Agenda item

The Planning Officer Helen Milner outlined details of the proposal for the demolition of the disused three storey residential care building to allow redevelopment for a part three/four storey residential building comprising 25 social rent flats. The officer outlined the proposed landscape works, 46 cycle spaces, 3 wheelchair accessible car parking spaces and living roof details.

Statutory consultation was undertaken resulting in 6 objections, as detailed in Section 6 of the officer’s report. The objections were outlined to members. Section 8 of the report was highlighted to members, particularly regarding parking stress, space standards, daylight/sunlight assessments and an Ecology Survey, which officers consider satisfactory. The officer responded to all the issues raised in the received objections.

Questions put to the planning officer by members included the difference between green and living roofs, which the officer explained and the use of more than one entrance by future occupiers.

The Committee received verbal representation from the Project Manager of Lewisham Homes, Anthony Kelly and the Architect David Lomax who gave an overview of the application history, the withdrawal of a scheme for 35 units on site and how the development forms part of Lewisham Council’s New Homes Programme which will provide 100% social rent, secure tenancies for households on Lewisham’s housing register. Mr Lomax highlighted the level of engagement that had taken place with the Planning Authority and the local community. With regards to design, he stated that living spaces within the flats had been sited to prevent as much overlooking to neighbouring properties as possible.

The committee received verbal representation from Sarah Tabbit a resident in Adamsrill Road and Barry Milton from the Sydenham Society who handed a print out to members containing a site location plan, elevation drawing and a picture of Adamsrill Nursery which is situated opposite the subject site.

Ms Tabbit outlined the impact on existing residents which included loss of privacy due to overlooking from walkways and roof terrace, noise, loss of sun/daylight, the proposed building being too large and sited too close; having a dominating and intrusive impact on neighbouring properties.

Mr Milton spoke about perceived social negative effects of having residential development of this size directly opposite a nursery with overlooking into the playground at the front.

Councillor Hall spoke under standing orders regarding the density and scale of the development and its proximity to a school. He opined that a less dense, lower development would suit the site and mention was also made of the amount of parking on surrounding roads due to the school and Sydenham Green Health Centre.

Councillor John Paschoud spoke under standing orders regarding the boundary between Perry Vale Ward and Bellingham Ward which runs across Adamsrill Road. The Councillor stated that Perry Vale Councillors should have been consulted and whilst he supports the strategic objective; traffic pressure on Adamsrill Road should be acknowledged.

Paula Young the Council’s Lawyer, was questioned by members as to whether there were legal restrictions regarding development near an existing school/nursery. There are none.

The Planning Officer replied to the objections that the objectors and Councillors made. The distance between the nursery and the proposed elevation of the building would be 16m. Many schools and nurseries can be found in residential areas and as such there would always be an element of overlooking, however, whilst it is within planning remit to limit overlooking onto a site, controlling potential occupier’s behaviour is not.

Officers have been guided by survey details regarding on street parking and parking stresses, which are reviewed at Section 8.34 in the officers report. The density and scale of the development is considered appropriate, with no overall increase in height.  With regards to consultation, a site notice, press notice and neighbour letters were sent; one of which went to the school/nursery. It is adopted policy that only ward councillors of the ward where the site is situated are consulted and so the consultation was carried out in line with statutory requirements.

Members asked the planning officer if it was possible to attach further conditions regarding obscuring the view from both the top floor roof terrace and external walkway and also limiting noise from the walkway.

The planning officer confirmed that would be possible and would be done along with the rewording of Condition 3 to clarify the units would be social housing. Amendments to the living roof condition (5) were also proposed, along with a new landscaping condition to include details of living wall and tree retention, therefore removing the need for separate tree retention condition (18) and living wall condition (22). The condition (23) for which highways works to be secured is also to be amended to be clearer in it’s intend.

After summing up from the Chair (Cllr Amrani), Councillor Jeffrey proposed a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation, it was seconded by Councillor Till.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:                 Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud, De Ryk, Till, and Jeffrey  

AGAINST:        Councillor Bourne

RESOLVED:      That the application DC/17/103961 be accepted with the amendments to the conditions as listed above and the new conditions relating to screening and walkway floor material.