The Bromley Council Development Control Committee met to discuss a number of planning and performance related items, including the proposed redevelopment of Conifer House, and the council's planning key performance indicators (KPIs). The committee refused permission for the redevelopment of Conifer House, and noted the planning KPIs.

Conifer House Redevelopment

The committee refused planning permission for the redevelopment of Conifer House, 44 Southend Road, Beckenham, BR3 1SL, following a report from the Assistant Director: Planning. The proposal was for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a six-storey building comprising 49 retirement living units, with associated communal facilities, parking and landscaping.

The application was called to committee due to the number of units proposed being over 21.

The key designations for the site are:

• Article 4 Direction
• Biggin Hill Safeguarding Area
• London City Airport Safeguarding
• London Distributor Roads
• Open Space Deficiency
• Smoke Control SCA 12

The planning officer's report cited multiple reasons for recommending refusal, including:

• Affordable Housing: The proposal did not include any affordable housing, despite a viability assessment indicating that 20% on-site affordable housing was viable. This was deemed contrary to Bromley Local Plan Policy 2, London Plan Policies H4 and H5, and the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG).
• Design and Layout: The scale, massing, and site coverage were considered incongruous, with the main entrance located remotely from the street. This was deemed contrary to Bromley Local Plan Policies 4 and 37, London Plan Policies D3 and D4, and Bromley's Urban Design SPD.
• Standard of Living Environment: The layout and orientation of the building, combined with a high proportion of single aspect units, would result in inadequate outlook, privacy, and daylight for future occupants. This was deemed contrary to Bromley Local Plan Policies 4 and 37, London Plan Policies D3, D5, and D6, and the Mayor's Housing Design Standards LPG.
• Wheelchair Units: Insufficient information was provided to demonstrate that 10% of the units would meet the requirements of Building Regulation M4(3) for wheelchair user dwellings, contrary to London Plan Policy D7 and Bromley Local Plan Policy 4.
• Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG): Inadequate information was provided to demonstrate the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat, making it impossible to verify the biodiversity net gain percentage, contrary to Schedule 7a of the Town and Country Planning Act and London Plan Policy G6.
• Air Quality Neutral: The proposed development would not be 'Air Quality Neutral' for transport emissions, and lacked information on on-site mitigation, contrary to London Plan Policy SI 1, Bromley Local Plan Policy 120, and the London Air Quality Neutral Guidance.
• Planning Obligation: Insufficient information was provided to confirm the planning obligations necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development, contrary to London Plan Policies DF1 and M1, Bromley Local Plan Policy 125, and Bromley Planning Obligations SPD.

Two letters of support were received, stating that the proposal would provide an appropriate addition to the local housing stock and boost the local economy.

One letter of objection was received, stating that the height of the building was out of scale with the neighbourhood, would disrupt the area's cohesive character, and would result in loss of privacy and natural light to the neighbouring property.

HPR Planning KPIs

The committee noted a report on the council's Housing, Planning and Regeneration (HPR) planning key performance indicators (KPIs). The report provided an overview of planning performance, including timeliness of decision-making and volumes of applications.

Key points from the report included:

• KPI P2: Non-Major Applications – Timeliness Development Management: Performance for the period remained comfortably over the 70% target, with an actual performance of 82.3%.
• The number of submissions is on an upwards trend following changes in national legislation and this is expected to be sustained, in particular for major applications.
• There is currently no KPI for the determination of major pre-applications although we aim to deal with non-major pre applications in 8 weeks but there is no specific target % that we seek to hit. Pre-applications are a non-statutory part of the service and have not been prioritised over planning applications, which have statutory determination targets.

Confirmation of the Minutes

The committee approved the minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2025.

Public Questions

The committee noted that one question for written reply was received at the meeting.