Agenda and minutes

There was one declaration of interests - Councillor Campbell for 34 St Margret’s passage, who declared that she had objected to the proposal, and therefore excluded herself to the public benches for Item 4.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee (A) meeting held on 01 November  018 was agreed by members.The meeting begun at 19:30

Announced by chair that this application was withdrawn and would be put forward to the next available committee. Planning Manager Mr Angus Saunders explained this was withdrawn due to an error in not appending the original committee report to the addendum report.

Councillor Cambell moved to the public seats before the start of consideration for this item.

Mr Saunders outlined the details of the application to members and explained that the primary planning considerations for the application were design and impact on neighboring amenity. Councillor Sorba asked about daylight and sunlight. Mr Saunders explained the technical measurements and the assessment of this application shows that it is not harmful.

The Committee then heard a verbal presentation from Mr McIlroy, the architect representing the applicant for the application.

Councillor Walsh raised the issues of height and materials. Mr Saunders emphasised that permission would be conditional on samples of materials to be provided to officers.

Councillor Paschoud asked for the reasons for demolition of the building. The

architect explained that the building is not new and has no contribution to the

conservation area.

The Committee then heard a verbal representation opposing the development from Mr David Jones representing three objectors. Reasons for objections were outlined as: harmful to heritage assets; Harmful to living conditions of neighbors, harmful to the street scene. Loss of residential garden space.

Councillor Campbell spoke under standing orders against the application, focusing on the quality of the proposal. Mr Saunders explained that the loss of garden space on this occasion is considered to be acceptable.

Councillor Bernards questioned the availability of parking within 200 meters, and the issues of disabled access to parking closer to the site. Mr Saunders clarified that there is a capacity for overnight parking particularly at George Street, and the Church Terrace. He added that disabled people who are blue badge holders can apply to the council for a disabled parking only bay to be marked. Councilor Walsh stated that even if there is parking, still people park their car in the street Cllr Walsh questioned the design quality and whether it was of the highest quality.

Councillor Paschoud raised her concerns about design and overlooking. Mr

Saunders explained a condition related to obscuring certain windows.

Councillor Sorba asked to which extent can personal tastes of like or dislike of a design be discussed and taken into account. Mr Saunders explained that significant weight is given to planning merit on new homes in the borough which is in line with the principle of national and local policy. Chair indicated that it is difficult to say what is good or not and the recommendation from planning will help.

Councillor Walsh stated that the proposed development was not of sufficient design quality and should also be refused based on issues of: harm to the living conditions, harm to the privacy; loss of day light and sunlight, by virtue of its bulk and relationship to the neighbouring boundaries, resulting in an overbearing impact. He motioned to reject the officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission.

This was seconded by Councillor Paschoud.

Mr Saunders clarified reasons for refusal based on issues which were raised by

members of the committee. Members confirmed the harm identified was less than substantial but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Mr Saunders introduced the details of the application. He said additional conditions were added to secure the delivery of the proposed plan for energy and water, carbon diffusion and design. He explained officers gave significant weight to the merit of family accommodation in the borough.

Councilor Walsh questioned what would be available in outside space for the nursery and how to mitigate for the overlooking from the residential properties above. Mr Saunders explained that there would be set backs to the balconies.

Councilor Holland raised concerns about the loss of spaces for young people.

Mr Saunders explained the alternatives.

The Committee then heard a verbal presentation from Mr Foster and his team

representing the agents Rogers Stirk Harbour and Partners for the  pplication. Councilor Walsh stated the he is satisfied with the design but enquired if Secure by Design has been taken into account. Mr. Foster explained the extent to which SBD principles had been adopted.

Councilor Campbell raised a question regarding the expected life time of the

building. Mr Foster stated the life time for this type of building is 60 years, but in reality that it is likely to last longer than that. Ms Diane Platts and Mr Marchisio representing Glasshouse Residential Association and Astra House spoke as objectors. Their comments and objections were principally the height of the proposed development, in terms of visual harm and loss

of daylight and sunlight, lack of parking and highway safety, oversupply of

commercial floorspace.

Councilor Walsh stated the Pink towers are incongruous. He also raised concerns about the ground floor usages and questioned whether include a broader community use. Mr Saunders confirmed a D1 use allowed for most community uses but places of worship specifically conditioned due to the impacts they can raise.

Councilor Kelleher, as a Councillor for the ward which the application site lies in, spoke under standing orders: principal concerns were lack of parking, highway safety, more community space. Councilor Walsh questioned whether it is possible to refer to the highway division to review this road.

Councilor Walsh stated that a robust debate was carried out. Therefore, he

recommended that the committee to ask highway colleagues to look at the road. Councillor Walsh moved to accept the officer’s recommendation and was seconded by Councillor Sorba.

Members voted as follows:

ACCEPT OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION: Councilor Amrani (Chair), Councilor Holland (Vice-Chair), Councilor Bernards, Councilor Paschoud, Councilor Sorba, Councilor Walsh Campbell

AGAINST OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION: none

Abstained: None

Resolved: That planning permission be granted in respect of application

DC/18/106309.

The Committee heard a verbal presentation from Mr Saunders. Councilor Kelleher spoke under standing order in support of the proposal, indicating that the scheme has been improved since the last time.

Mr Peter Swain (architect) presented the application on behalf of the applicant. The chair of Deptford Folk Trina Lynsky presented the case for objectors. She explained that their only objection is with regards to trees. The group has been in contact with the developer and agreed for trees to be planted on the foot path.

Mr Saunders explained members could require planting of trees via condition. Councilor Walsh raised the issues about noise from inside the pub and the noise outside of the pub. Mr Saunders explained that there are two issues: the transmission of sound through the building and then break in of the noise through windows.

Councilor Walsh moved to accept the officer’s recommendation with the proviso that a condition requiring the tree planning would be added to the permission. Councillor Paschoud seconded Councilor Walsh’s movement.

Members voted as follows:

ACCEPT OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION: Councilors Amrani (Chair), Holland

(Vice-Chair) Bernards, Campbell, Paschoud, Sorba, Walsh.

AGAINST OFFICERS’ RECOMMENDATION: None

Abstentions: None

Resolved: That planning permission be granted in respect of application

DC/18/107475.

Mr Saunders outlined the details of the application to members and explained that the primary planning considerations for the application were design and impact on neighboring amenity.

It was also noted that the current proposal was almost identical to a proposal at the same address which was granted at appeal by the planning inspectorate in 2015.

The only addition to this proposal compared to that allowed by the inspectorate was that of some rooflights, and a window to the rear elevation.

Mr Cummings, the developer, spoke in support of the application.

Objectors Mrs Cowe and Chero from the local residents association shared the presentation and raised the issues of privacy (windows in side elevation are not obscure), and the detrimental impact the development would have on the character of the neighbourhood.

Mr Angus Saunders clarified the additional rooflights give no rise to material harm to the amenity of neighbours.

Councillor Walsh proposed to move to the vote To accept officers’ recommendation. Councillor Paschoud seconded the motion, and Councillors voted as follows:

TO ACCEPT OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATON: Councilors: Amrani (Chair), Holland (Vice-chair), Campbell Paschoud, Walsh

TO REJECT OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Councilor Sorba

Abstentions: Councilor Bernards

Resolved: That planning permission be granted in respect of application

DC/18/106932.