Agenda and minutes

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

MINUTES of the PLANNING COMMITTEE (A) meeting held in Council Chambers, Civic Suite, CATFORD SE6 on Thursday 5 July 2018 7:30pm.

Present

Councillors: Amrani (Chair), Holland (Vice Chair), Ingleby, Sorba, Walsh.

Apologies: Councillors Bernards, Campbell, Curren, Maslin, Paschoud.

Officers: Helen Milner – Planning Service, Paula Young - Legal Services, Alfie Williams - Planning Committee Co-ordinator.

1.           DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

There were no declarations of interests.

2.            MINUTES

The Minutes of the Planning Committee (A) meeting held on 12 April 2018 were agreed by members.

3.           Rothesay Court

The meeting began at 19:30. Planning Manager Helen Milner outlined the details of the application to members. Helen Milner then gave an overview of the consultation undertaken which included letters to more than 200 local residents and a public notice. It was noted that one objection concerned fire safety and it was explained to members that fire safety is covered by building regulations.

Helen Milner then gave an overview of the comments submitted by the Council’s Highways Department who requested that a Transport Statement be submitted to be secured by condition. Councillor Amrani asked whether the development would be wheelchair accessible. Helen Milner confirmed that there were lifts and that wheelchair access standards are also covered by building regulations.

The committee then received a verbal presentation from Shona Fleming, CEO of ScotsCare. Shona Fleming explained that ScotsCare is a charity for Scottish people living London providing sheltered accommodation, counselling, support and social events. ScotsCare have three sites in London with 37 flats at the site in Grove Park. Shona Fleming then explained that ScotsCare have a waiting list of 55 people and that this application would facilitate the provision of an additional 12 flats, helping to make a small dent in the housing crisis by helping those who are homeless or in temporary accommodation . It was then stated that the proposed mansard roof extension provides the best design solution as it results in no overall increase in height. Shona Fleming then explained that ScotsCare had worked with the Council for 10 months during pre-application and had consulted residents prior to the submission of the application.

Councillor Sorba asked which definition of affordable housing is being used. Shona Fleming replied that it was below 80% of market rent. Council Holland enquired whether additional services would be provided to residents. Shona Fleming explained that there would be an additional communal living room and an additional laundry room.

Councillor Ingleby asked whether a condition could be added securing details of the bin stores. Helen Milner confirmed that a condition could be added. Councillor Walsh asked whether the development included solar panels. Helen Milner stated that solar panels are shown on the proposed roof plan. Following further deliberation from members Councillor Ingleby moved a motion to approve the application with the addition of condition for the bin stores. The motion was seconded by Councillor Walsh.

Members voted as follows:

FOR APPROVAL:  Councillors Amrani, Holland, Ingleby, Sorba and Walsh.

AGAINST: None

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/17/103284 subject to the additional bin store condition and the negotiation and signing of the Section 106 Agreement.

4.                St Clements Heights

Planning Manager Helen Milner introduced the details of the application to members and noted that the application relates to a development granted outline planning permission in 2013, which is currently under construction. Helen Milner explained that four objections were received to the proposal with the main issues relating to overlooking, noise disturbance and ecological impact. It was then noted that the balconies on the floors above were approved under the original permission and did not form part of the proposed development.

Councillor Walsh asked whether the townhouses were one unit and if drainage had been considered. Helen Milner confirmed that the townhouses are single units and that drainage is covered by building regulations. Councillor Ingleby asked whether the proposed balconies are confined to the upper ground floor. Helen Milner confirmed that they are. Councillor Sorba asked whether there was a history of noise complaints relating to the upper floor balconies. Helen Milner noted that the building is under construction and therefore isn’t occupied.

The committee then heard representation from Oliver Milne from Savills, representing the applicants. Mr Milne noted that the principle of external amenity space has already been consented and stated that the proposed balconies represent a more efficient use of space. Oliver Milne then explained that the balconies would not feature any external lighting. Mr Milne finished by referencing the conclusions of the noise impact report.

Members then received representation from Annette Eliot-Dunn objecting to the application. Annette Eliot-Dunn explained that local residents were promised that the development would not result in light pollution however, this promise has not been kept. It was then stated that trees screening the development had been removed and that conversations from the building site can be clearly heard at nearby houses. Annette Eliot-Dunn then explained that the loss of trees had resulted in greater noise and light pollution from the site and noted that the block is clearly visible from Vigilant Close. Annette Eliot-Dunne concluded by raising concerns regarding the impact of additional lighting and heaters on the balconies.

Councillor Walsh stated that the committee are not considering the impact of the construction stage of the development and asked for clarification over the main objections to the balconies. Annette Eliot-Dunn responded that the main concerns were noise disturbances and light pollution. Councillor Walsh asked what specifically is concerning about the balconies. Annette Eliot-Dunn responded that the topography of the land amplifies noise and that lights are often left on overnight.

Helen Milner stated that the consented building provides outdoor amenity space and therefore the material planning considerations relate to potential increase in noise and light caused by the additional balconies. Councillor Ingleby asked what the benefits the additional balconies provide. Helen Milner responded by explaining that the benefit is additional amenity space, but the main planning consideration here is whether the balconies result in additional harm. Councillor Sorba asked whether there had been a breach of condition at the construction site. Helen Milner replied that the construction stage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

10 Manor Lane

Planning Manager Helen Milner introduced the details of the application to members and noted that two objections were received to the application including an objection from the Lee Manor Society. The objections concerned the contemporary roof design of the extension which includes a celestial window and the impact on neighbouring amenity. Helen Milner noted that the extension is entirely confined to the rear and is therefore not visible from the public realm.

Councillor Walsh asked whether the celestial window is entirely glazed and would there be any light spill. Helen Milner commented that there is potential for light spill but noted that this is a densely populated urban area with an existing degree of light spill. Councillor Walsh asked where the internal lights are positioned. Helen Milner replied that this question should be reserved for the architect and commented that it is not possible to control internal lighting. Councillor Walsh responded that the type of glazing can be conditioned.

The committee heard a verbal presentation from Olga McMurdo, the architect for the project, and Lucy Smith-Unwin the owner of the property. Olga McMurdo described the design brief which was to retain the period features within a contemporary design and to enhance the integration between the internal and external space. Olga McMurdo then commented on the rear extensions in the vicinity of the property and noted the variety of roof designs and different scales and dimensions. It was then explained to members that the roof design references the outrigger roof pitch and is designed to allow as much natural light into the extension reducing the need for artificial light.

Lucy Smith-Unwin stated that they bought the property because they fell in love with the period features and hoped to restore those features. Mrs Smith-Unwin then explained that she had pre-application discussions with the Council and amended the design to reduce the potential impact on neighbours. It was also noted that the drawings were sent to the Lee Manor Society prior to the submission of the application.

Councillor Ingleby asked whether there was internal planting and if the glazing will prevent reflection. Olga McMurdo explained that the illustrations on the drawing were house plants and stated that the glazing would be high clarity reducing reflection. Councillor Holland asked for the design rational for the roof design. Olga McMurdo responded that the roof design reflects the pitched roofs of the host property and stated that flat roofs are a modern feature.

Councillor Holland enquired whether the rear of the property was visible from the public realm. Helen Milner responded that the property is classic terrace plot form arranged rear to rear and therefore is not visible from the public realm. Councillor Holland asked how long the gardens are. Olga McMurdo responded that the garden is 24m in depth. Helen Milner noted that a number of the neighbouring properties have extensions obscuring views of the extension from neighbouring gardens. Councillor Walsh stated that the pitch of the roof is steeper than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

39 Aislibie Road

Helen Milner introduced the details of the application to members and explained that most houses on the road benefit from permitted development rights for roof extensions. Helen Milner explained that no objections had been received to the application and that the application could not be decided under delegated authority as it was an application submitted by a Councillor.

Following brief deliberation from members Councillor Walsh moved a recommendation to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Holland.

FOR APPROVAL: Councillors Amrani, Holland, Sorba, Ingleby and Walsh

AGAINST: None

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/18/106481

Meeting ended at 22:18

Malibu Court

Councillor Holland was absent for the introduction and was therefore unable to decide the application.

Helen Milner introduced the details of the application to members and noted  that the application site is not within a conservation area but is located adjacent to the Halifax Street Conservation Area. Helen Milner then explained that an application for a three storey, four bedroom house on the site was refused permission in 2017 and that extensive discussions with the applicant had subsequently taken place.

Councillor Ingleby noted that landscaping is reference in the report but no landscaping conditions had been recommended.  Helen Milner replied that a condition will be added. James Walsh stated that the fenestration does not align with the neighbouring property. Helen Milner explained that the land levels on the road vary significantly. James Walsh asked whether there was a design reason. Helen Milner replied that the proposed house seeks to reference the design of the terrace but is not a pastiche.

Then committee then received a presentation from Derek Draper on behalf of the applicant. Derek Draper stated that they had worked with Officers for 15 months to arrive at an acceptable design. Mr Draper explained that the development would retain a level of openness with views and access to the carpark maintained and that the proposed bin store will tidy up the appearance of the street. Mr Draper then explained to members that the contextual design referenced the surrounding features and noted that the standard of accommodation meets the requirements of the London Plan. Mr Draper concluded by stating that the development was a high quality proposal influenced by and respecting the surrounds.

Councillor Walsh asked Mr Draper why the roof line was lower than the neighbouring property. Derek Draper responded that the proposal followed the roof line of the road. Councillor Ingleby asked a question regarding the quality of the proposed materials. Helen Milner responded that details of the materials are secured by condition.

Following further deliberation from members, Councillor Walsh moved a motion to approve the application with the addition of the landscaping condition. The motion was seconded by Councillor Sorba.

FOR APPROVAL: Councillors Amrani, Sorba, Ingleby and Walsh

AGAINST: None

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/17/104742