Agenda, decisions and minutes

No interests were declared

The minutes of the last meeting were agreed

The minutes of the last meeting were agreed

The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending to refuse the planning application.

The application site comprises a small area of open space which is bounded on two sides by a knee high decorative fence. A group of five trees subject to a TPO are located on the application site itself. A further tree with a TPO attached is located just beyond the site on the remaining open space, which is owned by the Council.

The remaining area of Council owned open space which, excluding the application site, is a strip of land linking Duncombe Hill and Brockley Rise. The Crofton Park Ward information board faces Brockley Rise at the edge of this area.

A commercial centre and shopping parade are located along the eastern side of Stondon Road and Brockley Rise approximately 100 metres north of the site before the two roads merge to become Brockley Rise. This commercial character continues for a small section on the western side of Brockley Rise between Gabriel Street and

Ackroyd Road, which is opposite the northern part of the application site. Honor Lea, a three storey purpose built residential institution is directly opposite the southern part of the site.

To the east of the site the land steeply rises towards Blythe Hill fields, with a residential area of suburban perimeter blocks. To the west towards Honor Oak is a residential area of urban terrace perimeter blocks. Southwards along Brockley Rise the character is predominantly residential with a mix of two and three storey buildings.

The Officer recommendation to refuse the application is based on the fact that the development would have unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the existing open space. It would create an unwelcoming environment to the existing Council land where the proposed development would be built on. The lack of privacy for future occupiers is also a reason for refusal, where the design is discordant with the surrounding environment and is too tall taking account of its prominent location, it is also flawed seen in the flats which would overlook the bus stop.

The removal of five mature trees in addition to the fact the landscape visualisations are misleading and unlikely to accurately reflect its appearance.

In giving his statement, the Objector endorsed the planning officer’s presentation and emphasised that building any development on this site is unacceptable and that the Committee should consider the disregard that the developer has shown in his application and by his absence.

The Objector furthered that historic maps of the area date back to 1761, which shows that this site has never been built on in all this time which highlights a tangible link to the past when the area was an open countryside. In policy terms, the application site is an open space- paragraph 97 as highlighted in the report says that existing open space should not be built on unless 3 exceptions are satisfied, of which none are satisfied. From the perspective of the community, this is an open  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Planning Officer presented the report, recommending that the proposed planning application is approved.

Gillan Court is a 4-storey residential block fronting Baring Road, with an undercroft providing vehicular access to the rear, which is the application site. The building is contains 22x two bedroom flats. The application site lies to the rear of Gillan Court, and it was formerly occupied by 22 garages, prior to their demolition in 2015. As existing, the site provides parking bays for the occupants of Gillan Court, as well as some informal amenity space.

To the immediate south and east of the site are residential buildings at Napier Court and Dilhorne Close, and to the North of the site is a Territorial Army Reserve/Training Centre. The proposal would involve the loss of 10 existing off-street car parking spaces to the rear of Gillan Court. 17 spaces would remain on site, and these are to be allocated to existing Gillan Court residents as detailed in the Parking Management Plan. The proposal also includes landscaping works to the front of Gillan Court, and the provision of a communal amenity / play area, for the benefit of existing residents and future residents of the proposal. A new main entrance would be constructed for the existing Gillan Court. Works would also be carried out to renovate and light the existing undercroft, including the provision of storage lockers for the existing Gillan Court residents. New private terraces would also be constructed for the benefit of the four existing ground floor flats at Gillan Court.

Dry and secure cycle parking spaces would be provided on site for future residents of the proposal, and these would be either within the covered area of courtyard, or in the private rear gardens. New and increased provision for the storage and collection of waste would be provided towards the front of Gillan Court.

The Applicant present their argument stating that the development is very family focused and the plan has been developed over 3 years. Neighbouring properties and surroundings as well as size and scale has been carefully considered and adapted over this period of time. The proposed development also has benefit for the existing residents of social housing and consideration has been given to the public realm. A daylight assessment of the property has been carried out to ensure sufficient and acceptable natural light is given to each home.

The Objector raised the following arguments against the application; the proposed development will lead to a loss of amenity in the area and the clause which states that the height and massing of the proposed building be subordinate to the main building and similar height to surrounding buildings should be considered.

The effect of the close proximity means that some households will be overlooked in some areas of homes. Residents also have concerns about noise increase in the area as the 18m distance between the buildings is too close.

He also mentioned that the trees in the surrounding areas need to be protected. In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.