<<

Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan Submission Document Statement of Consultation - Regulation 30 (d)

November 2009 Town Centre Area Action Plan

STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

November 2009 | BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

2 STAGES OF CONSULTATION

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of Consultees at each stage of the AAP

Appendix 2: Issues and Options: Stage 1 Workshops (May-September 2005)

Appendix 3: AAP: Preferred Options (January-February 2006): Summary of Consultation Responses

Appendix 3.1: AAP: Preferred Options (January-February 2006): Responses to Consultation

Appendix 3.2: AAP: Preferred Options (January-February 2006): Report to Committee

Appendix 4: Revised Preferred Options (November 2007-January 2008): Responses to Consultation

Appendix 4.1: Revised Preferred Options (November 2007-January 2008): Report to Committee

Appendix 5 Consultation Draft AAP (November 2008- January 2009): Responses to Consultation

Appendix 5.1: Consultation Draft AAP (November 2008- January 2009): Report to Committee

Appendix 6 Proposed Submission AAP: Invitation for Representations on Soundness and Legal Compliance

Appendix 6.1: Pre-Submission Document: Representation Form

Appendix 6.2: Pre-Submission Document: GLA: Request for General Conformity

Appendix 6.3: Pre-Submission Document: Example Consultation Letter

Appendix 6.4: Pre-Submission Document: Notice of Publication

Appendix 6.5: Pre-Submission Document: Committee Report

Appendix 6.6: Letter to Planning Inspectorate | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. OVERVIEW

1.1.1. Bromley Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the Council’s standards in relation to involving the community in the preparation of local development documents. Its purpose is to ensure that all sections of the community have the opportunity to get involved from the earliest stages.

1.1.2. The purpose of this document is to set out how the Council has complied with Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 relating to public consultation on a Development Plan Document in preparing the Bromley Town Centre AAP. It sets out the following:

• Which bodies and persons were invited to make representations under Regulation 25;

• How those bodies and persons were invited to make representations;

• A summary of main issues raised;

• How representations have been taken into account

1.1.3. The Proposed Submission Bromley Town Centre AAP has been prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which makes provision through transitional arrangements for consultation already undertaken at previous stages in the AAP to act as a proxy for consultation requirements of the new regulations. 2 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

2. STAGES OF CONSULTATION

2.1. OVERVIEW

2.1.1. The preparation of the AAP commenced in Spring 2005 and has been developed in accordance with PPS12. Development of the AAP can be divided into the following stages:

Stage 1: Pre-production- survey and evidence gathering- this involved workshops attended by invited stakeholders;

Stage 2: Production- preparation of Preferred Options supported by continuous stakeholder involvement followed by a six week period of formal public consultation on the options (January 2006)- this involved a public exhibition and questionnaires;

Stage 2A: Production- review of Preferred Options in light of consultation and further technical studies and preparation of Revised Preferred Options followed by a six week period of formal public consultation on the options (November 2007)- this involved a public exhibition and making information available on the Council’s web site.

Stage 2B: Production- review of Revised Preferred Options in light of consultation and preparation of Consultation Draft AAP for a twelve week period of formal consultation (November 2008-February 2009)- . This involved a public exhibition and making information available on the Council’s web site.

Stage 2C: Publication of Proposed Submission – document consulted on for a further 6 weeks between 9th June and 17th July. This involved a public exhibition and making information available on the Council’s web site and letters were sent out to individuals and organisations who have previously made representations.

2.1.2. Each stage of consultation has been taken into account in preparation of the Proposed Submission AAP.

2.1.3. A list of bodies consulted at each stage of preparation of the AAP is attached as Appendix 1.

2.2. STAGE 1: PRE-PRODUCTION

2.2.1. Consultation has formed a critical element at each stage in the preparation of the AAP. The Council has been working from the outset with key stakeholders including representatives of local community groups and businesses. This involved 3 stages of consultation prior to preparation of the Preferred Options.

I. Issues and Opportunities Review (May 2005);

II. Creating a Vision for Bromley (July 2005); and

III. Developing the Options (September 2005). LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3

2.2.2. The vision has been developed through the AAP process in consultation with stakeholder groups including local businesses, community groups and residents. Of particular importance is the need to build on the town centre’s considerable assets and to make it a more competitive and attractive location for retail, leisure, business and investment. The town centre’s character is considered to be a particular strength and future development in the town centre should reinforce and enhance this.

2.2.3. This collaborative approach included a number of focused workshop events which have assisted in the preparation of the AAP by involving key stakeholders in the identification of key issues and opportunities and in the development of a vision and the Preferred Options for the Town Centre. Stage 4 of the AAP process has comprised the development of the Preferred Options which are presented in this document.

2.2.4. The workshops were attended by a large number of invited stakeholders including representatives from the following organisations:

• Members and officers of Bromley Council; • Local community and residents’ groups: LB Bromley Residents’ Federation, Heart of Bromley, Bromley South Action Group, Bromley North Residents Association, Community Links, Age Concern, Bromley Christian Centre, Friends of the Earth and Bromley Town Church;

• Emergency services: London Fire Brigade, London Ambulance Service and Metropolitan Police Service;

• Statutory Organisations: English Heritage, Transport for London and Licensed Taxi Drivers Association;

• Local organisations and businesses: Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Bromley Adult Education College, , Bromley My time, Bromley PCT, South London Business, Bromley Court Hotel, Woolworths, Prospects and Capital Shopping Centres, Pellings; and

• Other interested parties: landowners, property developers, surveyors and agents.

2.2.5. On the basis of the Stage 1 analysis and consultation with key stakeholders, a vision was identified for the future development and enhancement of Bromley Town Centre. The AAP seeks to create:

• A more vibrant centre with an extended offer;

• A more sustainable centre- a place to shop, work, spend leisure time and live;

• A high quality safe environment;

• A distinctive centre with high quality buildings and public spaces;

• An accessible and inclusive centre;

• A centre with the capacity for planned growth;

• A daytime and night time centre; and

• A centre which celebrates its heritage. 4 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

2.2.6. Copies of the reports of these workshops and summary of the issues raised are attached in Appendix 2.

2.3. STAGE 2: PRODUCTION

2.3.1. Public consultation was undertaken over a six week period from 13 January to 24 February 2006. A staffed exhibition was held over three days in The Glades after which a static exhibition with leaflets was placed in the Bromley Public Library, the Civic Centre main reception and at Bromley Adult Education Centre. The consultation process also included other ways of inviting comments via the local press and online. The Council received responses from 1420 individuals and companies including 1264 completed freepost questionnaires, 57 written responses and 97 responses via the website.

2.3.2. A copy of the responses to consultation and a summary of the issues raised and how these were addressed by the Council is contained in Appendix B together with a copy of the Report to Development Control Committee (April 2006).

2.4. STAGE 2A: PRODUCTION

2.4.1. A review was undertaken of the Preferred Options in light of consultation and further technical studies and a further six week period of formal public consultation on the Revised Preferred Options was undertaken between November 2007 and January 2008. This involved a staffed exhibition was held over three days in The Glades after which a static exhibition with leaflets was placed in the Bromley Public Library, the Civic Centre main reception and at Bromley Adult Education Centre. The consultation process also included other ways of inviting comments via the local press and online.

2.4.2. A copy of the responses to consultation on the Revised Preferred Options and a summary of the issues raised and how these were addressed by the Council is contained in Appendix C together with a copy of the Report to Development Control Committee .

2.5. STAGE 2B: PRODUCTION

2.5.1. A review was undertaken of the Revised Preferred Options in light of consultation and further technical studies and a Consultation Draft AAP prepared for public consultation. A twelve week period of formal public consultation on the Consultation Draft AAP was undertaken between November 2008 and February 2009. Bodies and individuals who had previously commented on earlier stages of the AAP were contacted in writing and advised of the main changes to the document.

2.5.2. A copy of the responses to consultation on the Consultation Draft AAP and a summary of the issues raised and how these were addressed by the Council is contained in Appendix D together with a copy of the Report to Development Control Committee.

2.6. STAGE 2C: PRODUCTION

2.6.1. The Proposed Submission AAP was published on the 8th of June and made available for public viewing at the Council offices, on the Council website, and through written correspondence to 1000 consultees. CD’s containing all the relevant documents were also published and distributed to specific consultees. Representation forms with comprehensive guidelines on the Tests of Soundness were made available along with the following supporting documents. LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 5

i. Sustainability Appraisal

ii. Equalities Impact Assessment

iii. Updated Retail Capacity Assessment

iv. Transport Strategy

v. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

vi. Statement of Consultation

vii. Baseline Report

viii. A letter on Appropriate Assessment provided by Natural England

DATE MEDIUM DISTRIBUTION

3 June News Release Local media and LBB website Average 4,500 hits everyday ` 3 June Statutory Public Notice in News Shopper X 2 weeks 98,356 Average net circulation

8 June AAP Published Letters/Documents – Hard Copies and CDs 4 Letters Documents on a CD – Specific Consultees 32 Letters – other consultees All borough libraries (1 of each documents for view or 751 loan plus CDs) 17 Planning/main receptions Email notification 2 CDs Distributed during the exercise 215 25 bromley.gov.uk Home page visual plus all supporting Internet availability documents published Onebromley – intranet homepage All Staff 10 June News Shopper local paper article 98,356 Average net circulation 20 June UPDATE – Residents Association & Community groups Direct Mail newsletter News item (including Members and media) 17 July LBB web site announcing the close of the invitation LBB website period

2.6.2. * Includes hits on all pages of the web site

2.6.3. The closing date for the receipt of representations was the 17th of July and in accordance with advice of the Government Office London (GoL), a period has been allocated for the Council to assess and analyse these representations.

2.6.4. The main issues raised are being summarised and will be submitted in a separate document with the AAP, along with all supporting documentation, the representations received and a schedule of minor amendments to the Secretary of State for examination. 6 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 1

BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AAP

LIST OF CONSULTEES LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 1

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Consultee Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Statutory Consultees

Natural England X X X X

English Heritage X X X X X X X

The Environment Agency X X X X X X X

Transco X X X X

Countryside Agency X X X

Metropolitan Police X X X X X X X

British Gas X X X X

Transport for London X X X X X X X

British Telecoms X X X X

Air Transport Users Council X X X

Kent Wildlife Trust X X X

Museum of London Archaeology Service X X X

Thames Water Plc X X X X

Bromley Mental Health Services X X

Civil Aviation Authority X X X X

Bromley Primary Care Trust X X X X X X X

House Builders Federation X X X 2 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

English Sports Council X X X

EDF Energy X X X X

Capitec (Part of NHS Estates) X X X

London Fire and Emergency Planning X X X X Authority

Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust X X X X

Network Rail X X X X X X X

OXLEAS NHS Trust X X X X

Post Office Property Holdings X X X X

Powergen X X X X

SOLOTEC X X X

South East London Strategic Health X X X X Authority

Bromley Magistrates Courts X X X X

Bromley Community Health Council X X X X

NATS X X X X

Highways Agency X X X X

Sport England X X X X

London Ambulance Service X X X X X X X

Government Departments LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Inventures (NHS Estates) X X X

Strategic Rail Authority X X X X

Planning Inspectorate X X X X

Parliamentary, Correspondence and Briefing X X X X Unit

London Development Agency X X X X

ETSU, Department of Trade and Industry X X X

Department of Trade and Industry X X X X

Secretary of State, Department for Children Schools and Families (Formerly Department X X X X of Education and Skills) Commission for Architecture and the Built X X X X Environment

The Crown Estates Commissioners X X X X

Department for Transport X X X X

Department of Child Health X X X X

Government Office For London X X X X

Secretary of State Communities and Local X X Government

Regional Bodies

London Councils X X

Homes and Communities Agency X X

English Partnerships X X X 4 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

GLA X X X X

Sustrans X X X X

The Mayor of London X X

Political

Ward Members X X X

All Bromley Councillors X X X

Bob Neill MP X X

Biggin Hill & Darwin Branches of the Labour X X X Party

National Liberal Club X X X X

Beckenham Constitutional Club Ltd X X X X

Conservative Future X X X X

Conservative Action Team X X X X

Chislehurst Constituency Labour Party X X X X

Chislehurst Conservative Association X X X X

Beckenham Constituency Conservative X X X X Association

Bromley & Chislehurst Labour Party X X X X

Beckenham Liberal Democrats X X X X

Bromley Conservative Club X X X X LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 5

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Chislehurst Social & Liberal Democrats X X X X

Central Beckenham Liberal Democrats X X X X

Bromley Labour Party Local Government X X X X Committee

Social and Liberal Democrats X X X X

Adjoining Local Authorities

London Borough of Bexley X X X X

London Borough of Croydon X X X X

London Borough of Lambeth X X X X

London Borough of Greenwich X X X X

London Borough of Lewisham X X X X

London Borough of Southwark X X X X

Kent County Council X X X X

Surrey County Council X X X X

Tandridge District Council X X X X

Swanley Town Council X X X X

Westminister City Council X X X X

Other London Wide Agencies

London Green Belt Council X X X X 6 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

London Travel Watch X X

Royal Mail X X X X X X

South East London Museums Service X X X X

Stagecoach Selkent X X X X

Tree Council X X X X

Urban Regeneration Partnership X X X

Visit London X X X X

Airports UK Ltd X X X X

Civil Aviation Authority X X X X

English Sports Council X X X X

Housing Corporation X X X X

London Central Bus Company X X X X

Corporation of London X X X X

British Motorcyclists Federation X X X X X X X

National Trust X X X X

The Theatres Trust X X X X

National Car Parks Ltd X X X X

National Playing Fields Association X X X X LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 7

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

National Childminding Association (NCMA) X X X X X X X

South London Business Forum X X X X X X X

Royal Horticultural Society X X X X

Bromley Strategic Partners

Metropolitan Police Bromley X X X X X X X

Bromley Borough Road Action Group X X X X X X X (BBRAG)

Bromley Asian Cultural Association X X X X

Bromley Magistrates Court X X X X

Bromley Muslim Association X X

Age Concern Bromley X X X X X X X

Bromley Autistic Trust X X

Bromley Community Health Council X X X X

Bromley Learning Disabilities Forum X X X X

Bromley Mencap X X

Bromley Racial Equality Council X X X X

Bromley Somali Community Association X X

LGBT Forum X X

Bromley Police Station X X X X X X X 8 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees Bromley Physical Disability & Sensory Impairment Forum X X

Bromley Mind X X X X

Bromley Youth Council X X

Community Links Bromley X X X X X X X

Deaf Access Bromley X X

Stakeholders

Bromley Mytime X X X X X X

Disability Voice Bromley X X

Bromley Civic Society X X

London Transport Users Committee X X X X X X X

Town Centre Chaplain X X X X X X X

London Walking Forum X X

Metrobus X X X X X X X

Churchill Theatre X X X X X X X

Bromley Little Theatre X X

Bromley Christian Centre X X X X X X X

Northpoint X X

The Glades Merchants Association X X X X X X LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 9

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Pelling Ltd X X X X X X

Churchill Insurance X X X X X X X

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets X X X X X X

Bromley Borough Road Action Group X X

Bromley Wheelchair Users Group X X

Capital Shopping Centres Plc X X X X

Bromley North Residents’ Association X X X X X X X

Bromley College X X

Bromley College of Further and Higher X X X Education

Bromley Green Party X X X X

Affinity Homes Group X X X X X X

APCA X X X X X X

Key Local Groups

West Wickham Residents’ association X X X X

St Mary Cray Residents’ Association X X X X

Beechwood Residents’ Association X X

Florida Court Residents’ Association X X X X

Broad Oaks Residents’ Association X X 10 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Stirling Drive Residents’ Association X X X X

Fernwood Close Residents’ Association X X X X

Eden Park Residents’ Association X X X X

Bromley Common 2468 Residents’ Group X X X X

Downe Residents’ Association X X X X

Sundridge Residents’ Association X X X X

Stradella and Springfield Residents’ X X X X Association

Crofton Residents’ Association X X X X

Shortlands Residents’ Association X X X X

Crystal Palace Community Association X X X X

Sundridge Park Residents’ Association X X X X

Farnborough Park Estate Ltd Residents’ X X X X Association

St Mary Cray Action Group X X X X

Cudham Residents’ Association X X X X

Durham Avenue Residents’ Association X X X X

Bromley Common Village Residents’ X X X X Association

Farwig Area Residents’ Association X X X X

Babbacombe Road Residents’ Association X X X X LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 11

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees Bromley Common Lane Association of X X X X Residents’ and District Residents’ X X X X Association

Hilda Lane Community Association X X

Chelsfield Village Society X X X X

North Point Sherman Road Residents’ X X Association Chancery Lane / Limes Road Residents’ X X X X Association Old Hill & Lane North Residents’ X X X X Association

Copers Cope Area Residents’ Association X X X X

Chelsfield Park Residents’ Association X X X X

Cherrycot Residents’ Association X X X X

Bromley South Action Group X X X X X X X

Chinbrook Estates Residents’ Association X X X X

St Pauls Cray Tenants and Residents’ X X X X Association

Chislehurst Village Society X X X X

South Penge Residents’ Association X X X X

Goddington North Residents’ Association X X X X

Elmers End Residents’ Association X X X X

Southill Residents’ Association X X X X 12 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Rowan Park Residents’ Association X X X X

St Pauls Cray Community Association X X X X

Crowborough Drive Residents’ Association X X X X

Links Estate Residents’ Association X X X X

Palace Road Residents’ Association X X X X

Park Langley Residents’ Association X X X X

Parkside Avenue Residents’ Association X X X X

Penge East Residents’ Association X X X X

Ramsden Residents’ Association X X X X

Rookery Residents’ Association X X X X

Garden Estates Association X X X X

Bickley Park Residents’ Group X X X X

Oregon Park Residents’ Association X X X X

The Chenies Road Association X X X X

The Federation of Broomleigh Residents’ X X X X

The Gardens Residents’ Association X X X X

Grove Park Community Group X X X X

The Groves Residents’ Association X X X X LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 13

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees The Highway and District Residents’ X X X X Association

The Knoll Residents’ Association X X X X

Ringers Court Residents’ Association X X

Badgers Mount Residents’ Association X X X X

Mottingham Residents’ Association X X X X

Mottingham Estate Tenants Association X X X X

Andace Park Residents’ Association X X X X

Albyfield Residents’ Association X X X X

Aldersmead Road Residents’ Association X X X X

Place Farm and Sparrows Drive Residents’ X X Association

Palace Estate Residents’ Association X X X X

Petts Wood and District Residents’ X X X X Association

North Bromley Residents’ Association X X X X

Barnmead (Cator Estate) Residents X X X X Association Beckenham Place Park Residents’ X X X X Association

Beckenham Village Residents’ Association X X X X

Bickley Park Residents’ Association X X X X

Old St Paul’s Cray Village Residents’ X X X X Association 14 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees North Street Residents’ Association X X X X (Bromley)

Turpington Community Association X X X X

Alexandra Residents’ Association X X X X

London Borough of Bromley Residents’ X X X X X X X Federation The Mead and the Mead Way Residents’ X X X X Association

Kevington Residents’ Association X X X X

Keston Village Residents’ Association X X X X

Hazelhurst Residents’ Association X X X X

Hayes Village Association X X X X

Green Street Green Residents’ Association X X X X

Knoll House Residents’ X X X X

Queen Adelaide Court Tenants and X X X X Residents’’ Association

Beckenham Civic Society X X X X

Nash Residents’ Association X X X X

Glen View Road and The Glades Residents’ X X X X Association Mountview & Perry hall Residents’ X X X X Association

Geffreys Estate Steering Group X X X X

Oakfield Lane Residents’ Association X X X X LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 15

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Green Street Green Association X X X X

Monks Orchard Road Residents’ X X X X Association

Felmingham Road Residents’ Association X X X X

Vinson Close Residents’ Association X X X X

Wickham Common Residents’ Association X X X X

Windsor Drive Community Association X X X X

Woodlands Valley Residents’ Association X X X X

Kelsey Park Estate & District Protection X X X X Association

Yester Park Residents’ Association X X X X

The Royston Estate Residents’’ Association X X X X

Mead Road Residents’ Association X X X X

Lullington Road Residents’ Association X X X X

Lowood Court Residents’ Association X X X X

Lower Amherst Residents’ Association X X X X

Leave’s Green and Vale Residents’ X X X X Association

Beadon Road Residents’ Association X X X X

Leesons Residents’ Association X X X X

Friends of the Earth X X X X X X X 16 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Carers Bromley X X X X

Bromley Housing Advisory Service X X X X

Bromley Small Business Club X X

Salvation Army X X

The Open Spaces Society X X X X

Youth Housing Forum X X X X

Beckenham Place Park Society X X

The Garden History Society X X X X

St Mark’s (Church of England) Primary X X X X School

St. Mark’s Church of England X X X X

Ravensbourne Valley Preservation Society X X X X

BRONSPART X X X X

Religious Society of Friends X X X X

Penge Forum X X X X

Anerley Association X X X X

Housing Associations

Broomleigh Housing Association X X X X

Moat Housing Group Ltd X X X X LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 17

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

Burnt Ash Housing Association X X

Chislehurst & Sidcup Housing Association X X X X

Hexagon Housing Association X X X X

Kelsey Housing Association X X X X

South London Family Housing Association X X X X

Bromley Federation of Housing Associations X X X X

Beaver Housing Association X X X X

Hyde Housing Association X X X X

Family Housing Association X X X X

London & Quadrant Housing Trust X X X X

Radcliffe Housing Association X X X X

Anchor Housing Association X X X X

Presentation Housing Association Limited X X X X

Sanctuary Housing Association X X X X

Tower Homes Ltd X X X X

Businesses

John Lewis X X

The Abbeyfield Beckenham Society Ltd X X 18 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Issues & Visioning Options - Invitation for Opportunities Preferred Draft Consultee Workshop Workshop Revised Preferred Options Representations Workshop Options Consultation Invitees Invitees on Soundness Invitees

JEMA Fund Management Limited X X X X

Orange Personal Communications Services X X Ltd

Palmer Johnson Design X X X X

Asda Stores Ltd X X

WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc X X

Waitrose X X X X

Computer Cab plc X X

Bromley Court Hotel X X X X X X X

House of Fraser X X

Marks and Spencers X X X X X X X

MacDonalds Restaurants Ltd X X X X X X

Halifax Building Society X X X X

Capital ShoppingCentres Plc X X X X

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 1

APPENDIX 2

ISSUES AND OPTIONS: STAGE 1 WORKSHOPS (MAY- SEPTEMBER 2005) Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan

STAGE 1: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

SUMMARY REPORT

JULY 2005

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE table of contents

= 1 INTRODUCTION

2 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

3 NEXT STEPS

APPENDICES = A1: KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES A2: KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES A3: PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES A4: PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES A5: STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS CONSULTANT TEAM ATTENDEES =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 1

Acknowledgement qÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=~åÇ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=~êÉ=Öê~íÉÑìä=Ñçê=íÜÉ= íáãÉ=~åÇ=áåéìí=çÑ=~ää=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëI=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëI=äçÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ= äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=Öêçìéë=ïÜç=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê= tçêâëÜçéë=çå=íÜÉ=OSíÜ=çÑ=j~ó=OMMRK=låÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=ÜÉäÇ=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ= Ç~óíáãÉ=~åÇ=çåÉ=áå=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåáåÖK==qÜÉ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=Ñçêã=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ= Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=ÇÉëáÖå=éêçÅÉëë=~åÇ=ïÉêÉ=ÇÉëáÖåÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=îáÉïë=çÑ= ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=~åÇ=äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=Öêçìéë=áåÑçêã=íÜÉ=É~êäó=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m= éêçÅÉëëK=táíÜçìí=íÜÉ=ÇÉÇáÅ~íÉÇ=ÉÑÑçêíë=çÑ=~ää=é~êíáÅáé~åíëI=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçéë= ïçìäÇ=åçí=Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=éçëëáÄäÉK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 2

1. Introduction

BACKGROUND ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáí~êó=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=mä~å=êÉîáÉïI=íÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ= _êçãäÉó=áë=ÅìêêÉåíäó=éêÉé~êáåÖ=~=DåÉïJëíóäÉD=^êÉ~=^Åíáçå=mä~å=E^^mF=Ñçê= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=íÜÉ=éçäáÅó=Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=~åÇ=ÖìáÇÉ=ÑìíìêÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíêÉK= = qÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=Ü~ë=êÉÅÉåíäó=ÅçããáëëáçåÉÇ=~=ãìäíáJÇáëÅáéäáå~êó=íÉ~ã=äÉÇ=Äó= êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=~åÇ=ã~ëíÉêéä~ååáåÖ=Åçåëìäí~åíë=ba^t=íç=Å~êêó=çìí=êÉëÉ~êÅÜ= ~åÇ=íç=ïçêâ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áå=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=tÜÉå= ÅçãéäÉíÉÇI=íÜÉ=^^m=ïáää=Ñçêã=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáäÛë=içÅ~ä=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí= cê~ãÉïçêâ=EiacFI=ïÜáÅÜ=ïáää=ÉîÉåíì~ääó=êÉéä~ÅÉ=íÜÉ=~ÇçéíÉÇ=råáí~êó= aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=mä~åK==qÜÉ=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=^^m=ïáää=~äëç=~Åí=~ë=~å= áåîÉëíãÉåí=Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=~åÇ=ÖìáÇÉ=íç=ÇÉîÉäçéÉêëI=íÜÉ=äçÅ~ä=éä~ååáåÖ=~ìíÜçêáíó= ~åÇ=çíÜÉê=éìÄäáÅ=~ÖÉåÅáÉëK= = qÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=áë=ïçêâáåÖ=ÅäçëÉäó=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=~åÇ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=áå= ìåÇÉêí~âáåÖ=Ä~ëÉäáåÉ=êÉëÉ~êÅÜ=~ë=~=Ä~ëáë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=éêçÇìÅíáçå=çÑ=~=ÅäÉ~ê=îáëáçå= Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉI=íÜÉ=Éëí~ÄäáëÜãÉåí=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=ÇÉëáÖå=éêáåÅáéäÉë= Ä~ëÉÇ=çå=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉê=~åÇ=Å~é~Åáíó=~ëëÉëëãÉåí=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=ÇÉí~áäÉÇ= éä~ååáåÖ=éçäáÅáÉë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK=== = qÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áë=êÉèìáêÉÇ=íç=ìåÇÉêí~âÉ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=~í=É~ÅÜ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ= éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=qÜÉ=éêçÖê~ããÉ=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=áåÅäìÇÉë=~=åìãÄÉê= çÑ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ=ÉîÉåíë=~í=É~ÅÜ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëW= = • fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíáÉë=oÉîáÉïJ=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéëX= • `êÉ~íáåÖ=~=sáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉóJ=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéëX= • mêÉé~êáåÖ=íÜÉ=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=léíáçåëJ=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéëX=~åÇ= • léíáçåë=^ééê~áë~ä=J=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéë=~åÇ=mìÄäáÅ=bñÜáÄáíáçåK= = qÜáë=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=~ééêç~ÅÜ=íç=éä~å=ã~âáåÖ=áë=Ñìääó=ëìééçêíÉÇ=~åÇ= ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉÇ=Äó=dçîÉêåãÉåí=~åÇ=~áãë=íç=ãáíáÖ~íÉ=éçíÉåíá~ä=ÅçåÑäáÅí=íÜêçìÖÜ= ÇáëÅìëëáçåK==fí=ëÉÉâë=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=ÚÄìóJáåÛ=Äó=íÜÉ=î~êáçìë=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëK==^í=íÜÉ= ë~ãÉ=íáãÉI=íÜÉ=éêçÅÉëë=áë=ÇêáîÉå=Äó=íÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=ìåÇÉêëí~åÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=åÉÉÇë= çÑ=íÜÉ=Åçããìåáíó=áå=íÜÉ=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíáÉë=ëí~ÖÉ=~åÇ=~ÇÇêÉëëáåÖ=íÜÉëÉ= áå=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=îáëáçå=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK==qÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí= íïç=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=ïáää=áåÑçêã=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= çéíáçåë=~åÇ=êÉÑáåÉãÉåí=çÑ==íÜÉ=éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=áåíç=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí= ^^mK=== = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 3

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS qÜÉ=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=éêçÅÉëë=~ääçïë=éçíÉåíá~ä=Åçåëíê~áåíëI= çééçêíìåáíáÉë=~åÇ=~ëéáê~íáçåë=íç=ÄÉ=íÜçêçìÖÜäó=Éñ~ãáåÉÇ=Äó=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ= é~êíáÉëK==fí=ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉë=áååçî~íáîÉ=ëçäìíáçåë=íç=áëëìÉë=ëìÅÜ=~ë=íê~åëéçêíI=ãáñ=çÑ= ìëÉë=~åÇ=ÇÉëáÖåK==_ó=~ÇçéíáåÖ=~=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=~ééêç~ÅÜI=íÜÉ=ÉãéÜ~ëáë=áë=çå= ÇÉîÉäçéáåÖ=ÅêÉ~íáîÉ=ëçäìíáçåë=Ñçê=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=~åÇ=áëëìÉë=ëéÉÅáÑáÅ=íç=íÜÉ= íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=Åçåëìäí~íáçåI=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã= Ñ~Åáäáí~íÉÇ=~=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=çå=ÄÉÜ~äÑ=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áå=j~ó= OMMR=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=íÜÉ=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK= qÜáë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ÉîÉåíëW= = NK hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=j~ó=OMMR=EÇ~óíáãÉFX=~åÇ== OK mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=j~ó=OMMR=EÉîÉåáåÖFK== = qÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=Çê~ï=çå=íÜÉ=îáÉïëI=~ëéáê~íáçåë=~åÇ= ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=~=ïáÇÉ=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ=é~êíáÉë=~åÇ=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=íÜÉ=âÉó= áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=íç=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=áå=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK==== = qÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéë=ÄêçìÖÜí=íçÖÉíÜÉê=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëJ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëI=âÉó= _êçãäÉó=`çìåÅáä=çÑÑáÅÉêëI=ëí~íìíçêó=~ÖÉåÅáÉëI=äçÅ~ä=ÄìëáåÉëëÉëI=ä~åÇ=çïåÉêë== ~åÇ=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=çÑ=äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=~åÇ=êÉëáÇÉåíë=Öêçìéë=íç=àçáåíäó= áåîÉëíáÖ~íÉ=éçëëáÄáäáíáÉë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÑìíìêÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉI=íÜêçìÖÜ=~=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ= ïçêâëÜçéëK==^=Ñìää=äáëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=Öêçìéë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=áåîáíÉÇ=áë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=áå= ^ééÉåÇáñ=^N=~åÇ=^PI=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ëÅÜÉÇìäÉ=çÑ=~ííÉåÇÉÉë=áë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=áå=^ééÉåÇáñ= ^O=~åÇ=^QK= = qÜÉ=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=ïçêâëÜçéë=êÉéêÉëÉåí=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=ã~àçê=ëíÉé=áå= éêÉé~êáåÖ=íÜÉ=^^mK==qÜÉ=ÅçããÉåíë=êÉÅÉáîÉÇ=ïáää=ÄÉ=~å~äóëÉÇ=~åÇ=êÉéçêíÉÇ= Ä~Åâ=~í=íÜÉ=sáëáçåáåÖ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ÄÉáåÖ=ÜÉäÇ=áå=ãáÇ=gìäó=OMMRK= = qÜáë=êÉéçêí=ëìãã~êáëÉë=íÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=N=tçêâëÜçéëK= =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 4 2. Stage 1 Workshops

OVERVIEW qÜÉ=áåíÉåíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=N=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëÛ=tçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=áåÑçêã=âÉó= ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëI=áÇÉåíáÑó=âÉó=áëëìÉëI=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=~åÇ= ~ëéáê~íáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=íç=ÄÉÖáå=íç=Éñ~ãáåÉ=âÉó=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ= é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=^^mK= = INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS _çíÜ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=~åÇ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=tçêâëÜçéë=ÅçããÉåÅÉÇ=ïáíÜ= áåíêçÇìÅíçêó=ÅçããÉåíë=Ñêçã=cê~åâ=tÜáíáåÖI=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=mêçàÉÅí=aáêÉÅíçê=~í= íÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉóK=eÉ=ïÉäÅçãÉÇ=é~êíáÅáé~åíëI=Éñéä~áåÉÇ=íÜÉ= ÖÉåÉê~ä=éêçÅÉÉÇáåÖë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåíë=~åÇ=áåíêçÇìÅÉÇ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ãK=qÜáë= ï~ë=ÑçääçïÉÇ=Äó=~=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=éêçàÉÅí=íÉ~ã=~åÇ=íïç=íÜÉãÉÇ= ÇáëÅìëëáçå=ëÉëëáçåëK=_çíÜ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ïÉêÉ=ÜÉäÇ=áå=`çããìåáíó=eçìëÉI=pçìíÜ= píêÉÉíI=_êçãäÉóK=

CONSULTANT PRESENTATION qÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=ÇÉäáîÉêÉÇ=~=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=~í=ÄçíÜ=ÉîÉåíë=ïÜáÅÜ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ= çå=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖX= • ^áãë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=~åÇ=éêçÖê~ããÉ=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåíX= • qÜÉ=^êÉ~=^Åíáçå=mä~å=éêçÅÉëëX= • mêçàÉÅí=ÅçåíÉñíI=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=éêçàÉÅí=éêçÖê~ããÉX== • ^å=Éñ~ãáå~íáçå=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=íçÇ~óJ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÅçåíÉñí=Ñçê=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ= íÜÉ=^^mX= • `çåëáÇÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÉäÉãÉåíë=íÜ~í=ã~âÉ=~=ëìÅÅÉëëÑìä=ÅÉåíêÉ=Åçãé~êÉÇ= ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ëáíì~íáçå=áå=_êçãäÉóX= • qÜÉ=éêáåÅáéäÉë=íÜ~í=ÅçìäÇ=éêçîáÇÉ=íÜÉ=Ä~ëáë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=~= îáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉóX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=éçëëáÄäÉ=~äíÉêå~íáîÉ=äçÅ~íáçåë=Ñçê=ÑìíìêÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ= ã~áå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=ìëÉëX=~åÇ== • `ä~êáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=åÉñí=ëí~ÖÉë=áå=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëK= = aìêáåÖ=~åÇ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ= ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉÇ=íç=ÉåÖ~ÖÉ=áå=ÇáëÅìëëáçåë=~åÇ=íç=ëÜ~êÉ=íÜÉáê=îáÉïë=ïáíÜ=çíÜÉê= é~êíáÅáé~åíëäK=qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ëÉÅíáçåë=ëìãã~êáëÉë=íÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉëÉ= ÇáëÅìëëáçåëK= =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 5

KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (26 MAY (DAYTIME)) qÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=Äó==êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã=NR= çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=Öêçìéë=EëÉÉ=^ééÉåÇáñ=^OF=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã= ëí~íìíçêó=ÄçÇáÉëI=qê~åëéçêí=ÄçÇáÉëI=äçÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=äçÅ~ä=ÉãéäçóÉêëK=== = qÜÉ=âÉó=áëëìÉë=ê~áëÉÇ=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=~êÉ= ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=ÄÉäçï=ìåÇÉê=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=íÜÉãÉëW== • jáñ=çÑ=ìëÉë= • qê~åëéçêí= • `ìäíìêÉ=~åÇ=iÉáëìêÉ= • aÉëáÖå= • dÉåÉê~ä=áëëìÉëK=

Mix of uses

• `çåÅÉêå=~Äçìí=äçëë=çÑ=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉë=~åÇ=èì~äáíó=êÉí~áäX= • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=Ä~ä~åÅÉ=ÄÉíïÉÉå=êÉí~áä=~åÇ=ÅçããÉêÅá~ä=ìëÉë=ïáíÜ=êÉÖ~êÇ=íç=àçÄ= éêçîáëáçåX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÅêÉ~íÉ=~=Ä~ä~åÅÉ=íç=ÅìêêÉåí=êÉí~áä=ìëÉë=ïáíÜ=áåÅêÉ~ëÉÇ= ÅçããÉêÅá~äI=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~åÇ=äÉáëìêÉ=ìëÉëX= • mççê=èì~äáíó=çÑÑáÅÉ=~ÅÅçããçÇ~íáçå=ÇçÉë=åçí=ãÉÉí=ãçÇÉêå=ÄìëáåÉëë= åÉÉÇëJ=ä~Åâ=çÑ=ëìáí~ÄäÉ=~ÅÅçããçÇ~íáçå=íç=~ííê~Åí=åÉï=ÄìëáåÉëëÉëX= • fãéçêí~åí=íç=éêÉëÉêîÉ=ëã~ää=ÄçìíáèìÉ=íóéÉ=ëÜçéë=íÜ~í=~ÇÇ=íç= ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉåÉëë=çÑ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=èì~äáíóLê~åÖÉ=çÑ=êÉí~áä=éêçîáëáçåX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÅçìåíÉêÄ~ä~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=ïÜáÅÜ=ÅìêêÉåíäó=Ççãáå~íÉë=íÜÉ=íçïå= ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=~åÇ=ëçìíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíK= • jìäíáJä~óÉêáåÖ=çÑ=ìëÉë=ïáää=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=îáí~äáíó=~åÇ=~Åíáîáíó=áå=íÜÉ=íçïå= ÅÉåíêÉX= • fÑ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áë=éêçéçëÉÇ=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÅçåëáÇÉê=áåÑê~ëíêìÅíìêÉ= êÉèìáêÉãÉåíë=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ÇçÅíçêë=~åÇ=ëÅÜççäëX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉ=ÄìëáåÉëëÉëX= • mçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=~Çìäí=ÉÇìÅ~íáçå=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=áå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=Ñáää=íÜÉ=Ö~éë=áå=íÉêãë=çÑ=ìëÉë=~åÇ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëK= = Transport

• oÉãçî~ä=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=Ä~êêáÉê=~äçåÖ=íÜÉ=ÜáÖÜ=ëíêÉÉí=ïáää=áãéêçîÉ= ~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíó=~åÇ=áåíÉÖê~íáçå=~Åêçëë=áíX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=~ÇÇêÉëë=íê~ÑÑáÅ=~åÇ=éêçÄäÉãë=çÑ=~ÅÅÉëëX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=Ñçê=ÄÉííÉê=áåíÉÖê~íáçå=ÄÉíïÉÉå=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ= íê~åëéçêí=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=~åÇ=ëÜ~êÉÇ=ìëÉ=çÑ=é~êâáåÖX= • fãéçêí~åÅÉ=çÑ=áãéêçîÉÇ=~ÅÅÉëë=êçìíÉë=íç=ÇÉëíáå~íáçåë=ïÜáÅÜ=~êÉ= éäÉ~ëìê~ÄäÉI=Éåàçó~ÄäÉ=~åÇ=áåíÉêÉëíáåÖ=íç=êÉÇìÅÉ=íÜÉ=éÉêÅÉéíáçåë=çÑ= Çáëí~åÅÉ=ÄÉíïÉÉå=åçêíÜ=~åÇ=ëçìíÜ=_êçãäÉóX= • oÉãçî~ä=çÑ=ÅÉåíê~ä=Ä~êêáÉê=áå=eáÖÜ=ëíêÉÉí=ïáää=áãéêçîÉ=~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíó=~åÇ= áåíÉÖê~íáçåX= • kÉÉÇ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=íç=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí=êçìíáåÖ=~åÇ=~ÅÅÉëëW= • `çååÉÅíáåÖ=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=ëí~íáçåX=~åÇ== • pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=ëí~íáçå=áå~ÇÉèì~íÉ=~ë=áãéçêí~åí=Ö~íÉï~óK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 6

• kÉÉÇ=íç=~ÇÇêÉëë=áëëìÉë=çÑ=~ÅÅÉëë=~åÇ=ë~ÑÉíó= • mçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=ÉñíÉåëáçå=çÑ=éÉÇÉëíê~áåáëÉÇ=~êÉ~=áå=kçêíÜ=_êçãäÉó=íç= ~ííê~Åí=ãçêÉ=ÅçããÉêÅá~ä=çìíäÉíëK= • mçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=áãéêçîÉÇ=íê~åëéçêí=äáåâë=Ñçêã=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜJ= ÅçååÉÅíáçåë=íç=kÉï=`êçëë=~åÇ=aio\= = Culture and Leisure

• kÉÉÇ=íç=ÇÉîÉäçé=~=ëíêçåÖÉê=~åÇ=ãçêÉ=ÇáîÉêëÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=çÑÑÉêX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=èì~äáíó=çÑ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=íç=~ííê~Åí=ãçêÉ=éÉçéäÉX= • ^êíë=éêçîáëáçå=Ü~ë=Ñ~áäÉÇ=áå=_êçãäÉóJ=éçëëáÄáäáíó=Ñçê=~å=~êíë=ÅÉåíêÉ=çê= ãÉÇáìã=ëáòÉÇ=ÅçåÅÉêí=Ü~ää=çê=çíÜÉê=~ííê~Åíáçå=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=ÉñéäçêÉÇX= • `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ=áë=~=âÉó=ÑÉ~íìêÉ=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=Å~í~äóëí=Ñçê= ÅÜ~åÖÉJ=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~=ÑçÅìë=Ñçê=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçåW=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÅçåëáÇÉê=éçíÉåíá~ä= Ñçê=ëíêçåÖÉê=äÉáëìêÉLÅìäíìê~ä=ÑçÅìëI=áãéêçîÉÇ=ìëÉ=çÑ=ÄìáäÇáåÖë=~åÇ= ÅêÉ~íáçå=çÑ=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉLäáåâ=íç=m~êâX= • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=Å~êÉÑìä=ÅçåëáÇÉê~íáçå=çÑ=äçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=äÉáëìêÉLÅáåÉã~=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=~ë= íÜÉó=ïáää=ÄÉÅçãÉ=~=ÑçÅìë=áå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX=== • bîÉåáåÖ=ÉÅçåçãó=äáãáíÉÇ=~åÇ=ÅçìäÇ=ÄÉ=áãéêçîÉÇ=Äó=çéÉåáåÖ=ìé=íÜÉ= éÉÇÉëíêá~å=ëÉÅíçê=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=~ÑíÉê=Üçìêë=íç=ÅêÉ~íÉ=~ÅíáîáíóX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=~ÇÇêÉëë=éêçÄäÉãë=çÑ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=ÉÅçåçãó=Äó=áåíêçÇìÅíáçå=çÑ=åÉï= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïÜáÅÜ=ïáää=~ééÉ~ä=íç=~=ïáÇÉê=ã~êâÉíL~ÖÉ=ÖêçìéëXÄ= • iáÄê~êó=~å=áãéçêí~åí=Ñ~Åáäáíó=Ñçê=äçÅ~ä=éÉçéäÉJ=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ= çééçêíìåáíáÉë=Ñçê=ÉåÜ~åÅÉÇ=~åÇ=ÉñíÉåÇÉÇ=êçäÉ=áå=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=ÉÖW= ÖêçìåÇ=Ñäççê=éêÉëÉåÅÉI=ÉîÉåáåÖ=~ÅíáîáíáÉëI=Å~Ѩ=~êÉ~K= = Heritage and Design

• kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=áåÅêÉ~ëÉÇ=ÉãéÜ~ëáë=çå=íÜÉ=ÚÜÉêáí~ÖÉÛ=ÉäÉãÉåí=~åÇ= ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉêáëíáÅë=çÑ=íÜÉ=~êÉ~=çå=íÜÉ=ÇÉëáÖå=~åÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=_êçãäÉóK= rëÉ=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉ=~ë=~=âÉó=ÇêáîÉê=Ñçê=éêçãçíáåÖ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=Eä~êÖÉ=é~êí=çÑ= íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=áë=~=ÅçåëÉêî~íáçå=~êÉ~FX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=éêçíÉÅí=~åÇ=éêÉëÉêîÉ=íÜÉ=ÄÉëí=~ëéÉÅíë=çÑ=_êçãäÉóX= • _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=êÉí~áåë=ëÅ~äÉ=çÑ=ã~êâÉí=íçïå=ïÜáÅÜ=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=éêçíÉÅíÉÇJ= éçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=ãçêÉ=áåíÉåëáîÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ= • båîáêçåãÉåíLÜÉêáí~ÖÉ=áë=~=Ä~ëáÅ=ÉäÉãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • _êçãäÉó=áë=åçí=_äìÉï~íÉê=çÑ=`êçóÇçåX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÅêÉ~íÉ=~å=Ú~ííê~ÅíáîÉÛ=~íãçëéÜÉêÉ=áå=çêÇÉê=íç=ã~âÉ=éÉçéäÉ=ÅçãÉ= íç=_êçãäÉóX= • fåÅçêéçê~íÉ=~=ïÉ~íÜÉê=éêçíÉÅíÉÇ=ëÜçééáåÖ=ëíêÉÉíX== • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=íáÖÜíÉê=ÖìáÇ~åÅÉ=çå=ÇÉëáÖå=~åÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå=çêÇÉê=íç=ÉåëìêÉ= ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíóK= = General issues

• aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=áë=Åçåëíê~áåÉÇ=Äó=áíë=äáåÉ~ê=ÑçêãI= íçéçÖê~éÜó=~åÇ=íáÖÜí=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=êáåÖX== • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÇêáîÉ=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ÅÜ~åÖÉJ=ÇÉÅäáåÉ=áë=îÉêó=ÉîáÇÉåíX=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 7

• bñáëíáåÖ=dm=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïáää=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=áãéêçîÉÇ=íç=ÅçéÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ= éêçéçëÉÇ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíëK=kÉÉÇ=íç=~ëëÉëë=éçëëáÄáäáíó=çÑ= ÉñíÉåÇáåÖ=éêçîáëáçå=áåíç=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=êÉèìáêÉãÉåí=Ñçê=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ãçÇÉêå=çÑÑáÅÉ=Ñäççê=ëé~ÅÉ=Ñçê= Éëí~ÄäáëÜÉÇ=ÄìëáåÉëëÉë=íç=ãçîÉ=áåíçX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=Ñçê=ä~êÖÉê=~åÇ=ãçêÉ=ÇáîÉêëÉ=~ééêç~ÅÜ=íç=ÄìëáåÉëë= éêçîáëáçåX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=ÅìêêÉåíäó=~=äçí=çÑ=ìåÇÉê=ìíáäáëÉÇ=çÑÑáÅÉ=~ÅÅçããçÇ~íáçåX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=ÖêçïáåÖ=éçíÉåíá~ä=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=~ë=íçìêáëí=ÇÉëíáå~íáçå=Eäáåâ= íç=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉ=~åÇ=çéÉå=ÅçìåíêóëáÇÉFX= • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=~=èì~äáíó=ÜçíÉä=éêçîáëáçå=íç=Å~íÉê=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÄìëáåÉëë=ã~êâÉí=~åÇ= îáëáíçêëX= • få=~ëëÉëëáåÖ=Üçï=ãìÅÜ=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=_êçãäÉó=Å~å=~ÅÅçããçÇ~íÉI=åÉÉÇ=íç=äççâ= ~í=Å~é~Åáíó=çÑ=ëáíÉë=~åÇ=ÄìáäÇáåÖëX== • kÉÉÇ=íç=ã~âÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ãçêÉ=ÉÑÑáÅáÉåí=~åÇ=ãçêÉ=~ÅÅÉëëáÄäÉK=

PUBLIC FOCUS WORKSHOP (26 May 2005 (evening)) qÜÉ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=tçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=Äó=NM=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã=äçÅ~ä= áåíÉêÉëí=I=êÉëáÇÉåí=~åÇ=~ãÉåáíó=ÖêçìéëK=== = qÜÉ=âÉó=áëëìÉë=ê~áëÉÇ=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=tçêâëÜçé=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ= ÄÉäçï=ìåÇÉê=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=íÜÉãÉëW=ãáñ=çÑ=ìëÉëI=íê~åëéçêíI=ÅìäíìêÉ=~åÇ= äÉáëìêÉI=ÇÉëáÖå=~åÇ=ÖÉåÉê~ä=áëëìÉëK= = Mix of uses

• kÉÉÇ=íç=ÅêÉ~íÉ=~=Ä~ä~åÅÉ=íç=ÅìêêÉåí=êÉí~áä=ìëÉë=ïáíÜ=áåÅêÉ~ëÉÇ= ÅçããÉêÅá~äI=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~åÇ=äÉáëìêÉ=ìëÉëX= • aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=ÅçããÉêÅá~ä=ëÉÅíçê=ïáää=ëìééçêí=îá~Äáäáíó=çÑ=êÉí~áä=ëÉÅíçêX= • mìÄäáÅ=ÉñéÉÅí~íáçå=çÑ=ÖççÇ=èì~äáíó=ëÜçééáåÖ=çÑÑÉêI=áåÅäìÇáåÖW= • mêÉëÉêîáåÖ=Úëã~ää=ÄçìíáèìÉÛ=íóéÉ=ëÜçéëX= • eáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉëJ=éêÉÑÉêÉåÅÉ=Ñçê=ãçêÉ=íÜ~å=N=åÉï= ëíçêÉX=~åÇ= • oÉíìêå=çÑ=âÉó=êÉí~áäÉêë=EëìÅÜ=~ë=eçìëÉ=çÑ=cê~ëÉêI=FK= • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=Ä~ä~åÅÉ=ÄÉíïÉÉå=íÜÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=áå=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉóJ= éçíÉåíá~ä=íç=íê~åëÑÉê=ëçãÉ=ìëÉë=íç=ëçìíÜX= • oÉí~áä=ãáñ=ïáää=ÄÉ=ã~áå=Çê~ï=ÑçääçïÉÇ=Äó=äÉáëìêÉK=kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=ãìäíáéäÉñ= ÅáåÉã~=íç=ÑÉÉÇ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=ÉÅçåçãóX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=~ííê~Åí=~=èì~äáíó=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉ=áããÉÇá~íÉäóI=ïáíÜ=~=ëÉÅçåÇ=íç= ÅçãÉ=áå=íÜÉ=ãÉÇáìã=íÉêãK=oÉí~áä=ãáñ=~åÇ=çÑÑÉê=~êÉ=~=ã~àçê=Çê~ï=Ñçê= _êçãäÉóX=ÅäçëÉäó=ÑçääçïÉÇ=Äó=äÉáëìêÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX= • mçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=ÅêÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=Å~Ѩ=ÅìäíìêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=~åÇ= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÄêáåÖ=êÉëáÇÉåíë=Ä~Åâ=áåíç=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 8

Transport

• j~àçê=áëëìÉ=çÑ=íê~åëéçêí=~åÇ=é~êâáåÖ=ãìëí=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=íÜ~í=êÉèìáêÉãÉåíë=Ñçê=é~êâáåÖ=EëÜçééÉêëI=ïçêâÉêë=~åÇ= êÉëáÇÉåíëF~êÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=~åÇ=íÜ~í=åÉï=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ÇçÉë=åçí=áåÅêÉ~ëÉ= éêÉëëìêÉë=çå=ëìêêçìåÇáåÖ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ëíêÉÉíëX= • qê~åëéçêí=~åÇ=é~êâáåÖ=áëëìÉë=åÉÉÇ=íç=Å~íÉê=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖW= • mÉçéäÉ=ÅçãáåÖ=áå=íç=ëÜçé=~åÇ=ïçêâX= • mÉçéäÉ=ÇçáåÖ=áåíÉêÅÜ~åÖÉ=~åÇ=ÅçããìíÉêëX=~åÇ= • mÉçéäÉ=äáîáåÖ=áå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=EêÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=é~êâáåÖFK= • kÉÉÇ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=íç=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí=êçìíáåÖI=~ÅÅÉëë=~åÇ=äÉÖáÄáäáíó=íç= ÅçååÉÅí=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=ëí~íáçåëX= • lééçêíìåáíó=Ñçê=Äìë=áåíÉêÅÜ~åÖÉ=~í=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=pí~íáçå=~åÇ=áãéêçîÉÇ= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=~í=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜX= • _êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=éêçîáÇÉë=~å=áå~ÇÉèì~íÉ=Ö~íÉï~ó=íç=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉX== • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÅçåëáÇÉê=çééçêíìåáíó=çÑ=çéÉåáåÖ=ìé=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=áå=ÉîÉåáåÖë=íç= áãéêçîÉ=~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíóLáåÅêÉ~ëÉ=~ÅíáîáíóX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÅçåëáÇÉê=éçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=m~êâ=C=oáÇÉK=

Culture and Leisure

• i~Åâ=çÑ=äáÑÉI=~Åíáîáíó=~åÇ=~åáã~íáçå=~ÑíÉê=ëÜçéë=ÅäçëÉX== • kÉÉÇ=áåÅêÉ~ëÉÇ=ÉãéÜ~ëáë=çå=ÅìäíìêÉ=~åÇ=äÉ~êåáåÖJ=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=ëÜçïÅ~ëÉÇ= ~åÇ=ãçêÉ=~ÅÅÉëëáÄäÉX== • `ìêêÉåíäó=äáãáíÉÇ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=ÉÅçåçãóJ==íÜáë=ÅçìäÇ=ÄÉ=áãéêçîÉÇ=Äó=çéÉåáåÖ= ìé=éÉÇÉëíêá~åáëÉÇ=ëÉÅíçê=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=~ÑíÉê=Üçìêë=EáåÅêÉ~ëáåÖ= ~åáã~íáçå=~åÇ=~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíóFX= • pìééçêí=Ñçê=ÅáåÉã~X= • j~êâÉíë=~êÉ=~=ïÉäÅçãÉ=~ÅíáîáíóI=Äìí=èì~äáíó=ÅçìäÇ=ÄÉ=áãéêçîÉÇK=mçíÉåíá~ä= íç=ãçîÉ=ëíêÉÉí=ã~êâÉíë=ëìÅÜ=~ë=`Ü~êíÉê=j~êâÉí=áåíç=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • mçíÉåíá~ä=çÑ=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=~ë=~=åÉï=ÑçÅìë=Ñçê=äÉáëìêÉ=~Åíáîáíó=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ= ÉñéäçêÉÇX= • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=~=ÜçíÉä=áå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=Å~ѨLÅìäíìê~ä=ÑçÅìë=çå=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíJ=ïçìäÇ=çÑÑÉê=ãçêÉ=ÇáîÉêëáíóK= mçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=Å~Ѩ=âáçëâëLé~îáäáçåë=áå=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX== • kÉÉÇ=íç=~ÇÇêÉëë=éêçÄäÉãë=~ëëçÅá~íÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=ÉÅçåçãóJ=Ççãáå~íÉÇ= Äó=ä~êÖÉ=ÅÜ~áå=éìÄë=~åÇ=ÚÇêáåâáåÖ=ÅìäíìêÉÛK=kÉÉÇ=íç=çÑÑÉê=ÖêÉ~íÉê= ÇáîÉêëáíó=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïåX= • fåíÉÖê~íÉ=ÜÉ~äíÜ=ïáíÜ=äÉáëìêÉJ=ÅçåÅÉéí=çÑ=ÚÜÉ~äíÜó=äáîáåÖÛK=

Design

• råáèìÉåÉëë=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=ÇÉêáîÉë=Ñêçã=áíë=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉêLÜÉêáí~ÖÉJ=íÜáë=ëÜçìäÇ= ÄÉ=Äìáäí=çåX= • = • aáÑÑÉêÉåí=~ééêç~ÅÜ=íç=ëÅ~äÉLÇÉëáÖå=ã~ó=ÄÉ=~ééêçéêá~íÉ=áå=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåí=~êÉ~ë= ÇÉéÉåÇáåÖ=çå=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉêX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=êÉáåÑçêÅÉ=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉ=ÚÅçìåíó=íçïåÛ=ÑÉÉä=~åÇ=éêçíÉÅí=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉK= eÉêáí~ÖÉ=ïáää=ÄÉ=~=Å~í~äóëí=Ñçê=ÑìíìêÉX=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 9

• kÉÉÇ=íç=~ÇÇêÉëë=ÅìêêÉåí=éÉêÅÉéíáçå=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=~ë=~å=ìåë~ÑÉ= ÉåîáêçåãÉåíJ=ÇÉÅäáåáåÖ=êÉí~áä=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX= • jçÇÉêå=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=~êÅÜáíÉÅíìêÉ=ÅçìäÇ=ÅêÉ~íÉ=~=ÚÜìÄÛ=çÑ=~Åíáîáíó=áå= _êçãäÉó=Äìí=ãìëí=ÄÉ=~ééêçéêá~íÉäó=~åÇ=êÉëéÉÅí=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉLÉñáëíáåÖ= ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉêX= • eáÖÜ=êáëÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå~ééêçéêá~íÉJ=ÜáÖÜÉê=ÄìáäÇáåÖë=åÉÉÇ=íç=êÉëéÉÅí= íÜÉ=äçÅ~äáëÉÇ=ëÅ~äÉ=~åÇ=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉê=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅçåíÉñíX= • _~ëÉ=ÇÉëáÖå=çå=íÜÉ=éêÉÅÉÇÉåí=çÑ=Ú_êáÖÜíçåÛI=áåÅäìÇáåÖW= • oÉíÉåíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ä~åÉë=áå=kçêíÜ=_êçãäÉóX= • mêçîáÇÉ=åÉï=ëÜçééáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX= • `êÉ~íÉ=ÅçåÑÉêÉåÅÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíóX=~åÇ= • fãéêçîÉ=äáÄê~êóK=

General issues

• `çåÅÉêå=íÜ~í=éä~ååáåÖ=éçäáÅó=ïáää=ÄÉ=~ÄäÉ=íç=ÇÉäáîÉê=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=ëìáí~ÄäÉ=íç= _êçãäÉó=ÅçåíÉñíX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=éêçíÉÅí=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~ãÉåáíó=~åÇ=ãáåáãáëÉ=áãé~Åíë=çÑ=åÉï= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çå=~ÇàçáåáåÖ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~êÉ~ëX== • ^å=áååçî~íáîÉ=~åÇ=ãìäíáìëÉ=Åìäíìê~ä=ÑçÅìë=áë=êÉèìáêÉÇ=~ë=~=âÉó=Å~í~äóëí= Ñçê=ÅÜ~åÖÉX= • båëìêÉ=ÇÉäáîÉê~Äáäáíó=çÑ=íÜÉ=éä~å=Äó=íÉëíáåÖ=ëáíÉ=Å~é~ÅáíáÉëX= • =ÚqÜÉ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=_êçãäÉóÛ=~åÇ=ÉñéÉÅí~íáçåë=çÑ=êÉëáÇÉåíëÓ=ÚmÉêÅÉéíáçå= áë=åçí=ã~íÅÜáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÉñéÉÅí~íáçåÛK=kÉÉÇ=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ÅÜ~åÖÉX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉíïçêâ=çÑ=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉë=Ó=áåíÉÖê~íáåÖ=_êçãäÉóÛë=~ëëÉíëX= • rëÉ=çÑ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉ=áåÉÑÑáÅáÉåíJ=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=çéíáçåëX= • Úo~íÉ=çÑ=ÅÜ~åÖÉÛ=Ó=íÜáåÖë=åÉÉÇ=íç=Ü~ééÉå=èìáÅâäó=çå=Öê~åÇ=ëÅ~äÉ=íç=ÄêáåÖ= íÜ~í=ëíÉé=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=êÉèìáêÉÇX= • _êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=ÅìêêÉåíäó=Ü~ë=åç=êÉ~ä=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉê=çê=ÚëÉåëÉ=çÑ=éä~ÅÉÛ=íç=Çê~ï= áå=ìëÉêë=~åÇ=êÉëáÇÉåíëX= • kçêíÜ=~åÇ=ëçìíÜ=çÑ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=~êÉ=ÇáëàçáåíÉÇ=~åÇ=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=ÄÉííÉê= áåíÉÖê~íÉÇX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=äççâ=~í=éêÉÅÉÇÉåíë=ÉÖW=_êáÖÜíçåJ=ãáñ=çÑ=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉI=ãçÇÉêå= ëÜçééáåÖI=åÉï=äáÄê~êóI=ÅçåÑÉêÉåÅÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ÉíÅX= • bãéÜ~ëáë=çå=ÅìäíìêÉ=~åÇ=äÉ~êåáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=Ó=áåÅêÉ~ëáåÖ=~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíóX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=ãçêÉ=ÚÅçëãçéçäáí~å=ÑÉÉäÛI=íÜáë=ÅçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~ÅÜáÉîÉÇ=íÜêçìÖÜ= íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖW= • bñíÉåÇáåÖ=éÉÇÉëíêá~å=~êÉ~=~í=ÄçíÜ=ÉåÇëX=~åÇ= • fåíêçÇìÅáåÖ=Å~Ѩ=âáçëâë=áå=íÜÉ=ãáÇÇäÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÜáÖÜ=ëíêÉÉíK= • kÉÉÇ=åÉíïçêâ=çÑ=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉë=íç=áåíÉÖê~íÉ=_êçãäÉóÛë=~ëëÉíëX= • píêçåÖÉê==ÉãéÜ~ëáë=çå=ÅìäíìêÉ=~åÇ=äÉ~êåáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=Ó=áåÅêÉ~ëáåÖ= ~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíóX= • hÉó=êÉí~áä=ìëÉëJ=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=ÄêçìÖÜí=Ä~ÅâJ=ÉëéÉÅá~ääó=aÉé~êíãÉåí=píçêÉ= EåÉÉÇ=Ñçê=Ü~êÇï~êÉLïÜáíÉ=ÖççÇë=çìíäÉíFK=`çåÅÉêå=~Äçìí=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ= ÄÉáåÖ=íçí~ääó=í~âÉå=çîÉê=Äó=Ñ~ëÜáçåLÅ~Ѩ=çìíäÉíëX= • båîáêçåãÉåí=ÑÉÉäë=ìåë~ÑÉJ=ÇìÉ=áå=é~êí=íç=ä~Åâ=çÑ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=~ÅíáîáíóX=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 10

• sá~ÄáäáíóJ=éêçéçë~äë=ãìëí=ÄÉ=Å~é~ÄäÉ=çÑ=ÇÉäáîÉêóX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÅçåëáÇÉê=áåÅÉåíáîÉë=íç=ÄìëáåÉëëÉëX= • qáãÉí~ÄäÉ=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~ãÄáíáçìëK= = KEY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSIDERATION qÜÉ=âÉó=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=ê~áëÉÇ=~í=íÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéë=ã~ó=ÄÉ= ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=~ë=ÑçääçïëW= • fãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=~ííê~ÅíáîÉåÉëë=çÑ=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉX=~åÇ== • fãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=ë~ÑÉíó=çÑ=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK== • fãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=çÑÑÉê=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=Ñçê=~ää=~ÖÉë=Eèì~äáíó= ~åÇ=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=çÑÑÉêFX= • mêçíÉÅí=~åÇ=ÉåÜ~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉ=çÑ=_êçãäÉóX= • fãéêçîÉ=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=~åÇ=kçêíÜ=pí~íáçåë=~ë=íê~åëéçêí=áåíÉêÅÜ~åÖÉë= ~åÇ=Ö~íÉï~óëX= • mçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=áåíÉåëáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=~Åíáîáíó=~í=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜX= • j~âÉ=ÄÉííÉê=ìëÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ëáíÉëLÑ~ÅáäáíáÉëW= • iáÄê~êóX= • `áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉX=~åÇ= • `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉX= • aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=ÅáåÉã~=~=âÉó=êÉèìáêÉãÉåíX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=ÅáîáÅ=ëé~ÅÉLÜìÄ=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=áãéêçîÉÇ=~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíó=Ñçê= éìÄäáÅ=íç=`çìåÅáä=ëÉêîáÅÉëX= • kÉÉÇ=Ñçê=~ééêçéêá~íÉ=Ä~ä~åÅÉ=ÄÉíïÉÉå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=ìëÉëX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=èì~äáíó=çÑ=íÜÉ=êÉí~áä=çÑÑÉê=~åÇ=~ííê~Åí=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí= ëíçêÉEëFX= • o~íáçå~äáëÉ=é~êâáåÖ=~åÇ=ã~ñáãáëÉ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=Ñçê=ëÜ~êÉÇ=ìëÉX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=éêçíÉÅí=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~ãÉåáíóX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÄìáäÇ=çå=~ëëÉíë=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉë=~åÇ=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí=~ÅÅÉëëáÄáäáíó=~åÇ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=~ÇÇêÉëë=éêçÄäÉãë=çÑ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=ÉÅçåçãóK= m~êíáÅìä~ê=ÉãéÜ~ëáë=ï~ë=éä~ÅÉÇ=~í=ÄçíÜ=ïçêâëÜçéë=çå=áãéçêí~åÅÉ=çÑ= ÉñíÉåÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÇáîÉêëáíó=çÑ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=çÑÑÉêI=ÉåëìêáåÖ=~=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=çÑ=åÉï= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=éìÄäáÅ=êÉ~äãI=êÉí~áåáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉåÉëë=çÑ=_êçãäÉó= qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=ëÉÅìêáåÖ=áíë=ÑìíìêÉ=ã~å~ÖÉãÉåí=~åÇ=ã~áåíÉå~åÅÉK=qÜÉ= ÖÉåÉê~ä=îáÉï=ï~ë=íÜ~í=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=ï~ë=êÉèìáêÉÇ=Äìí=íÜáë=ïçìäÇ=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ= ã~å~ÖÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=íÜÉëÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉë=ïÉêÉ=~ÅÜáÉîÉÇ=~åÇ=íç=ãáåáãáëÉ=íÜÉ= áãé~Åíë=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉê=~åÇ=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå= ÅÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~ãÉåáíóK= = qÜÉëÉ=áëëìÉë=ïáää=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=~åÇ=íÉëíÉÇ=~ë=é~êí=áå=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ= îáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåëK======

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 11

3. next steps

^í=íÜÉ=ÅäçëÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéëI=íÜÉ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=íÉ~ã=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=íÜÉ=åÉñí=ëíÉéë=Ñçê= ÑìêíÜÉê=~ééê~áë~ä=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ëìÄëÉèìÉåí=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëíìÇóK=qÜÉëÉ=áåÅäìÇÉW= • oÉîáÉï=~åÇ=~å~äóëáë=çÑ=êÉëéçåëÉëX= • `çåëáÇÉê~íáçå=~åÇ=íÉëíáåÖ=çÑ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=~åÇ= íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=áëëìÉëX= • ^ÇÇáíáçå~ä=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=íÉëíáåÖX=~åÇ= • cìêíÜÉê=ãÉÉíáåÖë=ïáíÜ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=~åÇ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëK= = m~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïáää=Ü~îÉ=~å=çééçêíìåáíó=íç=ÅçåíêáÄìíÉ=íç=íÜÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=qÜêÉÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=ïáää=í~âÉ=éä~ÅÉ= ïáíÜ=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mW= == pí~ÖÉ=OW=qÜÉ=îáëáçåáåÖ=ëí~ÖÉ=Egìäó=OMMRF=ïáää=áåÅäìÇÉ=~=ëÉÅçåÇ=âÉó= ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçé=~åÇ=~=éìÄäáÅ=ÑçÅìë=ïçêâëÜçéK==qÜáë=ïáää=ÑçÅìë=çå=íÜÉ= ÑçääçïáåÖW= • bëí~ÄäáëÜáåÖ=~==îáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉóX= • fÇÉåíáÑóáåÖ=íÜÉ=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ== ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí==çéíáçåëX= • fÇÉåíáÑóáåÖ=~åÇ=~ÇÇêÉëëáåÖ=~åó=çìíëí~åÇáåÖ=ÅçåÅÉêåëX=~åÇ== • fÇÉåíáÑóáåÖ=áëëìÉë=Ñçê=ÑìêíÜÉê=íÉëíáåÖK= = pí~ÖÉ=PW=aÉîÉäçéáåÖ=íÜÉ=léíáçåë=EpÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMRF=ïáää=áåÅäìÇÉ=~=íÜáêÇ= ëÉêáÉë=çÑ==ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=~ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=~ééê~áë~ä=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= çéíáçåë= = pí~ÖÉ=QW=mêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=léíáçåë=Eg~åì~êó=OMMSF=ïáää=áåÅäìÇÉ=~=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ= ïçêâëÜçéë=~åÇ=~=éìÄäáÅ=ÉñÜáÄáíáçå=éêáçê=íç=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=^^mK= = qÜÉ=éìÄäáÅ=~åÇ=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=ïáää=Ü~îÉ=~å=çééçêíìåáíó=íç=êÉîáÉï=~åÇ= ÅçããÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=éêçéçë~äë=áå=ãçêÉ=ÇÉí~áä=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ= Åçåëìäí~íáçåK= = = = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 12 appendix A1

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=ïÉêÉ=áåîáíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=hÉó= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéW= = = = fåÇáîáÇì~ä= lêÖ~åáë~íáçå= j~íí=_Éää= jbq=mçäáÅÉJ=`çããìåáíó=m~êíåÉêëÜáéë= gáää=tÉÄÄ= _êçãäÉó=mêáã~êó=`~êÉ=qêìëí= qÜÉ=bñÉÅìíáîÉ=^Çãáåáëíê~íçê= içåÇçå=^ãÄìä~åÅÉ=pÉêîáÅÉë= pìéÉêáåíÉåÇÉåí=`Ü~êäÉë=dêáÖÖë= jbq=mçäáÅÉ== jê=`Ü~êäÉë=eçêíçå== pçìíÜÉêå=dç=~ÜÉ~Ç= j~íí=_~ää== pçìíÜÉêå=dç=~ÜÉ~Ç= jbq=mçäáÅÉJ=`êáãÉ=mêÉîÉåíáçå=aÉëáÖå= m`=jáÅÜ~Éä=i~åÉ= ^Çîáëçê= _êá~å=háêÄó= kÉíïçêâ=o~áä= jê=o=j~ëëÉíí= iáÅÉåëÉÇ=q~ñá=aêáîÉêë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=iíÇ jê=a~îÉ=pãáíÜ= i``=`óÅäáåÖ= qÜÉ=pÉÅêÉí~êó= cêÉáÖÜí=qê~åëéçêí=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=iíÇ= jê=s=píçéë= içåÇçå=qê~åëéçêí=rëÉêë=`çããáííÉÉ= `ÜáÉÑ=fåëéÉÅíçê=jáâÉ=pã~ääã~å= jbq=mçäáÅÉ=Ópb=qê~ÑÑáÅ=aáîáëáçå== içåÇçå=cáêÉ=C=`áîáä=aÉÑÉåÅÉ= jë=h~êÉå=dççÅÜ= ^ìíÜçêáíó=EpçìíÜÉêå=`çãã~åÇF= jê=d~êó=tççÇ= jÉíêçÄìë= jê=aáÅâ=e~ääÉ= içåÇçå=_ìëÉë= jê=_Éå=mäçïÇÉå= qê~åëéçêí=Ñçê=içåÇçå= jë=`~íÜÉêáåÉ=mÜáääéçííë= qÜÉ=_êáíáëÜ=jçíçêÅóÅäáëíë=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= jê=o~ó=t~íëçå= cêáÉåÇë=çÑ=íÜÉ=b~êíÜ= jê=m~ìä=eçééÉå= båîáêçåãÉåí=^ÖÉåÅó= jê=^=_óêåÉ= båÖäáëÜ=eÉêáí~ÖÉ= jê=`=jáíÅÜáëçå= `çåÑÉÇÉê~íáçå=çÑ=_êáíáëÜ=fåÇìëíêó= a~îáÇ=cçêíó= _ìëáåÉëëJcçÅìë= m~ìä=`ê~óÑçêÇ= _~åâ=çÑ=^ãÉêáÅ~= píÉîÉ=`Ü~åÇäÉê= dä~ÇÉë=pÜçééáåÖ=`ÉåíêÉ= hÉêêó=gçÜåëçå= `ÜìêÅÜáää=fåëìê~åÅÉ= jêë=gìäáÉ=jáääÉê= oçó~ä=_~åâ=çÑ=pÅçíä~åÇ=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 13

fåÇáîáÇì~ä= lêÖ~åáë~íáçå= `~êãÉä=lDkáÉää= j~êâë=~åÇ=péÉåÅÉêÛë= = mêáã~êâ= m~íêáÅâ=t~ää= _êçãäÉó=`çìêí=eçíÉä=E_Éëí=tÉëíÉêåF= aÉêÉâ=káÅÜçääë= `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ= jê=d=v=v~íÉë= _êçãäÉó=qê~ÇÉë=råáçå=`çìåÅáä= jê=j=_~ä~~ãê= içåÇçå=qçìêáëí=_ç~êÇ= dáää=e~óåÉë= k~íáçå~ä=`ÜáäÇãáåÇáåÖ=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jê=a~îáÇ=j~áå= pçìíÜ=içåÇçå=_ìëáåÉëë= =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 14 appendix A2

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê= tçêâëÜçéW= = = aÉêÉâ=mçïÉää= i_=_êçãäÉó=oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= = m~íêáÅâ=t~ää= _êçãäÉó=`çìêí=eçíÉä= ^Äáçä~= fãçìâÜìÉÇÉ= =

`Ü~êäçííÉ=_ÉÇÇçÉ= _êçãäÉó=^Çìäí=bÇìÅ~íáçå=`çääÉÖÉ= píÉîÉ=`Ü~åÇäÉê= qÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë= a~îáÇ=j~áå= pçìíÜ=içåÇçå=_ìëáåÉëë=

_êá~å=`ççâÉ= içåÇçå=qê~åëéçêí=rëÉêë=`çããáííÉÉ= iÉÉ=e~êîÉó= cáêÉ=pí~íáçå= káÅâ=`çääáåë= båÖäáëÜ=eÉêáí~ÖÉ=

j~êÅ=qáãäáã= i__J=eÉêáí~ÖÉ=~åÇ=rêÄ~å=aÉëáÖå== ^åÇêÉï=eáäÉó= qciJ==i~åÇ=rëÉ=mä~ååáåÖ= `~êçäóå=iÉïáë= _êçãäÉó=mq`= _~êÉåÇ=sÉääÉã~å= k`j^= `~êçäáåÉ=q~íÅÜÉää= k`j^= ^êÅÜáÉ=^îÉêó= içåÇçå=_ìëÉë=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 15 appendix A3

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=ïÉêÉ=áåîáíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=hÉó= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéW= =

Individual Organisation jê=hÉå=pãáíÜ= mÉÇÉëíêá~åë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=

= mÉÇÉëíêá~å=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jê=cêÉÇ=táäâáåëçå= _êçãäÉó=C=_áÖÖáå=eáää=^êÉ~= jê=o=i~ïëçå= qÜÉ=_êçãäÉó=oç~Ç=^Åíáçå=dêçìé= jê=t=pÉ~êÄó= cÉÇÉê~íáçå=çÑ=oÉëáÇÉåíë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=

jê=t=o=tççÇ= i_=_êçãäÉó=oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= jê=q=_êçïå= mÉçéäÉ=táíÜ=aáë~ÄáäáíáÉë= jë=d=^=pÜáéäÉó= oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jê=q=_~åÑáÉäÇ= eÉ~êí=çÑ=_êçãäÉó= jê=f~å=_êçÇáÉ= _êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=^Åíáçå=dêçìé= jë=e=`Ü~ãÄÉêë= ^ÅÅÉëë=dêçìé= jê=g=jÅdáää= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÜìêÅÜ= jê=j=^òÉÉò= jáåçêáíó=bíÜåáÅ=cçêìã= jáÅÜ~Éä=gçåÉë== _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ= j~àçê=f~å=m~óåÉ= qçïå=`Ü~éä~áå== gìÇó=cìääÉê= `çããìåáíó=iáåâ= j~ìêÉÉå=c~ääçå= ^ÖÉ=`çåÅÉêå= jê=a=g=tççÇ= dêçìé=C=`áîáÅ=pçÅáÉíó= páãçå=^åëíêÉó= _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=oÉëáÇÉåíë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= = = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 16 appendix A4

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê= tçêâëÜçéW= = f~å=_êçÇáÉ= _êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=^Åíáçå=dêçìé= gçå~íÜ~å=jÅdáää== _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÜìêÅÜ= páãçå=^åëíêÉó== _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=oÉëáÇÉåíë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= a~îáÇ=tççÇ== dêçìé=C=`áîáÅ=pçÅáÉíó= oçÖÉê=i~ïëçå= qÜÉ=_êçãäÉó=oç~Ç=^Åíáçå=dêçìé= gÉÑÑ=oçóÅÉ= = qçåó=_~åÑáÉäÇ= eÉ~êí=çÑ=_êçãäÉó= jáÅÜ~Éä=píÉîÉåë= _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ= _êìÅÉ=^åÇÉêëçå= _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 17 appendix A5

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS CONSULTANT TEAM ATTENDEES = gç~åå~=`Ü~ãÄÉêë= ba^t= jáÅâ=qáãéëçå= ba^t= s~ìÖÜ~å=^åÇÉêëçå== ba^t= dêÉÖ=`~ää~ÖÜ~å== mÉíÉê=_êÉíí=^ëëçÅá~íÉë= ^åÇêÉï=tÉÉÇçå= mÉíÉê=_êÉíí=^ëëçÅá~íÉë= == = ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS LB BROMLEY ATTENDEES = cê~åâ=tÜáíáåÖ= qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=mêçàÉÅí=aáêÉÅíçê= oáí~=tÉëíäçíçêå= eÉ~Ç=çÑ=mä~ååáåÖ=mêçàÉÅí=j~å~ÖÉãÉåí= == = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan

STAGE 2: ‘Creating the vision for Bromley’

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

SUMMARY REPORT

September 2005

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE table of contents

= 1 INTRODUCTION

2 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

3 SUMMARY

4 NEXT STEPS

APPENDICES = A1: KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES A2: PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 1

Acknowledgement qÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=~åÇ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=~êÉ=Öê~íÉÑìä=Ñçê=íÜÉ= íáãÉ=~åÇ=áåéìí=çÑ=~ää=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëI=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëI=äçÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ= äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=Öêçìéë=ïÜç=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=Ú`êÉ~íáåÖ=íÜÉ=sáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉóÛ= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéë=çå=íÜÉ=NUíÜ=~åÇ=OSíÜ=çÑ=gìäó=OMMRK=qÜÉ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê= ïçêâëÜçéë=Ñçêã=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=ÇÉëáÖå=éêçÅÉëë=~åÇ=ïÉêÉ=ÇÉëáÖåÉÇ= íç=ÉåëìêÉ=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=îáÉïë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=~åÇ=äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=Öêçìéë=áåÑçêã=íÜÉ= É~êäó=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=^Åíáçå=^êÉ~=mä~å=éêçÅÉëëK=táíÜçìí=íÜÉ=ÇÉÇáÅ~íÉÇ=ÉÑÑçêíë=çÑ= ~ää=é~êíáÅáé~åíëI=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ïçìäÇ=åçí=Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=éçëëáÄäÉK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 2

1. introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáí~êó=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=mä~å=êÉîáÉïI=íÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ= _êçãäÉó=áë=ÅìêêÉåíäó=éêÉé~êáåÖ=~=DåÉïJëíóäÉD=^êÉ~=^Åíáçå=mä~å=E^^mF=Ñçê= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=íÜÉ=éçäáÅó=Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=~åÇ=ÖìáÇÉ=ÑìíìêÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíêÉK= = b~êäáÉê=íÜáë=óÉ~ê=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=ÅçããáëëáçåÉÇ=~=ãìäíáJÇáëÅáéäáå~êó=íÉ~ã=äÉÇ=Äó= êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=~åÇ=ã~ëíÉêéä~ååáåÖ=Åçåëìäí~åíë=ba^tI=íç=Å~êêó=çìí=êÉëÉ~êÅÜ= ~åÇ=íç=ïçêâ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áå=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=tÜÉå= ÅçãéäÉíÉÇI=íÜÉ=^^m=ïáää=Ñçêã=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáäÛë=içÅ~ä=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí= cê~ãÉïçêâ=EiacFI=ïÜáÅÜ=ïáää=ÉîÉåíì~ääó=êÉéä~ÅÉ=íÜÉ=~ÇçéíÉÇ=råáí~êó= aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=mä~åK==qÜÉ=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=^^m=ïáää=~äëç=~Åí=~ë=~å= áåîÉëíãÉåí=Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=~åÇ=ÖìáÇÉ=íç=ÇÉîÉäçéÉêëI=íÜÉ=äçÅ~ä=éä~ååáåÖ=~ìíÜçêáíó= ~åÇ=çíÜÉê=éìÄäáÅ=~ÖÉåÅáÉëK= = qÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=áë=ïçêâáåÖ=ÅäçëÉäó=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=~åÇ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=áå= íÜÉ=éêçÇìÅíáçå=çÑ=~=îáëáçå=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉI=íÜÉ=Éëí~ÄäáëÜãÉåí=çÑ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=ÇÉëáÖå=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=ÇÉí~áäÉÇ=éä~ååáåÖ= éçäáÅáÉë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = qÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áë=êÉèìáêÉÇ=íç=ìåÇÉêí~âÉ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=~í=É~ÅÜ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ= éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=qÜÉ=éêçÖê~ããÉ=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=áåÅäìÇÉë=~=åìãÄÉê= çÑ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ=ÉîÉåíë=~í=É~ÅÜ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëK=qÜÉ=ëí~ÖÉë=ÅçãéêáëÉW= = • pí~ÖÉ=NW=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíáÉë=oÉîáÉïX= • pí~ÖÉ=OW=`êÉ~íáåÖ=~=sáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉóX= • pí~ÖÉ=PW=aÉîÉäçéáåÖ=íÜÉ=léíáçåëX=~åÇ= • pí~ÖÉ=QW=mêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=léíáçåëK== = qÜáë=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=~ééêç~ÅÜ=íç=éä~å=ã~âáåÖ=áë=Ñìääó=ëìééçêíÉÇ=~åÇ= ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉÇ=Äó=dçîÉêåãÉåí=~åÇ=~áãë=íç=ãáíáÖ~íÉ=éçíÉåíá~ä=ÅçåÑäáÅí=íÜêçìÖÜ= ÇáëÅìëëáçåK==fí=ëÉÉâë=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=ÚÄìóJáåÛ=Äó=íÜÉ=î~êáçìë=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëK==^í=íÜÉ= ë~ãÉ=íáãÉI=íÜÉ=éêçÅÉëë=áë=ÇêáîÉå=Äó=íÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=ìåÇÉêëí~åÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=åÉÉÇë= çÑ=íÜÉ=Åçããìåáíó=áå=íÜÉ=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíáÉë=ëí~ÖÉ=~åÇ=~ÇÇêÉëëáåÖ=íÜÉëÉ= áå=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=îáëáçå=~åÇ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë= Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK==qÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=íÜêÉÉ=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=ïáää= áåÑçêã=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=~åÇ=êÉÑáåÉãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ= éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=áåíç=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=^^mK=== = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 3

1.2 CONSULTATION PROCESS qÜÉ=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=éêçÅÉëë=~ääçïë=éçíÉåíá~ä=Åçåëíê~áåíëI= çééçêíìåáíáÉë=~åÇ=~ëéáê~íáçåë=íç=ÄÉ=íÜçêçìÖÜäó=Éñ~ãáåÉÇ=Äó=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ= é~êíáÉëK==fí=ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉë=áååçî~íáîÉ=ëçäìíáçåë=íç=áëëìÉë=ëìÅÜ=~ë=íê~åëéçêíI=ãáñ=çÑ= ìëÉë=~åÇ=ÇÉëáÖåK==_ó=~ÇçéíáåÖ=~=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=~ééêç~ÅÜI=íÜÉ=ÉãéÜ~ëáë=áë=çå= ÇÉîÉäçéáåÖ=ÅêÉ~íáîÉ=ëçäìíáçåë=Ñçê=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=~åÇ=áëëìÉë=ëéÉÅáÑáÅ=íç=íÜÉ= íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=Åçåëìäí~íáçåI=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã= Ñ~Åáäáí~íÉÇ=~=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=çå=ÄÉÜ~äÑ=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áå=j~ó= OMMR=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=íÜÉ=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK= qÜáë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ÉîÉåíëW= = NK hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=j~ó=OMMR=EÇ~óíáãÉFX=~åÇ== OK mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=j~ó=OMMR=EÉîÉåáåÖFK== = qÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=Çê~ï=çå=íÜÉ=îáÉïëI=~ëéáê~íáçåë=~åÇ= ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=~=ïáÇÉ=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ=é~êíáÉë=~åÇ=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=íÜÉ=âÉó= áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=íç=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=áå=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK==== = qÜÉ=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=ïçêâëÜçéë=êÉéêÉëÉåíÉÇ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=ã~àçê=ëíÉé=áå= éêÉé~êáåÖ=íÜÉ=^^mK==qÜÉ=ÅçããÉåíë=êÉÅÉáîÉÇ=ïÉêÉ=~å~äóëÉÇ=~åÇ=êÉéçêíÉÇ= Ä~Åâ=~í=íÜÉ=sáëáçåáåÖ=tçêâëÜçéë=ÜÉäÇ=áå=ÇìêáåÖ=gìäó=OMMRK= = ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëÉÅçåÇ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=Åçåëìäí~íáçåI=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã= ~Ö~áå=Ñ~Åáäáí~íÉÇ=~=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=çå=ÄÉÜ~äÑ=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä= ÇìêáåÖ=gìäó=OMMR=íç=ÇáëÅìëë=~åÇ=ÄÉÖáå=íç=ÇÉîÉäçé=~=îáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó= qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK=qÜáë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ÉîÉåíëW= = NK hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=NUíÜ=gìäó=OMMRX=~åÇ== OK mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=gìäó=OMMR= = qÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=îáëáçåáåÖ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=Çê~ï=çå=íÜÉ=îáÉïëI= ~ëéáê~íáçåë=~åÇ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=~=ïáÇÉ=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ=é~êíáÉëI=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=~= îáëáçå=~åÇ=íç=áåîÉëíáÖ~íÉ=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=çÑ=íÜÉ= ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=íÜ~í=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=ïáíÜáå= íÜÉ=^^mK= = qÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéë=ÄêçìÖÜí=íçÖÉíÜÉê=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëJ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëI=âÉó= _êçãäÉó=`çìåÅáä=çÑÑáÅÉêëI=ëí~íìíçêó=~ÖÉåÅáÉëI=äçÅ~ä=ÄìëáåÉëëÉëI=ä~åÇ=çïåÉêë== ~åÇ=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=çÑ=äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=~åÇ=êÉëáÇÉåíë=Öêçìéë=íç=àçáåíäó= áåîÉëíáÖ~íÉ=éçëëáÄáäáíáÉë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÑìíìêÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉI=íÜêçìÖÜ=~=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ= ïçêâëÜçéëK==^=Ñìää=äáëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=Öêçìéë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=áåîáíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ= sáëáçåáåÖ=ïçêâëÜçéë=áë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=áå=^ééÉåÇáñ=^N=~åÇ=^OK= = qÜáë=êÉéçêíI=éêÉé~êÉÇ=Äó=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ãI=éêçîáÇÉë=~å=~ÅÅçìåí=çÑ=íÜÉ= éêçÅÉÉÇáåÖë=~åÇ=ëìãã~êáëÉë=íÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=O=sáëáçåáåÖ= tçêâëÜçéëK= = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 4 2. Stage 2 Workshops

2.1 OVERVIEW qÜÉ=áåíÉåíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=O=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëÛ=tçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=áåÑçêã=âÉó= ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëI=ÇáëÅìëë=~åÇ=ÄÉÖáå=íç=ÇÉîÉäçé=~=îáëáçå= Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=~åÇ=íç=Éñ~ãáåÉ=âÉó=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=^^mK=

2.2 INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS _çíÜ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=~åÇ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=tçêâëÜçéë=ÅçããÉåÅÉÇ=ïáíÜ= áåíêçÇìÅíçêó=ÅçããÉåíë=Ñêçã=cê~åâ=tÜáíáåÖI=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=mêçàÉÅí=aáêÉÅíçê=~í= íÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉóK=eÉ=ïÉäÅçãÉÇ=é~êíáÅáé~åíëI=Éñéä~áåÉÇ=íÜÉ= ÖÉåÉê~ä=éêçÅÉÉÇáåÖë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåíë=~åÇ=áåíêçÇìÅÉÇ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ãK=qÜáë= ï~ë=ÑçääçïÉÇ=Äó=~=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=éêçàÉÅí=íÉ~ã=~åÇ=çåÉ=íÜÉãÉÇ= ÇáëÅìëëáçå=ëÉëëáçå=~åÇ=~=ëé~íá~ä=ÉñÉêÅáëÉK=_çíÜ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ïÉêÉ=ÜÉäÇ=áå= `çããìåáíó=eçìëÉI=pçìíÜ=píêÉÉíI=_êçãäÉóK=

2.3 CONSULTANT PRESENTATION qÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=ÇÉäáîÉêÉÇ=~=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=~í=ÄçíÜ=ÉîÉåíë=ïÜáÅÜ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ= çå=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖX= • ^áãë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=~åÇ=éêçÖê~ããÉ=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåíX= • qÜÉ=^êÉ~=^Åíáçå=mä~å=éêçÅÉëëX= • mêçàÉÅí=éêçÖê~ããÉX== • cÉÉÇÄ~Åâ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíó=tçêâëÜçéëX= • `çåëáÇÉê~íáçå=~åÇ=Éñ~ãéäÉë=çÑ=ÉäÉãÉåíë=íÜ~í=ã~âÉ=~=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ= ëìÅÅÉëëÑìä=Åçãé~êÉÇ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ëáíì~íáçå=áå=_êçãäÉóX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=éêáåÅáéäÉëX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÜáëíçêáÅ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉI=ram=ëáíÉëI=íÜÉ=ÅçåëÉêî~íáçå=~êÉ~=~åÇ= âÉó=çééçêíìåáíó=~êÉ~ëX= • bñéä~å~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=áëëìÉë=íç=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=áå=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=ÄêÉ~âçìí= ëÉëëáçåëX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=êÉèìáêÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ãáñ=áå=_êçãäÉóX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=éçëëáÄäÉ=~äíÉêå~íáîÉ=äçÅ~íáçåë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÑìíìêÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=ã~áå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=ìëÉëX=~åÇ== • `ä~êáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=åÉñí=ëí~ÖÉë=áå=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëK= = aìêáåÖ=~åÇ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ= ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉÇ=íç=ÉåÖ~ÖÉ=áå=ÇáëÅìëëáçåë=~åÇ=íç=ëÜ~êÉ=íÜÉáê=îáÉïë=ïáíÜ=çíÜÉê= é~êíáÅáé~åíëK=qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ëÉÅíáçåë=ëìãã~êáëÉë=íÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉëÉ= ÇáëÅìëëáçåëK= = 2.4 FIRST INTERACTIVE SESSION: GETTING THE PRINCIPLES RIGHT qÜÉ=Ñáêëí=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå=Ñçê=ÄçíÜ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=~åÇ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë= tçêâëÜçéë=ÅçåëáëíÉÇ=çÑ=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ÄÉáåÖ=~ëâÉÇ=ïÜÉíÜÉê=íÜÉó=~ÖêÉÉÇ=ïáíÜ= íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=éêáåÅáéäÉë=äáëíÉÇ=ÄÉäçïW= • ^=ãçêÉ=îáÄê~åí=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=~å=ÉñíÉåÇÉÇ=çÑÑÉêX=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 5

• ^=ãçêÉ=ëìëí~áå~ÄäÉ=ÅÉåíêÉJ=~=éä~ÅÉ=íç=ëÜçéI=ïçêâI=ëéÉåÇ=äÉáëìêÉ=íáãÉ=~åÇ= äáîÉX= • ^=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ë~ÑÉ=ÉåîáêçåãÉåíX= • ^=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ÄìáäÇáåÖë=~åÇ=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉëX= • ^å=~ÅÅÉëëáÄäÉ=~åÇ=áåÅäìëáîÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX= • ^=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=Å~é~Åáíó=Ñçê=éä~ååÉÇ=ÖêçïíÜX= • ^=Ç~óíáãÉ=~åÇ=åáÖÜí=íáãÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX=~åÇ== • ^=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïÜáÅÜ=ÄìáäÇë=çå=áíë=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉK= = qÜÉ=âÉó=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=ÅçããÉåíë=ê~áëÉÇ=~êÉ=ÇÉí~áäÉÇ=áå=ëÉÅíáçå=OKS=~åÇ=OKTK= = 2.5 SECOND INTERACTIVE SESSION: SPATIAL EXERCISE táíÜáå=íÜÉ=ëÉÅçåÇ=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå=íÜÉ=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ëéäáí=áåíç=ëã~ää=Öêçìéë= ïÜÉêÉ=íÜÉó=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=~ëéÉÅíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= çéíáçåë=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ÇáëíêáÄìíáçå=çÑ=ä~åÇ=ìëÉë=íÜêçìÖÜçìí=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK=aìêáåÖ= íÜÉ=ëÉëëáçå=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=Å~êêáÉÇ=çìí=~=ëé~íá~ä=ÉñÉêÅáëÉ=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=íÜÉ=éçëëáÄäÉ= ëé~íá~ä=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=Ñçê=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = SPATIAL EXERCISE: b~ÅÜ=ÄêÉ~âçìí=Öêçìé=ï~ë=éêçîáÇÉÇ=ïáíÜ=~=Ä~ëÉ=éä~å=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=~= ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ÅçäçìêÉÇ=ëèì~êÉë=íÜ~í=êÉéêÉëÉåíÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåí=ä~åÇ=ìëÉë=íç=ÄÉ= ~ÅÅçããçÇ~íÉÇ=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK== = qÜÉ=ëèì~êÉë=éêçîáÇÉÇ=êÉéêÉëÉåíÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ä~åÇ=ìëÉëX= =

qÜÉ=Öêçìéë=ïÉêÉ=~ëâÉÇ=íç=ÅçåëáÇÉê=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=ä~óçìí=çÑ=íÜÉ=~ÄçîÉ=ä~åÇ=ìëÉë= ~åÇ=íÜÉ=äáåâ~ÖÉë=íç=~åÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉãK=cçê=É~ÅÜ=ä~åÇ=ìëÉ=ãìäíáéäÉ=Å~êÇë=ïÉêÉ= éêçîáÇÉÇ=íç=~ääçï=íÜÉ=Öêçìéë=íç=áÇÉåíáÑó=íÜÉ=èì~åíìã=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=íÜÉó= ÑÉäí=ï~ë=~ééêçéêá~íÉ=áå=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK== = b~ÅÜ=Öêçìé=éêçÇìÅÉÇ=~å=çéíáçå=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=ïÜáÅÜ=~ÅÅçããçÇ~íÉÇ=~=ëÉäÉÅíáçå= çÑ=íÜÉ=éêçéçëÉÇ=ä~åÇ=ìëÉ=Äó=~êê~åÖáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÅçäçìêÉÇ=ëèì~êÉë=áå=~=ä~óçìí=çå= íÜÉ=Ä~ëÉ=éä~åK=^=éÜçíçÖê~éÜáÅ=êÉÅçêÇ=çÑ=~ää=çéíáçåë=ï~ë=í~âÉåK==

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 6

= cçê=~=ÇÉí~áäÉÇ=~ÅÅçìåí=~åÇ=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=çéíáçåë=éêçÇìÅÉÇ=áå=ÄçíÜ= ïçêâëÜçéë=êÉÑÉê=íç=ëÉÅíáçåë=OKS=~åÇ=OKTK=

2.6 KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (18TH JULY 2005) qÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=Äó=OM=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã= î~êáçìë=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=Öêçìéë=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ëí~íìíçêó=ÄçÇáÉëI=íê~åëéçêí= ÄçÇáÉëI=äçÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=äçÅ~ä=ÉãéäçóÉêëK=== = OUTCOMES FROM THE FIRST INTERACTIVE SESSION: GETTING THE PRINCIPLES RIGHT ^ë=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=éêÉîáçìëäóI=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= éêáåÅáéäÉë=äáëíÉÇ=ÄÉäçï=ïÉêÉ=ÇáëÅìëëÉÇW= • ^=ãçêÉ=îáÄê~åí=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=~å=ÉñíÉåÇÉÇ=çÑÑÉêX= • ^=ãçêÉ=ëìëí~áå~ÄäÉ=ÅÉåíêÉJ=~=éä~ÅÉ=íç=ëÜçéI=ïçêâI=ëéÉåÇ=äÉáëìêÉ=íáãÉ=~åÇ= äáîÉX= • ^=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ë~ÑÉ=ÉåîáêçåãÉåíX= • ^=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ÄìáäÇáåÖë=~åÇ=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉëX= • ^å=~ÅÅÉëëáÄäÉ=~åÇ=áåÅäìëáîÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX= • ^=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=Å~é~Åáíó=Ñçê=éä~ååÉÇ=ÖêçïíÜX= • ^=Ç~óíáãÉ=~åÇ=åáÖÜí=íáãÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX=~åÇ== • ^=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïÜáÅÜ=ÄìáäÇë=çå=áíë=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉK= = qÜÉ=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ=ÖÉåÉê~ääó=áå=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=~ÄçîÉ=éêáåÅáéäÉë= ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉÅçãÉ=íÜÉ=Ä~ëáë=çÑ=~=sáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉóK=líÜÉê=âÉó=áëëìÉë=~åÇ= ÅçããÉåíë=ê~áëÉÇ=áåÅäìÇÉÇW= • qÜÉêÉ=~êÉ=î~êáÉÇ=ëíóäÉë=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ïáíÜáå=_êçãäÉóK=få=íÜÉ=ÑìíìêÉ= íÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=Ñçê=~=ÅççêÇáå~íÉÇ=~ééêç~ÅÜ=íç=éä~ååáåÖ=~åÇ=ÇÉëáÖåX= • fãéêçîÉ=çêáÉåí~íáçå=~åÇ=ãçîÉãÉåí=~êçìåÇ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ=áë=íÜÉ=çåäó=íÜÉ~íêÉ=áå=içåÇçå=íÜ~í=Ü~ë=äçïÉê= ~ííÉåÇ~åÅÉ=ê~íÉë=çå=íÜÉ=ïÉÉâÉåÇ=íÜ~å=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=ïÉÉâX= • båÅçìê~ÖÉ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=Å~Ѩ=~åÇ=Ä~êëX= • `çåëáÇÉê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=~ë=“~=éä~ÅÉ=íç=äÉ~êåÒX= • iáåâ=~Çìäí=ÉÇìÅ~íáçå=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïáíÜ=~åó=åÉï=äáÄê~êó=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX= • qÜÉ=äáÄê~êó=áë=ÅìêêÉåíäó=ÜçìëÉÇ=áå=~å=áãéê~ÅíáÅ~ä=ëé~ÅÉ=EçîÉê=ëÉîÉê~ä= äÉîÉäëFX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=ä~Åâ=çÑ=áåÑçêã~íáçå=çå=_êçãäÉóÛë=ÜáëíçêóX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÇáîÉêëáÑó=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=çÑÑÉê=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉX=~åÇ= • båÅçìê~ÖÉ=ãçêÉ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~äçåÖ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíK==

OUTCOMES FROM THE SECOND INTERACTIVE SESSION: SPATIAL EXERCISE qÜÉ=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ëéäáí=áåíç=íïç=Öêçìéë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ëÉÅçåÇ=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå= ïÜáÅÜ=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑìíìêÉ=ÇáëíêáÄìíáçå=~åÇ=íóéÉ=çÑ=ä~åÇ=ìëÉë=~Åêçëë=íÜÉ= íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK=aìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=ëÉëëáçåë=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=Å~êêáÉÇ=çìí=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=ÉñÉêÅáëÉ= íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=íÜÉáê=áåáíá~ä=áÇÉ~ë=çå=íÜÉ=éçëëáÄäÉ=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=Ñçê=íÜÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK== =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 7

qÜÉ=çìíÅçãÉë=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=ÉñÉêÅáëÉ=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=ÄÉäçïK= = GROUP 1. = léíáçå=N= =

= = qÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=çìíÅçãÉ=Ñçê=léíáçå=N=Å~å=ÄÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=~ë=ÑçääçïëW= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=~Åíáîáíó=ÜìÄ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ=~êçìåÇ=kçêíÜ=_êçãäÉó= pí~íáçå=ÅçåëáëíáåÖ=çÑ=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~åÇ=çÑÑáÅÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=Åçããìåáíó=~êçìåÇ=íÜÉ=eáää=`~ê=m~êâ=ïáíÜ=ÜáÖÜ= ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~äI=íÜÉ=êÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=iáÄê~êóI=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=~åÇ=íÜÉ= éêçîáëáçå=çÑ=~=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=Åçããìåáíó=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=Åìäíìê~ä=ÜìÄ=~êçìåÇ=~=åÉï=íçïå=ëèì~êÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ= `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉI=~=ãìäíáéäÉñ=ÅáåÉã~I=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~åÇ= ~ÇÇáíáçå~ä=Ä~ëÉãÉåí=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖX=

• aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~êçìåÇ=íÜÉ=éÉêáãÉíÉê=çÑ= nìÉÉåë=d~êÇÉåëX=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 8

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉ=~åÇ=ÑççÇëíçêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ= m~îáäáçåX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=~ÅÅÉëë=ÄêáÇÖÉ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=íç=~=êÉäçÅ~íÉÇ= äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~êÉ~=ïÉëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=~åÇ= ÅçåëçäáÇ~íÉ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=lÑÑáÅÉë=íç=íÜÉ=åçêíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëáíÉX==

• aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÜçíÉä=~åÇ=Ä~ê=~êÉ~=çå=íÜÉ=ÅçêåÉê=çÑ=oáåÖÉêë= oç~Ç=~åÇ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=

• oÉí~áå=tÉëíãçêÉä~åÇ=`~ê=m~êâ=Ñçê=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=~åÇ=

• aÉîÉäçé=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~ë=é~êí=çÑ=~=ëí~íáçå= ìéÖê~ÇÉK=

=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 9

léíáçå=OK= =

= = qÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=çìíÅçãÉ=Ñçê=léíáçå=O=Å~å=ÄÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=~ë=ÑçääçïëW= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=~Åíáîáíó=ÜìÄ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ=~êçìåÇ=kçêíÜ=_êçãäÉó= pí~íáçå=ÅçåëáëíáåÖ=çÑ=~=ÑççÇëíçêÉI=Äìë=ëí~íáçåI=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=ÜçìëáåÖ= ~åÇ=çÑÑáÅÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=Åçããìåáíó=çå=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáää=`~ê=m~êâ= ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=çÑ=~=åÉï=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=ëìêêçìåÇÉÇ=Äó=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó= êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíëX=

• fãéêçîÉ=äáåâ~ÖÉë=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=åÉï=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=çå=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáää= `~ê=m~êâ=íç=~=åÉï=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=çå=íÜÉ=p~áåëÄìêó=ëáíÉX=

• `çãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=p~áåëÄìêó=ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=~=åÉï= çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉI=êÉÅçåÑáÖìêÉÇ=ÑççÇëíçêÉI=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖI=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó= êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=Åçããìåáíó=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=

• aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÜçíÉä=~åÇ=Ä~ê=~êÉ~=~í=íÜÉ=åçêíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ= píêÉÉíX=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 10

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=íçïå=ëèì~êÉ=ëìêêçìåÇÉÇ=Äó=íÜÉ=`ÜìêÅÜáää= qÜÉ~íêÉI=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíëI=~=åÉï=äáÄê~êó=~åÇ=Åçããìåáíó= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=

• `çãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí= áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíI=Ä~êë=~åÇ= êÉëí~ìê~åíëI=~=ãìäíáéäÉñ=ÅáåÉã~I=~=åÉï=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉI=êÉí~áä=ìåáíë= ~åÇ=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~îáäáçåX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=~ÅÅÉëë=ÄêáÇÖÉ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=íç=~=êÉäçÅ~íÉÇ= äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~êÉ~=ïÉëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=~åÇ= ÅçåëçäáÇ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=lÑÑáÅÉë=íç=íÜÉ=åçêíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ==

• aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÜçíÉä=çå=íÜÉ=ÅçêåÉê=çÑ=oáåÖÉêë=oç~Ç=~åÇ=íÜÉ= eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=

• oÉí~áå=tÉëíãçêÉä~åÇ=`~ê=m~êâ=Ñçê=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïáíÜ=~ÇÇáíáçå= çÑ=~=Äìë=íÉêãáå~ä=~åÇ=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=ÜçìëáåÖX=~åÇ=

• aÉîÉäçé=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=ÜçìëáåÖI=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=~åÇ=êÉí~áä=ìåáíë=~ë=é~êí=çÑ= íÜÉ=ìéÖê~ÇÉ=íç=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=pí~íáçåK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 11

GROUP 2 léíáçå=NK= =

qÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=çìíÅçãÉ=Ñçê=léíáçå=N=Å~å=ÄÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=~ë=ÑçääçïëW= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=~Åíáîáíó=ÜìÄ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ=~êçìåÇ=kçêíÜ=_êçãäÉó= pí~íáçå=ÅçåëáëíáåÖ=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=lÑÑáÅÉë=~åÇ=ÖÉåÉê~ä=çÑÑáÅÉ=éêçîáëáçåX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí=ëÜìííäÉ=ÄÉíïÉÉå=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ= pí~íáçå=~åÇ=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=pí~íáçåX==

• léÉå=ìé=íÜÉ=éÉÇÉëíêá~åáëÉÇ=ëÉÅíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ= ÉîÉåáåÖëX== • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=ÅçãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=ãáñ=ìëÉ=~êÉ~=~í=íÜÉ=eáää=`~êâ=m~êâ=~êÉ~= ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=çÑ=~=ãìäíá=ëíçêó=Å~ê=é~êâI=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíI=~=ÑççÇëíçêÉ=ïáíÜ=áåíÉÖê~íÉÇ=ãìäíáéäÉñ=ÅáåÉã~X= • ^ÇÇáíáçå=çÑ=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~ÄçîÉ=íÜÉ= ÉñáëíáåÖ=p~áåëÄìêóX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=éìÄäáÅ=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=çå=`çääÉÖÉ=dêÉÉåX=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 12

• aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~êçìåÇ=íÜÉ=éÉêáãÉíÉê=çÑ= nìÉÉåë=d~êÇÉåëX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~îáäáçåX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ä~åÇëÅ~éÉÇ=ÖêÉÉå=ÄêáÇÖÉ=Ñêçã=nìÉÉåë=d~êÇÉåë= çîÉê=hÉåíáëÜ=t~ó=íç=~=êÉäçÅ~íÉÇ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ= ëáíÉX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=äçï=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~êÉ~=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=~åÇ=åçêíÜ= çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX=

• oÉÑìêÄáëÜãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~ä~ÅÉ=~ë=~=ÜçíÉä=~åÇ=ÅçåÑÉêÉåÅÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX==

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=íçïå=ëèì~êÉ=ëìêêçìåÇÉÇ=Äó=íÜÉ=`ÜìêÅÜáää= qÜÉ~íêÉI=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíëI=~=åÉï=äáÄê~êó=~åÇ=Åçããìåáíó= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉI=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä= ~åÇ=êÉí~áä=ìåáíë=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=

• oÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=tÉëíãçêÉä~åÇ=`~ê=m~êâ=~ë=~=ãáñÉÇ=ìëÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=çÑ=çÑÑáÅÉë=~åÇ=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~äX=~åÇ=

• oÉÇÉîÉäçé=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=pí~íáçå=~ë=~=ÅçãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=ãáñÉÇ=ìëÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~äI=êÉí~áä=ìåáíëI=~= ÜçíÉä=~åÇ=~=íê~åëéçêí=áåíÉêÅÜ~åÖÉX==

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=áåÑêçåí=çÑ=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=pí~íáçåX=~åÇ=

• oÉÇÉîÉäçé=t~áíêçëÉ=Ñçê=~=ä~êÖÉ=ÑççÇëíçêÉ=ïáíÜ=~=åÉï=ä~åÇëÅ~éÉÇ= Ö~íÉï~óK==

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 13

2.7 PUBLIC FOCUS WORKSHOP (26 JULY 2005) qÜÉ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=tçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=Äó=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã=äçÅ~ä= áåíÉêÉëíI=êÉëáÇÉåí=~åÇ=~ãÉåáíó=ÖêçìéëK== = OUTCOMES FROM THE FIRST INTERACTIVE SESSION: GETTING THE PRINCIPLES RIGHT ^ë=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=éêÉîáçìëäóI=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= éêáåÅáéäÉë=äáëíÉÇ=ÄÉäçï=ïÉêÉ=ÇáëÅìëëÉÇW= • ^=ãçêÉ=îáÄê~åí=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=~å=ÉñíÉåÇÉÇ=çÑÑÉêX= • ^=ãçêÉ=ëìëí~áå~ÄäÉ=ÅÉåíêÉJ=~=éä~ÅÉ=íç=ëÜçéI=ïçêâI=ëéÉåÇ=äÉáëìêÉ=íáãÉ=~åÇ= äáîÉX= • ^=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ë~ÑÉ=ÉåîáêçåãÉåíX= • ^=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=ÄìáäÇáåÖë=~åÇ=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉëX= • ^å=~ÅÅÉëëáÄäÉ=~åÇ=áåÅäìëáîÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX= • ^=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=Å~é~Åáíó=Ñçê=éä~ååÉÇ=ÖêçïíÜX= • ^=Ç~óíáãÉ=~åÇ=åáÖÜí=íáãÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX=~åÇ== • ^=ÅÉåíêÉ=ïÜáÅÜ=ÄìáäÇë=çå=áíë=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉK= = qÜÉ=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ=ÖÉåÉê~ääó=áå=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=~ÄçîÉ=éêáåÅáéäÉë= ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉÅçãÉ=íÜÉ=Ä~ëáë=çÑ=~=sáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉóK=líÜÉê=âÉó=áëëìÉë=~åÇ= ÅçããÉåíë=ê~áëÉÇ=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÇáëÅìëëáçå=áåÅäìÇÉÇW= • fãéçêí~åí=íç=ÅêÉ~íÉ=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉ=~êÉ~ë=~äçåÖ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=äáãáíÉÇ=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ÅäçëÉ=íç=íÜÉ=`ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉX== • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=íç=áåÅêÉ~ëÉ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=çÑÑÉê=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=Ñçê=~ää= ~ÖÉ=ÖêçìéëX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=ä~Åâ=çÑ=éÉêÑçêã~åÅÉ=~åÇ=~ÅíáîáíáÉë=ëé~ÅÉX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=ÚÅìäíìê~ä=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉÛ=áå=_êçãäÉóX= • qÜÉ=ä~êÖÉëí=Çê~ï=íç=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=áë=êÉí~áäÉêëX= • qÜÉ=ëÜçééáåÖ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=áå=_êçãäÉó=áë=ÄÉÅçãáåÖ=Ää~åÇ=~åÇ= ìåáåíÉêÉëíáåÖX= • eçï=ÇçÉë=_êçãäÉó=Åçãé~êÉ=íç=iÉïáëÜ~ã=~åÇ=_êáÖÜíçå\X= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=ä~Åâ=çÑ=~ééêçéêá~íÉ=ëáíÉë=Ñçê=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=Ñçê=óçìåÖ=éÉçéäÉ=Eëâ~íÉ=é~êâFX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÑáåÇ=~=äçÅ~íáçå=Ñçê=~=`çåÅÉêí=e~ää=EäççâÉÇ=Ñçê=~=ëáíÉ=áå=íÜÉ=é~ëíFX= • `~å=éä~ååáåÖ=Ö~áå=ÄÉ=ìëÉÇ=~ë=~=ãÉ~åë=çÑ=ÑìåÇáåÖ=Åìäíìê~ä=~ÅíáîáíáÉëX= • m~îáäáçå=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=êÉí~áåÉÇ=~ë=áí=áë=~å=áãéçêí~åí=Åçããìåáíó=Ñ~ÅáäáíóX= • píêÉÉí=äÉîÉä=ëÜçéÑêçåíë=~êÉ=çÑ=~=éççê=èì~äáíó=EÄä~åÇFK=qÜÉ=Ñáêëí=Ñäççê=~åÇ= ~ÄçîÉ=~êÉ=çÑ=~=ÜáÖÜÉê=èì~äáíóX== • båÜ~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=ÜáëíçêáÅ=ÉåîáêçåãÉåí=~êçìåÇ=íÜÉ=läÇ=qçïå=e~ää=ã~êâÉí= ëèì~êÉ=~êÉ~X= • fë=íÜÉêÉ=ÇÉã~åÇLåÉÉÇ=Ñçê=~ÇÇáíáçå~ä=aÉé~êíãÉåí=píçêÉë\X= • e~êÇ=íç=éìêÅÜ~ëÉ=~åóíÜáåÖ=çíÜÉê=íÜ~å=ÅäçíÜÉë=~åÇ=ëÜçÉë=çå=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ= píêÉÉíX=~åÇ= • qÜÉ=ÉåîáêçåãÉåí=áå=_êçãäÉó=åÉÉÇë=íç=ÄÉ=çÑ=~=ÜáÖÜÉê=èì~äáíó=íç=~ííê~Åí=~= ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 14

OUTCOMES FROM THE SECOND INTERACTIVE SESSION: SPATIAL EXERCISE ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëÉÅçåÇ=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçåI=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ=~ëâÉÇ=íç=ÅçåëáÇÉê= íÜÉ=ÇáëíêáÄìíáçå=çÑ=ä~åÇ=ìëÉë=íÜêçìÖÜçìí=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK=aìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=ëÉëëáçå= é~êíáÅáé~åíë=Å~êêáÉÇ=çìí=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=ÉñÉêÅáëÉ=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=íÜÉáê=áåáíá~ä=áÇÉ~ë=çå= íÜÉ=éçëëáÄäÉ=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ëáíÉK== = qÜÉ=çìíÅçãÉë=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=ÉñÉêÅáëÉ=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=ÄÉäçïK======qÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=çìíÅçãÉ=Ñçê=léíáçå=N=Å~å=ÄÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=~ë=ÑçääçïëW= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=~Åíáîáíó=ÜìÄ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ=~êçìåÇ=kçêíÜ=_êçãäÉó= pí~íáçå=ÅçåëáëíáåÖ=çÑ=~=åÉï=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉI=çÑÑáÅÉëI=~=ÑççÇëíçêÉI=Ä~êë= ~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíëI=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=~åÇ=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~äX=

• aÉîÉäçé=~ÇÇáíáçå~ä=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~äçåÖ=b~ëí=píêÉÉíX==

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 15

• oÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=p~áåëÄìêó=ëáíÉ=íç=áåÅäìÇÉ=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó= êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíI=ëã~ää=êÉí~áä=ìåáíëI=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~åÇ= áãéêçîÉÇ=äáåâë=íç=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=ÅçãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=ãáñ=ìëÉ=~êÉ~=~í=íÜÉ=eáää=`~êâ=m~êâ=~êÉ~= ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÑççÇëíçêÉI=ãÉÇáìã=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~äI=~=åÉï= äáÄê~êó=~åÇ=~ëëçÅá~íÉÇ=Åçããìåáíó=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëI=~=åÉï=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=~åÇ= Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíëX= • aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=äçï=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~ÅÅçããçÇ~íáçå=~åÇ=åÉï= çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=çå=íÜÉ=ÅçêåÉê=çÑ=qïÉÉÇó=oç~Ç=~åÇ=içåÇçå=oç~ÇX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=íçïå=ëèì~êÉ=çå=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • fåíêçÇìÅíáçå=çÑ=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=çå=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=~åÇ=ÑççÇ=ëíçêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=ëáíÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ= m~îáäáçåX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÄêáÇÖÉ=Ñêçã=dä~ÇÉë=çîÉê=hÉåíáëÜ=t~ó=íç=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ= `ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX=

• `çãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉ=íç=áåÅäìÇÉ=~= åÉï=äçï=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~êÉ~=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëíI=~=åÉï=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=íç= íÜÉ=åçêíÜ=~åÇ=ÅçåëçäáÇ~íÉÇ=`áîáÅ=lÑÑáÅÉêë=íç=íÜÉX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉ=ëìêêçìåÇÉÇ=Äó=íÜÉ=`ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉI= Åçããìåáíó=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=~åÇ=åÉï=êÉí~áä=éêÉãáëÉëX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉI=äçï=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~åÇ= êÉí~áä=ìåáíë=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=

• oÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=tÉëíãçêÉä~åÇ=`~ê=m~êâ=~ë=~=ãáñÉÇ=ìëÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=çÑ=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=~åÇ=~=ãìäíáéäÉñ=ÅáåÉã~X= ~åÇ=

• oÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó=pí~íáçå=~ë=~=ÅçãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=ãáñÉÇ= ìëÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ÅçãéêáëáåÖ=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=êÉëáÇÉåíá~äI=~=ÜçíÉä=~åÇ= êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~åÇ=Ä~êëX=~åÇ==

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=íê~åëéçêí=áåíÉêÅÜ~åÖÉ=çééçëáíÉ=pçìíÜ=_êçãäÉó= pí~íáçåK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 16

3. Summary

táíÜáå=ÄçíÜ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=~åÇ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=sáëáçåáåÖ= tçêâëÜçéë=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=~êÉ~ë=çÑ=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=ïÉêÉ=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇW= • båÜ~åÅÉÇ=êçäÉ=~åÇ=ÑìåÅíáçåX==

• píêçåÖÉê=òçåÉë=çÑ=~ÅíáîáíóJ=äÉáëìêÉI=ÅìäíìêÉX=

• oÉëéÉÅí=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉ=~åÇ=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉêX==

• dÉåÉê~ä=ëìééçêí=Ñçê=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=~åÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX==

• pìééçêí=Ñçê=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=

• pìééçêí=Ñçê=ÅçåëçäáÇ~íáçå=çÑ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉX=

• bñíÉåëáçå=çÑ=dä~ÇÉëLêÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=äÉáëìêÉX=

• _~ä~åÅÉÇ=ãáñ=çÑ=ìëÉë=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ëáÖåáÑáÅ~åí=åÉï=ÜçìëáåÖX=

• fãéêçîÉÇ=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí=~åÇ=êçäÉ=çÑ=áåíÉêÅÜ~åÖÉëX=~åÇ=

• mêçãçíÉ=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉ=~êÅÜáíÉÅíìêÉ=~åÇ=í~ää=ÄìáäÇáåÖë=áå=~ééêçéêá~íÉ= äçÅ~íáçåëK== cçääçïáåÖ=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçéë=íÜÉ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=íÉ~ã=Ü~îÉ=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=íÜ~í=êÉèìáêÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê=Éñéäçê~íáçå=~åÇ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=íÉëíáåÖ=~ë= é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=åÉñí=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëI=íÜáë=áåÅäìÇÉëW== • içÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=iáÄê~êóLäÉáëìêÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=

• cìíìêÉ=çÑ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉLäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=ÅáîáÅ=ÑìåÅíáçåëX=

• pÅ~äÉ=~åÇ=Ñçêã=çÑ=åÉï=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíJ=éáÉÅÉãÉ~äLÅçãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ\X=

• cìíìêÉ=ìëÉ=çÑ=âÉó=ëíê~íÉÖáÅ=ëáíÉëX=

• cìíìêÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~îáäáçåX=

• içÅ~íáçåLëÅ~äÉ=çÑ=åÉï=êÉí~áä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX=

• bñíÉåíLã~å~ÖÉãÉåí=çÑ=éÉÇÉëíêá~åáëÉÇ=~êÉ~ëX=~åÇ=

• qê~åëéçêí=áåíÉêÅÜ~åÖÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëK==

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 17 4. Next Steps

^í=íÜÉ=ÅäçëÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéëI=íÜÉ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=íÉ~ã=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=íÜÉ=åÉñí=ëíÉéë=Ñçê= ÑìêíÜÉê=~ééê~áë~ä=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ëìÄëÉèìÉåí=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëíìÇóK=qÜÉëÉ=áåÅäìÇÉW= • oÉîáÉï=~åÇ=~å~äóëáë=çÑ=êÉëéçåëÉëX= • `çåëáÇÉê~íáçå=~åÇ=ÑìêíÜÉê=íÉëíáåÖ=çÑ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=~åÇ= íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=áëëìÉëX=~åÇ= • cìêíÜÉê=ãÉÉíáåÖë=ïáíÜ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=~åÇ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëK= = m~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïáää=Ü~îÉ=~å=çééçêíìåáíó=íç=ÅçåíêáÄìíÉ=íç=íÜÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=qïç=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=ïáää=í~âÉ=éä~ÅÉ= ïáíÜ=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mW= == • pí~ÖÉ=PW=aÉîÉäçéáåÖ=íÜÉ=léíáçåë=EpÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMRF=ïáää=áåÅäìÇÉ=~=íÜáêÇ= ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=~ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=~ééê~áë~ä=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí= çéíáçåëX=~åÇ= • pí~ÖÉ=QW=mêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=léíáçåë=Eg~åì~êó=OMMSF=ïáää=áåÅäìÇÉ=~=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ= ïçêâëÜçéë=~åÇ=~=éìÄäáÅ=ÉñÜáÄáíáçå=éêáçê=íç=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=^^mK= = qÜÉ=éìÄäáÅ=~åÇ=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=ïáää=Ü~îÉ=~å=çééçêíìåáíó=íç=êÉîáÉï=~åÇ= ÅçããÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=éêçéçë~äë=áå=ãçêÉ=ÇÉí~áä=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ= Åçåëìäí~íáçåK= = qÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=P=ïçêâëÜçéë=ïáää=áåÑçêã=~åÇ=ÅçåíêáÄìíÉ=íç=íÜÉ=Ñçêãìä~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ= éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK=qÜÉëÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=ïáää=ÄÉ=éêÉëÉåíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáäÛë=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí= `çåíêçä=`çããáííÉÉ=áå=lÅíçÄÉê=OMMR=~åÇ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=~åó=êÉÑáåÉãÉåíI=íÜÉ= éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=çéíáçå=ïáää=ÄÉ=ëìÄàÉÅí=íç=~=éÉêáçÇ=çÑ=éìÄäáÅ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=Epí~ÖÉ=QF=áå= É~êäó=OMMSK= = = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 18 appendix A1

VISIONING KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=ïÉêÉ=áåîáíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=hÉó= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéW= = fåÇáîáÇì~ä= lêÖ~åáë~íáçå= j~íí=_Éää= _êçãäÉó=mçäáÅÉ=pí~íáçå== gáää=tÉÄÄ= _~ëëÉííë=eçìëÉ= qÜÉ=bñÉÅìíáîÉ=^Çãáåáëíê~íçê= içåÇçå=^ãÄìä~åÅÉ=pÉêîáÅÉë= pìéÉêáåíÉåÇÉåí=`Ü~êäÉë=dêáÖÖë= _êçãäÉó=mçäáÅÉ=pí~íáçå== jê=`Ü~êäÉë=eçêíçå== pçìíÜÉêå=dç=~ÜÉ~Ç=eçìëÉ j~íí=_~ää== pçìíÜÉêå=dç=~ÜÉ~Ç=eçìëÉ= jbq=mçäáÅÉJ=`êáãÉ=mêÉîÉåíáçå=aÉëáÖå= m`=jáÅÜ~Éä=i~åÉ= ^Çîáëçê= _êá~å=háêÄó= kÉíïçêâ=o~áä=Ó=qÜÉ=mçÇáìã= jê=o=j~ëëÉíí= iáÅÉåëÉÇ=q~ñá=aêáîÉêë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=iíÇ jê=a~îÉ=pãáíÜ= i``=`óÅäáåÖ= qÜÉ=pÉÅêÉí~êó= cêÉáÖÜí=qê~åëéçêí=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=iíÇ= jê=s=píçéë= içåÇçå=qê~åëéçêí=rëÉêë=`çããáííÉÉ= _êá~å=`ççâÉ= içåÇçå=qê~åëéçêí=rëÉêë=`çããáííÉÉ= `ÜáÉÑ=fåëéÉÅíçê=jáâÉ=pã~ääã~å= jbq=mçäáÅÉ=Ópb=qê~ÑÑáÅ=aáîáëáçå== içåÇçå=cáêÉ=C=`áîáä=aÉÑÉåÅÉ= jë=h~êÉå=dççÅÜ= ^ìíÜçêáíó=EpçìíÜÉêå=`çãã~åÇF= jê=d~êó=tççÇ= jÉíêçÄìë= jê=aáÅâ=e~ääÉ= içåÇçå=_ìëÉë= ^Äáçä~=fãçìâÜìÉÇÉ= içåÇçå=_ìëÉë= qê~åëéçêí= Ñçê= içåÇçå= Ó= i~åÇ= rëÉ= jê=_Éå=mäçïÇÉå= mä~ååáåÖ= jë=`~íÜÉêáåÉ=mÜáääéçííë= qÜÉ=_êáíáëÜ=jçíçêÅóÅäáëíë=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= jê=m~ìä=eçééÉå= båîáêçåãÉåí=^ÖÉåÅó= jê=^=_óêåÉ= båÖäáëÜ=eÉêáí~ÖÉ= jê=`=jáíÅÜáëçå= `çåÑÉÇÉê~íáçå=çÑ=_êáíáëÜ=fåÇìëíêó= a~îáÇ=cçêíó= _ìëáåÉëëJcçÅìë= m~ìä=`ê~óÑçêÇ= _~åâ=çÑ=^ãÉêáÅ~= píÉîÉ=`Ü~åÇäÉê= dä~ÇÉë=pÜçééáåÖ=`ÉåíêÉ= hÉêêó=gçÜåëçå= `ÜìêÅÜáää=fåëìê~åÅÉ= jê=o=g=eçéâáåë= `ÜìêÅÜáää=Ñáå~åÅá~ä=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= jêë=gìäáÉ=jáääÉê= oçó~ä=_~åâ=çÑ=pÅçíä~åÇ=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 19

fåÇáîáÇì~ä= lêÖ~åáë~íáçå= `~êãÉä=lDkáÉää= j~êâë=~åÇ=péÉåÅÉê=mäÅ= jê=j~êâ=lÛ`çååçê= j~êâë=~åÇ=péÉåÅÉê=mäÅ= m~íêáÅâ=t~ää= _êçãäÉó=`çìêí=eçíÉä=E_Éëí=tÉëíÉêåF= jê=`Üêáë=däçîÉê= `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ= jê=d=v=v~íÉë= _êçãäÉó=qê~ÇÉë=råáçå=`çìåÅáä= jê=j=_~ä~~ãê= içåÇçå=qçìêáëí=_ç~êÇ= jê=a~îáÇ=j~áå= pçìíÜ=içåÇçå=_ìëáåÉëë= jáÅÜ~Éä=tÜÉÉäÉê= _êçãäÉó=^Çìäí=bÇìÅ~íáçå=`ÉåíêÉ= `Ü~êäçííÉ=_ÉÇÇçÉ= _êçãäÉó=^Çìäí=bÇìÅ~íáçå=`ÉåíêÉ= aÉêáÅâ=mçïÉää= i_=_êçãäÉó=oÉëáÇåíëÛ=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= jáëë=p~ê~Ü=_ê~ÇäÉó= ^îêç=mäÅ= _~âÉê=qáääó= jê=^Çêá~å=eçää~åÇë= _al=píçó=e~óï~êÇ= jë=`=pÉñíçå= _ep=iíÇ= jêë=d=_áëÜçé= `~ãÄÉêÑçêÇ=i~ï=mäÅ= jê=o=aáãáåáÉìñ= `ä~êâë=pÜçÉë=iíÇ= jê=mÉíÉê=_êçïå= `çëãçë=`ç~ÅÜ=qçìêë=iíÇ= jê=q=_=táääá~ãëçå= `çëãçë~áê=mäÅ= jêë=o=_~êåÉë= `óëíáÅ=cáÄêçëáë=qêìëí= jê=káÖÉä=mçìäíçå= aÉÄÉåÜ~ãë= jê=a~îáÇ=qÜçêéÉ= cáêëí=qáíäÉ=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= jê=d=m~é~ÖÉçêÖáçì= dÉçiçÖáëíáÅë=iíÇ= jê=gçÜå=q~óäçê= e~ëïÉää=`çåëìäíáåÖ=båÖáåÉÉêë= jë=jÉêÅÉÇÉë=v~ëêìÇÇáå= gìÇÖÉ=~åÇ=mêáÉëíäó= jê=g~ëçå=c~Üó= iáÄÉê~í~= jê=qáã=açìÖä~ë= jÅaçå~äÇÛë=oÉëí~ìê~åíë=iíÇ= jê=hÉîáå=_áÄÄ= jÅaçå~äÇÛë=oÉëí~ìê~åíë=iíÇ= jê=^åÇêÉï=wáÉäáåëâá= jp_=fåíÉêå~íáçå~ä=mäÅ= jê=^åÇêÉï=`~êíÉê= kÉñí=oÉí~áä=mäÅ= jë=g~Åâó=iÉçå~êÇ= m~îáäáçå=iÉáëìêÉ=`ÉåíêÉ= jêë=`=pÉÇÖïáÅâ= mÉääáåÖë= jê=t=pìääáî~å= mêáã~êâ= jê=o=j=^ìîê~ó= mêçëéÉÅíë=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= jê=qçåó=háåÖ= oçó~ä=j~áä= jê=oçÖÉê=_êçãäÉó= oìëëÉää=~åÇ=_êçãäÉó=iíÇ= jë=_~êåÉë= p~áåëÄìêó=pìéÉêã~êâÉíë=iíÇ= jê=e=m=açïåÉê= pÉäÉÅíáçå=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= jê=gçÜå=_~êâÉê= pÉí=~åÇ=píêáâÉ=iíÇ= jêë=pÜ~êçå=tççÇë= qÜ~Åâê~ó=táääá~ãë= jê=m=j=iìåå= qÜ~ãÉë=`êÉÇáí=iíÇ= jêë=káÅçäÉ=q~óäçê= qÜÉ=tÉëíãÉêá~=kìêëáåÖ=`ÉåíêÉ= jê=píÉîÉ=qÜçãëçå= qÜçãëçå=fåíÉêãÉÇá~=mäÅ= jê=f~å=dáäãçìê= s~å=^ãÉóÇÉ=~åÇ=t~ääáë=iíÇ= jê=m=ráåÖë= tççäïçêíÜë= jÉäîóå=a~îáë= táääá~ã=^åÇêÉïë=C=`ç= jê=^åÇêÉï=eáíÅÜ= qÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=jÉêÅÜ~åíë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jêë=`~êçäóå=iÉïáë= _êçãäÉó=mq`=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 20

jê=_~êÉåÇ=sÉääÉã~å= k`j^= jë=`~êçäáåÉ=q~íÅÜÉää= k`j^= jê=^êÅÜáÉ=^îÉêó= = jê=píÉîÉ=mêáÅÉ= _êçãäÉó=jóíáãÉ= jê=hÉáíÜ=bñÑçêÇ= ^ÑÑáåáíó=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 21 appendix A2

VISIONING PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=ïÉêÉ=áåîáíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=hÉó= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéW= =

Individual Organisation jê=hÉå=pãáíÜ= mÉÇÉëíêá~åë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jê=cêÉÇ=táäâáåëçå= _êçãäÉó=C=_áÖÖáå=eáää=^êÉ~= jê=o=i~ïëçå= qÜÉ=_êçãäÉó=oç~Ç=^Åíáçå=dêçìé=

jê=t=o=tççÇ= i_=_êçãäÉó=oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= jê=q=_êçïå= mÉçéäÉ=táíÜ=aáë~ÄáäáíáÉë= jê=d=pÜáéäÉó= oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jë=o=pÜáéäÉó= oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jê=q=_~åÑáÉäÇ= eÉ~êí=çÑ=_êçãäÉó= jê=f~å=_êçÇáÉ= _êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=^Åíáçå=dêçìé= jë=e=`Ü~ãÄÉêë= ^ÅÅÉëë=dêçìé= jê=g=jÅdáää= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÜìêÅÜ= jê=j=^òÉÉò= jáåçêáíó=bíÜåáÅ=cçêìã= jáÅÜ~Éä=gçåÉë== _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ= j~àçê=f~å=m~óåÉ= qçïå=`Ü~éä~áå== gìÇó=cìääÉê= `çããìåáíó=iáåâ= j~ìêÉÉå=c~ääçå= ^ÖÉ=`çåÅÉêå= jê=a=g=tççÇ= dêçìé=C=`áîáÅ=pçÅáÉíó= páãçå=^åëíêÉó= _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=oÉëáÇÉåíë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= gÉÑÑ=oçóÅÉ= = jáÅÜ~Éä=píÉîÉåë= _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ= _êìÅÉ=^åÇÉêëçå= = jê=o~ó=t~íëçå= cêáÉåÇë=çÑ=íÜÉ=b~êíÜ= aÉêÉâ=mçïÉää= i__oc= = = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan

STAGE 3: ‘Options for Bromley’

STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

SUMMARY REPORT

October 2005

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE table of contents

= 1 INTRODUCTION

2 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

3 SUMMARY

4 NEXT STEPS

APPENDICES = APPENDIX 1: OPTIONS KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES APPENDIX 2: OPTIONS KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES APPENDIX 3: OPTIONS PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES APPENDIX 4: OPTIONS PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES

=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 1

Acknowledgement qÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=~åÇ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=~êÉ=Öê~íÉÑìä=Ñçê=íÜÉ= íáãÉ=~åÇ=áåéìí=çÑ=~ää=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëI=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëI=äçÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ= äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=Öêçìéë=ïÜç=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÚqÜÉ=léíáçåë=tçêâëÜçéëÛ=ÜÉäÇ= çå=íÜÉ=NVíÜ=pÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMRK=qÜÉ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=Ñçêã=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ= Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=ÇÉëáÖå=éêçÅÉëë=~åÇ=ïÉêÉ=ÇÉëáÖåÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=îáÉïë=çÑ= ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=~åÇ=äçÅ~ä=áåíÉêÉëí=Öêçìéë=áåÑçêã=íÜÉ=^Åíáçå=^êÉ~=mä~å=éêçÅÉëëK= táíÜçìí=íÜÉ=ÇÉÇáÅ~íÉÇ=ÉÑÑçêíë=çÑ=~ää=é~êíáÅáé~åíëI=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ïçìäÇ=åçí= Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=éçëëáÄäÉK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 2

1. introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND qÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=áë=ÅìêêÉåíäó=éêÉé~êáåÖ=~=DåÉïJëíóäÉD=^êÉ~= ^Åíáçå=mä~å=E^^mF=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=íÜÉ=éçäáÅó= Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=~åÇ=ÖìáÇÉ=ÑìíìêÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíêÉK= = b~êäó=áå=OMMR=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=ÅçããáëëáçåÉÇ=~=ãìäíáJÇáëÅáéäáå~êó=íÉ~ã=äÉÇ=Äó= êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=~åÇ=ã~ëíÉêéä~ååáåÖ=Åçåëìäí~åíë=ba^tI=íç=Å~êêó=çìí=êÉëÉ~êÅÜ= ~åÇ=íç=ïçêâ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áå=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=tÜÉå= ÅçãéäÉíÉÇI=íÜÉ=^^m=ïáää=Ñçêã=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáäÛë=içÅ~ä=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí= cê~ãÉïçêâ=EiacFI=ïÜáÅÜ=ïáää=ÉîÉåíì~ääó=êÉéä~ÅÉ=íÜÉ=~ÇçéíÉÇ=råáí~êó= aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=mä~åK==qÜÉ=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=^^m=ïáää=~äëç=~Åí=~ë=~å= áåîÉëíãÉåí=Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=~åÇ=ÖìáÇÉ=íç=ÇÉîÉäçéÉêëI=íÜÉ=äçÅ~ä=éä~ååáåÖ=~ìíÜçêáíó= ~åÇ=çíÜÉê=éìÄäáÅ=~ÖÉåÅáÉëK= = qÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=áë=ïçêâáåÖ=ÅäçëÉäó=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=~åÇ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=áå= íÜÉ=éêçÇìÅíáçå=çÑ=~=îáëáçå=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉI=íÜÉ=Éëí~ÄäáëÜãÉåí=çÑ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=ÇÉëáÖå=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=ÇÉí~áäÉÇ=éä~ååáåÖ= éçäáÅáÉë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = qÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áë=êÉèìáêÉÇ=íç=ìåÇÉêí~âÉ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=~í=É~ÅÜ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ= éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=qÜÉ=éêçÖê~ããÉ=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=áåÅäìÇÉë=~=åìãÄÉê= çÑ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ=ÉîÉåíë=~í=É~ÅÜ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëK=qÜÉ=ëí~ÖÉë=ÅçãéêáëÉW= = • pí~ÖÉ=NW=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíáÉë=oÉîáÉï=Ej~ó=OMMRFX=

• pí~ÖÉ=OW=`êÉ~íáåÖ=~=sáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=Egìäó=OMMRFX=

• pí~ÖÉ=PW=aÉîÉäçéáåÖ=íÜÉ=léíáçåë=EpÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMRFX=~åÇ=

• pí~ÖÉ=QW=mêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=léíáçåë=Eg~åì~êóLcÉÄêì~êó=OMMSFK==

= qÜáë=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=~ééêç~ÅÜ=íç=éä~å=ã~âáåÖ=áë=Ñìääó=ëìééçêíÉÇ=~åÇ= ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉÇ=Äó=dçîÉêåãÉåí=~åÇ=~áãë=íç=ãáíáÖ~íÉ=éçíÉåíá~ä=ÅçåÑäáÅí=íÜêçìÖÜ= ÇáëÅìëëáçåK==fí=ëÉÉâë=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=ÚÄìóJáåÛ=Äó=íÜÉ=î~êáçìë=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëK==^í=íÜÉ= ë~ãÉ=íáãÉI=íÜÉ=éêçÅÉëë=áë=ÇêáîÉå=Äó=íÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=ìåÇÉêëí~åÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=åÉÉÇë= çÑ=íÜÉ=Åçããìåáíó=áå=íÜÉ=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíáÉë=ëí~ÖÉ=~åÇ=~ÇÇêÉëëáåÖ=íÜÉëÉ= áå=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=îáëáçå=~åÇ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë= Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK==qÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=íÜêÉÉ=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=ïáää= áåÑçêã=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=~åÇ=êÉÑáåÉãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ= éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåëK=== = qÜáë=êÉéçêíI=éêçîáÇÉë=~å=~ÅÅçìåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=éêçÅÉÉÇáåÖë=~åÇ=ëìãã~êáëÉë=íÜÉ= çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=P=ïçêâëÜçéëK= = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 3

1.2 CONSULTATION PROCESS qÜÉ=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=éêçÅÉëë=~ääçïë=éçíÉåíá~ä=Åçåëíê~áåíëI= çééçêíìåáíáÉë=~åÇ=~ëéáê~íáçåë=íç=ÄÉ=íÜçêçìÖÜäó=Éñ~ãáåÉÇ=Äó=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ= é~êíáÉëK==fí=ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉë=áååçî~íáîÉ=ëçäìíáçåë=íç=áëëìÉë=ëìÅÜ=~ë=íê~åëéçêíI=ãáñ=çÑ= ìëÉë=~åÇ=ÇÉëáÖåK==_ó=~ÇçéíáåÖ=~=Åçää~Äçê~íáîÉ=~ééêç~ÅÜI=íÜÉ=ÉãéÜ~ëáë=áë=çå= ÇÉîÉäçéáåÖ=ÅêÉ~íáîÉ=ëçäìíáçåë=ïÜáÅÜ=êÉëéçåÇ=íç=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=~åÇ=áëëìÉë= ëéÉÅáÑáÅ=íç=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = pí~ÖÉ=NW=fëëìÉë=~åÇ=lééçêíìåáíáÉë=oÉîáÉï= ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=Åçåëìäí~íáçåI=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã= Ñ~Åáäáí~íÉÇ=~=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=çå=ÄÉÜ~äÑ=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä=áå=j~ó= OMMRI=íç=ÉñéäçêÉ=íÜÉ=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK= qÜáë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ÉîÉåíëW= NK hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=j~ó=OMMR=EÇ~óíáãÉFX=~åÇ== OK mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=j~ó=OMMR=EÉîÉåáåÖFK== = qÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=Çê~ï=çå=íÜÉ=îáÉïëI=~ëéáê~íáçåë=~åÇ= ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=~=ïáÇÉ=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ=é~êíáÉë=~åÇ=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=íÜÉ=âÉó= áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=íç=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=áå=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK==== = qÜÉ=áëëìÉë=~åÇ=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=ïçêâëÜçéë=êÉéêÉëÉåíÉÇ=íÜÉ=Ñáêëí=ã~àçê=ëíÉé=áå= éêÉé~êáåÖ=íÜÉ=^^mK==qÜÉ=ÅçããÉåíë=êÉÅÉáîÉÇ=ïÉêÉ=~å~äóëÉÇ=~åÇ=êÉéçêíÉÇ= Ä~Åâ=~í=íÜÉ=sáëáçåáåÖ=tçêâëÜçéë=ÜÉäÇ=áå=ÇìêáåÖ=gìäó=OMMRK=qÜÉëÉ=çìíéìíë=~êÉ= ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=áå=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=N=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçé=pìãã~êó=oÉéçêíK= = pí~ÖÉ=OW=`êÉ~íáåÖ=~=sáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó= ^ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëÉÅçåÇ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=Åçåëìäí~íáçåI=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã= Ñ~Åáäáí~íÉÇ=~=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=çå=ÄÉÜ~äÑ=çÑ=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáä= ÇìêáåÖ=gìäó=OMMRI=íç=ÇáëÅìëë=~åÇ=ÄÉÖáå=íç=ÇÉîÉäçé=~=îáëáçå=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå= `ÉåíêÉK=qÜáë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ÉîÉåíëW= NK hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=NUíÜ=gìäó=OMMRX=~åÇ== OK mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=OSíÜ=gìäó=OMMR= = qÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=îáëáçåáåÖ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=Çê~ï=çå=íÜÉ=îáÉïëI= ~ëéáê~íáçåë=~åÇ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=~=ïáÇÉ=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ=é~êíáÉëI=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ=~= îáëáçå=~åÇ=íç=áåîÉëíáÖ~íÉ=íÜÉ=ëé~íá~ä=éêáåÅáéäÉë=~åÇ=é~ê~ãÉíÉêë=çÑ=íÜÉ= ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=íÜ~í=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~ÇÇêÉëëÉÇ=ïáíÜáå= íÜÉ=^^mK=qÜÉëÉ=çìíéìíë=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=áå=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=O=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê= tçêâëÜçé=pìãã~êó=oÉéçêíK= = pí~ÖÉ=PW=aÉîÉäçéáåÖ=íÜÉ=léíáçåë= qÜÉ=íÜáêÇ=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=ÅçåëáëíÉÇ=çÑ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã= Ñ~Åáäáí~íáåÖ=~=Ñáå~ä=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=ïçêâëÜçéë=áå=pÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMRI=íç= ÇáëÅìëë=~åÇ=Éî~äì~íÉ=íÜÉ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå= `ÉåíêÉK=qÜáë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ÉîÉåíëW= NK hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=NVíÜ=pÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMR=EÇ~óíáãÉFX=~åÇ== OK mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé=J=NVíÜ=pÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMR= EÉîÉåáåÖFK= = qÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=çéíáçåë=ïçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=~Ö~áå=íç=Çê~ï=çå=íÜÉ=îáÉïëI= ~ëéáê~íáçåë=~åÇ=ÉñéÉêáÉåÅÉ=çÑ=~=ïáÇÉ=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ=é~êíáÉëI=íç=Éëí~ÄäáëÜ= ~åÇ=Éî~äì~íÉÇ=íÜÉ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ëÅÉå~êáçë=~åÇ=ëé~íá~ä=ëíê~íÉÖó=Ñçê= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK=qÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉëÉ=ïçêâëÜçéë=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=áå= íÜáë=êÉéçêíK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 4 qÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçéë=ÜÉäÇ=ÇìêáåÖ=pí~ÖÉë=NJP=ïÉêÉ=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=Äó=~=ä~êÖÉ=åìãÄÉê=çÑ= ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëI=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåëW= • içÅ~ä=Åçããìåáíó=ÖêçìéëW=i_=_êçãäÉó=oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=cÉÇÉê~íáçåI=eÉ~êí=çÑ= _êçãäÉóI=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=^Åíáçå=dêçìéI=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=oÉëáÇÉåíë= ^ëëçÅá~íáçåI=`çããìåáíó=iáåâëI=^ÖÉ=`çåÅÉêåI=_êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉI= cêáÉåÇë=çÑ=íÜÉ=b~êíÜ=~åÇ=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÜìêÅÜX=

• bãÉêÖÉåÅó=ëÉêîáÅÉëW=içåÇçå=cáêÉ=_êáÖ~ÇÉI=içåÇçå=^ãÄìä~åÅÉ=pÉêîáÅÉë= ~åÇ=jÉíêçéçäáí~å=mçäáÅÉ=pÉêîáÅÉX=

• pí~íìíçêó=lêÖ~åáë~íáçåëW=båÖäáëÜ=eÉêáí~ÖÉI=qê~åëéçêí=Ñçê=içåÇçå=~åÇ= iáÅÉåëÉÇ=q~ñá=aêáîÉêë=^ëëçÅá~íáçåX=

• içÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=ÄìëáåÉëëÉëW=`óëíáÅ=cáÄêçëáë=qêìëíI=_êçãäÉó=^Çìäí= bÇìÅ~íáçå=`çääÉÖÉI=`ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉI=_êçãäÉó=jóíáãÉI=_êçãäÉó=m`qI= pçìíÜ=içåÇçå=_ìëáåÉëëI=_êçãäÉó=`çìêí=eçíÉäI=tççäïçêíÜëI=mêçëéÉÅíëI= `~éáí~ä=pÜçééáåÖ=`ÉåíêÉë=~åÇ=mÉääáåÖëX=~åÇ==

• líÜÉê=áåíÉêÉëíÉÇ=é~êíáÉëW=ä~åÇçïåÉêëI=éêçéÉêíó=ÇÉîÉäçéÉêë=~åÇ=~ÖÉåíëK==

^=Ñìää=äáëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=Öêçìéë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=áåîáíÉÇ=~åÇ=~ííÉåÇÉÉë=íç=íÜÉ= ïçêâëÜçéë=áë=áåÅäìÇÉÇ=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=^ééÉåÇáÅÉë=íÜ~í=Å~å=ÄÉ=ÑçìåÇ=~í=íÜÉ=êÉ~ê=çÑ= É~ÅÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=pìãã~êó=oÉéçêíëK= = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 5 2. Stage 3 Workshops

2.1 OVERVIEW qÜÉ=áåíÉåíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=P=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêëÛ=tçêâëÜçéë=ï~ë=íç=éêçîáÇÉ= ÑÉÉÇÄ~Åâ=Ñêçã=éêÉîáçìë=ïçêâëÜçéë=~åÇ=íç=ÇáëÅìëë=~åÇ=Éî~äì~íÉ=íÜÉ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ= çéíáçåë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK=

2.2 INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS _çíÜ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=~åÇ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=tçêâëÜçéë=ÅçããÉåÅÉÇ=ïáíÜ= áåíêçÇìÅíçêó=ÅçããÉåíë=Ñêçã=cê~åâ=tÜáíáåÖI=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=mêçàÉÅí=aáêÉÅíçê=~í= íÜÉ=içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉóK=eÉ=ïÉäÅçãÉÇ=é~êíáÅáé~åíëI=Éñéä~áåÉÇ=íÜÉ= ÖÉåÉê~ä=éêçÅÉÉÇáåÖë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåíë=~åÇ=áåíêçÇìÅÉÇ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ãK=qÜáë= ï~ë=ÑçääçïÉÇ=Äó=~=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=çå=íÜÉ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ= çéíáçåë=~åÇ=~=Öêçìé=ÇáëÅìëëáçå=ëÉëëáçåK=qÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=tçêâëÜçé= ï~ë=ÜÉäÇ=~í=íÜÉ=_êçãäÉó=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=~åÇ=íÜÉ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë= tçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=ÜÉäÇ=~í=`çããìåáíó=eçìëÉI=pçìíÜ=píêÉÉíI=_êçãäÉóK=

2.3 CONSULTANT PRESENTATION qÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=íÉ~ã=ÇÉäáîÉêÉÇ=~=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=~í=ÄçíÜ=ÉîÉåíë=ïÜáÅÜ=ÑçÅìëÉÇ= çå=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖX= • ^áãë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=~åÇ=éêçÖê~ããÉ=Ñçê=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåíX= • qÜÉ=^êÉ~=^Åíáçå=mä~å=éêçÅÉëëX= • mêçàÉÅí=éêçÖê~ããÉX== • cÉÉÇÄ~Åâ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=O=sáëáçåáåÖ=tçêâëÜçéëX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=âÉó=áëëìÉë=íç=ÄÉ=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=áå=ÇÉîÉäçéáåÖ=íÜÉ=çéíáçåë= Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ãáñI=âÉó=çééçêíìåáíó= ~êÉ~ëI=Ñçêã=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=~ÅÅÉëë=~åÇ=ãçîÉãÉåí=áëëìÉëX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=íÜêÉÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ëÅÉå~êáçë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=ïÜáÅÜ= ÉãÉêÖÉÇ=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=éêÉîáçìë=ïçêâëÜçéëX= • fÇÉåíáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=çéíáçåë=~åÇ=áëëìÉë=~êáëáåÖ=Ñêçã=É~ÅÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=íÜêÉÉ= ëÅÉå~êáçëX== • `çåëáÇÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=éçíÉåíá~ä=ÅêÉ~íÉÇ=~ë=~=êÉëìäí=çÑ=íÜÉ= ëÅÉå~êáçëX=~åÇ= • `ä~êáÑáÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=åÉñí=ëí~ÖÉë=áå=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëK= = aìêáåÖ=~åÇ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~åí=éêÉëÉåí~íáçå=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ= ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉÇ=íç=ÉåÖ~ÖÉ=áå=Öêçìé=ÇáëÅìëëáçåë=~åÇ=íç=ëÜ~êÉ=íÜÉáê=îáÉïë=ïáíÜ= çíÜÉê=é~êíáÅáé~åíëK=qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=ëÉÅíáçåë=ëìãã~êáëÉ=íÜÉ=çìíéìíë=çÑ=íÜÉëÉ= ÇáëÅìëëáçåëK= = 2.4 INTERACTIVE SESSION: EVALUATION OF THE OPTIONS táíÜáå=íÜÉ=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå=íÜÉ=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ëéäáí=áåíç=ëã~ää=Öêçìéë=íç= ÅçåëáÇÉê=íÜÉ=çîÉê~ää=ëé~íá~ä=ëíê~íÉÖó=~åÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ëÅÉå~êáçë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå= ÅÉåíêÉK== = DEVELOPMENT SENARIOS qÜêÉÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ëÅÉå~êáçë=ïÉêÉ=Éî~äì~íÉÇK=qÜÉëÉ=ëÉåÄ~êáçë=~êÉ=çìíäáåÉÇ= ÄÉäçï=~åÇ=ïÉêÉ=ÇÉêáîÉÇ=Ñêçã=ÑÉÉÇÄ~Åâ=êÉÅÉáîÉÇ=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=éêÉîáçìë=ëí~ÖÉë= çÑ=íÜÉ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=éêçÅÉëë=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=íÉëíáåÖ=ìåÇÉêí~âÉå=Äó= íÜÉ=éêçàÉÅí=íÉ~ãK= =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 6

SCENARIO 1: SPATIAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT SENARIO ======qÜÉ=âÉó=ÉäÉãÉåíë=çÑ=pÅÉå~êáç=N=ÅçãéêáëÉÇW= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=äÉáëìêÉ=~åÇ=ÉåíÉêí~áåãÉåí=ÑçÅìë=áå=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉX= • píêÉåÖíÜÉåáåÖ=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉ=~ë=~=ëíêçåÖ=ÇÉëíáå~íáçåX= • bñíÉåÇÉÇ=êÉí~áä=çÑÑÉê=çå=íÜÉ=m~îáäáçå=ëáíÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=êÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ= äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX= • kÉï=ãáñÉÇ=ìëÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ïáíÜ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=íç=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=~í=ÄçíÜ=ëí~íáçåëX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÅáîáÅ=ëèì~êÉ=~í=`ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉX=~åÇ= • dÉåÉê~ä=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=íç=éìÄäáÅ=êÉ~äã=~åÇ=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉëK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 7

= SCENARIO 2: SPATIAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT SENARIO ======qÜÉ=âÉó=ÉäÉãÉåíë=çÑ=pÅÉå~êáç=O=ÅçãéêáëÉÇW= • oÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ïÉëíÉêå=~åÇ=ëçìíÜÉêå=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=åÉï=êÉí~áä=ÑçÅìë=çå=íÜÉ=ïÉëíÉêå=ëáÇÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • kÉï=~åÇ=ÉñíÉåÇÉÇ=íçïå=ëèì~êÉ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=ëÉííáåÖ=çÑ=qÜÉ~íêÉL= iáÄê~êóX= • kÉï=ãáñÉÇ=ìëÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ïáíÜ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=íç=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=~í=ÄçíÜ=ëí~íáçåëX= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=åÉï=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉ=çìíëáÇÉ=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=pí~íáçåX=~åÇ= • `çåëçäáÇ~íáçå=çÑ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉK==

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 8

= SCENARIO 3: SPATIAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT SENARIO ======qÜÉ=âÉó=ÉäÉãÉåíë=çÑ=pÅÉå~êáç=P=ÅçãéêáëÉÇW= • `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ==åÉï=êÉëáÇÉåíá~äL=Åçããìåáíó=ÑçÅìë=áå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • `çãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX= • kÉï=~åÇ=ÉñíÉåÇÉÇ=êÉí~áä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=~åÇ= Éñé~åëáçå=çÑ=qÜÉ=dä~ÇÉëX== • kÉï=íçïå=ëèì~êÉ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=ëÉííáåÖ=çÑ=íÜÉ=qÜÉ~íêÉLiáÄê~êóX= • oÉáåÑçêÅÉãÉåí=çÑ=É~ëíJïÉëí=éÉÇÉëíêá~å=äáåâX= • kÉï=êÉí~áäLÅçããìåáíó=ìëÉë=~åÇ=éìÄäáÅ=ëé~ÅÉ=áå=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉX= • fåíÉÖê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=tÉëíãçêÉä~åÇ=oç~Ç=`~ê=m~êâ=ëáíÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ= píêÉÉíX=~åÇ= • kÉï=ãáñÉÇ=ìëÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ïáíÜ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=íç=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=~í=ÄçíÜ=ëí~íáçåëK= = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 9

= 2.6 KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (19TH SEPTEMBER 2005) (DAYTIME) qÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=Äó=OP=êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã= î~êáçìë=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=Öêçìéë=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ëí~íìíçêó=ÄçÇáÉëI=íê~åëéçêí= ÄçÇáÉëI=äçÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=äçÅ~ä=ÉãéäçóÉêëK==^=äáëí=çÑ=áåîáíÉÉë=~åÇ= ~ííÉåÇÉÉë=Å~å=ÄÉ=ÑçìåÇ=áå=^ééÉåÇáñ=N=~åÇ=O=êÉëéÉÅíáîÉäóK= = cçê=íÜÉ=éìêéçëÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ëéäáí= áåíç=íïç=Öêçìéë=íç=ÇáëÅìëë=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ëÅÉå~êáçë=~åÇ=çéíáçåë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó= qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK= = GROUP 1. m~êíáÅáé~åíë=áå=dêçìé=N=ïÉêÉ=áå=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=íÜ~í=pÅÉå~êáç=N=ïçìäÇ=åçí=~ÇÇêÉëë= íÜÉ=áëëìÉ=çÑ=êÉîáí~äáë~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíI=ÅêÉ~íáçå=çÑ=ëíêçåÖÉê=äáåâë= ÄÉíïÉÉå=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜI=áãéêçîÉÇ=êÉí~áä=çÑÑÉê=~åÇ=~å=áåÅêÉ~ëÉ=áå= äÉáëìêÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëK=pÅÉå~êáçë=O=~åÇ=P=ïÉêÉ=éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=~ë=íÜÉ=Ä~ëáë=Ñçê=~ÅÜáÉîáåÖ= íÜÉ=îáëáçå=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉI=áå=é~êíáÅìä~ê=íÜÉ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ= píêÉÉí=~åÇ=äáåâ~ÖÉë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜK== = qÜÉ=âÉó=ÅçããÉåíë=~åÇ=èìÉëíáçåë=ê~áëÉÇ=Äó=dêçìé=N=ÇìêáåÖ=ÇáëÅìëëáçåë=çå= íÜÉ=íÜêÉÉ=ëÅÉå~êáçë=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=ÄÉäçïW== = pÅÉå~êáç=NK= • qÜáë=ëÅÉå~êáç=ïçìäÇ=ÅêÉ~íÉ=~=éçä~êáëÉÇ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • qÜÉ=äÉîÉä=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áë=íçç=äçï=íç=ëÉÉ=íÜÉ=äÉîÉä=çÑ=ÅÜ~åÖÉë=åÉÉÇÉÇ=áå= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=íç=~ÅÜáÉîÉ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÄàÉÅíáîÉëX= • pìééçêí=Ñçê=íÜÉ=êÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=íç=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX= • tÜáäëí=íÜÉ=ÑìåÅíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=ã~ó=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=áí=ï~ë=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ= áãéçêí~åí=íÜ~í=áí=êÉã~áåë=áå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • kç=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=~ë=íç=íÜÉ=ãçëí=~ééêçéêá~íÉ=äçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=~=ÅáåÉã~=~äíÜçìÖÜ= éçíÉåíá~ä=äçÅ~íáçåë=áå=_êçãäÉó=ëçìíÜ=~åÇ=çå=qÜÉ=eáää=`~ê=m~êâ=ïÉêÉ= ÜáÖÜäáÖÜíÉÇX=~åÇ= • oÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ïÉëíÉêå=ëáÇÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=áë=êÉèìáêÉÇ=íç= éêçîáÇÉ=íÜÉ=ëíÉé=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=åÉÉÇÉÇ=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = pÅÉå~êáç=OK= • bÑÑÉÅíáîÉäó=~ÇÇêÉëëÉë=íÜÉ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíê~ä=~êÉ~=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÜáÖÜ= ëíêÉÉíX= • qÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=^êãó=C=k~îó=ëáíÉ=ïçìäÇ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íÉ=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíê~ä= ~êÉ~=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=ëáÇÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~å=~ëéáê~íáçå= ~åÇ=éêáçêáíó=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX== • `çåÅÉêå=íÜ~í=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=ëáÇÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=ïáää=ÖáîÉ= êáëÉ=íç=áåÅêÉ~ëÉÇ=íê~ÑÑáÅ=~åÇ=éìí=éêÉëëìêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=àìåÅíáçå=çÑ=hÉåíáëÜ=t~ó= ~åÇ=bäãÑáÉäÇ=oç~ÇX= • pìééçêí=Ñçê=éçíÉåíá~ä=åÉï=ÑççÇëíçêÉ=çå=qÜÉ=eáää=`~ê=m~êâ=ëáíÉ= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=ÄÉåÉÑáí=áå=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëÉêîáÅÉë=êÉã~áåáåÖ=çå=~= ÅçåëçäáÇ~íÉÇ=ëáíÉX= • `çåÅÉêå=íÜ~í=Äó=êÉäçÅ~íáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÅáåÉã~=íç=íÜÉ=tÉëíãçêÉä~åÇ=oç~Ç=Å~ê= é~êâ=ëáíÉI=íÜÉêÉ=ïçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~=ÅçåëáÇÉê~ÄäÉ=êÉÇìÅíáçå=áå=íÜÉ=åìãÄÉê=çÑ= ëé~ÅÉë=éêçîáÇÉÇ=~ë=é~êí=~åó=åÉï=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX= =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 10

• `çåÅÉêåÉÇ=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=Å~é~Åáíó=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=~åÇ=éêçéçëÉÇ=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïáää=åçí=~ÄäÉ=íç=ÅçéÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=éêçéçëÉÇ=äÉîÉä=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX= ~åÇ= • kÉÉÇ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=çÑÑáÅÉ=çÑÑÉê=íç=ãÉÉí=åÉÉÇë=LêÉí~áå=ÉñáëíáåÖ= ÄìëáåÉëëÉë=~åÇ=áå=çêÇÉê=íç=~ííê~Åí=åÉï=çéÉê~íçêëK= = pÅÉå~êáç=PK= • bÑÑÉÅíáîÉäó=~ÇÇêÉëëÉë=íÜÉ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíê~ä=~êÉ~=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÜáÖÜ= ëíêÉÉí=~åÇ=áãéêçîÉë=É~ëíJïÉëí=äáåâ~ÖÉëX= • aáëíêáÄìíáçå=çÑ=ëÉêîáÅÉë=áë=ãçêÉ=Ä~ä~åÅÉÇX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=éçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=áåÅêÉ~ëÉÇ=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=çå=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ= ëáíÉ=ïáíÜ=ÉáíÜÉê=~ÇÇáíáçå~ä=äÉîÉäë=~ÇÇÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=íçé=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ãìäíáJ= ëíçêó=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~Åáäáíó=çê=Äó=ìåÇÉêÖêçìåÇ=äÉîÉäëX= • fãéçêí~åí=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíê~ä=ÑçÅìë=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ÇçÉë=åçí=Çê~ï= íÜÉ=îáëáíçêë=ÑìêíÜÉê=~ï~ó=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=åçêíÜÉêå=~åÇ=ëçìíÜÉêå=~êÉ~ë=çÑ=íÜÉ= íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX=~åÇ== • fãéçêí~åí=íÜ~í=íÜÉ=Å~é~Åáíó=çÑ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=~åÇ=éêçéçëÉÇ=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïáää=ÄÉ=~ÄäÉ=íç=ÅçéÉ=ïáíÜ=íÜÉ=éêçéçëÉÇ=äÉîÉä=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíK= = dÉåÉê~ä=`çããÉåíë= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=éêçéçëÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áë=áåíÉÖê~íÉÇ=ïáíÜ=ëìêêçìåÇáåÖë= ~åÇ=ÇçÉë=åçí=áãé~Åí=çå=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~ãÉåáíóX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=îá~Äáäáíó=çÑ=åÉï=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX= • fãéçêí~åí=íç=Ä~ä~åÅÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ïáíÜ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=çÑ= íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=ÉãéäçóãÉåí=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=êÉëáÇÉåíëX= • qÜÉ=~êÉ~=~êçìåÇ=p~áåëÄìêóÛë=ÖÉíë=îÉêó=ÅçåÖÉëíÉÇ=~åÇ=áí=áë=åçí=~å=áÇÉ~ä= äçÅ~íáçå=Ñçê=~=ÑççÇëíçêÉX== • qÜÉ=é~êâáåÖ=éêçîáëáçå=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=Å~å=åçí=ÅçãéÉíÉ=ïáíÜ= _äìÉï~íÉê=~åÇ=íÜáë=ã~ó=ã~âÉ=áí=ÇáÑÑáÅìäí=íç=ã~âÉ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=ãçêÉ= ~ííê~ÅíáîÉX= • qÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=íç=ã~íÅÜ=íÜÉ=~ãçìåí=çÑ=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïáíÜ=ÇÉã~åÇX= • qÜÉ=áåíêçÇìÅíáçå=çÑ=é~êâ=~åÇ=êáÇÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=ïçìäÇ=~ëëáëí=áå=êÉÇìÅáåÖ=íÜÉ= éêÉëëìêÉ=çå=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=Å~ê=é~êâë=E~ë=ÇÉãçåëíê~íÉÇ=áå=`~ãÄêáÇÖÉFX= • qÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=åÉÉÇë=íç=ÄÉ=ãçêÉ=~ííê~ÅíáîÉ=~åÇ=éêçîáÇÉ=~=ÄÉííÉê=êÉí~áä= çÑÑÉê=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=ãçêÉ=éÉçéäÉ=~êÉ=åçí=äçëí=íç=_äìÉï~íÉêX=~åÇ= • få=çêÇÉê=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=íç=ëìëí~áå=~åÇ=~ííê~Åí=~=ã~àçê=ÜçíÉä=çéÉê~íçêI= íÜÉêÉ=áë=~=åÉÉÇ=íç=ã~âÉ=_êçãäÉó=~=ãçêÉ=~ííê~ÅíáîÉ=çÑÑáÅÉ=äçÅ~íáçåK= = = GROUP 2. m~êíáÅáé~åíë=áå=dêçìé=O=ïÉêÉ=~äëç=çÑ=íÜÉ=ìå~åáãçìë=îáÉï=íÜ~í=pÅÉå~êáç=N= ïçìäÇ=åçí=~ÅÜáÉîÉ=íÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉë=Ñçê=êÉîáí~äáë~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=~åÇ=íÜÉ= ÅêÉ~íáçå=çÑ=ëíêçåÖÉê=äáåâë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜK=fí=ï~ë=~ÖêÉÉÇ= íÜ~í=pÅÉå~êáçë=O=~åÇ=P=ïÉêÉ=éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=~ë=íÜÉó=ÅçìäÇ=éêçîáÇÉ=íÜÉ=åÉÅÉëë~êó= Ä~ëáë=íç=~ÅÜáÉîÉ=íÜÉ=ëíÉé=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=êÉèìáêÉÇ=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= m~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ=é~êíáÅìä~êäó=âÉÉå=íç=ëÉÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=ïÉëíÉêå=ëáÇÉ= çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíK== =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 11 qÜÉ=âÉó=ÅçããÉåíë=~åÇ=èìÉëíáçåë=ê~áëÉÇ=Äó=dêçìé=O=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=ÄÉäçïW= = pÅÉå~êáç=NK= • dççÇ=áÇÉ~=íç=êÉäçÅ~íÉ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=çå=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX= • `çåÅÉêå=íÜ~í=pÅÉå~êáç=N=ïçìäÇ=äÉ~Ç=íç=éçä~êáë~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • qÜÉ=äÉîÉä=çÑ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áë=íçç=äçï=íç=ëÉÉ=íÜÉ=äÉîÉä=çÑ=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=~åÇ= áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=åÉÉÇÉÇ=ïáíÜáå=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉX= • pìééçêí=Ñçê=~=ÖìáÇÉÇ=Äìë=ëóëíÉã=äáåâáåÖ=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜ= pí~íáçåëX= • píêçåÖ=ëìééçêí=Ñçê=íÜÉ=éêçéçëÉÇ=ÅáîáÅ=ëèì~êÉX=~åÇ= • pìééçêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~îáäáçå=Ñçê=~=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉ=~åÇ= êÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=äÉáëìêÉ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=íç=~å=~äíÉêå~íáîÉ=ëáíÉ=áå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK= = pÅÉå~êáç=OK= • bÑÑÉÅíáîÉäó=~ÇÇêÉëëÉë=íÜÉ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíê~ä=~êÉ~=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ= píêÉÉíX= • mçíÉåíá~ä=íç=ÉåÜ~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=iáÄê~êó=~åÇ=`ÜìêÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ=íç=ÅêÉ~íÉ=~=ëíêçåÖ= ÜÉ~êí=íç=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • ^ÖêÉÉãÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÑççÇëíçêÉ=~åÇ=åáÅÜÉ=êÉí~áä=ìåáíë= áå=íÜÉ=åçêíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=íç=~Åí=~ë=~å=~åÅÜçêX= • ^ÖêÉÉ=ïáíÜ=éêçéçëÉÇ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=íç=É~ëíJïÉëí=äáåâëX= • båÅçìê~ÖÉ=íÜÉ=éêçíÉÅíáçå=~åÇ=ÉåÜ~åÅÉãÉåí=çÑ=çéÉå=ëé~ÅÉëX=~åÇ= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉ=ã~àçê=éìÄäáÅ=êÉ~äã=áãéêçîÉãÉåíëK= = pÅÉå~êáç=PK= • c~îçìêÉÇ=ëÅÉå~êáç=~ë=áí=ÉÑÑÉÅíáîÉäó=~ÇÇêÉëëÉë=~ää=çéíáçåë=~åÇ=~ëéáê~íáçåëX= • pÅÉå~êáç=P=éêçîáÇÉë=~=éçëáíáîÉ=áãéêçîÉãÉåí=íç=íÜÉ=ëÉííáåÖ=çÑ=`ÜìêÅÜáää= qÜÉ~íêÉ=íÜ~í=ïáää=ê~áëÉ=íÜÉ=éêçÑáäÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=~êÉ~X= • ^ÖêÉÉ=ïáíÜ=äçÅ~íáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÅáåÉã~=áå=íÜÉ=ëçìíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=íç=ÄêáåÖ= ëçãÉ=~Åíáîáíó=~åÇ=äáÑÉ=íç=íÜÉ=~êÉ~X= • pìééçêí=Ñçê=ÅçãéêÉÜÉåëáîÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=ëçìíÜÉêå=~êÉ~=çÑ=íÜÉ= íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX=~åÇ= • pìééçêí=éêçéçë~äë=íç=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=çÑÑáÅÉ=çÑÑÉêK= = dÉåÉê~ä=`çããÉåíë= • kç=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=~ë=íç=ïÜÉêÉ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=äçÅ~íÉÇ=ÜçïÉîÉê= íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ï~ë=êÉÅçÖåáëÉÇ=~ë=~=éçíÉåíá~ä=äçÅ~íáçåX= • fãéçêí~åí=íÜ~í=~åó=éêçéçëÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=êÉëéÉÅíë=íÜÉ=ÜáëíçêáÅ=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉê= çÑ=íÜÉ=~êÉ~X= • fãéçêí~åí=íç=áåÅäìÇÉ=éçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=~=ÜáÖÜ=èì~äáíó=íê~åëáí=ÄÉíïÉÉå= _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜ=pí~íáçåëX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=ÅÉåíê~ä=~êÉ~ë=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=Äó=çéÉåáåÖ=ìé=íÜÉ= éÉÇÉëíêá~åáëÉÇ=~êÉ~=~í=åáÖÜíX= • bñáëíáåÖ=p~áåÄìêóÛë=ëáíÉ=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ=äççâÉÇ=~í=~ë=~=éçíÉåíá~ä=çééçêíìåáíó= ~êÉ~=~åÇ=~ë=é~êí=çÑ=~=äçåÖ=íÉêã=ëíê~íÉÖó=Ñçê=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=äççâ=ÑìêíÜÉê=~í=çééçêíìåáíáÉë=Ñçê=åÉï=çÑÑáÅÉ=éêçîáëáçåX= • qê~áåáåÖ=~åÇ=ÉÇìÅ~íáçå=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=éêçîáÇÉÇ=~ë=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ= éêçéçë~äëX=~åÇ= • qçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=åÉÉÇë=íç=~ííê~Åí=~=ÇÉé~êíãÉåí=ëíçêÉ=áå=íÜÉ=ëÜçêí=íÉêãK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 12

2.6 PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP (19TH SEPTEMBER 2005) (EVENING) qÜÉ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçé=ï~ë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=Äó=V= êÉéêÉëÉåí~íáîÉë=Ñêçã=î~êáçìë=äçÅ~ä=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~åÇ=Åçããìåáíó=ÖêçìéëI= áåÅäìÇáåÖ=êÉëáÇÉåíë=ÖêçìéëK==^=äáëí=çÑ=áåîáíÉÉë=~åÇ=~ííÉåÇÉÉë=Å~å=ÄÉ=ÑçìåÇ=áå= ^ééÉåÇáñ=P=~åÇ=QI=êÉëéÉÅíáîÉäóK= = aìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=áåíÉê~ÅíáîÉ=ëÉëëáçå=íÜÉ=ïçêâëÜçé=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ=~ëâÉÇ=íç= ÇáëÅìëë=íÜÉ=íÜêÉÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ëÅÉå~êáçë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK= = qÜÉ=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ=áå=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=íÜ~í=pÅÉå~êáç=O=~åÇ=P=ïçìäÇ=éêçîáÇÉ=íÜÉ= ãçëí=ÉÑÑÉÅíáîÉ=Ñê~ãÉïçêâ=~åÇ=éêçîáÇÉ=íÜÉ=ÖêÉ~íÉëí=éçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=áãéêçîáåÖ= íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK=pÅÉå~êáç=N=ï~ë=åçí=ÅçåëáÇÉêÉÇ=íç=éêçîáÇÉ=íÜÉ=äÉîÉä=çÑ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=êÉèìáêÉÇ=íç=êÉÖÉåÉê~íÉ=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉK== = tÜáäëí=íÜÉêÉ=ï~ë=ëìééçêí=çÑ=pÅÉå~êáçë=O=~åÇ=PI=~=ê~åÖÉ=çÑ=îáÉïë=ïÉêÉ= ÉñéêÉëëÉÇ=áå=êÉä~íáçå=íçW= • oÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉX= • içÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅáåÉã~X=~åÇ= • cçêã=çÑ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉK= = qÜÉ=âÉó=ÅçããÉåíë=~åÇ=áëëìÉë=ê~áëÉÇ=Äó=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=~êÉ=ëìãã~êáëÉÇ=ÄÉäçïW= = pÅÉå~êáç=NK= • açÉë=åçí=~ÇÇêÉëë=íÜÉ=âÉó=áëëìÉë=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=_êçãäÉó=áå=é~êíáÅìä~ê= ~ÅÅçããçÇ~íáçå=çÑ=åÉï=êÉí~áä=Ñäççêëé~ÅÉ=~åÇ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ= ïÉëíÉêå=ëáÇÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX= • qÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=ÅìêêÉåíäó=Ü~ë=Ää~åâ=ï~ääë=Ñ~ÅáåÖ=nìÉÉåë=d~êÇÉåJ=íÜÉ= éêçéçë~ä=íç=áåíêçÇìÅÉ=Ä~êë=~åÇ=êÉëí~ìê~åíë=~êçìåÇ=íÜÉ=éÉêáéÜÉêó= ïáää=ÄêáåÖ=äáÑÉ=~åÇ=~Åíáîáíó=áåíç=íÜÉ=Ö~êÇÉåëX= • oÉÇÉîÉäçéáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=Ñçê=êÉí~áä=ïáää=áåÅêÉ~ëÉ=íÜÉ= Ççãáå~åÅÉ=çÑ=qÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=~åÇ=ïçìäÇ=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÄÉ=Ä~ä~åÅÉÇ=Äó= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=ÉäëÉïÜÉêÉ=áå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX=~åÇ== • qÜÉ=m~îáäáçå=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉ=áë=~å=áãéçêí~åí=Åçããìåáíó=~ëëÉí=~åÇ= ëÜçìäÇ=êÉã~áå=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉ=áÑ=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ëáíÉ=áë= êÉÇÉîÉäçéÉÇK= = pÅÉå~êáç=OK= • qÜÉ=ÑçêãÉê=^êãó=C=k~îó=ëáíÉ=áë=åçí=~ééêçéêá~íÉ=Ñçê=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó= ÜçìëáåÖ=~ë=áí=ïáää=çîÉêëÜ~Ççï=~åÇ=áãé~Åí=çå=íÜÉ=ëìêêçìåÇáåÖ= êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=~êÉ~ëX= • qÜÉ=éêçíÉÅíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~ä~ÅÉ=áë=îÉêó=áãéçêí~åí=áå=~åó=ÑìíìêÉ= éêçéçë~äë=Ñçê=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX= • qÜÉ=éêçéçëÉÇ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå=íÜÉ=ëçìíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ= `ÉåíêÉ=ÅçìäÇ=Ü~îÉ=ìå~ÅÅÉéí~ÄäÉ=áãé~Åíë=çå=íÜÉ=ëìêêçìåÇáåÖ=~êÉ~X= • `çåÅÉêå=~Äçìí=ÇÉãçäáíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~îáäáçå=çå=ëìëí~áå~Äáäáíó=ÖêçìåÇëK= kÉÉÇ=íç=êÉéä~ÅÉ=Ñ~Åáäáíó=çå=ëìáí~ÄäÉ=ëáíÉKX= • qÜÉ=tÉëíãçêÉä~åÇ=oç~Ç=Å~ê=é~êâ=ÅçìäÇ=~äëç=éêçîáÇÉ=~=ÖççÇ= äçÅ~íáçå=Ñçê=~=ÅáåÉã~=~ë=íÜÉêÉ=áë=éêçîáëáçå=Ñçê=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=~åÇ=áí=áë= ÅäçëÉ=íç=éìÄäáÅ=íê~åëéçêí=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ=íÜ~í=çåÅÉ=íÜÉ=ÅáåÉã~=áë=êÉäçÅ~íÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=ëçìíÜ=çÑ=íÜÉ= íçïå=íÜÉêÉ=áë=~ÇÉèì~íÉ=ìëÉë=íç=~ííê~Åí=~Åíáîáíó=íç=íÜÉ=åçêíÜ=~åÇ= ãáåáãáëÉ=íÜÉ=áãé~Åí=çÑ=íÜÉ=äçëë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÅáåÉã~X=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 13

• `çåÅÉêåÉÇ=~Äçìí=íÜÉ=áåíÉÖê~íáåÖ=çÑ=ÑççÇëíçêÉë=áå=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ= ~åÇ=éçëëáÄäÉ=áãé~Åíë=çå=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉX=~åÇ= • kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉ=~åÇ=éêçîáÇÉ=~=ëÉííáåÖ=Ñçê=åáÅÜÉ=~åÇ=áåÇÉéÉåÇÉåí= êÉí~áäÉêë=íç=äçÅ~íÉ=áå=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉK= = pÅÉå~êáç=PK= • `çåÅÉêå=êÉÖ~êÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÇÉåëáíó=çÑ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~åÇ= ÉñíÉåëáîÉ=ÜáÖÜ=êáëÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX= • kÉÉÇ=íç=éêçíÉÅí=`çääÉÖÉ=dêÉÉå=~åÇ=ÉåÜ~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=ëÉííáåÖ=çÑ=íÜÉ=äáëíÉÇ= ÄìáäÇáåÖX= • qÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=lÇÉå=ÄìáäÇáåÖ=ÅçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~=ëìáí~ÄäÉ=äçÅ~íáçå=Ñçê=~=åÉï= äáÄê~êó=çê=Åçããìåáíó=ìëÉë=áÑ=íÜÉ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=äáÄê~êó=áë=íç=ÄÉ=êÉäçÅ~íÉÇX== • qÜÉ=ÅçåîÉêëáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=m~ä~ÅÉ=íç=~=ÜçíÉä=ïçìäÇ=ÄÉ=~=ÖççÇ=ìëÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ= ÄìáäÇáåÖI=~åÇ=ïçìäÇ=~äëç=êÉëéÉÅí=íÜÉ=ÜáëíçêáÅ=ëÉííáåÖX= • ^ÖêÉÉãÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=t~áíêçëÉ=ëáíÉ=~ë=áí=ÅìêêÉåíäó= ~Åíë=~ë=~=éççê=Ö~íÉï~ó=áåíç=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉX=~åÇ= • ^ÖêÉÉãÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=ÉñíÉåëáçå=çÑ=éÉÇëÉíêá~åáë~íáçåI=ÜçïÉîÉêI=åÉÉÇ=íç= ÅçåëáÇÉê=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=áå=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåáåÖK= = dÉåÉê~ä=`çããÉåíë= • fãéçêí~åÅÉ=çÑ=êÉáåÑçêÅáåÖ=áÇÉåíáíó=çÑ=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉK=båÅçìê~ÖÉãÉåí= çÑ=áåÇÉéÉåÇÉåí=ëÜçéëI=Ñêçåí~ÖÉ=áãéêçîÉãÉåíë=~åÇ=Åçåíêçä=çÑ= ~ÇîÉêíáëáåÖX= • bîÉå=ïáíÜ=ã~àçê=êÉåçî~íáçåë=ëÅÉéíáÅáëã=Éñáëíë=~ë=íç=ïÜÉíÜÉê= _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=pí~íáçå=ïáää=~ííê~Åí=ã~åó=ìëÉêëX= • pìééçêí=íÜÉ=êÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=p~áåÄìêóÛëX=

• `çåÅÉêå=~Äçìí=íÜÉ=îá~Äáäáíó=çÑ=íÜÉ=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=qÜÉ=eáää=Å~ê= é~êâX=

• eÉ~äíÜ=ÅÉåíêÉëI=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=ãÉåí~ä=ÜÉ~äíÜ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëI=ëÜçìäÇ=ÄÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéÉÇ=ïáíÜáå=íÜÉ=íçïå=ÅÉåíêÉI=éçëëáÄäó=äáåâÉÇ=ïáíÜ=äÉáëìêÉ=~åÇ= çíÜÉê=Åçããìåáíó=ìëÉëX=

• _~ëÉãÉåíë=çÑ=ÉñáëíáåÖ=ÄìáäÇáåÖë=~êÉ=ìåÇÉê=ìíáäáëÉÇ=~åÇ=ïçìäÇ= éêçîáÇÉ=éçëëáÄäÉ=äçÅ~íáçåë=Ñçê=Å~ê=é~êâáåÖ=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=

• fãéçêí~åÅÉ=çÑ=éêçíÉÅíáåÖ=ÜÉêáí~ÖÉ=~åÇ=êÉí~áåáåÖ=âÉó=Ñêçåí~ÖÉë=~äçåÖ= íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=

• båëìêÉ=íÜÉ=éêçíÉÅíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=îáÉïë=çÑ=íÜÉ=hÉëíçå=oáÇÖÉX=

• kÉÉÇ=íç=áãéêçîÉ=íÜÉ=éÉÇÉëíêá~å=ÅêçëëáåÖ=Ñêçã=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ= pí~íáçå=~åÇ=çíÜÉê=ÅêçëëáåÖë=~äçåÖ=hÉåíáëÜ=t~óX==

• kÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåÅçìê~ÖÉ=êÉëáÇÉåíë=íç=ìëÉ=ëìëí~áå~ÄäÉ=Ñçêãë=çÑ=íê~åëéçêíX==

• pìééçêí=Ñçê=áãéêçîÉÇ=éÉÇÉëíêá~å=ÉåîáêçåãÉåí=Äìí=åÉÉÇ=íç=ÉåëìêÉ= ~Åíáîáíó=íÜêçìÖÜçìí=íÜÉ=Ç~ó=~åÇ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=çå=ë~ÑÉíóLëÉÅìêáíó= ÖêçìåÇëK=mçíÉåíá~ä=íç=çéÉå=ìé=~êÉ~ë=Ñçê=é~êâáåÖ=áå=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåáåÖëX=~åÇ=

• `çåÅÉêå=~Äçìí=áãé~Åí=çÑ=êÉëáÇÉåíá~ä=êÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ= `ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉ=~åÇ=åÉÉÇ=íç=éêçíÉÅí=ÅÜ~ê~ÅíÉê=çÑ=ëçìíÜÉêå=é~êí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëáíÉK=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 14

3. Summary

qÜÉ=íÜêÉÉ=ëÅÉå~êáçë=êÉÑäÉÅí=ÇáÑÑÉêÉåí=~ééêç~ÅÜÉë=áå=êÉä~íáçå=íç=íÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖW= • bñíÉåí=çÑ=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=~åÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåíX=

• jáñI=Ñçêã=~åÇ=äçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=ä~åÇìëÉëX=

• `Ü~åÖÉë=íç=íÜÉ=ÜáÖÜï~ó=åÉíïçêâL=íê~åëéçêí=Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉëX=~åÇ==

• `Ü~åÖÉë=íç=íÜÉ=éìÄäáÅ=êÉ~äã=áåÅäìÇáåÖ=íÜÉ=ÅêÉ~íáçå=çÑ=åÉï=éìÄäáÅ= ëé~ÅÉëL=äáåâ~ÖÉëK== tçêâëÜçé=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïÉêÉ=ìå~åáãçìë=áå=íÜÉ=îáÉï=íÜ~í=pÅÉå~êáç=N=ïçìäÇ= åçí=~ÅÜáÉîÉ=íÜÉ=çÄàÉÅíáîÉë=Ñçê=êÉîáí~äáë~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉí=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ÅêÉ~íáçå= çÑ=ëíêçåÖÉê=äáåâë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜ=~åÇ=ÅçìäÇ=åçí= ~ÅÅçããçÇ~íÉ=åÉÅÉëë~êó=ÅÜ~åÖÉ=~åÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=áå=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉ=ïáíÜáå= íÜÉ=éä~å=éÉêáçÇK=pÅÉå~êáçë=O=~åÇ=P=ïÉêÉ=éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=~ë=íÜÉ=Ä~ëáë=Ñçê=~ÅÜáÉîáåÖ= íÜÉ=îáëáçå=Ñçê=íÜÉ=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉI=áå=é~êíáÅìä~ê=íÜÉ=êÉÖÉåÉê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ= píêÉÉí=~åÇ=äáåâ~ÖÉë=ÄÉíïÉÉå=_êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=~åÇ=pçìíÜK=bäÉãÉåíë=çÑ=ÄçíÜ= léíáçåë=O=~åÇ=P=ïÉêÉ=Ñ~îçìêÉÇ=Äó=é~êíáÅáé~åíë=áåÅäìÇáåÖW= • båÜ~åÅÉãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=ÇáëíáåÅíáîÉåÉëë=çÑ=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=ÑçÅìë=çÑ=~Åíáîáíó=~í=_êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=íç=Ä~ä~åÅÉ=íÜÉ= êÉí~áä=ÅçêÉ=~åÇ=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉX=

• mçíÉåíá~ä=Ñçê=ê~íáçå~äáò~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=`áîáÅ=`ÉåíêÉ=ëáíÉX=

• aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=íç=íÜÉ=ïÉëí=çÑ=íÜÉ=eáÖÜ=píêÉÉíX=

• `çåÅÉåíê~íáçå=çÑ=ÜáÖÜ=ÇÉåëáíó=ãáñÉÇ=ìëÉ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~í=_êçãäÉó= pçìíÜ=~åÇ=kçêíÜ=pí~íáçåëX=

• `êÉ~íáçå=çÑ=~=åÉï=~åÇ=ÉñíÉåÇÉÇ=íçïå=ëèì~êÉ=~í=íÜÉ=ÑçêÉÅçìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ= qÜÉ~íêÉLiáÄê~êóX=

• fãéêçîÉÇ=éÉÇÉëíêá~å=~ÅÅÉëë=~åÇ=äáåâ~ÖÉë=íÜêçìÖÜçìí=íÜÉ=qçïå= `ÉåíêÉX=

• oÉÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=~í=íÜÉ=eáää=`~ê=é~êâ=íç=ÉåÜ~åÅÉ=íÜÉ=ëÉííáåÖ=~åÇ= Ñ~ÅáäáíáÉë=áå=kçêíÜ=sáää~ÖÉX=

• fãéêçîÉÇ=~ÅÅÉëë=~åÇ=~ÅíáîÉ=Ñêçåí~ÖÉë=çåíç=é~êâë=~åÇ=Ö~êÇÉåëX=~åÇ=

• bñíÉåëáçå=çÑ=qÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=~åÇ=êÉäçÅ~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=äÉáëìêÉ=ÅÉåíêÉK= qÜÉ=çìíéìíë=Ñêçã=íÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=P=ïçêâëÜçéë=Ü~îÉ=ÄÉÉå=Ñìääó=~ëëÉëëÉÇ=~åÇ=Ü~îÉ= ÄÉÉå=êÉÑäÉÅíÉÇ=áå=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=pé~íá~ä=píê~íÉÖó=~åÇ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ= mêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=léíáçåë=~åÇ=éêçéçë~äë=áå=pí~ÖÉ=Q=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=éêçÅÉëëK==

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 15

4. Next Steps

^í=íÜÉ=ÅäçëÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=tçêâëÜçéëI=íÜÉ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=íÉ~ã=áÇÉåíáÑáÉÇ=íÜÉ=åÉñí=ëíÉéë=Ñçê= ÑìêíÜÉê=~ééê~áë~ä=~åÇ=íÜÉ=ëìÄëÉèìÉåí=ëí~ÖÉë=çÑ=íÜÉ=ëíìÇóK=qÜÉëÉ=áåÅäìÇÉW= • oÉîáÉï=~åÇ=~å~äóëáë=çÑ=êÉëéçåëÉëX= • `çåëáÇÉê~íáçå=~åÇ=ÑìêíÜÉê=íÉëíáåÖ=çÑ=ÉãÉêÖáåÖ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=~åÇ= íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=áëëìÉëX== • cìêíÜÉê=ãÉÉíáåÖë=ïáíÜ=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=~åÇ=íÉÅÜåáÅ~ä=~ÇîáëçêëX=~åÇ= • mêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=^^mK= = m~êíáÅáé~åíë=ïáää=Ü~îÉ=~å=çééçêíìåáíó=íç=ÅçåíêáÄìíÉ=íç=íÜÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK=låÉ=ÑìêíÜÉê=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=ïáää=í~âÉ=éä~ÅÉ= ïáíÜ=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=~åÇ=íÜÉ=éìÄäáÅ=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜÉ=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^mK= qÜáë=ÅçãéêáëÉëW= • pí~ÖÉ=QW=mêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=léíáçåë=Eg~åì~êó=OMMSF=ëÉêáÉë=çÑ=éìÄäáÅ=ÉñÜáÄáíáçåë= ~åÇ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=éêáçê=íç=éêÉé~ê~íáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=^^mK= = qÜÉ=éìÄäáÅ=~åÇ=âÉó=ëí~âÉÜçäÇÉêë=ïáää=Ü~îÉ=~å=çééçêíìåáíó=íç=êÉîáÉï=~åÇ= ÅçããÉåí=çå=íÜÉ=éêçéçë~äë=áå=ãçêÉ=ÇÉí~áä=ÇìêáåÖ=íÜáë=Ñçêã~ä=ëí~ÖÉ=çÑ= Åçåëìäí~íáçåK= = qÜÉ=pí~ÖÉ=P=ïçêâëÜçéë=Ü~îÉ=áåÑçêãÉÇ=~åÇ=ÅçåíêáÄìíÉ=íç=íÜÉ=Ñçêãìä~íáçå=çÑ= íÜÉ=éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=Ñçê=_êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÉåíêÉK=qÜÉëÉ= ÇÉîÉäçéãÉåí=çéíáçåë=ïÉêÉ=éêÉëÉåíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=`çìåÅáäÛë=aÉîÉäçéãÉåí=`çåíêçä= `çããáííÉÉ=áå=lÅíçÄÉê=OMMR=~åÇ=ïÉêÉ=~ééêçîÉÇ=~åÇ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=~åó= êÉÑáåÉãÉåíI=íÜÉ=éêÉÑÉêêÉÇ=çéíáçå=ïáää=ÄÉ=ëìÄàÉÅí=íç=íÜÉ=~ÄçîÉ=ãÉåíáçåÉÇ= éÉêáçÇ=çÑ=éìÄäáÅ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=Epí~ÖÉ=QF=áå=É~êäó=OMMSK= = ^ää=ÅçããÉåíë=êÉÅÉáîÉÇ=ïáää=ÄÉ=í~âÉå=Ñìääó=áåíç=~ÅÅçìåí=áå=éêÉé~êáåÖ=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí= ^^m=ïÜáÅÜ=ïáää=ÄÉ=ëìÄãáííÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=lÑÑáÅÉ=çÑ=íÜÉ=aÉéìíó=mêáãÉ=jáåáëíÉê= ElamjF=áå=gìäó=OMMSK=qÜÉêÉ=ïáää=ÄÉ=~=ÑìêíÜÉê=éÉêáçÇ=çÑ=éìÄäáÅ=Åçåëìäí~íáçå=~í= íÜáë=ëí~ÖÉ=ïÜÉå=ÅçããÉåíë=ïáää=ÄÉ=áåîáíÉÇ=çå=íÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=^^mK==qÜÉ=Çê~Ñí=^^m= ïáää=ÄÉ=ãçÇáÑáÉÇ=~ë=~ééêçéêá~íÉI=ÄÉÑçêÉ=ÄÉáåÖ=ëìÄàÉÅí=íç=~=mìÄäáÅ=bñ~ãáå~íáçå= ÄÉÑçêÉ=~å=áåÇÉéÉåÇÉåí=áåëéÉÅíçê=íÜ~í=ïáää=ÄÉ=~ééçáåíÉÇ=Äó=íÜÉ=lamj=áå=É~êäó= OMMTK==^Ççéíáçå=çÑ=íÜÉ=^^m=áë=~åíáÅáé~íÉÇ=áå=ãáÇ=OMMTK= =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 16 appendix 1

OPTIONS KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=ïÉêÉ=áåîáíÉÇ=íç=~ííÉåÇ=íÜÉ=hÉó= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéW= = fåÇáîáÇì~ä= lêÖ~åáë~íáçå= j~íí=_Éää= _êçãäÉó=mçäáÅÉ=pí~íáçå== gáää=tÉÄÄ= _~ëëÉííë=eçìëÉ= qÜÉ=bñÉÅìíáîÉ=^Çãáåáëíê~íçê= içåÇçå=^ãÄìä~åÅÉ=pÉêîáÅÉë= pìéÉêáåíÉåÇÉåí=`Ü~êäÉë=dêáÖÖë= _êçãäÉó=mçäáÅÉ=pí~íáçå== `Ü~êäÉë=eçêíçå== pçìíÜÉêå=dç=~ÜÉ~Ç=eçìëÉ j~íí=_~ää== pçìíÜÉêå=dç=~ÜÉ~Ç=eçìëÉ= jbq=mçäáÅÉJ=`êáãÉ=mêÉîÉåíáçå=aÉëáÖå= m`=jáÅÜ~Éä=i~åÉ= ^Çîáëçê= _êá~å=háêÄó= kÉíïçêâ=o~áä=Ó=qÜÉ=mçÇáìã= jê=o=j~ëëÉíí= iáÅÉåëÉÇ=q~ñá=aêáîÉêë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=iíÇ a~îÉ=pãáíÜ= i``=`óÅäáåÖ= qÜÉ=pÉÅêÉí~êó= cêÉáÖÜí=qê~åëéçêí=^ëëçÅá~íáçå=iíÇ= jê=s=píçéë= içåÇçå=qê~åëéçêí=rëÉêë=`çããáííÉÉ= _êá~å=`ççâÉ= içåÇçå=qê~åëéçêí=rëÉêë=`çããáííÉÉ= `ÜáÉÑ=fåëéÉÅíçê=jáâÉ=pã~ääã~å= jbq=mçäáÅÉ=Ópb=qê~ÑÑáÅ=aáîáëáçå== içåÇçå=cáêÉ=C=`áîáä=aÉÑÉåÅÉ= h~êÉå=dççÅÜ= ^ìíÜçêáíó=EpçìíÜÉêå=`çãã~åÇF= d~êó=tççÇ= jÉíêçÄìë= aáÅâ=e~ääÉ= içåÇçå=_ìëÉë= ^Äáçä~=fãçìâÜìÉÇÉ= içåÇçå=_ìëÉë= qê~åëéçêí= Ñçê= içåÇçå= Ó i~åÇ= rëÉ= _Éå=mäçïÇÉå= mä~ååáåÖ= `~íÜÉêáåÉ=mÜáääéçííë= qÜÉ=_êáíáëÜ=jçíçêÅóÅäáëíë=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= m~ìä=eçééÉå= båîáêçåãÉåí=^ÖÉåÅó= jê=^=_óêåÉ= båÖäáëÜ=eÉêáí~ÖÉ= jê=`=jáíÅÜáëçå= `çåÑÉÇÉê~íáçå=çÑ=_êáíáëÜ=fåÇìëíêó= a~îáÇ=cçêíó= _ìëáåÉëëJcçÅìë= m~ìä=`ê~óÑçêÇ= _~åâ=çÑ=^ãÉêáÅ~= píÉîÉ=`Ü~åÇäÉê= dä~ÇÉë=pÜçééáåÖ=`ÉåíêÉ= hÉêêó=gçÜåëçå= `ÜìêÅÜáää=fåëìê~åÅÉ= jê=o=g=eçéâáåë= `ÜìêÅÜáää=Ñáå~åÅá~ä=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= gìäáÉ=jáääÉê= oçó~ä=_~åâ=çÑ=pÅçíä~åÇ= `~êãÉä=lDkáÉää= j~êâë=~åÇ=péÉåÅÉê=mäÅ= j~êâ=lÛ`çååçê= j~êâë=~åÇ=péÉåÅÉê=mäÅ= m~íêáÅâ=t~ää= _êçãäÉó=`çìêí=eçíÉä=E_Éëí=tÉëíÉêåF= `Üêáë=däçîÉê= `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 17

fåÇáîáÇì~ä= lêÖ~åáë~íáçå= jê=d=v=v~íÉë= _êçãäÉó=qê~ÇÉë=råáçå=`çìåÅáä= jê=j=_~ä~~ãê= içåÇçå=qçìêáëí=_ç~êÇ= a~îáÇ=j~áå= pçìíÜ=içåÇçå=_ìëáåÉëë= tÜÉÉäÉê= _êçãäÉó=^Çìäí=bÇìÅ~íáçå=`ÉåíêÉ= `Ü~êäçííÉ=_ÉÇÇçÉ= _êçãäÉó=^Çìäí=bÇìÅ~íáçå=`ÉåíêÉ= aÉêáÅâ=mçïÉää= i_=_êçãäÉó=oÉëáÇåíëÛ=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= p~ê~Ü=_ê~ÇäÉó= ^îêç=mäÅ= _~âÉê=qáääó= ^Çêá~å=eçää~åÇë= _al=píçó=e~óï~êÇ= jë=`=pÉñíçå= _ep=iíÇ= jêë=d=_áëÜçé= `~ãÄÉêÑçêÇ=i~ï=mäÅ= jê=o=aáãáåáÉìñ= `ä~êâë=pÜçÉë=iíÇ= mÉíÉê=_êçïå= `çëãçë=`ç~ÅÜ=qçìêë=iíÇ= jê=q=_=táääá~ãëçå= `çëãçë~áê=mäÅ= jêë=o=_~êåÉë= `óëíáÅ=cáÄêçëáë=qêìëí= káÖÉä=mçìäíçå= aÉÄÉåÜ~ãë= a~îáÇ=qÜçêéÉ= cáêëí=qáíäÉ=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= jê=d=m~é~ÖÉçêÖáçì= dÉçiçÖáëíáÅë=iíÇ= gçÜå=q~óäçê= e~ëïÉää=`çåëìäíáåÖ=båÖáåÉÉêë= jÉêÅÉÇÉë=v~ëêìÇÇáå= gìÇÖÉ=~åÇ=mêáÉëíäó= g~ëçå=c~Üó= iáÄÉê~í~= qáã=açìÖä~ë= jÅaçå~äÇÛë=oÉëí~ìê~åíë=iíÇ= hÉîáå=_áÄÄ= jÅaçå~äÇÛë=oÉëí~ìê~åíë=iíÇ= ^åÇêÉï=wáÉäáåëâá= jp_=fåíÉêå~íáçå~ä=mäÅ= ^åÇêÉï=`~êíÉê= kÉñí=oÉí~áä=mäÅ= g~Åâó=iÉçå~êÇ= m~îáäáçå=iÉáëìêÉ=`ÉåíêÉ= jêë=`=pÉÇÖïáÅâ= mÉääáåÖë= jê=t=pìääáî~å= mêáã~êâ= jê=o=j=^ìîê~ó= mêçëéÉÅíë=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= qçåó=háåÖ= oçó~ä=j~áä= oçÖÉê=_êçãäÉó= oìëëÉää=~åÇ=_êçãäÉó=iíÇ= jë=_~êåÉë= p~áåëÄìêó=pìéÉêã~êâÉíë=iíÇ= jê=e=m=açïåÉê= pÉäÉÅíáçå=pÉêîáÅÉë=iíÇ= gçÜå=_~êâÉê= pÉí=~åÇ=píêáâÉ=iíÇ= pÜ~êçå=tççÇë= qÜ~Åâê~ó=táääá~ãë= jê=m=j=iìåå= qÜ~ãÉë=`êÉÇáí=iíÇ= káÅçäÉ=q~óäçê= qÜÉ=tÉëíãÉêá~=kìêëáåÖ=`ÉåíêÉ= píÉîÉ=qÜçãëçå= qÜçãëçå=fåíÉêãÉÇá~=mäÅ= f~å=dáäãçìê= s~å=^ãÉóÇÉ=~åÇ=t~ääáë=iíÇ= jê=m=ráåÖë= tççäïçêíÜë= jÉäîóå=a~îáë= táääá~ã=^åÇêÉïë=C=`ç= ^åÇêÉï=eáíÅÜ= qÜÉ=dä~ÇÉë=jÉêÅÜ~åíë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= `~êçäóå=iÉïáë= _êçãäÉó=mq`= _~êÉåÇ=sÉääÉã~å= k`j^= `~êçäáåÉ=q~íÅÜÉää= k`j^= ^êÅÜáÉ=^îÉêó= = píÉîÉ=mêáÅÉ= _êçãäÉó=jóíáãÉ= hÉáíÜ=bñÑçêÇ= ^ÑÑáåáíó=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 18 appendix 2

OPTIONS KEY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=hÉó=pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê= tçêâëÜçé=ÜÉäÇ=çå=íÜÉ=NVíÜ=çÑ=pÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMRW= = cáêëí=k~ãÉ= lêÖ~åáë~íáçå= táää=bÇãìåÇë= k~íÜ~åáÉäI=iáíÅÜÑáÉäÇ=C=m~êíåÉêë= qáã=dççÇäáÑÑÉ= `çãéìíÉê=pÜçééáåÖ=`ÉåíêÉë= _ìêåÉíí= mä~ååáåÖ= C= aÉîÉäçéãÉåí= `çäáå=_ìêåÉíí= iíÇ= pÉÄ~ëíá~å=_~äÅçãÄÉ= qê~åëéçêí=Ñçê=içåÇçå= iÉÉ=e~êîÉó= içåÇçå=cáêÉ=_êáÖ~ÇÉ=E_êçãäÉóF= kÉáä=oçïäÉó= p~îáääë=EfkdF= oçó=`çää~Çç= `çää~Çç=`çääáåë=^êÅÜáíÉÅíë= _êá~å=q~áå= _êçãäÉó=jóíáãÉ= `Üêáë=däçîÉê= `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ= iáò=dÉåíêó= `ÜìêÅÜáää=qÜÉ~íêÉ= g~ãÉë=pÜ~êé= mÉääáåÖë= a~îáÇ=j~áå= pçìíÜ=içåÇçå=_ìëáåÉëë= mÜáäáé=ÇÉ=_êìóå= içåÇçå=^ãÄìä~åÅÉ=pÉêîáÅÉ= jÉíêçéçäáí~å=mçäáÅÉ=pÉêîáÅÉ=J= j~íí=_Éää= _êçãäÉó= jáÅâ=_çååÉê= tççäïçêíÜë= mÉíÉê=j~êíáå= i_=_êçãäÉó= `çäáå=oìÇÇäÉëÇÉå= i_=_êçãäÉó= j~êó=j~åìÉä= i_=_êçãäÉó= káÅâ=`çääáåë= båÖäáëÜ=eÉêáí~ÖÉ= g~Åâ=pÉÅë~êÇ= mêçàÉÅí=aáêÉÅíçê=o~åÖÉêë=oç~Ç= jáÅÜ~Éä=tÜÉÉäÉê= _êçãäÉó=^Çìäí=bÇìÅ~íáçå=`çääÉÖÉ= d~êó=pï~åå= _êçãäÉó=j~ó=qáãÉ=J=m~îáäáçå=i`= m~íêáÅâ=t~ää= _êçãäÉó=`çìêí=eçíÉä==

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 19 appendix 3

OPTIONS PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP INVITEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=ïÉêÉ=áåîáíÉÇ=íç=íÜÉ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçéW= =

Individual Organisation hÉå=pãáíÜ= mÉÇÉëíêá~åë=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= cêÉÇ=táäâáåëçå= _êçãäÉó=C=_áÖÖáå=eáää=^êÉ~= jê=o=i~ïëçå= __o^d=

jê=t=o=tççÇ= i_=_êçãäÉó=oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=cÉÇÉê~íáçå= jê=q=_êçïå= mÉçéäÉ=táíÜ=aáë~ÄáäáíáÉë= _êçãäÉó= kçêíÜ= oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ= jê=d=pÜáéäÉó= ^ëëçÅá~íáçå= _êçãäÉó= kçêíÜ= oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ= jë=o=pÜáéäÉó= ^ëëçÅá~íáçå= jê=q=_~åÑáÉäÇ= eÉ~êí=çÑ=_êçãäÉó= f~å=_êçÇáÉ= _êçãäÉó=pçìíÜ=^Åíáçå=dêçìé= jë=e=`Ü~ãÄÉêë= ^ÅÅÉëë=dêçìé= jê=g=jÅdáää= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÜìêÅÜ= jê=j=^òÉÉò= jáåçêáíó=bíÜåáÅ=cçêìã= j~àçê=f~å=m~óåÉ= qçïå=`Ü~éä~áå== gìÇó=cìääÉê= `çããìåáíó=iáåâë= j~ìêÉÉå=c~ääçå= ^ÖÉ=`çåÅÉêå= jê=a=g=tççÇ= ^m`^= _êçãäÉó= kçêíÜ= oÉëáÇÉåíë= páãçå=^åëíêÉó= ^ëëçÅá~íáçå= gÉÑÑ=oçóÅÉ= = jáÅÜ~Éä=píÉîÉåë= _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ= jáÅÜ~Éä=gçåÉë== _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ= ^ä~å=_~åÅÉ= _êçãäÉó=`Üêáëíá~å=`ÉåíêÉ= _êìÅÉ=^åÇÉêëçå= = o~ó=t~íëçå= cêáÉåÇë=çÑ=íÜÉ=b~êíÜ= aÉêÉâ=mçïÉää= i__oc= = = =

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AREA ACTION PLAN | 20 appendix 4

OPTIONS PUBLIC FOCUS STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ATTENDEES qÜÉ=ÑçääçïáåÖ=áåÇáîáÇì~äë=~åÇ=çêÖ~åáë~íáçåë=ïÉêÉ=~ííÉåÇÉÇ=íÜÉ=mìÄäáÅ=cçÅìë= pí~âÉÜçäÇÉê=tçêâëÜçé=ÜÉäÇ=çå=íÜÉ=ÉîÉåáåÖ=çÑ=íÜÉ=NVíÜ=pÉéíÉãÄÉê=OMMRW= = Individual Organisation oáÅÜ~êÇ=`çã~áëÜ= cêáÉåÇë=çÑ=íÜÉ=b~êíÜ= j~íÜÉï=tÜáíå~ää= _êçãäÉó=qçïå=`ÜìêÅÜ= m~ìä=dçìäÇÉå= ^ÖÉ=`çåÅÉêå=_êçãäÉó= däÉå=pÜáéäÉó= _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= oáí~=pÜáéäÉó= _êçãäÉó=kçêíÜ=oÉëáÇÉåíëÛ=^ëëçÅá~íáçå= a~îáÇ=tççÇ= ^m`^= oçÖÉê=i~ïëçå= __o^d= ^äÑêÉÇç=jÉêÇÉë= içåÇçå=_çêçìÖÜ=çÑ=_êçãäÉó= qçåó=_çãÑáÉäÇ= eÉ~êí=çÑ=_êçãäÉó=

EDAW PLC PLANNING, DESIGN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLDWIDE LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3

APPENDIX 3

AAP: PREFERRED OPTIONS (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006): SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 5

Public Consultation Summary Preferred Options January to February 2006

Responses received via:

• leaflet completed questionnaire 1264 • email completed questionnaire 74 • letter 57 • additional email responses 23 • petitions 2

Leaflet

Question 1 Do you agree the town needs at least one new department store?

Response Number % Agree 1112 90% Disagree 105 8% No View 24 2%

Question 2 Do you agree the town needs a better range of entertainment facilities, including a multi-screen cinema, to help make the town more attractive to visitors of all ages, especially in the evening?

Response Number % Agree 954 78% Disagree 189 15% No View 83 7%

Question 3 Do you agree it is important to protect the heritage of Bromley?

Response Number % Agree 1174 95% Disagree 23 2% No View 43 3%

Question 4 Do you support residential development in the town centre?

Response Number % Agree 640 53% Disagree 410 33% No View 164 14% 6 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Question 5 Do you support the redevelopment options for Bromley North and south railway stations, which could help improve the current transport facilities?

Response Number % Agree 1047 87% Disagree 85 7% No View 78 6%

Question 6 Do you think the town needs a hotel?

Response Number % Agree 667 55% Disagree 336 27% No View 221 18%

Question 7 Do you think it is important that the town retains a leisure centre?

Response Number % Agree 1089 88% Disagree 77 6% No View 66 6%

Question 8 Would you use the public open spaces and gardens more if they were better signposted and more easily accessible?

Response Number % Agree 769 63% Disagree 239 19% No View 214 18% LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 7

Question 9 Do you agree that redevelopment of the western side of the High Street would revitalise the town centre by providing a better retail balance?

Response Number % Agree 893 74% Disagree 188 16% No View 130 10% 8 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Question 10 Do you think the preferred options would improve the town centre?

Response Number % Agree 862 77% Disagree 112 10% No View 152 13%

Age monitoring

Age Number % under 20 12 1% 20-34 145 12% 35-49 248 21% 50-64 376 31% 65 or over 426 35%

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 9

Question 11 Options not agreed with (concerns/objections/reasons)

General Comment Number of % Ranked comments of those made comments Leisure centre : demolition and relocation 67 12% 1 Residential development 64 11% 2 Quantity of Cheap shops 47 8% 3 Anti-social behaviour 39 7% 4 Demolition of housing stock 39 7% 4 Glades extension (Site E) 36 6% 5 Extension of Licences and Licensing Hours 30 5% 6 Congestion 27 5% 6 Hotel 22 4% 7 Relocation of churches 22 4% 7 West of High Street development 21 4% 7 Demolition of The Hill car park (Site D) 16 3% 8 Cinema/theatre 13 2% 9 Queens garden café 12 2% 9 Civic Centre relocation (Site F) 11 2% 9 Extending pedestrianised area 10 2% 9 Further information of plans required 9 2% 9 Possible lack of parking opportunities (Site D) 9 2% 9 Better signposting 8 1% 10 Need for new Department stores 7 1% 10 Further retail development 7 1% 10 Bromley North redevelopment (Site A) 6 1% 10 Quantity of eating places 6 1% 10 Health/Education services – strain on 6 1% 10 Concerned about loss of Green space 5 1% 10 High rise development (Site N) - unsightly 5 1% 10 Redevelopment of Westmoreland Road car park (Site K) 4 1% 10 Loss of library facilities 2 0% 11 Aggressive security 2 0% 11 Concerned about vandalism/graffiti/litter 2 0% 11 Market researches nuisance 1 0% 11 Open spaces/parks cause anti social behaviour 1 0% 11 Concerned about road infrastructure 1 0% 11

10 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Question 12 Other options to be considered:

Number of % of Ranked comments those made comments Would like to see a new Department store/s 153 10% 1 Parking – cost/access/increased park and ride 112 7% 2 Recognition of Religious facilities 108 7% 3 More specialised shops 90 6% 4 Bromley South railway improved – access lifts/drop off 86 5% 5 leisure facilities to include ice/roller skating/bowling skate parks 71 4% 6 Young people provided for 71 4% 6 Policing/security increased 52 3% 7 Art gallery/cinema included 51 3% 8 Road/pavement infrastructure improved 47 3% 9 Leisure facilities improved – swimming pool 43 2% 10 Street lighting/cleaning improvements/pest control (pigeons) 34 2% 11 Green environment – create/keep/flower beds, st trees 31 2% 12 Churchill gardens regeneration, promote HG Wells 31 2% 12 Restaurants/quality pubs late entertainment 30 2% 13 Heritage – promote/retain 29 1% 14 Tramlink extension 27 1% 15 Market improvement/increased 25 1% 16 Concert hall required 23 1% 17 Train service improved 22 1% 18 Bus services – improved 21 1% 19 Bromley North Station/services improved 20 1% 20 Bromley South improvement 19 1% 21 Hostels/hotels included 18 1% 22 Leisure – out of town 18 1% 22 Parks facilities improved 17 1% 23 Disability access 17 1% 23 Pedestrian facilities 16 1% 24 Housing – affordable 16 1% 24 Cyclists signage/facilities 15 1% 25 Shopping facilities improved Less than 13 1% 26 Food courts 13 26 Seating 13 26 Business support 10 27 Library improvements/ground floor library 10 27 Toilets 10 27 Extend Glades up to join Theatre 8 28 West side improvements (G) 8 28 Supermarkets 8 28 Free Sunday parking 7 29 Market researchers reduce 7 29 Market Square – north redevelopment 5 30 Disability opportunities 4 31 East Street shops improved 4 31 Sustainable development 4 31 Charity centres – activity etc. 4 31 town centre refurbishment 4 31 Pedestrian crossings 3 32 LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 11

Street furniture – less 3 32 Deli Stores multi culture 3 32 Minor injuries unit 3 32 Employment opportunities 2 33 Westmoreland car park(K) remove 2 33 Canal waterways improved 2 33 College Green improvements (B) 1 34 Post office required 1 34 Hospital bus links 1 34 Child shopping crèche free 1 34 Licensing hours reduced/less pubs 1 34

12 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Postcode monitoring

Postcode Number % BR1 483 40% BR2 305 26% BR3 114 10% BR4 54 5% BR5 42 4% BR6 45 4% BR7 37 3% BR8 2 Less than BS15 1 1% CR0 7 CR2 3 CR3 1 DA14 3 DA15 3 DA2 1 DA3 1 ME14 1 ME16 1 ME19 2 NK45 1 RH1 1 RH8 2 RM14 1 SE12 9 SE13 2 SE19 4 SE20 16 1% SE23 1 Less than SE26 1 1% SE6 6 SE9 13 SM6 1 SW15 1 SW16 1 SW1V 1 TN11 2 TN13 4 TN14 2 TN15 1 TN16 16 1% TN17 1 Less than 1%

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 13

Summary of Written Representations

C01 Turleys on behalf of • wish site to be identified for re-development Sainsbury’s • any retailing in Bromley South would merely redistribute shopping rather than trying to retain lost expenditure

C02 Salvation Army • important for them to stay within the town centres and increase capacity • excited about the plans and wish to become key partners in any development opportunity

C03 Bromley Town • see the AAP as a positive initiative agree Chaplaincy - covers 15 some form of re-development is essential churches in and around • believe the town needs more community town cohesion • wish to see more emphasis on the religious needs of the town centre, their beneficial social/ community/youth activities • wish to see more diversity in shop frontages/less retail focus • wish to see improvements to Bromley South Station and to attract commuters into the town • support residential • would like the town to have improved permeability • town needs a better balanced evening economy

C04 Thames Water • All sites – waste water flows – suggest para to be included in plan • sites – C,D,L,M and N no concerns re clean water supply but have concerns regarding water supply capability to all other sites. Suggest inclusion of wording for plan. • upgrading waste water facilities can take up to 3 years.

C05 Tandridge District • No comment but please keep informed Council

14 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

C06 Mytime • support the regeneration of town • Pavilion not keeping pace with changing leisure demand and pool expensive to run. Sports hall etc. underused • Pavilion could be re-figured but possibly not economic to do so • concerned about loss of facilities whilst being re-developed • sports facilities should be in town centre • additional housing would create new customers

C07 Bromley Friends of the • AAP needs more thought about improving Earth public transport • more retail will mean more congestion • Suggest moving LBB (Civic Centre) out of town • improve leisure facilities • would like eco-friendly development

C08 The Theatres Trust • pleased with commitment towards culture and support new town square at theatre/library

C09 Broomleigh • support initiative, especially new residential • consider growth of internet when considering new, extended retailing • railway stations require improved access • Should retain a leisure centre in the town to provide variety of activities • Should protect green spaces

C10 Bromley Green Party • Suggest possible traffic congestion in town if re-developed • Sustainability Appraisal issues; wish to see eco-friendly development • Should keep leisure in town • Should encourage small, independent shops

C11 Her Majesty’s Court • Town need improved transport links Service • court users use Hill car park so any re- development could impinge on them

C12 English Partnerships • no comment

C13 Tinklin Springall • have concerns about current traffic congestion around Elmfield Road and town generally • have concerns about current unsocial behaviour LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 15

C14 Parish Church of St • strongly support the broad vision Mark • town needs high quality residential • AAP should mention churches/faith communities – significant stakeholders • upgrade public transport • improve pedestrian facilities • expand farmers market

C15 CgMs (consultants for • additional development will have a direct Metropolitan Police) impact on the need for additional community and attached document facilities and services ‘ Planning for Future • important that ‘Secure by Design’ principles Police Estate are achieved policy should reflect this Development” • AAP should include.... “community safety and guidance for LA’s policing initiatives”.

C16 Michael Rodgers • should re-site bus gate • shuttle from Bromley North into town • Town needs hotel

C17 Network Rail • stress the need for better access to and around Bromley South station • viable development is key to funding new infrastructure • support the board development options in table 5.1 but wish to have a stand-alone retail element including at Bromley North • concerned about any future transit system and wish to discuss how this might limit other interchange enhancements

C18 Savills • concerns regarding statement in paragraphs responding on behalf of 4.3 and 4.6 regarding entertainment/leisure ING forms at Bromley South. • Suggest re-wording development .opportunities for Site J. • suggest rewording para. 4.7 • suggest rewording para 4.11 regarding relocation of bus gate • suggest rewording of Table 5.1 to reflect comments made on paragraphs 4.3 and 4.6. • Town Centre retail frontages should be defined in AAP taking account of the importance of Bromley South station.

16 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

C19 GOL • the Sustainability Appraisal needs to show clearly how the process to identify options was arrived at • the Sustainability Appraisal should consider short, medium and long-term effects • monitoring should be addressed • Sustainability Appraisal needs to show compliance with SEA Directive • range of uses for a number of sites too varied, or whether use would warrant tall buildings on sites indicated • DPD needs to relate to UDP • residential should reflect wider housing needs and appropriate mix of retail units. Details policies may be required to ensure outcomes are achieved • it may be appropriate to bring issues of licensing/anti-social behaviour etc within the scope of the AAP • need to promote the efficient use of existing buildings • address phasing of development • address how to deal with sites not allocated to deal with sites not allocated in AAP • give protection to and enhancement of historic elements • identify frontages

C20 Bromley PCT • GP/Dental & Social Services needs should be taken into account within the AAP new residential development should provide the resources to meet the impact of additional residents • sites for such services should be identified in AAP

C21 Nathaniel Lichfield and • concerns about current ranking of BTC Partners • support new retail floorspace requirements especially those on Site E due to limited opportunities to provide the scale of new retail required elsewhere in the town • high quality design is crucial • any planning gain requirements should reflect government guidance

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 17

C22 Burnett Planning & • suggest town centre under-performing Development • L&G support a principle of a phased representing Legal and approach to development rather than the General emphasis on a comprehensive approach • proposals for site G are vague and unrealistic and need the level of detail set out in PPS12 otherwise will not meet test of soundness • timescales for development should be clarified • concerned about the AAP being able to prove a proper environmental assessment in accordance with SEA and regulations – more detailed information required • questions why Ringers Road site is included in site G • L&G support residential development in the town and this should be recognised in AAP • Ringers Road site should be identified solely as a high density residential location

C23 Star Planning and • the objectives need to be quantified, they are Development on behalf too broad and generalised of Taylor Woodrow • the AAP should encourage the two stations to Developments be ‘destinations’ with different attritubes along a traffic free pedestrian corridor • poor quality buildings in southern end of High Street and an absence of mix of uses which reflects lack of vibrancy within the town during day and evening • Kentish Way divorces the Civic Centre (site F) from the town and the road frontage needs enhancement to integrate civic centre into the town • AAP should encourage flexible general policies that provide mixed uses ie. active ground floors with residential or offices above • support landmark buildings on key sites

18 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

C24 Social Services and • the number of residential units identified are Housing Department needed and desirable • the affordable housing provision likely to come forward will help to ensure there is an adequate workforce supply in the future for the town and the borough as a whole • support improvements to transport links • new commercial development will help promote social inclusion and improve quality of life • support provision of new entertainment and leisure facilities which will help to balance social mix in the evening • accommodation for the elderly/disabled should be addressed as well as those for families • support reduced parking provision for social rented housing • health and educational requirement should be addressed

C25 Highways Agency • support development locations for retailing • consideration should be given to reducing the need to travel and reliance on the car • development options should be deliverable • traffic modelling should be used to address impacts of development • Park and Ride facility is supported in principle which they work expect to be able to reduce the level of parking available in the town

C26 P.P.S • welcome inclusion of site L within the on behalf of Land emerging AAP, but suggest changes to Securities Trillium boundary of site to exclude St Mark’s School and churches and restricted to Crown Buildings only, suggest deleting reference to retention and refurbishment of school building • they believe the school and church buildings do not make a positive contribution to the redevelopment of the site for town centre uses and produce a constraint as to future re- development opportunities • Crown Building relate to town centre and could incorporate a 5/6 storey development tapering downwards towards existing residential • office uses also may not be viable • potential for a hotel, being close to transport and business sectors with an element of residential should be identified.

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 19

C27 The Countryside • support the objectives Agency • the Action Plan could help alleviate or address lack of animation/solution of the public realm/open space in the town • consider policies to improve sustainable transport • consider inclusion of live/work units in new development within the town.

C28 Friends of Bromley • dispute BTC’s decline Town Parks & Gardens • site E, so close to Debenhams, could not and Heart of Bromley support another department store Residents Association • concerned that a new multi-plex cinema would destroy existing Odeon and cinema in Beckenham • support other leisure provision ie. skate boarding facilities, restoration of River Ravensbourne • unhappy with approach to historic buildings and heritage sites and against sale of such properties merely to raise revenue • concerned about blight and possible Compulsory Purchase Orders • Site B should be withdrawn • Site C: Council should reoccupy • Site D: blight to existing homes - loss of Odeon cinema - against taller buildings as within a conservation area - welcome inclusion of more homes it existing not demolished • Site E – leisure centre should not be relocated • Site F – should be returned to open parkland and Palace restored similar to Addington Palace/Beckenham Palace • Site G – against demolition of existing shopfronts - against demolition of residential housing and churches - support enhancement of retailing outside of conservation area • Site J – supports • Site K – against cinema development • Site L – St. Marks School & DHSS building should be retained • Site M – against any encroachment of more hardstanding into the green space for that cost to a cafe use • Site N – support improvements in principle •

20 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

C29 Magpie Dance • supports emphasis on culture • supports creating stronger east-west axis in the town especially if performance facilities are included.

C30 Development Valued • would like to see inclusion of a one stop Lifestyles Partnership health information shop/centre • support mix of shops and market • work experience for disabled • shop mobility schemes • more public toilets

C31 Churchill Theatre • support cultural quarter • support mixed use development, to include restaurants and high quality cinema • support more use of open spaces through integration with rest of town.

C32 CgMs Consultants • support objectives including enhancement of on behalf of Royal Mail Bromley North Property Holdings C33 GVA Grimley • support requirement for additional retail floorspace • Site D should contain an anchor development • sufficient flexibility should be incorporated to enable developers to bring forward viable, deliverable proposals, therefore options for Site D should be clarified • site should be capable of delivering a landmark scheme

C34 GLA (including TfL • supports broad objectives comments) • AAP needs to demonstrate in more detail capacity/scale of new retail floorspace • policy should reflect London Plan policies 4B.3, 4A.9 • employment and training should be included within S.106 contributions • traffic congestion is an issue and measures should be taken to mitigate consistent with London Plan requirements • better bus interchanges should be identified as well as improvements for pedestrians and cyclists • the severance caused by The Glades and Kentish Way should be improved • Bromley should identify the mechanism for funding and delivery of P & R facilities and a new transit initiative.

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 21

C35 Robert Neill AM • supports the thrust of the AAP • need a balanced economy in the town • supports more residential development as it would balance late night economy and encourage diversity in the retail mix as well as improve security • adequate parking is essential • Bromley South station should be comprehensively redevelopment as soon as possible • merit in extending DLR to Bromley or Tramlink • Good design imperative and important that development blends in with existing heritage.

C36 Environment Agency • flood risk issues should be included in AAP in accordance with PPG25 • support, long term, the re-opening of culverted water courses • request additional para. to public realm and environment section • more regard to natural environment/ biodiversity/ecological issues • open space should be identified as having a more multi-functional role • reflect PPSI on biodiversity issues • new development should contribute to ecological resources • flood risk assessment • sustainable construction should be included Site A – groundwater protection zone Site B – flood zone 3 Site C – groundwater protection zone Site D – county wildlife site at Martins Hill Site E – groundwater protection zone Site F – groundwater protection zone Site G – flood zone 3 and groundwater protection zone Site H – flood zone 3 and groundwater protection zone Site J – flood zone 3 Site K – flood zone 3 and groundwater protection zone Site L – flood zone 3 and groundwater protection zone Site M – flood zone 3 and groundwater protection zone Site N – flood zone 3 and groundwater protection zone

22 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

C37 RPS Planning • the housing types/size/tenures should not be restricted • housing should be at high density as in PPS3 this should be reflected in AAP • community facilities should only be included if need proven • funding (para’s 6.5-6.6) seeks too wide range of contributions. Planning gain should reflect government guidance

C38 Bromley Town Church • more reference should be made regarding the community facilities such as churches can bring to the town

C39 Ross Jones • suggests BTC has eroded, improvement APCA core panel required urgently member • supports the conservation objectives • good design and architecture are important

C40 JP Austen • supports most points but suggests additional issues regarding parks, • pedestrianisation of East Street and Elmfield Road on The Glades, • direct connection between BN station and London, • re-furbish Pavilion • and better priority for pedestrians generally

C41 Mr S.J. Fromont • Ringers Road site should remain in commercial use • Bromley should not turn into Croydon but be kept small scale • improve transport links • protect heritage buildings • retain existing car parking and Leisure Centre • cinema at site K would close Odeon • better signposting/notice boards

C42 Barbara Shand • Site F – office blocks should be retained for offices • leisure facilities should not be lost to town • concerns regarding the consultation process

C43 D.Dulake • health facilities should reflect any increase in residential • Site E – should retain leisure facility • against signposting open spaces • improvements for pedestrians

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 23

C44 A. Eastwood • against tall buildings • has concerns for local residents regarding the re-development of the town • has issues regarding the consultation process

C45 C.P. England • has concerns regarding traffic congestion/lack of parking • LBB should allow comprehensive development of buildings of no architectural merit • improve the pedestrian environment • against social housing • against redevelopment of Site D and Site F

C46 Dr R.C. Skelton • Site D - against redevelopment

C47 Jolanta Allen • concerns regarding an increase in more retail units • against relocation of leisure centre

C48 S. James • supports new department store/cinema/hotel/leisure • considers heritage important • concerns regarding late night establishments

C49 Mrs M Fryatt • if leisure centre re-developed it should be replaced

C50 E.N. Slow • against St. Paul’s Square being included in Site D • against moving leisure centre • against opening up parks and gardens • warns about future congestion caused by any re-development

C51 Richard & Kate • against re-development of St. Paul’s Square Dumville • against Site G and Site E re-developments • concerns about more pedestrianisation • support improvements to railway stations and improved train services from Bromley North

C52 C.M. Ward • against re-development of St. Paul’s Square

C53 Miss B Jones • improvements needed to Bromley South Station for disabled/elderly etc. • against more retail unless high class • against moving Pavilion

24 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

C54 Thomas F Pressinger • against loss of Ethelbert Close for more retail, concerned about blight to properties on site G • against tall buildings that would overshadow Church House Gardens • need improvements to public transport • Site F should be re-developed

C55 R.T.G. Marks • against re-developing Ethelbert Close although support the aims of the Council to improve the town

Petitions: - against demolishing homes/inclusion in possible development site

C56 St. Paul’s Square signed by numbers:- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21

C57 Ethelbert Close signed by numbers:- 2, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 9 completed forms from BR1 1JB plus • 43 Buckingham Way, Wallington, Surrey, SM6 9LU • 26 Hazelwood House, Church Road, , BR2 0HE • 15 Standard Road, Orpington, BR6 7HJ • 10 Romanhurst Gardens, Bromley, BR2 0PA • 24 Nichol Lane, Bromley, BR1 4DE

C58 B.L. Kelly • against including St. Paul’s Square in Site D

C59 L. Colwell • concerns re-Ethelbert Close petitions

24 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 3.1:

AAP: PREFERRED OPTIONS (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006): RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AAP / SA – Responses to Comments Received

Ref No & Summary of Representation LBB Comments/Response Proposed Changes to Preferred Name Options and/or inclusions in AAP RPO1 Barry Commented that Bromley South station has no provision for Bromley South Station is one of forty stations The AAP will include policy regarding Wooding wheelchair users, and that assurances need to be given to recently identified for inclusion on the DfT’s inclusive design and accessibility. wheelchair users that when redeveloped the station will be Access for All scheme programme. This Development guidelines for Sites A and fully accessible to the disabled. programme, funded by the DfT and J will include requirement for access implemented by Network Rail, sees the improvements to Bromley South and redevelopment of station infrastructure to Bromley North railway stations. provide step free access as well as other accessible facilities including improved lighting, hearing induction loops and passenger information schemes. Network Rail will carry out a feasibility study for the station over the next 18 months to establish what improvements need to be made, before upgrading the station between 2012 and 2015. RP02 No concerns over proposed revisions. Opportunity sites and No comment No changes Richard proposals of local importance Evans Surrey County Council RPO3 Commented on an area of the map on the Revised Preferred No planned development- the graphics denote New development will be required to A Eastwood Options leaflet around Palace View as being grey, asking if existing urban area protect existing residential amenity and there is planned development there. Insufficient weight given Views of local residents taken into account incorporate appropriate mitigation to to views of immediate residents through formal consultation on AAP minimise impacts RPO4 Expressed concern at the conflict between development of The transport assessment and sustainability AAP to include Transport Strategy and Ray Watson retail space and increasing traffic congestion. Mitigation assessment both encourage the development policies to promote sustainable Bromley Friends of measures and park and ride schemes will not solve problems of park and ride schemes and promote modal transport modes. the Earth and will shift congestion and parking issues to the suburban shift onto public transport that aims to reduce areas. private car use. It is considered that these AAP to include requirement for measures can address issues of congestion relocation of the Pavilion Leisure Centre Propose relocation of civic centre from central Bromley to and make Bromley a more attractive retail within town centre if site redeveloped reduce trips to town centre centre. The AAP includes a parking strategy to for retail uses.

RP06 Requested press release/ information Information provided Amanda Bradshaw The Local (Hayes Keston Bromley Common) RP07 Need for bus service, one way street system, 2 hour parking Chatterton Road is outside of the Bromley Town Marie Neal restriction and security cameras along Chatterton Road centre AAP boundary. Comment passed to Craft Jungle Transportation section. RPO8 Children’s play areas would be beneficial in attracting families New development will be required to make Policy relating to provision of childrens Ian Sutton to the town centre and would provide children with a safe provision for childrens play space to meet needs play space to be included in AAP. The Play Strategy Manager place to play. Need for a family friendly town of new residents. Existing children’s play space potential for incorporation of public art in Church House Gardens and St Martins Hill will be highlighted There is currently no space for disabled people and children will be improved. Play facilities in Church House Gardens too far from town Policy on inclusive design and access centre to enable use as part of shopping trip. Potential for play to be included in AAP facilities in Queens Gardens. Requirement for community facilities to Need to secure free play provision and child friendly public art- be provided as part of development of climbable and playable opportunity sites.

Need for accessible space for voluntary sector to run play and activity sessions for children with additional needs- this could be taken into account in proposals for site D.

RP09 Request further information Information provided Steve Shippey RPO10 Town is unsafe for families in the evenings – need to ensure Importance is placed on safety and security and AAP will include policies on design and Steve Best that more bars do not add to problems making the town centre a more attractive town centre management Facilities for teenagers should be incorporated into future destination for all ages in the evenings. redevelopments. A range of retail uses will be promoted to enhance the town centre offer and reinforce Need to encourage small independent shops- becoming a Bromley’s distinctiveness clone town with limited unique shopping character promote increased utilisation of existing Relocation of pavilion conflicts with need to encourage parking. evening and night life in town centre and reduce use by shoppers using Glades; impact on health and potential loss of Relocation of the pavilion leisure centre green space proposed within town centre. The AAP includes proposals to promote evening economy. Impact of retail development on shops in Bromley South and local shopping centres The town centre is considered the most suitable location for civic facilities given its high Possible extension to The Glades could result in Queens level of accessibility by public transport. Gardens being overshadowed- loss of open space due to new cafes Retail development is required to maintain Need to ensure no loss of open space or negative effects on Bromley’s status as a metropolitan centre. The biodiversity. town centre provides a different range of facilities in comparison to smaller centres and will not impact on the viability of local centres.

The extension to the Glades will be subject to environmental assessment. Sensitive design will be required to minimise impacts on Queens Gardens. RPO5 Increased traffic flow into the town centre will need to be Extensive traffic modelling has been undertaken AAP will include provision for highway Bernadette addressed, particularly through Beckenham Lane and for Bromley town centre to understand the improvements outside town centre to Manning Shortlands Village. impact of development on the town centre traffic address issues of congestion and flows and wider network. increased traffic. Lack of traffic calming in Beckenham Lane will contribute to problems Mitigation measures, such as a town centre wide travel plan, improvements to public transport and the management of parking, will be in place to ensure traffic levels are kept at a manageable level throughout the town centre.

RPO11 Developments need to take into account the needs of the local Importance placed on improving accessibility for AAP includes policy on inclusive design Dick Groves disabled residents. all users and the promotion of fully accessible and accessibility Disability Voice developments. The AAP seeks to create an Bromley Bromley has one of worst records for disabled access and accessible and inclusive town centre. safety in London- less than 30% crossings in town centre have provision for visually impaired. Recent improvements The Council are committed to ensuring that a unsatisfactory and dangerous full and representative consultation takes place with all sectors of the community. We will Need for meaningful consultation regarding access for ensure your comments are taken on board. disabled persons The Council is undertaking an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) as part of the AAP. Consultation will be undertaken with disability groups as part of the EqIA RP012 General questions about AAP See RP70 See RP70 Amanda See RP70 Weston Bromley Police RPO13 Improved permeability for cyclists and walkers is important- Initiatives for improving walking and cycling in Policies included in AAP to promote Vincent need for development to reduce barriers to pedestrians Bromley town centre will be an important cycling and walking and improvements Stops, London (particularly Kentish Way, one way streets and staggered component of the Transport Strategy for the to public transport Travel Watch pedestrian crossings from Bromley North to shopping areas). AAP. Planned cycle and walking improvements will include new links and pedestrian crossings. Kentish Way is often congested, and bus priority would be welcomed. Consideration will be given to enhancing bus priority on the A21 (Kentish Way) as part of Need for second accessible entrance to Bromley South comprehensive transport strategy. Kentish Way Station from Kentish Way is part of the TLRN for which TfL is the highway authority and Council will be investigating Town centre would benefit from the reinstallation of the market opportunities in conjunction with TfL. in a more accessible central location. Network Rail are due to carry out a feasibility AAP should promote a reduction in off-street parking. Support study on Bromley South Station over the next modal switch away from private car. 18 months as part of the DfT Access for All scheme. This will establish what improvements are needed for the station including the number and location of step free accesses.

A managed approach to parking will be adopted for the AAP, including making the best use of existing car parking provision and restraining parking where appropriate.

Consideration is to be given to potential relocation of the Charter Market to the pedestrianised High St to provide improved accessibility and operation. RPO14 Support proposals to enhance economic and social vitality of Operational requirements of BT are noted. In view of unavailability of Telephone Roger Bleach town centre but asks for following to be taken into account: Proposals for development must be capable of Exchange for development, Site D is Telereal on behalf of BT • Bromley Telephone Exchange is operational delivery within timescale of the AAP. excluded from AAP because the site is • new technology has recently been installed to serve considered too small to support a viable future needs comprehensive redevelopment • BT has no plans to vacate the Telephone Exchange in the foreseeable future • Relocation of Telephone Exchange would incur substantial costs in terms of infrastructure and property.

RPO15 Welcome proposals for regeneration and improved safety at No plans for altering the traffic flows in the AAP includes policies on design and Linda Evans night- may be assisted by housing in area. Queens Road area, although the potential for town centre management which improving the pedestrian environment is under address issues of safety and security As a resident of Queens Road, concerned that access may review. be difficult after development and about increased traffic. AAP includes a comprehensive May discourage people from shopping in town centre and The AAP seeks to improve Bromley Town transport strategy disadvantage existing residents. Centre including how to bring it to life at night by improving the night time environment and Concern about costs of proposals and possible increase in improving safety issues. Council Tax to pay for them. RP016 Request for information Information provided Martin Helt RP017 Support relocation of Pavilion Leisure Centre Noted AAP includes a comprehensive Councillor Library and theatre should be located on periphery with Development will be dependent on increased transport strategy Granger access to parking use of more sustainable transport modes but Concern about impact of discouraging use of car on Transport Strategy will include measures for performance of town centre in relation to competitors- improvements to walking, cycling and public notably Bluewater with convenient access and free parking transport and a parking strategy which will seek to improve use of existing parking. New parking is proposed to serve proposed retail development

Library and theatre will have improved access to parking RP018 Concern about decline of town centre, loss of quality retail, AAP seeks to address decline of town centre AAP includes policies to improve the Tom Tucker environmental quality, night time safety issues, anti-social and provide a more vibrant and attractive appearance of the town centre and

behaviour. Need to promote quality development centre. promote high quality design in new development RP019 Request for details of Compensation Code applicable to Information provided S Sykes home owners in Ethelbert Road RP20 Main concern relates to extended retail offer. Vital to have AAP seeks to address decline of town centre Site L extended to ensure viable Christine one or two department stores to compete with other towns. and provide a more vibrant and attractive development can take place Diamond Preference for housing development closer to town centre centre including provision for new department incorporating safeguarding rather than outlying areas. stores and town centre housing requirements

Plan for next 5 years sensible- development of DHSS Development of DHSS (Site L) in Phase 1 but building for hotel/ residential uses supported and should be needs to take into account safeguarding speeded up due to close proximity to rail links at Bromley requirements for transport projects.. South RPO21 Need to establish whether existing site can meet LFEPA Council will work with LFEPA to identify Development guidelines for Site C Steve Dark, requirements. suitable alternative site if relocation of fire highlight need to take into account Bromley Fire Station station required in future. No suitable possible future redevelopment of fire Charter Market site adjoining Bromley North Station may be alternative site identified in Town Centre. station site. a suitable location for a new fire station. Bromley North (Site A) identified for other uses to deliver transport improvements and mixed use development in accordance with London Plan.

Development of Site C should take into account possible future redevelopment of fire station site, RPO22 Need to identify opportunities for meeting learning An Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) is AAP includes policy on inclusive design D DasGupta, Disabilities needs through planned development. being undertaken. and accessibility Adult and Community Services Concern about lack of parking spaces in Bromley Town Centre for minibuses, particularly for disabled users. This limits opportunities for adults with learning disabilities to integrate.

Need for special facilities for disabled eg: changing facilities with hoists.

Need to ensure town centre is inclusive.

RP023 Bromley Court Hotel already provides good conference/ The potential for additional hotel AAP includes policy on promotion of Patrick Wall hotel facilities- misleading to say Bromley does not have a accommodation has been identified. This will business sector and improvements to Bromley Court Hotel quality hotel. Need to address the business sector to ensure enhance Bromley’s position as a metropolitan business areas hotels thrive. An additional hotel would dilute current centre. business market between hotels. AAP promotes improvements to existing Bromley has a small business sector- limited number of business areas and protection of existing medium to large companies. A lot of existing office space is office accommodation empty- only one site identified for office space (Old Town Hall)- all other sites are for mixed use development including retail, leisure and residential. Need to place more emphasis on developing business sector and attracting business into Bromley.

Concerned that hotel has not been consulted directly on market potential for another hotel.

RPO24 Belinda No requirement for new department store but town centre Requirement for new department store Improvements to stations proposed in Price would benefit from multiplex cinema. identified through market assessment. Site K Phase 1. has been identified for a multi-plex and interest Key issues relate to traffic and movement. Access to has been shown from prospective developers. AAP includes a comprehensive Bromley South station for those with wheelchairs or prams is Both developments will enhance Bromley’s transport strategy including very poor- needs to be addressed urgently. Bromley can offer and position as a metropolitan centre. improvements to public transport only thrive when station is made more accessible- otherwise facilities people will come by car leading to increased congestion and Redevelopment of stations will need to comply pressure on parking. Need to look at short term proposals to with DDA requirements, including wheelchair improve accessibility- cannot wait for development. and pram access. AAP proposes improvements to Station in Phase 1. Supports Bromley South as a transport interchange- could promote trains to Beckenham junction and links to tram. Transport Strategy is being developed to help Need to give greater priority to public transport. Support for improve highway movements and parking to congestion charge at peak times. ensure town is easier to navigate.

Concern about long walk from Kentish Way bus stop to Civic centre- suggests reception in the Glades

RPO25 Concern about proposal to relocate the Pavilion to Civic An alternative sports/ leisure facility will have to AAP includes a requirement for the K Dumville Centre site: be provided if the Pavilion is redeveloped. The relocation of the leisure facility • approval for Glades was granted with an civic centre has been identified as an undertaking that a leisure/ sports centre be built on appropriate site for a replacement improved the site for use by local residents. If the Pavilion leisure facility. facilities were withdrawn for any length of time while new sports centre constructed, this might have legal implications • If Pavilion facilities withdrawn for any length of time, users of facilities might loose the impetus to exercise with impacts on health care. Withdrawal of sports facilities not an option even for a short period • Many people use Pavilion and shop afterwards- loss of facilities will affect retail performance. Need to ensure replacement sports facilities in place before Pavilion is closed. RP026 Queried size of proposed site for relocation of the pavilion- Council considers proposed site to be of Tim Burrell concerned it would not be large enough for swimming pool adequate size to accommodate requirements

RPO27 Concerned about lack of wheelchair/ pram access at Redevelopment of stations will need to comply AAP policy requires access to stations David Anderson Bromley South station. Need for lifts or escalators. with DDA requirements, including wheelchair to be improved and DDA compliant. and pram access. Improvements to Bromley South proposed in Phase 1 RPO28 Concerned that Pavilion facilities will be relocated If site of Pavilion redeveloped, there will be a AAP includes a requirement for Glenis Ruston Community use should include provision for art and culture. requirement to replace facilities within the town. relocation of leisure facility Support for independent shops The civic centre site has been identified as a suitable location. New facility will reflect Arts and culture promoted in AAP changes in demand for leisure facilities and will including public art, improvements to be a modern facility which caters for needs and Churchill Theatre and Library and new health of community. public spaces

Community facilities identified as being important- Council seek to attract more live entertainment facilities into town. Bromley North seen as ideal area for independent retailers. RPO29 Queried the compensation code for Ethelbert Close Information provided David Corkrow residents. RPO30 Concerned about noise nuisance from existing pubs and Site D excluded. Mr James clubs Future use of cinema will be subject to Expressed serious concern that a live music venue at Site D assessment of potential impacts on residential would cause further noise disturbance to residents. amenity. RPO31 Supports proposals for new housing- should include The AAP identifies the need for mix of housing AAP includes policy to promote mix of Nicholas significant proportion (25% or more) of family homes of 3 or types including family housing. Community housing types and tenure and Schoon more bedrooms, with local play areas and garden space. facilities including children’s play space and associated community facilities. This will improve environment and design quality and education facilities will be required to meet encourage community engagement- improvements to needs of new development. security, privacy and amenity. Possible to build good family housing at medium to high densities. New development The increase in floorspace is a net increase on should reflect proximity to public transport- encourage existing floorspace. The increase in retail walking, cycling and use of public transport and provide floorspace meets requirements set out in the limited car parking. sub-regional strategy and the capacity identified in the retail capacity study. Increase in retail Need to make clearer case for increase in retail floorspace- floorspace and quality is required to enhance does this include space lost by closure of department stores. performance. It is recognised that retail Emphasis should be on quality not quantity- significant development is dependent on a comprehensive increase in retail floorspace will increase traffic congestion transport strategy to address congestion and and will not enhance competitiveness. traffic impacts. RP032 Requested copy of brochure Information provided Adrian Tutchings Linays Commercial RPO33 Queried whether Ringers Court was within Site G and if so, Residents will be kept informed of AAP and any Mark Sansom why there had been no formal notification proposed changes. Details of CPO procedures Ringers Court Residents Queried details of compulsory purchase order/ will be made available at the appropriate time Association compensation code. RPO34 Michael Site C- need to ensure any new build will reflect character of AAP includes development guidelines AAP includes development guidelines Payne former town hall. Need to compensate for loss of car parking development in keeping with character of and policy framework for all proposal Babbacombe Road Residents spaces surrounding area. sites and town centre as a whole. Association Site P- site suitable for affordable housing. Development should include upgrading of Walters Yard and respect Council policy to seek provision of affordable conservation area. housing in all developments. Developers will be Site A- development should preserve suburban character of expected to contribute towards infrastructure area, improve transport interchange and safety and access. requirements. Local community must be fully consulted on development of site. Key concerns: Community will be fully consulted on • Need to spread affordable housing between all development proposals sites • Need to clarify existing parking • Need for improved access • Increased traffic • Development must complement character of Station Road and Babbacombe Road • Impact of higher density development on water resources and local neighbourhood • Existing PCT health facility is fit for purpose- further clarification required of improved community and health facilities • Need for clarification of new transit system and improved links with Bromley South station • Need clarification of proposals for improved or new public open space • Need clarification of boundary changes RPO35 Requested clarification regarding impacts of development of Clarification provided. The culvert prevents AAP provides development guidelines Julia Stewart Site K and access to off street parking backing onto development above it so the rear servicing road to minimise impacts of Site K on Simpsons Road. behind Newbury Road is left untouched residential amenity. RP036 Pleased that St Paul’s Square removed from area for Site D excluded from AAP AAP includes a comprehensive B Jones and redevelopment but concerned about: transport strategy CM Ward • Enhancement proposals for top end of Martins Hill Comprehensive transport strategy to be • Traffic in Market Square- car journeys will be prepared to address issues of access to town increased without access through Market Square centre adding to congestion and pollution. Martins Hill to be protected. Possible enhancements will include planting and promotion of biodiversity

RP037 Planned retail in Pavilion should be for quality department AAP seeks to improve town centre offer- better Barbara Geere store range and quality of retail and improved arts Need for shops selling better quality goods and culture offer. More cultural activities required to raise Bromley’s profile in the arts- ideally a new arts centre and concert hall Emphasis on improving Churchill Theatre and Need for more English style cafes existing facilities. No potential identified for new arts centre and concert hall RP038 Lack of range and quality of restaurants in evenings AAP seeks to improve town centre offer and Christine People put off going to Bromley due to problems of young performance- better range and quality of retail Maddy people/ binge drinking and cafes/ restaurants. Objective to attract Need for department store- retail offer limited. Bromley wider range of users in evenings and to becoming a clone town- lack of individual shops. Needs to enhance Bromley’s distinctiveness. be different to attract trade from Bluewater and Croydon and to retain high spending capacity within area. RPO39 Freeholder of 10 Sherman Road adjoining Site A- Comments noted. A comprehensive approach No change Nigel Styles, preference for property to remain outside boundary of Site A to development is proposed Stylish Living to enable site to be redeveloped separately. No marriage value between property and Site A. RPO40 Object to the requirement stated in paragraph 3.32 for a The proposed split reflects London Plan and AAP includes policy on affordable Helen Booker, 70:30 split of social rented housing and intermediate Council policy. However, it will be possible to housing but allow for flexibility in RPS on behalf of Fairview New housing within the 35% affordable housing provision. review proposals on a site by site basis taking application taking into account London Homes into account AAP objectives Plan and AAP objectives Affordable housing mix should be negotiated on a site by site basis with each case being treated on its merits having regard to Council’s objective for providing affordable housing based on an up to date Housing Needs Assessment.

RPO41 Site K- concern about noise at night from people visiting Measures will be taken to minimise impacts on AAP promotes improvements to station Olivia Fawkes cinema and restaurants. Newbury St a residential Road- residential amenity in design of development. as part of proposals for Site J. unless hours of residential parking increased, risk of on Pedestrian access to cinema and restaurants Improvements to Bromley South Station street parking at night. Objection to restaurants having will be from High St. Parking to be provided on proposed to commence in Phase 1 extended hours. Need to consider design and size of Site K replacement car park to limit impacts on Newbury Road AAP includes development guidelines residents. Council will promote improved accessibility for for Site K all users to Bromley South Station in particular Site J- 5-10 years is too long to wait for new station at step free access. Bromley South Station is one Bromley South- existing station ahs poor facilities- cannot of forty stations recently identified for inclusion use station because no pram access. Need to make on the DfT funded Access for All scheme improvements to station a priority and moved to Phase 1. programme. Network Rail will carry out a feasibility study for the station over the next 18 months to establish what improvements need to be made, before upgrading the station. RPO43 Proposed restrictions on car movements along North side of Emphasis is being placed on improving the Reference to improvements to transit Mr & Mrs Market Square should allow access for residents. Without pedestrian environment. Full account will be systems linking from Bromley South to Dumville this, congestion would increase on Swan Hill. taken of local access for residents. Bromley North and beyond

Would welcome a light rail link to Grove Park and Lewisham Potential for improvements to transit systems to link with DLR and link to Bromley South from Bromley linking from Bromley South to Bromley north North. and beyond but this could take many forms e.g. extension of the Croydon Tramlink or DLR or a Concerned about impact of development fronting onto new transit system linking with park and ride Martins Hill. Opposed to inappropriate commercial sites. Options need to be considered as part of development in Martins Hill area- should be an open space a longer term study for benefit of residents will be met with major opposition.

Not opposed to relocation of leisure centre within town centre but concerned that sports facilities may be withdrawn because funds unavailable to rebuild existing centre following closure. Need to ensure that new facilities available before existing centre closed. Appendix 4- questioned reference to lack of high quality development frontage to Martins Hill- Martins Hill is an area for informal recreation and leisure although there is evidence of illegal/ anti-social behaviour - would support promotion of part of Martins Hill as nature reserve. Pleased that St Pauls square deleted from redevelopment area. RPO44 Support proposals for Site N and G- encourages Preferred Options include new car park to serve AAP includes proposal for a new car Chris Glover, restaurants/ cafes around theatre to keep High Street alive Site G development. park to serve Site G development. The Churchill Theatre after 6 pm- this will increase footfall and make Churchill Theatre more attractive to older customers. Will contribute to a safer, more secure and vibrant town centre. A closer/ more welcoming car park would encourage customers to spend their evenings in Bromley rather than go to West End. The Hill and Pavilion car parks require patrons to walk along a quiet High St- a car park at site G with access to theatre through a more inviting restaurant/ café development would benefit town centre trade. RPO45 Gladys Criticised AAP for not making any provision for cyclists to Initiatives for improving walking and cycling in AAP includes policies for walking and Edmonds reach the centre of town or to move from one side to other. Bromley town centre will be an important cycling as part of Transport Strategy. More needs to be done to discourage people from using car component of the Transport Strategy for the to avoid increased congestion. AAP. AAP will be more specific about planned cycle and walking improvements including new Cycle facilities need to be implemented from outset- need to links and pedestrian crossings. include cycle ways which link together to form network. RPO46 Norman Site A Timescales in Draft AAP are indicative. Council Timescale for development of Site A Wells Timescale for Site A is too long. Respondent’s offices are supports relocation or retention of Charter brought forward. within site and long time scale is impacting on general Market and promotion of market activities. maintenance/ planning blight etc. Network Rail owns most of Site D deleted from Draft AAP. site and with prospective developers wish to develop site at Council supports retention of existing and Improvements promoted to enhance earlier stage than 10-15 years shown in Phase 3. development of town centre’s cultural offer distinctive character of Bromley North Village. Charter Market is poor quality and compares unfavourably with other local markets. Needs to be substantially Site K proposed for mixed use upgraded. Suggests that introduction of Farmers/ development incorporating cinema continental style Markets selling local produce could enhance attractions. Potential to resurrect Annual Fairs in 2012 using Charter granted by Henry VI to coincide with 150th anniversary of last time they were held.

Site D In event of cinema being replaced by new cinema in Site K, an independent cinema would be suitable on the site and would fit with the ‘East Street Village’ concept. This would benefit from proximity to the Little Theatre and restaurants in Bromley North and offer greater variety to develop Bromley’s cultural offer/ encourage a better mix of night time uses which would appeal to all ages and reduce anti-social behaviour.

Site K Need for different cinema offer to standard multi-plex- preference for smaller independent cinemas serving local communities.

Supports principles set out in Plan to make Bromley a more attractive centre to visit- but detail needs clarification with greater emphasis on cultural facilities that promotes diversity and inclusion and provides a wider mix of uses. RPO47 Georgie No references to utility infrastructure needs in terms of water The SA encourages the minimisation of the use Cook, Thames and waste water which is essential to any development. AAP of water to enable residential developments to SA addresses the main issues raised. Water needs to consider the net increase in water and waste water meet the higher levels of the Code for demand to serve the proposal as well as off site impacts in Sustainable Homes. Development proposals will The AAP will require development order to avoid no/ low water pressure and external/ internal be required to consider if the demand for water proposals to address the net increase in sewage flooding of properties. supply network infrastructure both on and off water and waste water demand site for the development sites can be met required to serve the proposal. Recommended that consideration be given to whether the Developers will be required to consider following can be met: off site impacts to ensure no/ low water • demand for water supply network infrastructure both pressure and external/ internal sewage on and off site;. flooding of properties is to be avoided. • demand for sewage network infrastructure both on and off site; The AAP will require new developments to consider the demand placed on the • drainage and flood risk of the proposed sewage network infrastructure both on development both on and off site. and off site and how this can be met.

The AAP will ensure that new developments consider the drainage and flood risk of the development both on and off site.

The AAP will promote greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting in new developments.

RP048 Need to embrace idea of urban living with a village feel- Council seeks to enhance character and Policies promote mixed uses and new Siobhan Pender Council must encourage and help establish individuality attractiveness of town centre as a place to live cultural and leisure facilities and (Resident Bromley within retail and café arena. Opportunity to designate areas and enhanced provision of cafes and cultural residential development in town centre. Gardens) which promote café culture for art and community spirit to provision. flourish. Enjoyment of town centre limited by lack of good alternative restaurants and ‘yob culture’. Reference to Northcote Road Battersea as good model- village atmosphere and range of independent shops. Potential to promote Bromley as area with a lot to offer people without children- support for art gallery and venue for book launches etc. RPO49 Concerned about lack of information about potential CPO in Council will manage any CPO process to Mr Mortimer next 5 years- Request for details of compensation and CPO minimise blight and ensure property owners fully (resident of Ringers Road) appeal procedures. consulted and receive appropriate compensation RPO50 Concerned about proposals to discourage car usage and A balanced strategy is proposed which provides AAP includes policies to promote Pierre Appleby impact on retailers/ businesses. Support for more for necessary parking and promotes increased pedestrian and cycle links and (BBRAG) consideration to be given to cycling as a sustainable mode use of public transport and sustainable connectivity throughout the town centre of transport for shoppers, commuters and school children. transport. The SA promotes the inclusion of as part of a comprehensive transport cycle routes and facilities in new developments strategy Expressed disappointment that cycle routes have not been and throughout the town centre as part off given greater consideration in the AAP. Need to create new mitigation measures. cycle facilities/ routes.

Need for solution to ‘out of town’ traffic problem to encourage businesses to locate in Bromley. Support for widening of A21- over reliance has been placed on falling traffic counts which may not continue. Need to improve road accessibility.

Need to consider park and ride- to south, west and east to reduce congestion at peak times.

Proposed mitigation measures will not solve approach road Council developing a comprehensive transport congestion and are a disincentive to expansion of the town. strategy to support AAP AAP includes transport proposals Increased parking tariffs will discourage people from staying including park & ride provision in longer longer in town centre. term

Suggested cycle routes for pupils to get to local schools. RPO51 Unaware of proposals affecting property- request details of Council will manage any CPO process to Ms Musto the compensation code and to be kept up to date on minimise blight and ensure property owners Mr Brennan Ethelbert Close progress of proposals. fully consulted and receive appropriate compensation. RPO52 Supports proposals to benefit local community- plans Council will manage any CPO process to Peter Brown directly affect property and concerned that residents should minimise blight and ensure property owners Ringers Road be more involved as decisions are being processed. fully consulted and receive appropriate Request clarification of plans and details of the compensation. compensation code. RP053 Pleased that revised Plan recognises part churches play in Council will manage any CPO process to AAP recognises importance of churches Edwin life and community of Bromley. Need to give more attention minimise blight and ensure property owners and need to make provision for Thompson Clerk of to quality of life- should not be overtaken by retail and fully consulted and receive appropriate churches affected by development in Bromley commercial considerations. Need to make Bromley a place compensation. town centre Quaker people will want to live. Meeting/ Member Churches together in central Bromley

RPO54 Plans for Site D should not mean end for the cinema. Council seeks to retain entertainment facilities Site D deleted from Draft AAP Penny Read Suggests live entertainment venue on Site C- comedy club in any new development or ice rink and facilities for younger people. Car park on Site AAP includes guidelines for D ugly but useful. Proposals for Site N and Site F seek to development of Sites N and F including Site N provides good opportunity to improve appearance of enhance environment of town centre and to enhancement of public open spaces area- supports idea of town square with wider open space improve access to open space and links to library and theatre and Church House gardens. Site F- good opportunity to open gardens up to public- parks bring history of area to life and bring town to life- potential for linked walks

RP055 Concern about proposed closure and relocation of leisure Council will ensure that re-provision of leisure AAP requires relocation of leisure Peter and centre- fear scenario whereby there will be a hiatus between centre secured before development of Site E centre secured before development of Audrey Hallows closure and completion of new facility. proceeds. Site E proceeds

Retail development at side of Glades will centralise Council seeks to extend retail offer to southern AAP proposes extension of primary provision in small area- consideration should be given to end of High Street retail frontage to south of High Street incorporation of retail space within redevelopment of southern end of High Street. More vibrant town centre should not be at cost of existing facilities. RPO56 Quality and fabric of the Pavilion has deteriorated- need to A new sports/ leisure facility will have to be AAP identifies requirement for provision Steve Price, take decision on case for investment and improvement. provided if the Pavilion is redeveloped. of new leisure facility in event of MyTime Concern about potential impacts of proposals on leisure development of Site E centre- most significant leisure centre benefiting from footfall Preliminary feasibility work undertaken to generated by proximity to town centre shops and attractions. establish capacity of Site F to accommodate The Pavilion has aged badly and does not meet growth in new recreation centre demand for health and fitness- sports hall and squash courts underused. However, it still represents a major opportunity Council will work with MyTime to ensure quality for improvement/ investment- would reposition the leisure of provision maintained offer to complement the retail offer and contribute to objective of a successful and vibrant town centre. Key concerns: • Replacement site on Civic Centre too small to re- provide existing facilities (smaller pool and possible loss of sports hall)- would also result in loss of Grand Hall a venue for community activities and Adventure Kingdom; • Implementation period of AAP is likely to prevent significant investment in the current centre until decision is made. Virtual planning blight on existing site.

Request Council to consider a commitment to endorse the continued provision of a public sector leisure facility within the town centre and to provide a replacement to the Pavilion before demolition of the current site. RPO57 Concern that not all of objectives pp 33-34 are deliverable Council will seek appropriate level of Policies included in implementation James Stevens, and whether some might prove incompatible (creating an contributions from all developments section of AAP regarding developer Home Builders Federation attractive, healthy and peaceful place to live while also contributions reviving commercial, employment and entertainment uses in town centre.

Unlikely any one developer will be able to deliver all the S106 obligations listed on p85-86 on a single scheme and therefore the way that the obligations are calculated must reflect the circumstances of the development site and its ability to absorb those costs. Developers need more certainty and it is essential that Council prioritises obligations and relate these to specific residential locations in the AAP.

Calculation of potential health and education contributions must be related to evidence of actual need. This requires monitoring of capacity- report to Bromley Council dated 13 February 2007 reveals substantial existing capacity and calls for reduction in published admission numbers to reduce costs. This suggests little need for new education infrastructure to be built. RPO58 Seeking to purchase 104-108 High St AAP is being prepared in the context of serving AAP promotes a comprehensive Ian Shrubsall, Welcome identification of 100-108 High St for mixed use the town centre as a whole not in a piecemeal Transport Strategy. RPS for Invista Foundation development- opportunity to redevelop site to create way. In terms of transport, this relates to Property landmark building at important focal point adjacent to theatre parking to serve linked trips within the town Policy for development of Site G will (freeholder of and entrance to Church House Gardens: would form centre and also sustainable policies such as require re-provision of community and 100-102 High attractive and active corner to new town square. travel planning, again orientated towards a faith uses and improved linkages to St) whole town centre approach. open space. Objection to Site G on grounds of the ability of the proposal to be delivered and the potential blight that could occur as a Comprehensive approach to redevelopment of result of the wording of the proposals. Site G is required to deliver objectives of AAP and capacity for new retail development. Table 7.1 Site G- Car parking, community and faith uses of the site should be considered as applying to those parts of Feasibility work indicates Site G development the site where they are existing, or in the case of parking can be delivered. Council will manage any CPO where required to serve new development. Linkages to process to minimise blight and ensure property public open space should not be a requirement for all parts owners fully consulted and receive appropriate of site. Welcome potential for taller buildings but reference compensation. to comprehensive approach needs to be clarified to prevent situation where Site G in multiple uses and tenancies will not otherwise come forward for development if it had to be assembled as a single ownership and development site. CPO should not be used if objective can be achieved in another way. Masterplan should allow individual parcels to come forward on a phase by phase basis to achieve deliverability and recognise individual property rights. Piecemeal development can be avoided by setting policy objectives for wider area. Propose new wording:

‘A comprehensive concept is proposed for Site G to which all individual parcels of land within Site G must comply in order to ensure the objectives for Site G are met. For the avoidance of doubt, development proposals for Site G will not be permitted unless they can demonstrate how they contribute to meeting the overall objectives for Site G and that they avoid prejudicing the subsequent development of adjacent land and other elements of the Site G proposals’.

Accept that reference to ‘linkages/ integration with Park and Site N’ are necessary but clarification is required that proposals do not have to be delivered in a single phase or ownership with Site N, but that they should be complimentary and link to Site N and the park and allow for that development, but not be contingent on it, or required to deliver it.

Welcome indicative floor areas for retail but caution that flexibility should be allowed for residential development as this is the most suitable use for the upper floors. Inappropriate to cap development at a level less than would make best use of site- priority should be given to achieving higher densities on sustainable town centre sites.

Object to indicative timescale for development of Site G as Phase 2 for 5-10 years. Site is physically capable of development within Phase 1- no sound reason to delay positive regeneration/ development which can take place on phased basis. Object to statement that use of CPO will be necessary to promote comprehensive development- comprehensive approach can be achieved by individual parcels coming forward in a coordinated and complimentary way. Requirement for CPO will lead to planning blight and a disincentive to landowners bringing forward proposals. CPO will delay regeneration.

Request meeting to discuss proposals. RPO59 Concern about development of Westmoreland Road Car Parking will be re-provided in Town Centre. Policy for development of Site K to Katy Noseda- Park- not in best interests of community: require provision of public parking. Vennard • Need for Car park which is always in full use. If size Existing cinema does not meet requirements for Requirement for high quality design and of car park reduced, increased demand for parking entertainment provision in town centre mitigation of impacts on existing and detrimental impact on residential roads. Existing residential amenity. Any reduction in lack of parking in area will be compounded by public parking on Site K to be re- development; provided on Site G. • Existing cinema could be improved- no need for another cinema; Requirement for any proposals for • Increased noise pollution and rubbish and anti- reuse/ redevelopment of existing social behaviour at night; cinema to include entertainment/ leisure • Increased traffic; use • Development will have detrimental effect on house prices and impact on residential amenity; • No need for additional cafes/ restaurants given existing provision. RPO60 Carolyn As resident of Ravensbourne Road, considers proposals for A managed approach to parking will be adopted New development being taken forward Elliott Site G to represent very high density and will have big for the AAP, including making the best use of under the AAP will require detailed impact on local services- doctors (proposals for Site H existing car parking provision and restraining transport assessments to ensure traffic (Phase 3) will be too late), primary schools, secondary parking where appropriate. A Parking Plan will impacts are acceptable. Residents schools and drainage. be prepared including on-street parking parking permits will not be made provision. available to residents of new Better solution for new department Store on old Army & development in Town Centre. navy Store site- would remove requirement to demolish TK Development of Site G will be required to Maxx and retail/ residential properties. Impact on existing include provision for community facilities Development of Site J Bromley South residents due to potential CPO. Station modified to exclude mixed use Re-provision of leisure facilities will be secured development over tracks. Bromley’s attraction relates partly to traditional ‘old town style’ feel- should not be competing with Bluewater. Developers will be expected to contribute towards the necessary infrastructure Traffic around Bromley South is already heavy with requirements significant congestion at Masons Hill junction. New 400 space car park will exacerbate problem and discourage people from coming into Bromley. Inadequate residents parking bays to serve Ravensbourne Road, Ringers Road and Ethelbert Road- residents have to find alternative parking a distance away in Zone C. Publicity material has not clearly stated the enormity of the plans- most people do not understand the scale of demolition planned. Need further clarification of proposals.

Closure of the Pavilion will result in loss of only sports facility in area before new facility is provided on Civic Centre site. Limited facilities for young people- a period without leisure facilities in town centre is unacceptable. RPO61 Concern that youth element getting out of control in town Hotel development included in proposals for Policy included in AAP relating to safety Tinklin Springall centre- need to liaise with police and bring zero tolerance Site C and L and security and town centre Solicitors policy into effect. Support wider extension of CCTV system. management.

Support 3-4* hotel as part of redevelopment of Bromley South given lack of hotel facilities in area

RPO62 Provision of health and leisure facilities was a major factor in Replacement sports/ leisure facility will be AAP includes policy requiring re- T O Burrell agreement to original development of the Glades. provided if the Pavilion is redeveloped. provision of sports/ leisure facilities if Demolition of existing provision needs special consideration. The Pavilion is redeveloped. Site F John Lewis do not wish to use site and justification for identified as suitable site for new facility. proposed new department store diminished. Smaller Provision will need to be secured before additional shops would not justify loss of leisure facility. New development of existing leisure centre leisure centre on the Civic Centre site must contain at least (Site E) commences a swimming pool of similar size and nature to existing pool and a gym.

Opposed to any closure of leisure centre prior to new facility being provided. Commercial development must nor take precedence over health and fitness of borough residents. RPO63 Welcomes amended proposals provide for inclusion of Council will ensure provision for existing faith AAP will include polices relating to Peter Faulkner Churches but concerned that there is no guarantee that uses as part of redevelopment of Site G transport measures to improve Salvation Army and Town Church will not be moved to accessibility to town centre another part of town. These churches are used by Comprehensive transport strategy developed to community throughout week. If churches are moved their support AAP. value may be diminished.

Transport policy is unrealistic- idea that increasing number of people living and working in town centre can be achieved without significant number of parking spaces is wrong- existing parking restrictions mean that people often go to Bluewater instead of Bromley. Inability to go along Widmore Road through Market square and down Church Road will add to high levels of traffic on Tweedy Road. Lower part of High Street should not be closed to cars. Concern that buses will not be allowed to stop outside Boots- if it is moved this will result in longer walk to the Glades- a problem for old people. RP064 Supports preservation of open space and proposals to retain Comments noted AAP includes transport strategy which Valerie Walford and improve access to it. Concerned that transport will identifies park & ride as longer term remain difficult- suggests that Christmas Park & ride facility measure. should continue to operate on trail basis to assess whether it would be viable and efficient as a permanent service and AAP seeks to improve retail offer and reduce congestion in town centre. new department stores

Concerned about decline in quality of retail offer and loss of department stores. Supports proposals to revitalise retail shopping in High Street.

Supports continuing presence of Salvation Army in town centre- contributes to civic life and provides facilities such as youth clubs and play groups which could not easily continue if premises moved. Need for more facilities in area.

Provision to meet faith needs is essential. Salvation Army could not contribute as effectively to community if it did not continue to occupy space within Site G. Significant amount of money invested by community in upgrading existing premises. Concerned that revised proposals for Site G only provide for developers to be requested to accommodate Salvation Army in redevelopment proposals- should be altered to ‘requirement’ to accommodate Salvation Army. RPO65 Michael Highlights need for more diverse range of activities within Council seeks to extend retail and business AAP includes policies to extend retail Fearn on behalf the town centre- 2004 Retail Study showed that banks and opportunities in town centre and business opportunities of Barclays Bank financial institutions under-represented in Bromley compared to national position- but no intention set out in document to review the extent of primary area or modify wording to bring UDP policies S1 and S10 into line with government policy. UDP policies state uses within Classes A2-A5 may be appropriate: Uses in Part A of Use Classes order are by definition appropriate in shopping frontages and should be permitted. Designations of primary and secondary frontages should be realistically defined having regard to rental levels and yields- unclear how these issues have been addressed. If Council intends continuing to promote this type of policy these issues need to be addressed. RPO66 Welcomes recognition that cultural and creative economy is Comments noted AAP includes policies to promote Rose Freeman, an important contributor to Bromley’s economy. Support cultural and creative economy The Theatres Trust proposals for Site N to develop a cultural quarter and civic square in front of the Churchill Theatre and Library. Balanced leisure scene will entertain and stimulate visitors, residents and local businesses- will enliven surrounding area in evening and provide regular custom for bars and restaurants outside normal working and shopping hours RPO67 Charles Development and Flood Risk Comments noted SA has assessed potential impacts of Muriithi, Southern area of town centre south of railway designated as development and proposed mitigation Environment Agency Flood Zone 3- 1% or greater chance of flooding in an y SFRA undertaken measures given year. PPS25 requires new development to be steered to areas at lowest probability of flooding by applying a Policies included in AAP to address ‘Sequential Test’. No evidence provided to indicate impacts of development sequential test undertaken- uses defined as vulnerable development must not be permitted in area and options to Text amended to reflect comments remove highly vulnerable development from these areas should be considered. SFRA should inform the Sustainability Appraisal. At present AAP does not accord with guidance in PPS12 because of lack of robust evidence base relating to flood risk. Revised Preferred Options should be assessed on basis of flood risk issues. Proposed development in Southern Gateway may not be appropriate due to flood risk and further investigation required (Sites H, J and K). FRA must determine actual flood risk to these sites. Selection of preferred options sites for residential development after SFRA undertaken may identify more suitable areas for development. Town Centre constrained by predominantly manmade rivers and capacity of existing sewer and surface water systems. Robust approach needed to manage flood risk in future- balance must be struck between maintaining and supporting natural floodplains and reducing flood risk. SFRA must be done prior to Council progressing plan.

Surface Water Food Risk London Plan SPG on Sustainable Planning and Construction states that development should use SUDS wherever practical (essential); achieve 50% attenuation of undeveloped site’s surface water runoff at peak times (essential); achieve 100% attenuation of undeveloped site’s surface water runoff at peak times (preferred). Drainage must be designed to cope appropriately with peak runoff rates and volumes and allow for climate change in accordance with increases in rainfall predicted and outlined in PPS25.

Climate Change Need to integrate climate change considerations into all spatial planning- transport, housing, economic growth and regeneration, water supply and waste management- view from wider sustainability objectives not just reducing impacts of flooding. Need to consider mitigation and adaptation and opportunities for integration in spatial strategies should be maximised. Consider area’s vulnerability to climate change and implications for built development, infrastructure and services and biodiversity. New development should be avoided in areas with likely increased vulnerability to climate change. Council should require development proposals to take account of expected changes in local climate conditions by adaptation or flexibility to allow future adaptation. Information on measures should be submitted with an application. Council should require major developments to: • Identify type of and extent of main changes expected in local climate throughout lifetime of proposed development; • Identify potential impacts of changes on proposed development and its neighbours; • Indicate ways in which proposed development design overcomes hazards and exploits opportunities whilst meeting other sustainable development criteria, particularly need to achieve overall reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Ground Water and Land Contamination Areas of town centre designated within Groundwater Source Protection Zone- provides water for public supply and vulnerable to pollution such as site drainage. Within these areas pollution prevention measures must be followed in accordance with ‘Policy and Practice for Protection of Groundwater’. Only roof water must be discharged to ground within inner source protection zones. Where development is proposed on or near a site known or believed to be contaminated, a site assessment will be required to establish nature and extent of contamination prior to determining the application. Remediation must reduce risk to acceptable levels.

Surface water runoff should be treated through a SUDS system to improve water quality eg: pervious paving, green roofs, bio retention, filtration, ponds and storm water wetlands.

Open Spaces and Biodiversity Pleased to see most of biodiversity issues addressed- AAP an ideal opportunity for enhancement of low value conservation sites and to create and enhance ecological networks and improving and linking green spaces to local residents. Proposals for improvements to public realm welcomed- development provides opportunity for green spaces to become a major educational and community resource- new green grid style development, improved entrance ways and knowledge of parks, enhancement and extension of existing green spaces. Recommend increased environmental recreation in and around river corridors eg: increased access to fishing and environmental education. Potential to improve ecological value of green spaces by removing hard concrete edges along river corridors and replacing with natural planting. Council should require development proposals to include landscaping and other ecological features that contribute to protecting, managing and enhancing local biodiversity- information must be submitted with applications. Applicants should appoint an ecologist to prepare appraisal of proposals and if appropriate a biodiversity action plan for site.

Design and Construction Importance of design quality of buildings and public spaces and need to enhance local character and support local services. Well designed neighbourhood should be socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Building Regs will require new homes to be zero carbon by 2016. Need to create multi-functional landscapes with opportunities for water and energy saving- neighbourhoods should be convenient and safe to walk or cycle to shops, schools and access to public transport with range of tenures and types of housing. Buildings must be located and designed to reduce flood risk over lifetime of development- 60 years for residential and 100 years for residential. Encourage green roofs and surface water storage to reduce flood risk.

AAP should show how needs of disabled and older people would be met- design must be required to provide for inclusive access.

Development Control Policies Need for strategic and detailed policies relating to flooding and climate change- representations include proposed policies on:

• flooding to reduce flood risk and ensure capacity of flood plain is preserved and where possible increased; • Enhancement of River Ravensbourne including options to open culverts and restore sections of river; • Recreational use of River Ravensbourne.

Greening New Development Encourage incorporation of green roofs in new developments.

Energy Efficiency and Renewables AAP should ensure that a significant proportion of energy supply of new development is gained on-site and renewably and/ or from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply and support use of renewables, CHP and bio fuels. It should promote the use of recycled building materials and materials with low embodied energy and promote retrofitting existing buildings to make them more energy efficient. Need to monitor performance.

AAP offers opportunity to produce development with highest environmental standards and to achieve environmental protection and enhancement. Environment agency want to work with Council on best ways to manage and improve green infrastructure and achieve improved water and energy efficiency. RPO68 Proposals for development of Site G generally sensible but Comments noted AAP sets out development guidelines John Sercombe will have adverse impact on properties in Ethelbert Close. for development of Site G to minimise impacts Initial plans for last UDP showed boundary of Town centre Conservation Area being extended to include wood but never implemented.

Overriding concern relates to traffic management and impacts of additional parking and housing in town centre. Roads unable to cope with increased traffic- scale of development must be restricted or changes made to bottom of High Street eg: ban right turn from High Street into Westmoreland Road for all traffic. RPO69 Request confirmation of proposals for the Pavilion and Development of Site E dependent on relocation AAP includes policy for reprovision of Maggie Gebbett provision for new swimming pool and relocation of facilities of leisure centre leisure centre in Pavilion. Expectation that there should be a swimming pool in town centre. RPO70 Need to ensure infrastructure and services are provided to Comments noted AAP includes policies to ensure new Deborah support new and existing economic development and development supported by necessary Stephens, on behalf of the housing. MPA have a key role to play in ensuring safe infrastructure Metropolitan places to live are created as part of a sustainable Police community. London Plan recognises importance of Text amended initiatives relating to policing and community safety and crime reduction in improving quality of life. Developments should be safe and secure taking into account objectives of Secure by Design, designing out Crime and Circular 5/94. Such a commitment should be secured as part of any planning consent relating to large scale development schemes. London Plan Policy 3A.14 recognises that provision of police facilities is a key aspect of the provision of social infrastructure. Needs of MPA should be expressed in AAP and proposed development should make appropriate provision towards policing.

Para 3.2 – should include reference to the provision of appropriate levels of police facilities.

Para 4.6 – include reference to police services in the range of public services and facilities required to provide a ‘good’ environment.

Chapter 5- AAP should include community safety and policing initiatives. Welcome safer neighbourhood Panel initiative and role of town centre manager in monitoring

Para 6.4 – should include specific reference to ‘Designing out Crime’ and ‘Secured by Design’ principles within the underlying principles of the Spatial Strategy.

Community facilities should include specific references to the police service. The MPA request the provision of police shops in relevant locations. This advice should be considered in connection with all relevant proposal sites including Sites A, D and G.

Planning Obligations- The AAP should allow additional community service contributions to be negotiated across the town centre, including contributions towards community safety and policing initiatives in order to promote inclusive, healthy, safe and crime free communities. RPO71 Scope of consultation was too restricted, poorly advertised Council committed to full consultation in Policies included in AAP to ensure high Neil Coe, and insufficiently detailed for full responses- many residents accordance with Statement of Community quality of development and provision of Alexandra Residents unaware of AAP. Involvement balanced mix of uses Association Explanation of options superficial and level of questions Comments noted inadequate to judge proposals.

Overall concept of long term plan to enhance town centre rather than allowing speculative development welcomed- but share concerns of Friends of Bromley Town Parks and Gardens and Heart of Bromley Residents association in respect of Sites C,D,F,G and L.

Emphasis should be on quality rather than quantity of new retail offer, and diversity should be encouraged within the historic quarters of the town.

Assumption that Bromley must compete with larger local shopping centres is not necessarily valid if the whole retail/ culture/ entertainment/ leisure experience is more pleasurable and convenient.

Support objective of creating a vibrant day and night culture and provision of selection of restaurants/ cafes, cultural activities, leisure and entertainment facilities to attract full range of residents and visitors throughout week and at weekends.

Concern that the historical, architectural and cultural elements of the town centre are not given sufficient importance and consideration in the AAP. Heritage and parkland gives Bromley a distinct advantage over centres such as Bluewater, Lewisham and Croydon and this should be exploited to maximum.

Proposals for the Civic Centre are vague and inconclusive, and do not address the isolated nature of the location. Council offices should be located in natural centre of town or link with main High Street, shopping centre and parks

Reuse of Old Town Hall site for reception and council meetings would refocus town on North village which is currently underused.

Transport of paramount importance to success of AAP- Bromley North station must be refurbished and connected properly to road network to redress inaccessibility of Bromley from north.

The proposed new multiplex cinema will jeopardise the existing Odeon cinema which should be preserved as a historic building and amenity. Requirement to retain an art house cinema or other suitable converted public use should be a condition of granting consent for multiplex. Alternatively, Odeon should become centre of the multiplex and adjacent land subject of CPO for additional screens, café and car parking.

Proposal for tall buildings should be strongly resisted particularly adjacent to the proposed new and enhanced town squares and close to parkland in order to maintain an appropriate skyline, protect strategic views and avoid overshadowing of communal spaces.

Success of AAP dependent on Bromley North station becoming a primary transport interchange and LB Bromley using land and buildings to create right opportunities for change. Increase in shopping not an essential requirement. Need correct balance of heritage, culture, leisure and entertainment to become a vibrant town centre. Current AAP too biased towards large scale development to detriment of enhancing the existing townscape and retaining local character.

Consultation should be expanded to all Bromley residents and wider range of community groups and consultees such as English Heritage, CABE, SPAB and Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas.

Success of town centre of importance to whole Borough.

RPO72 Nicola Congestion only partly due to car ownership levels. Best A managed approach to parking will be adopted Policies included in AAP relating to Davies, Palace way of tackling congestion is to influence how people for the AAP, including making the best use of parking and improvements to public View choose to travel. existing car parking provision and restraining transport as part of Transport Strategy. parking where appropriate. Parking Plan to Problems of non-permit holding vehicles parking in adjoining review on-street parking provision. Policy to promote high quality residential streets- need to review CPZ. development and safety and security. Upgrading Bromley North and Bromley South Concern that no mention made of current education needs stations is not purely to improve the Requirement for provision of community and provision. Problems of availability of primary school environment of the stations and attract car infrastructure/ financial contributions to places close to town centre. Shortage of nursery and drivers to take the train, but rather to improve meet needs of proposed residential primary school places for people living close to town centre the accessibility of the stations. development. creating a need to travel by car. Need to address issue of primary and nursery school places if new residential Balanced mix of uses proposed to create vibrant development proposed. town centre.

Upgrading of stations unlikely to influence choice of travel in favour of train and away from car. Key problem is decreasing capacity of trains at Bromley South and Grove Park for people using Bromley North shuttle.

Mixed use development needs to be defined- town already offers mix of uses. Not necessary for every site to offer mix of uses. Residential above retail will still provide inactive frontage at night- will not necessarily result in good development and contribute to solving evening problems eg: perception of crime.

Further pedestrianisation unlikely to increase public transport, walking and cycling. Parking charges need to discourage long stay parking- should only allowed at extreme north and south (Westmoreland Road and The Hill). Should be combined with park & ride to encourage long stay visitors to leave cars on edge of centre. More bus priority measures and cycle lanes on main approaches to town centre could encourage drivers to shift modes. Additional pedestrianisation could result in longer walking distances to public transport.

2500 residential units represents a significant increase – needed to kickstart regeneration and expansion of town centre but concern about associated parking provision, healthcare and education needs. Car free development in areas of high accessibility can work but need commitment of developers and council to secure car clubs.

Housing strategy needs to have regard to actual number of car-free flats that can be accommodated rather than a %. Can range from car free at Bromley South to higher level of provision at edge of town centre.

CPZ areas around town centre must be revised to ensure car free development does not give rise to on-street parking.

Already demand for more GPs and dentists close to town centre- locating facilities as part of mixed use buildings close to rail stations would be beneficial to commuters and residents. RPO73 Welcomed the revisions made to the preferred options. TfL Initiatives for improving walking and cycling in Add words in the AAP to reflect the TFL supports the objectives, vision and key themes and will work Bromley town centre will be an important importance of developers submitting with LB Bromley in developing proposals. component of the Transport Strategy for the transport assessments ‘taking account AAP. of TfL TA Best Practice Guidance’. AAP should contain a policy that encourages developers to submit transport assessments for major developments. The AAP will reinforce that it supports Given high PTAL score and underutilisation of some car car free residential development and parks, parking standards should be further reduced. In order will be looking at significantly reducing to further reduce travel by car, as much car free residential levels of residential parking in the AAP development as possible should be encouraged in the town area. centre.

Freight policy based on Policy 3C.24 of the London Plan A section on freight will be included in should be added to the AAP taking into account the the AAP sustainability aspects of freight and servicing. Account taken of TfL views on bus Opposed to bus routeing along the pedestrianised length of routing. the High Street as this would disrupt well established pedestrian area and negate proposals to increase AAP includes specific policies relating pedestrian priority. Need to address missing and poorly to planned cycle and walking defined links within walking and cycling networks between improvements including new links and town centre and public spaces and gardens to west. pedestrian crossings.

Welcome inclusion of a travel plan and other soft measures. A town centre wide travel plan approach In order to maximise benefits from soft measures and to is proposed within the AAP for Bromley reduce reliance on car a holistic approach covering the Town Centre. whole town centre should be developed. This would allow for coordination of measures A managed approach to parking will be adopted for the AAP, including making Suggested that plans to provide cycle parking facilities on the best use of existing car parking Site A as a way of encouraging sustainable modes should provision and restraining parking where be extended to cycle parking provision throughout the town appropriate. A Parking Strategy will be centre and particularly the High Street. looking at on-street parking provision. Parking for Site G should be taken in Expressed concern regarding the proposal for additional car context of the town centre wide strategy parking on Site G given that current car parks are under for parking, which looks to manage utilised and it is in a location where car free development parking in order to support the increase should be progressed. in retail provision. RPO74 Support development of Bromley North Station site- The AAP supports pedestrian linkages across Amendments to proposals and design Denis Wilson compliant with PPG13. Site can be more intensively the A21 and improvements to the bus guidance for Site A Partnership developed as a main transport hub given its key location in interchange at Bromley North Station. town centre. The transport impacts of increased residential Agree in principle with approach to transport assessment units on Site A will need to be considered as based on application of trip rate relating to car parking part of a detailed transport assessment for that spaces rather than gross floor area but comments that new site alongside other planning implications. floorspace will attract some new primary shopping trips. However, it would be but wrong to assume that all new trips The AAP does not require any change to the would be new trips and some allowance for linked trips number of car parking spaces provided on Site should be made. In addition, maximum car parking provision A. Proposals for how the existing quantum of has been applied in locations with high accessibility level 6a parking is maintained can be a matter for where some reduction in maximum standards would consideration at detailed planning stage. normally be expected. Emphasis placed on retail floorspace and modelling outputs could impact on any proposals to increase other land uses in town centre eg: more residential space. The traffic modelling shows adverse impacts on southern approached to town- due to focus on retail development, even the lowest increase in space would require substantial mitigation measures. Allowance for greater mix of uses may have beneficial effects.

Case for reducing parking for residential development can equally apply to other forms of development. Potential car use associated with non-retail development may not be at peak times and impacts may not be significant. Need for equitable apportionment of car parking depending on quantum and type of development- should not penalise one type of development whilst allowing another to have higher levels of provision which may result in congestion on wider network.

Support improvements to Bromley North Station as part of major redevelopment and potential for Bromley transit route. Need to consider frequency and demand for service to ensure it would not impact on other services. Many may chose to walk given distances and opportunity to visit shops on route. Question whether link would be well used given number of shoppers arriving by train compared to buses. Support improved crossing facilities in vicinity of station.

Question phasing. Good case can be made for earlier development of schemes that will bring forward infrastructure improvements such as Bromley North.

Concern that Bromley North site identified as cause of delays- development should be encouraged given high accessibility and public transport improvements. Consistent with policy to increase level of development at Bromley North (in particular residential). An increase to 400 residential units would result in small increase in traffic. Possible to introduce some signal control on Tweedy Road at Mitchell Way junction- would allow a pedestrian/ cycle phase to allow pedestrians to cross in one continuous movement and permit right turn onto Tweedy Road. This would reduce traffic movements through residential areas to north and allow buses to head north west from new bus interchange. Proposed development would not preclude future transit route between Bromley North and Bromley south. RPO75 Lennon Support high density mixed use redevelopment of Site A in Council would wish to work with land owners Proposals for Site A amended to Planning on line with general aims of Revised Preferred Options subject and developers to secure redevelopment of Site incorporate changes to development behalf of Linden Homes to following representations: A and improvements to station and public mix and phasing transport interchange • Amend reference to parking provision in a multi-storey car park or decked parking to provide flexibility; • Amend site boundary to include properties facing Sherman Road (6-12 Sherman Road) and Bromley North Clinic. Amend reference to possible redevelopment of clinic- ‘while there is no need at present to replace this facility, this building has been included within the site to allow for the potential enhancement of health facilities in this area should circumstances change’; • AAP should recognise that higher density residential development may be necessary to cross subsidise other improvements sought by AAP. Scheme of 250 units would have a density of approximately 95 units per hectare- London Plan density matrix states that development in this location should have a density of between 240-435 units per hectare. Density should be amended in accordance with London Plan standards; • Development of Site A should be brought forward from Phase 3 to Phase 2. Site will not be delivered in Phase 1.

Linden Homes control 6-8 Sherman Road and are in discussions with Network Rail about working together to deliver site development. An indicative masterplan has been prepared for Site A to illustrate comprehensive redevelopment of Bromley North to provide a sustainable residential community with associated improvements to transport infrastructure, provision of additional commercial space, community facilities and improved public realm. Rear of site proposed for residential with front part developed for a mix of uses including a bus interchange, refurbished station buildings, community uses and enhanced public realm. Key components comprise

• 400 residential units (35% affordable) • 2,000 sq m commercial (excluding retained office buildings and including 700 sq m A3/A5 uses within retained station buildings) • 450 sq m community (health/ dentist) • 260 residential parking spaces (0.65 space/ unit) • Replacement of public parking (330 spaces)

Increase in residential units from 250 to 400 units would be consistent with principles of PPS1 and PPg13 which seek to make the most efficient use of land will not result in any significant increase in traffic.

Maximum height of residential buildings 7 storeys in middle of site- least sensitive in terms of adjoining uses.

Multi-storey carpark proposed in centre of site to be wrapped by residential and commercial frontage with direct link to improved bus interchange. Creation of new public space between existing and proposed station buildings provides opportunity for enhancement and relocation of Charter Market to more prominent location. Masterplan provides a safeguarded route for potential transit scheme- would facilitate the conversion of existing heavy rail services from Bromley North to Grove Park to light rail (tram or guided bus) and extension of route south to Bromley South station via the North Village and High Street. RPO76 London Concerned that no mention is made to locally listed fire AAP seeks to protect and enhance heritage of Policy refers to links between future Fire & station and that no provision is made for an alternative and town centre and historic buildings. development proposals and maintaining Emergency Planning suitable site for a new fire station to replace Bromley fire community safety. Authority station. Seek support for a suitable site or building to be No site identified as suitable for relocation of acknowledged and identified within the Borough for a new Fire Station in Town Centre. Council will work Policy on design of new development to fire station facility. with LFPA to identify suitable site elsewhere in include requirement to design out risks Borough in event of decision being taken to from fire, especially in residential Bromley fire station contributes to Conservation Area but is relocate existing facility. Redevelopment of accommodation. Planning applications not suited to current operational requirements- requires existing site will be subject to policies in AAP. required to achieve high standards of modernisation but is constrained by local listing. Seek fire safety; the close monitoring of support for: building sites during construction. • demolition of fire station and new and modern facility which is fully fit for purpose on existing site; • Relocation of fire station to adjacent car park site owned by Bromley Council; • Provision for new fire station at one of proposal sites identified as being suitable for development.

Current location is optimum to provide fire cover. Authority has made commitment to provide an equitable fire and rescuie service. Location of fire station provides effective coverage for the local area based on risk profile of Borough. Unlikely that an alternative location away from present location will provide Borough with fire coverage as effective as that provided in current location. Extensive site search has failed to identify any suitable site alternatives except for car park site owned by Bromley Council. If car park site to be disposed of on open market, careful consideration must be given to potential impact on essential services that could be provided by fire station in this location.

Financial contributions towards improving and expanding current fire services and facilities should be identified in policy on Section 106 requirements from development schemes. Need to consider capacity of key emergency services to improve community safety and maintain a speed of emergency response in line with LFPA standards.

Future growth within Borough will create additional risks from fire and other emergencies. Future policies should mention the links between future development proposals and maintaining community safety. Policies should address the need to grasp opportunities offered by new development to designing out risks from fire particularly in residential accommodation- includes giving consideration to installing hard wired smoke alarms and sprinkler systems where risks justify it. Efforts to reduce crime such as arson through good design should be promoted. RPO77 Cecilia Commented that a ‘weekday environment’ that caters for AAP will seek upgrading of existing car parking Inclusion of appropriate policies Yardley, those who work in Bromley is important. Commented provision throughout Bromley Town Centre to Bromley United Reformed positively that faith groups have been acknowledged in the provide a better quality and safer environment Church AAP. both in the day and evening periods.

Commented that faith groups would benefit from expansion of premises and increased access to parking spaces after shopping hours. RPO78 LXB supports proposals for sites G,H and N in terms of mix Council seeks to work with landowners and Proposals for Site G amended to LXB Properties of uses but there is an opportunity and requirement to developers to secure regeneration of western ensure scheme delivery and high Ltd increase residential content on these sites. This is side of High Street and comprehensive design quality and mitigation of impacts consistent with increasing emphasis being put on need to development of Site G to accommodate on existing amenity and wider town deliver housing to meet housing demand and support capacity for retail development and to improve centre. evening economy and prevent anti-social behaviour. More offer of town centre residential development is necessary to support retail improvements. Scale of retail improvements is not commercially viable without additional residential development. Proposed amendments:

• Sites G,H and N to be amalgamated and shown as one large site for comprehensive development- should include Habitat shop and car park and upper terrace of Church House Gardens. • Extend primary retail frontage along length of Site H; • Number of residential units should be increased from 500 to 1200 units; • Office uses should be included; • Community uses including faith uses should be accommodated within the redevelopment area or relocated; • Use of tall buildings should be supported subject to high quality design; • Allow safeguarding routes at vital junctions- along front of the Liverpool Victoria building to increase capacity and A21 masons Hill between Kentish Way and B265 intersection as proposed in adopted UDP. • AAP should set standards for parking in town centre RPO79 Previous preferred options identified Site D as suitable for Modelling work done to date has suggested that Site D excluded from AAP due to GVA Grimley mixed use development comprising residential and retail it would be inappropriate to have a large new reduction in site area. Development to on behalf of St James including a large foodstore- support recognition of area’s foodstore on Site D because of likely traffic be considered in context fo other Investments potential to meet identified requirements. Support principle congestion on Beckenham Lane and London policies in AAP and proposals for North of mixed use for Site D but considers the proposals to Road. If there are proposals for such a Village Improvement Area. reduce the site area and other constraints are likely to development this would need to be supported prejudice the prospects for securing a viable mixed use by detailed traffic analysis as part of a planning development. Site D is one of the few opportunities for retail application at a later stage. and residential development which is needed to maintain and enhance Bromley’s role as a metropolitan town centre. Land excluded from Site G because it is unavailable for development within Plan period. Reduction in Site D and constraints on scale of development Remaining site area inadequate for may result in loss of opportunity for comprehensive comprehensive development. regeneration - as a consequence, this will undermine the prospects for new investment in the area. Inclusion of Site P addresses possible demand for additional convenience floorspace. There is significant capacity and quantitative and qualitative need for a large new foodstore. Highway consultants do not consider traffic analysis represents a clear justification for imposing constraints on size of store likely to be appropriate on Site D. Therefore inappropriate to impose a precise ‘cap’ on size of foodstore- contrary to wider development plan aspirations to maximise retail investment. Detailed matters such as parking and highway capacity are more appropriately dealt with at planning application stage or through detailed development brief and or SPD. This would provide opportunity to take a more comprehensive approach to Site D and North Village. Clients would like to work with council to develop a comprehensive masterplan. RPO80 College Green would benefit from public footpath from Comments noted. Council committed to Policies included to protect end Doug Black, corner of College Slip to Gordon way- to create pedestrian enhancing town centre appearance and enhance appearance of town centre Bromley Civic Society route from tweedy Road to town centre character. Redevelopment is required to meet and setting of historic buildings and objectives of AAP. conservation area. Proposed leisure facilities must be more than just pubs- need greater provision of leisure facilities especially for Site A- requirement for relocation or reprovision Site D- site to be deleted due to youth of market unavailability of land for development. Requirement for incorporation of leisure Use of Bromley Little Theatre as Theatre should be Site B- development will be required to respect use in event of building no longer being protected in AAP. setting of Bromley College used as cinema.

AAP lacks strategy for built heritage- Council should Site C- there is no requirement for civic use of Reprovision of leisure centre must be produce conservation area appraisal to inform former town hall. A suitable use of the listed secured prior to redevelopment of Site implementation of AAP proposals building will be secured. E

Concerned about design quality- especially signage and Site F- no loss of existing parkland will be Boundary of Site J amended to exclude shop fronts. Need to improve town centre with emphasis on permitted. HG Wells building. quality. Bromley North Village area should be made an area of Special Signage Control Housing on west St and North St Site G- comprehensive development required to should be subject to Article 4 Direction to prevent secure regeneration and delivery of benefits. unsympathetic change. Site K- need for improved entertainment Development briefs should be prepared for each site so facilities identified through consultation. local groups can contribute Sites M, N and P will be subject to requirement Concerned that AAP must integrate better with ‘Building a to respect and enhance character of better Bromley’ especially in relation to commitment to surrounding area and open spaces. children and young people, access to Council services, well being/ health and improving public realm/ environment.

Site A- Retention/ improvement of market in central Bromley Site B- concern that increased densities will result in tall development that will harm Bromley College (Grade 1 Listed) and views in and out of the Conservation Area. Development should be kept low. Public sculpture for open space at corner would be a more appropriate gateway than a tall building. Family housing inappropriate due to busy road. Site C- need to resist loss of historic features and overdevelopment. Building should be returned to civic use Site D- Object to demolition of existing historic buildings fronting High Street- Odeon cinema makes positive contribution to townscape and is worthy of retention. If no longer used as cinema should be designated for entertainment, sports or leisure use. Development must respect setting of and views from Masons Hill. No objection to good infill development which respects conservation area Site E- essential to retain a leisure centre accessible to all- existing site benefits from collocation with retail centre- very accessible. Relocation to Civic Centre would be less convenient and disincentive for many. Redevelopment should not increase height or bulk of building and impact on Queen’s Gardens- overshadowing/ loss of sunlight. Quality of development to be in keeping with Glades architecture and Queens Gardens. Need to protect Bromley Oak. Site F- no objection in principle to demolition of modern buildings but concerned about loss of parkland and inappropriate new development. Concern about overdevelopment Any development must respect historic, social and environmental value of parkland. New development should be confined to footprint of existing buildings to north and north west of site and landscape reinstated to south with removal of existing buildings- would reinstate visual relationship between listed folly on Rafford Way and Palace. Concern about loss of community facilities if civic centre moves. Site G- object to demolition of residential properties in Ethelbert Close. Any new development must be sympathetic to local context of conservation area including views from Church House Gardens and Library Gardens. Development must not turn its back on Gardens, cause overshadowing or detract from its character- concern that site proposed for tall buildings. Northern part of site in Conservation Area contains buildings which contribute to its character- demolition of these buildings will be resisted. Buildings added to conservation area by Council in 1991 because of their contribution to traditional character of High Street. Nos 72-82 (corner of Ethelbert Road) and 84 are good examples of their type. Ravensfell House is a historic building- could be restored as part of a new civic space. Semi-rural character of views from across the Shortlands Valley and impact on High Street frontage need to be considered in design of new buildings. Portico of Bromley Church in Ethelbert Road dates from 18th century and should be retained- reused on site in 1930. Site H- No objection subject to securing good design Site J- No objection in principle but HG Wells Centre provides an important community role and facility must be retained in some form. New development should introduce greenery and better public spaces. Site K- essential that town retains a cinema but a greater variety of facilities should be provided: consideration should be given to using site for leisure facility not already provided by cinemas in Bromley and Beckenham- both will be lost with no net gain in leisure variety if Site K developed as currently proposed. Site L- no objection to sympathetic replacement of DHSS building. Site M- no objection to enhancement of this part of Glades building if it reinforces the garden character and does not require additional building/ hard standing in Queens Gardens or lead to loss of trees/ landscape features. Site N- welcome principle of town square and improved environment- consideration should be given to microclimate: central library causes wind tunnel which makes forecourt unpleasant on windy days. Would wish to see Ravensfell House on High Street retained along with some of neighbours that make a positive contribution. Unwilling to see loss of any trees or landscaping in Church House Gardens to accommodate development. Greenery should extend to High Street. Consideration should be given to making area around the theatre/ High Street safer and more vibrant in the evening. Council could lead way by introducing a new arts centre or cultural facility into shop units below library tower. Site P- aspirations of AAP could lead to over-development. Semi-rural character of College Slip should be preserved and enhanced. New development should retain the public art panels on Sainsburys and respond to historic context behind High Street and address access yard on West Street. Rear views of historic buildings and trees make a positive contribution to conservation area and setting of listed building. Housing on west Street adjoining site must be protected.

RPO81 Supports proposals to focus employment and retail Comments noted. A comprehensive transport AAP includes policies on transport and Highways development in town centre and high density mixed use strategy has been prepared to support the AAP. implementation of comprehensive Agency development which should reduce need to travel but programme of measures to concerned about scale of retail development and proposed accommodate proposed development. mitigation measures.

Supports Objective 2 to extend range and quality of facilities and services: this will reduce need to travel by car by location of community facilities in locations with high levels of public transport accessibility.

Recommended that Objective 8 should also seek to reduce dependence on the car for town centre residents and visitors. This would encourage transport strategy to focus on improvements to sustainable modes of transport.

HA is concerned that despite identified impacts, the AAP is still proposing a very high level of retail development supported by widening of A21 and sustainable transport initiatives put forward by the Transport Strategy. The HA is concerned that widening of the A21 could increase car trip generation associated with town centre and traffic impact on the SRN. Focus of the Transport Strategy should be on capacity enhancements. LDF should incorporate policy mechanisms to minimise demand at source and seek to encourage a modal shift. HA would support bus priority measures on A21 south of Bromley. Presumption should be to give preference to solutions other than new road capacity to accommodate new development. Transport Strategy should seek to implement a full range of sustainable transport initiatives in preference to widening of A21.

If the Borough pursues the widening of the A21 further modelling may be required to assess the potential impact of increased impact on the SRN (M25 Junction 4). Such modelling would help to ensure that the plan meets with PPS12 Test of Soundness.

Concerned that consideration has not been given to the wider traffic impacts of development in the town centre. Objective 3 should be updated to state: ‘ to not significantly increase in the overall level of traffic that needs to be accommodated on the highway network within the town centre and on the wider Strategic Road Network’.

Supports inclusion of suite of soft measures including workplace and school travel plans, personalised travel planning and car clubs. Recommends that all developments should be required to produce a travel plan to ensure that combined impacts are adequately mitigated. Clear guidance should be given as to when travel plan required and expected content- could be in AAP or Planning Obligations SPD providing the SPD adopted alongside the AAP. Content should be based on latest government guidance.

Supports town centre wide travel plan including existing and new businesses.

Supports proposals to improve public transport and interchanges- improved bus links to Bromley North and Bromley South Stations will increase viability of public transport. HA supports improvements to walking and cycling.

Supports use of parking policies to promote sustainable transport choices- increased parking charges including levy on business parking permits, car free and low car housing and establishment of Controlled Parking Zones. AAP should include maps of proposed extensions for increasing coverage of CPZs.

HA recommends that whilst maximum standards should be set for private parking (based on London Plan) policy statements should clarify that opportunities to reduce parking below these levels should be sought. Existing businesses should be encouraged to reduce dependence on car as part of town-centre wide transport plan.

HA would expect a robust assessment to be carried out to identify the deliverability of park and ride sites should the Council wish to push forward this policy. Transport modelling may be necessary within the LDF process. This would be required in support of the inclusion of these sites in the site-specific allocations- would expect a reduction in town centre parking to support the strategy.

Strategic Delivery Plan- who is responsible for funding/ delivery of strategy and how public transport improvements will be phased should be brought forward as part of emerging AAP. Development should not take place at a faster rate than provision of related sustainable transport initiatives to ensure maximum uptake of sustainable transport alternatives. Plan policies may be dependent on key infrastructure being delivered. HA would be supportive of early guidance to developers at pre-application stage to allow required infrastructure to be implemented within an appropriate timeframe.

In order to ensure that traffic impacts of AAp and success of transport strategy are adequately monitored, HA would request that following indicators are monitored through SA or Strategy Delivery Plan:

• Level of growth of traffic on key routes • Proportion of new development which is meeting travel plan objectives Targets should be set to provide benchmarks that Plan will aim to achieve.

Travel plans will be a way of monitoring development transport impacts. Town centre wide Travel Plan could form basis for monitoring new and existing developments.

RPO82 Pleased that Sainsburys Store identified as Site P to allow Comments noted. It is necessary to indicate AAP provides guidance on development Turley for reconfiguration of store and car park. Request following likely capacity of site for residential development of Site P and recognises importance of Associates on behalf of changes: to understand cumulative impacts of site within Bromley North and Sainsbury’s development. The figures are however contribution to overall retail offer. Supermarkets • Development Options for Site P should refer to a indicative and will be subject to determination at Ltd replacement or extension to the food retail. planning application stage. • Development Principles should refer to: Creation of active frontage to the store on West Street, where practical. • In terms of the proposed residential element, the Council should remove reference to the number of units, as it is too prescriptive. The number of units on the site will need to be considered as part of the detailed design process, and the Council will have the opportunity to consider proposals as part of the application process. • Given the importance of the Sainsbury’s store in providing a foodstore anchor for the Town Centre, the Secondary Frontage should be extended along the west side of West Street and take in the existing frontage of the Sainsbury’s Store (fronting the store car park ).

RPO83 Residents of Northpoint and other residential blocks in area Details of site access will take into account Guidance provided on development of Graham have not been directly consulted with on AAP. impact on the local environment and other Site A but details are not fixed in AAP. Snewin, Northpoint crucial aspects such as safety. Residents Ward’s Safer Neighbourhoods Panel was not included in consultation exercise- an important omission given Council is committed to full consultation. All importance of urban design in crime prevention and fear of planning applications for sites identified in the crime. Brief should include reference to need for any AAP will be subject to full consultation. development proposals to incorporate and fund appropriate crime prevention measures. Any proposals should be subject of full consultation with Safer Neighbourhoods Panel and Police.

Council should be more inclusive in consultation processes and ensure all relevant bodies and residents receive direct communication. . Welcome general regeneration proposals for the area, particularly around Bromley North station. But reserve position on any specific proposals when these come forward fro planning consent.

Northpoint residents oppose the prospect of Bromley North station having a vehicular access onto Sherman Road- will result in increased traffic and would be unacceptable on highway safety grounds. Vehicular access to station should be from west side of station.

RPO84 Requested that the removal of Bromley Christian Centre and Due to safeguarding for highway improvements, Boundary of Site L amended to include Mark Wiltshire, St Marks School from Site L be re-examined given Church’s Council has reconsidered boundary of Site L to Bromley Christian Centre. Bromley Christian stated intention to redevelop site and uncertainty about ensure it is of sufficient size for suitable Centre school buildings. redevelopment.

School should be designated as an opportunity site- would School is a listed building and Council does not offer scope for comprehensive development. consider it provides opportunity for redevelopment. Future use of the building will be subject to planning policies. RPO85 Development of Site K must not be any higher than the Comments noted. Council will seek a high AAP provides guidance on development Miss Spratt & existing car park and should be decreased to improve views standard of design and to minimise impacts of of Site L and policies on design and Mr Lidsey from gardens and that it must not encroach any further on development on existing residential amenity. height of buildings. the surrounding housing ie: no closer or higher than existing car park. Development should be visually appealing with the opportunity to develop landmark buildings in keeping with local heritage/ unique. There should be no increase in noise pollution or traffic to Newbury Road and no overlooking the residents of Newbury Road from the new development.

Developing Site K could be attractive but concerned about possible height, encroachment and visual impact. RPO86 Proposed options and proposals include residential Council will seek to secure provision for AAP includes policy requirement to Simon Robbins, developments of 1600 units, which will increase demand for necessary community infrastructure. Sites make provision for additional and Bromley PCT primary and community health services in the area. identified for future provision and Developers suitable social and community will be required to make an appropriate infrastructure to meet needs of Current primary and community health services are at or contribution to provision of facilities. increasing town centre population close to full capacity, and would therefore be unable to meet the needs of additional residents from their current premises. Estimated that an additional 2-3 whole time GPs would be required together with associated primary and community healthcare. PCT are committed to ensuring that health services are delivered from modern, fit for purpose premises, and need to work with LBB to ensure that this can be achieved as part of the AAP. RPO87 Welcomes reference to protection and enhancement of Council seeks improvement of green / open AAP makes reference to protection, David environmental value of area (para 1.8). spaces, as well as promotion of linkages and promotion, enhancement and active Hammond, Natural England accessibility throughout the town centre. promotion of green / open spaces Broadly supports strategic objectives including potential to enhance the open space surrounding Bromley College. Key issues identified in para 3.2 make no specific mention of green/ open spaces- should be identified as a key issues Vision for the town centre revised to and linked to objectives. emphasise the environmental aspects of improvements and enhancements. AAP should highlight opportunity to improve open space surrounding Bromley College as a public open space. Reference to need to consider de- culverting the Ravensbourne where Lack of accessibility, poor animation and fragmentation of feasible in Monitoring and Mitigation open spaces together with lack of linkages to each other is a section of the SA. key issue to be highlighted in AAP. Site M- reference included to enhancing Soft measures in para 6.16 are welcomed and broadly and improving the ecological value of supported in context of transport initiatives. Welcomes any the area as well as it’s economic value. initiatives to promote and increase take up of public transport. Need to repair fragmentation between the town centre’s green / open spaces De-culverting of River Ravensbourne and potential for reinforced. biodiversity enhancement is encouraged. Policies to promote sustainable Site M- should give consideration to enhancing and development including improved green / improving ecological value of area not just economic/ open space and linkages between. amenity value. This would link in with overall feeling that area’s green spaces are fragmented, under utilised and lack Policy to address poor accessibility animation. Improvements to overall variety and condition of throughout the town centre and sites could provide animation and help increase biodiversity encourage softer measures such as car potential. clubs and travel plans as part of comprehensive Transport Strategy.. Implementation and delivery- support indicator relating to contribution to enhancement of biodiversity (para 8.15)

PPS9- Biodiversity needs to be more explicitly referenced in Action Plan- need to state that improvements to green/open spaces need to include environmental enhancement as well as amenity and economic value. Action Plan an ideal opportunity to address fragmentation of open spaces and lack of animation.

Sustainability Appraisal- support reference to green roofs and Sustainable Urban drainage Systems- Council should also give consideration to brown roofs and green walls to link with PPS9. Need to consult Greenspace Information for London (GIGL) for records of biodiversity data including statutory and non-statutory sites and habitat locations. RPO88 Capital AAP must address failure of town centre to deliver significant A managed approach to parking will be adopted Development of Site E moved to Phase Shopping new retail space since The Glades opened. AAP must for the AAP, including making the best use of 3 to secure relocation of leisure centre Centres identify how amount, range and quality of retail offer can be existing car parking provision and restraining and to ensure transport impacts can be secured to maintain its competitiveness. parking where appropriate. A Parking Plan will accommodated as part of be looking at both off-street and on-street comprehensive strategy. Support extension of Glades and relocation of leisure centre parking provision. to accommodate new retail floorspace. It would be inappropriate to have a major Object to deletion of extension to the car park at Bromley expansion of car parking due to the traffic Civic as result of traffic modelling. Increased retail floorspace impacts. A balanced approach is being adopted will give rise to increased usage and pressure on existing as part a comprehensive transport strategy. parking. Support public transport improvements but this needs to be complemented by an ample supply of parking to ensure that high levels of parking do not impede accessibility into town centre.

Supports timescale for extension of The Glades. Extension of car parking should be reinstated in Site F. Supports use of Queens Gardens for open space and public realm improvements but need more flexibility for The Glades to respond to changing retail and commercial needs. Allocation should recognise that there may be justification for incursion into public space subject to mitigation eg: replacement open space or enhancement of existing areas.

Development must be phased in relation to retail needs- failure to do this may result in less favourable sites coming forward for development in advance of those that best satisfy policy requirements. Welcome identification of Site E in Phase 1- can meet retail needs to 2012. RPO89 Town centre is too linear and lacks a heart. Objective 8 of the AAP states, ‘Improving Inclusion of policies on transport and Daniel Meades Unclear from the proposals what the plan is for the North transport and accessibility and encouraging use accessibility, range of retail, End of Market Square. Need to remove heavy traffic and of more sustainable modes of transport’. incorporation of public art and high address dangerous vehicle access to Church Road and design quality. Glassmill Lane. The AAP seeks to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility within the town centre and AAP seeks to secure improvements to Need more choice in small independent shops. Support for detailed proposals. station interchanges and provides public art to reflect Bromley’s past literary and historic guidance on this. culture and a good modern public building eg: a sports Council places importance on improvement to centre resulting from a competition. public transport facilities and will work with Network Rail to secure improvements to Early improvements to Bromley South Station and relocated Bromley North and South Stations. post office are early priorities.

Need to address poor quality environment and improved quality of retail offer.

RPO90 AAP should include a policy around security with designing Council is committed to secure by design Requirements to meet Secure by Mick Lane, out crime with respect to new developments and those principles. Design included in policy. Crime Prevention which may be altered. All new development should be design Advisor, designed to meet the requirements of the Secure By Design Metropolitan scheme. Should a large development be proposed including Police associated car parking, car parks should be designed to meet a Safer Parking accreditation. This will achieve a consistency in safe, secure and sustainable design and build rather than relying on individual design statements.

Highlight importance of anti-terrorism measures, e.g. bollard installation and CCTV installation. RPO91 Wish to stay within Site G as part of development proposals- Comments noted Reference to requirement for re- Major Andy have been established on site for 68 years, easy access provision of existing faith groups in Cox, Salvation Army makes site convenient for people to use facilities, have development of Site G strengthened recently invested over £200,000 in refurbishment of on-site café and shop. Need to be in heart of community. Request that as development of Site G takes place, developers will relocate the centre within area so as to retain high profile. RPO92 Richard Expressed concern that the addition of 500,000 sq ft of retail Bromley has capacity for increased retail Polices included for improvements to T Marks, MSE space will have a detrimental impact on the secondary and floorspace and the Council is required to North Village and promotion of Property fringe locations. Businesses on upper High St north of demonstrate how this can be accommodated. A independent traders Market square are struggling and additional retail space range of retail space is proposed. (particularly A3) will exacerbate this). RPO93 Residential potential of Site A is greater than 250 units. Comments noted. Reference included to requirement for Chris Price, London plan density matrix suggests site could achieve comprehensive approach to Network Rail density of 240-435 units/ ha in this location. Need to Council will work with Network Rail and development of Site A to secure increase number of units to ensure viability and delivery of developers to secure redevelopment of Site A comprehensive redevelopment and benefits identified in AAP. including improvements to station. The transport transport improvements. Reference to impacts of increased residential units on Site A the replacement of public car parking Reference to replacement public car parking on Site A will be considered as part of a detailed transport includes the replacement of station car should also include the replacement of station car parking. assessment. parking. Timescale for development of Site A area does not reflect the full extent of the land that Site A brought forward to Phases 1/ 2. may be required for a comprehensive development and that properties fronting onto Sherman Road should be Mixed use development over railway incorporated into the site area. This will assist in providing removed from Site J due to uncertainty station interchange facilities regarding viability and delivery.

Support reference to creating a comprehensive scheme and the potential use of compulsory purchase powers, however the statement should also state that a phased approach to the comprehensive development is acceptable in the interests of flexibility of development. Commented that Network Rail believe that Site A should be developed within the next 5-10 years (Phase 2).

Area included in Site J does not reflect the full development potential of the site (could include land shown in Site H). Support reference to creating a comprehensive scheme that comes forward in a phased manner.

Welcome reference to the Town Centre Improvement Initiative and pooling of planning obligations eg: public transport. Hoped that Town Centre Improvement Initiative can help contribute to improvements to Bromley South and North Stations which will have significant benefits. AAP should make clear that proposals which directly provide public benefits at substantial cost to development will have these costs taken into account during Section 106 negotiations and will not be subject to normal requirements. RPO94 Queried whether key diagram would be included in AAP. Comments noted. AAP text and tables amended to reflect Government comments. Office for London Para 1.10 which states that policies in UDP can be saved for The findings and recommendations of the final 3 years until 2009 -LPA can apply for extension of UDP SFRA will be incorporated in the SA and AAP. Vision for the Town Centre includes policies after that time cross reference to SA and Sustainable Collaborative workshops, presentations and Community Strategy Cross reference to density location and parking matrix in meetings were carried out at the Issues and UDP to avoid duplication (can exclude Table 2.1) Options Consultation stage. References to taller buildings clarified in guidance on Sites G, K and A. Information in Table 2.21 incorrect- all UDP policies saved Proposals have been subject to discussion with for 3 years from date of adoption. TfL and other stakeholders. It is proposed that Clarification of engagement of further discussion will take place to assist the stakeholders including businesses and Welcome reference to sustainable Community Strategy. revision of the document in preparation for the land owners. final draft of the AAP. Welcome inclusion of ‘Context and Issues’- background AAP includes risk assessment. information will provide more meaningful responses to Only non prescriptive references will be made consultation for taller buildings as their specific heights will Mixed use development in Site J relate to the quality of the specific development. deleted due to uncertainty about Question whether Strategic Flood Risk assessment be Each development will have to adhere to strict viability and delivery completed in time for findings to be taken into account prior environmental assessments, including views to submitting AAP to Secretary of State. analysis.

Vision for Town Centre- should be cross referenced to The process of producing the AAP has involved Sustainability Appraisal and Sustainable Community public engagement from the very earliest stages Strategy. in accordance with the SCI. Consultation with a range of stakeholders occurred between May to Has exploration of scenarios with stakeholders included September 2005. Further public consultation was initial Issues and Options Consultation stage. held on the Preferred Options over a six week period commencing 13 January and ending 24 February Would be helpful to cross reference preliminary Scenarios to 2006. Through workshops with key stakeholders sustainability Appraisal and public consultation on the initial Preferred Options early in 2006 the Council has sought to Transport Strategy- have proposals for network/ junction hear the views of those with an interest in the improvements and freight distribution been discussed with town. The draft AAP will be accompanied by a TfL in relation to feasibility and funding? Will there be any report outlining details of the whole public implications for taking forward AAP if any transport consultation and engagement process which proposals do not go ahead? was undertaken during the preparation of the plan. Need to clarify what Code for Sustainable Homes means. The Council will undertake a feasibility study on The potential for taller buildings is identified on Site G and future accommodation prior to proposals for Site J. Will there be a maximum height and what redevelopment of Site F. environmental considerations will they be subject to?

Welcome inclusion of Table 7.1- would be useful to cross reference to Table 8.1 in relation to implementation and phasing.

Need to clarify what work has been undertaken with local and key stakeholders and businesses in preparing AAP including Local Strategic partnership.

Question whether the Council has cooperation of all local owner/ occupiers to take forward proposals. If not, will this prevent the regeneration of sites if CPO powers cannot be used. Would preferred options be flexible enough to cope with this and could alternative uses be provided? This relates to Tests of Soundness.

Site F highlights action to undertake feasibility Study to assess current and future requirements for civic accommodation, potential relocation of leisure facility and extent to which surplus land can be made available for low density residential development. Will this be completed before submission of AAP?

Question how work is progressing with network Rail, landowners and developers to promote phased comprehensive scheme for Site J

Welcome the inclusion of assessment of proposals against tests of soundness. RP095 Strong objection to redevelopment of Westmoreland Road Comments noted. Replacement of car park No change Mr G Faratro Car Park. Owners of family businesses in Simpsons Road required as it is in poor state of repair. Capisano Restaurant which will be threatened with closure if site redeveloped. Redevelopment of site is required to take Mr Hasip Council has advised that leases will not be renewed. forward vision for town centre and to secure Surtex Textiles new facilities and regeneration. Care Centre Would like to be considered for possible relocation in mixed use redevelopment of site Proposed uses for Site G include cafes and restaurants. These premises would be available to the market. RPO96 Need to resist proposals to reduce or damage open spaces The vision of the AAP is to promote a distinctive References strengthened to protection Mr & Mrs or affect public access- in particular the Civic Centre centre with high quality public spaces. Improvements and enhancement of open spaces Winter grounds and Bishop’s Palace. Bishops Palace should be and enhancements to the public realm are proposed developed as the Bromley Museum with surrounding which will benefit the town centre. gardens. Civic Centre grounds should not be developed for housing. RP097 Welcomes provision for religious needs of faith community. Public parking will be available for town centre No change Religious Questions availability of sufficient car parking to meet needs uses as part of comprehensive transport Society of Friends of groups. strategy. Use of public transport will also be encouraged.

RP098, Planned development of theatre will add to contribution to Comments noted. Council welcomes proposals AAP includes policy relating to cultural Bromley Little achieving aims of AAP- should be explicitly recognised in to improve facilities and recognises important and entertainment facilities and need to Theatre AAP. Seek designation of Bromley Little Theatre as a role played by Bromley Little Theatre in cultural protect and enhance existing facilities. theatre on the grounds that it has been a theatre for 70 and community life. Specific reference included to years and forms part of town’s heritage. Will ensure a importance of Bromley Little Theatre. diverse range of activities and cultural and leisure facilities for planned population increase; management of evening economy to attract a wider range of visitors including families with children; extend range and quality of leisure and entertainment facilities; protect and enhance the heritage and distinctive character of the town centre, particularly North Village.

Propose physical development of site to provide improved facilities: adding a studio to provide a third live theatre venue in town centre; training facilities; doubling of capacity and a community facility for arts and culture. Also propose to develop community arts and cultural programmes and to work with council to deliver Borough-wide initiatives such as arts festivals.

RP099 Welcome value placed on historic environment and parks Comments noted. Guidelines for Sites B, F and G Friends of and gardens- however, heritage issues not addressed in any strengthened to highlight importance of Bromley Towns and Gardens meaningful way. Economic strategy is at odds with Council’s The vision of the AAP is to promote a distinctive protection and enhancement of open statutory duty to preserve elements that contribute to centre with high quality public spaces. Improvements spaces, conservation area and setting character and appearance of town centre conservation area. and enhancements to the public realm are proposed of listed buildings. AAP must address past damage caused by development. which will benefit the town centre. AAP is unbalanced and biased towards development and Open spaces will be protected and enhanced. visitors- no concern for heritage and will result in loss of Discussion taking place with Environment regarding historic character of the town. culvert.

Object to proposals for Site F- Proposals to sell off heritage No loss of existing parkland will be permitted in sites such as Bishops Palace and park for housing to raise redevelopment of Site F and parkland will be revenue and relocate the pavilion is unacceptable. Propose available to public access. reinstatement of Listed palace building as central feature in restored parkland; cultural and leisure use and park status New developments will be required to contribute to with full public access; visitor attraction. open space and play provision and enhancements of existing facilities.

Object to proposals for Site B- will be harmful to setting of town centre conservation area and views of grade I Listed Bromley College. Wish to see green setting of Bromley College and building as landmark gateway to Bromley rather than a block of flats; landscaping of site to preserve open aspect into College Grounds; open up views of college facing Tweedy road; consider low scale development such as a nursery school- making use of open areas for play and allowing views to be preserved and enhanced.

Object to Site G- any buildings on site taller than roof heights of houses in Ethelbert Close will be harmful to character and appearance of Library Gardens, Church House Gardens, Martins Hill and Queens mead and the High Street. Development will contravene Council’s statutory duty to preserve or enhance character or appearance of conservation area. Propose that historic open views from parks and gardens within conservation area should be retained with skyline of trees rather than urban development.

Site M- no objection in principle to café/restaurant provision provided it does not encroach on garden with any permanent or semi-permanent structure. Opposed to any loss of green space. Any café use should be restricted to Glades terrace. Queens garden is a drinking control area- sale of alcohol must be prevented or restricted.

Site E- design of building must complement the Garden and be of a height no greater than the pavilion to protect what remains of open aspect of garden. Bromley Oak must be preserved. Preservation of open aspect and sunlight on south side of garden must be preserved as part of essential character of conservation area.

Site D-,opposed to further urbanisation of upper margin of Martins Hill- will result in loss of character and appearance.

Site N- generally welcome proposals if they offer enhancement of Library gardens and no part of Gardens paved over and Ravensfell House retained to give heritage status to enlarged space

Would like to see firm proposals for integration of town parks into social and commercial life of Bromley without detriment to their essential character and appearance and improved leisure facilities. Would like to see firm proposals for green linkages between town and parks including palace grounds with signage and landscaping.

AAP should include recognition of value of restoring River Ravensbourne to a natural amenity

RP100 Sonia Concern about traffic congestion- many routes already Comments noted. The Council has prepared a AAP includes proposals for transport Whitaker subject to delays before new developments take place. comprehensive transport strategy which improvements to address congestion. Need to give traffic problems high priority. addresses issues of congestion and impacts of new development RPO101 General support but raised following concerns: A managed approach to parking will be adopted AAP includes proposals for transport Rob Cundy, for the AAP, including making the best use of improvements and comprehensive Bromley Town • progress of the AAP should be made available to Business the forum group, businesses and public. existing car parking provision. The Parking Plan parking strategy Forum • Car parking is an issue- if new retailers are to be considers both off-street and on-street parking introduced into the area there will be a significant provision and future park and ride initiatives. increase in the number of staff and customers into the area. Need to increase number of car parking Temporary facilities will be provided during spaces including cheaper and more convenient park redevelopment of Westmoreland Road Car and ride facilities for staff thus freeing up spaces for Park. customers Council is promoting improvements to street • Temporary/ interim car parking facilities should be scene to create a more attractive business and made available before Westmoreland Road car park retail environment. is demolished to ensure sufficient capacity is maintained. Consultation undertaken with local businesses • Ongoing work needed to encourage improvements to street scene, pavements and shop frontages, business and people needs to be constantly addressed, including street scene, pavements and shop fronts. RPO104 Commented that the roads in and out of Bromley cannot The AAP is looking at transport provision in the AAP includes proposals for transport A Sheppeck cope with the current high-level of traffic, and will be far town centre and how this can be taken forward improvements and parking strategy worse once redevelopment begins. in a holistic way through a transport strategy and parking plan. Bromley North designated as Commented that Bromley is lacking some essential shops Improvement Area to enhance such as a drapers, hardware shop and butchers. The AAP supports the use of sustainable modes environment for smaller retailers of transport to encourage travel into the town Suggested that a commuter car park over the platforms at centre by modes other than the car. Bromley South would alleviate current parking problems. A range of retail will be supported including independent traders.

RPO105 Concerned about mixed use proposals for Bromley North- Comments noted Development guidelines included for Rob Bristow may conflict with residential character of surrounding area. Site A to ensure appropriate distribution Plan needs to be more specific about location of uses and of land uses and interface with adjoining acknowledge the importance of safeguarding existing residential areas. Residential mixed use residents’ amenities. Commercial uses should be located development is proposed adjacent to station. Questions need for more parking.

Plan should specify that residential is preferred use. Should allow for residential on northern part of site to proceed in advance of southern part- not interdependent.

RPO106 Object to development of Site G: Comments noted. Development guidelines for Site G seek J R Goodman to protect residential amenity and set Property • Traffic congestion, parking and lack of space cause grid- Consultants locking There has been widespread consultation on the out requirements for transport • Pollution and disturbance to residents during construction preferred options and revised options. improvements and other mitigation • Reduction in property value measures to minimise impacts • Department stores extending down Ethelbert Road will be Comprehensive redevelopment of Site G too close to residents and cut in to the conservation area. considered to be necessary to accommodate • Delivery vehicles will cause disturbance to residents. retail requirements and to achieve regeneration • Proposals are over-ambitious of town centre. This could not be achieved by • Lack of consultation piecemeal development schemes

RPO107 Expressed concern that the Civic Centre site may be sold off Redevelopment of Civic Centre site could AAP includes guidelines for Opportunity Tamara for residential development. include small element of lower density Sites to address issues of leisure Galloway, Green St Green Commented that the current Pavilion leisure centre should residential development. This will not be main provision and protection of open space Village Society stay where it is. use of site. There is a need to accommodate Commented that enlarging the Glades may have a additional retail demand in town centre. Council detrimental impact on the rest of the High Street. seeks to enhance leisure facilities. New leisure Commented that a café or coffee house in the Queens centre would provide opportunity to meet Garden should be within the Glades building to avoiding current needs and would be as accessible as eating up any of the garden space. The Glades. No loss of garden will be permitted in Queens Garden RPO108 Simon Welcome the amendments to Site L and exclusion of Comments noted. The boundary of Site L has AAP includes proposals for transport Taylor, AtisReal adjacent sites. been amended due to need to accommodate improvements and developer transport safeguarding line. This has required contributions. No objection to indicative development areas for the inclusion of adjacent site to achieve suitable purposes of calculating housing supply in the borough. development area. Guidelines for development of Site L Would oppose any restriction on development density on including need for FRA. Site L which would be contrary to other policies in the UDP The capacities shown in the AAP are indicative and AAP. Currently looking at scheme for 124 residential figures and will be subject to determination of units and 90 bed hotel on grounds of design and viability. planning application.

Opening the culvert of the River Ravensbourne would be inappropriate as it would sterilise parts of the town centre for future development.

Expressed concern that there is a lack of clarity regarding necessary junction improvements and Section 106 contributions and would stress that every attempt should be made to prevent delays in development whilst necessary junction improvements are made. RPO109 Expressed concern that the roads around Bromley will come Extensive traffic modelling has been undertaken AAP includes proposals for transport Mrs Brodie to a standstill if all the AAP proposals go ahead. for Bromley town centre to understand the improvements and parking strategy Commented that the town centre is too contained to allow impact of development on the town centre traffic for a new road system. flows. Expressed concern that the local schools, hospitals and to demonstrate significant regard for historic environment assets impacted upon by the development. All listed buildings and their settings are expected to be protected and enhanced. The archaeological implications of any application will need to be fully assessed at pre- application stage and further archaeological advice sought from the Greater London Archaeological Service (GLAAS) at English Heritage. • Include need for archaeological assessment at pre- application stage in proposed mitigation column • Recommend adding Buildings at Risk to indicator column in Table 8.4. Comments on AAP: • Refer to nationally and locally listed buildings. Concept of historical development section would be better developed as a mini-characterisation of area. Need to provide greater sense of Bromley’s identity. • Welcome historic assets map- but should include archaeological priority areas and scheduled monuments • Include reference to need for full archaeological assessment at pre-application stage for sites involving historic assets • Bromley North- include reference to need to avoid compromising legibility of listed building: benefits include protection and enhancement of historic environment (also Sites B and F) • Protection and enhancement of historic environment should be a principle underpinning AAP • Early consultation with English Heritage should form part of Actions column in table 8.1 for sites of historic importance (especially Sites A, B and F). Include reference to need for full archaeological assessment at pre-application stage • Need to include PPG16 Archaeology in Appendix 2 • Welcome heritage statements under Design and doctor’s surgeries would not be able to cope with the Council has prepared a comprehensive proposals. transport strategy including measures to Commented that the junction at Hayes Lane/ Westmoreland address congestion. Road is a dangerous area. RPO110 Claire Welcomes proposals to regenerate town centre- Comments noted. SA strengthened to reflect comments. Craig, English congratulates Borough on demonstrating a high level of Heritage awareness of need to protect and enhance historic AAP policy and Guidelines for environment. Specific points need strengthening in SA: Opportunity Sites highlight need to • Historic environment objective in SA to be strengthened protect and enhance historic by substituting ‘valued’ with ‘the’ environment and need for early • Adjust heading in SA from Design to Heritage and Design consultation with English Heritage. • Need to ensure consistency between SA and AAP objectives- need to consider impact on cultural heritage as distinct from other aspects of built environment • Does not concur with view on p29 that heritage protection and enhancement can conflict with principles for a vibrant centre- preservation of historic environment is a fundamental requirement for a vibrant centre- text should be amended • Welcome recognition of heritage significance of North Village- would like to see same acknowledgement of heritage elements of Northern gateway site • Would like to see heritage requirements specified at Bromley North station and Bromley Civic Centre • Welcomes recognition of importance of setting of Bromley College and design considerations for Site B. • Heritage considerations pivotal for Sites A,B, and F • Incorporation of Listed Station Building in site A will need to avoid compromising its legibility. • Archaeology needs greater inclusion. Archaeological implications need full assessment at pre-application stage and further advice can be given by Greater London Archaeological advisory Service at English Heritage. Particularly important for Sites B and F • Revise para 8.1.8 Planning applications will be expected Conservation objectives but request that historic elements of public realm and environment be included in Appendix 4 RPO112 Queried whether the proposals include any provisions for Council has prepared a comprehensive AAP includes proposals for transport Tom Sharland, improving cycle facilities- in particular safe routes and transport strategy including provision for improvements including facilities for SUSTRANDS parking. This would fit in with leisure objectives. cyclists. cycling RPO113 Need to give consideration to phasing and timescale for Park and ride has been put forward as an option AAP includes policies on Dennis development. Need implementation plan to identify aspects within the transport strategy. The A21 has been implementation and phasing. Barkway in council’s control, those that require consent of others and included in the strategy as a priority for those that are dependent on 3rd party investment. Council consideration. must commit itself to doing things that will help to achieve inward investment eg: park and ride. Need statement on These issues will be considered in further detail when Council is prepared to use CPO powers in implementation of AAP

Interesting debate to be had on location of new leisure centre and whether a town centre location is essential or Stockwell Close the best or adequate location RP114 Object to Site B on grounds of impacts on Colleges. Comments noted. The number of units and AAP includes development guidance for Trustees of density is indicative and will be determined at Site B to protect setting of historic Bromley and Sheppards Segment of site on junction of Tweedy Road/ London road the planning application stage. buildings. A high quality design and College should be excluded- college enhances entry to town and development will be required. development would close off views.

Concerned about density- proposals should be considered on merits particularly where heritage sites are concerned. AAP should not specify number of units or density. Range should be 60-100 applying the SDS formula- would be lower if area reduced

Density range is based on flatted development only- should be 25-100 units

Concerned that AAP is being driven by Broomleigh proposals- should not defer to a particular developer. Shift in density supports concern that AAP is being tailored to suit specific development RP115 Raises key issues to be addressed prior to submission: Comments noted. The Council has addressed Policies included on housing mix and Mayor of • Deliverability- clarification sought about how realistic it issues of deliverability in modifications to the play provision. Sites which may be London will be to expect sites to be delivered within prescribed preferred options. suitable for delivery of larger units timescales especially with regard to amount of housing suitable for family occupation identified. (specifically family housing). A number of sites have not Comprehensive transport strategy seeks to been identified in the 2004 Housing Capacity Study and address issues of congestion and promote Policy included on improving use of the evidence base for proposals must be substantiated public transport. energy in line with London Plan. more fully; • Residential development- expected that any applications Evidence base for retail development consistent Reference to local training included in will meet Mayor’s target for affordable housing in levels of with SRDF. potential Section 106 contributions. provision and tenure split. Questions raised about how children’s play space and other amenity space needed to Council concerned about protecting character of support family housing will be accommodated in high Bromley Town Centre with emphasis on density development. maximising development potential of sites.

Broad planning objectives heading towards conformity with Density of development must reflect character London Plan but if issues not addressed this may lead to an of surrounding area. opinion of non-conformity at submission stage.

Supports intention to promote significant change and development in town centre in order for it to realise its full potential and provide a more attractive place to shop, work, live and visit. Promotion of variety of uses is welcomed. However, AAP still needs to demonstrate in more detail that the town centre has capacity to accommodate proposed uses. Should justify scale of increased retail floorspace proposed and any significant increases should be based on comprehensive assessment of retail need and capacity and tested sub-regionally through Sub-Regional Development Framework which has set a limit between 35,000- 51,000 sq m. Evidence base must show how much additional new floorspace is proposed and why the tested limit in SRDF should be exceeded.

Inclusion of a policy approach that seeks to maximise development potential of sites consistent with London Plan Policy 4B.3 would be welcomed.

Key policy area relates to improving use of energy (London Plan Policy 4A.7). AAP will need to include policies that support relevant London Plan policies and require applications for major developments to include energy assessments as set out in London Plan Policy 4A.9. AAP will need to require major developments to provide for renewable energy (London Plan Policy 4A.10).

LDA requests inclusion of employment and training for local people and creation of opportunities for local businesses especially SMEs and those owned by BAMEs to be included in list of potential Section 106 contributions.

Tacking high levels of traffic congestion and improving image, accessibility and reliability of public transport is a fundamental issue. Supports partnership working with TfL and others.

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 25

APPENDIX 3.2:

AAP: PREFERRED OPTIONS (JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2006): REPORT TO COMMITTEE

London Borough of Bromley

Report No. PART 1 - PUBLIC Agenda E&LS 06140 Item No. XX Title: AREA ACTION PLAN FOR BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE - RESULT OF CONSULTATION Decision Date: Decision Maker: Development Control Committee 01 Apr 2006

Decision Type: Non-Urgent Non-Executive Non-Key Budget/Policy Within policy and budget Framework: Chief Officer: Chief Planner Contact Officer: Rita Westlotorn, Head of Planning Project Management Tel: 020 8313 4582 E-Mail: [email protected] Frank Whiting, , Town Centre Project Director Tel: 020 8313 4847 E-mail: [email protected] Ward: Bromley Town

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This feedback from the recent public consultation is part of the continuing process of developing a Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan (BTCAAP) over the coming months and all comments made will be considered when finalising the draft Area Action Plan later in the year.

1.2 The public consultation on the Options for Bromley Town Centre has been one of the most comprehensive consultation exercises undertaken by the Council. There was good coverage in the local newspapers as well as prominent exhibitions in The Glades, the Central Library, the Adult Education Centre and the Civic Centre. Approximately 8,000 leaflets were distributed, along with flyers advertising the exhibition at the two railway stations, also individual letters were sent, or hand delivered, to around 600 other, statutory and non-statutory consultees as well as to town centre businesses and residents in the identified opportunity sites.

1.3 In all the Council received a response from 1420 individuals or companies and this is considered to be a reliable indication of public opinion. Of these, 1264 completed ‘freepost’ questionnaires, 57 were more detailed written responses, 74 questionnaires were completed on line together with a further 23 responses being made via the website specifically set up for the Action Plan plus 2 petitions from residents of Site D and G.

1.4 A summary of the responses made are attached as an Appendix to this report.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Members note the report.

1 v1.09-2003 3. COMMENTARY

3.1 Members have recognised that Bromley Town Centre needs to evolve if it is to retain its competitive position and that is why the future vitality of Bromley and the borough’s other town centres is one of the Council's key priorities. It was, however, clear from the response that the town remains popular and well used.

3.2 Consultation was carried out over a six-week period commencing Friday 13th January 2006 and ending 24th February 2006. A staffed exhibition was held over three days in The Glades, after which a static exhibition, with leaflets, was placed in the Bromley Public Library, the Civic Centre Main Reception and at Bromley Adult Education Centre, Nightingale Lane. The consultation process also included other ways of inviting comment via the local press and online. All those who had previously been involved through the stakeholders workshops, including Members, were also invited to a presentation in January. Talks to interested groups have also taken place and these are on-going during the action plan process.

3.3 The findings from the consultation have been analysed in order to inform the next stage of the BTCAAP process. Highlighted below is a brief précis of the results and Appendix 1 gives a summary of the responses received.

• There was strong support for a new department store. Following the closure of Allders and the Army & Navy, the lack of a good department store was one of the main concerns raised by visitors to staff during the exhibition in The Glades.

• There was a high level of support given for new entertainment facilities, to include a new multiplex cinema and a wider range of cafes and restaurants.

• Whilst strong support was given to plans that will revitalize the town a clear majority wanted to see Bromley retain its character and heritage.

• Parking and congestion issues were raised by a number of people. However, with the exception of Bluewater, our car parking charges compare favourably with other centres although a Parking strategy will be produced as part of the AAP. This strategy will cover the management of the parking stock through various methods such as for example; Variable Message Signing (VMS), the number and quality of the spaces available and their use i.e whether long or short stay. Also Transport for London (TfL) have commissioned Hyder Consulting to build a micro simulation model of Bromley Town Centre so that various ideas for improving the road network can be tested. This traffic model is an extremely useful tool in that it enables the Council to test the sustainability, in terms of traffic implications, of the development proposals being considered as part of the AAP process. This includes possible changes to the A21, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network, and borough roads within the town centre.

• Concern was raised regarding additional residential units in the town with some respondents citing the increase pressure on existing parking, and others questioning who would live in the units. However, mixed use schemes that include an element of residential development would give a better balance to the central area of the town. While the economic viability of the town is vital the AAP also needs to address how we can encourage sustainable communities. Such new housing opportunities could help meet the needs of those who have difficulties accessing work opportunities in the town. Also the possible number of new residential units will go some way to meet future housing supply within the Borough as indicated in the London Plan.

2 v1.09-2003 • A considerable number of responses identified the benefits churches in the town can bring to the community. Within the document ecclesiastical buildings are brought together under the term ‘community uses’ and these have been identified on a number of opportunity sites. If a site were to be developed any such existing community use would have the right to be replaced on-site or be suitably located elsewhere.

• A high percentage of responses were received from the older age groups, reflecting somewhat the population of the Borough, and BR1, BR2 and BR3 residents formed the main bulk of those who responded (75.6%), confirming that those local to the town were aware of the consultation process. Responses were also received from people in Croydon, Dartford, Eltham and Tonbridge areas showing the extent to which visitors travel to the town.

3.4 There are only two opportunity sites where occupied residential property has been included, Sites D and G. Residents in both sites have petitioned the Council as part of the consultation process regarding the loss of their homes and concerns over future blight. Officers have had several meetings with people who live or own property in these areas, as well as with residents’ groups, to re-assure them and to discuss their concerns, as well as to give them information about the way compensation will be assessed if their property is purchased. If the development of these sites does proceed, the compensation code ensures that people being displaced receive market value and all other costs associated with their move. Owners also receive additional payments to reflect the compulsory nature of their move.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The AAP will be one of the Council’s first Development Plan Documents (DPD) under the new planning system, known as the Local Development Framework (LDF). As the AAP will constitute a DPD it would therefore be subject to independent examination in public as it will introduce new policies.

4.2 Any proposals for the town centre will have to take account of government policy, especially PPS6 – Planning for town Centres, as well as other relevant documents. Prior to the adoption of the AAP any new development proposal sites within the town centre that are not currently contained in the adopted UDP or 2nd Deposit draft UDP, are likely to be considered as ‘departures’ from the Plan and may therefore be referable to the Secretary of State. The current draft Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies can be viewed on the Council’s website or at the Civic Centre or local libraries.

4.3 The DPD will list and specifically identify Opportunity Sites as well as key objectives and policies for the town centre. Bromley Town Centre is planned to be the subject of considerable development over the next 10 to 15 years, including providing substantial new housing, retail and leisure/recreational development. The extent of change envisaged makes it essential that a detailed and locationally specific planning document is in place to guide and manage future changes and to maximise the benefit derived from the expected development.

4.4 The advice the Council have received from DTZ and other property advisors involved in the AAP process is that there are over 100 major retailers and leisure operators who are looking to be represented in Bromley or if they are already here are looking for bigger or better premises. The main issue is that most of the shops that do become available are either in the wrong location or of the wrong size to satisfy very prescriptive market requirements. The number of interested retailers was obtained from a database that records expressions of interest directly from the operators. 3 v1.09-2003 4.5 The work undertaken by DTZ prior to the Council embarking on the AAP included a substantial amount of research including household surveys both inside and outside the borough. This approach was essential and is indeed recommended as good practice, subsequent work on the AAP is to be based on independent and objective professional analysis by experts in the field, which is important when the draft AAP is tested at a public Inquiry.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The opportunity sites that have been the subject of consultation are opportunities for private sector investment of the type that resulted in the provision of The Glades. While the Council may incur expenditure in assisting in site assembly it would only do so if it is assured that those costs will ultimately be met by the developer. There is also an opportunity for the Council to obtain capital receipts for the sale of its own land.

Non-Applicable Sections: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS Background Documents: UDP Inspectors Report 2005 (Access via Contact PPS6 ODPM March 2005 Officer) DTZ Retail Capacity Study 2004 Preferred Options Document January 2006

4 v1.09-2003 26 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 4

REVISED PREFERRED OPTIONS (NOVEMBER 2007-JANUARY 2008): RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE AAP / SA – Responses to Comments Received

Ref No & Summary of Representation LBB Comments/Response Proposed Changes to Preferred Name Options and/or inclusions in AAP RPO1 Barry Commented that Bromley South station has no provision for Bromley South Station is one of forty stations The AAP will include policy regarding Wooding wheelchair users, and that assurances need to be given to recently identified for inclusion on the DfT’s inclusive design and accessibility. wheelchair users that when redeveloped the station will be Access for All scheme programme. This Development guidelines for Sites A and fully accessible to the disabled. programme, funded by the DfT and J will include requirement for access implemented by Network Rail, sees the improvements to Bromley South and redevelopment of station infrastructure to Bromley North railway stations. provide step free access as well as other accessible facilities including improved lighting, hearing induction loops and passenger information schemes. Network Rail will carry out a feasibility study for the station over the next 18 months to establish what improvements need to be made, before upgrading the station between 2012 and 2015. RP02 No concerns over proposed revisions. Opportunity sites and No comment No changes Richard proposals of local importance Evans Surrey County Council RPO3 Commented on an area of the map on the Revised Preferred No planned development- the graphics denote New development will be required to A Eastwood Options leaflet around Palace View as being grey, asking if existing urban area protect existing residential amenity and there is planned development there. Insufficient weight given Views of local residents taken into account incorporate appropriate mitigation to to views of immediate residents through formal consultation on AAP minimise impacts RPO4 Expressed concern at the conflict between development of The transport assessment and sustainability AAP to include Transport Strategy and Ray Watson retail space and increasing traffic congestion. Mitigation assessment both encourage the development policies to promote sustainable Bromley Friends of measures and park and ride schemes will not solve problems of park and ride schemes and promote modal transport modes. the Earth and will shift congestion and parking issues to the suburban shift onto public transport that aims to reduce areas. private car use. It is considered that these AAP to include requirement for measures can address issues of congestion relocation of the Pavilion Leisure Centre Propose relocation of civic centre from central Bromley to and make Bromley a more attractive retail within town centre if site redeveloped reduce trips to town centre centre. The AAP includes a parking strategy to for retail uses.

RP06 Requested press release/ information Information provided Amanda Bradshaw The Local (Hayes Keston Bromley Common) RP07 Need for bus service, one way street system, 2 hour parking Chatterton Road is outside of the Bromley Town Marie Neal restriction and security cameras along Chatterton Road centre AAP boundary. Comment passed to Craft Jungle Transportation section. RPO8 Children’s play areas would be beneficial in attracting families New development will be required to make Policy relating to provision of childrens Ian Sutton to the town centre and would provide children with a safe provision for childrens play space to meet needs play space to be included in AAP. The Play Strategy Manager place to play. Need for a family friendly town of new residents. Existing children’s play space potential for incorporation of public art in Church House Gardens and St Martins Hill will be highlighted There is currently no space for disabled people and children will be improved. Play facilities in Church House Gardens too far from town Policy on inclusive design and access centre to enable use as part of shopping trip. Potential for play to be included in AAP facilities in Queens Gardens. Requirement for community facilities to Need to secure free play provision and child friendly public art- be provided as part of development of climbable and playable opportunity sites.

Need for accessible space for voluntary sector to run play and activity sessions for children with additional needs- this could be taken into account in proposals for site D.

RP09 Request further information Information provided Steve Shippey RPO10 Town is unsafe for families in the evenings – need to ensure Importance is placed on safety and security and AAP will include policies on design and Steve Best that more bars do not add to problems making the town centre a more attractive town centre management Facilities for teenagers should be incorporated into future destination for all ages in the evenings. redevelopments. A range of retail uses will be promoted to enhance the town centre offer and reinforce Need to encourage small independent shops- becoming a Bromley’s distinctiveness clone town with limited unique shopping character promote increased utilisation of existing Relocation of pavilion conflicts with need to encourage parking. evening and night life in town centre and reduce use by shoppers using Glades; impact on health and potential loss of Relocation of the pavilion leisure centre green space proposed within town centre. The AAP includes proposals to promote evening economy. Impact of retail development on shops in Bromley South and local shopping centres The town centre is considered the most suitable location for civic facilities given its high Possible extension to The Glades could result in Queens level of accessibility by public transport. Gardens being overshadowed- loss of open space due to new cafes Retail development is required to maintain Need to ensure no loss of open space or negative effects on Bromley’s status as a metropolitan centre. The biodiversity. town centre provides a different range of facilities in comparison to smaller centres and will not impact on the viability of local centres.

The extension to the Glades will be subject to environmental assessment. Sensitive design will be required to minimise impacts on Queens Gardens. RPO5 Increased traffic flow into the town centre will need to be Extensive traffic modelling has been undertaken AAP will include provision for highway Bernadette addressed, particularly through Beckenham Lane and for Bromley town centre to understand the improvements outside town centre to Manning Shortlands Village. impact of development on the town centre traffic address issues of congestion and flows and wider network. increased traffic. Lack of traffic calming in Beckenham Lane will contribute to problems Mitigation measures, such as a town centre wide travel plan, improvements to public transport and the management of parking, will be in place to ensure traffic levels are kept at a manageable level throughout the town centre.

RPO11 Developments need to take into account the needs of the local Importance placed on improving accessibility for AAP includes policy on inclusive design Dick Groves disabled residents. all users and the promotion of fully accessible and accessibility Disability Voice developments. The AAP seeks to create an Bromley Bromley has one of worst records for disabled access and accessible and inclusive town centre. safety in London- less than 30% crossings in town centre have provision for visually impaired. Recent improvements The Council are committed to ensuring that a unsatisfactory and dangerous full and representative consultation takes place with all sectors of the community. We will Need for meaningful consultation regarding access for ensure your comments are taken on board. disabled persons The Council is undertaking an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) as part of the AAP. Consultation will be undertaken with disability groups as part of the EqIA RP012 General questions about AAP See RP70 See RP70 Amanda See RP70 Weston Bromley Police RPO13 Improved permeability for cyclists and walkers is important- Initiatives for improving walking and cycling in Policies included in AAP to promote Vincent need for development to reduce barriers to pedestrians Bromley town centre will be an important cycling and walking and improvements Stops, London (particularly Kentish Way, one way streets and staggered component of the Transport Strategy for the to public transport Travel Watch pedestrian crossings from Bromley North to shopping areas). AAP. Planned cycle and walking improvements will include new links and pedestrian crossings. Kentish Way is often congested, and bus priority would be welcomed. Consideration will be given to enhancing bus priority on the A21 (Kentish Way) as part of Need for second accessible entrance to Bromley South comprehensive transport strategy. Kentish Way Station from Kentish Way is part of the TLRN for which TfL is the highway authority and Council will be investigating Town centre would benefit from the reinstallation of the market opportunities in conjunction with TfL. in a more accessible central location. Network Rail are due to carry out a feasibility AAP should promote a reduction in off-street parking. Support study on Bromley South Station over the next modal switch away from private car. 18 months as part of the DfT Access for All scheme. This will establish what improvements are needed for the station including the number and location of step free accesses.

A managed approach to parking will be adopted for the AAP, including making the best use of existing car parking provision and restraining parking where appropriate.

Consideration is to be given to potential relocation of the Charter Market to the pedestrianised High St to provide improved accessibility and operation. RPO14 Support proposals to enhance economic and social vitality of Operational requirements of BT are noted. In view of unavailability of Telephone Roger Bleach town centre but asks for following to be taken into account: Proposals for development must be capable of Exchange for development, Site D is Telereal on behalf of BT • Bromley Telephone Exchange is operational delivery within timescale of the AAP. excluded from AAP because the site is • new technology has recently been installed to serve considered too small to support a viable future needs comprehensive redevelopment • BT has no plans to vacate the Telephone Exchange in the foreseeable future • Relocation of Telephone Exchange would incur substantial costs in terms of infrastructure and property.

RPO15 Welcome proposals for regeneration and improved safety at No plans for altering the traffic flows in the AAP includes policies on design and Linda Evans night- may be assisted by housing in area. Queens Road area, although the potential for town centre management which improving the pedestrian environment is under address issues of safety and security As a resident of Queens Road, concerned that access may review. be difficult after development and about increased traffic. AAP includes a comprehensive May discourage people from shopping in town centre and The AAP seeks to improve Bromley Town transport strategy disadvantage existing residents. Centre including how to bring it to life at night by improving the night time environment and Concern about costs of proposals and possible increase in improving safety issues. Council Tax to pay for them. RP016 Request for information Information provided Martin Helt RP017 Support relocation of Pavilion Leisure Centre Noted AAP includes a comprehensive Councillor Library and theatre should be located on periphery with Development will be dependent on increased transport strategy Granger access to parking use of more sustainable transport modes but Concern about impact of discouraging use of car on Transport Strategy will include measures for performance of town centre in relation to competitors- improvements to walking, cycling and public notably Bluewater with convenient access and free parking transport and a parking strategy which will seek to improve use of existing parking. New parking is proposed to serve proposed retail development

Library and theatre will have improved access to parking RP018 Concern about decline of town centre, loss of quality retail, AAP seeks to address decline of town centre AAP includes policies to improve the Tom Tucker environmental quality, night time safety issues, anti-social and provide a more vibrant and attractive appearance of the town centre and

behaviour. Need to promote quality development centre. promote high quality design in new development RP019 Request for details of Compensation Code applicable to Information provided S Sykes home owners in Ethelbert Road RP20 Main concern relates to extended retail offer. Vital to have AAP seeks to address decline of town centre Site L extended to ensure viable Christine one or two department stores to compete with other towns. and provide a more vibrant and attractive development can take place Diamond Preference for housing development closer to town centre centre including provision for new department incorporating safeguarding rather than outlying areas. stores and town centre housing requirements

Plan for next 5 years sensible- development of DHSS Development of DHSS (Site L) in Phase 1 but building for hotel/ residential uses supported and should be needs to take into account safeguarding speeded up due to close proximity to rail links at Bromley requirements for transport projects.. South RPO21 Need to establish whether existing site can meet LFEPA Council will work with LFEPA to identify Development guidelines for Site C Steve Dark, requirements. suitable alternative site if relocation of fire highlight need to take into account Bromley Fire Station station required in future. No suitable possible future redevelopment of fire Charter Market site adjoining Bromley North Station may be alternative site identified in Town Centre. station site. a suitable location for a new fire station. Bromley North (Site A) identified for other uses to deliver transport improvements and mixed use development in accordance with London Plan.

Development of Site C should take into account possible future redevelopment of fire station site, RPO22 Need to identify opportunities for meeting learning An Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) is AAP includes policy on inclusive design D DasGupta, Disabilities needs through planned development. being undertaken. and accessibility Adult and Community Services Concern about lack of parking spaces in Bromley Town Centre for minibuses, particularly for disabled users. This limits opportunities for adults with learning disabilities to integrate.

Need for special facilities for disabled eg: changing facilities with hoists.

Need to ensure town centre is inclusive.

RP023 Bromley Court Hotel already provides good conference/ The potential for additional hotel AAP includes policy on promotion of Patrick Wall hotel facilities- misleading to say Bromley does not have a accommodation has been identified. This will business sector and improvements to Bromley Court Hotel quality hotel. Need to address the business sector to ensure enhance Bromley’s position as a metropolitan business areas hotels thrive. An additional hotel would dilute current centre. business market between hotels. AAP promotes improvements to existing Bromley has a small business sector- limited number of business areas and protection of existing medium to large companies. A lot of existing office space is office accommodation empty- only one site identified for office space (Old Town Hall)- all other sites are for mixed use development including retail, leisure and residential. Need to place more emphasis on developing business sector and attracting business into Bromley.

Concerned that hotel has not been consulted directly on market potential for another hotel.

RPO24 Belinda No requirement for new department store but town centre Requirement for new department store Improvements to stations proposed in Price would benefit from multiplex cinema. identified through market assessment. Site K Phase 1. has been identified for a multi-plex and interest Key issues relate to traffic and movement. Access to has been shown from prospective developers. AAP includes a comprehensive Bromley South station for those with wheelchairs or prams is Both developments will enhance Bromley’s transport strategy including very poor- needs to be addressed urgently. Bromley can offer and position as a metropolitan centre. improvements to public transport only thrive when station is made more accessible- otherwise facilities people will come by car leading to increased congestion and Redevelopment of stations will need to comply pressure on parking. Need to look at short term proposals to with DDA requirements, including wheelchair improve accessibility- cannot wait for development. and pram access. AAP proposes improvements to Station in Phase 1. Supports Bromley South as a transport interchange- could promote trains to Beckenham junction and links to tram. Transport Strategy is being developed to help Need to give greater priority to public transport. Support for improve highway movements and parking to congestion charge at peak times. ensure town is easier to navigate.

Concern about long walk from Kentish Way bus stop to Civic centre- suggests reception in the Glades

RPO25 Concern about proposal to relocate the Pavilion to Civic An alternative sports/ leisure facility will have to AAP includes a requirement for the K Dumville Centre site: be provided if the Pavilion is redeveloped. The relocation of the leisure facility • approval for Glades was granted with an civic centre has been identified as an undertaking that a leisure/ sports centre be built on appropriate site for a replacement improved the site for use by local residents. If the Pavilion leisure facility. facilities were withdrawn for any length of time while new sports centre constructed, this might have legal implications • If Pavilion facilities withdrawn for any length of time, users of facilities might loose the impetus to exercise with impacts on health care. Withdrawal of sports facilities not an option even for a short period • Many people use Pavilion and shop afterwards- loss of facilities will affect retail performance. Need to ensure replacement sports facilities in place before Pavilion is closed. RP026 Queried size of proposed site for relocation of the pavilion- Council considers proposed site to be of Tim Burrell concerned it would not be large enough for swimming pool adequate size to accommodate requirements

RPO27 Concerned about lack of wheelchair/ pram access at Redevelopment of stations will need to comply AAP policy requires access to stations David Anderson Bromley South station. Need for lifts or escalators. with DDA requirements, including wheelchair to be improved and DDA compliant. and pram access. Improvements to Bromley South proposed in Phase 1 RPO28 Concerned that Pavilion facilities will be relocated If site of Pavilion redeveloped, there will be a AAP includes a requirement for Glenis Ruston Community use should include provision for art and culture. requirement to replace facilities within the town. relocation of leisure facility Support for independent shops The civic centre site has been identified as a suitable location. New facility will reflect Arts and culture promoted in AAP changes in demand for leisure facilities and will including public art, improvements to be a modern facility which caters for needs and Churchill Theatre and Library and new health of community. public spaces

Community facilities identified as being important- Council seek to attract more live entertainment facilities into town. Bromley North seen as ideal area for independent retailers. RPO29 Queried the compensation code for Ethelbert Close Information provided David Corkrow residents. RPO30 Concerned about noise nuisance from existing pubs and Site D excluded. Mr James clubs Future use of cinema will be subject to Expressed serious concern that a live music venue at Site D assessment of potential impacts on residential would cause further noise disturbance to residents. amenity. RPO31 Supports proposals for new housing- should include The AAP identifies the need for mix of housing AAP includes policy to promote mix of Nicholas significant proportion (25% or more) of family homes of 3 or types including family housing. Community housing types and tenure and Schoon more bedrooms, with local play areas and garden space. facilities including children’s play space and associated community facilities. This will improve environment and design quality and education facilities will be required to meet encourage community engagement- improvements to needs of new development. security, privacy and amenity. Possible to build good family housing at medium to high densities. New development The increase in floorspace is a net increase on should reflect proximity to public transport- encourage existing floorspace. The increase in retail walking, cycling and use of public transport and provide floorspace meets requirements set out in the limited car parking. sub-regional strategy and the capacity identified in the retail capacity study. Increase in retail Need to make clearer case for increase in retail floorspace- floorspace and quality is required to enhance does this include space lost by closure of department stores. performance. It is recognised that retail Emphasis should be on quality not quantity- significant development is dependent on a comprehensive increase in retail floorspace will increase traffic congestion transport strategy to address congestion and and will not enhance competitiveness. traffic impacts. RP032 Requested copy of brochure Information provided Adrian Tutchings Linays Commercial RPO33 Queried whether Ringers Court was within Site G and if so, Residents will be kept informed of AAP and any Mark Sansom why there had been no formal notification proposed changes. Details of CPO procedures Ringers Court Residents Queried details of compulsory purchase order/ will be made available at the appropriate time Association compensation code. RPO34 Michael Site C- need to ensure any new build will reflect character of AAP includes development guidelines AAP includes development guidelines Payne former town hall. Need to compensate for loss of car parking development in keeping with character of and policy framework for all proposal Babbacombe Road Residents spaces surrounding area. sites and town centre as a whole. Association Site P- site suitable for affordable housing. Development should include upgrading of Walters Yard and respect Council policy to seek provision of affordable conservation area. housing in all developments. Developers will be Site A- development should preserve suburban character of expected to contribute towards infrastructure area, improve transport interchange and safety and access. requirements. Local community must be fully consulted on development of site. Key concerns: Community will be fully consulted on • Need to spread affordable housing between all development proposals sites • Need to clarify existing parking • Need for improved access • Increased traffic • Development must complement character of Station Road and Babbacombe Road • Impact of higher density development on water resources and local neighbourhood • Existing PCT health facility is fit for purpose- further clarification required of improved community and health facilities • Need for clarification of new transit system and improved links with Bromley South station • Need clarification of proposals for improved or new public open space • Need clarification of boundary changes RPO35 Requested clarification regarding impacts of development of Clarification provided. The culvert prevents AAP provides development guidelines Julia Stewart Site K and access to off street parking backing onto development above it so the rear servicing road to minimise impacts of Site K on Simpsons Road. behind Newbury Road is left untouched residential amenity. RP036 Pleased that St Paul’s Square removed from area for Site D excluded from AAP AAP includes a comprehensive B Jones and redevelopment but concerned about: transport strategy CM Ward • Enhancement proposals for top end of Martins Hill Comprehensive transport strategy to be • Traffic in Market Square- car journeys will be prepared to address issues of access to town increased without access through Market Square centre adding to congestion and pollution. Martins Hill to be protected. Possible enhancements will include planting and promotion of biodiversity

RP037 Planned retail in Pavilion should be for quality department AAP seeks to improve town centre offer- better Barbara Geere store range and quality of retail and improved arts Need for shops selling better quality goods and culture offer. More cultural activities required to raise Bromley’s profile in the arts- ideally a new arts centre and concert hall Emphasis on improving Churchill Theatre and Need for more English style cafes existing facilities. No potential identified for new arts centre and concert hall RP038 Lack of range and quality of restaurants in evenings AAP seeks to improve town centre offer and Christine People put off going to Bromley due to problems of young performance- better range and quality of retail Maddy people/ binge drinking and cafes/ restaurants. Objective to attract Need for department store- retail offer limited. Bromley wider range of users in evenings and to becoming a clone town- lack of individual shops. Needs to enhance Bromley’s distinctiveness. be different to attract trade from Bluewater and Croydon and to retain high spending capacity within area. RPO39 Freeholder of 10 Sherman Road adjoining Site A- Comments noted. A comprehensive approach No change Nigel Styles, preference for property to remain outside boundary of Site A to development is proposed Stylish Living to enable site to be redeveloped separately. No marriage value between property and Site A. RPO40 Object to the requirement stated in paragraph 3.32 for a The proposed split reflects London Plan and AAP includes policy on affordable Helen Booker, 70:30 split of social rented housing and intermediate Council policy. However, it will be possible to housing but allow for flexibility in RPS on behalf of Fairview New housing within the 35% affordable housing provision. review proposals on a site by site basis taking application taking into account London Homes into account AAP objectives Plan and AAP objectives Affordable housing mix should be negotiated on a site by site basis with each case being treated on its merits having regard to Council’s objective for providing affordable housing based on an up to date Housing Needs Assessment.

RPO41 Site K- concern about noise at night from people visiting Measures will be taken to minimise impacts on AAP promotes improvements to station Olivia Fawkes cinema and restaurants. Newbury St a residential Road- residential amenity in design of development. as part of proposals for Site J. unless hours of residential parking increased, risk of on Pedestrian access to cinema and restaurants Improvements to Bromley South Station street parking at night. Objection to restaurants having will be from High St. Parking to be provided on proposed to commence in Phase 1 extended hours. Need to consider design and size of Site K replacement car park to limit impacts on Newbury Road AAP includes development guidelines residents. Council will promote improved accessibility for for Site K all users to Bromley South Station in particular Site J- 5-10 years is too long to wait for new station at step free access. Bromley South Station is one Bromley South- existing station ahs poor facilities- cannot of forty stations recently identified for inclusion use station because no pram access. Need to make on the DfT funded Access for All scheme improvements to station a priority and moved to Phase 1. programme. Network Rail will carry out a feasibility study for the station over the next 18 months to establish what improvements need to be made, before upgrading the station. RPO43 Proposed restrictions on car movements along North side of Emphasis is being placed on improving the Reference to improvements to transit Mr & Mrs Market Square should allow access for residents. Without pedestrian environment. Full account will be systems linking from Bromley South to Dumville this, congestion would increase on Swan Hill. taken of local access for residents. Bromley North and beyond

Would welcome a light rail link to Grove Park and Lewisham Potential for improvements to transit systems to link with DLR and link to Bromley South from Bromley linking from Bromley South to Bromley north North. and beyond but this could take many forms e.g. extension of the Croydon Tramlink or DLR or a Concerned about impact of development fronting onto new transit system linking with park and ride Martins Hill. Opposed to inappropriate commercial sites. Options need to be considered as part of development in Martins Hill area- should be an open space a longer term study for benefit of residents will be met with major opposition.

Not opposed to relocation of leisure centre within town centre but concerned that sports facilities may be withdrawn because funds unavailable to rebuild existing centre following closure. Need to ensure that new facilities available before existing centre closed. Appendix 4- questioned reference to lack of high quality development frontage to Martins Hill- Martins Hill is an area for informal recreation and leisure although there is evidence of illegal/ anti-social behaviour - would support promotion of part of Martins Hill as nature reserve. Pleased that St Pauls square deleted from redevelopment area. RPO44 Support proposals for Site N and G- encourages Preferred Options include new car park to serve AAP includes proposal for a new car Chris Glover, restaurants/ cafes around theatre to keep High Street alive Site G development. park to serve Site G development. The Churchill Theatre after 6 pm- this will increase footfall and make Churchill Theatre more attractive to older customers. Will contribute to a safer, more secure and vibrant town centre. A closer/ more welcoming car park would encourage customers to spend their evenings in Bromley rather than go to West End. The Hill and Pavilion car parks require patrons to walk along a quiet High St- a car park at site G with access to theatre through a more inviting restaurant/ café development would benefit town centre trade. RPO45 Gladys Criticised AAP for not making any provision for cyclists to Initiatives for improving walking and cycling in AAP includes policies for walking and Edmonds reach the centre of town or to move from one side to other. Bromley town centre will be an important cycling as part of Transport Strategy. More needs to be done to discourage people from using car component of the Transport Strategy for the to avoid increased congestion. AAP. AAP will be more specific about planned cycle and walking improvements including new Cycle facilities need to be implemented from outset- need to links and pedestrian crossings. include cycle ways which link together to form network. RPO46 Norman Site A Timescales in Draft AAP are indicative. Council Timescale for development of Site A Wells Timescale for Site A is too long. Respondent’s offices are supports relocation or retention of Charter brought forward. within site and long time scale is impacting on general Market and promotion of market activities. maintenance/ planning blight etc. Network Rail owns most of Site D deleted from Draft AAP. site and with prospective developers wish to develop site at Council supports retention of existing and Improvements promoted to enhance earlier stage than 10-15 years shown in Phase 3. development of town centre’s cultural offer distinctive character of Bromley North Village. Charter Market is poor quality and compares unfavourably with other local markets. Needs to be substantially Site K proposed for mixed use upgraded. Suggests that introduction of Farmers/ development incorporating cinema continental style Markets selling local produce could enhance attractions. Potential to resurrect Annual Fairs in 2012 using Charter granted by Henry VI to coincide with 150th anniversary of last time they were held.

Site D In event of cinema being replaced by new cinema in Site K, an independent cinema would be suitable on the site and would fit with the ‘East Street Village’ concept. This would benefit from proximity to the Little Theatre and restaurants in Bromley North and offer greater variety to develop Bromley’s cultural offer/ encourage a better mix of night time uses which would appeal to all ages and reduce anti-social behaviour.

Site K Need for different cinema offer to standard multi-plex- preference for smaller independent cinemas serving local communities.

Supports principles set out in Plan to make Bromley a more attractive centre to visit- but detail needs clarification with greater emphasis on cultural facilities that promotes diversity and inclusion and provides a wider mix of uses. RPO47 Georgie No references to utility infrastructure needs in terms of water The SA encourages the minimisation of the use Cook, Thames and waste water which is essential to any development. AAP of water to enable residential developments to SA addresses the main issues raised. Water needs to consider the net increase in water and waste water meet the higher levels of the Code for demand to serve the proposal as well as off site impacts in Sustainable Homes. Development proposals will The AAP will require development order to avoid no/ low water pressure and external/ internal be required to consider if the demand for water proposals to address the net increase in sewage flooding of properties. supply network infrastructure both on and off water and waste water demand site for the development sites can be met required to serve the proposal. Recommended that consideration be given to whether the Developers will be required to consider following can be met: off site impacts to ensure no/ low water • demand for water supply network infrastructure both pressure and external/ internal sewage on and off site;. flooding of properties is to be avoided. • demand for sewage network infrastructure both on and off site; The AAP will require new developments to consider the demand placed on the • drainage and flood risk of the proposed sewage network infrastructure both on development both on and off site. and off site and how this can be met.

The AAP will ensure that new developments consider the drainage and flood risk of the development both on and off site.

The AAP will promote greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting in new developments.

RP048 Need to embrace idea of urban living with a village feel- Council seeks to enhance character and Policies promote mixed uses and new Siobhan Pender Council must encourage and help establish individuality attractiveness of town centre as a place to live cultural and leisure facilities and (Resident Bromley within retail and café arena. Opportunity to designate areas and enhanced provision of cafes and cultural residential development in town centre. Gardens) which promote café culture for art and community spirit to provision. flourish. Enjoyment of town centre limited by lack of good alternative restaurants and ‘yob culture’. Reference to Northcote Road Battersea as good model- village atmosphere and range of independent shops. Potential to promote Bromley as area with a lot to offer people without children- support for art gallery and venue for book launches etc. RPO49 Concerned about lack of information about potential CPO in Council will manage any CPO process to Mr Mortimer next 5 years- Request for details of compensation and CPO minimise blight and ensure property owners fully (resident of Ringers Road) appeal procedures. consulted and receive appropriate compensation RPO50 Concerned about proposals to discourage car usage and A balanced strategy is proposed which provides AAP includes policies to promote Pierre Appleby impact on retailers/ businesses. Support for more for necessary parking and promotes increased pedestrian and cycle links and (BBRAG) consideration to be given to cycling as a sustainable mode use of public transport and sustainable connectivity throughout the town centre of transport for shoppers, commuters and school children. transport. The SA promotes the inclusion of as part of a comprehensive transport cycle routes and facilities in new developments strategy Expressed disappointment that cycle routes have not been and throughout the town centre as part off given greater consideration in the AAP. Need to create new mitigation measures. cycle facilities/ routes.

Need for solution to ‘out of town’ traffic problem to encourage businesses to locate in Bromley. Support for widening of A21- over reliance has been placed on falling traffic counts which may not continue. Need to improve road accessibility.

Need to consider park and ride- to south, west and east to reduce congestion at peak times.

Proposed mitigation measures will not solve approach road Council developing a comprehensive transport congestion and are a disincentive to expansion of the town. strategy to support AAP AAP includes transport proposals Increased parking tariffs will discourage people from staying including park & ride provision in longer longer in town centre. term

Suggested cycle routes for pupils to get to local schools. RPO51 Unaware of proposals affecting property- request details of Council will manage any CPO process to Ms Musto the compensation code and to be kept up to date on minimise blight and ensure property owners Mr Brennan Ethelbert Close progress of proposals. fully consulted and receive appropriate compensation. RPO52 Supports proposals to benefit local community- plans Council will manage any CPO process to Peter Brown directly affect property and concerned that residents should minimise blight and ensure property owners Ringers Road be more involved as decisions are being processed. fully consulted and receive appropriate Request clarification of plans and details of the compensation. compensation code. RP053 Pleased that revised Plan recognises part churches play in Council will manage any CPO process to AAP recognises importance of churches Edwin life and community of Bromley. Need to give more attention minimise blight and ensure property owners and need to make provision for Thompson Clerk of to quality of life- should not be overtaken by retail and fully consulted and receive appropriate churches affected by development in Bromley commercial considerations. Need to make Bromley a place compensation. town centre Quaker people will want to live. Meeting/ Member Churches together in central Bromley

RPO54 Plans for Site D should not mean end for the cinema. Council seeks to retain entertainment facilities Site D deleted from Draft AAP Penny Read Suggests live entertainment venue on Site C- comedy club in any new development or ice rink and facilities for younger people. Car park on Site AAP includes guidelines for D ugly but useful. Proposals for Site N and Site F seek to development of Sites N and F including Site N provides good opportunity to improve appearance of enhance environment of town centre and to enhancement of public open spaces area- supports idea of town square with wider open space improve access to open space and links to library and theatre and Church House gardens. Site F- good opportunity to open gardens up to public- parks bring history of area to life and bring town to life- potential for linked walks

RP055 Concern about proposed closure and relocation of leisure Council will ensure that re-provision of leisure AAP requires relocation of leisure Peter and centre- fear scenario whereby there will be a hiatus between centre secured before development of Site E centre secured before development of Audrey Hallows closure and completion of new facility. proceeds. Site E proceeds

Retail development at side of Glades will centralise Council seeks to extend retail offer to southern AAP proposes extension of primary provision in small area- consideration should be given to end of High Street retail frontage to south of High Street incorporation of retail space within redevelopment of southern end of High Street. More vibrant town centre should not be at cost of existing facilities. RPO56 Quality and fabric of the Pavilion has deteriorated- need to A new sports/ leisure facility will have to be AAP identifies requirement for provision Steve Price, take decision on case for investment and improvement. provided if the Pavilion is redeveloped. of new leisure facility in event of MyTime Concern about potential impacts of proposals on leisure development of Site E centre- most significant leisure centre benefiting from footfall Preliminary feasibility work undertaken to generated by proximity to town centre shops and attractions. establish capacity of Site F to accommodate The Pavilion has aged badly and does not meet growth in new recreation centre demand for health and fitness- sports hall and squash courts underused. However, it still represents a major opportunity Council will work with MyTime to ensure quality for improvement/ investment- would reposition the leisure of provision maintained offer to complement the retail offer and contribute to objective of a successful and vibrant town centre. Key concerns: • Replacement site on Civic Centre too small to re- provide existing facilities (smaller pool and possible loss of sports hall)- would also result in loss of Grand Hall a venue for community activities and Adventure Kingdom; • Implementation period of AAP is likely to prevent significant investment in the current centre until decision is made. Virtual planning blight on existing site.

Request Council to consider a commitment to endorse the continued provision of a public sector leisure facility within the town centre and to provide a replacement to the Pavilion before demolition of the current site. RPO57 Concern that not all of objectives pp 33-34 are deliverable Council will seek appropriate level of Policies included in implementation James Stevens, and whether some might prove incompatible (creating an contributions from all developments section of AAP regarding developer Home Builders Federation attractive, healthy and peaceful place to live while also contributions reviving commercial, employment and entertainment uses in town centre.

Unlikely any one developer will be able to deliver all the S106 obligations listed on p85-86 on a single scheme and therefore the way that the obligations are calculated must reflect the circumstances of the development site and its ability to absorb those costs. Developers need more certainty and it is essential that Council prioritises obligations and relate these to specific residential locations in the AAP.

Calculation of potential health and education contributions must be related to evidence of actual need. This requires monitoring of capacity- report to Bromley Council dated 13 February 2007 reveals substantial existing capacity and calls for reduction in published admission numbers to reduce costs. This suggests little need for new education infrastructure to be built. RPO58 Seeking to purchase 104-108 High St AAP is being prepared in the context of serving AAP promotes a comprehensive Ian Shrubsall, Welcome identification of 100-108 High St for mixed use the town centre as a whole not in a piecemeal Transport Strategy. RPS for Invista Foundation development- opportunity to redevelop site to create way. In terms of transport, this relates to Property landmark building at important focal point adjacent to theatre parking to serve linked trips within the town Policy for development of Site G will (freeholder of and entrance to Church House Gardens: would form centre and also sustainable policies such as require re-provision of community and 100-102 High attractive and active corner to new town square. travel planning, again orientated towards a faith uses and improved linkages to St) whole town centre approach. open space. Objection to Site G on grounds of the ability of the proposal to be delivered and the potential blight that could occur as a Comprehensive approach to redevelopment of result of the wording of the proposals. Site G is required to deliver objectives of AAP and capacity for new retail development. Table 7.1 Site G- Car parking, community and faith uses of the site should be considered as applying to those parts of Feasibility work indicates Site G development the site where they are existing, or in the case of parking can be delivered. Council will manage any CPO where required to serve new development. Linkages to process to minimise blight and ensure property public open space should not be a requirement for all parts owners fully consulted and receive appropriate of site. Welcome potential for taller buildings but reference compensation. to comprehensive approach needs to be clarified to prevent situation where Site G in multiple uses and tenancies will not otherwise come forward for development if it had to be assembled as a single ownership and development site. CPO should not be used if objective can be achieved in another way. Masterplan should allow individual parcels to come forward on a phase by phase basis to achieve deliverability and recognise individual property rights. Piecemeal development can be avoided by setting policy objectives for wider area. Propose new wording:

‘A comprehensive concept is proposed for Site G to which all individual parcels of land within Site G must comply in order to ensure the objectives for Site G are met. For the avoidance of doubt, development proposals for Site G will not be permitted unless they can demonstrate how they contribute to meeting the overall objectives for Site G and that they avoid prejudicing the subsequent development of adjacent land and other elements of the Site G proposals’.

Accept that reference to ‘linkages/ integration with Park and Site N’ are necessary but clarification is required that proposals do not have to be delivered in a single phase or ownership with Site N, but that they should be complimentary and link to Site N and the park and allow for that development, but not be contingent on it, or required to deliver it.

Welcome indicative floor areas for retail but caution that flexibility should be allowed for residential development as this is the most suitable use for the upper floors. Inappropriate to cap development at a level less than would make best use of site- priority should be given to achieving higher densities on sustainable town centre sites.

Object to indicative timescale for development of Site G as Phase 2 for 5-10 years. Site is physically capable of development within Phase 1- no sound reason to delay positive regeneration/ development which can take place on phased basis. Object to statement that use of CPO will be necessary to promote comprehensive development- comprehensive approach can be achieved by individual parcels coming forward in a coordinated and complimentary way. Requirement for CPO will lead to planning blight and a disincentive to landowners bringing forward proposals. CPO will delay regeneration.

Request meeting to discuss proposals. RPO59 Concern about development of Westmoreland Road Car Parking will be re-provided in Town Centre. Policy for development of Site K to Katy Noseda- Park- not in best interests of community: require provision of public parking. Vennard • Need for Car park which is always in full use. If size Existing cinema does not meet requirements for Requirement for high quality design and of car park reduced, increased demand for parking entertainment provision in town centre mitigation of impacts on existing and detrimental impact on residential roads. Existing residential amenity. Any reduction in lack of parking in area will be compounded by public parking on Site K to be re- development; provided on Site G. • Existing cinema could be improved- no need for another cinema; Requirement for any proposals for • Increased noise pollution and rubbish and anti- reuse/ redevelopment of existing social behaviour at night; cinema to include entertainment/ leisure • Increased traffic; use • Development will have detrimental effect on house prices and impact on residential amenity; • No need for additional cafes/ restaurants given existing provision. RPO60 Carolyn As resident of Ravensbourne Road, considers proposals for A managed approach to parking will be adopted New development being taken forward Elliott Site G to represent very high density and will have big for the AAP, including making the best use of under the AAP will require detailed impact on local services- doctors (proposals for Site H existing car parking provision and restraining transport assessments to ensure traffic (Phase 3) will be too late), primary schools, secondary parking where appropriate. A Parking Plan will impacts are acceptable. Residents schools and drainage. be prepared including on-street parking parking permits will not be made provision. available to residents of new Better solution for new department Store on old Army & development in Town Centre. navy Store site- would remove requirement to demolish TK Development of Site G will be required to Maxx and retail/ residential properties. Impact on existing include provision for community facilities Development of Site J Bromley South residents due to potential CPO. Station modified to exclude mixed use Re-provision of leisure facilities will be secured development over tracks. Bromley’s attraction relates partly to traditional ‘old town style’ feel- should not be competing with Bluewater. Developers will be expected to contribute towards the necessary infrastructure Traffic around Bromley South is already heavy with requirements significant congestion at Masons Hill junction. New 400 space car park will exacerbate problem and discourage people from coming into Bromley. Inadequate residents parking bays to serve Ravensbourne Road, Ringers Road and Ethelbert Road- residents have to find alternative parking a distance away in Zone C. Publicity material has not clearly stated the enormity of the plans- most people do not understand the scale of demolition planned. Need further clarification of proposals.

Closure of the Pavilion will result in loss of only sports facility in area before new facility is provided on Civic Centre site. Limited facilities for young people- a period without leisure facilities in town centre is unacceptable. RPO61 Concern that youth element getting out of control in town Hotel development included in proposals for Policy included in AAP relating to safety Tinklin Springall centre- need to liaise with police and bring zero tolerance Site C and L and security and town centre Solicitors policy into effect. Support wider extension of CCTV system. management.

Support 3-4* hotel as part of redevelopment of Bromley South given lack of hotel facilities in area

RPO62 Provision of health and leisure facilities was a major factor in Replacement sports/ leisure facility will be AAP includes policy requiring re- T O Burrell agreement to original development of the Glades. provided if the Pavilion is redeveloped. provision of sports/ leisure facilities if Demolition of existing provision needs special consideration. The Pavilion is redeveloped. Site F John Lewis do not wish to use site and justification for identified as suitable site for new facility. proposed new department store diminished. Smaller Provision will need to be secured before additional shops would not justify loss of leisure facility. New development of existing leisure centre leisure centre on the Civic Centre site must contain at least (Site E) commences a swimming pool of similar size and nature to existing pool and a gym.

Opposed to any closure of leisure centre prior to new facility being provided. Commercial development must nor take precedence over health and fitness of borough residents. RPO63 Welcomes amended proposals provide for inclusion of Council will ensure provision for existing faith AAP will include polices relating to Peter Faulkner Churches but concerned that there is no guarantee that uses as part of redevelopment of Site G transport measures to improve Salvation Army and Town Church will not be moved to accessibility to town centre another part of town. These churches are used by Comprehensive transport strategy developed to community throughout week. If churches are moved their support AAP. value may be diminished.

Transport policy is unrealistic- idea that increasing number of people living and working in town centre can be achieved without significant number of parking spaces is wrong- existing parking restrictions mean that people often go to Bluewater instead of Bromley. Inability to go along Widmore Road through Market square and down Church Road will add to high levels of traffic on Tweedy Road. Lower part of High Street should not be closed to cars. Concern that buses will not be allowed to stop outside Boots- if it is moved this will result in longer walk to the Glades- a problem for old people. RP064 Supports preservation of open space and proposals to retain Comments noted AAP includes transport strategy which Valerie Walford and improve access to it. Concerned that transport will identifies park & ride as longer term remain difficult- suggests that Christmas Park & ride facility measure. should continue to operate on trail basis to assess whether it would be viable and efficient as a permanent service and AAP seeks to improve retail offer and reduce congestion in town centre. new department stores

Concerned about decline in quality of retail offer and loss of department stores. Supports proposals to revitalise retail shopping in High Street.

Supports continuing presence of Salvation Army in town centre- contributes to civic life and provides facilities such as youth clubs and play groups which could not easily continue if premises moved. Need for more facilities in area.

Provision to meet faith needs is essential. Salvation Army could not contribute as effectively to community if it did not continue to occupy space within Site G. Significant amount of money invested by community in upgrading existing premises. Concerned that revised proposals for Site G only provide for developers to be requested to accommodate Salvation Army in redevelopment proposals- should be altered to ‘requirement’ to accommodate Salvation Army. RPO65 Michael Highlights need for more diverse range of activities within Council seeks to extend retail and business AAP includes policies to extend retail Fearn on behalf the town centre- 2004 Retail Study showed that banks and opportunities in town centre and business opportunities of Barclays Bank financial institutions under-represented in Bromley compared to national position- but no intention set out in document to review the extent of primary area or modify wording to bring UDP policies S1 and S10 into line with government policy. UDP policies state uses within Classes A2-A5 may be appropriate: Uses in Part A of Use Classes order are by definition appropriate in shopping frontages and should be permitted. Designations of primary and secondary frontages should be realistically defined having regard to rental levels and yields- unclear how these issues have been addressed. If Council intends continuing to promote this type of policy these issues need to be addressed. RPO66 Welcomes recognition that cultural and creative economy is Comments noted AAP includes policies to promote Rose Freeman, an important contributor to Bromley’s economy. Support cultural and creative economy The Theatres Trust proposals for Site N to develop a cultural quarter and civic square in front of the Churchill Theatre and Library. Balanced leisure scene will entertain and stimulate visitors, residents and local businesses- will enliven surrounding area in evening and provide regular custom for bars and restaurants outside normal working and shopping hours RPO67 Charles Development and Flood Risk Comments noted SA has assessed potential impacts of Muriithi, Southern area of town centre south of railway designated as development and proposed mitigation Environment Agency Flood Zone 3- 1% or greater chance of flooding in an y SFRA undertaken measures given year. PPS25 requires new development to be steered to areas at lowest probability of flooding by applying a Policies included in AAP to address ‘Sequential Test’. No evidence provided to indicate impacts of development sequential test undertaken- uses defined as vulnerable development must not be permitted in area and options to Text amended to reflect comments remove highly vulnerable development from these areas should be considered. SFRA should inform the Sustainability Appraisal. At present AAP does not accord with guidance in PPS12 because of lack of robust evidence base relating to flood risk. Revised Preferred Options should be assessed on basis of flood risk issues. Proposed development in Southern Gateway may not be appropriate due to flood risk and further investigation required (Sites H, J and K). FRA must determine actual flood risk to these sites. Selection of preferred options sites for residential development after SFRA undertaken may identify more suitable areas for development. Town Centre constrained by predominantly manmade rivers and capacity of existing sewer and surface water systems. Robust approach needed to manage flood risk in future- balance must be struck between maintaining and supporting natural floodplains and reducing flood risk. SFRA must be done prior to Council progressing plan.

Surface Water Food Risk London Plan SPG on Sustainable Planning and Construction states that development should use SUDS wherever practical (essential); achieve 50% attenuation of undeveloped site’s surface water runoff at peak times (essential); achieve 100% attenuation of undeveloped site’s surface water runoff at peak times (preferred). Drainage must be designed to cope appropriately with peak runoff rates and volumes and allow for climate change in accordance with increases in rainfall predicted and outlined in PPS25.

Climate Change Need to integrate climate change considerations into all spatial planning- transport, housing, economic growth and regeneration, water supply and waste management- view from wider sustainability objectives not just reducing impacts of flooding. Need to consider mitigation and adaptation and opportunities for integration in spatial strategies should be maximised. Consider area’s vulnerability to climate change and implications for built development, infrastructure and services and biodiversity. New development should be avoided in areas with likely increased vulnerability to climate change. Council should require development proposals to take account of expected changes in local climate conditions by adaptation or flexibility to allow future adaptation. Information on measures should be submitted with an application. Council should require major developments to: • Identify type of and extent of main changes expected in local climate throughout lifetime of proposed development; • Identify potential impacts of changes on proposed development and its neighbours; • Indicate ways in which proposed development design overcomes hazards and exploits opportunities whilst meeting other sustainable development criteria, particularly need to achieve overall reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Ground Water and Land Contamination Areas of town centre designated within Groundwater Source Protection Zone- provides water for public supply and vulnerable to pollution such as site drainage. Within these areas pollution prevention measures must be followed in accordance with ‘Policy and Practice for Protection of Groundwater’. Only roof water must be discharged to ground within inner source protection zones. Where development is proposed on or near a site known or believed to be contaminated, a site assessment will be required to establish nature and extent of contamination prior to determining the application. Remediation must reduce risk to acceptable levels.

Surface water runoff should be treated through a SUDS system to improve water quality eg: pervious paving, green roofs, bio retention, filtration, ponds and storm water wetlands.

Open Spaces and Biodiversity Pleased to see most of biodiversity issues addressed- AAP an ideal opportunity for enhancement of low value conservation sites and to create and enhance ecological networks and improving and linking green spaces to local residents. Proposals for improvements to public realm welcomed- development provides opportunity for green spaces to become a major educational and community resource- new green grid style development, improved entrance ways and knowledge of parks, enhancement and extension of existing green spaces. Recommend increased environmental recreation in and around river corridors eg: increased access to fishing and environmental education. Potential to improve ecological value of green spaces by removing hard concrete edges along river corridors and replacing with natural planting. Council should require development proposals to include landscaping and other ecological features that contribute to protecting, managing and enhancing local biodiversity- information must be submitted with applications. Applicants should appoint an ecologist to prepare appraisal of proposals and if appropriate a biodiversity action plan for site.

Design and Construction Importance of design quality of buildings and public spaces and need to enhance local character and support local services. Well designed neighbourhood should be socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. Building Regs will require new homes to be zero carbon by 2016. Need to create multi-functional landscapes with opportunities for water and energy saving- neighbourhoods should be convenient and safe to walk or cycle to shops, schools and access to public transport with range of tenures and types of housing. Buildings must be located and designed to reduce flood risk over lifetime of development- 60 years for residential and 100 years for residential. Encourage green roofs and surface water storage to reduce flood risk.

AAP should show how needs of disabled and older people would be met- design must be required to provide for inclusive access.

Development Control Policies Need for strategic and detailed policies relating to flooding and climate change- representations include proposed policies on:

• flooding to reduce flood risk and ensure capacity of flood plain is preserved and where possible increased; • Enhancement of River Ravensbourne including options to open culverts and restore sections of river; • Recreational use of River Ravensbourne.

Greening New Development Encourage incorporation of green roofs in new developments.

Energy Efficiency and Renewables AAP should ensure that a significant proportion of energy supply of new development is gained on-site and renewably and/ or from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply and support use of renewables, CHP and bio fuels. It should promote the use of recycled building materials and materials with low embodied energy and promote retrofitting existing buildings to make them more energy efficient. Need to monitor performance.

AAP offers opportunity to produce development with highest environmental standards and to achieve environmental protection and enhancement. Environment agency want to work with Council on best ways to manage and improve green infrastructure and achieve improved water and energy efficiency. RPO68 Proposals for development of Site G generally sensible but Comments noted AAP sets out development guidelines John Sercombe will have adverse impact on properties in Ethelbert Close. for development of Site G to minimise impacts Initial plans for last UDP showed boundary of Town centre Conservation Area being extended to include wood but never implemented.

Overriding concern relates to traffic management and impacts of additional parking and housing in town centre. Roads unable to cope with increased traffic- scale of development must be restricted or changes made to bottom of High Street eg: ban right turn from High Street into Westmoreland Road for all traffic. RPO69 Request confirmation of proposals for the Pavilion and Development of Site E dependent on relocation AAP includes policy for reprovision of Maggie Gebbett provision for new swimming pool and relocation of facilities of leisure centre leisure centre in Pavilion. Expectation that there should be a swimming pool in town centre. RPO70 Need to ensure infrastructure and services are provided to Comments noted AAP includes policies to ensure new Deborah support new and existing economic development and development supported by necessary Stephens, on behalf of the housing. MPA have a key role to play in ensuring safe infrastructure Metropolitan places to live are created as part of a sustainable Police community. London Plan recognises importance of Text amended initiatives relating to policing and community safety and crime reduction in improving quality of life. Developments should be safe and secure taking into account objectives of Secure by Design, designing out Crime and Circular 5/94. Such a commitment should be secured as part of any planning consent relating to large scale development schemes. London Plan Policy 3A.14 recognises that provision of police facilities is a key aspect of the provision of social infrastructure. Needs of MPA should be expressed in AAP and proposed development should make appropriate provision towards policing.

Para 3.2 – should include reference to the provision of appropriate levels of police facilities.

Para 4.6 – include reference to police services in the range of public services and facilities required to provide a ‘good’ environment.

Chapter 5- AAP should include community safety and policing initiatives. Welcome safer neighbourhood Panel initiative and role of town centre manager in monitoring

Para 6.4 – should include specific reference to ‘Designing out Crime’ and ‘Secured by Design’ principles within the underlying principles of the Spatial Strategy.

Community facilities should include specific references to the police service. The MPA request the provision of police shops in relevant locations. This advice should be considered in connection with all relevant proposal sites including Sites A, D and G.

Planning Obligations- The AAP should allow additional community service contributions to be negotiated across the town centre, including contributions towards community safety and policing initiatives in order to promote inclusive, healthy, safe and crime free communities. RPO71 Scope of consultation was too restricted, poorly advertised Council committed to full consultation in Policies included in AAP to ensure high Neil Coe, and insufficiently detailed for full responses- many residents accordance with Statement of Community quality of development and provision of Alexandra Residents unaware of AAP. Involvement balanced mix of uses Association Explanation of options superficial and level of questions Comments noted inadequate to judge proposals.

Overall concept of long term plan to enhance town centre rather than allowing speculative development welcomed- but share concerns of Friends of Bromley Town Parks and Gardens and Heart of Bromley Residents association in respect of Sites C,D,F,G and L.

Emphasis should be on quality rather than quantity of new retail offer, and diversity should be encouraged within the historic quarters of the town.

Assumption that Bromley must compete with larger local shopping centres is not necessarily valid if the whole retail/ culture/ entertainment/ leisure experience is more pleasurable and convenient.

Support objective of creating a vibrant day and night culture and provision of selection of restaurants/ cafes, cultural activities, leisure and entertainment facilities to attract full range of residents and visitors throughout week and at weekends.

Concern that the historical, architectural and cultural elements of the town centre are not given sufficient importance and consideration in the AAP. Heritage and parkland gives Bromley a distinct advantage over centres such as Bluewater, Lewisham and Croydon and this should be exploited to maximum.

Proposals for the Civic Centre are vague and inconclusive, and do not address the isolated nature of the location. Council offices should be located in natural centre of town or link with main High Street, shopping centre and parks

Reuse of Old Town Hall site for reception and council meetings would refocus town on North village which is currently underused.

Transport of paramount importance to success of AAP- Bromley North station must be refurbished and connected properly to road network to redress inaccessibility of Bromley from north.

The proposed new multiplex cinema will jeopardise the existing Odeon cinema which should be preserved as a historic building and amenity. Requirement to retain an art house cinema or other suitable converted public use should be a condition of granting consent for multiplex. Alternatively, Odeon should become centre of the multiplex and adjacent land subject of CPO for additional screens, café and car parking.

Proposal for tall buildings should be strongly resisted particularly adjacent to the proposed new and enhanced town squares and close to parkland in order to maintain an appropriate skyline, protect strategic views and avoid overshadowing of communal spaces.

Success of AAP dependent on Bromley North station becoming a primary transport interchange and LB Bromley using land and buildings to create right opportunities for change. Increase in shopping not an essential requirement. Need correct balance of heritage, culture, leisure and entertainment to become a vibrant town centre. Current AAP too biased towards large scale development to detriment of enhancing the existing townscape and retaining local character.

Consultation should be expanded to all Bromley residents and wider range of community groups and consultees such as English Heritage, CABE, SPAB and Advisory Panel for Conservation Areas.

Success of town centre of importance to whole Borough.

RPO72 Nicola Congestion only partly due to car ownership levels. Best A managed approach to parking will be adopted Policies included in AAP relating to Davies, Palace way of tackling congestion is to influence how people for the AAP, including making the best use of parking and improvements to public View choose to travel. existing car parking provision and restraining transport as part of Transport Strategy. parking where appropriate. Parking Plan to Problems of non-permit holding vehicles parking in adjoining review on-street parking provision. Policy to promote high quality residential streets- need to review CPZ. development and safety and security. Upgrading Bromley North and Bromley South Concern that no mention made of current education needs stations is not purely to improve the Requirement for provision of community and provision. Problems of availability of primary school environment of the stations and attract car infrastructure/ financial contributions to places close to town centre. Shortage of nursery and drivers to take the train, but rather to improve meet needs of proposed residential primary school places for people living close to town centre the accessibility of the stations. development. creating a need to travel by car. Need to address issue of primary and nursery school places if new residential Balanced mix of uses proposed to create vibrant development proposed. town centre.

Upgrading of stations unlikely to influence choice of travel in favour of train and away from car. Key problem is decreasing capacity of trains at Bromley South and Grove Park for people using Bromley North shuttle.

Mixed use development needs to be defined- town already offers mix of uses. Not necessary for every site to offer mix of uses. Residential above retail will still provide inactive frontage at night- will not necessarily result in good development and contribute to solving evening problems eg: perception of crime.

Further pedestrianisation unlikely to increase public transport, walking and cycling. Parking charges need to discourage long stay parking- should only allowed at extreme north and south (Westmoreland Road and The Hill). Should be combined with park & ride to encourage long stay visitors to leave cars on edge of centre. More bus priority measures and cycle lanes on main approaches to town centre could encourage drivers to shift modes. Additional pedestrianisation could result in longer walking distances to public transport.

2500 residential units represents a significant increase – needed to kickstart regeneration and expansion of town centre but concern about associated parking provision, healthcare and education needs. Car free development in areas of high accessibility can work but need commitment of developers and council to secure car clubs.

Housing strategy needs to have regard to actual number of car-free flats that can be accommodated rather than a %. Can range from car free at Bromley South to higher level of provision at edge of town centre.

CPZ areas around town centre must be revised to ensure car free development does not give rise to on-street parking.

Already demand for more GPs and dentists close to town centre- locating facilities as part of mixed use buildings close to rail stations would be beneficial to commuters and residents. RPO73 Welcomed the revisions made to the preferred options. TfL Initiatives for improving walking and cycling in Add words in the AAP to reflect the TFL supports the objectives, vision and key themes and will work Bromley town centre will be an important importance of developers submitting with LB Bromley in developing proposals. component of the Transport Strategy for the transport assessments ‘taking account AAP. of TfL TA Best Practice Guidance’. AAP should contain a policy that encourages developers to submit transport assessments for major developments. The AAP will reinforce that it supports Given high PTAL score and underutilisation of some car car free residential development and parks, parking standards should be further reduced. In order will be looking at significantly reducing to further reduce travel by car, as much car free residential levels of residential parking in the AAP development as possible should be encouraged in the town area. centre.

Freight policy based on Policy 3C.24 of the London Plan A section on freight will be included in should be added to the AAP taking into account the the AAP sustainability aspects of freight and servicing. Account taken of TfL views on bus Opposed to bus routeing along the pedestrianised length of routing. the High Street as this would disrupt well established pedestrian area and negate proposals to increase AAP includes specific policies relating pedestrian priority. Need to address missing and poorly to planned cycle and walking defined links within walking and cycling networks between improvements including new links and town centre and public spaces and gardens to west. pedestrian crossings.

Welcome inclusion of a travel plan and other soft measures. A town centre wide travel plan approach In order to maximise benefits from soft measures and to is proposed within the AAP for Bromley reduce reliance on car a holistic approach covering the Town Centre. whole town centre should be developed. This would allow for coordination of measures A managed approach to parking will be adopted for the AAP, including making Suggested that plans to provide cycle parking facilities on the best use of existing car parking Site A as a way of encouraging sustainable modes should provision and restraining parking where be extended to cycle parking provision throughout the town appropriate. A Parking Strategy will be centre and particularly the High Street. looking at on-street parking provision. Parking for Site G should be taken in Expressed concern regarding the proposal for additional car context of the town centre wide strategy parking on Site G given that current car parks are under for parking, which looks to manage utilised and it is in a location where car free development parking in order to support the increase should be progressed. in retail provision. RPO74 Support development of Bromley North Station site- The AAP supports pedestrian linkages across Amendments to proposals and design Denis Wilson compliant with PPG13. Site can be more intensively the A21 and improvements to the bus guidance for Site A Partnership developed as a main transport hub given its key location in interchange at Bromley North Station. town centre. The transport impacts of increased residential Agree in principle with approach to transport assessment units on Site A will need to be considered as based on application of trip rate relating to car parking part of a detailed transport assessment for that spaces rather than gross floor area but comments that new site alongside other planning implications. floorspace will attract some new primary shopping trips. However, it would be but wrong to assume that all new trips The AAP does not require any change to the would be new trips and some allowance for linked trips number of car parking spaces provided on Site should be made. In addition, maximum car parking provision A. Proposals for how the existing quantum of has been applied in locations with high accessibility level 6a parking is maintained can be a matter for where some reduction in maximum standards would consideration at detailed planning stage. normally be expected. Emphasis placed on retail floorspace and modelling outputs could impact on any proposals to increase other land uses in town centre eg: more residential space. The traffic modelling shows adverse impacts on southern approached to town- due to focus on retail development, even the lowest increase in space would require substantial mitigation measures. Allowance for greater mix of uses may have beneficial effects.

Case for reducing parking for residential development can equally apply to other forms of development. Potential car use associated with non-retail development may not be at peak times and impacts may not be significant. Need for equitable apportionment of car parking depending on quantum and type of development- should not penalise one type of development whilst allowing another to have higher levels of provision which may result in congestion on wider network.

Support improvements to Bromley North Station as part of major redevelopment and potential for Bromley transit route. Need to consider frequency and demand for service to ensure it would not impact on other services. Many may chose to walk given distances and opportunity to visit shops on route. Question whether link would be well used given number of shoppers arriving by train compared to buses. Support improved crossing facilities in vicinity of station.

Question phasing. Good case can be made for earlier development of schemes that will bring forward infrastructure improvements such as Bromley North.

Concern that Bromley North site identified as cause of delays- development should be encouraged given high accessibility and public transport improvements. Consistent with policy to increase level of development at Bromley North (in particular residential). An increase to 400 residential units would result in small increase in traffic. Possible to introduce some signal control on Tweedy Road at Mitchell Way junction- would allow a pedestrian/ cycle phase to allow pedestrians to cross in one continuous movement and permit right turn onto Tweedy Road. This would reduce traffic movements through residential areas to north and allow buses to head north west from new bus interchange. Proposed development would not preclude future transit route between Bromley North and Bromley south. RPO75 Lennon Support high density mixed use redevelopment of Site A in Council would wish to work with land owners Proposals for Site A amended to Planning on line with general aims of Revised Preferred Options subject and developers to secure redevelopment of Site incorporate changes to development behalf of Linden Homes to following representations: A and improvements to station and public mix and phasing transport interchange • Amend reference to parking provision in a multi-storey car park or decked parking to provide flexibility; • Amend site boundary to include properties facing Sherman Road (6-12 Sherman Road) and Bromley North Clinic. Amend reference to possible redevelopment of clinic- ‘while there is no need at present to replace this facility, this building has been included within the site to allow for the potential enhancement of health facilities in this area should circumstances change’; • AAP should recognise that higher density residential development may be necessary to cross subsidise other improvements sought by AAP. Scheme of 250 units would have a density of approximately 95 units per hectare- London Plan density matrix states that development in this location should have a density of between 240-435 units per hectare. Density should be amended in accordance with London Plan standards; • Development of Site A should be brought forward from Phase 3 to Phase 2. Site will not be delivered in Phase 1.

Linden Homes control 6-8 Sherman Road and are in discussions with Network Rail about working together to deliver site development. An indicative masterplan has been prepared for Site A to illustrate comprehensive redevelopment of Bromley North to provide a sustainable residential community with associated improvements to transport infrastructure, provision of additional commercial space, community facilities and improved public realm. Rear of site proposed for residential with front part developed for a mix of uses including a bus interchange, refurbished station buildings, community uses and enhanced public realm. Key components comprise

• 400 residential units (35% affordable) • 2,000 sq m commercial (excluding retained office buildings and including 700 sq m A3/A5 uses within retained station buildings) • 450 sq m community (health/ dentist) • 260 residential parking spaces (0.65 space/ unit) • Replacement of public parking (330 spaces)

Increase in residential units from 250 to 400 units would be consistent with principles of PPS1 and PPg13 which seek to make the most efficient use of land will not result in any significant increase in traffic.

Maximum height of residential buildings 7 storeys in middle of site- least sensitive in terms of adjoining uses.

Multi-storey carpark proposed in centre of site to be wrapped by residential and commercial frontage with direct link to improved bus interchange. Creation of new public space between existing and proposed station buildings provides opportunity for enhancement and relocation of Charter Market to more prominent location. Masterplan provides a safeguarded route for potential transit scheme- would facilitate the conversion of existing heavy rail services from Bromley North to Grove Park to light rail (tram or guided bus) and extension of route south to Bromley South station via the North Village and High Street. RPO76 London Concerned that no mention is made to locally listed fire AAP seeks to protect and enhance heritage of Policy refers to links between future Fire & station and that no provision is made for an alternative and town centre and historic buildings. development proposals and maintaining Emergency Planning suitable site for a new fire station to replace Bromley fire community safety. Authority station. Seek support for a suitable site or building to be No site identified as suitable for relocation of acknowledged and identified within the Borough for a new Fire Station in Town Centre. Council will work Policy on design of new development to fire station facility. with LFPA to identify suitable site elsewhere in include requirement to design out risks Borough in event of decision being taken to from fire, especially in residential Bromley fire station contributes to Conservation Area but is relocate existing facility. Redevelopment of accommodation. Planning applications not suited to current operational requirements- requires existing site will be subject to policies in AAP. required to achieve high standards of modernisation but is constrained by local listing. Seek fire safety; the close monitoring of support for: building sites during construction. • demolition of fire station and new and modern facility which is fully fit for purpose on existing site; • Relocation of fire station to adjacent car park site owned by Bromley Council; • Provision for new fire station at one of proposal sites identified as being suitable for development.

Current location is optimum to provide fire cover. Authority has made commitment to provide an equitable fire and rescuie service. Location of fire station provides effective coverage for the local area based on risk profile of Borough. Unlikely that an alternative location away from present location will provide Borough with fire coverage as effective as that provided in current location. Extensive site search has failed to identify any suitable site alternatives except for car park site owned by Bromley Council. If car park site to be disposed of on open market, careful consideration must be given to potential impact on essential services that could be provided by fire station in this location.

Financial contributions towards improving and expanding current fire services and facilities should be identified in policy on Section 106 requirements from development schemes. Need to consider capacity of key emergency services to improve community safety and maintain a speed of emergency response in line with LFPA standards.

Future growth within Borough will create additional risks from fire and other emergencies. Future policies should mention the links between future development proposals and maintaining community safety. Policies should address the need to grasp opportunities offered by new development to designing out risks from fire particularly in residential accommodation- includes giving consideration to installing hard wired smoke alarms and sprinkler systems where risks justify it. Efforts to reduce crime such as arson through good design should be promoted. RPO77 Cecilia Commented that a ‘weekday environment’ that caters for AAP will seek upgrading of existing car parking Inclusion of appropriate policies Yardley, those who work in Bromley is important. Commented provision throughout Bromley Town Centre to Bromley United Reformed positively that faith groups have been acknowledged in the provide a better quality and safer environment Church AAP. both in the day and evening periods.

Commented that faith groups would benefit from expansion of premises and increased access to parking spaces after shopping hours. RPO78 LXB supports proposals for sites G,H and N in terms of mix Council seeks to work with landowners and Proposals for Site G amended to LXB Properties of uses but there is an opportunity and requirement to developers to secure regeneration of western ensure scheme delivery and high Ltd increase residential content on these sites. This is side of High Street and comprehensive design quality and mitigation of impacts consistent with increasing emphasis being put on need to development of Site G to accommodate on existing amenity and wider town deliver housing to meet housing demand and support capacity for retail development and to improve centre. evening economy and prevent anti-social behaviour. More offer of town centre residential development is necessary to support retail improvements. Scale of retail improvements is not commercially viable without additional residential development. Proposed amendments:

• Sites G,H and N to be amalgamated and shown as one large site for comprehensive development- should include Habitat shop and car park and upper terrace of Church House Gardens. • Extend primary retail frontage along length of Site H; • Number of residential units should be increased from 500 to 1200 units; • Office uses should be included; • Community uses including faith uses should be accommodated within the redevelopment area or relocated; • Use of tall buildings should be supported subject to high quality design; • Allow safeguarding routes at vital junctions- along front of the Liverpool Victoria building to increase capacity and A21 masons Hill between Kentish Way and B265 intersection as proposed in adopted UDP. • AAP should set standards for parking in town centre RPO79 Previous preferred options identified Site D as suitable for Modelling work done to date has suggested that Site D excluded from AAP due to GVA Grimley mixed use development comprising residential and retail it would be inappropriate to have a large new reduction in site area. Development to on behalf of St James including a large foodstore- support recognition of area’s foodstore on Site D because of likely traffic be considered in context fo other Investments potential to meet identified requirements. Support principle congestion on Beckenham Lane and London policies in AAP and proposals for North of mixed use for Site D but considers the proposals to Road. If there are proposals for such a Village Improvement Area. reduce the site area and other constraints are likely to development this would need to be supported prejudice the prospects for securing a viable mixed use by detailed traffic analysis as part of a planning development. Site D is one of the few opportunities for retail application at a later stage. and residential development which is needed to maintain and enhance Bromley’s role as a metropolitan town centre. Land excluded from Site G because it is unavailable for development within Plan period. Reduction in Site D and constraints on scale of development Remaining site area inadequate for may result in loss of opportunity for comprehensive comprehensive development. regeneration - as a consequence, this will undermine the prospects for new investment in the area. Inclusion of Site P addresses possible demand for additional convenience floorspace. There is significant capacity and quantitative and qualitative need for a large new foodstore. Highway consultants do not consider traffic analysis represents a clear justification for imposing constraints on size of store likely to be appropriate on Site D. Therefore inappropriate to impose a precise ‘cap’ on size of foodstore- contrary to wider development plan aspirations to maximise retail investment. Detailed matters such as parking and highway capacity are more appropriately dealt with at planning application stage or through detailed development brief and or SPD. This would provide opportunity to take a more comprehensive approach to Site D and North Village. Clients would like to work with council to develop a comprehensive masterplan. RPO80 College Green would benefit from public footpath from Comments noted. Council committed to Policies included to protect end Doug Black, corner of College Slip to Gordon way- to create pedestrian enhancing town centre appearance and enhance appearance of town centre Bromley Civic Society route from tweedy Road to town centre character. Redevelopment is required to meet and setting of historic buildings and objectives of AAP. conservation area. Proposed leisure facilities must be more than just pubs- need greater provision of leisure facilities especially for Site A- requirement for relocation or reprovision Site D- site to be deleted due to youth of market unavailability of land for development. Requirement for incorporation of leisure Use of Bromley Little Theatre as Theatre should be Site B- development will be required to respect use in event of building no longer being protected in AAP. setting of Bromley College used as cinema.

AAP lacks strategy for built heritage- Council should Site C- there is no requirement for civic use of Reprovision of leisure centre must be produce conservation area appraisal to inform former town hall. A suitable use of the listed secured prior to redevelopment of Site implementation of AAP proposals building will be secured. E

Concerned about design quality- especially signage and Site F- no loss of existing parkland will be Boundary of Site J amended to exclude shop fronts. Need to improve town centre with emphasis on permitted. HG Wells building. quality. Bromley North Village area should be made an area of Special Signage Control Housing on west St and North St Site G- comprehensive development required to should be subject to Article 4 Direction to prevent secure regeneration and delivery of benefits. unsympathetic change. Site K- need for improved entertainment Development briefs should be prepared for each site so facilities identified through consultation. local groups can contribute Sites M, N and P will be subject to requirement Concerned that AAP must integrate better with ‘Building a to respect and enhance character of better Bromley’ especially in relation to commitment to surrounding area and open spaces. children and young people, access to Council services, well being/ health and improving public realm/ environment.

Site A- Retention/ improvement of market in central Bromley Site B- concern that increased densities will result in tall development that will harm Bromley College (Grade 1 Listed) and views in and out of the Conservation Area. Development should be kept low. Public sculpture for open space at corner would be a more appropriate gateway than a tall building. Family housing inappropriate due to busy road. Site C- need to resist loss of historic features and overdevelopment. Building should be returned to civic use Site D- Object to demolition of existing historic buildings fronting High Street- Odeon cinema makes positive contribution to townscape and is worthy of retention. If no longer used as cinema should be designated for entertainment, sports or leisure use. Development must respect setting of and views from Masons Hill. No objection to good infill development which respects conservation area Site E- essential to retain a leisure centre accessible to all- existing site benefits from collocation with retail centre- very accessible. Relocation to Civic Centre would be less convenient and disincentive for many. Redevelopment should not increase height or bulk of building and impact on Queen’s Gardens- overshadowing/ loss of sunlight. Quality of development to be in keeping with Glades architecture and Queens Gardens. Need to protect Bromley Oak. Site F- no objection in principle to demolition of modern buildings but concerned about loss of parkland and inappropriate new development. Concern about overdevelopment Any development must respect historic, social and environmental value of parkland. New development should be confined to footprint of existing buildings to north and north west of site and landscape reinstated to south with removal of existing buildings- would reinstate visual relationship between listed folly on Rafford Way and Palace. Concern about loss of community facilities if civic centre moves. Site G- object to demolition of residential properties in Ethelbert Close. Any new development must be sympathetic to local context of conservation area including views from Church House Gardens and Library Gardens. Development must not turn its back on Gardens, cause overshadowing or detract from its character- concern that site proposed for tall buildings. Northern part of site in Conservation Area contains buildings which contribute to its character- demolition of these buildings will be resisted. Buildings added to conservation area by Council in 1991 because of their contribution to traditional character of High Street. Nos 72-82 (corner of Ethelbert Road) and 84 are good examples of their type. Ravensfell House is a historic building- could be restored as part of a new civic space. Semi-rural character of views from across the Shortlands Valley and impact on High Street frontage need to be considered in design of new buildings. Portico of Bromley Church in Ethelbert Road dates from 18th century and should be retained- reused on site in 1930. Site H- No objection subject to securing good design Site J- No objection in principle but HG Wells Centre provides an important community role and facility must be retained in some form. New development should introduce greenery and better public spaces. Site K- essential that town retains a cinema but a greater variety of facilities should be provided: consideration should be given to using site for leisure facility not already provided by cinemas in Bromley and Beckenham- both will be lost with no net gain in leisure variety if Site K developed as currently proposed. Site L- no objection to sympathetic replacement of DHSS building. Site M- no objection to enhancement of this part of Glades building if it reinforces the garden character and does not require additional building/ hard standing in Queens Gardens or lead to loss of trees/ landscape features. Site N- welcome principle of town square and improved environment- consideration should be given to microclimate: central library causes wind tunnel which makes forecourt unpleasant on windy days. Would wish to see Ravensfell House on High Street retained along with some of neighbours that make a positive contribution. Unwilling to see loss of any trees or landscaping in Church House Gardens to accommodate development. Greenery should extend to High Street. Consideration should be given to making area around the theatre/ High Street safer and more vibrant in the evening. Council could lead way by introducing a new arts centre or cultural facility into shop units below library tower. Site P- aspirations of AAP could lead to over-development. Semi-rural character of College Slip should be preserved and enhanced. New development should retain the public art panels on Sainsburys and respond to historic context behind High Street and address access yard on West Street. Rear views of historic buildings and trees make a positive contribution to conservation area and setting of listed building. Housing on west Street adjoining site must be protected.

RPO81 Supports proposals to focus employment and retail Comments noted. A comprehensive transport AAP includes policies on transport and Highways development in town centre and high density mixed use strategy has been prepared to support the AAP. implementation of comprehensive Agency development which should reduce need to travel but programme of measures to concerned about scale of retail development and proposed accommodate proposed development. mitigation measures.

Supports Objective 2 to extend range and quality of facilities and services: this will reduce need to travel by car by location of community facilities in locations with high levels of public transport accessibility.

Recommended that Objective 8 should also seek to reduce dependence on the car for town centre residents and visitors. This would encourage transport strategy to focus on improvements to sustainable modes of transport.

HA is concerned that despite identified impacts, the AAP is still proposing a very high level of retail development supported by widening of A21 and sustainable transport initiatives put forward by the Transport Strategy. The HA is concerned that widening of the A21 could increase car trip generation associated with town centre and traffic impact on the SRN. Focus of the Transport Strategy should be on capacity enhancements. LDF should incorporate policy mechanisms to minimise demand at source and seek to encourage a modal shift. HA would support bus priority measures on A21 south of Bromley. Presumption should be to give preference to solutions other than new road capacity to accommodate new development. Transport Strategy should seek to implement a full range of sustainable transport initiatives in preference to widening of A21.

If the Borough pursues the widening of the A21 further modelling may be required to assess the potential impact of increased impact on the SRN (M25 Junction 4). Such modelling would help to ensure that the plan meets with PPS12 Test of Soundness.

Concerned that consideration has not been given to the wider traffic impacts of development in the town centre. Objective 3 should be updated to state: ‘ to not significantly increase in the overall level of traffic that needs to be accommodated on the highway network within the town centre and on the wider Strategic Road Network’.

Supports inclusion of suite of soft measures including workplace and school travel plans, personalised travel planning and car clubs. Recommends that all developments should be required to produce a travel plan to ensure that combined impacts are adequately mitigated. Clear guidance should be given as to when travel plan required and expected content- could be in AAP or Planning Obligations SPD providing the SPD adopted alongside the AAP. Content should be based on latest government guidance.

Supports town centre wide travel plan including existing and new businesses.

Supports proposals to improve public transport and interchanges- improved bus links to Bromley North and Bromley South Stations will increase viability of public transport. HA supports improvements to walking and cycling.

Supports use of parking policies to promote sustainable transport choices- increased parking charges including levy on business parking permits, car free and low car housing and establishment of Controlled Parking Zones. AAP should include maps of proposed extensions for increasing coverage of CPZs.

HA recommends that whilst maximum standards should be set for private parking (based on London Plan) policy statements should clarify that opportunities to reduce parking below these levels should be sought. Existing businesses should be encouraged to reduce dependence on car as part of town-centre wide transport plan.

HA would expect a robust assessment to be carried out to identify the deliverability of park and ride sites should the Council wish to push forward this policy. Transport modelling may be necessary within the LDF process. This would be required in support of the inclusion of these sites in the site-specific allocations- would expect a reduction in town centre parking to support the strategy.

Strategic Delivery Plan- who is responsible for funding/ delivery of strategy and how public transport improvements will be phased should be brought forward as part of emerging AAP. Development should not take place at a faster rate than provision of related sustainable transport initiatives to ensure maximum uptake of sustainable transport alternatives. Plan policies may be dependent on key infrastructure being delivered. HA would be supportive of early guidance to developers at pre-application stage to allow required infrastructure to be implemented within an appropriate timeframe.

In order to ensure that traffic impacts of AAp and success of transport strategy are adequately monitored, HA would request that following indicators are monitored through SA or Strategy Delivery Plan:

• Level of growth of traffic on key routes • Proportion of new development which is meeting travel plan objectives Targets should be set to provide benchmarks that Plan will aim to achieve.

Travel plans will be a way of monitoring development transport impacts. Town centre wide Travel Plan could form basis for monitoring new and existing developments.

RPO82 Pleased that Sainsburys Store identified as Site P to allow Comments noted. It is necessary to indicate AAP provides guidance on development Turley for reconfiguration of store and car park. Request following likely capacity of site for residential development of Site P and recognises importance of Associates on behalf of changes: to understand cumulative impacts of site within Bromley North and Sainsbury’s development. The figures are however contribution to overall retail offer. Supermarkets • Development Options for Site P should refer to a indicative and will be subject to determination at Ltd replacement or extension to the food retail. planning application stage. • Development Principles should refer to: Creation of active frontage to the store on West Street, where practical. • In terms of the proposed residential element, the Council should remove reference to the number of units, as it is too prescriptive. The number of units on the site will need to be considered as part of the detailed design process, and the Council will have the opportunity to consider proposals as part of the application process. • Given the importance of the Sainsbury’s store in providing a foodstore anchor for the Town Centre, the Secondary Frontage should be extended along the west side of West Street and take in the existing frontage of the Sainsbury’s Store (fronting the store car park ).

RPO83 Residents of Northpoint and other residential blocks in area Details of site access will take into account Guidance provided on development of Graham have not been directly consulted with on AAP. impact on the local environment and other Site A but details are not fixed in AAP. Snewin, Northpoint crucial aspects such as safety. Residents Ward’s Safer Neighbourhoods Panel was not included in consultation exercise- an important omission given Council is committed to full consultation. All importance of urban design in crime prevention and fear of planning applications for sites identified in the crime. Brief should include reference to need for any AAP will be subject to full consultation. development proposals to incorporate and fund appropriate crime prevention measures. Any proposals should be subject of full consultation with Safer Neighbourhoods Panel and Police.

Council should be more inclusive in consultation processes and ensure all relevant bodies and residents receive direct communication. . Welcome general regeneration proposals for the area, particularly around Bromley North station. But reserve position on any specific proposals when these come forward fro planning consent.

Northpoint residents oppose the prospect of Bromley North station having a vehicular access onto Sherman Road- will result in increased traffic and would be unacceptable on highway safety grounds. Vehicular access to station should be from west side of station.

RPO84 Requested that the removal of Bromley Christian Centre and Due to safeguarding for highway improvements, Boundary of Site L amended to include Mark Wiltshire, St Marks School from Site L be re-examined given Church’s Council has reconsidered boundary of Site L to Bromley Christian Centre. Bromley Christian stated intention to redevelop site and uncertainty about ensure it is of sufficient size for suitable Centre school buildings. redevelopment.

School should be designated as an opportunity site- would School is a listed building and Council does not offer scope for comprehensive development. consider it provides opportunity for redevelopment. Future use of the building will be subject to planning policies. RPO85 Development of Site K must not be any higher than the Comments noted. Council will seek a high AAP provides guidance on development Miss Spratt & existing car park and should be decreased to improve views standard of design and to minimise impacts of of Site L and policies on design and Mr Lidsey from gardens and that it must not encroach any further on development on existing residential amenity. height of buildings. the surrounding housing ie: no closer or higher than existing car park. Development should be visually appealing with the opportunity to develop landmark buildings in keeping with local heritage/ unique. There should be no increase in noise pollution or traffic to Newbury Road and no overlooking the residents of Newbury Road from the new development.

Developing Site K could be attractive but concerned about possible height, encroachment and visual impact. RPO86 Proposed options and proposals include residential Council will seek to secure provision for AAP includes policy requirement to Simon Robbins, developments of 1600 units, which will increase demand for necessary community infrastructure. Sites make provision for additional and Bromley PCT primary and community health services in the area. identified for future provision and Developers suitable social and community will be required to make an appropriate infrastructure to meet needs of Current primary and community health services are at or contribution to provision of facilities. increasing town centre population close to full capacity, and would therefore be unable to meet the needs of additional residents from their current premises. Estimated that an additional 2-3 whole time GPs would be required together with associated primary and community healthcare. PCT are committed to ensuring that health services are delivered from modern, fit for purpose premises, and need to work with LBB to ensure that this can be achieved as part of the AAP. RPO87 Welcomes reference to protection and enhancement of Council seeks improvement of green / open AAP makes reference to protection, David environmental value of area (para 1.8). spaces, as well as promotion of linkages and promotion, enhancement and active Hammond, Natural England accessibility throughout the town centre. promotion of green / open spaces Broadly supports strategic objectives including potential to enhance the open space surrounding Bromley College. Key issues identified in para 3.2 make no specific mention of green/ open spaces- should be identified as a key issues Vision for the town centre revised to and linked to objectives. emphasise the environmental aspects of improvements and enhancements. AAP should highlight opportunity to improve open space surrounding Bromley College as a public open space. Reference to need to consider de- culverting the Ravensbourne where Lack of accessibility, poor animation and fragmentation of feasible in Monitoring and Mitigation open spaces together with lack of linkages to each other is a section of the SA. key issue to be highlighted in AAP. Site M- reference included to enhancing Soft measures in para 6.16 are welcomed and broadly and improving the ecological value of supported in context of transport initiatives. Welcomes any the area as well as it’s economic value. initiatives to promote and increase take up of public transport. Need to repair fragmentation between the town centre’s green / open spaces De-culverting of River Ravensbourne and potential for reinforced. biodiversity enhancement is encouraged. Policies to promote sustainable Site M- should give consideration to enhancing and development including improved green / improving ecological value of area not just economic/ open space and linkages between. amenity value. This would link in with overall feeling that area’s green spaces are fragmented, under utilised and lack Policy to address poor accessibility animation. Improvements to overall variety and condition of throughout the town centre and sites could provide animation and help increase biodiversity encourage softer measures such as car potential. clubs and travel plans as part of comprehensive Transport Strategy.. Implementation and delivery- support indicator relating to contribution to enhancement of biodiversity (para 8.15)

PPS9- Biodiversity needs to be more explicitly referenced in Action Plan- need to state that improvements to green/open spaces need to include environmental enhancement as well as amenity and economic value. Action Plan an ideal opportunity to address fragmentation of open spaces and lack of animation.

Sustainability Appraisal- support reference to green roofs and Sustainable Urban drainage Systems- Council should also give consideration to brown roofs and green walls to link with PPS9. Need to consult Greenspace Information for London (GIGL) for records of biodiversity data including statutory and non-statutory sites and habitat locations. RPO88 Capital AAP must address failure of town centre to deliver significant A managed approach to parking will be adopted Development of Site E moved to Phase Shopping new retail space since The Glades opened. AAP must for the AAP, including making the best use of 3 to secure relocation of leisure centre Centres identify how amount, range and quality of retail offer can be existing car parking provision and restraining and to ensure transport impacts can be secured to maintain its competitiveness. parking where appropriate. A Parking Plan will accommodated as part of be looking at both off-street and on-street comprehensive strategy. Support extension of Glades and relocation of leisure centre parking provision. to accommodate new retail floorspace. It would be inappropriate to have a major Object to deletion of extension to the car park at Bromley expansion of car parking due to the traffic Civic as result of traffic modelling. Increased retail floorspace impacts. A balanced approach is being adopted will give rise to increased usage and pressure on existing as part a comprehensive transport strategy. parking. Support public transport improvements but this needs to be complemented by an ample supply of parking to ensure that high levels of parking do not impede accessibility into town centre.

Supports timescale for extension of The Glades. Extension of car parking should be reinstated in Site F. Supports use of Queens Gardens for open space and public realm improvements but need more flexibility for The Glades to respond to changing retail and commercial needs. Allocation should recognise that there may be justification for incursion into public space subject to mitigation eg: replacement open space or enhancement of existing areas.

Development must be phased in relation to retail needs- failure to do this may result in less favourable sites coming forward for development in advance of those that best satisfy policy requirements. Welcome identification of Site E in Phase 1- can meet retail needs to 2012. RPO89 Town centre is too linear and lacks a heart. Objective 8 of the AAP states, ‘Improving Inclusion of policies on transport and Daniel Meades Unclear from the proposals what the plan is for the North transport and accessibility and encouraging use accessibility, range of retail, End of Market Square. Need to remove heavy traffic and of more sustainable modes of transport’. incorporation of public art and high address dangerous vehicle access to Church Road and design quality. Glassmill Lane. The AAP seeks to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility within the town centre and AAP seeks to secure improvements to Need more choice in small independent shops. Support for detailed proposals. station interchanges and provides public art to reflect Bromley’s past literary and historic guidance on this. culture and a good modern public building eg: a sports Council places importance on improvement to centre resulting from a competition. public transport facilities and will work with Network Rail to secure improvements to Early improvements to Bromley South Station and relocated Bromley North and South Stations. post office are early priorities.

Need to address poor quality environment and improved quality of retail offer.

RPO90 AAP should include a policy around security with designing Council is committed to secure by design Requirements to meet Secure by Mick Lane, out crime with respect to new developments and those principles. Design included in policy. Crime Prevention which may be altered. All new development should be design Advisor, designed to meet the requirements of the Secure By Design Metropolitan scheme. Should a large development be proposed including Police associated car parking, car parks should be designed to meet a Safer Parking accreditation. This will achieve a consistency in safe, secure and sustainable design and build rather than relying on individual design statements.

Highlight importance of anti-terrorism measures, e.g. bollard installation and CCTV installation. RPO91 Wish to stay within Site G as part of development proposals- Comments noted Reference to requirement for re- Major Andy have been established on site for 68 years, easy access provision of existing faith groups in Cox, Salvation Army makes site convenient for people to use facilities, have development of Site G strengthened recently invested over £200,000 in refurbishment of on-site café and shop. Need to be in heart of community. Request that as development of Site G takes place, developers will relocate the centre within area so as to retain high profile. RPO92 Richard Expressed concern that the addition of 500,000 sq ft of retail Bromley has capacity for increased retail Polices included for improvements to T Marks, MSE space will have a detrimental impact on the secondary and floorspace and the Council is required to North Village and promotion of Property fringe locations. Businesses on upper High St north of demonstrate how this can be accommodated. A independent traders Market square are struggling and additional retail space range of retail space is proposed. (particularly A3) will exacerbate this). RPO93 Residential potential of Site A is greater than 250 units. Comments noted. Reference included to requirement for Chris Price, London plan density matrix suggests site could achieve comprehensive approach to Network Rail density of 240-435 units/ ha in this location. Need to Council will work with Network Rail and development of Site A to secure increase number of units to ensure viability and delivery of developers to secure redevelopment of Site A comprehensive redevelopment and benefits identified in AAP. including improvements to station. The transport transport improvements. Reference to impacts of increased residential units on Site A the replacement of public car parking Reference to replacement public car parking on Site A will be considered as part of a detailed transport includes the replacement of station car should also include the replacement of station car parking. assessment. parking. Timescale for development of Site A area does not reflect the full extent of the land that Site A brought forward to Phases 1/ 2. may be required for a comprehensive development and that properties fronting onto Sherman Road should be Mixed use development over railway incorporated into the site area. This will assist in providing removed from Site J due to uncertainty station interchange facilities regarding viability and delivery.

Support reference to creating a comprehensive scheme and the potential use of compulsory purchase powers, however the statement should also state that a phased approach to the comprehensive development is acceptable in the interests of flexibility of development. Commented that Network Rail believe that Site A should be developed within the next 5-10 years (Phase 2).

Area included in Site J does not reflect the full development potential of the site (could include land shown in Site H). Support reference to creating a comprehensive scheme that comes forward in a phased manner.

Welcome reference to the Town Centre Improvement Initiative and pooling of planning obligations eg: public transport. Hoped that Town Centre Improvement Initiative can help contribute to improvements to Bromley South and North Stations which will have significant benefits. AAP should make clear that proposals which directly provide public benefits at substantial cost to development will have these costs taken into account during Section 106 negotiations and will not be subject to normal requirements. RPO94 Queried whether key diagram would be included in AAP. Comments noted. AAP text and tables amended to reflect Government comments. Office for London Para 1.10 which states that policies in UDP can be saved for The findings and recommendations of the final 3 years until 2009 -LPA can apply for extension of UDP SFRA will be incorporated in the SA and AAP. Vision for the Town Centre includes policies after that time cross reference to SA and Sustainable Collaborative workshops, presentations and Community Strategy Cross reference to density location and parking matrix in meetings were carried out at the Issues and UDP to avoid duplication (can exclude Table 2.1) Options Consultation stage. References to taller buildings clarified in guidance on Sites G, K and A. Information in Table 2.21 incorrect- all UDP policies saved Proposals have been subject to discussion with for 3 years from date of adoption. TfL and other stakeholders. It is proposed that Clarification of engagement of further discussion will take place to assist the stakeholders including businesses and Welcome reference to sustainable Community Strategy. revision of the document in preparation for the land owners. final draft of the AAP. Welcome inclusion of ‘Context and Issues’- background AAP includes risk assessment. information will provide more meaningful responses to Only non prescriptive references will be made consultation for taller buildings as their specific heights will Mixed use development in Site J relate to the quality of the specific development. deleted due to uncertainty about Question whether Strategic Flood Risk assessment be Each development will have to adhere to strict viability and delivery completed in time for findings to be taken into account prior environmental assessments, including views to submitting AAP to Secretary of State. analysis.

Vision for Town Centre- should be cross referenced to The process of producing the AAP has involved Sustainability Appraisal and Sustainable Community public engagement from the very earliest stages Strategy. in accordance with the SCI. Consultation with a range of stakeholders occurred between May to Has exploration of scenarios with stakeholders included September 2005. Further public consultation was initial Issues and Options Consultation stage. held on the Preferred Options over a six week period commencing 13 January and ending 24 February Would be helpful to cross reference preliminary Scenarios to 2006. Through workshops with key stakeholders sustainability Appraisal and public consultation on the initial Preferred Options early in 2006 the Council has sought to Transport Strategy- have proposals for network/ junction hear the views of those with an interest in the improvements and freight distribution been discussed with town. The draft AAP will be accompanied by a TfL in relation to feasibility and funding? Will there be any report outlining details of the whole public implications for taking forward AAP if any transport consultation and engagement process which proposals do not go ahead? was undertaken during the preparation of the plan. Need to clarify what Code for Sustainable Homes means. The Council will undertake a feasibility study on The potential for taller buildings is identified on Site G and future accommodation prior to proposals for Site J. Will there be a maximum height and what redevelopment of Site F. environmental considerations will they be subject to?

Welcome inclusion of Table 7.1- would be useful to cross reference to Table 8.1 in relation to implementation and phasing.

Need to clarify what work has been undertaken with local and key stakeholders and businesses in preparing AAP including Local Strategic partnership.

Question whether the Council has cooperation of all local owner/ occupiers to take forward proposals. If not, will this prevent the regeneration of sites if CPO powers cannot be used. Would preferred options be flexible enough to cope with this and could alternative uses be provided? This relates to Tests of Soundness.

Site F highlights action to undertake feasibility Study to assess current and future requirements for civic accommodation, potential relocation of leisure facility and extent to which surplus land can be made available for low density residential development. Will this be completed before submission of AAP?

Question how work is progressing with network Rail, landowners and developers to promote phased comprehensive scheme for Site J

Welcome the inclusion of assessment of proposals against tests of soundness. RP095 Strong objection to redevelopment of Westmoreland Road Comments noted. Replacement of car park No change Mr G Faratro Car Park. Owners of family businesses in Simpsons Road required as it is in poor state of repair. Capisano Restaurant which will be threatened with closure if site redeveloped. Redevelopment of site is required to take Mr Hasip Council has advised that leases will not be renewed. forward vision for town centre and to secure Surtex Textiles new facilities and regeneration. Care Centre Would like to be considered for possible relocation in mixed use redevelopment of site Proposed uses for Site G include cafes and restaurants. These premises would be available to the market. RPO96 Need to resist proposals to reduce or damage open spaces The vision of the AAP is to promote a distinctive References strengthened to protection Mr & Mrs or affect public access- in particular the Civic Centre centre with high quality public spaces. Improvements and enhancement of open spaces Winter grounds and Bishop’s Palace. Bishops Palace should be and enhancements to the public realm are proposed developed as the Bromley Museum with surrounding which will benefit the town centre. gardens. Civic Centre grounds should not be developed for housing. RP097 Welcomes provision for religious needs of faith community. Public parking will be available for town centre No change Religious Questions availability of sufficient car parking to meet needs uses as part of comprehensive transport Society of Friends of groups. strategy. Use of public transport will also be encouraged.

RP098, Planned development of theatre will add to contribution to Comments noted. Council welcomes proposals AAP includes policy relating to cultural Bromley Little achieving aims of AAP- should be explicitly recognised in to improve facilities and recognises important and entertainment facilities and need to Theatre AAP. Seek designation of Bromley Little Theatre as a role played by Bromley Little Theatre in cultural protect and enhance existing facilities. theatre on the grounds that it has been a theatre for 70 and community life. Specific reference included to years and forms part of town’s heritage. Will ensure a importance of Bromley Little Theatre. diverse range of activities and cultural and leisure facilities for planned population increase; management of evening economy to attract a wider range of visitors including families with children; extend range and quality of leisure and entertainment facilities; protect and enhance the heritage and distinctive character of the town centre, particularly North Village.

Propose physical development of site to provide improved facilities: adding a studio to provide a third live theatre venue in town centre; training facilities; doubling of capacity and a community facility for arts and culture. Also propose to develop community arts and cultural programmes and to work with council to deliver Borough-wide initiatives such as arts festivals.

RP099 Welcome value placed on historic environment and parks Comments noted. Guidelines for Sites B, F and G Friends of and gardens- however, heritage issues not addressed in any strengthened to highlight importance of Bromley Towns and Gardens meaningful way. Economic strategy is at odds with Council’s The vision of the AAP is to promote a distinctive protection and enhancement of open statutory duty to preserve elements that contribute to centre with high quality public spaces. Improvements spaces, conservation area and setting character and appearance of town centre conservation area. and enhancements to the public realm are proposed of listed buildings. AAP must address past damage caused by development. which will benefit the town centre. AAP is unbalanced and biased towards development and Open spaces will be protected and enhanced. visitors- no concern for heritage and will result in loss of Discussion taking place with Environment regarding historic character of the town. culvert.

Object to proposals for Site F- Proposals to sell off heritage No loss of existing parkland will be permitted in sites such as Bishops Palace and park for housing to raise redevelopment of Site F and parkland will be revenue and relocate the pavilion is unacceptable. Propose available to public access. reinstatement of Listed palace building as central feature in restored parkland; cultural and leisure use and park status New developments will be required to contribute to with full public access; visitor attraction. open space and play provision and enhancements of existing facilities.

Object to proposals for Site B- will be harmful to setting of town centre conservation area and views of grade I Listed Bromley College. Wish to see green setting of Bromley College and building as landmark gateway to Bromley rather than a block of flats; landscaping of site to preserve open aspect into College Grounds; open up views of college facing Tweedy road; consider low scale development such as a nursery school- making use of open areas for play and allowing views to be preserved and enhanced.

Object to Site G- any buildings on site taller than roof heights of houses in Ethelbert Close will be harmful to character and appearance of Library Gardens, Church House Gardens, Martins Hill and Queens mead and the High Street. Development will contravene Council’s statutory duty to preserve or enhance character or appearance of conservation area. Propose that historic open views from parks and gardens within conservation area should be retained with skyline of trees rather than urban development.

Site M- no objection in principle to café/restaurant provision provided it does not encroach on garden with any permanent or semi-permanent structure. Opposed to any loss of green space. Any café use should be restricted to Glades terrace. Queens garden is a drinking control area- sale of alcohol must be prevented or restricted.

Site E- design of building must complement the Garden and be of a height no greater than the pavilion to protect what remains of open aspect of garden. Bromley Oak must be preserved. Preservation of open aspect and sunlight on south side of garden must be preserved as part of essential character of conservation area.

Site D-,opposed to further urbanisation of upper margin of Martins Hill- will result in loss of character and appearance.

Site N- generally welcome proposals if they offer enhancement of Library gardens and no part of Gardens paved over and Ravensfell House retained to give heritage status to enlarged space

Would like to see firm proposals for integration of town parks into social and commercial life of Bromley without detriment to their essential character and appearance and improved leisure facilities. Would like to see firm proposals for green linkages between town and parks including palace grounds with signage and landscaping.

AAP should include recognition of value of restoring River Ravensbourne to a natural amenity

RP100 Sonia Concern about traffic congestion- many routes already Comments noted. The Council has prepared a AAP includes proposals for transport Whitaker subject to delays before new developments take place. comprehensive transport strategy which improvements to address congestion. Need to give traffic problems high priority. addresses issues of congestion and impacts of new development RPO101 General support but raised following concerns: A managed approach to parking will be adopted AAP includes proposals for transport Rob Cundy, for the AAP, including making the best use of improvements and comprehensive Bromley Town • progress of the AAP should be made available to Business the forum group, businesses and public. existing car parking provision. The Parking Plan parking strategy Forum • Car parking is an issue- if new retailers are to be considers both off-street and on-street parking introduced into the area there will be a significant provision and future park and ride initiatives. increase in the number of staff and customers into the area. Need to increase number of car parking Temporary facilities will be provided during spaces including cheaper and more convenient park redevelopment of Westmoreland Road Car and ride facilities for staff thus freeing up spaces for Park. customers Council is promoting improvements to street • Temporary/ interim car parking facilities should be scene to create a more attractive business and made available before Westmoreland Road car park retail environment. is demolished to ensure sufficient capacity is maintained. Consultation undertaken with local businesses • Ongoing work needed to encourage improvements to street scene, pavements and shop frontages, business and people needs to be constantly addressed, including street scene, pavements and shop fronts. RPO104 Commented that the roads in and out of Bromley cannot The AAP is looking at transport provision in the AAP includes proposals for transport A Sheppeck cope with the current high-level of traffic, and will be far town centre and how this can be taken forward improvements and parking strategy worse once redevelopment begins. in a holistic way through a transport strategy and parking plan. Bromley North designated as Commented that Bromley is lacking some essential shops Improvement Area to enhance such as a drapers, hardware shop and butchers. The AAP supports the use of sustainable modes environment for smaller retailers of transport to encourage travel into the town Suggested that a commuter car park over the platforms at centre by modes other than the car. Bromley South would alleviate current parking problems. A range of retail will be supported including independent traders.

RPO105 Concerned about mixed use proposals for Bromley North- Comments noted Development guidelines included for Rob Bristow may conflict with residential character of surrounding area. Site A to ensure appropriate distribution Plan needs to be more specific about location of uses and of land uses and interface with adjoining acknowledge the importance of safeguarding existing residential areas. Residential mixed use residents’ amenities. Commercial uses should be located development is proposed adjacent to station. Questions need for more parking.

Plan should specify that residential is preferred use. Should allow for residential on northern part of site to proceed in advance of southern part- not interdependent.

RPO106 Object to development of Site G: Comments noted. Development guidelines for Site G seek J R Goodman to protect residential amenity and set Property • Traffic congestion, parking and lack of space cause grid- Consultants locking There has been widespread consultation on the out requirements for transport • Pollution and disturbance to residents during construction preferred options and revised options. improvements and other mitigation • Reduction in property value measures to minimise impacts • Department stores extending down Ethelbert Road will be Comprehensive redevelopment of Site G too close to residents and cut in to the conservation area. considered to be necessary to accommodate • Delivery vehicles will cause disturbance to residents. retail requirements and to achieve regeneration • Proposals are over-ambitious of town centre. This could not be achieved by • Lack of consultation piecemeal development schemes

RPO107 Expressed concern that the Civic Centre site may be sold off Redevelopment of Civic Centre site could AAP includes guidelines for Opportunity Tamara for residential development. include small element of lower density Sites to address issues of leisure Galloway, Green St Green Commented that the current Pavilion leisure centre should residential development. This will not be main provision and protection of open space Village Society stay where it is. use of site. There is a need to accommodate Commented that enlarging the Glades may have a additional retail demand in town centre. Council detrimental impact on the rest of the High Street. seeks to enhance leisure facilities. New leisure Commented that a café or coffee house in the Queens centre would provide opportunity to meet Garden should be within the Glades building to avoiding current needs and would be as accessible as eating up any of the garden space. The Glades. No loss of garden will be permitted in Queens Garden RPO108 Simon Welcome the amendments to Site L and exclusion of Comments noted. The boundary of Site L has AAP includes proposals for transport Taylor, AtisReal adjacent sites. been amended due to need to accommodate improvements and developer transport safeguarding line. This has required contributions. No objection to indicative development areas for the inclusion of adjacent site to achieve suitable purposes of calculating housing supply in the borough. development area. Guidelines for development of Site L Would oppose any restriction on development density on including need for FRA. Site L which would be contrary to other policies in the UDP The capacities shown in the AAP are indicative and AAP. Currently looking at scheme for 124 residential figures and will be subject to determination of units and 90 bed hotel on grounds of design and viability. planning application.

Opening the culvert of the River Ravensbourne would be inappropriate as it would sterilise parts of the town centre for future development.

Expressed concern that there is a lack of clarity regarding necessary junction improvements and Section 106 contributions and would stress that every attempt should be made to prevent delays in development whilst necessary junction improvements are made. RPO109 Expressed concern that the roads around Bromley will come Extensive traffic modelling has been undertaken AAP includes proposals for transport Mrs Brodie to a standstill if all the AAP proposals go ahead. for Bromley town centre to understand the improvements and parking strategy Commented that the town centre is too contained to allow impact of development on the town centre traffic for a new road system. flows. Expressed concern that the local schools, hospitals and to demonstrate significant regard for historic environment assets impacted upon by the development. All listed buildings and their settings are expected to be protected and enhanced. The archaeological implications of any application will need to be fully assessed at pre- application stage and further archaeological advice sought from the Greater London Archaeological Service (GLAAS) at English Heritage. • Include need for archaeological assessment at pre- application stage in proposed mitigation column • Recommend adding Buildings at Risk to indicator column in Table 8.4. Comments on AAP: • Refer to nationally and locally listed buildings. Concept of historical development section would be better developed as a mini-characterisation of area. Need to provide greater sense of Bromley’s identity. • Welcome historic assets map- but should include archaeological priority areas and scheduled monuments • Include reference to need for full archaeological assessment at pre-application stage for sites involving historic assets • Bromley North- include reference to need to avoid compromising legibility of listed building: benefits include protection and enhancement of historic environment (also Sites B and F) • Protection and enhancement of historic environment should be a principle underpinning AAP • Early consultation with English Heritage should form part of Actions column in table 8.1 for sites of historic importance (especially Sites A, B and F). Include reference to need for full archaeological assessment at pre-application stage • Need to include PPG16 Archaeology in Appendix 2 • Welcome heritage statements under Design and doctor’s surgeries would not be able to cope with the Council has prepared a comprehensive proposals. transport strategy including measures to Commented that the junction at Hayes Lane/ Westmoreland address congestion. Road is a dangerous area. RPO110 Claire Welcomes proposals to regenerate town centre- Comments noted. SA strengthened to reflect comments. Craig, English congratulates Borough on demonstrating a high level of Heritage awareness of need to protect and enhance historic AAP policy and Guidelines for environment. Specific points need strengthening in SA: Opportunity Sites highlight need to • Historic environment objective in SA to be strengthened protect and enhance historic by substituting ‘valued’ with ‘the’ environment and need for early • Adjust heading in SA from Design to Heritage and Design consultation with English Heritage. • Need to ensure consistency between SA and AAP objectives- need to consider impact on cultural heritage as distinct from other aspects of built environment • Does not concur with view on p29 that heritage protection and enhancement can conflict with principles for a vibrant centre- preservation of historic environment is a fundamental requirement for a vibrant centre- text should be amended • Welcome recognition of heritage significance of North Village- would like to see same acknowledgement of heritage elements of Northern gateway site • Would like to see heritage requirements specified at Bromley North station and Bromley Civic Centre • Welcomes recognition of importance of setting of Bromley College and design considerations for Site B. • Heritage considerations pivotal for Sites A,B, and F • Incorporation of Listed Station Building in site A will need to avoid compromising its legibility. • Archaeology needs greater inclusion. Archaeological implications need full assessment at pre-application stage and further advice can be given by Greater London Archaeological advisory Service at English Heritage. Particularly important for Sites B and F • Revise para 8.1.8 Planning applications will be expected Conservation objectives but request that historic elements of public realm and environment be included in Appendix 4 RPO112 Queried whether the proposals include any provisions for Council has prepared a comprehensive AAP includes proposals for transport Tom Sharland, improving cycle facilities- in particular safe routes and transport strategy including provision for improvements including facilities for SUSTRANDS parking. This would fit in with leisure objectives. cyclists. cycling RPO113 Need to give consideration to phasing and timescale for Park and ride has been put forward as an option AAP includes policies on Dennis development. Need implementation plan to identify aspects within the transport strategy. The A21 has been implementation and phasing. Barkway in council’s control, those that require consent of others and included in the strategy as a priority for those that are dependent on 3rd party investment. Council consideration. must commit itself to doing things that will help to achieve inward investment eg: park and ride. Need statement on These issues will be considered in further detail when Council is prepared to use CPO powers in implementation of AAP

Interesting debate to be had on location of new leisure centre and whether a town centre location is essential or Stockwell Close the best or adequate location RP114 Object to Site B on grounds of impacts on Colleges. Comments noted. The number of units and AAP includes development guidance for Trustees of density is indicative and will be determined at Site B to protect setting of historic Bromley and Sheppards Segment of site on junction of Tweedy Road/ London road the planning application stage. buildings. A high quality design and College should be excluded- college enhances entry to town and development will be required. development would close off views.

Concerned about density- proposals should be considered on merits particularly where heritage sites are concerned. AAP should not specify number of units or density. Range should be 60-100 applying the SDS formula- would be lower if area reduced

Density range is based on flatted development only- should be 25-100 units

Concerned that AAP is being driven by Broomleigh proposals- should not defer to a particular developer. Shift in density supports concern that AAP is being tailored to suit specific development RP115 Raises key issues to be addressed prior to submission: Comments noted. The Council has addressed Policies included on housing mix and Mayor of • Deliverability- clarification sought about how realistic it issues of deliverability in modifications to the play provision. Sites which may be London will be to expect sites to be delivered within prescribed preferred options. suitable for delivery of larger units timescales especially with regard to amount of housing suitable for family occupation identified. (specifically family housing). A number of sites have not Comprehensive transport strategy seeks to been identified in the 2004 Housing Capacity Study and address issues of congestion and promote Policy included on improving use of the evidence base for proposals must be substantiated public transport. energy in line with London Plan. more fully; • Residential development- expected that any applications Evidence base for retail development consistent Reference to local training included in will meet Mayor’s target for affordable housing in levels of with SRDF. potential Section 106 contributions. provision and tenure split. Questions raised about how children’s play space and other amenity space needed to Council concerned about protecting character of support family housing will be accommodated in high Bromley Town Centre with emphasis on density development. maximising development potential of sites.

Broad planning objectives heading towards conformity with Density of development must reflect character London Plan but if issues not addressed this may lead to an of surrounding area. opinion of non-conformity at submission stage.

Supports intention to promote significant change and development in town centre in order for it to realise its full potential and provide a more attractive place to shop, work, live and visit. Promotion of variety of uses is welcomed. However, AAP still needs to demonstrate in more detail that the town centre has capacity to accommodate proposed uses. Should justify scale of increased retail floorspace proposed and any significant increases should be based on comprehensive assessment of retail need and capacity and tested sub-regionally through Sub-Regional Development Framework which has set a limit between 35,000- 51,000 sq m. Evidence base must show how much additional new floorspace is proposed and why the tested limit in SRDF should be exceeded.

Inclusion of a policy approach that seeks to maximise development potential of sites consistent with London Plan Policy 4B.3 would be welcomed.

Key policy area relates to improving use of energy (London Plan Policy 4A.7). AAP will need to include policies that support relevant London Plan policies and require applications for major developments to include energy assessments as set out in London Plan Policy 4A.9. AAP will need to require major developments to provide for renewable energy (London Plan Policy 4A.10).

LDA requests inclusion of employment and training for local people and creation of opportunities for local businesses especially SMEs and those owned by BAMEs to be included in list of potential Section 106 contributions.

Tacking high levels of traffic congestion and improving image, accessibility and reliability of public transport is a fundamental issue. Supports partnership working with TfL and others.

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 27

APPENDIX 4.1

REVISED PREFERRED OPTIONS (NOVEMBER 2007-JANUARY 2008): REPORT TO COMMITTEE Report No. London Borough of Bromley Agenda E&LS08017 Item No. PART 1 - PUBLIC

Decision Maker: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date: 12TH February 2008 Decision Type: Non-Urgent Non-Executive Non-Key

TITLE: BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE: Responses to the Revised Preferred Options Consultation

Contact Officer: Rita Westlotorn, Manager Town Centre Development Team Tel: 020 8313 4582 E-mail: [email protected]

Chief Officer: Paul Dale Acting Director of Renewal and Recreation

Ward: Bromley Town

1. Reason for report

To update Members on the responses received following the recent consultation on the Revised Preferred Options and the revision to the AAP timetable given the need to assess some responses in more detail.

______

2. RECOMMENDATION(S)

Members note the report.

1 Corporate Policy

Existing policy:

______

Financial

1. N/A The cost will be calculated when the process is complete

2. Non-recurring cost

3. Budget head

4. Total budget for this head £ ______

Staff

1. Number of staff (current and additional) – no additional staff

2. If from existing staff resources, number of staff hours – cannot be estimated ______

Legal

1. Non-statutory - Government guidance:

2. Call-in is not applicable: ______

Customer Impact

Estimated number of users/beneficiaries (current and projected) - cannot be estimated

2 3. COMMENTARY

The Revised Preferred Options for Bromley Town Centre underwent a six week consultation period commencing 31st October to 11th December 2007. In all 115 responses were received either by letter or via email. Some of the responses were extremely detailed and it is clear that additional work will be required in order to fully assess some of these representations to determine whether any significant changes will need to be made to the draft plan prior to submission.

This will inevitably mean that the draft AAP will not be available in March as previously anticipated. Unfortunately the current planning legislation does not suggest any further consultation between that carried out on the Preferred Options and the consultation on the submitted draft AAP. However, it is considered that in order to ensure the submitted AAP is complainant with the ‘Tests of Soundness’ requirements which will be considered by the Inspector at the Examination in Public, any significant changes to that previously in the public domain should be consulted on. This would not require such detailed consultation as carried out on the Options, but would include specific consultation with those most affected by the proposals.

The revised timetable is now as follows:

AAP Revised Timetable Date

Consideration of the extended consultation document end April/May 2008

Consultation on the extended consultation document May/ June 2008

Recommendation on additional revisions to Options to DCC & Executive June/July 2008

Consideration of Draft AAP by DCC & Executive

Approval of Draft AAP by full Council Special meeting July or September 2008

Submission of Draft AAP to Secretary of State September/October 2008

Pre-examination meeting* January 2009

Examination in Public* April 2009

Receipt of Inspector’s report* October 2009

Adoption of AAP* December 2009

* Dates subject to Secretary of State programming

Responses received

The Government Office for London (GoL) raised mainly procedural issues in order to ensure the draft plans compliancy with the ‘Test of Soundness’ as well as requiring calcification on particular statements.

The Greater London Assembly (GLA) have, amongst other issues, commented on the need to maximise site development as well as the need for the Plan to be in conformity with The London Plan. To address these comments it is considered that the site allocations may have to be reviewed in order to ensure the Mayor of London does not raise objections to the draft AAP. 3 There are also two responses which suggest major impacts to individual Opportunity Sites. These will need to be assessed not only in relation to possible site alterations but in order to assess the impact of such a development on the other identified Opportunity sites and overall objectives for the town.

Site A: Bromley North. Much of the site is in the ownership of Network Rail although the Council does have some limited land interests. The representation suggests higher residential density and parking allocations plus the boundary should be extended to include properties in Sherman Road and a small office development in Station Road. Network Rail who are keen to bring a suitable development forward consider higher residential densities should be included in accordance with London Plan standards and that the phasing of the site should be brought forward into Phase 1. The issue of re-phasing may in turn have implications for traffic management within the town.

Site G: West of High Street. This is from a developer interested in bringing forward a comprehensive development which would include commercial, residential and additional parking. The amount of residential and parking identified, as well as the size of the site suggested vary significantly from that in the consultation document. The representation suggests that in order to revive and modernise the town centre with an updated retail offer, a scheme, that would also provide a new department store, cannot be delivered unless development values are substantiality increased above that identified in the Revised Options.

One large site is suggested which would include within its boundary Site G, Site H: corner of Ravensbourne Road/High Street and part of Site N: the terrace outside of the Churchill Theatre/library. The current building occupied by Habitat is also included and the whole of the site is in multiple ownership. A key component is the site of the annex to the old Army and Navy store which currently benefits from a planning permission for residential units (163). The Revised Options currently shows 450 residential units on Site G and 50 units on Site H whereas the developer believes a figure of approximately 1200 units would be required over both sites. This amounts to approximately 700 additional units over and above those already identified.

The regeneration of the town is a Council priority and specifically there are aspirations for a new department store. Therefore given the extent of the scheme suggested it would seem logical to explore this significant opportunity in more detail.

Other comments

Further comments received vary from specific issues regarding site allocations, transport implications, the impact of growth on existing services such as health and school places to better provision for cyclists and for arts and community facilities. One area of concern is the need to ensure new development is accessible by all, specifically those with any disability.

English Heritage welcomes and supports the Borough in its intention for regeneration and in particular strongly support Objective 5 regarding the protection and enhancement of the Borough’s heritage as well as the historic and heritage statements. However, they consider that reference to the listed buildings on Site A – Bromley North and Site F – Civic Centre should be expanded. Whilst supporting the recognition of the importance of the Grade 1 listed building to Site B – Tweedy Road, they believe more emphasis should be given regarding archaeological implications on this and other sites and some specific points warrant strengthening. Other responses also raised concerned about the impact of development on heritage buildings and the Conservation Area generally and felt that the statements regarding such issues were not explicit enough. All AAP documentation published to date has endeavoured to make clear that whilst the regeneration of the town to ensure future economic viability is crucial there is a balance to be made in that the town’s heritage is important, however, given the comments received matters relating to the historic environment will be reviewed.

4 A number of comments were received regarding the phasing of a new leisure facility if the existing Pavilion were to be re-developed. Local residents are concerned that they would be left for some time with out such a facility.

The Environment Agency raised some issues that will be dealt with under the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment that is currently being progressed. Responses, amongst others, were also received from the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority, the Metropolitan Police, English Nature, Thames Water, TfL and The Highways Agency.

Many of the other issues raised can be dealt with via new AAP policies, by re-assessing the development principles suggested for each site or by the consideration that the comment does not warrant any change to the plan. The report on any recommended alterations to the Options will also detail the Council’s responses to all comments received.

5 28 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 5

CONSULTATION DRAFT AAP (NOVEMBER 2008- JANUARY 2009): RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE DRAFT AAP CONSULTATION RESPONSES 2008-2009

Date Ref No Name & Org Summary of Representation LBB Comments / Response Received

DAAPO1 Babbacombe 20/11/2008 • Commented that a bullet point on pg 209 of the AAP There was a drafting error in assessing the site and the design Rd regarding the potential for taller buildings refers to guidance will be amended. Residents an existing 15 storey tower east of the Opportunity Association (1) Site. At present there are just 2 buildings at 10 and 7 storeys therefore needed clarification. DAAP02 Bonnie 18/11/2008 • Queries on whether her property is likely to be The property is within Site G, however, no CPO has as yet been Merralls compulsorily purchased as a result of the plans and issued and probably would not be affected by blight issues until at if so, when this was likely to be. least the end of 2009 when the AAP is formally adopted. DAAP03 Beckenham 15/12/2008 • Welcomes the plans to improve access to Bromley Support welcomed Liberal South Station Democrats DAAP04 Patricia 29/11/08 • Commented on access to Bromley South Station Bromley south station has been identified by the DfT for Watson improvement under the Access for All programme. Funding is currently being sought by Network Rail DAAP05 Bromley 18/12/08 • Against the proposed development of tall buildings The design principles for each opportunity site that are set out in Friends Forum adjacent to Library Gardens which would alter the Appendix 4 scale and massing be assessed with particular regard historic skyline. to views from the gardens. The skyline of the town as viewed from Library Gardens has been affected by more recent developments including the Churchill Theatre/Library building. • Against plans to develop housing on Site K The town centre and immediate environs are sustainable locations for housing given their access to public transport, shops, services and jobs. • Against housing in the town centre considering the implications on congestion and pollution Residential development is considered a vital element in the regeneration of the town. It will ensure that the town is populated in the evening and night-time, making it busier and safer. With careful planning and design potential issues of disturbance and nuisance, noise and light pollution can be avoided. • Against any increase in the height of the Glades The Retail Capacity Study, which is being updated, and the GLA building and the number of commercial spaces have both indicated that the retail floorspace should be increased available would have a negative effect on pollution to meet future needs. The Transport Strategy will address highway and congestion. concerns

1 • Commented that the Council is trying to adopt The Plan encourages retention of existing green spaces and is in measures that are in conflict with their aims of accordance with the ‘Aims of Building a Better Bromley’. improving the environment and safeguarding wildlife. Developments will be required to ensure the protection and safeguarding of nature conservation interests within and beyond the town centre boundaries DAAP06 Director 22/12/2008 • Welcomed the fact that freight transport and the Support welcomed Transport & emerging role of Delivery and Servicing Plans Travel (DSPs) was recognised as one of the four key Research Ltd projects within the London Freight Plan and explicitly and Co- mentioned in the Area Action Plan ordinator South London • CLPs may also be considered relevant to Policy Agreed. The following wording to be added to Policy BTC8: Freight Quality BTC 8 Sustainable Development and Construction In respect of major new developments, developers will be required Partnership, as existing construction codes of practice do not to submit Construction Logistics Plans for approval prior to commonly include the full logistics chain as part of commencement of construction. their terms of reference. Add new paragraph: 4.6.x For major new developments, the Council will expect developers to demonstrate that sustainable logistics practice will be applied through the submission and approval of Construction Logistics Plans. • Off-road servicing’ should be promoted as it Agreed. Amend Policy BTC29 and paragraph 4.8.51 to refer to off provided more flexibility. road servicing rather than rear servicing.

• Need to refer to Construction Logistics Plans Amendments proposed to Policy BTC8 and supporting text (see (CLPs) within Policy BTC29 Freight and above). paragraph 4.8.53 - that the submission of CLPs should be a minimum requirement for all major new developments that are forthcoming as part of the Area Action Plan.

• Re-wording of part of paragraph 4.8.51 - ‘although Disagree. It is important to ensure a balance between the need for the Council recognises that deliveries at out-of-hours servicing and residential amenity. night….can potentially be more disruptive to residents’ be turned to a positive phraseology such as ‘and the Council recognises the potential benefits of out-of-hours deliveries (including activity at night) where appropriate measures and management techniques are introduced to reduce potential disruption to residents’.

2 DAAP07 Tony Anderson 06/01/2009 • Commented on the lack of linked services and One of the aims of the AAP is to bring about more inclusive sports provision at affordable rates for young development and opportunities for all age groups. people. The AAP is a Spatial Plan i.e. a planning policy framework , so the finer details of individual schemes would need to be discussed as • Expressed concern that areas for young people to planning applications are progressed meet and use are important as they need to be engaged in constructive agenda free schemes to develop positive views of the Council and Society in general. • Commented that Council provision was costly and is hoping that greater age related inclusion as part of every scheme to improve or alter the local community environment.

DAAP08 Frank Whiting 13/01/2009 • the DAAP may be controversial due to the scale Support welcomed. BTC is not fairing well in relation to other like of development proposed, the unprecedented centres as it does not have the types of units modern retailers level of retail closures in the town stressed the require so the comparison element in the town is not as strong as it need for Bromley to have the type of units and should be therefore shoppers are going elsewhere. This impacts retail environment that will attracts new high class on job opportunities and the local economy generally. tenants when the economic climate starts to improve.

• A resident population will encourage leisure outlets that cater for a wider public.

• Bromley’s major competition is Croydon and Bluewater and that it was possible for Bromley to overtake Croydon in terms of rental values

• Approval of the Draft AAP and adoption by the Secretary of State, a real opportunity will arise for a major retail scheme to emerge on the western side of the High Street, providing additional top class units required by major retailers as market conditions improve. • Vital that Bromley has a top class multi screen cinema, well known restaurants and leisure outlets to attract families into the town in the evenings and at weekends.

3 DAAP09 Babbacombe 14/01/2009 Commented on Site A The overall massing of development which would result from the Road • That the proposed increase in dwelling units from 400 unit scheme would be difficult to integrate with the surrounding Residents the previous limit of 250 to 400 would swamp the area and is likely to result in a significant change in local character Association (2) community and having an adverse impact on the and impact on residential amenity. It is considered that the smaller local environment. scheme could be integrated more successfully with the surrounding area with a reduction in height towards the western boundary and • That the proposal of high-rise buildings of up to 10 interface with residential properties. storeys would dwarf the surrounding community having adverse implications outweighing the any Further detailed design development would be required to commercial benefits. demonstrate that a higher density development could be accommodated without adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area. The Draft AAP states that the number of units • Objections to point 4.3.4 - that higher density should be in general conformity with the AAP and the developer development in the Town Centre will help to will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will protect the suburban character of the rest of the not result in unacceptable impacts. Borough meant that communities surrounding the development sites could be sacrificed to benefit residents who live elsewhere in the Borough. • That there would be an adverse impact on water An SFRA has been undertaken in the town centre and PPS25 and sewage resources for the community. ensures that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process. This is to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. New development will only be allowed in areas of high flood risk in exceptional circumstances and needs to be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems will be expected in all new developments. DAAP10 The Bromley 16/01/2009 • Querying the number of cafes A café culture is an important element in the town centre Children experience Project, Children & • Querying Bromley’s need for a hotel The hotel industry/market intelligence has informed us that BTC is Young Peoples a favoured location The Council is committed to the continual improvement of facilities as well as promoting sustainable tourism • Questioned what investment would be made All major developments will be expected to contribute to the towards the infrastructure to support the new provision of services, facilities and infrastructure within the area in developments and what the knock-on effect on order to deliver the environmental, social, community, education schools, doctors which are already over- and health capacity needed to respond to increasing pressure subscribed. generated by the development. Infrastructure requirements are

4 included in Policies BTC 31 & 32. These elements will be assessed as schemes progress.

• Queried the location of a children’s centre. No requirement for a children’s centre has ever been raised during past consultation. That is not to say if could not come forward at a later stage DAAP11 Kim Robinson 17/01/2009 • Supports a high quality department store to keep Support welcomed up with Bluewater and Croydon.

DAAP12 Jenny 18/01/2009 Comments on Site F – Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be Manchester accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the • Commented that the transport impact on site F and proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no a lack of suggested public transport mechanisms overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. The AAP’s supporting • Expressed concern about speeding in the area and Transport Strategy proposes an approach that promotes a wide the parking issues that will arise out of range of travel choices, including public transport. development proposals. Enforcement of speeding traffic is a matter for the police, whether • Questioned how the increased traffic flow and with new development or not. If traffic speed is likely to be an pedestrian conflict created buy the development issue for a particular development, this should be addressed within will be managed. the transport assessment supporting the planning application.

The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed. DAAP13 Shire 15/01/2009 The Draft AAP does not meet the test of soundness due The Retail Capacity Study – in relation to BTC is being updated Consulting on to: and its findings will be included in the pre-submission AAP. behalf of Barclays Bank • a retail study that was carried out about 5 years ago and that this study cannot be used to justify the definition of primary shopping frontages • The UDP which the Council states that the Consideration is currently being given to ‘Saved policies’ from the consultation draft is consistent with, itself UDP by GoL. All indications are that they are content with the needs to be reviewed. approach.

5 • As the Core Strategy had not been brought Although the AAP is running ahead of the Core Strategy GoL forward by the Council he expressed concern believe there is a strong argument to be made regarding the fact that before proceeding towards the submission that the AAP is required on urgency grounds in order to facilitate to the Secretary of State further work must be growth and address development proposals comprehensively. done regarding its evidence base and on progressing with the Core Strategy. DAAP14 Gladys 25/01/09 • Commented on the importance of Bromley BTC is a regional centre and has been for a number of years. The Edmonds remaining a market town and expressed a view ‘market town’ element remains around market Square and there against any new taller building dominating the are no plans to re-develop this area rather to improve the skyline and obscuring Keston Ridge. ambiance of its setting.

Retail -led regeneration brings economic benefits which can be substantial, relating to job opportunities and social inclusion. • Against the development proposals of sites B and There are no views of Bromley College at ground level from either P as they would obstruct the view of Bromley Sites B or P only from College Green which will remain as existing. college.

• The proposed high density residences in G and H A wide range of household types, including families with children, was unacceptable – too high, small flats and the elderly and those with disabilities will help to achieve a more having an unbearable strain on the infrastructure. cohesive community.

This will only be possible if entrances to homes and their internal layout and space standards are designed in a way that accommodates the needs of these households. In order to achieve this, the AAP will encourage new housing to be built to Lifetime Homes standards. • Against concrete buildings in Site N in favour of There are no plans for development on Site N merely to create a retaining green spaces. ‘town square’ on the existing paved area. • against the idea of cafes and restaurants in Site M Use would be made of the existing hard standing subject to sufficient space for safety vehicles • against residential dwellings in Site F. This development option has been included in all previous publications and the number of units have been reduced. • The proposal of the high-rise building on Site L St Marks School is not part of Opportunity Site L unacceptable as it meant the destruction of a listed building (a school) and obscure of the view of Keston Ridge.

6 DAAP15 Roger Dawe 26/01/2009 • Commented that it was a good idea to have an Support welcomed overall plan for development of the Town Centre however: • Objections about site L, as the proposal to include Comment appears to relate to submitted planning application for tall building was not sensitive to the surrounding the Site. Design criteria in the AAP clearly states that development areas as well as obscuring the view of Keston Ridge should be sensitive to the surroundings and views from the High Street • Expressed concern about the increased traffic flow Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be along Mason’s Hill, Westmoreland Road and the accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the A21 as a result of the increase in residential, proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no retailing and entertainment units and felt that careful overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more analysis was needed including that parking than a 3% increase in Phase Three. Traffic impacts of individual considerations. developments must be addressed through transport assessments, which must accompany planning applications.

The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed. • Commented that the plans did not make any These areas are included within Bromley North Village reference to the High Street North of the Market Improvement Area Square.

DAAP16 Graham and 26/01/2009 • Commented the Council was ignoring its own The AAP has always recognised that the town’s heritage is Mary Jensen conservation area and that all the developments will important. One of the underlying development principles of the leave Bromley devoid of character. Bromley Area Action Plan is to preserve and enhance all the features that make Bromley distinctive and to continue to provide the community with its sense of place and history • Instead of competing with Bluewater and Croydon, BTC is a regional centre and has been for a number of years. Bromley should retain Market Town image to Bromley has been and continues to be subject to a significant differentiate form the competition. amount of development pressure from the commercial sector

• In favour of ensuring that only low rise developments Bromley has been and continues to be subject to a significant take place in the Town Centre. amount of development pressure within a relatively small area, any development will however be the subject of design criteria in order to mitigate impact on the area

• Also commented that existing sight lines should be No changes are being considered to sight lines except where they retained and green spaces should be retained. can be improved – similarly green spaces

7 DAAP17 Carol Thomas 27/01/2009 • Site B regarding the design of the proposed These scheme is now part of the Appeal process development

DAAP18 Thames Water 27/01/2009 • Recommended that there should be a provision of a Comments noted and document to be amended as recommended Property stand alone water and sewage policy and proposed Services a rewording with additional supporting text.

• Recommended that in relation to water efficiency, residential development should be required to meet code for Sustainable Homes Level 3.

• Commented that Policy BTC9 – Flood Risk and Policy BTC11 – Drainage need to be widened to cover issues of sewer flooding and foul drainage in addition to fluvial flooding and surface water drainage. • Also commented that Policy BTC17 – Public Realm that trees/shrubs should not be planted over the route of sewers ort water pipes and that street furniture should not impede access to vehicles in event of emergency works.

DAAP19 Mr DA & Mrs 29/01/2009 • Commented on parking issues and that the The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in AL Morgan development would lead to increased parking the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on problems and traffic congestion to an already or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed. overloaded area. • Concerned about the increase in level of pollution SFRA has been undertaken and policy included in response to and drainage problems highlighting Sandford Road findings. Developers will be expected to address necessary and that recent drainage problems have requirements. PPS25 ensures that flood risk is taken into account necessitated long hours of emergency work. at all stages in the planning process. This is to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. New development will only be allowed in areas of high flood risk in exceptional circumstances and needs to be made safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall

8 DAAP20 Andy Condon 29/01/2009 • Questioned where funding for these development It has already been made clear in all documentation that the would come from and whether it would lead to a rise Council is not funding any of the schemes. in council taxes. • Developments will spoil the look of the town, cause The look of the town is subjective and the accompanying Transport too much traffic congestion. Strategy deals with issues regarding congestion

• New development would place an increased need This matter is being addressed through infrastructure requirements for schools whose places are already in shortage. as noted in Appendix 5

DAAP21 Barbara Del 29/01/2009 • Commented in general on the need for good quality Noted, this was the basis for beginning the AAP process Mar & shops in Bromley since the departure of Alders and 01/02/2009 Army and Navy.

• Commented that the additional households will also These matters are being addressed through infrastructure put pressure on local schools, doctors, dentists. Also requirements. Education requirements are contained in Appendix 5 concerned as to whether water supply and sewer of the document systems could cope. • Site A: Against high rise development. The height of development would be matters which would be determined at the planning application stage in accordance with the design principles set out in the AAP which will state that development needs to address surroundings and be sensitive to the adjacent residential housing • Site B: Commented on the loss of trees and Comment appears to relate to submitted planning application for dwarfing the college buildings by the new the Site. However the revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive development and high quality design is essential to minimise the impact of development on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. • Sites C & F: Felt that the Council should continue Site F will be re-configured for future demand but the old town halls to use these buildings as offices instead of are not suitable for modern office requirements. acquiring other accommodation.

• Site D & K: Sees no need for a new cinema and The Empire was refurbished only a few years ago when owned by would rather see the Empire refurbished as it the Odeon group. The town is losing visitors to other centres as would give life to that end of the high street and they prefer what Multi-plex cinemas can offer. remove the need for a cinema at site K making the development there less tall. • Site E: Would like to see the Pavilion left as The Pavilion is not faring well but by re-phasing possible re- existing development to phase 3 allows for Mytime to make some improvements in the short -term

9 • Site G & H: would rather a new department store There is a question of viability and residential will be required to be part of site G or H. but opposed to the height help fund any new department store or other retail. and density of the proposed development as well as the demolition of existing accommodation. Felt New residents will not be entitled to parking permits that a new shopping development could be constructed without a wholesale demolition of the area. Concerned that the density of residential accommodation would put pressure on parking in the area. • Site L: Commented that the 8 storey building Comment appears to relate to submitted planning application for would dwarf St Mark’s Church and ruin the view of the Site. the high street through to Keston. Felt that development should be height limited to 2 or 3 storeys. • Site N: Suggested that instead of site N a town By moving the town square south will allow for a more balanced square would be more suited at the current market town square with the addition of trees bench etc and the removal of funfairs, sky vans etc. DAAP22 Bromley 02/02/2009 • Development of the town centre will add to noise Bromley is already a regional centre and is capable of growth to Friends of the and pollution already suffered in the central area. meet future requirements Developers will expected to show how Earth resilience new development is to noise and air pollution and the way in which it contributes to an overall reduction in levels of noise and air pollution • that all planning permissions include a The government have initiated a ‘low carbon building programme’ requirement that building constructed are eco (LCBP) which gives grants towards renewable technology when friendly building. This grant is currently available to Housing Associations. Policies BTC8 & BTC12 already cover much of these and other sustainable construction requirements for all new development. All major developments will be required to show how heating, cooling and power systems will minimise Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions and then reduce CO2 emissions by at least 20% from on site renewable energy generation (including decentralised renewable energy) where such options are viable and feasible). The feasibility for Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and private wire should be considered for all major schemes.

Looking to the future, Bromley’s character will continue to develop leading the way for rest of the Borough on issues of sustainable design and construction.

10 • that public transport improvements should be in Policy BTC26 (Phasing of Transport Improvements) sets out before major re-developments requirement that the transport measures needed by new development should be in place first. • that any redevelopment of the central area should Bromley is the major comparison centre in the borough. The other go hand in hand with plans to assist other towns function as convenience centres, Orpington is already under shopping centre like Beckenham, Orpington, West investigation and the other towns will follow as resources allow. Wickham, , Chislehurst and Biggin Hill • That the impact of high buildings on the visual Bromley has not been functioning as a market town for some environment should be considered in that Bromley years. See response to DAAP14 should retain its market town ambience. • That any development should increase rather than Ways to improve the pedestrian areas will be investigated decrease the current pedestrian area.

• That green spaces should be protected. Enhancement is included in the plan

• That office jobs should be moved out of the area It would not be sustainable to move job opportunities out of the town which has high PTAL levels • That a heritage survey be conducted to ensure Diagrame2.1 on page 24 of the AAP shows the historic context of older buildings of character protected. the town centre and indicates listed buildings that are protected as well as older buildings of character • That plans should protect the existence of the As part of Opportunity site development it may be possible to current farmers market. provide a permanent site for the Bromley’s Farmers Market as an integral part of the town centre in order to enhance choice within the town centre and provide vitality • That a firm commitment be made to improve The Plan seeks to improve access to leisure for all. The Council is leisure facilities, especially for the young. committed to continual improvement of facilities.

11 DAAP23 Peter Bates 03/02/09 • SITE A : housing not compatible with major Site A is a very sustainable location and any commercial elements transport interchanges. could certainly include small business units. Any re-development would have to be viable an taller buildings would only be permitted • That there should be a new car park and market where the impact on local residents is minimised. building and small business workshops should be introduced. Access improvements will be necessary, though TfL will need to be consulted about any proposal for direct access onto the A21 • That any development should not exceed height Tweedy Road [Kentish Way]. of 2/3 storeys. New car parking is envisaged as part of the development, along • Agreed with Community provision, station upgrade with improvements to the station (Policy OSA refers). The bus and improvement of public space outside but stands would either need to be retained or else equivalent hopes for a relocation of bus stops. replacement facilities found elsewhere.

• That road access into Kentish Way should be improved. • SITE B: site should remain a public open space Access is proposed via Gordon Way. It is unlikely that TfL would and that its narrow for development which would support direct access onto A21 Tweedy Road [Kentish Way]. mean undesirable single aspect flats. That the status of the grade 1 & 2 listed college buildings will be preserved. • That vehicular access from Kentish Way is undesirable as it is the town's by-pass.

• SITE C: Agreed to the proposal but felt that new Noted and this point is already made clear in the Design Appendix buildings should not exceed height of existing heritage buildings and the fire station. • SITE D: Agreed with proposals but looked for a A masterplan for the Bromley North area is currently being drawn greater indication that more thought had been put up following previous research. into "enhancing heritage appearance".

• SITE E: Agreed with proposals but only if a new Site F is the location for a new leisure centre site will be found for a replacement Leisure Centre before any redevelopment begins

• SITE F: Disagreed with the possible loss of Any development will take place on existing ‘brownfield’ land and if parkland due to redevelopment and questioned if residential is considered appropriate in the listed building

12 listed buildings are capable of conversion to developers would have to take account of any perceived residential. difficulties.

• SITE G/H: That any redevelopment should be It will be important for new retail to make successful linkages with limited to the height of the existing buildings in that the surrounding environs and should improve the built environment part of the High Street. Felt that there were too through well designed buildings. However deliverability through many flats proposed and that car parking spaces viable schemes is important and some taller buildings may be resulting in an over dense development will spoil justified. the environment

• SITE J: Agreed with proposals although renewed Any re-development would be high rise given the cost of rafting efforts should be made to interest Network Rail in over railway lines as it would be very expensive. a comprehensive redevelopment. • SITE K: Generally agreed with proposals but other Noted local amenities should not suffer • SITE L: Any redevelopment should respect the The Design Criteria clearly states that account needs to be taken of existing school building and not be higher than the the surrounding area and views. building to be replaced.

• SITE M: No encroachment should be allowed into None is proposed and there is already a planning permission for the gardens. the extension to the existing restaurant.

• Generally felt that the proposals were not Not sure how much more comprehensive the plan could be given comprehensive enough and that the quality of the above comments. Design quality is paramount to any re- designs should be taken into account development proposals. High quality design and the way in which new development enhances the character of the area and respects the local context is particularly important in the town centre DAAP24 David Smart 03/02/09 • Objected to Site L on grounds that it spoils the views Comment appears to relate to submitted planning application for of Keston Ridge, causes congestion and is too close the Site. to St.Marks Church, a listed Building.

DAAP25 Ann Garrett 31/01/2009 • Supported a new department store but felt that all Retail-led regeneration is an important element in revitalising town new buildings should be low rise. Opposed to any centres. The proposals for Site G will included maintaining the High high buildings adjacent to the library gardens. street as an important focus for shopping but also allowing for Against Ethelbert Close being demolished residential opportunities and improved health and faith facilities. With any such major scheme some demolition will be inevitable. • The Empire Cinema should be retained and This is certainly a possibility and would be an opportunity to converted into an arts centre preserve the building. Text to be amended similar to that for Bromley Little Theatre

13 • no high rise buildings on site A or L. Accommodating growth and promoting regeneration presents real challenges and whilst developments need to be viable they also need to take account of surroundings. Design Principles in the AAP (Appendix 4) are there to guide potential developers

• Present green sites should be preserved especially Agreed and noted around the Civic Centre Site and any buildings there should be low rise and sensitively designed.

• Opposed to the plans for Site B Comments relates to planning application

DAAP26 Surrey County 26/01/2009 • Impact on Surrey’s Town Centres is likely to be Noted Council acceptable.

DAAP27 Mr D Powell 26/01/2009 • Site A: Development of tall buildings a mistake Accommodating growth and promoting regeneration presents real and Mrs. B challenges and whilst developments need to be viable they also Powell need to take account of surroundings. Design Principles in the AAP are there to guide potential developers • Site B: Agreed with refusal of recent plans for the the revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive and high quality site and felt that only low density residential design is essential to minimise the impact of development on the development with plenty of landscaping should be setting of the adjacent listed buildings. allowed. • Site C: Civic Centre to be moved back into the The office accommodation in the old town halls is not suitable for former town halls current requirements and a sympathetic refurbishment would be more viable. Listed Building status would limit the capacity of the • Site F: demolish 1960s blocks buildings and it is the Council’s objective to reduce maintenance expenditure and reduce energy and carbon footprint. Development on Site F would be expected to improve the setting of the Grade II Listed Building • Site G: Against demolition from the library down to Mr Powell attended earlier workshops and has been included in all Bromley South and tall buildings and would prefer previous consultation and this idea has never been put forward to see the building from the Library up to ‘Primark’ before. It would, however, be unlikely to receive support given the demolished instead. status of the ‘Primark’ building and other buildings of interest. Moving the Post office would be a commercial decision by Royal Mail. Site G will provide parking close to the existing theatre and • Commented on a need for a site for a post office there has been no constructive idea as to where to move the and a relocating the theatre as difficulties with theatre which is a very popular facility. parking.

14 • Site K & L: against major developments on either The Area Action Plan encourages new town centre development, site which will serve existing and new communities well, offering them a variety of goods and services, maximising the advantages of its distinctive setting, and providing a centre that people are proud of and enjoy visiting. • Site G, M: Against any encroachment of the library There is no encroachment shown for Library Gardens and a small gardens, Queens Gardens and cafes in the parks café is what is envisaged for Site M except a ‘small’ one. • Site P: against over-development Key design principles detail what any new development/ refurbishment would need to consider.

DAAP28 Mr & Mrs L. De 02/02/2009 • Opposed to any additional retail space as there are The units that are vacant are, we are ensured, not want the Silva many unoccupied outlets retailing market require

• Against high rise housing developments in town Town centres are the most sustainable location for certain types of centre and additional parking opportunities provided dwellings and is how towns developed in the past prior to suburbia in new developments being developed • Opposed to additional office spaces due to number Current office vacancies do not meet modern requirements of vacant offices currently however there is a need to ensure future aspirations for the town are not diminished by not providing employment opportunities. Whilst the priority is to regenerate the town centre to provide for retail, social and community activities it is recognised that uses such as residential and business uses are likely to be important to the overall viability of the proposals. • Infrastructure unable to cope with demand for All major developments will be expected to contribute to the public services provision of services, facilities and infrastructure within the area in order to deliver the environmental, social, community, education and health capacity needed to respond to increasing pressure generated by the development. • Against hotel and cafes in the town Bromley is a regional centre and cafes are popular in any town. The hotel market is keen to be represented in the town. The Council is committed to continual improvement of facilities as well as promoting sustainable tourism DAAP29 Cathedral 06/02/09 • Supports overall objectives on the AAP proposals Noted. Group

15 • Questions why residential is not included on Site In order to ensure viability of a scheme for this site a limited C and suggests a feasibility study is undertaken number of residential units will be included in the development Bromley Fire Station should be included in site options. boundary Whilst it is acknowledged that the LFEPA wish to have new operational facilities it is not considered that a feasible scheme could come forward given the impact on setting of the adjacent listed town halls • an hotel should be included in mix of uses on Site Noted. It is considered appropriate to include either wholly K in order to increase economic benefits. Text residential units or a mix of residential and hotel use as an should be expanded regarding the possibility of acceptable element of any future mixed use cinema led taller buildings development

• Policies BTC31/32An contributions should be All major developments will be expected to contribute to the assessed on a site by site assessment provision of services, facilities and infrastructure within the area

DAAP30 Kate Fowler 06/02/09 • Queried percentage of social housing Percentage will be as per adopted UDP policy

• Impact on water supply Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems will be expected in all new developments. PPS25 ensures that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process and subject to minor drafting Thames Water support the AAP Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure capacity, both on and off site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users. • Commented on traffic and parking problems Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. Traffic impacts of individual developments must be addressed through transport assessments, which must accompany planning applications.

The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed. • Shortage of schools Infrastructure requirements including education are included in Plan. Developers will be expected to consider the infrastructure

16 and service implications for the local area and, where appropriate, make provision of new infrastructure to ensure that new development can be accommodated. DAAP31 Bromley Little 04/02/09 • Welcomed the recognition of the current and future Support welcomed Theatre role of Bromley Little Theatre in the draft AAP

• Pleased that the role of the site and building of Bromley Little Theatre was noted in the plan to protect and enhance the historic character of Bromley DAAP32 Mrs A Lee 04/02/09 • Commented that Site B development will Comment appears to relate to submitted planning application for overshadow and not be sensitive toward listed the Site. buildings of Bromley and Shepherds Colleges.

• Concerned that Site G and H involved the The way in which new uses and buildings integrate with, and demolishing of all the shops and some houses, enhance the town centre as a whole, providing good links and including Listed Buildings, from the Library down as relationships with existing uses and buildings High quality design far as Bromley South Station. and the way in which new development enhances the character of the area and respects the local context is particularly important in • Against taller buildings in favour of low-rise the town centre accommodation

• Queried how much consideration had been given All major developments will be expected to contribute to the to infrastructure provision of services, facilities and infrastructure • Town needs regeneration but not more shops and The key aim of Planning Policy Statement 6 is to promote the cafes vitality and viability of town centres. New development should be focussed in existing centres in order to strengthen and regenerate them, taking account of the overall retail hierarchy and the role of the town centre within this hierarchy.

• Concerned that the hard standing for fire services Any development would have to take this issue into account. access will need to be increased thereby meaning less green space in the Queens Gardens

• Impact of proposals on local residents One of the underlying development principles of the Bromley Area Action Plan is to preserve and enhance all the features that make Bromley distinctive and to continue to provide the community with its sense of place and history

17 DAAP33 Glenis Ruston 04/02/09 • The town centre should noted for more than just Noted, whilst retailing is important so are future employment shops and there should be adequate provision of opportunities in other commercial sectors and accessing leisure culture, art and sport facilities facilities

DAAP34 Hayes Village 04/02/09 • Commented that the south part of the High Street Improvements to the street scene are envisaged in both the AAP Association has no redeeming feature, that the pavement is not and the supporting Transport Strategy. Safeguarded land at Site L wide enough and obstructed by two bus stops. is intended for public transport and public realm improvements

• Suggested that Bromley could have a competition Good idea but we are now 4 years into the AAP process already to get ideas to improve the High Street having identified Opportunity Sites and undertaken consultation. It may be a possibility for other areas of the town such as Bromley North. • Commented that a new train station could be built Network Rail is to improve the existing station buildings to provide to replace the present one improved accessibility

DAAP35 Ms. Fiona 04/02/09 • Commented about the increase in residential PPS 1 states that “Growth needs to be accommodated by more Howalth housing on site G putting a strain on the efficient use of land and buildings within existing centres … and infrastructure densities can be increased where appropriate” and all major development will be expected to contribute towards infrastructure requirements.

• Requested information on the exact height and Exact heights would be the subject of any future planning ground plan of the tower building application

• Concerned on the lack of parking spaces for local The amount of on street parking space is a function of local car residents ownership. It is intended to increase the size of the town’s Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to offer protection to even more local residents from increased parking demand by non-residents. • Queries what will become of the medical practice at A replacement facility is included in Policy OSG relating to the 13 Ravensbourne Road principle of development on this site.

DAAP36 Bromley 04/02/09 • Concerned about the emphasis on the lower end of A Masterplanning exercise for Bromley North Village is currently Borough Local the high street and the neglect of the northern end. being undertaken in order to improve the environment. History Society

18 • Site B – that the proposed development on Tweedy Comment appears to relate to submitted planning application for Road will dominate the latter building. the Site. the revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive and high quality design is essential to minimise the impact of development on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. • Site P – College slip and the 18th century house on The pathway is not included in the site boundary the north side should be preserved as a right of way maintaining a real divide between an historical and industrial/commercial area

• Site C –, the two Grade II listed buildings should be Agreed, there is no question that they should be demolished protected from re-development merely sensitively refurbished • Site F: Bishops Palace should be retained for Civic Noted Use

• Site L – St. Marks School and Church should not The Design principles clearly state that development on Site L be dominated by adjacent, much taller ones. should be sensitive to the location

• Site G –Against the demolition of housing Major changes have taken place with regards to national and regional planning policy. There is much greater emphasis on the need to deliver sustainable development and tackle climate change. These are local issues as much as they are global. In order to deliver the required retail floorspace there will be the need for some demolition of existing property.

• Site M & N –concern about impact of development It is important that any development on Site M is sensitive to the on Queens Garden and the Town square might environment and Church House Gardens are not included in Site G encroach on Church House Gardens or N DAAP37 Richard Brown • Site B - Needs to be developed with great the revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive and high quality sensitivity to maintain the character of the College design is essential to minimise the impact of development on the grounds and buildings and 70 units may be seen setting of the adjacent listed buildings. as over-development.

• Site P – Does not see how the frontage of West Again any development proposals will need to mitigate any impact Street will benefit from development behind houses which front the street.

19 • Site E – Commented that the leisure centre is The Area Action Plan encourages new town centre development, being overlooked as there are numerous medium which will serve existing and new communities well, offering them a to large retail units ready for redevelopment at less variety of goods and services, maximising the advantages of its capital expenditure than the cost of relocation. distinctive setting, and providing a centre that people are proud of and enjoy visiting. • Also commented on traffic congestion on Bromley Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be South and Masons Hill accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP’s supporting Transport Strategy proposes an approach that promotes a wide range of travel choices. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three.

In support of improved public transport accessibility to the town, the AAP also includes land safeguarding to provide better public transport priority on the southern approach into the town via Masons Hill. DAAP38 Mr & Mrs • Against high rise buildings Site K is considered the most sustainable location for a new Baldwin cinema. Leisure uses in the early evening, in particular, can help to extend the ‘working day’ of the town centre and make it a much more inviting place to visit at less busy times. It would be expected • Concerned that parking will become an issue with that the ‘Empire’ to be re-used/refurbished the addition of a cinema at site K In the absence of a major transport initiative a number of smaller • Felt that the area of site K is too small for a improvements with the potential to have a significant cumulative development of that size and that it will lead to effect on congestion and accessibility will be delivered in the area increased litter and noise Given the town centre location and the relatively good public • Commented that closure of Empire cinema will transport accessibility of the site, restrictive parking for new reduce character of the surrounding area. residents is considered acceptable.

• Also commented that Increase in traffic will lead to concerns for safety and a negating of property values in the area. DAAP39 Network Rail • Supported the proposals to site A regarding The primary purpose of the preliminary site capacity and massing increased density and development opportunity. study undertaken by EDAW has been to inform the development appraisals. However, given the level of concern expressed by local

20 • Commented that an additional tall building could be residents about the potential impacts of the increase in the number accommodated on the other side of the tracks, in of residential units on local amenity, an analysis has been the centre of the site. undertaken of the likely massing of development which would result from the proposed scale of development. Whilst this is a very preliminary study and further design development would clearly allow for scheme refinement, it assists in our understanding of the potential impacts of increasing the number of residential units and the density of development.

Taking into account potential for value growth over the plan period along with the various points that we have outlined above, we do not consider it unreasonable to expect that a viable scheme can be arrived at for the development based on an indicative capacity of 250 residential units for the site.

• Objected to the substantial downsizing of site J as Letter from Network Rail dated 30 June 2008 stated that any it is not clear why the Council believe the scheme development of station would not be undertaken in the foreseeable is undeliverable. future. Opportunity Sites identified in any AAP need to be shown that they are deliverable. DAAP40 DPP on behalf • Requested that the document acknowledges the The development of a new facility has not been previously of HMCS expressed need by HMCS for a new County Court identified, however such a new facility could be built outside of the facility in Bromley Centre AAP once the HMCS have identified a suitable location. • Requested that Policy OSB acknowledges the Noted need for the redevelopment of Site B to respect the County Court's operational requirements as well as the Court building in design terms.

• Requested that Policy IA2 is amended to note the Noted need for redevelopment schemes in the BIA to respect the ongoing operational requirements of the existing sensitive uses, such as the Magistrates' Court.

DAAP41 Hyde HA • Lifetime Homes should be defined. Lifetime homes would be identified through the planning application procedure and the standards are shown in Appendix 2 • Commented that parking spaces for the wheelchair Again this issue would be the subject of the detailed planning units (which will comprise 70 dwellings based on application the 35% requirement for affordable housing) might be difficult to achieve.

21 • Commented on lack of reference to parking for the Parking ratios would be within London Plan requirements new residential accommodation. • Concerned that the financial climate might deter This is a 15 year plan and we need to plan for the future development due to cost implications.

• Commented that consideration should be given to This would be a matter for the housing division rather than a a sensitive lettings plan reflective of the borough. spatial plan

DAAP42 Housing and 05/02/09 Fully in support of the approach subject to minor Residential amendments. Services. LBB Noted. Developers will be required to work in partnership with the • more explicit reference be given to the Councils Council and preferred Registered Social Landlord development preferred RSL development partners. partners in developing proposals for affordable housing provision.

• a definition of affordable housing be included in the glossary in accordance with the DCLG definition.

DAAP43 Theatres Trust • Commented in support the Bromley Town Centre Support welcomed Area Action Plan in respect of Policy BTC7 as it contains all the elements required for a thoughtful and forward looking framework for the future cultural needs of the Borough

DAAP44 A2Dominion • welcome the recognition to provide a balance of Support welcomed Group tenures of accommodation and the emphasis placed on provision of mixed-use development including affordable housing that will also incorporate where possible suitable and necessary wheelchair accommodation. The Town Centre is high in private rented accommodation and that other boroughs in London have found that a balanced combination of general needs rent and intermediate accommodation has helped to achieve their aims. DAAP45 Keith and • Commented that the present application, Comment appears to relate to submitted planning application for Adrianne reference 04190, is not sensitive to the two storey the Site. Laidlow houses in Pinewood Road and Sandford Road, and has no respect for the old, listed, building of Bromley South is an ideal location for an hotel given the proximity

22 St Marks School. to the town’s main commercial area and the railway station.

• Queried whether a hotel in 24/7 use is acceptable in this residential location. DAAP46 Anna Littler • Suggests preserving some of the old attractive buildings on Bromley High Street Comments appears to relate to submitted planning application for the Site that is the subject of an Appeal against refusal by the LBB • Oppose to proposals for the three/four storey blocks and especially the five-storey block on Tweedy Rd/London Road

• Concerned about the proximity to the Alms houses and the whole of Bromley and Sheppards College

• Commented on the unattractive modern design and the oppressive colour.

• Also commented on the affect on the wildlife and trees in the area the removal of more ‘Green spaces’

• Felt that insufficient parking for number of flats will have an impact on the area DAAP47 Jan Vince 06/02/09 • the level of development on Site A identified would The overall massing of development which would result from the lead to overdevelopment resulting in a detrimental 400 unit scheme would be difficult to integrate with the surrounding impact on the character, appearance and area and is likely to result in a significant change in local character infrastructure of the area. and impact on residential amenity. It is considered that the smaller scheme could be integrated more successfully with the surrounding • Against tall buildings, small units and high building area with a reduction in height towards the western boundary and ratios across the plot. Commented that there interface with residential properties. should be no allowance for tall buildings on site A,

given the presence of the existing 15 storey Further detailed design development would be required to residential development and office block of circa 6 demonstrate that a higher density development could be storey accommodated without adverse impact on the character of the Stated concerns over the proposed inclusion of • surrounding area. The Draft AAP states that the number of units Class A3/A5 uses within Opportunity Site A should be in general conformity with the AAP and the developer possibly leading to increased noise and nuisance will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will for residents.

23 • Suggested that there should be a wider policy not result in unacceptable impacts. objective not to deliver biomass boilers within new developments. Policy BTC12 Combined heat and Power identifies the need to look at renewal energy initiatives.

• Commented that there should be no lessening in It is proposed that on street parking by local residents is protected parking provision for those residents as a result of by extension of the CPZ and by not allowing residents in new any proposals for the area. development to obtain parking permits for those roads.

• Supported the provision for decked car parking Noted however ‘Edges that front public spaces...should be ‘wrapped’ so that active land uses (and not car or cycle parking) conceals blank edges’.

• Commented that Bromley town centre should not The Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 shows that the Council be seen as a one stop solution to delivering does not rely on town centre development to meet its housing Bromley’s required housing numbers requirement t. It is envisaged that there will continue to be a significant contribution to the Borough’s housing requirements coming from sites other than those in the Bromley Town Centre. DAAP48 Turley • Commented that the document should Agreed, text to be amended Associates on consistently refer to a replacement or extension to behalf of the food retail Sainsburys • Commented that the proposed residential Removal of the number of residential units would not meet element, the reference to the number of units i.e. guidelines set out for AAP’s. The Council is committed to making “around 20” should be removed throughout the the best use of previously developed land to promote local area document regeneration and deliver wider benefits.

• Recommended that the Secondary frontage Agreed. Secondary frontage to be amended should be extended along the western edge of West Street and take in the existing frontage of the Sainsbury’s Store.

24 DAAP49 Bromley Civic Supports the principle of BTC being reinvigorated but: The design guidance is clear on what is expected from developers Society with regards views and important buildings. Consider the AAP conflicts with UDP policy such as important views settings of listed buildings etc • Site A: Noted No objection in principle subject to proper consideration of the Charter Market, listed building and surrounding residential character • Site B Noted, however the proposal was thoroughly and appropriately Against the scheme that is currently subject to the assessed by officers and Members clearly have the right to refuse appeal process and dislike the way the application was as they see fit. dealt with by officers • Site C The existing fire station is not within the site boundary and any Believe the LFEPA wish to demolish the locally listed demolition would be dealt with under the adopted UDP policy. The fire station and consider the old town halls should be town halls are considered unviable for any long term re-use by the re-used as Civic offices Council given the need to manage energy and maintenance budgets • Site D The current cinema is not well used, except during school holidays. Welcome omission of the site but consider the cinema The building could therefore be put to better use. building to be of local importance. • Site E MyTime are undertaking a brief re-furbishment as the centre has Concern about loss of leisure centre and design of any not borne up well and needs updating. They require better facilities new build if they are to serve the public in the future. Any redevelopment of the site would need to take account of the design principles in Appendix 4 • Site F Currently the setting of the grade II listed Bishops Palace is Strongly resist loss of parkland and concern about compromised by the adjoining civic buildings. The Design impact of any new development on the Listed Principles for Site F set out in Appendix 4, ensure that new Buildings. development will respect and enhance the scale, architecture and landscape of the Palace such that its setting will be improved • Site G & H The height of development would be matters which would be Object to loss of housing in Ethelbert Close and shops determined at the planning application stage in accordance with along high street frontage and impact of development the design principles set out in the AAP which will state that on views and residential amenity including air quality. development needs to address surroundings and be sensitive to the adjacent residential housing The skyline of the town as viewed from Library Gardens has been affected by more recent developments including the Churchill Theatre/Library building. • Site K Again Appendix 4 details design Guidance and the draft results Object to the increase of residential and the impact of from the recent Householder survey shows that most people prefer to go to Bluewater for cinemas. By developing a cinema in

25 taller buildings, and traffic movements, also impact of a the town that people what to visit means expenditure will not be new cinema on the one in Bromley North lost out of the borough. A positive response to the local context does not always need to be a replication of existing building styles and this site is considered suitable for a mixed use scheme. • Site L The design principles for the site is set out in Appendix 4 scale Object to planning application submitted for the site. and massing be assessed with particular regard to views and the Loss of views and impact on St marks school. listed building. The planning application recently submitted fails to take account of this guidance. Contemporary design can enrich a place through contrast of styles and design of the highest quality may provide the architectural gems of tomorrow • Site M As well as serving the surrounding residential communities, Object to loss of hardstanding for safety vehicles as Queens Gardens has the potential to contribute to the vitality of the well as nay loss of green space and the Opportunity town centre. It offers scope for linked trips to the park and the site is contrary to UDP policy regarding Urban Open shops, particularly for families with young children, A café facility Space. could add to this enjoyment.

In their response to the AAP (DAAP105) the LFEPA have not identified the loss of hard standing as an issue • Site N Tree planting and other landscape design will be encouraged in Object to a new town square if it means the loss of order to enhance and enliven the new town square and pedestrian Ravensfell House (the roof can be seen above 98 High route into Library Gardens. It will be for the developers to provide a Street) also resist any further encroachment into the scheme that meets design guidance criteria and provides a realistic gardens. opportunity to improve the town’s well being • Site P The importance of the town’s historic built heritage and the need to Concern regarding overdevelopment and impact on provide an appropriate setting for it is stressed in the Plan, listed building, housing in West Street and conservation area generally. Public art currently on the façade of Sainsbury’s should be retained. • Believe many people visit Bromley because of its The Householder survey carried out as part of the Retail Study character. update has shown that whilst BTC is still popular with shoppers they are not concerned about the town’s environment as they would rather have more diversity in the choice of shops including the provision of a new department store. • The perception of the evening economy is off- They is why the AAP aims to expand the facilities in the putting town to make it more attractive to other age groups • Want housing in west street and North street An Article 4 Direction removes permitted development rights, made subject to an Article 4 Direction thereby necessitating that a planning application is made for all • development A Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan which will be drawn up as part of the work on the LDF should consider this option.

26 • Loss of leisure floorspace It is intended that the new leisure floorspace will actually meet the requirements of users in an improved format. Mytime are keen to bring forward improve leisure opportunities for all age groups. • AAP should integrate more with the aims of One of the objectives of the BBB is to support ‘thriving town Building a Better Bromley centres’ the AAP is one vehicle that seeks to meet that aim.

• Generally believe the AAP should promote a more The Plan identifies a number of sites for redevelopment and over balanced approach the lifetime of the plan other sites may come forward. This presents opportunities to improve parts of the town centre which do not function well or are not attractive. • Believes that the Council has failed to promote the Since work commenced in 2005 there has been extensive AAP effectively consultation with exhibitions, talks to specific groups, wide news coverage, letters and 30000 leaflets distributed • Felt that there was a conflict of interest in the AAPs are encouraged by government as the best way to provide council being a land owner, master planner and an holistic plan for specific areas. It is a planning document and local planning authority property issues have been dealt with by the property section. Opportunity sites have to be deliverable not like Proposal sites in UDP’s • Of the view that the Council is/ has been in Whilst talks have been undertaken this is an essential ingredient of negotiations with developers on AAP sites and AAP’s to ensure sites are deliverable and is a normal part of the that public opinion has been generally been process – consultation will be expected to be undertaken with local dismissed or ignored in favour of the developer. residents by a developer on any major development prior to the submission of a planning application. • Concerned that the latest draft AAP has been The Options and the AAP has been amended over the extended amended to meet the demands of developers consultation period by comments received from developers and made during the previous consultation those made by the general public, Site D is an example. All Opportunity Sites have to have a realistic chance of coming to fruition and it would be inadvisable not to take into account market analysis. • Developers should assess noise implications Para. 6.6.19 states this and Policy BTC15: Noise covers the issue. • Raise conformity issues with the UDP regarding Reference to UDP policy to be added to Policy BTC16 & 19. tall buildings and protected views. • The specification of unit numbers / floor areas Such a move would not be in accordance with government should be omitted and greater focus placed on guidance site constraints / site specific development briefs and development control policies.

27 • Concerned that no proper characterisation of the The AAP has defined the Bromley North Village Improvement Area town centre has been prepared and no as a character area. It is still acknowledged that it forms part of the Conservation Area Appraisal has been Bromley Town Centre Conservation Area. The character areas undertaken since 2005 and take issue with the have been assessed during the baseline process and a heritage title of the conservation area. appraisal of Bromley North Village which forms part of the Bromley Conservation Area is being undertaken. A full Conservation Area Appraisal will form part of the Core Strategy process. UDP policy for conservation areas remain as is. • Correct wording relating to statutory protection Noted. and use the wording to ‘preserve or enhance’

• Also concerned that the retail capacity study done This is currently being updated however preliminary data indicates by DTZ in 2004 is out of date given the current that BTC has slipped down the ranking, now 33rd out of 2000 economic conditions and that it is premature to centres, a drop of 4 places. Croydon is ranked 24th up seven adopt the Draft AAP until revised work has been places over the same period (2008) Whilst there has been a undertaken. decline in retailer requirements this coincides with the economic downturn but investors still want to invest in the town. • Specific groups be included in section 6.2 Local organisations and amenity groups are mentioned generally, regarding partnership working and specific but not by name. As this is a 15 year plan and it would be amiss of mention be made of CABE etc. the Council to omit reference to any particular group especially one that may come forward during the life of the plan. Appropriate reference to CABE and English heritage appear throughout the document • Concerned that development may be permitted With the current economic climate no developer will undertake prior to an upturn in the economy speculative development without the proper funding. Once there is a more positive climate the Council will be well placed if they have made plans for the future. • Concerns about A21 road widening. The safeguarding line for the A21 has been in place for a significant number of years and all developments have been set back and built according to the line. It can be seen that this land is well maintained by the current owners and there is no reason to suspect that they will not continue to look after this land until it is required for the road widening. DAAP50 Lennon • Generally welcomed the changes proposed by the There were no substantive objections to the scheme as noted in Planning on AAP in respect of the Bromley North site. The the Revised Preferred Options which included 250 residential units. behalf of increase in the proposed homes to be provided on Following the representations to the RPO the number of units was Linden Homes the site will not only provide much needed new increased to 400. The Council is committed to making the best use housing but will result in the most efficient and of previously developed land to promote local area regeneration effective use of the site, in line with objectives set and deliver wider benefits and public transport improvements are

28 out in PPS1 and PPS3 central to the vision set out in the AAP. However, in response to the specific issues raised in responses to the Draft AAP and in the • Linden Homes however considers that there are absence of a higher density development and how these would be no significant barriers to the delivery of the site mitigated the number of residential units is amended to an and that redevelopment can take place within indicative figure of 250 units as previously shown in the Revised phases 1 and 2 (0-10 years) as set out within the Preferred Options AAP. As such Linden Homes conclude that the identification of the Bromley North site as an The Council consider that the appropriate scale of development on opportunity area is deliverable. this site needs be influenced by its mixed use nature, scale and the local context, reinforcing local distinctiveness, as well as in • The likely retention of Northside House, retention securing a high quality environment. Whilst the town centre’s of the listed Station Building and possible spatial characteristics provide constraints and opportunities it is safeguarding of an area adjacent to the station, also important to continue to provide the local community with its together with improved public realm area to the sense of place. front of the station will make the provision of a strong built edge along Tweedy Road difficult to Sites identified in the AAP need to be deliverable. This includes achieve. ensuring development viability and receiving planning approval, and there would clearly be a need for further assessment and • considers that the Council should adopt flexibility careful masterplanning to develop an acceptable design for the site when assessing the merits of a detailed proposal which would deliver the benefits sought by the AAP in terms of and in this respect should allow for the improvements to the station and transport facilities. At this stage replacement of Northside House if the overall however, no detailed masterplanning has been undertaken to scheme still results in the proposals meeting the demonstrate that an appropriate form of development can be key principles achieved at the higher density proposed in the revised Draft AAP

• Requested that a minimum of two further tall The Pre-submission Draft AAP states that the number of units building icons be placed on the site of Northside should be in general conformity with the AAP and the developer House and centrally within the site, which will will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will provide a high density, mixed use development not result in unacceptable impacts. These are matters which would with excellent public transport accessibility. be fully addressed at the planning application stage and it will be important that any development proposals demonstrate how the • Pointed out errata in Paragraph 5.1.3 of the AAP design complements the existing area and the opportunities refers readers to more detailed guidance being available for improving the character and quality of the local provided in Appendix 2. We believe this should be context. amended to Appendix 4. Policy OSA refers to safeguarding suitable land shown on Diagram 4.8 Mis-print noted. to protect land between Tweedy Road and the Network Rail track but this diagram is not included within the AAP

29 DAAP51 John Street, 03/02/09 Babbacombe Road pre-printer Pro Forma for Site A Detailed access to Site A will be a matter for further site-specific design guidance. Any proposal for direct access to/from A21 • Object to Site A, commenting that they feel there Tweedy Road will require the approval of TfL. DAAP52 Mr. KM Tonner 03/02/09 is insufficient clarity and explanation as to how and where the proposed uses can be The development options for this site have been reassessed and it accommodated is considered that the overall massing of development which would result from the 400 unit scheme would be difficult to integrate with DAAP53 Mr Steve 03/02/09 • Commented that 400 units is wholly the surrounding area and is likely to result in a significant change in Hancock disproportionate to the size of the site, and would local character and impact on residential amenity. give the ‘green light’ to future development which would overwhelm surrounding roads It is, however, considered that the smaller scheme could be DAAP54 CCR Best 03/02/09 integrated more successfully with the surrounding area with a • Concerned over proposed height of new buildings reduction in height towards the western boundary and interface with residential properties. • Questioned how the site would be accessed by DAAP55 Mr & Mrs 05/02/09 new residents Further detailed design development would be required to Duggan demonstrate that a higher density development could be • Noted that the site has been brought forward into accommodated without adverse impact on the character of the phase 1 & 2, from phase 3 in the Revised surrounding area. DAAP56 Mr & Mrs G 06/02/09 Ricci Preferred Options in 2007; feel that this follows pressure by the Council and Network Rail who are The Draft AAP states that the number of units should be in general landowners on the site conformity with the AAP and the developer will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in DAAP57 Mr C.J. 31/01/2009 unacceptable impacts. Barretto, • Suggested that the AAP provide more clarity and

that commercial uses on the site including car parking be positioned near to Tweedy Road, and DAAP58 Macey Mitchell 31/01/2009 the station, with residential positioned further north abutting Babbacombe Road given that this is already residential in character

DAAP58B Resident, 31/01/09 • Suggested that the number of proposed units be Babbacombe reduced and the modest scale of development in Road adjacent roads be taken into account

DAAP58C Mr & Mrs MJ 04/02/09 • Suggested that lower maximum heights be stated, Corner and that taller buildings be limited to the area immediately adjacent to the station and Tweedy

30 DAAP59 Victoria & Gary 06/02/09 Road Fentiman • Suggested that the plan make clear that all access/exit to/from the site be from Tweedy Road DAAP60 Dawn Wilkes 05/02/09 • Commented on problems with parking with regard to The amount of parking proposed at Site G has been determined at Site G a level that balances the needs of town centre living, outer London accessibility and potential future retail parking demand.

Where necessary, the CPZ will be extended to protect more local residents. Residents of new development will not be issued with parking permits for local roads • Against high rise building on Site K Site K already includes buildings of significant bulk and scale and further taller buildings could be located without comprising surrounding buildings, spaces and views. • Wants assurance that a new recreation centre will The most appropriate place for leisure is in town centres the AAP be built if the Pavilion is demolished states that the Council will work with developers to secure the relocation of the facility. Site F has already been identified • Objects to redevelopment of the Queens gardens There are no plans to redevelop Queens Gardens merely to provide a café facility. All AAP work to date has recognised the value of the Gardens as a public amenity space. DAAP61 Jackie Palmer 06/02/09 • Commented on inadequate parking provisions Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no • Concerned about traffic congestion overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. Traffic impacts of individual developments must be addressed through transport assessments, • Commented that plans will cause residents nuisance which must accompany planning applications. and compromise road safety Parking proposals in the AAP are seen as consistent with this overall approach. The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed. DAAP62 Bromley Scope 03/02/09 • Suggested hydrotherapy pools added to leisure In the short term this would best be directed towards MyTime for centre consideration prior to any refurbishment of the Pavilion. In the long term it would again be for Mytime to consider.

31 DAAP63 GOL 06/09/09 • Would expect to see greater local distinctiveness in Noted. The text of distinctiveness to be moved to earlier on in the the vision, in terms of how projects/developments document will achieve the aims of the AAP along with an indication of timescales and a quantum of development. Felt that this is particularly relevant as the AAP is being brought forward ahead of the Core Strategy • Whether results of a feasibility study into relocating The relocation of the Pavilion to the Civic centre site has been The Pavilion and relocating onto Site F will be assessed and is feasible subject to appropriate funds. available in time to have input into the AAP before formal consultation • Whether any alternative sites have been identified No alternative sites have been identified as CSC remain keen to for the proposed retail provision should The Pavilion bring forward a retailing extension to The Glades. Site F has been not be able to be relocated, as this forms over 50% identified as the location for a new leisure facility. of the total retail floor provision in the AAP

• Questions how residential parking will be dealt with Aspirations for low car, town centre living with the town’s outer given the number of residential units proposed London location and needs will be in accordance with adopted local and regional policy.

• Enquired as to what the implications would be There needs to be flexibility in the Plan to allow for such should Site E, F and G be delayed or not occur eventualities

• How, in preparing the AAP, LBB has considered the It is anticipated that delivery of the AAP proposals will occur current economic situation, and how it will be through a number of economic cycles. preparing for any upturn specifically regarding Site K

• Query complications of bringing forward 50% of The AAP is a 15 year plan and will therefore extend past the life of housing targets and where certain types of housing the current targets set for the Borough will be located • Infrastructure requirements need clarification Policies BTC 31 & 32 to be combined and any small scale developments not identified in the AAP would still be subject to UDP policy and the current government circular on S.106 payments

32 • Suggests: Noted Making diagrams clearer/address duplication/correct table nos/annex some of the information/questions links to SA/ character areas should be brought forward in document/ delete some policies and move to text only. DAAP64 Michelle & 31/01/09 • Against the developments of Site B and L Comments relate to planning applications David Paul

• Against tall buildings destroying the view at Church The plan suggests taller buildings and no encroachment are House Gardens and the encroachment of the green envisaged in Queens garden and minimal on the Site F area at Queens Gardens and Palace Gardens. • Against the increase in housing provision People need somewhere to live and there are housing targets that LBB need to meet. Town Centres are ideal and sustainable locations for many people • Commented on traffic congestion and potential Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be parking problems opposite Bromley South Station. accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. Traffic impacts of individual developments must be addressed through transport assessments, which must accompany planning applications.

Parking proposals in the AAP are seen as consistent with this overall approach. The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed. • Queried the high proportion of Council property Accommodating growth and promoting regeneration presents real being redeveloped challenges. By identify sites the Council are able to start the renewal programme and any development on Council owned sites are still subject to normal planning procedures

33 DAAP65 Access & • Commented on shortage of primary school places Any further work on projections will need to involve assumptions Inclusion Dept and the requirement of either the expansion of about dwelling size. The current economic climate may lead to LBB existing schools or creating new schools families unable to move, over occupying accommodation.

• Recommended clarification in the AAP as to how provision for additional primary places might be made

DAAP66 Parks and • green transport should be encouraged Noted. This is a key aspect of the Transport Strategy. An integral Greenspace part of regenerating the town centre is to manage access and Division movement to, through and within the centre. • Church House Gardens needs a purpose built These matters would be part of any planning application and could toilet block with a recycled rainwater capture be discussed at pre-application level. Other issues are outside of system, and that Church House Lodge also needs the spatial plan but could become part of a Parks Strategy in the a rainwater capture system future to compliment the AAP • the need for a purpose built skate park area at Church House Gardens • Suggested that the ex-boating pool would make a superb water feature, and that the playground itself needs to be upgraded with the latest equipment and a picnic area • Church House and Library Gardens must be preserved, but that there is manoeuvrability in these landscapes to accommodate a wider range of outdoor activities • Suggested that a new visitor centre is required to become a centrepiece for the town and to encourage residents to be more environmentally responsible • a tree planting programme throughout all parks, solar panelled lighting in parks and streets and rainfall harvesting to provide irrigation for parks and town centre vegetation • unculverting the River Ravensbourne at Referred to in AAP. The restoration of the River Ravensbourne is Queensmead & Whitehall recreation ground will included policy BTC10 provide flood defence measures for town centre development, and bring the countryside into the town providing a community and educational asset

34 • Encouraged LBB to work closely with the relevant Noted ‘Friends of’ groups to ensure support from the local community • new signage in the town needs a strong identity Noted. This could become part of a future public realm strategy and be audio and tactile to add interest for various user groups, routes of interest be included through the various green spaces, cycle routes and cycle bike parks be included, and outdoor activities delivered through MyTime DAAP67 The Salvation 05/02/09 • Standing by previous submissions made on the Faith provision will be part of any re-development propels Army, Bromley Preferred Options (2006) and the Revised Preferred Options (2007) – namely their desire to stay within Site G and they believe they have an important role in the community DAAP68 CGMS 06/02/09 • Commented that Policy BTC32 which outlines Agreed text to be amended Consulting on specific developer contributions as part of the behalf of the planning application process does not list policing, Metropolitan which is contrary to London Plan Policies Police Recommended that Policy BTC32 provide Authority • clarification that where the AAP refers to the provision of community facilities, it will include policing facilities DAAP69 Town & • Suggested that actual targets for the provision of Noted Country ECH special needs projects be mentioned in the Housing AAP

• under supply of hotel accommodation which could Agreed two sites identified for hotel use. Supporting the provision be a catalyst for a multi-tenure project. of high quality facilities will increase the attraction of Bromley as a place to live and will encourage people to visit local attractions, supporting their ongoing viability and contributing to the local economy. • Recommended that homebuy/shared ownership This is an issue for Housing Division not for a spatial plan be mentioned

• Recommended zero parking provision as it is An average parking provision of 0.5 spaces is proposed, which is standard in other Town Centres within London Plan guidelines

35 • Recommended that sustainable code This issue will be addressed as work on the Core Strategy requirements be extended to private sale progresses development and commercial development in line with affordable housing. • More detailed description of recycling storage Policy ER3 of the adopted UDP. This policy and supplementary required planning guidance also promotes appropriate design and layout for ease of separation and collection, and the use of recycled construction materials. • Recommended that the current planning This issue will be considered as part on the on-going work related requirement that commercial ex-sites be marketed to the Core strategy for 18 months before going to residential use be scrapped. • Commented on the provision of a sports facility The Pavilion if moved will be replaced and apart from Church House Gardens little opportunity to provide any other outside activities. • Commented that Council owned sites should The HCA will be approached as part of the on-going partnership consider to bid for direct grant from the HCA and approach. should be used for affordable housing and remain council owned to obtain an income stream

• Recommended that CPOs should used to acquire CPO’s need to be linked to a planning proposal. If would be for dilapidated properties in the town centre. Chief Officers to advise whether the Council monies should be used to purchase properties prior to any CPO and PPS6 states that Area Action Plans and Compulsory Purchase Orders should be used to deliver town centre growth and manage change.

DAAP70 Mrs G Hall 03/02/09 • Site A - Commented that development should Development on Site A will need to show that it could be reinforce the Victorian character of the area and accommodated without adverse impact on the character of the not towers. surrounding area and the developer will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable impacts.

• Site B – Against any development as it will lead Site B has been identified for development since 1994 UDP. The to a loss of greenery and impede the historic site site cannot be removed form the AAP as it is already contained in of Bromley College the current adopted UDP 2006. The revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive and high quality design is essential to minimise the impact of development on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings.

36 • Site C – In favour of it being retained an returned The office accommodation in the old town halls is not suitable for to it’s original purpose current requirements and a sympathetic refurbishment would be more viable. Listed Building status would limit the capacity of the buildings and it is the Council’s objective to reduce maintenance expenditure and reduce energy and carbon footprint. • Site E & F –re-development should be kept in line Noted other historic buildings in Bromley

• Site G & Site H – Recommended that historic High quality design and the way in which new development buildings be maintained and new development enhances the character of the area and respects the local context kept in line with them to retain market town is particularly important in the town centre. However development environment. Also commented on shortage of on this site will also have to be viable in order to bring about the parking provision for new residential properties. required new retail floorspace and improved offer to visitors. New residents will be unable to purchase residential parking permits. • Site J – Commented that hotel should be situated An hotel would require rafting over the railway lines which is very here and that the site should be developed to expensive. Hotel development has therefore been identified cope with increased commuter load and elsewhere. residential developments.

• Site K – Against overcrowding of the area, Supporting the provision of high quality facilities will increase the increased parking provision for new residents and attraction of Bromley as a place to live and visit, thereby supporting development should be kept in line with the town’s ongoing viability and contributing to the local economy. architecture of the area. Developers will be expected to show the way in which new uses and buildings integrate with, and enhance the town centre as a whole, providing good links and relationships with existing uses and buildings

• Site M – Recommended that development not There is no intention of taking any soft landscaped areas and the encroach on the green spaces protection of existing spaces are highlighted in the plan.

• Site N – Recommended that amount of greenery The intention is to improve the current hardstanding by opening the for the area be increased and not decreased area up with appropriate landscaping

37 • Site P – Commented that greenery be retained The historic building is untouched by the site P’s boundary which and the possibility that development might destroy relates to the current site occupied by the food store and car park a historic site.

DAAP71 Affinity Sutton 04/02/09 • Recommended that the affordable housing 50% Current UDP policy on Affordable Housing is the overriding policy. level for the London Plan be incorporated. The work on the Core Strategy will look at this in more detail once the London Plan has been revised

• That the affordable housing should be a mix of Noted tenures, social rent, intermediate rent and shared ownership

• Commented that social rented flats of 2/ 3 bed flats should be for families and 1 bed flats be resisted Also commented that for shared ownership only 1 and 2 bed flats be considered

• Stated that all homes should be developed in accordance with the code of sustainable homes with a minimum standard level 3 and secured by design.

• Recommended that the council should not consider payment in lieu of affordable housing DAAP72 John Street, 03/02/09 • Queried the increase in air and noise pollution in There is much greater emphasis on the need to deliver sustainable Bromley Green central Bromley development and tackle climate change, air and noise pollution will Party be monitored. The Transport Strategy takes account of all anticipated developments in the area and makes recommendations with regards to managing traffic and promoting sustainable movement. Policy BTC15 relates to Noise specifically. Major changes have taken place with regards to national and regional planning policy and here is much greater emphasis on the need to deliver sustainable development and tackle climate change. These are local issues as much as they are global. • Commented that there should be a requirement Noted, Policy BTC8 relates to sustainable design and construction. that all buildings be constructed to a high level of eco-friendliness

38 • there needs to be public transport improvements Policy BTC26 (Phasing of Transport Improvements) sets out the before major re-developments burden the town requirement that the transport measures needed by new centre. development should be in place first.

• there should be consideration of other town Bromley is the major comparison centre in the borough. The other centres in the borough towns function as convenience centres, Orpington is already under investigation and the other towns will follow as resources allow • Against tall buildings and dense development Design Principles for each of Opportunity Areas are set out in Appendix 4. these identifies scope for taller buildings and dense development that can be accommodated without compromising views or local amenity. • Suggested an increase in the pedestrianised area An integral part of regenerating the town centre is to manage access and movement to, through and within the centre

• Commented that green spaces should be protected Green spaces are very important and is one of the town’s strengths in the plan and this is clearly identified in the plan

• Also commented that older buildings of character No listed buildings are at risk by the end of the Plan period. and heritage be protected High quality design and the way in which new development enhances the character of the area and respects the local context is particularly important in the town centre • Recommended that there be greater improvement of Noted. The Council is committed to continual improvement of leisure activities facilities

DAAP73 Sheila 31/01/09 • Site J - Commented that Network rail should make it Bromley south station has been identified by the DfT for Campbell DDA compliant improvement under the Access for All programme. Funding is currently being sought by Network Rail • Recommended that the council should not consider Noted payment in lieu of affordable housing

• Site E – Against moving the Pavilion. The Council have to identify space for additional retail floorspace given the need for an updated leisure centre a new facility would meet Mytime requirements. • Site F – Against the development as it would spoil Currently the setting of the grade II listed Bishops Palace is the Heritage site of the Bishops Palace compromised by the adjoining civic buildings. The Design Principles for Site F set out in Appendix 4, ensure that new development will respect and enhance the scale, architecture and landscape of the Palace such that its setting will be improved.

39 • Site B – Object to this development as inappropriate Statement appears to relate to current planning application and the revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive and high quality design is essential to minimise the impact of development on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. • Site L – Supports the development of a hotel Support welcomed

DAAP74 House of 30/01/09 • Commented that Retail capacity study is 5 years out Currently being updated Fraser of date

• Commented that only one scheme should be Site G and Site E are in differing Phases. All retail studies predict brought forward at a time to ensure that there is no that BTC requires additional retail floorspace in order to sustain confusion about which will be delivered first and competitiveness. The phasing of development on this large site is ensure that it does not fail in competition with critical in achieving the full benefits of the scheme for the town another scheme. centre.

• Commented that there should only be one further department store within Bromley

• Also commented that the High Street needs to be If a department store is located on Site G any proposals would pedestrianised as a whole to ensure good have to ensure good linkages with the High Street generally. pedestrian links to the southern section.

DAAP75 Bromley Adult 29/01/09 • Commented on increased demand for social, Community facilities are identified on a number of sites and these Education cultural and work related training activities. could certainly include educational/training facilities College • Recommended provision of a designated training / education centre within the redevelopment. • Proposed several of the sites to possibly incorporate educational / training facilities – Sites A, F or G. DAAP76 Bromley 22/01/09 • Welcomed the revision to the Plan that commits the Support welcomed Mytime Council to retain the pavilion at its current location for at least 10-15 years. Given the deterioration of the Pavilion looking forward to the improvement scheme that is under discussion with the Council.

40 DAAP77 Rev AR 22/01/09 • Requested to know the number of residents There has been widespread publicity since 2005 including Marshall & consulted and number of meetings held and publicity exhibitions and talks to residents. Over 30000 leaflets have been Rev. GK involved. produced and circulated during the process and numerous articles Marshall in the local papers. • Against the increase in parking spaces on Site B Statement appears to relate to current planning application and the and development plans were not sensitive to the revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive and high quality design adjacent heritage buildings is essential to minimise the impact of development on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. • Against taller buildings Bromley has been and continues to be subject to a significant amount of development pressure within a relatively small area. There is already planning permission for an 11 storey residential block on the old A&N annex in Ringers Road which forms part of Site G • Against the increase of flatted development Wherever possible, growth needs to be accommodated by more efficient use of land and buildings within existing centres. Densities may be increased where appropriate and sites should be identified for redevelopment or conversion in order to meet the scale and type of need identified of which housing is one • Queried the strain on the infrastructure All major developments in the town centre will be expected to contribute to the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure within the area in order to deliver the environmental, social, community, education and health capacity needed to respond to increasing pressure generated by the development. DAAP78 The Churchill 26/01/09 • Commented on the lack of reference to coach The need for facilities for coaches to support new development has Theatre parking been highlighted on a site-by-site basis. In accordance with the Transport Strategy, the need for other additional coach parking will be kept under review.

• Welcomed increase in town centre residential Support welcomed accommodation

• Also welcomed improvement in Site N

• in favour of new hotel in Site L but developments should be sympathetic to local residents.

41 • DDA needs of Bromley South Station need to be Noted, Network Rail are working on an Access for All programme addressed urgently.

DAAP79 FR. DV 26/01/09 • Against the development of Site B as it should be The college buildings cannot be seen from ground level in Tweedy Cossar, retained as a green space and give a view of the Road and the site has been fenced off for many years. Bromley college buildings. College • Commented that Site P developments should not be Noted, any development on this site will need to take such issues allowed to overshadow the colleges’ southern side. into account as detailed in the design guidance in the AAP as well as Policy OSL.

DAAP80 Turley 03/02/09 • Client supports plans to improve BTC but considers PPS1 indicates that policies should promote mixed use Associates on that the demolition of 44 High Street which is a developments for locations that allow the creation of linkages behalf of TRW landmark building or townscape value, is not between different uses and thereby create more vibrant places. Pensions Trust necessary to ensure comprehensive re- New development can also contribute to regeneration by attracting Limited development. businesses and generating inward investment. It is necessary to bring forward a comprehensive development that provides the • Considers late amendments to site boundaries on required floorspace and an enlarged Site G allows for such a Site G unjustified. scheme to go forward.

The Draft AAP was published to elicit public response prior to finalisation of the pre-submission document so the comment regarding late amendment to the site boundary is unjustified. DAAP81 Turley 04/02/09 • Considers 78-84 High Street, which is within the This site has been included within the original Site G in each of the Associates on conservation area, make a positive contribution to preferred options consultation documents having been identified in Behalf of ESN the conservation area and so should be preserved through the initial stages of the AAP. In order to achieve the (Scotland) as there is no preferred developer/or specific required increase in retail floorspace Site G was identified as the Limited proposals to justify demolition. most appropriate location given the other constraints for the town (Scottish to expand. Any re-development within a conservation area would Power Pension be expected to further enhance the area and therefore design Scheme) would be a critical factor. UDP policy states that in cases of demolition within conservation areas “there will be substantial planning benefits for the community from redevelopment which would decisively outweigh loss from the resulting demolition”. It can be argued that the expansion of retail floorspace will enable the town centre to regain its prominent position in the retailing hierarchy as well as provide opportunities for providing residential units to meet new homes targets

42 DAAP82 Trustees of 02/02/09 • Ask that Site B is restricted to the area shown in the Agreed – Site Boundary as shown in the AAP to be amended. Bromley and UDP Sheppard’s Any changes to the development option for the site will need to Colleges • Suggested that the wording for Site B be changed to wait for the inspectors decision make it clear that only modest scale, low density development only would be acceptable, possibly semi-detached housing as originally on site. The site has been identified for residential since housing was • It the above is not feasible then the site should be demolished to build the relief road. It is a proposal site in the landscaped into a public space adopted UDP and was also identified for the same purpose in the 1994 UDP • That developments on Site P should respect and Agreed, the design guidance and Policy text to be amended enhance the conservation area of the colleges and against building to the edge of College Slip

DAAP83 GLA and TfL 06/02/09 • Would wish to see the renewable energy strategy The Council will work with partners in undertaking feasibility work widen to an energy strategy which would also into a town centre wide energy strategy that contributes to the include feasibility work into town-centre wide district London Plan objectives on decentralised energy and provide a heating network. sound evidence base for proposing carbon reduction targets. • Policy BTC12 should be strengthen to reflect Agreed. Text amended Policy now BTC13 London Plan policy 4A.5 • Policy BTC8 should refer to all new development The Council will define the broad parameters and requirements of reducing its CO2 emissions. Plus reference should future strategic energy infrastructure. New development will be be made to the up-coming government Code for required to reduce its Carbon emissions through energy efficiency Sustainable Buildings for Non-domestic buildings. measures such as improvements to the building fabric and energy • Consideration be given to setting higher code levels efficient services within buildings or CO2 reduction targets. • Policy BTC2 should be amended to accord with the Agreed. Text amended but with a reference to site characteristics. Secretary of State’s statement – made in 2006 – that density/locations in Bromley should accord with the Development proposals should accord with the Density Matrix in London Plan density matrix ( table 3A.2). Suggest the London Plan (Table 3A.2) taking into account site text ‘assessed against’ should be changed to characteristics and the surrounding character of the town centre ‘should accord with’ and adjoining residential areas • Further discussions need to take place on the This would be a matter for the Core Strategy. affordable housing percentage. • Text additional to Policy BTC3 regarding housing Agreed mix. ‘all should be added before ‘new Housing’ as all new housing should be built to lifetime homes standards.

43 • Refer to the Mayor’s recently review of the London Noted wide housing capacity Study in paragraph 4.3.2 as targets may change. • TfL Extensive comments Response attached as an appendix. DAAP84 Religious 06/02/09 • Commented on the increase of noise and air Town centre locations where expansion is sustainable. Pollution Society of pollution levels with increased vehicles in the area and noise will be monitored Policy BTC16 relates to noise issues Friends due to the developments • Also commented on the shortage of parking Parking proposals are seen as consistent with the overall approach spaces with 1200 flats built. to transport set out both in the AAP and the supporting Transport Strategy. The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed. DAAP85 Mrs Margaret 04/02/09 • Commented on loss of shops and cafes due to Many retailers are still interested in coming to Bromley but there Craig high rents and rates has been some loss of retailers due to outside influences beyond the Council’s control. A good reason to take an holistic approach to improving the town. The Council do not set the rent levels or receive business rate monies merely it collects them on behalf of the Government. • Against the development at Site K due to it being Potential developers are fully aware of previous problems in the a wind tunnel. area, however, good design can easily overcome such problems DAAP86 Ms Kathleen 04/02/09 • Objected to tall buildings on Site L, G and A The development of Sites L, G & A is controlled by the design Craig principles set out in Appendix 4 of the AAP. These ensure that the scale and massing of proposed buildings will be assessed with particular regard for their impact on views and residential areas. • Should not compete with other centres or towns If BTC does not strive to compete there will be an exodus of retailers and other businesses which will create loss of jobs for local residents. The town is a metropolitan comparison town centre and not a convenience centre for locals. One of the underlying development principles of the Bromley Area Action Plan is to preserve and enhance all the features that make Bromley distinctive and to continue to provide the community with its sense of place and history • only low density , low level housing would be It has always been the intention of the Council to replace the suitable for Site B or keep as an open space. housing lost on site when the ring road was built and this site has been in the UDP since 1994. • Against the development of a multi-storey With careful, sensitive design such issues can be overcome supermarket and car park on site P as it does not especially within a conservation area and the design principles respect the conservation area. provides developers with guidance. One of the underlying

44 development principles of the Bromley Area Action Plan is to preserve and enhance all the features that make Bromley distinctive and to continue to provide the community with its sense of place and history

• Against the wholesale destruction of residential If the town is to expand there is little space to do so given that properties at Site G smaller scale development residential surrounds the towns boundary. Any development has to should be encouraged. be achievable and viable and without a more expansive scheme there would be no chance to bring back the House of Fraser. • Commented that there should not be Active frontages facing the park will provide greater overlooking encroachment of green spaces at Site N and sense of security than at present. Improved landscaping would assist in the full potential of linked trips between the park and shopping could be developed further by a more attractive, safer and more visible route between the gardens and the High Street. DAAP87 Northpoint 06/02/09 • Broad support for objectives for the town Support welcomed (Bromley) Management • Commented on the need to include specific Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be Co Ltd measures to improve traffic flow, ensure no new accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the dedicated parking spaces, reducing on street proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no parking and the acceleration of a permanent Park overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more and Ride Scheme as well as improving public than a 3% increase in Phase Three. Traffic impacts of individual transport network and facilities. developments must be addressed through transport assessments, which must accompany planning applications. • The impact of the additional residential units on traffic volumes should be addressed Parking proposals in the AAP are seen as consistent with this overall approach. The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be developed.

Park & Ride proposals will be taken forward subject to further investigation. The AAP is not dependant on delivery of Park & Ride. • The Plan should demonstrate how additional Page 63 para 4.3 of the AAP details the reasoning behind residential units meet the Boroughs housing promoting town centre living and assist in the provision of new needs and that they can be accommodated within homes and which currently amounts to only 3.35% of all the the existing infrastructure. borough’s hosing stock. All major developments in the town centre will be expected to contribute to the identified infrastructure requirements

45 • Commented that public safety considerations Such issues will be part of any infrastructure planning however this should be feature of the new developments and is a spatial plan and the Council, whilst they can request should be included in the Area Action Plan and improvements, have no authority as to how the train operators run especially at Bromley North and Shortlands their stations stations • the provision of community facilities should be The community aspect of the development options would form part detailed and further consultation with the of any planning application and be consulted on in the normal way. community was needed on this.

• the Council should apply any capital receipts This issue is not within the remit of the AAP and would be dealt received to the town centre area covered by the with at Member level. plan DAAP88 Natural 06/02/09 • Paras 2.1.15 to 2.1.20 make no reference to the Noted. Text to be amended where appropriate however, Policy England environmental and recreation uses of green open BTC33 will be updated and strengthen to reflect comments made spaces Also commented that there seems to be very little mention of green / open spaces

• the AAP should be more proactive in support of its reference to the protection and enhancement of the environment • Public Realm should not just relate to hard Noted standing areas in relation to improving access for business and retail opportunities.

• the Council need to ensure that environmental, Noted. Text to be amended ecological and biodiversity issues of Bromley are also considered

• Support for Policies BTC 10, 11, 14 but want a more explicit reference to PPS 9. in fact there should be a stronger link to PPS 9 in the entire document • Welcomed the comprehensive Transport Strategy. Support welcomed Policies BTC 21, 22, 24 and 28 relating to transport schemes encouraging sustainable travel choice were welcomed as well as the Sustainability Appraisal, subject to strengthening reference to PPS9

46 DAAP89 English 04/02/09 • Welcomed that the Plan included protecting and Support welcomed Heritage enhancing the historic environment and promoting high quality design

• Commented that there was not a lack of distinctive Noted landmark building in Bromley but merely a question of issue and maintenance

• Concerned about the possible locations of some Appendix 4 of the draft AAP contains the design principles to be of the tall buildings and the impact on tall followed as proposals come forward for each of the Opportunity buildings on listed buildings the Bromley Town Sites. Possible locations for tall buildings have been identified on Conservation Area and the impact on Keston Sites A, G, K and L. In each case the potential for high buildings is Ridge. assessed in relation to existing development on adjoining sites and to the potential affect on views towards the site from elsewhere. Design criteria governing scale and massing and impact of views are then established that will be used to control future development on those sites. In this way the impacts on listed buildings, on the conservation area and views to the Keston Ridge are taken into account. • Commented that objective 5 regarding enhancing Objective 5 refers to enhancing the character and heritage of the character and heritage of Bromley has got no town centre whilst ensuring that new development adds to its reference as to it’s implementation distinctiveness. This objective will be implemented by means of determining planning application for all developments against the new Policy BTC16 on Design Quality. An appropriate indicator for Objective 5 could be ‘Numbers of determinations of planning applications’ (table 8.1.1 on p. 171) - the qualitative assessment of which will bring about the improvements to appearance of the town centre and heritage buildings. • commented that as there is no policy on the Agreed, Policy to be amended historic environment Recommend that Policy BTC16 be expanded to include “an appropriate enhancement of the historic environment” • Welcomed the specific reference to the historic Support welcomed environment in BTC32 on developer contributions that might be sought

47 DAAP90 Ross & 06/02/09 • Supported proposals to reverse the decline of Support welcomed Christine Bromley as an important shopping centre and an Jones improvement of its role as a high quality entertainment/business/leisure/business location and transport interchange • Objects to the scale of the residential Schemes need to be shown as deliverable and town centre living is development in the town centre an ideal, and sustainable location for many. Whilst the priority is to regenerate the town centre to provide for retail, social and community activities it is recognised that uses such as residential and business uses are likely to be important to the overall viability of the proposals. • Commented on the conflict with conservation area Preserve and enhance are certainly important but equally important objectives is to ensure BTC remains an attractive and viable town centre. High quality design and the way in which new development enhances the character of the area and respects the local context is particularly important in the town centre DAAP91 Philip and 06/02/09 Comments on Site A The Council considers the on site parking provision envisaged is Mary Finely • Policy on site A seems too ambitious as it is a feasible to be provided on site in decked parking. Residents of the relatively small site subject to the constraints of an new development would not be issued with parking permits for existing listed building. nearby residential streets.

• building up to 400 residential units would constitute Access improvements will be necessary, though TfL will need to be over development and queried whether the current consulted about any proposal for direct access onto the A21 flats in the area would be demolished Tweedy Road.

• seeking 2000 sq m of B1 office development The development options for this site have been reassessed and it seemed unrealistic and queried whether Northside is considered that the overall massing of development which would House would be retained. result from the 400 unit scheme would be difficult to integrate with the surrounding area and is likely to result in a significant change in local character and impact on residential amenity. • Queried the amount of proposed mixed development of the Site. It is, however, considered that the smaller scheme could be integrated more successfully with the surrounding area with a • Questioned if the current existing health facility on reduction in height towards the western boundary and interface the site would be retained. with residential properties.

• Commented on the feasibility of on site provision for Further detailed design development would be required to residential parking demonstrate that a higher density development could be accommodated without adverse impact on the character of the • the location of an improved market facility at the site surrounding area.

48 might further constrain it’s capacity. The Draft AAP states that the number of units should be in general • Queried the need to build more in Bromley in the conformity with the AAP and the developer will be required to light of current economic conditions demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable impacts. • Requires clarification on access to the site At this stage there are no plans to demolish Northside House, however if this ultimately was suggested as part of any detailed planning application there would be a requirement to re-provide the office space in order to protect future employment opportunities.

The Bromley Health PCT would also be party to any health requirement they consider necessary and as such the development options identify replacement facilities. DAAP92 Robert 05/02/09 • Commented that there should be a department There is already a Town Centre Development Team that is Gregory created to identify and resolve AAP problems overseeing the AAP process and other initiatives in other town centres in the Borough. • Concerned about the possible disruption If investors are attracted into the town this will help all businesses developments will cause on existing businesses

DAAP93 Robert Bristow 06/02/09 • Concerned over lack of clarity as to future uses Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be within site A accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no • Concerned over decked car parking overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. Traffic impacts of individual • Suggests that development be scaled down to developments must be addressed through transport assessments, acknowledge the modest scale of existing which must accompany planning applications. development that abuts the site

• Concerned that number of proposed units has gone The development options for this site have been reassessed and it from 250 to 400 is considered that the overall massing of development which would result from the 400 unit scheme would be difficult to integrate with • Feels that the residential development will provide the surrounding area and is likely to result in a significant change in sub-standard housing local character and impact on residential amenity.

• Concerned over the height of proposed tall buildings It is, however, considered that the smaller scheme could be integrated more successfully with the surrounding area with a • Concerned over added traffic and pressure on reduction in height towards the western boundary and interface infrastructure with residential properties.

49 Further detailed design development would be required to demonstrate that a higher density development could be accommodated without adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area.

The Draft AAP states that the number of units should be in general conformity with the AAP and the developer will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable impacts. DAAP94 Friends of • Pleased that the restoration of the River Noted Bromley Town Ravensbourne is now integrated into policy BTC10 Parks & Gardens • Recognise the principle for the long term plan for the Friends of Bromley Town parks Gardens have been included in all town but do not agree with the context of the AAP the consultation processes and have attended many workshops and presentations and knows the history of the background to the AAP process. No constructive alternative suggestions for expansion were ever put forward regarding where to accommodate the required level of retail floorspace. No change is not an option if jobs and investment in the local economy is to be secured for future generations. • Feel that development on sites G & H will have an There is already a permission for a taller building on the site of the adverse effect on key vistas and views A&N Annex in Ringers Road. The town is a regional centre and as • Concerned over the view from Queensmead such an ideal place for expansion however design principles will be toward sites G & H important as to not create a continuing span of development. The • Concerned over the view from Church House design principles that will be used to govern development on Site G Gardens towards Site G & H ensure that the scale and massing of development is assessed • Concerned over the view of the skyline from the with particular regard to views towards the site from the amphitheatre in Church House Gardens surrounding area. The view of the skyline is already dominated by • Concerned over the view south east from the the Churchill Theatre/library. terrace of Church House towards sites G & H • Concerned over views south out of Library Gardens • Concerned over impact of development on Site L Appears comments relate to current planning application. The site on the view of Keston Ridge boundary was altered in the draft AAP to ensure development was at an acceptable height and included community uses i.e. the Bromley Christian Centre. • Concerned over the impact of development on Site B has been identified for development since 1994 UDP. The Site B on the view of Bromley College and its site cannot be removed form the AAP as it is already contained in grounds the current adopted UDP 2006

50 • Concerns over the construction of cafes/bars Policy OSM: states cafes/restaurants not bars. There is already a (sites E & M) valid planning permission for an extension to the existing restaurant fronting the gardens.

• Concerns over impact of development at Site E on The Design Guidelines to be expanded in order to guide future Queens Gardens development especially impact on the adjacent park

• Concerned over the impact of development at the There was no intention to destroy any historic structures and the Civic Centre (Site F) site plan was revised accordingly.

• Site N – would support the aspiration of widening Support welcomed the frontage, suitably landscaped to present a more inviting entrance • Seek clarification as to how tall ‘taller’ is This would depend largely on location. Some sites could accommodate some taller buildings subject to amenity issues etc

DAAP95 Environment 06/02/09 • Supported the vision fully. Welcomed the inclusion Support welcomed Agency of a flood risk policy The AAP recognises the contribution the design and construction • Pleased that appropriate sequential tests has of development makes to delivering a town centre that is been undertaken and this has been informed by a sustainable, and resilient to the potential impacts that climate Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. (Policy BTC9) change may have upon Bromley over the next 100 years in light of • Pleased that their advice on surface water the possible increases in flood risk. flooding has been incorporated into the BTC11

• Suggested that Green Roofs be more prominent Noted in the AAP

• Highlighted that large areas of Bromley Town Agreed text to be amended Centre are located with groundwater source protection zones and that special pollution prevention measures must be taken into account for development in this area and requested that Policy BTC34 is updated to reflect this. DAAP96 Moat Housing 06/02/09 • Supported the view that provision of additional Support welcomed housing will create a better balance of uses in the Town Centre • Fully supports the views on Lifetime Homes. Proposals give an opportunity to provide housing

51 of all tenures for people with disabilities • Supported requirements for inclusive design, car clubs and S106 developer contributions • adequate provision of affordable housing is Noted absolutely critical in helping to provide mixed, sustainable communities that people want to live in • Commented that there is a need for a significant Noted. Developers will be expected to provide a range of units to increase in larger homes that are suitable for help meet demand. families • Concerned that the aspiration to reach zero See Para 5.6.5 of Draft AAP and to re-iterate; carbon by 2016 with additional costs involved all residential developments should achieve a sustainability rating could adversely affect the amount of new of at least Level 3 as set out in the Government’s Code for development in the borough Sustainable Homes or equivalent. Major regeneration schemes should achieve the highest possible level of the Code, including provision of ‘zero carbon’ homes (Level 6). DAAP97 Nathaniel As a major stakeholder and investor in the town centre Lichfield and agrees with the AAP that there is a need to attract new Partners on retailers to the town and supports the vision (para behalf of 3.1.3), and whilst supporting the underlying principles Capital of the Spatial Strategy have suggested some textual Shopping changes Centres Page 25 – additional text: Agreed. Whilst the priority is to regenerate the town centre to provide for retail and other facilities it is recognised that all The retail sector plays an important role in maintaining business uses are likely to be important to the overall viability of a healthy local economy and is a major contributor to the proposals and provide employment opportunities in the future. the local employment market. The promotion of retail development on identified Opportunity Sites will assist in strengthening the range and type of jobs available in the retail sector. Page 30: Already commented on in plan The potential to create distinctive zones of activity including leisure/ culture which will add diversity and create new destinations within the town centre. The relocation of The Pavilion Leisure centre to the Civic Centre site provides an opportunity to significantly enhance the leisure and cultural offer in the town centre.

52 Page 31: Agreed Well planned and designed commercial uses such as restaurants and cafes can make a positive contribution to the improvement and appeal of the public realm and will be encouraged in appropriate locations. Page 59 – Policy BTC1, new paragraph: Agreed ‘The figures are intended to guide future levels of The figures identified above, in Table 4.2 and development on the Opportunity Sites’. elsewhere in the AAP are intended to guide the likely future levels of development and are not intended to be prescriptive. Page 67 Policy BTC4: Agreed. Text to be changed to ‘approximately’

The Council will work with the private sector to provide up to approximately 42,000 sq m (gross) additional retail floorspace…

Retail development will be required to provide for prime retail floorspace and a range of unit sizes. Subject to demand this could include including smaller units suitable for independent traders to complement and be fully integrated and well connected with existing retail facilities. Page 116 Policy OSE Not agreed to include “within the shortest possible timescales” the Opportunity Sites have been phased in over the 15 year timescale The site is identified as being suitable proposed for an to ensure the necessary infrastructure is capable of supporting the extension to The Glades Shopping Centre to provide changes. Site G is for retail led mixed use town centre approximately a net additional 22,000 sq m of (gross) development is key to the successful regeneration of the whole retail floorspace. The Council will work with developers of the Action Plan Area and will need to be brought forward to secure the relocation of the existing leisure centre prior to other new retail development. within the shortest possible timescales. Page 130 table 5.1 Site E If the leisure centre is not re-located onto site F there will be a need to undertake a sequential test as to the possibility of other Phase 3 2/3 sites being available. Earlier relocation of the leisure centre should not be discounted if it is demonstrated to be feasible within these timescales.

• Retail- approximately 22,000 sq m (gross) of net additional retail floorspace

53 • No additional parking

Page 130 table 5 Site F: Add

Earlier relocation should not be discounted if it is demonstrated to be feasible within these timescales.

Page 138 para 6.4.2 additional paragraph

If it is demonstrated to be acceptable and assists the Council in achieving the vision for the town centre as set out in the AAP the development of Opportunity Sites may be progressed in advance of the indicative phasing Page 140 table 6.1

Site E:

Phase 3 2/3

The phasing of development will be dependent on the development of Site F.

Including Site E in Phase 3 will allow time for the leisure centre to be relocated.

Site F: If a decision is taken not to relocate the Pavilion Leisure Centre on Sit F, Site G could come forward to ensure Bromley increases its retail offer and its ability to compete with nearby centres, and to maintain its position in the shopping hierarchy whilst alternative sites are considered. Phasing allows for coordination of development across sites F and E.

Add:

54

If a decision is taken not to re-locate The Pavilion Leisure Centre to Site F an assessment of suitable alternative sites will be undertaken.

The failure to secure an extension to The Glades and the relocation of a leisure facility will seriously undermined the AAP’s vision for the town centre and its competitiveness in the sub-region. Page 219 key Design principles: Agreed – text to be amended

The redevelopment of the site to provide prime retail floorspace a quality department store will increase the retail offer in the town centre. • Agrees that there is a need to improve the Support welcomed. It is not the intention for there to be a net loss management and provision of public parking in overall car parking in the town. • • Supports public transport improvements and encourages the town centre to be accessible by a range of different modes of transport (BTC21, BTC22, BTC23, BTC24) so long as this does not bring about a net loss of capacity at existing car parks • Considers that any relocation of facilities at the Site F has been identified as the most suitable location for the Pavilion should be identified as a priority. Will leisure centre. However the redevelopment of Site G for a retail led continue working with the Council to promote mixed use town centre development is key to the successful development at Site E & F and that the relocation of regeneration of the whole of the Action Plan Area and that relates The Pavilion to Site F is fundamental to achieving to the phasing of this and site E. the vision but Strongly object to the relocation of The Pavilion being in Phase 3 – feel this is vital to creating the vision • Supports in principle the requirement for around Support welcomed 42,000 sq m of additional retail floor space as set out in BTC1 • Supports the redevelopment of The Pavilion for retail Support welcomed use as identified in policy BTC6

55 • Agrees with the principles in the draft AAP regarding Support welcomed enhancing public realm at Site M

DAAP98 Susan Pussey 06/02/09 • Opposed to development of Site B as it is adjacent This site has been earmarked for development since adopted in to heritage buildings the 1994 UDP. One of the underlying development principles of the Bromley Area Action Plan is to preserve and enhance all the features that make Bromley distinctive and to continue to provide the community with its sense of place and history • Considers any development over 3 levels on Site P The site is in a conservation area with two storey dwellings is inappropriate adjacent naturally any design would have to take account of these issues. • Commented that any hotel development on Site L Comments relate to planning application would have to be restricted to 3 levels to avoid impeding the view • Commented that there was no mention in the plans The AAP looks at access for all rather than individual age groups. of the provision or improvement of a leisure facility The Area Action Plan encourages new town centre development, for the benefits adults on benefit or pensioners which will serve existing and new communities well, offering them a variety of goods and services including access to leisure facilities, maximising the advantages of its distinctive setting, and providing a centre that people are proud of and enjoy visiting. DAAP99 James 06/02/09 • Objects to 400 units on Site A Trimming The Site is included in the adopted UDP (2006) and has therefore • Felt development of Site A would be detrimental to been identified as an Opportunity Site in the AAP the area and create ‘rat runs’ Retention of the existing bus stands (or adequate replacement) is • Commented that little thought had been put into the set out in Policy OSA. development of the site as there will be nowhere for buses to park Further detailed design development would be required to demonstrate that a higher density development could be • Understands the need for some redevelopment of accommodated without adverse impact on the character of the the site but strongly opposes the increase from 250 surrounding area. The Draft AAP states that the number of units to 400 units and the creation of a multi-storey car should be in general conformity with the AAP and the developer park. will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable impacts however the pre-submission AAP will show development options to include 250 residential units as shown in the Revised Preferred Options DAAP100 Carolyn Elliott 06/02/09 • Concerns over density of Site G, height and The correct level of infrastructure requirements such as health and pressure on local schools and services educational facilities are crucial to the success on the plan. Policy BTC32 regards developer contributions.

56 The redevelopment of this site for retail led mixed use town centre development is key to the successful regeneration of the whole of the Action Plan Area • Concern with extra traffic around site G

• development on Site L would block the view of Accommodating growth and promoting regeneration presents real Keston Ridge and overshadow St Marks School challenges and whilst developments need to be viable they also need to take account of surroundings. Design Principles in the AAP are there to guide potential developers • Felt that the development of Site B would obscure As previously noted Bromley College cannot be seen from ground the view of Bromley and Shepherds College level in Tweedy Road and the current planning application does not obscure views of Sheppard’s College.

DAAP101 Atisreal on 04/02/09 Commented on Site L The Council considers the land safeguarded at Site L to be justified behalf of Land • The proposed road safeguarding area represents to support necessary public transport priority improvements. Securities a significant land take from Proposal Site L and Trillium this approach is not acceptable to Land Securities Trillium as it has not been adequately explored and justified by the Council.

• The allocation of the safeguarding area will blight the development potential of the site and will prevent the site from making a positive contribution to the town centre.

• The extension of the proposal site boundary to include the Bromley Christian Centre creates complications in relation to the delivery of land uses under the allocation and uncertainty that may hinder the site coming forward in the short term.

57 DAAP102 Highways 06/02/09 Area Action Plan: Agency Noted • M25 Junctions 3-5 is presently heavily congested throughout the peak hour periods and any increase in traffic on this part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) would be a concern to the HA.

• Reinstate reference to the promotion of public The Council considers that promotion of public transport is transport in Objective 8 encompassed within the overarching term “encouraging use of more sustainable forms of transport”. Promotion of public transport is included within the AAP’s supporting Transport Strategy (Objective 5)

• Agreed that road widening on the A21 is This is welcomed. necessary to support later stages of the AAP and this is supported by regional policy

• Rewording of Policy BTC26 “Planning permission Agreed. Policy BTC26 to change to: for …. is assured prior to occupation. Provision Planning permission for development will only be granted where may be phased…” the transport measures required by the proposed development (both on and off site) are either already in place or their provision is assured prior to occupation. Provision may be phased, relating to the phasing of development.

TTransport Strategy:

• The transport strategy fails to take potential Potential traffic impacts on the SRN should be identified in impacts on the SRN into consideration. This must transport assessments, a requirement of AAP Policy BTC34. be fully assessed. Transport Strategy Objective 2 is not intended to imply extensive • There is concern that the transport strategy new road building. Change Objective 2 to: objectives are not consistent with National Policy, To provide a transport network that supports the new specifically Objective 2 development proposed in the AAP.

Agreed.

58

• A robust assessment of Park & Ride sites should Further discussion with the HA on the AAP and the emerging Core be carried out Strategy would be welcome

• A meeting to discuss the transport evidence base to support the delivery of the LDF aDAAP103 Ray Hewitt 06/02/09 • Concerned about blight issues The AAP represents a framework document. No formal blight exists.

• Does not believe that Bromley has the necessary The correct level of infrastructure requirements such as health and infrastructure in place to service the proposals educational facilities are crucial to the success on the plan. Policy BTC32 regards developer contributions. • Concerned about lack of demand for retail space It is anticipated that delivery of the AAP proposals will occur over a given the current economic problems number of economic cycles

• Residents and property owners should take Through the extensive AAP consultation, residents and existing precedence over developers landowners views have been taken into account

• Supports the improvements to Bromley North Support welcomed Village and redevelopment of Site A

• Against a new leisure centre MyTime are keen to provide users with a more appropriate leisure facility that meets the needs of a wide range of ages.

• Does not support comparisons with other towns The local economy is important to the success of the borough it would be amiss of the Council not to provide the basis for continued success DAAP104 Mr J 09/02/09 • Believes that change is long overdue Support welcomed Sercombe

• Against references to tall buildings without Heights of buildings will only emerge after detailed designs have indication of height been worked up at application stage. The purpose of the AAP is to set out the development principles and content (Table 5.1) and the design principles (Appendix 4) which set the framework for design work to be carried out. • Concerned about traffic movements from Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be additional parking and residential on Site G accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no

59 overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. Traffic impacts of individual developments must be addressed through transport assessments, which must accompany planning applications.

The amount of parking proposed at Site G has been determined at a level that balances the needs of town centre living, outer London accessibility and potential future retail parking demand.

Where necessary, the CPZ will be extended to protect more local residents. Residents of new development will not be issued with parking permits for local roads. DAAP105 London Fire 06/02/09 • The car park on Site C is a good location for a A fire station fronting onto Tweedy Road in this location would Brigade new fire station and is the most suitable option present some difficult design problems in relation to the listed Town identified Hall buildings. Tweedy Road (A21) forms part of the TLRN and direct vehicular access onto this route would require approval from Transport for London and may not be forthcoming. Although direct access onto the A21 could be achieved in engineering terms for emergency vehicles only, careful consideration would be needed given the proximity to the Tweedy Road/East Street/Sherman Road signalised junction which is congested at peak periods. Such a proposal may also impact on pedestrians along the site frontage. • Wished to see the promotion of the installation of Currently sprinklers are not mandatory in domestic development, domestic sprinklers in new residential properties however it would be for the developer to assess whether enhanced fire precautions and property protection are viable.

• Prior to and during construction the LFEPA should It would be for the developer to undertake a risk assessment and be more involved with safety issues involve the LFEPA in any transitional temporary arrangements for means of escape and fire safety during construction

60 DAAP106 Ms Jacqueline 05/02/09 • Commented that parking provisions were Parking proposals are seen as consistent with the overall approach Palmer inadequate to transport set out both in the AAP and the supporting Transport • Concerned with the amount of traffic and Strategy. The Transport Strategy sets out how parking will be congestion causing nuisance managed in the town, both for new development and in the round (whether on or off street). A more detailed Parking Plan is to be • Does not believe that the plans will maintain and developed. enhance the quality of residential environment Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP’s supporting Transport Strategy proposes an approach that promotes a wide range of travel choices. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. DAAP107 Resident • Against demolition of sound and viable buildings It has been shown that the town needs to expand to take account Hayes Road of the growing catchment area and some demolition is therefore BR2 • Concerned about the increase in traffic; that it will inevitable. Development will need to be managed in a controlled be detrimental to the environment and the quality way to avoid impact on residents, workers and visitors a like. of life for local residents The town is a metropolitan centre that needs to attract visitors to • Felt that the AAP seems to be balanced in favour help the local economy. of non-residents and motorists Traffic modelling has shown what levels of traffic can be accommodated on the town’s road network in support of the proposed development. The AAP’s supporting Transport Strategy proposes an approach that promotes a wide range of travel choices. The AAP sets traffic targets that see no overall increase in traffic in Phases One and Two, and no more than a 3% increase in Phase Three. DAAP108 Lorna 01/02/09 • Against the development of flats at Site B. Response relates to planning application MacKenzie • Concerned about loss of shops on the High Street That is why the Council commission work on the AAP

DAAP109 R. Gann 27/01/09 • Against the development of tall buildings in the Height and design is controlled by the design principles set out in town centre Appendix 4 of the AAP. These ensure that the scale and massing of proposed buildings will be assessed with particular regard for their impact on views and residential areas.

61 • advantages of residential development having Noted gardens and linked to retail units.

DAAP110 Catherine 11/02/09 • all development in the town centre should be DDA Agreed Evans compliant Including Bromley South Station Kent Association for • opposes shared spaces in that it contradicts the The Council is aware of concerns about shared spaces on the part the Blind Disability Discrimination Act. Would like to see of groups representing people with visual impairments. The rotating cones , tactile paving and no railings at Council is also aware that DDA-related measures that benefit some road junction. groups may dis-benefit others and that a balanced view will need to be taken. It is therefore important that there is positive consultation about any such schemes.

DAAP111 Dick Groves 11/02/09 • concerned about lack of consultation Disability Voice have been included in all consultation on the AAP Disability Voice process including the Equality Assessment document. However it Bromley appears the DVB may have concerns regarding other highway schemes and lack of involvement – see below • Major works have been undertaken with reference Having spoken with Mr Groves at a recent presentation these to DV. works are clearly highway works that have been carried out either prior to and not part of the AAP process. • Suggests a Mobility Forum is set up. Noted DAAP112 Physical 11/02/09 • Lift access to Bromley South Station is very Better accessibility at Bromley station is to be brought forward by Disabilities & important Network Rail. Sensory • Better locations for disabled parking Impairment • Plan fails to identify clearly provision for those with New development will be expected to comply with the Council’s Partnership mobility problems given the older population in relevant standards on disabled parking. Other disabled parking Groups Bromley generally within the town will be kept under review. • Need better input into any LBB policy work New development will be expected to comply as appropriate with Building Regs requirements (Part M) to provide for people with mobility difficulties of whatever age.

Noted.

62 Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan – Analysis of TfL’s Consultation Comments, Feb 2009

London Plan AAP Reference TfL Representation LBB Comment Policy General 3C.2 It would have been helpful to present different development scenarios Different development scenarios were considered at the (taking account of phasing alongside the transport implications- this would earlier Preferred Options stage. This consultation have allowed a more robust assessment of infrastructure (and hence document relates to the development strategy that the funding) requirements. As presented there appears to be only one Council has adopted, going forward from that stage. development scenario alongside a set of transport improvements derived from the Transport Strategy. 4.8.11 3C.14 Reference is made to promotion of trams or tram-trains. As the Council is Neither the AAP nor the supporting Transport Strategy aware, there has only been initial very high level consideration of route has been developed on an assumption that tram services options for a potential future extension to Bromley. There are no plans for will be introduced that serve Bromley town centre during any extensions to Tramlink in the TfL Business Plan, although TfL is the plan period. However, the Council supports committed to including new proposals for extensions to the tram as part of a introduction of tram services after the tram period and future bid to Government. The Network Rail South London Route Utilisation wants that aspiration to inform the proposals in the AAP Strategy also refers to long-term potential for Tramlink extensions. The text so that this is not precluded. correctly recognises that delivery would be beyond the timescales of the AAP. 4.8.15 3C.17 Although targets for traffic levels are set, there is no guarantee that levels of The modelling has assumed little or no change in non non development traffic will remain unchanged as assumed in the modelling development traffic, as a worst case sensitivity test. given travel demand growth associated with changes in the wider area However, the Transport Strategy proposes a range of beyond the boundary of the AAP. TfL would like to understand whether measures that seek to place more emphasis on a wide different assumptions of traffic growth have been sensitivity-tested and if so, range of means of travel, including the car. The “Ten-in- what the implications are for the strategy. As a first priority, more attention Ten” target and the proposal for a town-wide travel plan, should be paid to travel demand management measures and encouraging promoting such travel choice are key parts of this. The use of sustainable modes of transport. Only when this has been fully expectation is therefore that non-development trips explored should mitigation and/or the provision of additional capacity be starting or finishing in the town centre may well reduce considered. under this initiative. The central themes of the Transport Strategy reflect this. BTC21 – 3C.16 TfL supports policy BTC21 which is broadly in accordance with policy 3C.16 Over the whole AAP period, there is only a limited net Transport (Road scheme proposals) of the London Plan. However, some of the increase proposed in the amount of publicly available Schemes individual site proposals to increase parking capacity may conflict with the non-residential parking in the town centre, especially in aims of policy BTC21. comparison to the amount of new development floorspace proposed.

63 BTC22 – Public 3C.1, 3C.3, TfL notes and generally supports the list of improvements. Further Support welcomed. Transport 3C.4 discussions may be useful to clarify assumptions about timescales and funding for schemes listed in this policy and elsewhere in the document. TfL It is not clear at present what amount of land TfL welcomes the commitment to retain bus stands at Bromley North and at envisage may be required for further public transport Westmoreland Road. It would be helpful to state that additional land may be improvements beyond what is already identified and required within Bromley town centre to support future expansion of the bus safeguarded in the AAP. network. BTC23 – Land 3C.4 TfL supports the specific safeguarding for improvements at Bromley South Support welcomed. safeguarded for and bus priority/highway improvements at Masons Hill (A21). The policy transport should also make transport 3C.4 reference to safeguarding of existing Wording to be added to Policy BTC23 to safeguard schemes transport infrastructure including bus stands and interchange facilities in line existing public transport infrastructure and assets: with London Plan policy 3C.4. Planning permission will not be granted where development adversely affects existing public transport infrastructure unless such impacts are satisfactorily mitigated. BTC24 – Walking 3C.21; 3C.22 TfL welcomes the emphasis on walking and cycling although the policy Noted. Routes to school are of importance for the town and Cycling Annex 4 wording could be more specific to Bromley town centre. Routes to schools centre AAP because of the increased residential may be a priority in the rest of the borough, but within the AAP area the development and the need for good non-car access to emphasis should be on direct, attractive and secure links to connect key schools outside the town centre. destinations and activity centres such as transport hubs to the main services and commercial areas, as well as residential areas beyond the AAP. The Much of these points on cycling and motorcycle parking, policy should make explicit a requirement for secure, accessible and including a bike hire scheme, are dealt with in the preferably weatherproof cycle parking at all new developments, public supporting Transport Strategy. transport interchanges and key destinations, including the application of minimum standards in line with TfL guidelines. Parking for motorcyclists should also be considered. The potential for a cycle hire scheme and requirements for additional publicly available cycle parking should be considered as part of the proposed town centre Travel Plan. It would be useful for the AAP to acknowledge that TfL is to implement a cycle hire scheme in central London (as set out in 'A Way To Go', Mayor of London, November 2008) and TfL welcomes further discussions on Bromley's proposals.

64 BTC25 – Parking 3C.23, 3C.24 TfL supports the intention to provide for all non-residential development in Support for approach of publicly available parking Annex 4 the form of publicly available parking. It would be helpful here to make welcomed. reference to London Plan maximum car parking standards. Car parking standards in line with the London Plan will need to be applied to all new development (both residential and non-residential) in Bromley town centre Coach parking and pick-up/set-down is addressed in the even where spaces are made available to the public. The car parking policy context of individual Opportunity Sites where hotel should also address the needs of disabled motorists as well as considering development is proposed. The Transport Strategy refers requirements for drop-off/pick-up facilities for coaches and taxis at (para 7.47) to the need to keep under review the potential interchanges and hotels. The wording of the second paragraph could be need for further coach facilities in the town. clarified to read as follows: ‘The Council will seek a reduction of existing private non-residential parking provision through implementation will be Support for CPZ extensions welcomed. required to contribute to this process and produce site specific Travel Plans to support the overall reduction.' Travel Plans should be produced in For the Opportunity Sites, the AAP identifies parking accordance with TfL’s guidance on Workplace Travel Planning and provision at a level that seeks to balance aspirations for Residential Travel Planning (March 2008) and it would be helpful to include low car, town centre living with the town’s outer London a reference to this guidance in the AAP. TfL supports the intention to extend location and needs. Aspirations for low car, town the Controlled Parking Zones. It would be helpful to give explicit support for centre living with the town’s outer London location residential developments that provide reduced or where appropriate zero and needs in accordance with adopted local and parking. Any Park and Ride scheme should take account of TfL’s guidelines regional policy. on strategic park and ride in London. BTC26 – Phasing 3C.2, 6A.4, TfL supports the requirement for transport measures to be provided to serve Support welcomed. of Transport 6A.5 developments and to provide mitigation against any impacts. It would be Improvements appropriate to state here that planning obligations and a potential transport The key points in this policy are intended to relate to tariff or Community Infrastructure Levy will be used to secure contributions timing and impacts. Policy BTC32 relates to developer where appropriate. contributions and, as stated in 6.5.5, the Council will draw up further guidance on planning obligations as part of a Borough-wide SPD that will set out such mechanisms in more detail. BTC27 – Traffic 3C.17 TfL supports the inclusion of targets for restraining traffic growth although to For Phases 1 and 2 of the AAP, it is proposed that the Management be consistent with policy 3C.17 of the London Plan the target for the whole London Plan target of zero growth be met. Phase 3 period (including phase 3) should be zero growth. however includes a significant increase in retail development that may well lead to increases in traffic levels over and above a wide range of measures that will promote other means of travel. It is therefore proposed that the traffic target for AAP Phase 3 allows for a modest increase in traffic growth, recognising particularly the outer London characteristics of the town and its wide catchment area that is not all well served by other means of travel.

65 BTC28 – Car 3C.2 TfL welcomes the inclusion of a policy on car clubs although it could be Agreed. Developer contributions to measures such as Clubs more clearly worded to ensure that all developments within the AAP area car clubs are considered to be encompassed in the 11th make appropriate Provision for car clubs. The phrase 'to allow for' could be bullet point of Policy BTC32 (delivery of Travel Plans and open to interpretation. In some cases physical provision to accommodate associated transport measures). At this stage, the car club facilities may be required. For other sites a contribution towards a Council does not consider it appropriate to single out car car club co-ordinated through the town centre Travel Plan would be clubs as a specific measure where all development appropriate and for residential developments subsidized membership should should contribute; the wording of the policy offers be considered. desirable flexibility in this regard. Although there are references to a proposed town centre Travel Plan and requirements for site specific Travel Plans in the text (and in policy BTC 34), Requirements for travel plans are included in Policy policy BTC 28 could be expanded and renamed to form the basis of a policy BTC34. The interrelationship between car clubs and which would formalise a requirement for site specific Travel Plans to be travel plans is also envisaged in the Transport Strategy. developed in the context of the town centre wide Travel Plan. Car clubs would form one important element in this approach. BTC29 – Freight 3C.25 TfL welcomes the requirements for Delivery and Servicing Plans and TfL’s suggested approach echoes that already included in encouragement for existing town centre uses. It would be appropriate to the Transport Strategy. develop a co-ordinated town centre wide servicing strategy through the proposed Travel Plan process. This could consider the viability of establishing a consolidation centre for deliveries as well as measures to minimise the impact of servicing activity. Reference should also be made to requirements for Construction Logistics Plans for new developments to ensure that the impacts of construction transport can be addressed. Again there may be scope for co-ordination through the town centre Travel Plan. BTC30 – Phasing 3C.2 TfL welcomes the intention to phase development with the provision of This information is set out in Table 6.5, where site- infrastructure. However, table 6.1 could be made more consistent by specific and general requirements are differentiated. isolating the site specific infrastructure (or service) improvements required to Site-specific requirements are also set out, site by site, in enable a site to come forward from the general requirements that should Section 5. apply to all sites including Travel Plans and contributions to town centre wide initiatives such as car clubs, provision of information and a potential cycle hire scheme. OSA – Bromley 3C.23, 3C24 Given the site's location adjacent to Bromley North station and close to all Noted. For the Opportunity Sites, the AAP identifies North Station town centre facilities this would be an ideal location for a largely car free parking provision at a level that seeks to balance residential development with parking provided only for essential needs such aspirations for low car, town centre living with the town’s as a disabled parking, car club vehicles or servicing. TfL supports the outer London location and needs. intention to restrict residents' ability to buy parking permits. OSB – Corner of 3C.23, 3C.24 TfL supports the intention to restrict residents' ability to buy parking permits. Support welcomed Tweedy Road/London Road

66 OSG – West of 3C.23, 3C.24 Given the site's highly accessible location there may be scope for further For the Opportunity Sites, the AAP identifies parking the High Street reductions in residential parking and the suggested figure should be provision at a level that seeks to balance aspirations for expressed as a maximum. The provision of 600 public car parking spaces low car, town centre living with the town’s outer London should preferably not add to overall town centre parking capacity and would location and needs. in any case need to be justified on the basis of an identified shortage and the ability of the road network to absorb car trips to the site. Provision of 600 public car parking spaces in support of Car parking provision (both residential and public) should be subject to the the retail element of the development recognises the outcomes of the proposed Town Centre Parking Plan (paragraph 4.8.38) significant increase in retail floorspace that this and Transport Assessment for the site and TfL suggests that the text should development will provide. be expanded to clarify this point. Policy BTC34 is clear that a Transport Assessment will be required, that takes into account TfL’s best practice. OSJ – Bromley 3C.3, 3C.4 TfL supports in principle proposed improvements around Bromley South Support welcomed. South Station station and the proposed safeguarding and looks forward to working with the and environs Council and other stakeholders to take this forward. Any bids for funding would be subject to the normal processes for securing funds under the appropriate programmes. OSK – 3C.23, 3C.24 Any re-provision of public car parking should preferably not add to overall For the Opportunity Sites, the AAP identifies parking Westmoreland town centre parking capacity and would need to be justified on the basis of provision at a level that seeks to balance aspirations for Road car park an identified shortage and the ability of the road network to absorb car trips low car, town centre living with the town’s outer London to the (new) site. As indicated above re Policy OSG, any car parking location and needs. provision should be subject to the outcomes of the proposed Town Centre Parking Plan (paragraph 4.8.38) and Transport Assessment for the site. TfL In this case, the overall parking provision on the site is supports the intention to restrict residents' ability to buy parking permits. likely to be lower than at present. OSL – DHSS 3C.4, 3C.23, TfL welcomes the safeguarding for future public transport priority measures Noted. building and 3C.24 and supports the intention to restrict residents' ability to buy parking permits. adjoining Bromley Christian Centre 6.4.7 – 6.4.9 3C.3, 3C.23 TfL generally supports the improvements listed here subject to further The town-wide travel plan is a key element in delivering discussions on timescales, funding and deliverability. It is hoped that the the Council’s “Ten-in-Ten” target and is therefore an Travel Plan and Car Club would be fully established in phase 1 and then essential feature of Phase 1 of the AAP. The envisaged further strengthened and implemented throughout phases 2 and 3. With roll-out of Car Club operation will work in support of this. reference to the parking impacts identified in the following tables (6.2 - 6.4), the objective should be to ensure that there is no net addition to the total Effective use of existing transport assets and promoting parking stock and that demand management measures are considered first travel choice are two key themes of the supporting as an alternative to any new provision. Transport Strategy. Across the AAP period, a net increase in non-residential parking is envisaged, but this recognises the significant increase in retail floorspace in the town that is being proposed.

67 BTC31 Funding/ 3C.3, 3C.23, TfL supports the overall approach to funding and developer contributions, in Support welcomed. BTC32 Developer 6A.4, 6A.5 particular the provision of public transport improvements, enhancement of Contributions pedestrian and cycle routes and delivery of Travel Plan measures. However, Reference in BTC32 to commuted payments to be the concept of 'commuted parking payments' is outlawed in 'PPG 13: changed. Relevant bullet point now to read: Transport' and care should therefore be taken in the use of this term and concept, to avoid undermining use of more sustainable modes of transport. • Contributions towards any off-site parking provision The use of a single funding pot either through a transport tariff or the and extension of CPZ. Community Infrastructure Levy (ClL) is supported in principle although it will be important to achieve consensus on a prioritised list of generic The Council recognises the need to collaborate with TfL: improvements that could be funded through this approach. Site specific and other stakeholders to deliver the relevant funding contributions will still be required where necessary to support the proposed mechanisms and to keep them under review against the level of development. Some of the assumptions about funding (including AAP’s delivery objectives. The AAP acknowledges that sources) shown in table 6.5 may need to be revised as the AAP is further Section 106 contributions will be required in addition to developed and implemented. Where TfL is identified as a potential source, tariff contributions. this will be subject to the normal processes for securing funds under the appropriate funding programmes. The balance between different scheme The majority of funding envisaged for parking is aimed at headings may also need further discussion - in particular there is a large improving quality, not increasing quantity. The Council allocation to improved parking being funded through section 106 recognises that some new parking stock will be needed contributions which may not be appropriate in sustainability terms. across the AAP period, but just 12% of the parking element of the AAP transport projects has been identified for that purpose. BTC34 – 3C.2 TfL supports the requirement for Transport Assessments to be submitted in Support welcomed. Planning accordance with TfL's best practice guidance document. The reference to applications Travel Plans should state that these should take account of TfL guidance on Change proposed to last bullet point of Policy BTC34: workplace and residential travel plans and be developed in the context of the proposed town centre Travel Plan (see comment on policy BTC28). • Undertake to produce, monitor and maintain a Travel Plan in line with appropriate TfL guidance and coordinated with the town-wide Travel Plan. BTC35 – Further 6A.4, 6A.5 TfL looks forward to working closely with the Council and other stakeholders This is welcomed. guidance in developing the proposed guidance on section 106/CIL/transport tariff contributions.

68 LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 29

APPENDIX 5.1

CONSULTATION DRAFT AAP (NOVEMBER 2008- JANUARY 2009): REPORT TO COMMITTEE Report No. London Borough of Bromley Agenda DRR09/00031 Item No. PART 1 - PUBLIC

Decision Maker: Development Control Committee Executive Date: 30th March 2009 Decision Type: Non-Urgent Executive Key

Title: AREA ACTION PLAN FOR BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE - DRAFT PRE-SUBMISSION DOCUMENT

Contact Officer: Bob McQuillan, Chief Planner Tel: 020 8313 4441, email [email protected]

Rita Westlotorn, Head of Town Centre Planning Projects , Tel: 020 8313 4582 E-mail: [email protected]

jonathan macdonald, asst director of renewal tel: 020 8313 4847 email: jonathan.macdonald @bromley.gov.uk Chief Officer: Director of Renewal & Recreation

Ward: Bromley Town

1. Reason for report

1.1 There is still significant development interest within the town centre, however, the potential for future development will be affected by a range of interlinked factors including transport network capacity, environmental considerations and the need to protect and enhance the towns built and natural heritage. As a result there is a need to actively manage change, rather than to merely react to it.

1.2 Following three years of extensive consultation the stage has now been reached for finalising the Draft Bromley Town Centre pre-submission Area Action Plan. The Draft AAP underwent a twelve week consultation period between 17th November 2008 and 6th February 2009. In total 112 responses were received, some in support, some suggesting textual changes either to policy or the accompanying text, some wanting little or no change to the town centre and others raising issues that require further consideration prior to finalising the pre-submission AAP. These key considerations are reported in the comments overleaf.

1.3 The Draft pre-submission AAP consultation document contains the planning policy framework required to guide and promote sustainable development in the town centre ensuring the town evolves into a more vibrant centre and retains its competitive position any textual changes from the consultation Draft AAP are denoted by the text being underlined. A copy of the Draft

1 pre-submission AAP and copies of responses received will also be placed in the Members Room.

1.4 Prior to submission to the Secretary of State the Draft pre-submission AAP will undergo further formal consultation. Representations received will form the basis of the examination by an independent Planning Inspector early next year. In order to satisfy the Inspector the Draft AAP must pass a test of ‘soundness’. The plan must be considered to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Depending on the timetable of the Planning Inspectorate final Adoption of the Plan would be likely in spring 2010.

______

2. RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 Members of Development Control Committee to consider the Draft Pre-Submission AAP and refer their comments to the Executive for consideration.

2.2. The Executive considers the comments from the Development Control Committee [and Executive and Resources PDS} and approves the Draft Pre- Submission AAP to Full Council

2 Corporate Policy

1. Policy Status: New policy. The AAP will be the Council’s first Development Plan Document (DPD) under the new planning system, known as the Local Development Framework (LDF). As the AAP will constitute a DPD it would therefore be subject to independent examination in public as it will introduce new policies. The AAP sets out the vision for the future with objectives, policies and proposals to achieve the vision and provides a spatial framework to guide future development and change.

The work undertaken to date is based on independent and objective professional analysis by experts in the field and will be tested by an Independent Inspector at an Examination in Public (EiP). Proposals for the town centre will have to take account of government policy, especially PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres, as well as other relevant policies. Prior to the adoption of the AAP any new development proposal sites within the town centre that are not currently contained in the adopted UDP are likely to be considered as ‘departures’ from the Plan and may therefore be referable to the Secretary of State.

Improving the Borough’s town centres is one of the Council’s main priorities and given that Bromley Town Centre serves a wide catchment area and offers high levels of employment it was considered crucial that, to ensure future prosperity in face of increasing competition, an action plan should be put in place.

2. BBB Priority: Vibrant Thriving Town Centres. ______

Financial

1. Cost of proposal: N/A The sites identified in the draft AAP present opportunities for private sector investment of the type that resulted in the development of The Glades. While the Council may incur expenditure in assisting in site assembly it would only do so if it is assured that those costs will ultimately be met by the developer. There is also an opportunity for the Council to obtain capital receipts for the sale of its own land. The Council owns 6 of the 12 opportunity sites

2. Ongoing costs: N/A.

3. Budget head/performance centre: R & R

4. Total current budget for this head: £n/a

5. Source of funding: Consultancy costs have been met from the Planning Development Grant, Town Centre Improvement Fund and LPSA 1 reward funds and are within the approved budget. ______

Staff

1. Number of staff (current and additional): n/a

2. If from existing staff resources, number of staff hours: n/a ______

Legal

1. Legal Requirement: Statutory requirement. The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 amend the 2004 regulations and prescribe the timescale and process for public consultation. It is an Executive function to approve the draft AAP for consultation. Hoverer by virtue of regulation 4 of the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 as amended approval of the AAP 3 for submission to the secretary of state at the close of the consultation process is a matter for full council on the recommendation of the Executive

2. Call-in: Call-in is not applicable. ______

Customer Impact

1. Estimated number of users/beneficiaries (current and projected): borough -wide ______

Ward Councillor Views

1. Have Ward Councillors been asked for comments? Yes.

2. Summary of Ward Councillors comments: ward councillors have been fully engaged in the consultation process

4 3. COMMENTARY

3.1 The objective of the AAP is to create an attractive and successful town centre which will confirm Bromley’s status as one of London’s main metropolitan centres and enhance the quality of life and opportunities for the borough’s residents and businesses. It is essential to strike an acceptable balance between residential and other activities normally found within a town centre creating sustainable communities and a balance of uses. The need to accommodate additional housing within the town is consistent with the increasing emphasis being placed on housing by the government and the Mayor of London not only to meet demand but to also encourage the evening economy and help to prevent anti-social behaviour. A residential element within mixed use development is often also necessary to help to fund other uses that by themselves may not be commercially viable.

3.2 It will be important in order for successful developments to be brought forward and to realise the vision in the Draft AAP that the final document is fully supported by Members so that renewal and economic objectives for the town centre can be fully realised. It is equally important that the Council is seen to be ensuring the long-tern sustainability of the town and accommodating future growth requirements in accordance with national and strategic planning policy guidance providing strategic leadership to potential investors when considering how and where new development can be achieved.

3.3 The scale and mix of the proposed development is considered compatible with the town’s catchment area and role within the regional hierarchy. It is also essential that any other potential projects within the town are not considered in isolation and that they are viewed within the context of the overall vision for the future as detailed in the Draft Pre-Submission AAP.

3.4 The current adopted UDP polices appertaining, for example, to the Conservation Area, its boundary, Listed buildings and Affordable Housing, have not been reviewed as part of the process and they therefore remain the overriding policies regarding such issues. It will be important, therefore, that developers and other interested parties, consider both the policy direction in the AAP as well as relevant policies in the adopted local plan and regional polices in the London Plan. A Transport Strategy has been written to support the AAP. It also provides a framework for wider transport interventions in the town

3.5 The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) assesses the likely social, economic and environmental effects of the Draft Pre-Submission AAP. The SA has been an integral part of the preparation of the Draft Pre-Submission AAP to ensure that necessary mitigation measures are incorporated to minimise the impacts of proposals. The findings of the SA indicates that overall the proposals set out in the Draft Pre-Submission AAP will have positive social and economic benefits and that the environmental impacts can be mitigated through appropriate measures such as the implementation of a comprehensive transport strategy, protection of the historic and natural environment and public realm improvements

3.6 The Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan has been prepared ahead of the Core Strategy because of the urgency of regenerating the town centre and the need for a planning framework to be in place to determine significant planning proposals which are being progressed. The Plan has the potential to deliver a significant element of the Borough’s housing requirement at an early stage whilst at the same time protecting and enhancing Bromley’s status as a metropolitan centre.

3.7 Both the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Government Office for London (GoL) have shown support for the approach being taken by the Council. Although the AAP is running ahead of the Core Strategy GoL believe there is a strong argument to be made regarding the fact that the AAP is required on urgency grounds in order to facilitate growth

5 and address development proposals comprehensively. GoL have subsequently advised that the Council should ensure sufficient time between the end of the formal six week consultation on the Pre-submission Draft AAP and the submission of the Plan to the Secretary of State to allow for responses to be fully considered before the plan is finalised. Whilst they have suggested a 3 month period this would largely depend on the type and contents of any formal objections received and the nature of any changes to be considered. It is of course important to have the correct evidence base to ensure the Plan is justifiable to the Inspector and until the formal pre-examination meeting it will not be known what issues, if any, the Inspector will want to investigate in more depth.

3.8 Depending on the number and substance of representations outstanding at the end of the 6 week formal consultation on the pre-submission draft, consideration will be given to the time period needed to respond to the comments. It will be important to liaise with GoL at this stage. The Inspector at the pre-examination meeting will need to be satisfied that any outstanding issues have been adequately addressed.

3.9 The Council’s approach has been to promote an enhanced mix of retail, leisure, employment, residential and community uses in the town centre, both to improve the attraction of the town centre and to support the quality of life of the local community. A vibrant town centre providing a range of quality services and facilities will generate a virtuous circle by making it a more attractive location for residential and employment uses. In this way the AAP provides opportunities to link new retail development to the wider community benefits such as the provision of improved health facilities, highway and transportation improvements as well as helping towards meeting housing requirements.

3.10 The public realm in some parts of the town centre is in poor condition which can detract from the environment and to some extent the historic buildings especially in the Conservation Area. The AAP recognises that the public realm, as well as the outdoor space available for public use, has an important role to play in both providing the setting for the town centre’s historic buildings as well as creating spaces that are welcoming and attractive in their own right.

3.11 The 2004 Retail Capacity Study is currently being updated. The results of this study are being finalised and comparisons also are being made with the 2004 study. As part of this study a householder survey has already been carried out within the town centre’s catchment area. This area is divided into ten zones reaching from Lewisham in the north to Sevenoaks in the south and from Warlingham in the west to Willmington to the east. Within this catchment area there are over one million residents. Based on the 1200 responses the survey confirms that Bromley Town Centre is still popular with shoppers but whilst they have little or no comment on the ambience or environment of the town what they would really prefer is more diversity of choice, especially a new department store and as expected Bluewater is the location of choice for cinema visits.

3.12 Bromley has slipped down the ranking, now 33rd out of 2000 centres, a drop of 4 places. Croydon is ranked 24th up seven places over the same period (2008) (Venuescore ranking – which is the industry standard). There has also been a decline in retailer requirements which coincides with the economic downturn but Bromley’s score in terms of requirements has fallen sharper than other like centres. This may coincide with the slippage in ranking that indicates retailers and investors are looking at competing centres which are offering a better quality of choice instead. This shows that BTC still needs to remain competitive in terms of retailing and this is particularly important in the current economic climate.

3.13 Although the broader economic risk has changed since consultation on the AAP commenced, in order to bring forward the comprehensive development of Bromley Town

6 Centre, the AAP is phased over 15 years which may cover several economic cycles, as noted in paragraphs 3.9 to 3.12 above. This recession is not deemed to be a material risk.

4 Representations

4.1 It is important that barriers to implementing necessary growth and development options are recognised and considered at this stage in order to alleviate problems that may hinder change at a later date. Throughout the AAP process the Council has sought to explain the reasons for the plan and has undertaken extensive consultation, since 2005, in order to understand public views. Site allocations and boundaries have been amended as the Plan progressed through each stage in response to representations received

4.2 The Draft Pre-Submission AAP has been prepared following wide ranging consultation with key partners, land owners, developers as well as the public on the Preferred Options (January 2006), Revised Preferred Options (October 2007) and the Draft AAP (November 2008). The Draft Pre-Submission AAP has taken into account the responses to all consultation exercises. Each stage of the process has therefore informed the next.

4.3 For Members information Appendix 1 outlines the extent of the consultation undertaken during the recent Draft AAP consultation exercise.

4.4 Some of the responses to the consultation have again raised questions on some Opportunity Sites and Members will need to consider the recommendations below prior to the Plan being finalised for consideration by the Council on 27th April. Some representations have also questioned the matter of blight, however, it is considered premature at this stage of the process to be considering this.

4.5 Both the Bromley Civic Society and Friends of Bromley Town Parks & Gardens have raised similar issues with regards the impact of any re-development on the Opportunity Sites and the protection of the built heritage and public open spaces. These concerns have also been raised by a number of local residents and amenity groups, indeed this and previous consultation revealed that safeguarding and improving the town’s historic assets was very important and was the most important issue for many town centre residents. The AAP recognises that whilst the town centre has a rich heritage reflected in parts of its built environment, there are other areas that need re-defining in order to meet, specifically, modern retailing requirements if the town is to be successful in terms of the local economy in the future.

4.6 Many responses were made with regard to planning application that is the subject of Appeal for Site B: Tweedy Road and the recent planning application for Site L: former DHSS building which has been withdrawn by the applicants.

4.7 The one site that elicited the most replies (approximately 26) was Site A: Bromley North. Whilst it is important to create a high quality gateway into the town centre, encouraging access to the town and providing a range of uses and facilities, appropriate to this well-used transport interchange the scale of development on this site was increased from 250 to around 400 residential units following receipt of representations from Network Rail and a land owner during the last round of consultation. It was considered that the proposed change was acceptable as an indicative number of residential units in order to maximise development opportunities and deliver transport improvements inline with London Plan policy. One of the principal objectives of the recent consultation exercise was, however, to test public reaction to the proposed changes to the plan prior to the finalisation of the pre- submission document and any increase was strongly opposed.

4.8 The Council’s Housing Division have commented that a mix of housing choices in the town centre would ensure a mix of affordable units and provide affordable housing for people with 7 physical disabilities, sensory impairments and learning disabilities as well as elderly residents and would welcome residential planning applications that contribute towards the providing larger family units for social rent. The GLA have also stated that all new developments should be built to Lifetime Homes standards and Development proposals should accord with the Density Matrix in the London Plan (Table 3A.2). However whilst the matter of building all units to Lifetime Homes standards is made clear in the text it is also important that when looking at density levels site characteristics and the surrounding character of the town centre and adjoining residential areas are taken into account.

4.9 The schedule of responses to the Draft AAP is attached as Appendix 2. This schedule précis the comments received and the Council’s response.

4.10 The table below sets out the further recommended changes which need to be considered and agreed before the AAP can progress; the changes or recommendations are shown in bold. If no further changes are suggested the development options /or site boundary for the other Opportunity Sites will remain as set out in the Draft AAP.

Site Comment Site A: Bromley North The scale of development on this site was increased from 250 to around 400 residential units following receipt of representations from Network Rail and a land owner during the last round of consultation. It was considered that the proposed change was acceptable as an indicative number of residential units in order to maximise development opportunities and deliver transport improvements inline with London Plan policy. One of the principal objectives of the consultation exercise was, however, to test public reaction to the proposed changes to the plan prior to the finalisation of the pre- submission document.

Representations have been received from both Network Rail and Lennon Planning, on behalf of Linden Homes, supporting the increased density levels and development opportunity to bring forward a comprehensive scheme on a phased basis. However the Council also need to be cognisant of the level of concerns raised by local residents regarding the potential impacts of the increase in the number of residential units, density of the development and the height of any development as shown in the developments options/policy in the Draft AAP.

Sites identified in the AAP need to be deliverable. This includes ensuring development viability and receiving planning approval, and there would clearly be a need for further assessment and careful masterplanning to develop an acceptable design for the site which would deliver the benefits sought by the AAP in terms of improvements to the station and transport facilities. At this stage however, no detailed masterplanning has been undertaken to demonstrate that an appropriate form of development can be achieved at the higher density proposed in the revised Draft AAP. It was considered appropriate to re-visit the quantum of residential proposed especially given the two storey suburban housing abutting the site. Whilst the town centre’s spatial characteristics provide constraints and opportunities it is also important to continue to provide the local community with its sense of place. The appropriate scale of development on this site will be influenced by its mixed use nature, scale and the local context, reinforcing local distinctiveness, as well as in securing a high quality environment. These are matters which would be fully addressed at the planning application stage and it will 8 be important that any development proposals demonstrate how the design complements the existing area and the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the local context.

The Council is committed to making the best use of previously developed land to promote local area regeneration and deliver wider benefits and public transport improvements are central to the vision set out in the AAP. However, in response to the specific issues raised in responses to the Draft AAP and in the absence of a justification for higher density development and how these would be mitigated it is recommended that the number of residential units is amended to an indicative figure of 250 units as previously shown in the Revised Preferred Options. The Draft AAP states that the number of units should be in general conformity with the AAP and the developer will be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable impacts. Site B: Tweedy Road The numbers of residential units were reduced to 70 in the Revised Preferred Options. In light of the outstanding appeal and the Inspectors site visit which took place on 3rd March, it is recommended to await the Inspectors decision before recommending any further changes to the development options for the site. However, development will not be judged purely on an indicative capacity and the revised AAP makes it clear that a sensitive and high quality design is essential to minimise the impact of development on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. Site C: Town Halls Representations have been received from both Cathedral and the London Fire Brigade. Whilst Cathedral would wish to see the inclusion of residential to assist viability the London Fire Brigade have requested that the development of a new fire station becomes part of a comprehensive mixed use development for Site C and include the existing fire station site within the site boundary.

The development of the fire station is likely to be detrimental to the setting of the listed Town hall buildings and is likely to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Bromley Town Centre conservation area. If the development of a new fire station is inappropriate there is no purpose in including the existing fire station within the site. Tweedy Road (A21) forms part of the TLRN and direct vehicular access onto this route would require approval from Transport for London which may not be forthcoming.

However, in light of the potential for a realistic, viable scheme coming forward it is recommended that Members agree that allowance should be made for small scale residential development to deliver a viable mixed use development for the Site. Office uses would be a requirement of any future mixed use development in order to safeguard future employment opportunities. Site K: Westmoreland Given the agreement to proceed with Cathedral for a scheme to Road car park provide a multiplex cinema, residential units and an hotel, subject to planning permission, it may be appropriate as an acceptable element of any future mixed use cinema led development to include either wholly residential units or a mix of residential and hotel use in the relevant policy and to reduce the number of residential units. Site L: former DHSS AtisReal, on behalf of Land Securities Trillium, has objected to the building boundary extension and the inclusion of the safeguarding line for highway improvements. The company submitted a planning application based on the site identified in the Revised Preferred Options but this has been withdrawn by the applicants. The site in 9 the draft AAP was extended to include the Bromley Christian Centre

The former DHSS building contains unoccupied office space. The recently received in draft (January 2009) ‘Economic Development & Employment Land Study’, which was commissioned to underpin the Local Development Framework, has highlighted the importance of reinforcing the role of the office sector and the quality of accommodation in town centres. It is therefore considered appropriate to include within the development options for Site L the requirement for an appropriate level of replacement office space as part of the mixed use development. Potential developers would be required to demonstrate why the inclusion of replacement office floorspace was not financially unviable.

4.11 The following table tracks changes to residential units proposed in the AAP. Developers may still press for further increases but it would be for them to demonstrate that such increases are appropriate and sustainable. If the suggestions detailed above are agreed the indicative housing numbers for the town centre will reduce from that shown in the Draft AAP from around 2000 to around 1800.

Opportunity Site Draft AAP Pre-submission Draft AAP Site A: Bromley North 400 250 Site B: Tweedy Road 70 70 – subject to Inspectors decision Site C: Town Halls/South Street car park - 20 Site F: Civic Centre 20 20 Site G: west of High Street 1180 1180 Site K: Westmoreland car park 270 200 Site L: Former DHSS building 40 40 Site P: Sainsbury, West Street 20 20 Total (around) 2000 1800

Non-Applicable Sections: PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS Background Documents: UDP adopted 2006 (Access via Contact PPS6 ODPM March 2005 Officer) Government consultation on revision to PPS6 July 2008 Revised Preferred Options Document October 2007 Draft AAP November 2008

10 APPENDIX 1

Consultation of the Draft AAP November 2008 to February 2009

DATE MEDIUM DISTRIBUTION

11 News Release Local media and November LBB website Average 4,500 hits everyday ` 12 Borough Briefing – page in News Shopper 98,356 November Average net circulation

Plus posters around borough 400 Public Notice in News Shopper 13 Bromley Borough News local paper article 33,000 November 17 Written Consultation commenced In total: 8000 leaflets November printed and either hand distributed to local residential properties; included with letters – see below or handed out at meetings Letters/Documents – Statutory Consultees 80 Letters/leaflet – other consultees 700 All borough libraries (3 of each documents for 48 view or loan) Planning/main receptions 2 Email notification 105 bromley.gov.uk Home page visual plus Internet availability` supporting documents published Onebromley – intranet homepage All Staff 18 Presentation/Leaflets 120 LBB Managers November 19 News Shopper local paper article 98,356 Average net November circulation

20 UPDATE – Residents Association & Direct Mail November Community groups newsletter 400 Leaflets and news (including Members and media) item 21 Display at South London Business briefing November 22 Residents Association Annual Planning 130 November seminar – presentation and leaflets 27 Stakeholder briefing 140 invited November Presentation and leaflets 2 Presentation to Community Safety Panel December 6 In Touch – newsletter for staff and 3000 approx December contractors December Bromley Town Talk distributed with leaflet 600 business 14 NewsShopper article giving closing date for 98,356 Average net January consultation circulation

1 21 Council’s annual public meeting – AAP 70 residents, mainly January questions raised and answered Reps for local groups 22 Minutes for about published on Homepage of Average 4,500 hits January website everyday 23 Presentation to Learning Disabilities Group January 9 February Presentation to Physical & Sensory Impairment Partnership 9 February Presentation to the Health Social Care and Housing Partnership Board

2 3 0 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 6

PROPOSED SUBMISSION AAP: INVITATION FOR REPRESENTATIONS ON SOUNDNESS AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE

8 JUNE – 17 JULY 2009

The Proposed Submission AAP was published on the 8th of June and made available for public viewing at the Council offices, on the Council website, and through written correspondence to over a thousand consultees. CD’s containing all the relevant documents were also published and distributed to specific consultees. Representation forms with comprehensive guidelines on the Tests of Soundness were made available along with the following supporting documents.

i. Sustainability Appraisal ii. Equalities Impact Assessment iii. Updated Retail Capacity Assessment iv. Transport Strategy v. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment vi. Statement of Consultation vii. Evidence Baseline Report viii. A letter of Appropriate Assessment provided by Natural England

DATE MEDIUM DISTRIBUTION

3 June News Release Local media and LBB website Average 4,500 hits everyday

3 June Statutory Public Notice in News Shopper X 2 98,356 weeks Average net circulation

8 June AAP Published Letters/Documents – Hard Copies and CDs 6 Letters Documents on a CD – Specific Consultees 35 Letters – other consultees 751 All borough libraries (1 of each documents for 18 view or loan plus CDs) Planning/main receptions 2 Email notification 215 CDs Distributed during the exercise 50

bromley.gov.uk Home page visual plus all Internet availability supporting documents published

Onebromley – intranet homepage All Staff

10 June News Shopper local paper article 98,356 Average net circulation LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3 1

20 June UPDATE – Residents Association & Community Direct Mail groups newsletter (including Members and media) News item

* Includes hits on all pages of the web site

Listed below is a breakdown of organisations invited to submit representations on the Proposed Submission AAP based on the ‘Tests of Soundness’. Additionally, over 230 private individuals were also consulted during the exercise.

Specific Consultees

Affinity Homes Group Assembly Member for Bexley & Bromley, GLA British Gas Properties British Telecommunications (Planning Section) Bromley Adult Education College Bromley Association for People with Disabilities Bromley Community Health Council Bromley Family Health Services Authority Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust Bromley MyTime Bromley Primary Care Trust BT plc Civil Aviation Authority Coal Authority Commercial Property, Network Rail Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment E.ON UK Plc EDF Energy, Major Business, Scanning and Indexing English Heritage Environment Agency Freight Transport Association Government Office for London Greater London Authority Highways Agency Homes and Communities Agency Kent Route (Stations), Network Rail LIFT Project, (NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust) Bassetts House Mayor of London Member of Parliament for Bromley and Chiselhurst Natural England, London Region Planning Inspectorate Telereal (on behalf of BT) Thames Water Property Services Transco, South East London Transport for London

3 2 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Other Consultation Bodies

A2 Dominion Accent South Acert Acorn, Land & Strategic Property Division ACX Express Affinity Sutton, Level 6 Age Concern Bromley Air Transport Users Council Airports UK Limited Albyfield Residents' Association Aldersmead Road Residents' Association Alan Hill & Co Alexandra Residents' Association Anchor Housing Association Andace Park Residents' Association Association APCA APCA Core Panel Asda Stores Ltd Asprey Homes Atisreal (on behalf of Land Securities Trillium) Atisreal Ltd Babbacombe Road Residents Association Badgers Mount Residents' Association Baker Tilley Banner Homes Barnmead (Cator Estate) Residents' Association Ltd Barrett Haskins Designs Ltd Barton Willmore Planning Partnership Baxter Clark & Paul Beadon Road Residents' Association Beaver Housing Association Beckenham Civic Society Beckenham Constituency Conservative Association Beckenham Constitutional Club Ltd Beckenham Liberal Democrats Beckenham Place Park Residents' Association Beckenham Village Residents' Association Beechwood Residents' Association Bellway Homes Bennett Urban Planning Berkeley College Homes Limited Berkeley Homes (Eastern) Ltd Berwood Homes Bickley Park Residents' Association Biggin Hill & Darwin Branches of the Labour Party LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3 3

Biggin Hill & District Residents' Association Biggin Hill Airport Ltd Biggin Hill News Ltd Biggin Hill Partnership Biggin Hill Society Bilton plc Blenheim-Arpley Residents Association Steering Group Broad Oaks Estate Association Bromley & Chislehurst Labour Party Bromley & District Estate Agents Association Bromley & North West Kent Friends of the Earth Bromley & West Kent Archaeological Group Bromley Advocacy Project - Service User Involvement Team (SUITe) Bromley Allotment & Leisure Gardens Federation Bromley Asian Cultural Association Bromley Autistic Trust Bromley Borough Local History Society Bromley Borough Roads Action Group Bromley Children & Families Forum Bromley Christian Centre Bromley Citizen's Advice Bromley Civic Society Bromley College Bromley College of Further & Higher Education Bromley Common & Hayes Lane Association of Residents Bromley Common 2468 Residents Group Bromley Common Village Residents' Association Bromley Congregation Of Jehovah's Witnesses Bromley Conservative Club Bromley Council on Ageing Bromley Court Hotel Bromley Education Business Partnership Bromley Federation of Housing Associations Bromley Fire Station Bromley Friends of the Earth Bromley Green Party Bromley Housing Advisory Service Bromley Labour Party Local Government Committee Bromley Learning Disabilities Forum Bromley Learning Disabilities Forum c/o Bromley Mencap Bromley Little Theatre Bromley Magistrates' Court Bromley Mencap Bromley Mental Health Forum Bromley Mental Health Services Social Inclusion Unit Bromley Mind Bromley Museum Service 3 4 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Bromley Muslim Association Bromley MyTime Bromley North Residents' Association Bromley Physical Disability & Sensory Impairment Forum Bromley Police Community Consultative Group Bromley Police Station Bromley Primary Care Trust Bromley Racial Equality Council Bromley Ramblers Bromley Small Business Club Bromley Somali Community Association Bromley South Action Group Bromley Town Business Forum Bromley Town Church Bromley United Reformed Church Bromley Voluntary Sector Trust Bromley Wheelchair User Group Bromley Youth Council BRONSPART Broomleigh Housing Association Bropar Limited Burnett Planning and Development Burnt Ash Housing Association C B Richard Ellis c/o United Reformed Church Cala Homes Capisano Restaurant Capita Business Services Ltd Capital Shopping Centres PLC Capitec (Part of NHS Estates) Carers Bromley Castlemore Cathedral Group Plc Cator Estate (Beckenham) Ltd Central Beckenham Liberal Democrats CGMS Consulting (on behalf of Royal Mail Property Holdings) CGMS Consulting (on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Authority) Chancery Lane/Limes Road Residents' Association Charles Church Developments Charles Planning Associates Chelsfield Park Residents' Association Chelsfield Village Society Chelsham & Farleigh Parish Council Cherrycot Residents' Association Chesterton Estate Residents' Association Chislehurst & Sidcup Housing Association LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3 5

Chislehurst Conservative Association Chislehurst Constituency Labour Party Chislehurst Social & Liberal Democrats Chislehurst Society Chislehurst Village Society Churches Together in Bromley Churchill Insurance Churchill Theatre Bromley Circa Ltd City of London Corporation Citygrove Securities plc Civil Aviation Authority Colliers CRE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Communities and Local Government Community Care Protection Group Community Links Bromley Community Options Computer Cab plc Confederation of British Industry Conrad Ritblat Erdman Conservative Future Conservative Penge Action Team Copers Cope Residents Association Council for the Protection of Rural England Country Land & Business Association Countryside Strategic Projects plc Crest Strategic Crockenhill Parish Council Crockthorn Orpington Fairworth Bromley & Beck Valley Trusts Crofton Residents' Association Crowborough Drive Residents' Association Croydon & South London Chamber of Commerce & Industry Crystal Palace Community Association Cudham Conservation Group Cudham Residents' Association Curtis Haines Cushman & Wakefield, Healey & Baker D & M Planning Dartford District Council David Lock Associates David Wilson Homes Deaf Access Bromley Department for Children, Schools and Families Department of Child Health Department of Trade & Industry Direct Build Services 3 6 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Disability Consultative Group Disability Voice Bromley Disabled Living Foundation DMI Properties Dovetail Club for Physically Disabled Residents' Association Downes Planning Partnership DPDS Consulting Group DPP LLP Dron & Wright Property Consultants Durham Avenue Residents' Association Dysart Surgery Eden Park Residents' Association Residents' Association Empty Homes Agency English Partnerships, South London Region English Sports Council, Greater London Environment & Leisure Services, London Borough of Bexley Environment Bromley Ethnic Communities Programme / Network ETSU, Department of Trade and Industry Fairview New Homes Ltd Family Housing Association Farnborough Park Estate Ltd Residents' Association Farwig Area Residents' Association Federation of Members Sporting Clubs (Bromley) Federation of Small Businesses Felmingham Road Ressidents' Association Fernwood Close Residents' Association First Title Services Ltd Firstplan Florida Court Residents' Association FPD Savills Friends of Bromley Town Parks and Gardens Garden Estates Association Geffreys Estate Steering Group George Wimpy South London GHP Group GL Hearn Glen View Road and The Glade Residents' Association North Residents' Association Goddington Park Preservation Association Gough Planning Services Graham Simpkin Planning Greater London Authority (Member) Greater London South County Scout Council Green Street Green Association LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3 7

Green Street Green Residents' Association Green Street Green Village Society GVA Grimley Ltd Halifax Building Society Halstead Parish Council Hamptons Hayes Village Association Haysford Gardens Trust Hazlehurst Residents' Association Henry Boot Developments Ltd Hexagon Housing Association Hilda Lane Community Association Historic Parks & Gardens Trust House Builders Federation House of Fraser Housing Corporation Hyde Housing Association Hyde Housing Group I.K. Wyatt Building Design Ltd Iceni Projects Limited Independent Land Acquisitions Insignia Richard Ellis Inventures (NHS Estates) JEMA Fund Management Limited John Lewis JR Goodman Property Consultants JusB, Chair of Children and Family Forum Kelsey Housing Association Kelsey Park Estate & District Protection Association Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit Kent Association for the Blind Kent County Council Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit Kent Trust Conservation Corps Kent Wildlife Trust Kent Wildlife Trust (Bromley Group) Keston Park (1975) Ltd Keston Village Residents' Association Kevington Residents' Association Kier Property Kitewood Estates Knoll House Residents Laing Homes South East Thames Lambert Smith Hampton (on behalf of NOMS / HM Prison Service) Land Use Consultants Leander Group & Keston Vale Residents' Association 3 8 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Leesons Residents' Assocociation Legal & General Property Ltd Lennon Planning Lennon Planning (on behalf of Linden Homes) Lennon Planning Partnership LGBT Forum Liberata Linays Commercial Linden Homes South-East Links Estate Residents Association Lloyds Commercial Property Developments Local History Society for the London Borough of Bromley London & Quadrant Housing Trust London Ambulance Service London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Bromley Residents' Federation London Borough of Croydon London Borough of Greenwich London Borough of Lambeth London Borough of Lewisham London Borough of Southwark London Borough of Southwark Chiltern London Central Bus Co Ltd London City Airport London Councils London Cycling Campaign London Development Agency London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority, Southern Command London First Group London Green Belt Council London Transport Users Committee London Travel Watch London Walking Forum Lower Amherst Residents' Association Lowood Court Residents' Association Lullington Road Tenants' Association LXB M. J. Gleeson Group MacDonalds Restaurants Ltd Magpie Dance Marks and Spencers Marlowe Society Martin Grant Homes Ltd Mead Road Residents' Association Medical Journalists Association and the Guild of Health Writers Members of the Bromley Friends’ Group Forum LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 3 9

Metrobus Ltd Metropolitan Police Metropolitan Police Service - Property Services Michael Rogers Minc Property Enterprises Ltd Minority Ethnic Forum Mission Care Moat Housing Group Ltd Mobile Operators Association Monks Orchard Road Residents' Association Morley Fund Management Motor Cycle Action Group Mottingham Estate Tenants' Association Mottingham Residents' Association Mountview & Perry Hall Residents' Association Museum of London Archaeology Service Nash Residents' Association Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners National Car Parks Ltd National Liberal Club National Playing Fields Association National Trust, Orpington & Chislehurst Centre Nationwide Planning NATS NCMA Network Rail Newlands Unit NHS Executive London Nicholson Estates North Bromley Residents' Assocation North Street Residents' Association (Bromley) Northpoint, Sherman Road Residents Association Oakfield Lane Residents' Association Oakwood, Pound Lane, Knockholt Old Hill and Cudham Lane North Residents’ Association Old St. Paul's Cray Village Residents' Association Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd Orchard Road Society Oregon Park Residents' Association Orpington & District Amenity Society Orpington & District Archaeological Society Orpington Social and Liberal Democrats Outdoor Advertising Association Oxleas NHS Trust Palace Estate Residents' Association Palace Road Residents' Association 4 0 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Palmer Johnson Design Residents' Association Parkside Avenue Residents' Association Parliamentary, Correspondence and Briefing Unit Parsons Brinckerhoff Paul Hyett Architects Peacock & Smith Limited Pedestrian Association Pellings Limited Penge East Residents' Association Penge Forum Persimmon Homes Petts Wood & District Residents' Association Phillips Planning Services Limited Phoenix Pre-school Centre Pillar Property Ltd Place Farm & Sparrows Drive Estates Residents' Assoc Planning Aid For London Planning Newspaper Planning Publications Ltd Playlink Post Office Property Holdings Presentation Housing Association Limited Primedene Properties Ltd Princes Plain Primary School Professional Planning Services Queen Adelaide Court Tenants & Residents' Association Radcliffe Housing Association Ramblers' Association Ramsden Residents' Association Rapleys Ratcliffes Ravensbourne Valley Preservation Society Redrow Homes Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) Renewal & Recreation London Borough of Bromley Rialto Group plc Ringers Court Residents Association Robert Turley Associates Robinson Escott Planning Rookery Residents' Association Rowan Park Residents' Association Royal Horticultural Society Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd Royal Mail RPS RPS Ashdown LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 4 1

RPS Planning & Development (on behalf of Fairview New Homes) RPS Planning & Development (on behalf of Invista Foundation Property Ltd) Rydon Homes Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Salvation Army Sanctuary Housing Association SBAX SCOTRA Scott Wilson Scott-Brown Partnership SE London Green Chain Sevenoaks District Council Shackleton Real Estates Ltd. Shire Consulting (on behalf of Barclays Bank PLC Shortlands Residents' Association Showman’s Guild of Great Britiain Sinclair Jones Slough Estates Plc Social and Liberal Democrats SOLOTEC Somerfield Stores C/O Roger Tym + Partners South East London Museums Service South East London Strategic Health Authority South Eastern Trains Ltd South London and Maudsley NHS Trust South London Business South London Family Housing Association South Penge Park Residents' Association Southill Residents' Association Sport Bromley Sport England, Greater London Region St Cecelia’s Cheshire Home St James Developments St James's Investments Ltd St Mary Cray Residents Association St. George's C E Primary School St. Joseph's R C Primary School St. Mark's (C of E) Church St. Mark's C E Primary School St. Mary Cray Action Group St. Paul's Cray Community Association St. Paul's Cray Residents' Association St. Paul's Cray Tenants & Residents' Association Stagecoach Selkent Star Planning and Development Stateside Services UK Ltd Stepping Stones Club 4 2 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

Stirling Drive Residents' Association Stradella and Springfield Residents' Association Strategic Land & Planning Consultants Strategic Rail Authority Strutt and Parker Stylish Living Ltd Sundridge Park Preservation Society Sundridge Park Residents' Association Sundridge Residents' Association Suretex Textilers Care Centre Surrey County Council Sustrans Swanley Town Council Tandridge District Council Tatsfield Parish Council Taylor Woodrow Developments Limited Temple Homes Thames Water Property Services The Abbeyfield Beckenham Society Ltd The Abbeyfield Bromley Society Ltd The Architect's Panel The Barton Willmore Planning Partnership-Northern The Beckenham Place Park Society The Bickley Park Residents Group The British Motorcyclists Federation The Broadoaks Estate Association The Bromley Children Project The Camden Society The Chenies Road Association The Countryside Agency - South East Region Office The Crown Estate Commissioners The Crystal Palace Foundation The Denis Wilson Partnership The Fairfield Partnership The Federation of Broomleigh Residents The Garden History Society The Gardens Residents' Association The Glades Merchants' Association The Glades Youth Chaplain The Grove Park Community Group The Groves Residents' Association The Hayes (Kent) Community Council The Highway & District Residents' Association The Homes and Communities Agency The Knoll Residents' Association The Lambethans' Society The London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 4 3

The Mead & Mead Way Residents' Association The National Trust (South East Region) The Open Spaces Society The Pavilion The Planning Bureau Ltd The Ravensbourne School The Rookery Estates Company The Rotary Club of Chislehurst The Royston Estate Residents' Association The Theatres Trust The Tree Council The Victorian Society Tinkling Springall Solicitors Tower Homes Ltd Town & Country Housing Town Centre Chaplain Transport & Travel Research Ltd and South London Freight Quality Partnership Transport for London Tree Council Triscape Planning Trustees of Bromley & Sheppard's Colleges Turley Associates Turley Associates on behalf of TRW Pensions Trust Ltd Turley Associaties (on behalf of Sainsbury's Supermarkets) Turpington Community Association Twentieth Century Society University of the Third Age University of Westminster Urban Environment Today Urban Regeneration Partnership Vinson Close Residents' Association Visit London Waitrose Wates Wellers Solicitors West Beckenham Conservative Club Ltd West Beckenham Residents' Association Residents Association West Wickham South Residents Association Westerham Parish Council Westminster City Council Whitbread Property Wickham Common Residents' Association Wilcon Homes William Andrews & Co Wilson Connolly Homes Windsor Drive Community Association 4 4 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc Woodlands Valley Residents' Association Wright (Properties) Ltd and Waitrose Ltd WSP Developments Yester Park Residents' Association Youth Housing Forum

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 31

APPENDIX 6.1

PROPOSED SUBMISSION AAP: REPRESENTATION FORM

Ref: Proposed Submission Area Action Plan PS011

(AAP) for Bromley Town Centre Publication Stage Representation Form (For official use only)

Name of the DPD to which this representation relates: Proposed Submission Area Action Plan for Bromley Town Centre

Please return to Marc Hume N98, North Block Civic Centre, Stockwell Close Bromley, BR1 3UH

This form has two parts – Part A – Personal Details Part B – Your representation(s). Please fill in a separate sheet for each representation you wish to make.

Part A

1. Personal Details* 2. Agent’s Details (if applicable) *If an agent is appointed, please complete only the Title and Name boxes below but complete the full contact details of the agent in 2.

Title

First Name

Last Name

Job Title (where relevant) Organisation (where relevant) Address Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Post Code

Telephone Number

E-mail Address (where relevant)

1 Part B – Please use a separate sheet for each representation

Name or Organisation: 3. To which part of the AAP does this representation relate?

Paragraph Policy Proposals Map

4. Do you consider the AAP is :

Legally compliant Yes No

Sound Yes No

5. Do you consider the AAP is unsound because it its not:

(1) Justified

(2) Effective

(3) Consistent with national policy

6. Please give details of why you consider the AAP is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the AAP, please also use this box to set out your comments.

(Continue on a separate sheet /expand box if necessary)

7. Please set out what change you consider necessary to make the AAP legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test you have identified at 5 above where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this change will make the AAP legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of policy or text. Please be as precise as possible?

(Continue on a separate sheet /expand box if necessary) Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested change, as there will not normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations based on the original representation at the publication stage. After this stage, further submissions will be only at the request of the inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for examination.

2

8. If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination:

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral Yes, I wish to participate at the

examination oral examination

9. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Please note the Inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral part of the examination

10. Please indicate below if you wish to be notified of any of the following

(a) That the AAP has been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent

examination

(b) The publication of the recommendations of the independent examination, and

(c) The adoption of the Area Action Plan

Signature: Date:

3 32 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 6.2

PROPOSED SUBMISSION AAP: LETTER TO GLA: REQUEST FOR GENERAL CONFORMITY

020 8461 7637 [email protected]

Town Planning Information BTC/AAP/PropSub/reg29

Mr. Giles Dolphin Greater London Authority, City Hall The Queen's Walk London SE1 2AA

8 June 2009 Dear Mr. Dolphin,

Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan

Proposed Submission Document – Request for General Conformity

I am writing to formally request that the Mayor of London consider the general conformity of the Proposed Submission Area Action Plan for Bromley Town Centre and supporting documents as required under new regulation 29 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.

You have been sent the proposed submission documents and a statement of representations procedure separately, but please find enclosed a cd containing all the relevant documentation. The Mayor’s opinion must be received no later than 17:00 on Friday 17th July 2008.

Representations may be submitted using the enclosed standard response form but if required, a Microsoft Word version of the form to complete electronically can be provided by contacting us on 020 8461 7637 or emailing [email protected]

For further information please do not hesitate to contact us at the abovementioned number or email address.

Yours Sincerely,

Jonathan MacDonald Assistant Director of Renewal Town Centre Development Team

cc. Alison Fairhurst, Government Office for London

020 8313 4787 [email protected]

btc/aap/propsub/reg29

Ms. Alison Fairhurst Government Office for London 157-161 Millbank London SW1P 4RR

11th June 2009

Dear Ms. Fairhurst,

Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan:

Letter to Mayor of London Requesting General Conformity

Please find attached the letter to Giles Dolphin to formally request that the Mayor of London consider the general conformity of the Proposed Submission Area Action Plan for Bromley Town Centre and supporting documents as required under new regulation 29 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at the abovementioned number or email address if you have any queries.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan MacDonald Assistant Director of Renewal

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 33

APPENDIX 6.3

PROPOSED SUBMISSION AAP: EXAMPLE CONSULTATION LETTER SENT OUT BY LB BROMLEY 020 8461 7637 [email protected]

Town Planning Information BTC/AAP/PropSub

9 June 2009

Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan

Proposed Submission Document

The Proposed Submission Area Action Plan (AAP) for Bromley Town Centre and supporting documents contained in the enclosed cd are to be published on the 8th of June 2009 and the Council is inviting you to make a formal representation based on the ‘Test of Soundness’ of the documents. Representations should be made using the enclosed form with the guidance notes as a reference.

The AAP contains the planning policy framework for managing development in the town over the next 15 years whilst at the same time protecting and enhancing the town's historic features. Based on the responses to the three previous rounds of public consultation, the proposals have been further refined. The AAP provides the necessary structure to support the regeneration of the town centre by including significant proposals for retail, leisure, residential and commercial development.

All representations will be forwarded along with the plan itself to the Secretary of State for examination. The closing date for the submission of representations is 5pm on 17th July 2009 and these should be sent to: Marc Hume, Director of Renewal & Recreation c/o Town Centre Development Team, Room N98, Bromley Civic Centre, BR1 3UH or via email to: [email protected]

The plan and its supporting documents are available for inspection at all the Council’s libraries, at reception in the Civic Centre or on the Council’s web site: www.bromley.gov.uk/BromleyTownCentreAAP .

Please use the contact number above or email [email protected] if you have any further queries.

Yours Sincerely,

Jonathan MacDonald Assistant Director of Renewal Town Centre Development Team

34 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 6.4

PROPOSED SUBMISSION AAP: NOTICE OF PUBLICATION

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED SUBMISSION VERSION OF THE AREA ACTION PLAN FOR BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as Amended by the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

Representations on Soundness are being invited from 8 June 2009 to 17 July 2009.

(a) The title. Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan – Proposed Submission Document

(b) The subject matter. The Area Action Plan is a Development Plan Document (DPD) which sets out the development opportunities for Bromley Town Centre over the next 15 years. It includes major redevelopment opportunities and major traffic and transport infrastructure changes. It sets out the planning framework for significant change and conservation, including detailed development control policies.

(c) The period within which representations may be made. The Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan proposed submission document will be available for comment from 8th June 2009 until 5 pm on 17th July 2009.

(c) How representations should be made In accordance with regulations, representations on the soundness of the DPD should be made using the response form downloadable electronically via the website (http://www.bromley.gov.uk/environment/planning/town+centre+action+plan/) and the guidance notes as a reference.

(d) The address to which representations must be sent. All representation forms on the Proposed Submission Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan must be sent to:

Marc Hume Director of Renewal & Recreation c/o Town Centre Development Team Room N98 Bromley Civic Centre Stockwell Close Bromley BR1 3UH

All electronic versions of the forms must be sent to: [email protected]

(e) Statement of notification. Please remember to indicate in your response if you wish to be notified of any of the following: (a) That the DPD has been submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination (b) The publication of the recommendations of the independent examination, and (c) The adoption of the Area Action Plan

This notice is prepared in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. The Proposed Submission Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan together with its supporting documents are available for inspection on the Bromley Council Web site – http://www.bromley.gov.uk/environment/planning/town+centre+action+plan/ and at the following locations during the hours specified over a period of 6 weeks:

The Civic Centre, Stockwell Close, Bromley Main Reception Mon, Fri, 8.30am to 5.30pm Planning Reception Mon, Fri, 8.30am to 4.45pm

Bromley Central Library, High Street, Bromley Mon, Wed, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm Tues, Thurs 9.30am - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Anerley, Town Hall, Anerley Road, Penge Mon 9.30am - 8.00pm Tues, Wed, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Beckenham Library, Beckenham Road, Beckenham Mon, Tues 9.30am - 6.00pm Wed, Fri 9.30am - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Mottingham Library, 31 Mottingham Road, Mottingham Mon to Wed 9.30am - 6.00pm Fri 9.30am - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Orpington Library, The Priory, Church Hill, Orpington Mon, Wed 9.30am - 6.00pm Tues, Fri 9.30am - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Shortlands Library, 110 Shortlands Road, Bromley Mon 9.30am - 8.00pm (Closed 1.00- 2.00pm) Tues, Wed, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm (Closed 1.00-2.00pm) Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm (Closed 1.00- 2.00pm)

With the exception of the Civic Centre & Central Library, the above Libraries are closed on Thursdays, and those below are closed on Wednesdays

Penge Library, 186 Maple Road, Penge Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Southborough Library, Southborough Lane, Bromley Mon, Tues, Thurs 9.30am - 6.00pm Fri 9.30am - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

St. Paul's Cray Library, Mickleham Road, St Paul`s Cray Mon, Thurs, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm Tues 9.30am - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Biggin Hill Library, Church Road, Biggin Hill Mon, Thurs, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm Tues 9.30am - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Chislehurst Library, Red Hill, Chislehurst Mon, Thurs 9.30am - 8.00pm Tues, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Petts Wood Library, Frankswood Avenue, Petts Wood Mon, Thurs 9.30am - 8.00pm Tues, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

West Wickham Library, Glebe Way, West Wickham Mon, Fri 9.30am - 8.00pm Tues, Thurs 9.30am - 6.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

The following two Libraries are closed, in addition to Wednesday, on the days specified:

Burnt Ash Library, Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley Mon, Thurs 9.30am - 6.00pm (Closed 1.00pm - 2.00pm) Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm (Closed 1.00pm - 2.00pm) Tues, Wed, Fri – Closed

Hayes Library, Hayes Street, Hayes Tues, Fri 9.30am - 6.00pm (Closed 1.00-2.00pm) Thurs 2.00pm - 8.00pm Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm (Closed 1.00-2.00pm) Mon, Wed - Closed Sat 9.30am - 5.00pm

Mobile library times and route available on www.bromley.gov.uk

Further information is available on the Bromley Council Web site – http://www.bromley.gov.uk/environment/planning/town+centre+action+plan/ or from the Town Centre Development Team - 020 8461 7637

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION | 35

APPENDIX 6.5

PROPOSED SUBMISSION AAP: COMMITTEE REPORT

Report No. London Borough of Bromley Agenda DRR09/00107 Item No. PART 1 - PUBLIC

Decision Maker: Development Control Committee

Date: 20th October 2009 Decision Type: Non-Urgent Executive Key

Title: SUBMISSION OF THE AREA ACTION PLAN FOR BROMLEY TOWN CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION

Contact Officer: Bob McQuillan, Chief Planner Tel: 020 8313 4441 Email: [email protected] Jonathan Macdonald, Assistant Director, Renewal and Recreation Tel: 020 8313 4847 E-mail: [email protected] Chief Officer: Director of Renewal & Recreation

Ward: Bromley Town

1. Reason for report

1.1 Having undergone the formal period of consultation on “soundness” during the summer, the next step for the Area Action Plan for Bromley Town Centre (The AAP) will be its submission to the Secretary of State for independent Examination.

1.2 This report presents the main issues arising from the final period of consultation which will be put forward to the Inspector and suggests some amendments to deal with additional minor issues. The amendments do not alter any of the strategy or objectives of the plan, nor should their inclusion cause any concerns over soundness.

______

2. RECOMMENDATION(S)

2.1 Members of Development Control Committee are asked to note • the main issues raised in the representations on the pre-submission AAP, and • the suggested minor amendments to be approved by Executive • the provisional timing of events post submission.

1 Corporate Policy

1. Policy Status: New policy. The AAP will be the Council’s first Development Plan Document (DPD) in the Local Development Framework (LDF). As a DPD the AAP is subject to independent examination.

2. BBB Priority: Vibrant Thriving Town Centres. ______

Financial

1. Cost of proposal: N/A The sites identified in the AAP present opportunities for private sector investment of the type that resulted in the development of The Glades. While the Council may incur expenditure in assisting in site assembly it would only do so if it is assured that those costs will ultimately be met by the developer. There is also an opportunity for the Council to obtain capital receipts for the sale of its own land. The Council owns 6 of the 12 opportunity sites

2. Ongoing costs: N/A.

3. Budget head/performance centre: R & R

4. Total current budget for this head: £n/a

5. Source of funding: Consultancy costs have been met from the Planning Development Grant, Town Centre Improvement Fund, LABGI and the LPSA 1 reward funds and are within the approved budget. ______

Staff

1. Number of staff (current and additional): n/a

2. If from existing staff resources, number of staff hours: n/a ______

Legal

1. Legal Requirement: Statutory requirement. The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 amend the 2004 regulations and prescribe the procedure for submission and adoption of the Area Action Plan.

2. Call-in: Call-in is not applicable. ______

Customer Impact

1. Estimated number of users/beneficiaries (current and projected): borough -wide ______

Ward Councillor Views

1. Have Ward Councillors been asked for comments? No.

2. Summary of Ward Councillors comments: NA

2 3. COMMENTARY

Main issues outstanding from representations on the pre-submission AAP.

3.1 During the consultation period on the Soundness of the plan, 40 representors put forward 104 representations. Representors include local residents, businesses, interest groups, statutory consultees, Government Office for London (GOL) and the GLA. A list of representors is attached as Annex 1. The representations will shortly be available to view on the Council’s website (with personal details removed) and a summary table has been placed in the Members’ Room for information. All the representations will be submitted to the Secretary of State alongside the plan.

3.2 The main issues are:

• Level of parking standards • Deliverability, Phasing and Flexibility of Opportunity Sites • Safeguarding of land for transport improvements • Impact of Development on the Conservation Area • Viability of Opportunity Sites A, J & G

3.3 The Greater London Authority (GLA) suggests that some minor changes are required in order for the plan to be considered in general conformity with the London Plan. Some of these will be dealt with by making minor amendments to the AAP (see below). However, there remains an outstanding issue raised by Transport for London (TfL) to the effect that additional car parking be expressed as a maximum, not a minimum standard.

3.4 Government Office London (GOL) seeks greater clarification on interrelationship in the phasing of Sites E, F and G (The Pavillion, The Civic Centre and the western side of the High Street), and alternative arrangements should proposals not proceed in accordance with the proposed phasing.

3.5 Telereal Trillium, previous applicants for planning permission on Site L (the DHSS building and Christian Centre), question the need for the safeguarded land at the edge of their site which they consider to hinder the deliverability of their proposals.

3.6 A number of representors raise concerns about the impact of the plans upon the Conservation Area and other elements of the historic environment. English Heritage, Friends of Bromley Parks and Gardens and APCA, for example, consider that the AAP is not consistent with national planning policy (PPG15 – historic conservation) in its assessment of the town’s historic fabric.

3.7 Linden Homes and Network Rail indicate that the reduction of residential units from 400 to around 250 on Site A (Bromley North Station) would make the scheme economically unviable due to the high costs associated with the relocation and replacement of the multi- storey car park. Conversely, the Bromley Civic Society and Babbacombe Residents Association consider that the quantum of development on this site is unjustified and wish for the impact on the character of the surrounding area to take greater importance.

3.8 Turley Associates, representing some of the properties located within Site G (West of the High Street) and residents of Ethelbert Close / Ringers Road / Ethelbert Road object to the parking schemes, density and the design of Site G proposals, citing conservation, sustainability and blight issues.

3 3.9 It is proposed not to make significant changes to the plan as a result of these main issues, but to submit the plan as published.

Minor amendments

3.10 In order to address some typographical errors, remove duplications and assist clarification of the plan, a schedule of minor amendments has been prepared (see Annex 2). Subject to approval, this would be submitted alongside the AAP for the Inspector to consider. The amendments do not alter any of the strategy or objectives of the plan, nor should their inclusion cause any concerns over soundness.

Examination of the AAP

3.11 Examination of the AAP starts with the submission of the document to the Secretary of State (The Planning Inspectorate in practice). A Planning Inspector will consider the soundness of the plan in general as well as considering potential issues raised by the representations and the Inspector may raise issues in addition to those summarised here. Subject to Executive formally approving the minor amendments suggested, the AAP will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following their meeting on 4th November 2009. The Planning Inspectorate will then appoint a Planning Inspector (PI) who will confirm the key dates for Pre-Hearing Meetings and the dates of any Hearings deemed necessary.

3.12 A Programme Officer (PO) is in place who will deal with the practical and administrative requirements of the representors and the Inspector during the Examination stage. Although based at the Civic Centre, the PO remains independent of the Council. Communication will also be assisted through the development of a section of the Council’s website specifically for the Examination where all necessary documents will be made available.

3.13 Although the Examination timetable remains in the hands of the Inspector, the Planning Inspectorate expect to keep to a tight week-by-week schedule. Based upon guidance issued by the Planning Inspectorate we would anticipate the Examination Hearings to take place in early March 2010 and the Inspector’s report to be submitted to the Council by the end of June 2010. The Council must then publish the report, and if the plan is found sound, it should be adopted at the earliest opportunity.

4. POLICY IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The AAP sets out the policy framework for the future development of Bromley Town Centre. Proposals within the plan take into account national and regional planning policy and, as a spatial plan, other non-planning policies. The soundness and legal compliance of these proposals will be tested by a Planning Inspector at Examination.

4.2 The attainment of Vibrant and Thriving Town Centres is a key Council priority under “Building a Better Bromley” corporate policy and implementing an AAP is crucial to strengthening the Town Centre’s position in the current economic climate and ensuring its future prosperity in the face of increasing competition.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Funding for the AAP progress is being met from the Planning Delivery Grant, Town Centre Improvement Fund, LABG1 and LPSA 1 reward funds.

4 6. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The Plan is a statutory document and has been prepared under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and in accordance with The Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004 as Amended by the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

7. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

NA

Non-Applicable Sections: PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS Background Documents: Proposed Submission AAP June 2009 (Access via Contact Officer)

5 36 | LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION

APPENDIX 6.6

LETTER TO PLANNING INSPECTORATE

020 8313 4787 [email protected]

btc/aap/propsub/reg27

Alison Ingham The Planning Inspectorate

3/25 Hawk Wing Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN 4th June 2009

Dear Ms. Ingham,

Bromley Town Centre Area Action Plan:

Invitation for representation(s) on the Soundness of the Proposed Submission Area Action Plan for Bromley Town Centre

As required under Regulation 27 of the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, please find enclosed a hard copy and a cd of the Proposed Submission Area Action Plan for Bromley Town Centre and supporting documents.

I also enclose a copy of the Statutory Notice from the Bromley Newsshopper published on the 3rd of June 2009.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan MacDonald Assistant Director of Renewal