Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Ingleby stated that he was a member of the Musicians Union.

Councillor Penfold advised that he chaired the public meeting in respect to Item 3 and, that he did not express any opinion at that meeting.

Councillor Kelleher stated that Item 5 was located in her Ward and, confirmed her constituents had not requested she object on their behalf, nor had she herself formed an opinion on the application.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee C held on 6 February 2020 and 15 July 2020 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED                                                                              

That it be noted that the Committee agreed to:

GRANT planning permission for the demolition of existing social club at 240-242 Brockley Road SE4 and the construction of a part four/part five storey building including:

•           basement comprising new social club with 9 residential units above (7 x 2 bedroom & 2 x 3 bedroom), together with the provision of bicycle and refuse stores, landscaping and amenity space, terraces and a pergola in the rear garden.

Subject to conditions and informatives outlined in the report and,

A requirement that officers should:

•           Add a condition requiring the implementation of gas boilers into the scheme, be a last resort measure after other options are considered.  

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of existing social club at 240-242 Brockley Road SE4 and the construction of a part four/part five storey building including basement comprising new social club with 9 residential units above (7 x 2 bedroom & 2 x 3 bedroom), together with the provision of bicycle and refuse stores, landscaping and amenity space, terraces and a pergola in the rear garden.

The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

·       Principle of Development

·       Housing

·       Urban Design

·       Impact on Adjoining Properties

·       Transport

·       Sustainable Development

·       Natural Environment

Following members’ enquiries related to change to the use of the social club, balconies, parking, and height.

The Officer advised Members that planning permission would be required if developers wished to change the use of the social club.

It was advised that the unit located on the first floor did not have a balcony, due to the flat’s location above the external terrace and canopy for the social club. It was not considered appropriate to include a balcony on the side of the scheme, as it would appear incongruous. The Team Leader advised Members the architects present at the meeting, would be able to provide clarification.

The Officer confirmed that following the findings of the Parking Survey, a contribution would be secured towards a future Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) consultation. It was advised the consultation would not necessarily guarantee a CPZ as the outcome. The Team Leader reiterated the Officers advice.

The Officer acknowledged that the proposed development would introduce a scale of development that was clearly greater than the existing two storey building. It was also acknowledged that the proposed five storey building would represent a significant change to the existing outlook from these properties. However, the separation distance to these properties were considered sufficient to prevent the impact from being overbearing, given that it would ensure that views either side of the site were retained. The Team Leader confirmed the architects would provide further clarification.

The agent, on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee describing of the: layout of the scheme, height, flat roof instead of pitch, units, balconies, noise mitigation, daylight assessments, landscaping, the reduced footprint, green and blue roofs, leisure space, scheme colour, outlook assessment, parking and ecological improvement. The agent assured Members that the local authority’s core policies had been met, consultations were detailed and the development design was supported by the local authority and the Brockley Society. The agent concluded by assuring Members the social club ‘will survive’.

Members’ enquiries that followed related to landscaping, cycle storage, solar panels and carbon emissions, balconies, and noise mitigation.

The agent confirmed there was a side path that did not appear to be gated. Its intended use would be for maintenance purposes. It was advised that this situation would be easily overcome by minor alterations to the planting and partitions. Members were assured further details regarding the proposed alterations would be secured as part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

RESOLVED

That it be noted that the Committee agreed to:

GRANT planning permission for an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for Minor Material Amendments in connection with the planning permission (DC/17/104524) granted on appeal (reference APP/C5690/W/18/3196082) dated 19 February 2019 for the erection of two storeys to provide:

•           5 x 2 bed flats with associated parking and internal refurbishment works with works to the fabric of the building and the provision of a new lift at 123 Woodelm Court, Devonshire Road, London, SE23.

Subject to conditions and informatives outlined in the report.

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for Minor Material Amendments in connection with the planning permission (DC/17/104524) granted on appeal (reference APP/C5690/W/18/3196082) dated 19 February 2019 for the erection of two storeys to provide 5 x 2 bed flats with associated parking and internal refurbishment works with works to the fabric of the building and the provision of a new lift at 123 Woodelm Court, Devonshire Road, London, SE23.

The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

·       Application Type

·       Principle of Development

·       Housing

·       Urban Design

·       Impact on Adjoining Properties

·       Transport

Following Members’ enquiries related to cladding and disabled access.

The Officer advised the Committee that the development would not be cladding as originally intended, but brick.

The Officer confirmed there would be no ramp on the development, only stairs.

The Team Leader advised Members that as the Committee were bound by the Appeal decision, if the Planning Inspectorate considered the access to be acceptable when they granted planning permission in 2019, it was not possible to revisit this matter for Committee consideration.

The agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee discussing the objections raised. The agent emphasised the height of the proposed development had been approved. The reason for the increase was to accommodate the relocation of the lift core. It was noted that in regard to concerns of the development being out of character, the development was not located in the conservation area. The application site was currently in a ‘poor state of repair’. This would be a chance for the developers to make improvements that the residents would be able to utilise. The agent advised Members it would be an opportunity to improve the overall environment for existing residents whilst adhering to planning approval.

Member’s enquiries that followed related to materials and existing tenants.

The agent advised the Committee the material used to build the development would be brick and a non-wood cladding. The Officer and Team Leader reiterated the agent’s advice.

The agent confirmed the existing tenants and leaseholders had been consulted and, would be secure in their respective tenures.

A representative addressed the Committee, advising that residents were opposed to the proposal because of objections to the consultation process, presentation images, loss of light, best practice guidelines, height and minor material amendments.

Member’s enquiries that followed related to height and consultation.

The Officer advised Members that all neighbouring properties were consulted and all relevant drawings made publically available via the local authority website. It was confirmed that re-consultation took place on the 2nd and 9th April, due to errors with the description and issues. All information was again publically displayed on the local authority website.

The Officer informed the Committee that the maximum height of the building would increase by 1.47m due to the lift core. The general increase in height of the building ranged from 0.6 to 1.47m.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED

That it be noted that the Committee agreed to:

REFUSE planning permission, with the final wording of the reason for refusal delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair for:

•         the construction of a two-storey 3-bedroom single-family dwelling house on land at the rear of 148 Deptford High Street, SE8

Permission was REFUSED, contrary to Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

The proposed development represents poor quality design that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and the adjoining dwelling at No1 Crossfield Street.  The development will give rise to an enclosed amenity area and a poorly detailed roof form.   The proposal provides insufficient detail with respect to quality of materials.  

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a two-storey 3-bedroom single-family dwellinghouse on land at the rear of 148 Deptford High Street, SE8.

The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

·       Principle of Development

·       Housing

·       Urban Design and Impact on heritage assets

·       Transport

·       Living conditions of neighbours

·       Sustainable development

·       Natural environment

Following members’ enquiries relating to height, fire risk and, loss of light.

The Officer confirmed the building would be less than 6m.

The Team Leader advised fire safety is not a planning issue. It would be a building control matter.

The Team Leader informed Members that the space affected by light was considered a non-habitable space. It was confirmed that the applicant had submitted an Internal Daylight Assessment. The Team Leader advised all habitable rooms would be provided with windows, and officers considered the levels of daylight and sunlight to be acceptable.

A Member lost connection to the meeting. The meeting was paused at 22.02pm. The Member telephoned into the meeting and was advised they would still be able to participate in the vote on Item 4 of the Agenda. The meeting was resumed at 22.04 pm.

A representative addressed the Committee, advising that residents were opposed to the proposal due to the impact on amenities, daylight, light and noise pollution, overlooking, privacy, enclosure issues, design, conservation, drawing inconsistencies, consultation, tree damage and fire risk.

The Members’ enquiries following the address related to drawing inconsistencies, design, materials, enclosure, architect qualifications, heating and the possible deferral of the Committees decision.

The Team Leader confirmed that the plans met the requirements for validation purposes with regard to planning. It was advised that a condition on the decision notice that the development would be built strictly in accordance with the approved application plans, drawings and documents. The Team Leader noted Members concerns regarding design.

The representative reiterated concerns raised regarding tree issues, drawing inconsistencies and design stating the proposal was ‘not a competent design’. The representative also advised of maintenance concerns.

A Member lost connection to the meeting during Members enquiries. The meeting was paused at 22.29pm. The Member reconnected to the meeting at 22.33pm.

The Officer provided additional clarification advising of adding conditions that would ensure the quality of the materials were checked and provide tree protection. The Team Leader advised that the materials for the proposal were acceptable, high quality and policy compliant. The Team Leader also reminded Members that maintenance at the householder level, was not a planning consideration.

The Officer used the Committee presentation to provide clarification regarding the flat roof design in relation to the health of trees in close proximity to the development. The Officer reiterated the advice regarding conditions that could be added to ensure materials quality and tree protection.

The representative advised the Committee of the windows in his home that he felt would be affected by a sense of enclosure and overlooking, as a consequence of the development being built.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.