Agenda item

4. 14 The Glebe, SE3

Planning Manager Richard McEllistrum outlined the details of the application and made reference to the Draft London Plan and limited weight it can be afforded, noting that it does have implications for infill developments. Richard McEllistrum noted that the building was locally listed and that three different proposals at the site have previously been refused, with appeals dismissed. It was also noted that the external materials and appearance would be secured via condition.

Councillor Reid (Chair) asked for background regarding the proposals that had previously been refused. It was explained that the most recent previous design had been considered unimaginative and uncomplimentary to the building and that the siting and height of both preceding schemes had made the proposed buildings more prominent than the current scheme before members. Richard McEllistrum then emphasised that the principle of a contemporary design had been accepted at appeal.

Councillor Hilton raised concerns regarding outlook and the building’s status as an annex. Richard McEllistrum replied that the outlook from the basement had been considered acceptable by the Planning Inspectorate. Paula Young then stated that the building should be treated as an annex and would be conditioned as ancillary to the dwelling house. A discussion then took place regarding the design of the annex and the quality of the information submitted. Councillor Moore stated that she wasn’t convinced that the building responded well to its surroundings.

The committee then heard a verbal presentation from Mr David Graham (agent). He noted that the proposed building is located away from boundaries and neighbouring properties and that trees would provide screening. Mr Graham then stated that the proposed white limestone references the stucco of the surrounding buildings.

Councillor Reid (Chair) asked how the new design responds to previous refusals. Mr Graham replied that scale and massing had been reduced while maintaining a contemporary design approach. Councillor Hilton then stated that the modern design would not look subservient located amongst historic buildings. Councillor Reid (Chair) commented that a pastiche of the surrounding buildings should be avoided. Further discussion took place regarding the ancillary status of the building’s proposed use. The Chair confirmed to the committee that any potential future severance of use of the annexe was not a relevant planning consideration for this proposal.

Councillor Hilton commented that the design was hard to visualise. Councillor Ingleby agreed that the design was not clear and that a design condition was not satisfactory. Councillor Mallory was opposed to the deferral of the application. Councillor McGeevor commented that the applicant had submitted sufficient design details with the application. Further deliberation between members took place, including on the matter of whether Officers should be able to undertake a final judgement on the detailed form of external materials, as is set out within the recommendation to be secured by condition.

Councillor Ingleby moved a motion to defer the application in order to received greater design details. The motion was not seconded. Councillor Mallory moved a motion to approve the application in line with officer’s recommendations. The motion was seconded by Councillor Ogunbadewa.

Members voted as follows:

FOR APPROVAL: Councillors Reid (Chair), Ogunbadewa (Vice Chair), Mallory, Moore, Muldoon, McGeevor

AGAINST: Councillor Ingleby

ABSTAINED: Councillor Hilton

Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/17/103412.