Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interests.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee (B) meeting held on 1 February 2018 were agreed by members.

The meeting began at 19:30 with Councillors Reid (Chair), Ogunbadewa(Vice Chair) and Moore.

Planning Manager Helen Milner outlined the details of the application to members. It was also highlighted that eight objections were received to the application in addition to an objection from the Culverley Green Resident’s Association. Helen Milner then gave an overview of the site history including reference to a previous application at the site that was refused and dismissed at appeal. It was explained that the previous application has been refused due to the impact on the Culverley Green Conservation Area and that the proposed scheme had been modified following the refusal.

The committee then received a verbal representation from Kevin Goodwin the agent for the application. Mr Goodwin explained that the scheme has been amended to address the previous refusal. The amendments had also been informed by a pre-application meeting and comments from local residents. Mr Goodwin stated that the scheme was now lower density to reflect the sites backland location and siting within a conservation area. Mr Goodwin also stated that the car parking was appropriate for the development.

Members then heard a verbal presentation from Kate Richardson representing the Culverley Green Resident’s Association. Kate Richardson welcomed the living roofs and provision of affordable housing but raised concerns regarding the impact of the height of the development on the character and appearance of Penerley and Bargery Roads. Kate Richardson also stated that the development would cause overlooking and overshadowing to neighbouring properties. It was then stated that some of the objectors had not been informed of the Committee meeting. Members were then passed photographs to illustrate parking and highways concerns.  Kate Richardson explained that it was common for double parking to occur causing residents to be blocked in and that the site was not suitable for deliveries from large vehicles. Reference was also made to development at 2 Penerley Road.

Helen Milner clarified that development at 2 Penerley Road does not form part of the proposal. Helen Milner explained that the development would be 1m higher than the surrounding properties but would not be perceptible due to the distances between the buildings. It was also clarified that the 31m distance between the buildings exceeded the policy requirements. Helen Milner then stated that large vehicles servicing the site will be less common following the construction phase given that it is a residential development. It was also noted that the swept paths had been reviewed by the Council’s Highways Officer.

Councillor Moore raised concerns regarding the increase to local parking pressure. Helen Milner responded that the evidence submitted showed that there was parking capacity in evening hours. Further deliberation between members then took place. Councillor Reid (Chair) then moved a motion to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Ogunbadewa (Vice Chair).

Members voted as follows

FOR APPROVAL: Councillors Reid (Chair), Ogunbadewa(Vice Chair) & Moore.

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/17/102292

Planning Manager Helen Milner introduced the application to members and explained that pre-application discussion had taken place regarding opening for 24 hours on Fridays and Saturdays but that this proposal was amended following the meeting. It was also explained that the wording of Condition 5 had been amended to a compliance condition following the submission of further details. Helen Milner also advised members that three objections had been received, including one from Deptford Folk who objected to a potential increase in noise and anti-social behaviour at the site if the application is granted. It was then noted that a Design Out Crime Officer was consulted and no objection was raised subject to the implementation of a management plan. Also noted that subject to the reduce parking area and acoustic fence Officers were satisfied that the noise levels could be mitigated against.

Members then heard a verbal presentation from Juan Lopez on behalf of the applicant. Mr Lopez explained that the exclusion zone and acoustic fencing delivered adequate mitigation against noise. It was then stated that the applicant had met every suggestion put forward at pre-application stage. Mr Lopez noted that the applicant had the facility to issue penalty notices for loitering and confirmed that staff would be trained in conflict management. Mr Lopez then referenced the acoustic report that concluded that noise would not be appreciable or adverse.

Councillor Moore asked whether any measures would be taken to manage litter. Helen Milner responded that the application was not for a new use and that litter picking in the area would continue. Following brief deliberation Councillor Reid moved to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mallory.

Members voted as follows:

FOR APPROVAL: Councillors Reid (Chair), Ogunbadewa (Vice Chair), Mallory & Moore.

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/17/103670

Planning Manager Helen Milner outlined the details of the application to members and noted that one letter of support for the scheme had been received in addition to an objection from the Sydenham Society. It was noted that the development would be car free which is considered to be acceptable at a site with a PTAL of 4.

Councillor Reid asked whether the building was higher than the neighbouring property and requested a definition of a family dwelling. Helen Milner stated that the building was not higher than the neighbouring properties and clarified that a three bedroom unit is considered to be family sized. Councillor Mallory asked if there was a CPZ. Helen Milner responded that it was not a CPZ but is situated on a red route. A discussion then took place regarding CPZs and car free developments within the borough.

Members then received a verbal representation from David Lawton (applicant). Mr Lawton explained that the scale of the development had been reduced following two pre-application meetings with officers. David Lawton stated that he was aware of the objection but that he had worked with neighbours to deliver an acceptable scheme as evidenced by a letter of support. Mr Lawton concluded by claiming that the size of the units meet the needs of local residents.

The committee then heard a presentation from Annabel McLaren representing the Sydenham Society. Annabel McLaren stated that the design of the proposed building was bland and would not contribute positively to the streetscene. It was then stated that the conversion of the existing building would be more in keeping with the surrounding buildings. Annabel McLaren then raised concerns regarding the retention of a side entrance noting that it does not contribute to the streetscene.

Councillor Moore noted that the existing building has a side entrance. Annabel McLaren responded that the conversion of the existing building could have included a front entrance. Annabel Mclaren concluded by noting that a neighbouring building built in the 1960s contributed positively to the streetscene but reiterated that the proposed building would be a bland and uninteresting addition to the road.

Members then received a verbal representation from Councillor Best speaking under standing orders. Councillor Best welcomed the proposal to provide additional housing. However, it was noted that the site forms part of an attractive corner of Sydenham Road and explained that the Council have refused applications in the past that would be detrimental to the appearance of the area. Councillor Best stated that the proposed building does not reflect the architecture of the surrounding buildings particularly in regard to the design of the roof.

Helen Milner responded by highlighting that there are a variety of different roof forms in the surrounding area and noted that the proposed flat roof contributes to the contemporary design of the proposed building. It was also noted that there are a variety of architecture styles in the vicinity including buildings that share the proposed contemporary design approach. Helen Milner concluded by stating that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Planning Manager Helen Milner outlined the details of the application to members and explained that the application was for an Approval of Details for the materials condition for application DC/17/101668. The application was granted planning permission at a previous Committee B held on 28 September 2017. Helen Milner explained that member had resolved to approve the application but had stated that the materials condition would be heard at Committee due to concerns raised regarding design.

Helen Milner then directed members to view the material samples boards submitted to discharge the condition, displayed at the front of the room. It was then noted that officers had conducted a site inspection to view the materials in natural light within the context of the site and that an Urban Design Officer was also present at the inspection.

Members than received a verbal representation from Malachy McAleer (Agent). Mr McAleer noted that following comments from members regarding the materials, consultation with local residents had taken place including a meeting presenting sample materials. Mr McAleer explained that the proposed brick had been used on a number of schemes within Lewisham and was chosen to complement the neighbouring Hexagon Building. Mr McAleer stated that they had worked hard to respond to members’ criticisms including arranging a pre-application meeting with officers and producing mood boards and CGIs.

Councillor Reid complemented the amount of work undertaken to address members concerns. Councillor Mallory noted that the proposed brick responded well to the appearance of the neighbouring Hexagon Building. Following further deliberation from members Councillor Moore moved a motion to accept officers’ recommendation to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Muldoon.

Members voted as follows:

IN FAVOUR: Councillors Reid (Chair), Ogunbadewa (Vice Chair), Mallory, Moore & Muldoon

Resolved: That the details be approved in respect of application DC/17/105005                                          

Meeting ended at 21:09