Protect Penge: Oppose the Blenheim Centre Redevelopment: Object NOW

Clarion Housing have taken over the project to demolish the Blenheim Centre in Penge, and replace it with a series of tower blocks which are totally inappropriate for a low rise Victorian high street.

This proposal is even worse than the original - there will be virtually no retail space, inferior materials will be used, and the flats are likely to be built to a very low standard, as the entire project will now be social housing. In effect,the Blenheim Centre replacement will just be another soulless high-rise council estate.

Please object now!  You only have until 2nd February to do so, and if nobody objects the Council can say that the scheme has popular support and can claim the moral high ground.

To object:

1. Browse to https://planningaccess.bromley.gov.uk/pr/s/register-view?c__r=Arcus_BE_Public_Register , and search for SE20 8RW.

2. Scroll down to the entry for reference 23/00178/S73A, click on it and click on Comments.

Here are some of the grounds you can use to make valid objections: 

If you want to comment on the portal, please focus on the amendments. Pick one or two of these points.

1. Wrong legal route. Government guidance says Section 73 cannot be used to change the description of development. If the developer wants a materially different scheme, it should come back as a fresh full planning application for proper re-assessment and consultation. 

A full explanation of the applicable law is set out at the end of this page.

2. Big loss of town centre space. The Planning Statement summary says commercial floorspace drops from 2,714sqm to 1,064sqm. That is 1,650sqm lost, which is a 60.8% reduction. (2,714 minus 1,064 equals 1,650. 1,650 divided by 2,714 equals 0.6079. Multiply by 100 equals 60.8%.) This needs a proper town centre impact justification, not generic “market conditions”. London Plan Policy SD6 is clear that town centre vitality and viability should be promoted and enhanced through a diverse range of uses. 

3. Food retail restriction removed. If the application removes the “food retail only” restriction for the remaining Class E space, that reduces certainty that the development will deliver day-to-day town centre uses, especially alongside a major floorspace cut.

4. Block removed, impacts change.

Removing a whole block and reshaping the scheme should trigger updated assessment of daylight and sunlight, wind at street level, and public realm quality.

5. Parking displacement risk. If parking is reduced to 19 spaces, the Council should publish and properly test the parking stress survey evidence, because overspill onto surrounding streets is foreseeable.

6. Extra storey point. If the amended plans add an additional storey even if the overall building height stays the same, that still changes the design, façade rhythm, and potentially privacy and daylight impacts. This should be assessed properly, not assumed “unchanged” because the top height is similar. For major schemes, London Plan Policy D12(B) expects a Fire Statement to demonstrate how the proposals achieve the highest standards of fire safety.

Other reasons to object - can be mentioned if you agree with them - but they were ignored when the original plans were approved, so the council is unlikely to react differently now.

1.  Out of scale with neighbouring development;

2. - Over-development;

3. - Insufficient resident and visitor parking;

4. - Complete loss of the multi-storey car park serving the High Street shops etc - likely to adversely affect the economy and viability of businesses;

5. - resulting increased on-street parking congestion in scale and area affected;

6. - impact on the settings and views from Listed buildings and the Conservation Area;

7. - poor living conditions for occupants (minimum internal space standards);

8. - poor provision of external play space etc for occupants;

9. - development without a corresponding increase in local services eg. health and education; and

10. - poor fire or emergency escape (LFCDA objections)

11. Contravenes Policy 47 of the Bromley Local Plan - Tall buildings and Policy 7.7 of the London Plan.   Bromley Policy 47 states: Bromley Local Plan Policy 47 focuses on design quality for tall and large buildings, requiring them to be of the highest architectural standard and make a positive contribution to the townscape, fitting appropriately within their location, while also addressing sustainability, accessibility, and creating attractive public spaces. It ensures new developments enhance biodiversity, respect existing buildings, provide good daylight/sunlight, and incorporate secure, sustainable features, moving beyond just a number to focus on the character of development. 

Misuse of planning law:

FORMAL OBJECTION: SECTION 73 APPLICATION REF 23/00178/S73 1. PROCEDURAL AND LEGAL OBJECTION: IMPROPER USE OF SECTION 73

1.1 The applicant explicitly states in Section 03.1.23 of the Planning Statement that the proposal is to "amend the description of development and conditions." 1.2 Section 73 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990 is a mechanism for developing land "without complying with conditions." It is not a legal tool to rewrite the operative description of the development itself.

1.3 The Finney Precedent: The Court of Appeal in Finney v Welsh Ministers [2019] established that a Section 73 permission cannot be used to create a permission that is inconsistent with the operative part of the original permission.

1.4 On the applicant’s own case, the changes sought are not confined to conditions. They include a fundamental rewrite of the scheme’s quantum and form, including the removal of Block F and a 60.8% reduction in commercial floorspace. I submit that this route is legally invalid and the Council must refuse the application, requiring a Full Planning Application to allow for proper public re-assessment.

2. UNJUSTIFIED LOSS OF COMMERCIAL FLOORSPACE (60.8% REDUCTION)

2.1 The Planning Statement confirms the original description included 2,714 sqm of commercial floorspace, while this proposal reduces that to 1,064 sqm.

2.2 The Calculation: 2,714 sqm (Original) – 1,064 sqm (Proposed) = 1,650 sqm removed. This represents a 60.8% reduction in town centre provision.

2.3 Breach of Pre-Application Advice: The Planning Statement (Section 02.4.2) confirms that Council officers previously stated "further justification was required for the change in the quantum of commercial floorspace" and expressed concerns regarding "active frontage." The applicant has failed to provide this justification, relying instead on generic "market conditions" which do not override the requirements of Bromley Local Plan Policy 94.

3. OBJECTION TO AMENDING CONDITION 41: REMOVAL OF FOOD RETAIL RESTRICTION

3.1 The applicant seeks to vary Condition 41 so that Class E space is "no longer solely food retail."

3.2 This change, occurring alongside a 60.8% reduction in space, materially damages the planning balance. The original approval was predicated on replacing the essential service of a supermarket (formerly Iceland). Removing this protection leaves the Penge community with no guarantee of an "anchor" food store, threatening local food security and footfall.

4. BLOCK F REMOVAL AND MASSING REDISTRIBUTION

4.1 The total omission of Block F (Section 01.1.4) while maintaining nearly the same number of homes (228 vs 230) is a material spatial change.

4.2 This requires a "bulking up" of remaining towers, specifically the addition of a 17th storey to Block C. This is not a "minor material amendment" but a significant townscape alteration that requires a full re-assessment of wind microclimate, daylight/sunlight, and the quality of the public realm.

5. TRANSPORT AND PARKING: 19 SPACES FOR 228 HOMES

5.1 The proposal reduces parking to 19 spaces while acknowledging that the local network is "already subject to high levels of on-street parking stress."

5.2 Given the shift to 100% Social Rented tenure, the Council must scrutinize the underlying survey evidence. Relying on the former footprint of Block F for surface parking (6 spaces) is an inefficient use of land that fails to mitigate the inevitable parking overspill onto surrounding Victorian streets.

6. SUMMARY OF POLICY CONFLICTS Based on the applicant's December 2025 submission, this proposal directly conflicts with:

• Bromley Local Plan Policy 94: Protection of Primary Shopping Frontages. London Plan Policy SD6: Vitality and Viability of Town Centres. London Plan Policy

• D12: High Standards of Fire Safety (necessitated by the 17-storey height of Block C, as referenced in the OFR Fire Statement, Oct 2025).

  
  
  
  

  7. COMMITTEE REFERRAL REQUEST Given the scale of change—specifically the 1,650 sqm loss of shops—and the legal risk regarding the "Description of Development," I request that this application is referred to the Planning Committee for a full public hearing.

  
  

Additional explanation of the legal issues regarding this application:

This planning application falls out of the scope of S96A and S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and should be rejected. Please note that, with regard to 23/00178/AMD, where the decision has aleady been made, will be the subject of the commencement of Judicial Review proceedings. A Pre Application Protocol letter will be formulated and sent to Bromley Borough Council in due course. The S73 amendment is dependant on the decision to approve 23/00178/AMD, which means that 23/00178/S73A should be automatically rejected by the Council.

23/00178/AMD used Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to fundamentally alter the original planning application. This section is totally inappropriate in this regard as the changes proposed are absolutely material to the original application.

The guidelines regarding changes which are out of scope are set out below:

A Section 96A application is "out of scope" if the proposed changes are considered "material" rather than "non-material" by the local planning authority (LPA). The primary principle of a s96A application is that the amendment must remain within the scope and nature of the original planning permission.

What Makes a S96A Application Out of Scope?

While there is no universal statutory definition of "non-material", an application is generally out of scope if the changes would:

• Fundamentally alter the original permission: The amendment must not result in a different scheme with different impacts.

• Adversely affect neighbours or public amenity: This includes changes that increase overlooking, cause a greater visual intrusion, or result in a loss of light or privacy.

• Conflict with planning policies or conditions: The changes must not go against any existing conditions or require new, contradictory conditions to make them acceptable.

• Increase the size or scale: Significant increases in the height, floor space, or overall size of the development are usually considered material changes.

• Extend the site boundary (red line): The application cannot be used to enlarge the area of land covered by the permission.

• Introduce new works or elements that require a full planning permission: New features, such as additional dormer windows, might be considered material if they introduce new planning considerations.

• Change the description of development in a radical way: While s96A can sometimes be used to tweak the description, a radical change in the nature or use of the development would be out of scope.
  

The LPA has the discretion to decide whether an amendment is non-material; it is a matter of fact and degree based on the context of the specific case. An amendment that is non-material in one context might be material in another.

Recent case law:

R (on the application of Wet Finishing Works Ltd) v Taunton Deane Borough Council [2017]: This highlights the importance of LPAs carefully considering whether a proposed amendment is truly non-material; their judgement can be challenged via judicial review.

See also:

R (Aysen Dennis) v London Borough of Southwark and Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

23/00178/S73A is attempting to use Section 73 of the above act to make changes and circumvent a full planning application and public consultation. It cannot be valid because it is dependent on 23/00178/AMD which falls out of the scope of S96A.

The changes include the following:

• 60% of the shops are GONE: They are slashing the commercial space from 2,714sqm down to just 1,064sqm. We were promised a vibrant mixed-use High Street; now we’re getting a "dormitory" block with most of the retail floorspace removed.

• No guarantee of a supermarket: They want to remove the "food retail only" rule. This means the promised return of a large food store (like the old Iceland) to serve the community is now at risk.

• Building F is scrapped: They are deleting an entire building but keeping almost the same number of residents (228 flats). To fit everyone in, they are "bulking up" the other towers, including adding an extra floor to Block C (now 17 storeys!).

• Parking Chaos: They are proposing just 19 parking spaces for 228 homes. In an area already struggling with massive parking stress, this will flood our side streets with overspill.

I would assert that the changes proposed are absolutely material, and hence the use of S.73 is completely incorrect in this case. In particular, the reduction in retail space and the removal of an entire building mean that the variation in the plans cannot possibly be classified as non material.

More here: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/ruling-confirms-conditions-for-planning-permission-severability

A summary of whether a S.73 application falls within the scope of the Act is set out below:

A Section 73 application (for varying planning conditions) falls out of scope if it tries to change the fundamental description of the development, alter the operative part of the original permission, or extend time limits; essentially, anything that creates a new, different permission rather than just modifying conditions, like changing the building's use, significantly altering its scale/location, or introducing conflicting conditions with the original approval. The key limitation is that you're modifying conditions, not the core development itself, which must remain consistent with the original permission's description and approved plans.

Changes That Likely Fall Outside the Scope of Section 73:

• Altering the Operative Part: Any change to the core description of the development (e.g., changing from "one dwelling" to "two dwellings").

• Materially Inconsistent Conditions: Imposing new conditions that conflict with the existing permission's description or approved plans.

• Fundamental Alteration: Changes that fundamentally alter the nature or scale of the approved development, even if technically modifying conditions (e.g., significantly increasing height, volume, or changing the site area).

• Changing the Building's Use: Modifying the approved purpose of the building.

• There is a body of case law in this regard:

See Finney v Welsh Ministers [2019] EWCA Civ 1868; [2020] PTSR 455

and Test Valley Borough Council v Fiske [2024] EWCA Civ 1541

As mentioned previously, the changes outlined by the developer are in no way trivial and if Bromley grants this application, they will be acting ultra vires and the decision will be unlawful and subject to legal challenge.

The only appropriate course of action for Bromley LPA is to insist that the developers make a fresh planning application and consultation, so that they are seen to be both fair in their decision making and acting within the law.

A peaceful residential street in Penge, showcasing the current community atmosphere.

Conclusion

The proposed council estate development in Penge poses significant risks to our community's character, environment, and economy. By opposing this development and advocating for alternative solutions, we can protect Penge for future generations. It is essential to remain engaged, informed, and active in our efforts to preserve the unique qualities that make our community special. Together, we can ensure that Penge remains a vibrant and welcoming place for all.