Agenda and minutes

Councillor John Paschoud declared a non-prejudicial interest as a member of the Sydenham Society.

Councillor Clarke declared a prejudicial in item 5 on the agenda and took no part in its deliberation.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee (C) meeting held on 11 June 2014 were unanimously accepted as a true record and were signed by the Chair.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee (C) meeting held on 11 June 2014 were unanimously accepted as a true record and were signed by the Chair.

The Planning Officer outlined the details of the proposal for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of two part 2/ 3-storey with basement, 4 bedroom houses, including a single-storey ‘summerhouse’ at the end of the rear garden of ‘House 1’, associated landscaping and the provision of 1 car parking space to the front of each house with access onto Canonbie Road. He said that there were discrepancies in the plans that were submitted but that they could be dealt with by imposing a Condition requiring that the development be set back by 1.6m from the neighbouring property. He recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from Mr M Mehta, the applicant, and from the architect Mr S Patel, who said they had considered a traditional building on the site but felt a pitched roofed development would have been unsympathetic to neighbouring properties and that the current proposal would meet Lifetime Homes Standards. They agreed to the imposition of a Condition requiring a 1.6m gap between the neighbouring property and asked that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from a resident of 49 Canonbie Road who objected to the proposal on the grounds that the plans were inaccurate and do not show the impact of the property on neighbouring properties. He asked that planning permission be refused or deferred so that accurate drawings could be provided.

Following questions and deliberation by members, Councillor Bell moved a motion to defer decision on the proposal to ensure that the applicant provide accurate drawings. The motion was seconded by Councillor Coughlin.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:                   Councillors Bell (Chair), and Coughlin

AGAINST:          Councillors Hooks, Klier, Ogunbadewa, John Paschoud and Slater.

Upon further deliberation, Councillor Klier moved a motion to a accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for application DC/13/84386 subject to the amendment of Conditions 14 and 18 and the addition of 2 further Conditions. The motion was seconded by Councillor John Paschoud.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:                   Councillors Hooks, Klier, Ogunbadewa, John Paschoud and Slater.

AGAINST:          Councillors Bell (Chair), and Coughlin,

RESOLVED:     that planning permission be granted in respect to application DC/13/84386 subject to conditions 1-13 and 15- 17 and 19 as set out in the report with Conditions 14 and 18 amended and the addition of Conditions 20 and 21 as follows:

Conditions 14                                          

No development shall commence until Lifetime Home plans are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, in accordance with the Lifetime Homes document received 30 June 2014. The approved works shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of each dwelling.

Reason:

In order to ensure an adequate supply of accessible housing in the Borough in accordance with Saved Policy HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development in the Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) and Core Strategy Policy 1 Housing provision, mix and affordability and Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham (June 2011).

Conditions 18  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

In light of further information received regarding the proposal, Councillor Bell moved the motion that a decision on this item be deferred until the next meeting of Planning Committee C pending further consultation with network Rail on alternative proposals set forward by local residents.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:                   Councillors Bell (Chair), Coughlin, Hooks, Klier, Ogunbadewa, John Paschoud and Slater

RESOLVED:     that in respect of town planning application DC/14/86845, that a decision be deferred for six weeks pending further consultation with Network Rail on the alternative proposals set forward by local residents.

Councillor Clarke left after this item.

The Planning Officer outlined the proposal for minor material amendments to the planning permission DC/09/72554 dated 22 March 2010 as amended by planning permissions DC/10/75267 dated 29 September 2010, DC/10/75395 dated 11 November 2010 and DC/12/81165 dated 24 January 2013 for the redevelopment of the Heathside and Lethbridge Estates, Blackheath Hill and Lewisham Road SE10 comprising outline planning permission (Phases 2-6) for up to 512m² of retail floorspace, 768m² of community floorspace, an energy centre and 1,054 residential units in buildings ranging from 3 to 17 storeys in height, together with car and cycle parking, associated highway infrastructure, public realm works and provision of open space and detailed planning permission (Phase 1) for the redevelopment of land fronting onto Blackheath Hill for 138 residential units in buildings ranging from 4 to 7 storeys in height, together with car and cycle parking, associated highway infrastructure, public realm works and provision of open space; to allow for the provision of an additional storey on blocks Db, Dc, Fa and Fb and associated changes in the footprint and elevational treatment of blocks (D and F) in Phase 4, and recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from the applicant Mr M Gibney, and from the applicant’s architect Mr P Woodford who said a sunlight/daylight assessment had shown negligible loss of light to existing properties and that while various amendments had resulted in the loss of one unit, the remaining units would be larger overall. They asked that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from a resident of 45 Mountsfield House who objected to the proposal. He was concerned that the increase in footprint and height as proposed would create a canal like effect and cast shadow over neighbouring properties. He asked that permission be refused.

Councillor De Ryk spoke under standing orders and objected that the cumulative impact of the various amendments to the scheme as first approved would have a significant negative impact on the neighbouring properties and should therefore not be treated as a minor material amendment. She asked that permission be refused.

Councillor Bonavia spoke under standing orders and objected that potential for the increase in noise had not been assessed nor had the residents in Phase 1 of the development been consulted. He asked that permission be refused, or at least deferred, to ensure the residents in Phase 1 were consulted and that the applicant assess the cumulative impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties.

Following deliberation, Councillor John Paschoud moved a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for application DC/14/87335 subject to Conditions as laid out in the report. The motion was not seconded.

Following further deliberation, Councillor Coughlin moved a motion to defer decision on the application DC/14/87335 to request that the applicant provide (a) an assessment of the financial viability of the changes, and (b) a report on the number of units lost if the height were kept the same as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Planning Officer outlined the details of the proposal for the construction of 2 dormer windows to the rear roof slope of First Floor Flat 71 Kitto Road SE14 together with the installation of 1 roof light to the front roof slope, and recommended that planning permission be granted.

Following deliberation, Councillor Bell moved a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for application DC/14/86513. The motion was seconded by Councillor Klier.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:                   Councillors Bell (Chair), Clarke, Coughlin, Hooks, Klier, Ogunbadewa, John Paschoud and Slater.

RESOLVED:     that planning permission be granted in respect of application. DC/14/86513 subject to Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report.

The Planning Officer outlined the details of the proposal for the construction of a part one/ part three storey building at land to the rear of 215 and 217 Sydenham Road SE26 to provide 1 three bedroom bungalow, 4 one bedroom and 4 two bedroom self-contained flats, together with the provision of associated landscaping, 3 car parking and 11 bicycle spaces, and bin and recycling stores. He mentioned that the application had been deferred by Planning Committee B but as the committees had been reconstituted, it had been decided to present it at the first available committee. He asked that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from the applicant, Mr Taak, who stated that the objections from local residents had been considered and the application had been modified accordingly. He asked that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from Annabel McLaren, the Chair of Sydenham Society, who objected that despite the amendments, the proposal did not meet Lifetime Homes Standards, had no architectural merit and was overdevelopment of the site. She asked that planning permission be refused.

Following deliberation, Councillor Bell moved a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. The motion was seconded by Councillor Klier.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:                   Councillors Bell (Chair), Clarke, Coughlin, Hooks, Klier, Ogunbadewa, John Paschoud and Slater.

RESOLVED:     that planning permission be granted in respect to application. DC/12/82195 subject to Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report.

                        The meeting ended at 10:50pm