Agenda and minutes

No interests were declared

The minutes of the last meeting, 23 January 2020, are to be amended as to show that under Item 3- the land on the corner of Duncombe Hill, there was one abstention from the vote.

The Part retrospective application was for the raising of the roof ridge by 150mm and construction of an extension to the rear roof slope at 16 Manor Avenue SE4, together with the replacement of the existing roof lights in the front roof slope with three conservation roof lights.

The Planning Officer presenting for this application stated the following.

Planning permission was granted in September 2015 for works to the roof, comprising of a roof extension on the rear roof slope and the re-installation of two roof lights. However the works were not carried out in accordance with the approved roofs plans as the roof ridge had been raised by 150mm, the front roof slope ad been altered and an extra roof light had been installed. This resulted in an enforcement investigation, and ultimately the submission of this application.

The key planning considerations were, planning history and unauthorised development; Principle of Development; Urban Design and Heritage; and Impact on Adjoining Properties.

The combination of the raised ridge and change to the pitch of the roof contrasted with the adjoining properties and unbalances the roof scape, resulting in material visual harm to the property and the terrace to which it formed part. The Brockley conservation area character appraisal identifies the roof lights as a damaging element to the character, due to the additional visual clutter on plain roof slopes. The additional third roof light was not considered to make a vital contribution to the internal living conditions, as such, the visually intrusive impact of the additional roof light was not considered to be justified. Officers considered that the harm caused by the alterations to the roof would be exacerbated by the precedent established by the development and the potential of the erasure of the roof scape would arise from similar alterations by other properties. It was suggested that the development does improve the energy efficiency of the property but no evidence was provided to substantiate this claim. Other methods of improving the energy efficiency of this building were possible but did not include the altering of the pitch of the roof.

In comparison to number 16, the roof ridge of 17 Manor Avenue had been raised by a similar amount of the conservation property, however, the pitch of the roof was not increased as a result of these works, and no roof light had been installed on the front roof slope.

The development was not considered to have any impact on neighbouring amenity, therefore planning permission was recommended for refusal for reasons set out in the committee report.

The addendum set out a response from an additional letter from the Brockley Society and also amended an error from the officer report which contained two photographs of the wrong property. The photographs in question had been inserted after paragraph 46 and were titled ‘Photo 2. Front roof slope of No.17 Manor Avenue’. However, the photographs included within the report were of the application property No.16 Manor Avenue.

The letter from the Brockley Society  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This application was withdrawn from the agenda. Further ecology surveys and package of mitigation measures required from applicant.