Agenda item

The meeting began at 19:30. Head of Planning presented the proposal and explained that this proposal had originally been submitted to the Council in 2017 and was refused by the Strategic Planning Committee in 2017.  The reasons for refusal are set out in paragraph 1.9 of the committee report. The applicant has been working on the reasons for refusal and this application before the committee is the applicant’s response.

An Addendum to the committee report was tabled which includes additional consultation responses and updates to the proposed transport contributions following discussion with Network Rail and Transport for London.   The report does not impact or change the recommendations within the committee report. The transport contributions has been agreed with Network Rail and TFL. 

The Head of Planning explained that the Lewisham Gateway new road system is now in place. A key part of the scheme was to remove the roundabout in accordance with the Lewisham Gateway Planning Brief.

This application looks at amendments to Phase 2 of the development. With Phase 1 nearing completion, this is a Section 73 minor material application seeking amendments to the original scheme. It is a mixed use development with tall buildings.  Certain elements of the development have already been approved in detail; e.g. the transport and river works in 2009, Phase 1 of the scheme and the principle of development.

This s.73 application reduces the height and massing of the blocks and increases in height to others, the residential units are now 100% PRS (private rented scheme) change to commercial usages to include a cinema, office space for co-working and co-living in place of the hotel.  There is also a reduction in retail space as no longer being double height.  Phase 2 includes 20% affordable housing.

Cllr Bonavia stated that the increase in affordable units was welcome, but asked for confirmation whether this increase of 20% was the best possible percentage given the circumstances and what the GLA’s views on this were.  Cllr De Dyke also requested that the Head of Planning give some further background on affordable rent.  Emma Talbot explained that the London Living Rent was assessed as 1/3 of the median income for a ward to be spent on rent, so that a resident can save for their own property.  The affordable units can be located in any property within the development. She confirmed that the GLA have a land holder interest in the scheme.  The policy position on affordable housing percentage is the maximum amount that is viable. The Housing Infrastructure Improvement fund, announced just after the last refusal, awarded Lewisham Gateway £10m so that the infrastructure costs can be offset allowing more units to become affordable.  A £9.6m contribution payment from the Renaissance/ Barratt scheme is being allocated to this scheme, amounting to 20~% affordable across Phase 2.

Cllr Paschoud asked about the effects of the development on transport.  Emma Talbot explained that significant levels of contributions have been received by town centre developers towards transport improvements; £140k for DLR improvement and £300k for Lewisham Station improvements would be secured from this scheme.

Simon Moss explained that Tfl were actively working on a Business Case proposal for funding from the Department of Transport. One of the options would be to advance design work for short to medium term improvements, e.g. widening the platforms. He confirmed that levels of contribution are reasonable, although it does not guarantee that the proposed work will take place. The DLR contribution is to extend capacity.

Then followed a presentation by the applicants represented by Michael Auger (Regional Director for Muse Developments), Frans Van Vuure (UN Studios), Rick De Blaby (Executive Director of Get Living) and Justin Robbins (CEO Empire Cinemas).

Cllr Paschoud asked the applicant team whether they were encouraging supporters of the scheme to email members as he has received around 50 emails with similar wording.  The applicant team explained that yes, they had encouraged the community to show their support to their councillors. 

Cllr Bonavia stated that the council’s priority was to deal with the housing situation and asked the applicant team what financial stake they had contributed.  The applicants confirmed that they are making a financial contribution. 

Cllr Bonavia queried the provision of co-living rather than providing genuine affordable housing.  He asked for clarification on how it is going to work and what the benefits were.  The applicant team explained that following the refusal, they reviewed the residential provision of the scheme.  A hotel was an option, but it would not provide the right tone of vibrancy. They considered that a residential shared accommodation scheme would provide much higher levels of amenity compared to student accommodation. Co-living is an emerging market and there was already a viable co-living development in West London, but that the units in Lewisham would be larger and higher quality. Get Living already operate PRS units in Stratford which some members had already visited with Officers.

Cllr Reid asked for more information on length of PRS leases and levels of tenant satisfaction.  The applicant team explained that leases were for 3 years, which tenants can break with 6 and 2 month notice.  Rent increases in line with CPI. The average length of stay is 30 months.  They undertake 100 interviews per month and score 30 - 40 (net promoter scores) which is a high level of satisfaction.  However, they recognise there is a need to improve maintenance turnaround of jobs.

Cllr De Ryk, welcomed investigating different housing models that are of high quality, stable tenancies and affordable. She commended Get Living on the vibrant community that has been built in Stratford.  However, she was concerned that living in small room, would be demoralising.  Emma Talbot suggested that a minimum size room of 25 m² would be preferable and facilitate a more stable tenancy.

Cllr Clarke asked what would happen if the co-living space did not work in reality and how would it be adapted.  The applicant team explained that it would be harder to re-develop to a non-residential space, but it could be re-purposed as residential or a hotel.

Cllr Bonavia asked for more information on the roofs of the scheme.  The applicant team confirmed that all the building roofs will be green, except where extractor plant was housed.  The roof would be accessible, and may be used by tenants of adjacent apartments. 

Mark Radville then spoke in support of the application.  He is a resident of the borough and runs a speciality coffee business in Lewisham.  He stated that the scheme will help his business to grow and expand, that the development’s contribution is good for the whole area, the route to DLR and station will bring more interest to the area and the work space would stimulate more business growth as there was no office space based in Lewisham.

Then followed a presentation by objectors to the scheme represented by Howard Shields (Blackheath Society), Ian Chalk (Blackheath Society and member of Camden Design Review Panel), Brian Turpin (Lewisham Cyclists) and Paul and Katy Walsh (local residents living adjacent to Phase 1 of the scheme). 

Mr Shields stated that although the latest scheme is an improvement on last year, it is still unacceptable as it will dominate the surrounding areas, has limited public realm and green areas and a reduction in the mix of the scheme.  He also stated the new scheme will exacerbate the current transport issues and that there was a need for firm plans with timescales for transport improvements.  He requested members to defer the scheme until a robust infrastructure plan is in place.

Mr Chalk passed around a pie chart showing changes in the mix of uses of the scheme between the 2009 and 2018 applications.  He requested that the current application should be deferred until the land uses were adjusted, as he considered a scheme with nearly 80% residential to be unacceptable. 

Mr Turpin requested that the current road junctions be reconsidered.  He asked the committee to impose conditions on developer to design better cycling routes in accordance with cycling strategies.

Mr and Mrs Walsh informed the committee about ongoing issues with excessive noise levels, damage to walls from piling vibrations and reduction in light levels to 0.1% in main living room. They were also concerned that if the scheme is developed into a night time venue this would further increase levels of noise at night.

Cllr Bonavia asked the Blackheath Society what they would like to see changed if the application was deferred.  They replied that they want a mix of uses similar to that in the 2009 application. 

Standing Orders was suspended at 21:58.

Cllr Bonavia asked officers if they have investigated the delivery of library facilities as part of the development.  Emma Talbot replied that yes they had, but realised that the location was not appropriate to the type of space being delivered.

Cllr Reid asked Mr and Mrs Walsh what contact they had had with the Council, Enforcement, and Council’s complaint team.  They explained that they had not had any recent contact with the Council.  Muse visited them last week prior to the strategic planning committee meeting taking place. Cllr Reid wanted to go on record that Mr and Mrs Walsh had been let down by both the council and the developer.

Simon Moss was asked to address the objectors concerns about the transport issues.  He explained that Mayor of London has highlighted Lewisham as one of the key stations. Therefore, Lewisham Station would be a priority for Tfl.  There will be an increase in capacity at the station and highways officers are confident that improvements will be progressed.      

The original scheme was agreed in 2009, but the cycling scheme was revisited in 2014. This has led to a number of changes to the scheme, but it did not alter the fundamental road layout. There is a need to look at extending the cycle routes from Deptford as part of any new cycle provision.

Emma Talbot then provided members with a summary reply to the concerns raised during the committee discussions.

• Affordable housing is delivered through public subsidy, if appropriate.
• There is no marketing strategy for co-living and we could condition minimum floor levels if members were minded to approve.
• Different types of living roofs are secured in the application.
• There is a clause in draft Head of Terms to promote marketing for local people from the onset.
• Business Panel recommendation is seeking to maximise 3 bed units and these to be offered at London Living levels.
• 2009 had minimum, optimum and maximum floor plans to build in flexibility. This scheme is within the maximum approved floor levels originally agreed. Section 9 of the report sets out the importance of delivery.
• The lack of commercial end users in Phase 1 buildings is not a cause for concern, as the scheme is still being built.
• The view from conversation areas is not objectionable. Planning can only consider how the development affects the conservation area.
• Overall the public realm have slightly increased in this scheme.
• Officers are confident that the scheme does deliver the original Lewisham Gateway vision and will now be delivered within 3 years, subject to approval.
• Officers believe there is a robust and suitable mix of uses.
• The deferral of the application for preparation of longer term infrastructure plans is not appropriate.
• It is noted that the scheme contains fewer family units because this is a high density town centre development.
• Legal advice has been sought that this application is a S.73.  It is different in detail, but ultimately proposals are within bounds of the original application.
• The Phase 1 application accepted that there would be impacts on the adjoining properties, but these would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
• The envisioned night-time economy is somewhere where commuting residents can dine before going home.

Cllr Paschoud requested clarification of the 10 year decision notice duration.  Emma Talbot explained that this could not be changed, but ran from 2009. 

Cllr Clarke queried light and wind levels in the development.  Emma Talbot provided assurance that officers were confident as level had been independently reviewed.  The high buildings have been tested in a worst case scenario; as balconies and trees will act as mitigations. The detailed design of the building would be reported back to the committee as a reserved matters applications.  If buildings are re-purposed; this is in building control’s remit.   A change of use of the building would require a planning application.

Cllr Paschoud welcomed the changes to the proposals since the last refusal and moved the approval of the application, subject to inclusion of the recommendations with the committee report and addendum and minimum co-living room size of 25m².

The motion was seconded by Cllr Bonavia.  He recognised that Lewisham will have tall buildings in central Lewisham to meet housing targets. The changes to Lewisham Stations were welcome, but the planning committee should drive this change. He stated that he had voted against this development last year as it had no affordable homes and that this application now has a substantial contribution, He is now assured that co-living will bring vitality to the borough.

FOR APPROVAL:   Councillors De Ryke (Chair), Paschoud, Bonavia, Reid and Clarke.

AGAINST:                None

Application Approved

The meeting ended at                              22:50