Agenda item

3.         30-32 Stanstead Road, SE23 1BW (DC/17/103186) (Item 3 on the agenda)

The presenting Planning Officer Richard McEllistrum explained the details the existing site which is currently a vacant open grassed area corner plot fronting Stanstead Road and Rojack Road.

He outlined the details of the proposal which would comprise the construction of a part 2, part 3 storey building providing 4 x 1 bedroom self-contained flats together with associated landscaping, cycle and refuse storage. It was noted that the proposal is for an unrestricted C3 residential usage, but that the immediate intended occupants would be those on the autism spectrum, with no live in carers.

He went on to mention that the Council had received 52 letters of support, and 29 letters of objection to the proposal.

The presenting officer stated that on a balance, the benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh the loss of open space, and that the proposal had been recommended for approval, subject to 10 conditions.

Questions from Councillors followed:

Cllr Paschoud asked whether any of the letters of support came from local residents who wanted the land built on, or if they were just supporters of the scheme due to the need for housing for those on the autism spectrum. The presenting officer stated that he could not answer, as the information was not in front of him, but explained that specific weight is not given to the quantity of letters in support of a scheme by officers, and as such the number of letters received did not influence officers recommendation.

Cllr Walsh asked if any traffic control/calming measures had been proposed, as they know the road well and it is used as a ‘rat-run’, and there could be safety issues for future residents. The presenting officer stated that he wasn’t aware of any proposed measures, and that the Council’s highways officer had raised no objections to the scheme.

Cllr Adefiranye noted that one of the main objections to the scheme was that the proposal is incongruous with the area, particularly due to its height, and asked whether the planning department saw this as an issue. The presenting officer noted that the proposal is not in a conservation area, so there is a different type of consideration applied in regard to the character of the area and thus a different approach to design. He also explained that there is a range of context existing in the surrounding area, particularly on Stanstead Road, with examples of contemporary and three storey buildings further along the street. It was also noted that larger buildings can often be more appropriate on corner plots, as is the case with this proposal.

The applicant was next invited to speak in support of the application. Representing the applicant was John Silverman of Birnbeck Housing Association, and Irene Craik the architect of the scheme.

John Silverman outlined that the occupiers of the proposed housing would be individuals with autism spectrum disorders who are not eligible for care. He stated that these individuals have low level support needs, and the occupants will be selected from a waiting list of 20 requiring homes.

The homes would be normal, secure and affordable homes for life for the future occupiers, but have been designed with the provision of specialist housing for those on the autism spectrum in mind. 

With regard to design, they stated that it was a fitting book-end design, which respects existing building lines and had been designed whilst working closely with the Councils design team, as well as responding to initial objections.

They went on to note that the intended future occupiers would not have cars, and that there would only be a carer present for a total of 8 hours each week so the impact on local parking stress and traffic would not be harmful.

Questions from Councillors followed:

Councillor Walsh stated that the rear elevation was blank and stark, and asked why this design was chosen. The architect stated that it had been to protect the privacy of neighbours and to keep the design simple.

Councillor Paschoud expressed concern over the massing and scale of the proposal, and stated that it would create an uncharacteristic corner property. It was then asked why the building needed to be so large for just four occupiers. The architect’s response was that the flats had been designed to have a good standard of accommodation and with a communal living area. They are 1 bed flats and not studios, if the minimum standards had been followed then 8 flats could have been accommodated.

Next Nikki Herring, a local resident, spoke in opposition against the proposal. She stated that the objectors were not against the end purpose of the property (as housing for those on the autism spectrum), but that they were focussing on planning policy, which they believe the proposal is contrary to.

Concerns raised include the design: its excessive height, massing and scale; the continuity of the terrace would be broken; materials do not match the area, and the development would be incongruous, failing policies DM30 and DM31. The false window was identified as a particular issue, being ugly and more characteristic of an office block. They felt the site was too small to fit the brief, and the building was being squeezed into the site.

Also raised were issues of overlooking and poor standards of internal accommodation. They quoted policies DM32 and DM33 and why in their opinion the proposal was contrary to these. They disagree with the officer’s report in these respects, the height and massing would divert from the character of the street.

They believe that the proposal was being given special treatment, and stated that this would set a dangerous precedent. It was also noted that they disagree with the fact that the future occupiers are unlikely to have a car.

No questions followed.

Councillor Egan, a cabinet member for housing in the borough, spoke under standing orders in support of the scheme.

He thanked CLASH, and went on to state that there are a lot of groups of people in the borough who currently require housing. Specifically there is a lack of housing for those with Asperger’s, and stated that Mayor and Cabinet support the scheme in principle. In his opinion it is a sympathetic design. He stated that should this scheme be approved then Lewisham would be a leading authority in providing this kind of housing.

The presenting planning officer responded to some of the objectors comments, including an explanation of how the context of the built environment at any site is considered, including in this instance that further up the street there were example of larger buildings, and the character of the street does not come from just the properties immediately surrounding, furthermore that corner plots often have a different level development potential. He stated that the rooms had good levels of natural lighting, and had been assessed against the relevant policies and found to be acceptable overall.

Questions from members to the presenting officer followed:

Councillor Walsh stated that he found the scale and massing to be appropriate, due to its siting on a corner plot, but raised issue with the rear elevation due to its blankness and the false window and asked what could be done to improve this. The presenting officer stated that some kind of screen or detailing could potentially be added and suggested that a condition could be added to the permission requiring details of this to be submitted to the planning department for approval.

Councillor Paschoud stated that she did have an issue with the massing, and that the bulk and height of the 2^nd storey would be incongruous and out of character. She raised concern over the way the proposal had been referred to by officers as ordinary housing, but the living room was a feature designed specifically for those with Asperger’s, and that is why the scale was so large. She was concerned that the proposal had been designed for a client group, but that this was not being fully acknowledged by officers. In her belief the intended end-user had blurred the acceptability of the proposal.

Richard McEllistrum, the presenting officer, replied by ensuring members that officers had given no special treatment to the proposal. He stated that the application has been assessed as standard C3 residential accommodation, that this is set out clearly within the report, and that if the intended end user had not been for individuals with Asperger’s then this proposal would still be recommended for approval as a standard Use Class C3 residential accommodation.

He also stated that one of the reasons for the height of the proposal was lilely to be due to the modern minimum floor to ceiling heights prescribed in the London Plan.

He concluded by stating the proposal had been recommended for approval on its own merits, as a C3 residential unit.

Deliberations from members followed and Councillor Kennedy moved a motion to accept the officers’ recommendation and grant the scheme, which was seconded by Councillor Walsh.

Members voted as follows:

FOR RECOMMENDATION: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Adefiranye, Kennedy and Walsh.

AGAINST RECOMMENDATION: Councillors Paschoud (Vice-chair), Till

ABSTAINED:            None

RESOLVED:    Grant the application, as per the officers’ recommendation, and subject to a revised or additional condition relating to screen / detailing to the upper floor window void..