Menu

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Civic Suite. View directions

Contact: Amanda Ghani  0208 314 9417

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 203 KB

Minutes:

There were no declarations.

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 216 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes for Planning Committee (A) held on 19th

October 2017 be approved.

3.

KENTON COURT, 132 ADAMSRILL ROAD, LONDON, SE26 4AU pdf icon PDF 618 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Officer Helen Milner outlined details of the proposal for the demolition of the disused three storey residential care building to allow redevelopment for a part three/four storey residential building comprising 25 social rent flats. The officer outlined the proposed landscape works, 46 cycle spaces, 3 wheelchair accessible car parking spaces and living roof details.

 

Statutory consultation was undertaken resulting in 6 objections, as detailed in Section 6 of the officer’s report. The objections were outlined to members. Section 8 of the report was highlighted to members, particularly regarding parking stress, space standards, daylight/sunlight assessments and an Ecology Survey, which officers consider satisfactory. The officer responded to all the issues raised in the received objections.

 

Questions put to the planning officer by members included the difference between green and living roofs, which the officer explained and the use of more than one entrance by future occupiers.

 

The Committee received verbal representation from the Project Manager of Lewisham Homes, Anthony Kelly and the Architect David Lomax who gave an overview of the application history, the withdrawal of a scheme for 35 units on site and how the development forms part of Lewisham Council’s New Homes Programme which will provide 100% social rent, secure tenancies for households on Lewisham’s housing register. Mr Lomax highlighted the level of engagement that had taken place with the Planning Authority and the local community. With regards to design, he stated that living spaces within the flats had been sited to prevent as much overlooking to neighbouring properties as possible.

 

The committee received verbal representation from Sarah Tabbit a resident in Adamsrill Road and Barry Milton from the Sydenham Society who handed a print out to members containing a site location plan, elevation drawing and a picture of Adamsrill Nursery which is situated opposite the subject site.

 

Ms Tabbit outlined the impact on existing residents which included loss of privacy due to overlooking from walkways and roof terrace, noise, loss of sun/daylight, the proposed building being too large and sited too close; having a dominating and intrusive impact on neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Milton spoke about perceived social negative effects of having residential development of this size directly opposite a nursery with overlooking into the playground at the front.

 

Councillor Hall spoke under standing orders regarding the density and scale of the development and its proximity to a school. He opined that a less dense, lower development would suit the site and mention was also made of the amount of parking on surrounding roads due to the school and Sydenham Green Health Centre.

 

Councillor John Paschoud spoke under standing orders regarding the boundary between Perry Vale Ward and Bellingham Ward which runs across Adamsrill Road. The Councillor stated that Perry Vale Councillors should have been consulted and whilst he supports the strategic objective; traffic pressure on Adamsrill Road should be acknowledged.

 

Paula Young the Council’s Lawyer, was questioned by members as to whether there were legal restrictions regarding development near an existing school/nursery. There are none.

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

151 WALLER ROAD, LONDON, SE14 5LX pdf icon PDF 310 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Officer Helen Milner outlined the application for a minor material amendment to allow for a variation of condition 2 of planning permission DC/16/095772, in order to address inaccuracies in the height of a glazed roof and side wall of a rear extension, together with a change to the opening style of the window in the side of the original rear addition.

 

The officer explained that the extension has been built higher than approved plans although there would be no increase in the width and depth of the extension. Consultation was carried out as mentioned in Section 4 of the officer’s report. The officer listed the objections and stated that no objections had been received regarding the original planning application.

 

The Committee received verbal and written representation (documents tabled) from the architect Martha Reid, who stated that the two adjacent neighbouring properties supported the application. 

 

Members obtained clarification from Ms Reid regarding the original error in height of the extension.

 

The Committee received verbal representation and printed photographs, from local residents Linda Bernhardt and Charles Collins who voiced concerns over the scale of the extension, it setting a precedent, light pollution and the undermining of the planning process. Mr Collins was concerned that the neighbourly feel would be lost. Both objectors complained that they had received no notice about the original planning application.

 

Members questioned the Planning Officer with regards to the height of the extension and why it was being decided at committee. The officer stated to members that the new height would add 8cm to the approved height and when dealing with householder minor applications, consultation is confined to properties that adjoin the subject site. The application is presented at committee due to the application receiving two objections from residents and an objection from a ward councillor.

 

Councillor Till moved a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant permission. It was seconded by Councillor De Ryk

 

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR:                  Councillor Amrani (Chair), Paschoud, De Ryk, Bourne, Jeffrey and Till.

 

RESOLVED:      That the application DC/17/103876 be approved.

 

5.

45 MOUNT ASH ROAD, LONDON, SE26 6LY pdf icon PDF 287 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Officer outlined the application for the construction of a single storey rear extension together with installation of new steps and a retaining wall.  The property is subject to an Article 4 Direction and an example of Victorian bye law housing. A special characteristic of this and other houses in the terrace is the rear external toilet block that straddles the boundary between the host property and the adjacent neighbour to the east. The consultation was undertaken as set out in section 4 of the officer’s report. Three objections from neighbouring residents and the Sydenham Society were received; the officer outlined the objections. The officer also highlighted the attached conditions which have been successfully imposed on similar applications in this terrace.

 

The Committee received verbal representation from Mr and Mrs Dwight, the applicant. Mrs Dwight informed members about the proposal and how the new internal configuration would enhance their living arrangements. She explained that she had sought a recommendation from the Sydenham Society regarding retaining an architect and hired a structural engineer to make sure work is carried out sensitively and safely.

 

Members had no questions for the applicant.

 

Councillor De Ryk moved a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation. It was seconded by Councillor Till.

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR:                  Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud, Bourne, De Ryk, Till and Jeffrey

 

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be granted in respect of application No. DC/17/103019

6.

2 VENTNOR ROAD, LONDON, SE14 5QT pdf icon PDF 312 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Officer outlined the application for the extension of the existing two storey original rear addition at ground and first floor levels, together with alterations to the rear elevations and the insertion of timber sash windows to replace the existing shopfront glazing to the north and west elevations. The proposals would improve living conditions in the existing four flats. Consultation was undertaken as set out in Section 4 of the officer’s report. Six objections were received and were set out to members.

 

The Planning officer informed members that the application had been revised, which mainly involved the removal of the mansard roof extension from the proposal and changes to windows, which officers consider acceptable.

 

Councillor Jeffrey stated a dislike for the proposed windows.

 

The Committee received verbal representation from Peter Swain the architect who told members that the windows had been chosen with historic, traditional design features in mind. His brief was primarily one of improving the living conditions of the existing occupied flats, hence the proposed openable windows to the front of the building. The proposed window to the basement bedroom is to improve light and ventilation to the room. Members considered the dark grey windows against dark brick to be good design.

 

The Committee received verbal and pictorial representation from Mr Aholou a neighbour, who spoke about the badly applied render to the rear of the property. He asked that the render be removed and that work on site be between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday.

 

The Planning Officer informed members that the render to the rear of the property did not form part of the current proposal, however, Condition 3 asks for details of proposed render to be submitted and approved by the Council. With regards to building working hours, this is not something that is usually conditioned as a minor development, although if members so wished it could be added. The officer stated that conditions could only be added regarding what is being proposed and therefore members requested that the is condition for the render be strength so that further details are required to ensure high quality. Members did not request that a condition be added regarding working hours.

 

 

 

Councillor De Ryk moved a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation. It was seconded by Councillor Till

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR:                  Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud, Bourne, De Ryk, Till and Jeffrey

 

RESOLVED:   That planning permission be granted in respect of application No. DC/17/103645

 

7.

239 LEWISHAM WAY, LONDON, SE4 1XF pdf icon PDF 279 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Officer outlined the application for an approval of details of cleaning methodology (including demonstration sample panel) submitted in compliance with Conditions (2) & (3) of the Listed Building Consent dated 23rd October 2014 (ref. DC/14/88548) for the cleaning of the exterior of the building at 239 Lewisham Way, SE4.

 

The officer stated that three similar applications at this site have been refused; however, planning and conservation officers are now satisfied that the cleaning methodology is acceptable. With this type of application, there is no need to consult, however, The Brockley Society objected and the officer reiterated the objections to members.

 

The Committee received verbal and pictorial representation from Verity Rowsell an architect and local resident who spoke on behalf of the Brockley Society. Ms Rowsell said that the cleaning approach had not materially changed. No new methodology has been submitted since the previous cleaning method statement dated October 2016, which was found to be insufficient. Ms Rowsell called for a more sympathetic manual cleaning approach to be adopted and asked why the yellow stock brickwork would be cleaned with an officer present, yet cleaning the more fragile red brick and terracotta ornamentation would not be monitored. Ms Rowsell showed members photographs of the damaged brickwork and terracotta which it was claimed have been damaged during a trial cleaning process.

 

Members asked the planning officer if manual cleaning had been considered and whether soiling was damaging the fabric of the building. The officer read out the conservation officer’s comments and stated officers were satisfied with the proposed methodology. The officer could not comment on the apparent damage shown in the photographs, not knowing when they were taken.

 

Members and the officer discussed adding an informative to have the conservation officer present during the first cleaning process of panels yet to be tested and also another informative requesting photographic recording of the building before and after the cleaning.

 

Councillor Till moved a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation. It was seconded by Councillor Paschoud

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR:                  Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud, Bourne, De Ryk, Till and Jeffrey

 

RESOLVED:   That approval of details be granted in respect of application No. DC/17/102944 subject to the two informatives.

 

 

The meeting ended at 9.45pm.                  Chair