Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Civic Suite. View directions
Contact: Amanda Ghani 0208 314 9417
There were no declaration of interests.
Members approved the minutes for Committee A, which was held on 8th December 2017
3. 54 Avonley Road, SE14 5EW (DC/17/103958) (Item 3 on the agenda)
The presenting Planning Officer Michael Forrester explained the details the existing site which is in a backland location, fully enclosed by residential properties and is currently occupied by an MOT Centre which ceased operation in December 2016. He then outlined the proposal which is a change of use of the site from a vehicular repair and MOT centre (Use Class B2) to residential (Use Class C3). This would involve the demolition of all three buildings on site and the reprovision of two buildings in the form of nine residential units (4, four bed units, 3, three bed units and 2, two bed units).
Councillor Adefiranye took his seat at 19:35.
He went on to mention that there had been 9 letters of objection and 14 letters of support, and summarised the main concerns raised by objectors. He also outlined the involvement the Council’s Highways team had with the application, and noted that their initial concerns had now been satisfied by additional information provided during the course of the application. He stated that officers raised no objections to the scheme and asked the committee to approve the proposal.
Questions by members followed relating to emergency vehicle access to the site, the access arrangements for Units 8 and 9, design of parking within the site and whether the swept path drawings had used a smaller than standard fire engine for their model. They also raised concerns over the Highways officer’s initial comments.
The presenting officer reiterated that additional information had been submitted and was found to be acceptable by the highways officer, as outlined in the Planning Considerations section of the report.
Councillor Walsh raised concerns that the future residents and their visitors may mount the curbs, parking outside of the set parking spaces which could impede emergency vehicle access. The presenting officer stated that Condition 11 could be revised to provide details of curbing, should the proposal be accepted.
Councillor Kennedy took his seat at 19:45.
The committee received verbal representation from Johnny Horn, one of the Founders of the applicants Horn & Horne, who explained that they were trying to provide much needed family housing on a site which is more suited to residential that the existing usage, and would be less disruptive to the existing residents. He outlined the level of community engagement that has taken place and stated that the letters of support outnumbered those of objection. He assured members that disruption would be kept to a minimum during construction and explained how the current application has been altered and improved from the last following advice from officers.
Questions from members followed relating to increased traffic movement within and exiting/entering the site and whether an assessment had been carried out on this. The applicant stated that this had been done and reiterated that highways have agreed to the transport assessment which has been submitted.
Councillor Jeffrey questioned the predicted period of construction to which the ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
4. Basement Flat, 8 Granville Park, SE13 (DC/17/103717) (Item 4 on the agenda)
The presenting officer outlined the proposal for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear, together with the installation of a window in the side elevation. He stated there had been 7 objections, but officers consider the proposal to be a high quality design and recommended approval.
Councillor Amrani queried whether 5m deep extensions would usually be permitted and thought that the maximum allowable depth was 3m. The planning officer clarified that the 3m restriction relates to permitted development, and permission is required for anything greater, each case is assessed based upon its own merits.
Members then heard from Ade Fowler, the architect of the scheme. He explained the amendments that have been made since the previously withdrawn application and why he considered they are an improvement. He also explained that it was not the applicant’s intent to harm any neighbours, and they are working to come up with an acceptable solution to boundary treatments, which are currently in a poor state.
Councillor De Ryk sought clarification on the existing and proposed boundary treatment and whether its installation would be permitted development. The agent explained how the proposed boundary treatment has been altered since the previous application, and stated it was not the applicants’ intent to encroach onto anyone’s property. The planning officer confirmed that boundary treatment up to 2m in height would be permitted development.
Councillor De Ryk questioned whether there would be light spill from, and overlooking into the proposed rooflight as well as whether the roof could withstand the load of workmen who may need to stand on it for maintenance in the future. The applicant confirmed that the roof could withstand workmen, and that there would be some light spill from and overlooking into the rooflight, but this would be expected in an urban residential setting such as this.
Councillor Paschoud questioned whether the works would be PD if the property was not a flat, and whether the 5m depth is excessive. The applicant confirmed the works would not be PD, but that within the context of the long garden he thought it was acceptable.
Mr Benjamin Dodge of 8 Granville Park, the flat above the application property, then spoke against the proposal. He stated that he was also speaking on behalf of No.10 Granville Park, an adjoining property. He stated two main objections against the scheme, and four from No.10:
1. Concerned the relocation of a bedroom to below their living room would cause noise and disturbance complaints against them.
2. Concerned about disturbance cause by light spill from the rooflight, as well as the reflective roof material. He requested a condition to ensure the rooflight is opaque.
3. Loss of privacy caused by side elevation windows proposed, requested they be fixed shut and fully obscured.
4. Light pollution issues due to rooflight.
5. Raised concern over noise issues.
6. Style and scale not in keeping with conservation ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
5. 108 Marsala Road, SE13 (DC/17/104633) (Item 5 on the agenda)
Councillor Kennedy excused himself from the meeting, as the application relates to a property which is owned by him.
The presenting officer explained that the proposal was for a Lawful Development Certificate (Proposed) in respect of the construction of a hip-to-gable roof extension and a rear dormer roof extension incorporating a Juliet balcony along with the replacement of the existing single storey rear extension to install bi-folding doors, together with the insertion of three rooflights to the front roof slope. He explained that officers had assessed it against the General Permitted Development Order and found it to be in compliance with the parameters and conditions set out. The only reason for the case to come to committee was because the Lewisham Constitution states that planning officers may not determine applications under delegated powers where the applicant is a member of the Council.
Councillor Jeffrey asked whether the room created in the loft could be used as a separate dwelling, and the planning officer confirmed it could not without gaining planning permission.
Councillor Walsh raised a motion to accept officers’ recommendation and issue the Lawful Development Certificate, which was seconded by Councillor Till.
FOR: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Councillor Paschoud (Vice-Chair), De Ryk, Bourne, Adefiranye, Jeffrey, Till, Walsh
RESOLVE: That Lawful Development Certificate be issued in respect of application No. DC/17/104633.
The meeting ended at 21:10