Agenda and minutes

Cllr Copley declared being a member of The Campaign for Real Ale

There were no other declarations of interests.

Cllr Clarke (Chair) highlighted and asked for an amendment to include conditions from the Councillors in the meeting minutes for the Ashmead Primary School application that was resolved for approval.

Cllr Paschoud commented and asked for amendment of the part where it states

“Minutes of the Planning committee B – closed meeting”, as the meeting was not ‘closed’ and was open to the public.

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for change of use from retail use (Class A1) to micro pub (Class A4), together with installation of a new window to the side elevation and new door to the rear elevation. The officer further clarified that the site is within an existing parade with residential use above and that the application relates to the commercial unit only that has been vacant for some time. It is proposed to divide the existing ground floor into 3 areas where the largest space with a bar would be in the front, toilets would be in the middle and snug at the rear. The existing basement is proposed to be used as a cellar. There are no changes to the front elevation except for the door location.

The presenting officer outlined that 19 objections were received, a petition of 29 signatures against, 28 letters in support and 20 people attended a local meeting. Objections are in regards to the noise and disturbance, increased parking demand, opening hours, risk of setting a precedent and security issues.

Officers’ view is that:

-       the principle of the development would be acceptable

-       it would improve the local economy

-       there is no Class A4 use in the wider parade area,

-       amendments to the proposal to limit access to the rear yard and remove the smoking area will reduce impact on neighbors

-       operational plan and noise assessment reports were submitted, Environmental health officers reviewed it and conditioned details for ventilation system

-       Highways were consulted and estimated that customers would come from local area using public transport and as such they considered that there will be no material impact on the traffic and raised no objections subject to conditions.

Cllr Kelleher outlined that she used to live in the area and that between Hither Green Lane and Hither Green Station there are no drinking establishments.

Cllr Johnston-Franklin raised a question in terms of the residents that are living above the establishment and how many of them have children which raises concerns about noise and opening hours, with further comment that if it is a drinking establishment, there is no need to be open at 8am.

The presenting officer clarified that there are measures that can be conditioned to reduce impact on neighbors, such as restricting opening hours and requiring soundproofing of walls and ceilings and that there should be balance between supporting local economy and impact on residents. 

Cllr Copley pointed out that licensing would be able to restrict the hours when alcohol can be sold.

Cllr Adefiranye pointed out that local people whose life would be impacted should be considered in regards to the proportion of objections received.

The presenting officer clarified that in the local meeting, they had both objecting and supporting comments from local residents.

Cllr Rathbone raised questions about sound insulation and if Environmental Health officers were satisfied with the original and amended proposal, as well as if we know what is the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The presenting officer outlined that this application is for alterations and conversion of the existing 2 residential units into 1 x one-bedroom and 2 x two-bedroom units. The property is a large two-storey detached Victorian building, located on the west side of Sunderland Road with PTAL 3-4. The proposed side extension is to accommodate an internal staircase for upper flats and would be set back from the front elevation. The ramp to the entrance hall is proposed with a low retaining wall separating it from the front yard parking area. Meeting rooms at the ground floor would remain the same, and on the first floor it is proposed to provide a larger 1 one-bedroom and 1 two-bedroom unit. On the second floor and in the roof extension another two-bedroom unit is proposed. The treatment of the proposed front elevation with side extension and rooflights would match the existing property. To the rear elevation, a large rear roof extension is proposed set in from the sides and eaves and clad in zinc with two rooflights. To the side elevation 5 new windows and rooflights are proposed to be installed and to the south elevation 2 new windows and a rooflight are proposed.

The application received 3 objections from local residents in regards to overlooking, scale of the dormer and being overdeveloped with further extensions.

Highways were consulted and were satisfied with a proposal, subject to conditions.

Officer’s view on the principle of the development is that it would increase the size of the existing one-bedroom unit which is considered an improvement, that design is acceptable and sensitive to the character of the property, that there are no parking issues and no material issues to local neighboring amenities.

Cllr Copley asked for clarification of paragraph 6.8 whether it can be established or not if the use is lawful.

The presenting officer clarified that there was no planning permission, but Council Tax has been paid for several years and on balance officers are satisfied that the use has likely been in place for 4 years and would be lawful.

Cllr Copley raised concern about loss of family sized three-bedroom property and what policy we have to protect those units.

The presenting officer clarified that policies are against subdivision of houses, and flats are not protected.

Cllr Paschoud asked for clarification on which windows are overlooking and what kind of rooms are behind those windows, and if they are stairways or bathrooms.

The presenting officer outlined which windows would potentially overlook the neighboring property.

Cllr Rathbone asked for clarification on paragraph 6.33 and whether new units would meet required standard sizes.

The presenting officer clarified that the existing one-bedroom unit does not meet required size, but the enlarged unit proposed would.

Cllr Johnston-Franklin raised concern on lack of amenity space and increase in accommodation and it seems not to be considered as part of the proposal from developers.

The presenting officer clarified that there was no amenity space attached to the existing property.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The presenting officer highlighted that this application was deferred at the last committee. Officers negotiated with the applicant to remove the gable end window and instead insert a rooflight on the side gable roofslope. 

Cllr Paschoud clarified that at the last committee meeting the applicant was asked to revise the proposal which is now done and moved the vote for the application to be approved. This was seconded by Cllr Muldoon.

Members voted as follows:

For: Councillors Copley, Adefiranye, Clarke (Chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston-Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone.

Against: None

Vote was unanimous.

RESOLVED: Approve application DC/18/105821.

The presenting officer outlined that these are two applications, one full application and one advertisement consent for the installation of a new shopfront and ATM, at the Catford Green development, between Catford and Catford Bridge stations, at the front elevation of the ground floor unit. The proposal is retaining the shopfront as it was approved in the original application, with installation of an ATM and change of width of the sliding door. It would be a Sainsbury’s shop with their typical signage. The ATM would include CCTV above it. To the side elevation there is no proposed change to the previously approved shopfront. To the rear elevation, next to the service area 2 ventilation louvres are proposed.

The application received 3 objections from local residents in regards the ATM may attract anti-social behavior and advertisement light may disturb sleeping at night.

Highways were consulted and raised no objections.

Officer’s view is that proposed illumination levels are low and acceptable.

Cllr Rathbone added that inclusion of retail was originally part of the development, and any future resident was aware of that.

Cllr Kelleher added that the corner sign is small in size and its light would not affect residents above.

Cllr Johnston-Franklin raised question about the location of the ATM and if that location would be unsafe for people trying to take their money out.

The presenting officer pointed out that the area around the ATM is open and the ATM includes lightning and CCTV.

Cllr Bourne moved the vote for the application to be approved. This was seconded by Cllr Copley.

Members voted as follows:

For: Councillors Copley, Adefiranye, Clarke (Chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston-Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone.

Against: None

Vote was unanimous.

RESOLVED: Approve applications DC/18/108247 and DC/18/108259.

The presenting officer highlighted that this is an application for the change of use and conversion of the ground floor unit from A1 retain to a residential unit and alterations to the shop front. The property is located on the eastern side of Tyrwhitt road, in the Brockley Conservation Area and is subject to an Article 4 Direction. It is a three-storey Victorian property with retail unit at the ground floor that operated as an off-licence shop and has been vacant since July 2017. There are some existing shops nearby on Loampit Hill.

It is proposed to convert the retail unit to a two-bedroom flat at the ground floor with an extension to the rear. A front yard would be established with boundary treatment. The first and second floors are proposed to remain as existing with only window replacements. At the front elevation, elements of the traditional shopfront would be retained and restored with some obscured glass inserted.

The application received 2 objections, 1 from a local resident and 1 from The Brockley Society in regards lack of justification for change of use and loss of employment.

The presenting officer outlined that the applicant did not submit marketing evidence, but they submitted a viability statement to justify the loss of the retail unit and on balance it is considered acceptable to justify the change of use. In regards to design, reinstating timber sash windows is an improvement, the front boundary treatment would be in keeping with local character, the standard of the accommodation is good and there would be no negative impact on neighbours.

Cllr Johnston-Franklin recalled that the property was under offer for a long time, so it could have been a restriction for people who may have wanted to occupy it as a business in that very viable situation.

The presenting officer clarified that they only have confirmation that the occupiers were out of business for some time.

Cllr Adefiranye pointed out that Tyrwhitt road is a residential road in the Brockley Conservation Area and that this proposal would be harmful, front wall details should be looked at in more detail and that Brockley Society is one of the biggest consultees for the Council and they were concerned about loss of employment.

The presenting officer clarified that it is officer’s opinion that the proposed front boundary treatment fits in well with existing properties but it is possible to condition some of those details.

Cllr Kelleher shared concerns raised with Cllr Johnston-Franklin and asked for clarification on a large garden behind and if access is restricted.

The presenting officer showed drawings and Cllr Clarke (Chair) confirmed that there is no garden, it is an outdoor space.

The committee received verbal representations on behalf of the applicant, Jo Townshend, architect and agent of Mr and Ms Patel who own the building for 30 years and they have an ongoing interest in the property. They are aware of community concerns, they have worked with officers to redesign the proposal from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The presenting officer highlighted that this is an application for a three storey new development with 256 sqm flexible commercial use ground floor space with cycle and refuse storage. It is located on the north side of Ladywell Road within a local parade. Previously it was used as a petrol station with a canopy and there is a single storey building to the rear.  The existing buildings would be demolished and the proposed ground floor would provide a flexible commercial area. The residential entrance is on the left side of the plan. At the first floor 4 one-bedroom units and on the second floor 3 two-bedroom units are proposed. The front elevation has similar height to adjacent buildings with 4 gables and terraces in between for the 2 bed flats. The design reflects the existing positive character on Ladywell road. The building would have a  mansard roof and to the rear a projecting bay includes a stairwell with bay windows are also proposed. Proposed materials are brown brick, velux rooflights system and dark zinc mansard roof with aluminium windows. The addendum report covers revision of drawings and an additional condition relating to PV panels.

The application didn’t receive any comments from local residents and received one objection from The Ladywell Society in regards of overprovision of commercial units, design and materials. The Ladywell Traders Group prefer smaller businesses in the area.

Highways and TFL raised no objections.

Officer’s view is that the scheme would be acceptable in principle, it would contribute to the local parade and would remove an unsightly feature from the area. The proposed residential units would meet minimum standards of accommodation. It would be a car free development with high public transport accessibility. The development would not result in significant harm to the neighboring amenities.

Cllr Johnston-Franklin pointed out that zinc is proposed and raised a concern that this development is setting a precedent, because there was no use of zinc previously in the conservation area and that there may be alternatives in material choice.

The presenting officer clarified that we do see zinc in many conservation areas and that it is a modern and very durable material and it would be used on the roof only and that policies look for a materials to be complementary to the existing context, rather than prescribing that they match.

Cllr Paschoud pointed out that Ladywell Tavern, just on the other side of the road has a good amount on the zinc on its roof.

The committee received verbal representations on behalf of the applicant. Alex Wythe, architect and Jack Southon, who clarified that this would be a sustainable development, replacing a dreadful area, providing residential and commercial units that are designed to be flexible in the future. In terms of materials they are willing to discuss conditions. Alex Wythe explained that this development is a modern interpretation of conservation area with zinc as a modern alternative to lead, with specially designed bay windows at the rear to avoid impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.