Bromley

Planning Designations • The allotments are in the Chislehurst Conservation Area• Urban Open Space• The site is adjacent to the Statutory Listed Easden House on Bromley

Road.

Other • The site is on the list of Bromley’s Assets of Community Value

Is the site recommended for designation? Yes

Justification The allotments site is demonstrably special to the local community because of its historic significance, recreational and biodiversity values, quietness and visual amenities.

Statement of Significance Bull Lane allotments were laid out in 1884 to provide income for the rector and food and employment for the working families of Chislehurst. Continuous use as allotments has improved the fertility of the soil. The site provides a secluded and beautiful recreational space primarily enjoyed by the community of allotment holders for the benefits they provide in terms of relaxation, locally grown food and access to nature. Over 80 plots are laid out in a lawned area enclosed by high hedges and trees with views towards the eastern elevation of the Statutory Grade II Listed early 20th century Easden House which sits adjacent to its north-western boundary. The allotments provide a quiet space approximately 100m from Bromley Lane (the A22) to the north and Royal Parade (the A208) to the east. They are open to all sections

20

LBB/LP/010

of the community and include a plot for children of the local St Nicholas School in Chislehurst Common Road.

Some plots are used as a nursery to nurture native trees and shrubs destined for Chislehurst Common. There is also a small orchard and a small pond. The site’s biodiversity benefits from its use as allotments and it has been documented to accommodate common shrews, frogs and toads as well as slow worms. The north western hedgerow includes a good mix of native species including common hawthorn and hazel, providing important shelter for birds, invertebrates, mammals and reptiles. Uncut areas of long grass provide an important habitat for pollinators and the site includes a variety of nectar sources which can generally be considered to benefit pollinators.

21

LBB/LP/010

Assessment of Bull Lane Allotments against Bromley’s Local Criteria for the Designation of Local Green Space

1 The nomination is submitted through the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan process and is supported by the local community.

Summary of the Methodology for the Assessment of Sites against Criterion 1 (see Section 2 p. 8 of SD54) • Sites nominated outside of the consultation process are not

considered to meet the criterion.

• Sites are considered to be supported by the local community whenthey are nominated by a formally organised community group (such asan active and registered Friends Groups, a Local ResidentsAssociation, an Allotments Association) and proportionate evidence isprovided demonstrating support related to the case made fordesignation.

Does the site meet criterion 1? Yes. The site was nominated by the Bull Lane Action Group, who petitioned the Council with 1300 signatures for the site to be designated as Local Green Space on 25th June 2015. The application is supported by the Chislehurst society and 17 testimonials from a majority of plotholders and some local residents, whose properties overlook the site. A further 92 householders wrote in support of the application.

2 There is no current planning permission which once implemented would undermine the merit of a proposed Local Green Space designation.

Summary of the Methodology for the Assessment of Sites against Criterion 2 (see Section 2 p. 11 of SD54) This criterion seeks to ensure that there are no planning permissions on the site which would undermine the case for designation as a whole, i.e its performance against any of the criteria, and particularly criteria 6 and 8. Planning permissions can be searched on the Council’s systems.

Does the site meet criterion 2? Yes. There are no current planning permissions on the site.

3 The proposed Local Green Space site is not on land allocated for development in Bromley’s Development Plan or it can be demonstrated that its designation would not prevent the allocation being delivered. Where development sites are still emerging, nominations for Local Green Space will be taken into account along with other site constraints and opportunities.

Summary of the Methodology for the Assessment of Sites against Criterion 3 (see Section 2 p.11 of SD54) Where sites proposed as Local Green Space includes land allocated or

22

LBB/LP/010

identified for development in the Development Plan (for example for employment, housing or education), the area proposed for development will be being removed from the proposed Local Green Space boundary.

Does the site meet criterion 3? Yes. The site is not land allocated in Bromley's Unitary Development Plan, Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan or Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan.

4 The site proposed for designation is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.

Summary of the Methodology for the Assessment of Sites against Criterion 4 (see section 2 p.13 of SD54) This criterion overlaps with criterion 5, as sites cannot meet one without meeting the other (i.e sites cannot be local in character where they are not within walking or reasonable distance of the local community).

A site is considered local in character where:

• It is a local park, pocket park or small open space as defined in theLondon Plan’s Hierarchy of Open Spaces (set out in Table 7.2.)within 400 m of a centre of population and meet criterion 6 (havespecial qualities).

• It is an important local spatial landmark or point of reference visiblymarking the entrance to a locality, providing an important local link.

And, of relevance to Bull Lane Allotments:

• It is/includes important recreational facilities to a locality inc. forexample allotments, playing fields, historic village facilities withinwalking distance of a residential area, or within reasonable distance ofa residential area where it is not publicly accessible. Where they arenot publicly accessible they are considered local in character wherethey are historically significant and/or are demonstrably special to thelocal community because of their special qualities.

• It contributes to the local character of the area for example by havingdistinctive features which make it uniquely enjoyable locally or actingas the setting of an important building or group of buildings.

• It meets criterion 6 (it is “demonstrably special to the localcommunities because of its special qualities)”.

• It is not an “extensive tract of land” which would include large open

23

LBB/LP/010

swathes of countryside or woodland or would be composed of functionally unintegrated uses/characters ownerships, but it is a site (not a path or road verges) defined by recognisable natural or man-made boundaries such as tree lines, hedges, water courses, low walls, fences or paths etc.

Does the site meet criterion 4? Yes. The 1.56ha site is surrounded and clearly bounded by residential properties - some of which enjoy views of the site - and hedges and is utilised by the local community of allotment holders. The site is opened to local residents once a year on Open Days. It is also demonstrably special to the local community for the reasons stated in the Statement of Significance.

5 Where the proposed site is publicly accessible, it is within walking distance of the community, or where the proposed site is not publicly accessible, it is within reasonable distance of the local community.

Summary of the Methodology for the Assessment of Sites against Criterion 3 (see section 2 p.15 of SD54)

• Publicly accessible sites (mostly local parks/pocket parks, greenedopen roundabouts) are considered within walking distance of the localcommunity when they are within 400m of a residential area or centre ofpopulation (as per the standard set out in Table 7.2 of the LondonPlan).

• Whether sites which are not publicly accessible are within reasonabledistance of the local community is assessed on a case by case basisconsidering the site’s accessibility via the cycle network or by carconsidering its catchment, the level of provision of facilities similar tothese provided by the site in the local area, whether it provides awalking route between important local facilities (for example throughPRW) and whether it meets criterion 6 ( the site is “demonstrablyspecial to the local community”) which means that its special qualitiescan be enjoyed by locally relevant community groups).

Does the site meet criterion 5? Yes. The site is accessible by key, by the 80 plot holders local to the area and is accessible by bus and car from tenants further afield. The site is opened up by to nearby residents when there are open days once a year.

24

LBB/LP/010

6 The space being proposed for designation is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance because of “special qualities” relating to, for example, its beauty, its historic significance, its recreational value, its tranquillity or its richness of wildlife.

Summary of the Methodology for the Assessment of Sites against Criterion 6 (see Section 2 p.17 of SD54)

Sites were considered to meet Criterion 6 where the information provided by the local community in the site nomination form together with any supporting evidence submitted and other information by the Council used to assess the merit of a site it to have on balance special value and to hold particular local significance for the local community because of at least one of the categories identified in para 77 of the NPPF i.e its beauty, historic significance, recreational value, tranquillity and richness of wildlife, considering the nature of the site put forward.

In summary, the following was considered when assessing whether a site has particular local significance because of his beauty, whilst recognising the element of subjectivity to this particular criterion: the site’s contribution to the landscape/townscape, the presence of locally valued views and perspectives, of landscaping/water features and ornaments and park furniture and of locally remarkable buildings, assets/landmarks on or visible from the site.

Is Bull Lane Allotments demonstrably special to the local community because of its beauty? The allotments are demonstrably special to the local community because of their visual amenity. Testimonials from the local community of allotments holders and local residents show that the site is valued for the pleasant views and the environment it provides to neighbours and allotment holders alike. The site visit demonstrated the pleasant well-kept organised and colourful appearance of the allotments at the heart of Chislehurst Conservation Areas with views towards the south eastern façade of the Statutory Listed Easden House. The site’s visual amenity has been referenced in its Statement of Significance.

In summary, the following was considered when considering whether a site was especially significant because of historic significance: Presence of and/or views of Historic Buildings, structures, ornaments, landscape features on the site or its boundaries, long established uses for long established events, the site’s association with historic figures/events/functions. The site’s contribution to the historic form of an area.

Is Bull Lane Allotments demonstrably special to the local community because of its historic significance? Yes, the long established use of the site as allotments (since the end of the 19th century, in use through the WW2 and let to the Council on a rolling basis since 1972) referenced in the site Assessment form provide

25

LBB/LP/010

the site with special historic significance to the local community of allotment holders. There are views from the allotments towards the Grade II Listed Neasden House and residential properties within the Chislehurst Conservation Area. The historic significance has been referenced in the Statement of Significance.

In summary the following was considered when assessing whether a site had special recreational value: The site’s ability to support recreational facilities which cannot be accommodated elsewhere within the catchment considered such as specialised sports infrastructure combination of facilities, locally important sports clubs, traditional village facilities or rights and whether these activities are regularly and well attended locally. The case for a site’s recreational value considering these facilities would be strengthened if it was in an Area of Local Park Deficiency.

Is Bull Lane Allotments demonstrably special to the Local Community because of its special recreational value? Yes, the site accommodates long established allotments which are used to full capacity and important to the locality as demonstrated also by the statements of support received including from the allotment holders themselves as well as local residents. There is an annual Open Day. The site has also been registered as an Asset of Community Value. There is a plot in use for the pupils of St Nicholas School. The site’s recreational value has been referenced in the Statement of Significance.

In summary the following was considered when assessing whether a site has local significance because of its quietness: The relative quietness of the site considering existing surrounding noise levels and how long/often this quietness can be enjoyed, features on the site enabling reflection and contemplation (soundscape, remoteness, seating etc.)

Is Bull Lane Allotments demonstrably special to the local community because of its special quietness? Yes, the allotments provide a quiet space approximately 100m from Bromley Lane (the A22) to the north and Royal Parade (the A208) to the east. The pleasant and gardened appearance of the allotments with features such as trees and hedges enable quiet contemplation. The site’s quietness has been referenced in the Statement of Significance.

Criteria to assess whether a site could be considered to have locally special biodiversity value were drafted in consultation with Bromley’s Local Biodiversity Partnership taking into account Bromley’s Biodiversity Plan (2015). In summary a site has special local significance because if its richness of wildlife where:

• it demonstrably hosts protected and/or priority species and habitatsset out in Bromley’s Biodiversity Plan - The sites biodiversity value

26

LBB/LP/010

may already be described and provided with a level of protection through an existing SSSI, SINC or Local Nature Designation) or local survey/evidence may indicate the presence of significant wildlife.

• The site’s biodiversity is able to be enjoyed through managed publicaccess and/or or regular activities held by Friends Groups or otherlocal community groups.

• Where the site is demonstrated to have special biodiversity value andis in an Area of Deficiency in Access to Nature, this provides additionalweight to the site meeting the biodiversity criterion.

Is Bull Lane Allotments demonstrably special to the local community because of is biodiversity value? Yes, a biodiversity report provided by a biodiversity expert from Bromley’s Biodiversity Partnership detailed the biodiversity present on the site in June 2015 including protected and priority species and habitats listed in the Biodiversity Plan 2015. The site is also used to grow trees and shrubs for the Commons of Chislehurst. The site’s biodiversity is looked after by the local community of allotment holders who commissioned the 2015 survey and provided further evidence. The site’s biodiversity has been referenced in the Statement of Significance.

Does the site meet criterion 6? Yes. Please refer to the proposed Statement of Significance.

7 The Local Green Space designation would provide protection additional to any existing protective policies and its special characteristics could not be protected through any other reasonable and more effective means.

Summary of the Methodology for the Assessment of Sites against Criterion 7 (see section 2 p.23 of the Background Paper).

In Summary, the following was considered when assessing whether sites met criterion 7:

• Whether the planning/nature/historic designations on the sites ontheir own or combined provide it with a level of protection commensurate with that which could be afforded through the Local Green Space designation and whether it would be reasonable and effective to designate the site as a result, considering:

• Whether the site does have demonstrably special qualities (meetscriterion 6) and meet all other criteria to be designated as LocalGreen Space

• The type of development which could occur on the site considering

27

LBB/LP/010

existing designations and whether it could negatively impact its special qualities

Does the site meet criterion 7? Yes. These private non-statutory allotments are leased by the Council and existing arrangements enable the lease to be terminated at relatively short notice. The site designation as Urban Open Space protects the sites recreational use but not its specific function as allotments. Chislehurst’s Conservation Area Statement makes no specific mention of this site’s specific contribution to the Conservation Area’s historic significance which would have to be demonstrated as part of the application process to benefit from further protection. The proposed Local Green Space designation will afford the site with additional protection in that development causing harm to the site’s special qualities as defined in its proposed Statement of Significance will only be allowed in very special circumstances.

8 The site’s special characteristics and any uses of activities which form part of the case for its designation can be maintained and managed beyond the local plan period.

Methodology for the Assessment of Sites Against Criterion 8 (see Section 2 p.24 of SD54).

• Public parks are considered to meet the criterion in light of theCouncil’s commitment to their long term management andmaintenance.

As part of the case and of relevance to Bull Lane Allotments, the following were considered and balanced to issue a judgment as to whether sites met this criterion:

• Any Evidence of contractual arrangement between relevant partiesfor the management and maintenance of the special qualities of the site (Whilst acknowledging that most contracts cannot demonstrate that a site’s special qualities can be catered for when required beyond the plan period). Lease arrangements for the facilities on the site may be considered where relevant although it is recognised that the nature of the recreational uses on a site may vary over the course of time (but there are policies in place to protect them).

• The special qualities of sites actively looked after by an activeFriends Group or by Bromley’s Green Gym or Association wereconsidered likely to endure in the long term.

• Where sites are being leased by the Council or other private bodiesto a local community groups, the nature of the lease together withthe commitment of the existing site occupiers/users to staying

28

LBB/LP/010

and/or to the maintenance of the site’s special qualities.

• The views, future plans and aspirations and maintenancearrangements of the owners of privately owned sites whenconsulted.

• Evidence of continuous and reasonably predictable sustaineddemand for the enjoyment of the site related for example to thesite’s established use and other existing protective mechanismscontributing to enabling uses long term.

Does the site meet criterion 8? Yes. These private non-statutory allotments are leased by the Council and existing arrangements enable the lease to be terminated at relatively short notice but there is no evidence that there are any plans to do so. As per the site’s assessment against Criterion 7, the Local Green Space designation would however provide additional protection to its special qualities, its use as allotments forming part of the case, for the length of the plan period as a minimum. The maintenance of the allotments is carried out by the Bull Lane Allotments Society through rents levied from the allotment holders and should endure as long as the demand for the allotments is there and the management structure exists.

29

LBB/LP/010

Inspector’s question 49

Are policies 58 and 59 in accordance with paragraph 74 of the NPPF?

Council’s response

It is considered that the Local Plan policies, in combination with the supporting text are consistent with the requirements set out in this paragraph of the NPPF (quoted below).

Policy 58 illustrates what evidence would be required for any applicant (private or public) to provide when submitting proposals for development of open space, sports and recreational buildings. The policy incorporates the first bullet point of para 74 within the first sentence of the policy. Separately the 2nd and 3rd bullet of para 74 are incorporated within clause b) which relates to the Councils support for the enhancement of outdoor sport and recreation facilities. The supporting text to the draft policy expands on the role of Sport England in the determination of applications

Additionally paragraph 74 is reflected in Draft Policy 20 resists the loss of community facilities (which para 3.1.4 indicates includes play, recreation and sports facilities) ‘unless alternative enhanced provision is to be made in an equally accessible location for the community it serves, or it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a need for them...’

Draft Policy 59 seeks to secure improvements in the areas of public open space deficiency, where opportunities arise and finance permits. Paras 5.2.42 – 5.2.43 illustrate how such improvements might be secured.

NPPF paragraph 74:

74. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, includingplaying fields, should not be built on unless:

• an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the openspace, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

• the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced byequivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitablelocation; or

• the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, theneeds for which clearly outweigh the loss

Open space “All open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water (such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs) which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can act as a visual amenity.” (NPPF Glossary).

30

Rydek01

Text Box

QUESTION 46 APPENDIX A