Menu

Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Samuel James  0208 314 3722

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 203 KB

Minutes:

MINUTES of the meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE (A) held in ROOMS 1 & 2, CIVIC SUITE, LEWISHAM TOWN HALL, CATFORD, SE6 4RU on 1ST March 2018 at 19:30.

 

PRESENT: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud (Vice Chair), Adefiranye, Bourne, Jeffrey, Till, Kennedy and Walsh.

 

OFFICERS: Suzanne White – Planning Service, Paula Young – Legal Services, Samuel James – Committee Co-ordinator

 

APOLOGIES: Councillor De Ryk, Councillor Raven

 

1.         DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

 

There were no declaration of interests.

 

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 136 KB

Minutes:

2.            MINUTES

 

Members approved the minutes for Committee A, which was held on 17th January 2018.

 

3.

THREE GARAGES REAR OF 60 BREAKSPEARS ROAD, LONDON, SE4 1TS pdf icon PDF 368 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

3.         Three Garages Rear of 60 Breakspears Road, SE4 1TS (DC/17/102243) (Item 3 on the agenda)

 

The presenting Planning Officer Suzanne White explained the details of the existing site which is currently occupied by three garages, on a piece of land which originally formed part of the rear garden of 60 Breakspears Road, accessed from Cranfield Road. The site is within the Brockley Conservation Area, and subject to an Article 4 Direction.

 

The presenting officer outlined the details of the proposal for the demolition of the three garages and the construction of a two storey plus basement, two bedroom house with roof terrace. They went on to mention that there had been 24 letters of objection against the proposal and 5 in support of it; in addition to objections from the Brockley Society and the Conservation officer. They stated that the proposal had been recommended for refusal by officers for 3 reasons relating to: 1. The detrimental impact of its design upon the streetscene and wider conservation area; 2. Its detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; 3. The unsatisfactory living conditions of the proposed dwelling, specifically with regard to outlook and natural lighting to habitable rooms.

 

A question from Counicllor Paschoud sought clarity on the levels of obscure glazing that were proposed, and the impact of this on outlook. The presenting officer, Suzanne White, stated that 1 of the bedrooms had proposed satisfactory outlook as its window would be clear glazed, whilst the other bedroom and living spaces would have poor levels of outlook and natural lighting due to the level of obscured glazing.

 

Next the committee received verbal representation from Brian Kavannagh, the agent for the application who had tabled a model of the proposal and surrounding area for members’ consideration. He outlined the arguments for the case, including that this was a good opportunity to add to the housing stock by utilising an underused site. In rebuttal against the scheme’s objections he stated that the proposal was of a modest size, had been designed sensitively so as to have little impact on neighbours’ amenity, and to ensure future residents would be provided with a good standard of accommodation. He claimed that the current proposal had been designed in response to Officer’s pre-app advice, which he felt was now being retreated from.

 

The applicant Samuel Confino then gave his personal reasons for wanting to build his own home in Brockley, including that he grew up in the area, and his wife is pregnant.

 

Questions from members followed including from Councillor Paschoud, who asked about the ‘odd’ bathroom arrangements, whereby there is one on each floor, directly below each other. The agent responded that it makes construction easier if the bathrooms are stacked, and that the property would require planning permission if it were to be converted into separate flats – and that this was not the applicant’s intention.

 

Councillor Amrani asked why there was a need for such a high volume of obscure glazing, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

PHOEBE'S GARDEN CENTRE, PENERLEY ROAD, LONDON, SE6 2LQ pdf icon PDF 706 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

The IT issues continued and the presentation for this application would not load.

 

Councillor Amrani forwarded a motion to not consider the application at this meeting and to postpone until the next committee meeting, because it was a complex case which required members to have all of the information and facts of the case in front of them.

 

This motion was seconded by Councillor Walsh, and was unanimously voted for by Councillors.

 

RESOLVE: Application was not presented or considered. It will be considered at the next committee meeting.

 

 

5.

12 & 16 BARING CLOSE, LONDON, SE12 0UN pdf icon PDF 170 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Due to IT technical issues, the Powerpoint presentation for this application would not load. The presenting officer therefore passed around physical paper copies of the plans for members’ considerations.

 

The presenting officer outlined the proposal for the construction of a two storey extension to the side of 12 &16 Baring Close, SE12, and explained that a report on this planning application was presented to Members on the 21st April  2016. At that meeting, members resolved to defer a determination on the application to enable the carrying out of a further Biodiversity Assessment.

 

The officer outlined the finding of the biodiversity report and stated that the Council’s Ecological Regeneration Officer has advised that the recommendations set out in the report are acceptable and subject to a condition requiring provision of bird and bat boxes the proposal was recommended for approval.

 

Councillor Jeffrey sought clarification as to whether the 2.7m wide bedroom would meet the requirements of the London Plan, to which the presenting officer responded they would.

 

Members then heard from Ella Walker, the applicant’s representative , who clarified that the biodiversity report had been completed following the requirements of the planning committee and that the findings were now considered acceptable. She also stated that the extension was to provide larger, three-bed, family sized social housing for which there is an identified need in the area.

 

No questions followed.

 

Councillor Walsh moved to accept the officers’ recommendation and grant the proposal, which was seconded by Councillor Till.

 

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud (Vice-Chair), Adefiranye, Bourne, Jeffrey, Kennedy, Till, Walsh

 

AGAINST: NONE

 

RESOLVE: Unanimous decision. Planning permission should be granted in respect of application No. DC/15/094376 subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

Meeting Closed at 20:40.