Agenda and minutes

Cllr Copley declared that he was a member of RUSS and that he would not take part in the consideration or voting of items 4 and 5 of the agenda (Church Grove) and left the room for these items.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee (B) meeting held on 26^th April 2018 were not agreed by Members due to it being unknown if these could be agreed by a single Member. The elections has resulted in the change in Planning Committee B and this was deferred for legal consideration.

Planning Manager Michael Forrester outlined the details of the application to members. He explained that the property was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The site is not in a conservation area, and although the Christmas Estate is being considered for a future conservation area, it is currently undesignated and that cannot be given any weight. Michael Forrester then gave an overview of the site history and explained how officers have come to a balanced decision where the proposed building is considered to be of an acceptable quality and the loss of the non-designated heritage asset justified. 

The committee then received a verbal representation from the agent for the application who stated that the scheme had been revised to address the previous refusal for a larger development. The viability of the scheme had been presented to officers who were satisfied that the dwelling could not be retained and redeveloped. The scheme had also been amended to improve the design. Members questioned the agent with regard to the demolition of the building and whether this had arisen out of site investigation or whether the property had been purchased with the intention of demolition. The agent confirmed the latter.

Members then heard a verbal presentation from a local resident objecting to the loss of a non-designated heritage asset, scale of the proposals and wider impacts on parking and the locality.

Cllr Wise spoke under standing orders, making objections to the proposals.

Members deliberated the scheme raising concern with regard to the loss of the undesignated heritage asset and how this scheme has not overcome the previous reasons for refusal. The scheme’s scale and mass remained of a concern as did the bulk and impact upon neighbouring residents.

Councillor Paschoud moved a motion to refuse the application for the same grounds as the previous scheme (DC/16/99620). Reason 1 would include a reference to non-designated heritage asset. Reasons 2 and 3 would remain the same. Reason 4 would not be included as this issue was resolved in the revised application. The motion was seconded by Cllr Rathbone.

Members voted as follows

FOR APPROVAL: Clarke (chair), Copley (vice-chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston-Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone

Resolved: That planning permission be refused in respect of application DC/17/103895

Planning Manager Michel Forrester outlined the details of the application to members, the scheme being a community self-build proposal and all homes classified as affordable housing (100%). An addendum report was also presented which recommended additional conditions. It was confirmed that the affordable housing would be secured through s106 agreement.

Members then received a verbal representation the applicant, who stated that all homes would be affordable and that RUSS had carried out significant community pre-consultation ahead of the planning application.

The committee then heard a verbal presentation from a local resident in objection to the proposals. They stated that the scheme was overly dense for the site and was contrary to an earlier scheme of only 9 homes which would have reflected the local surroundings. There was concern regarding the building of the scheme and timber cladding which represented a fire risk. The level of traffic generation was also of concern. 

The presenting officer clarified to Members that the planning process was there to control design and amenity impacts and the construction and fire safety of the building is an issue for Building Regulations. Officers had consulted with the London Fire Brigade during the application who have not raised an objection to the scheme, but do confirm the scheme needs to meet building regulations.

Councillor Rathbone moved a motion to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Muldoon.

Members Voted as follows:

For Approval: Clarke (chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston-Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/18/104264

Planning Manager Michael Forrester outlined the details of the application to members and explained that the application was for a temporary community facility which would form a community base whilst the longer term Church Grove self-build project was completed. 

Members than received a verbal representation from the applicant who stated the need for the temporary facility and that this would be dismantled following the construction of the larger scheme and the materials recycled into the development.

The committee then heard a verbal presentation from a local resident in objection to the proposals on the grounds of noise and disruption.

Members deliberated the proposals and Cllr Rathbone moved a motion to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Muldoon.

Members voted as follows:

IN FAVOUR: Clarke (chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston-Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone

Resolved: That the details be approved in respect of application DC/18/105952

Planning Manager Michael Forrester introduced the application to members and explained this formed part of the Councils affordable housing programme and was submitted by Lewisham Homes on behalf of Lewisham Council. 

Members then heard a verbal presentation on behalf of the applicant, Lewisham Homes. They explained that the houses would be for social rent and provide genuinely affordable housing.

Cllr Kelleher and Rathbone raised why no wheelchair housing was provided on this site. The applicant confirmed this was due to the sloping land levels and that there was more appropriate alternative sites in the borough. The 4 dwellings proposed also do not meet the trigger for onsite wheelchair housing (5 units).

Members heard from a local resident in objection to the scheme stating that the lend levels were inaccurate on the plans and that officers had not made a site visit to the neighbouring property. There were also concerns about daylight and site security.

The presenting officer clarified that the case officer has made a site visit, but that it was not routing to make visits to neighbouring properties. Officers were confident in the land levels being correct, and that there was a boundary treatments condition proposed which would ensure appropriate privacy between dwellings.

Cllr Bourne moved a motion to approve the application, this was seconded by Cllr Paschoud.

Members voted as follows:

FOR APPROVAL: Clarke (chair), Copley (vice-chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston-Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/18/105952

Following deliberation of this item Cllr Copley left the room due to the earlier stated conflict of interest.

Meeting ended at 10:05