Agenda item

The presenting officer outlined the details of the case for the demolition of existing buildings (Axion House), 1 Silver Road, SE13 and the construction of buildings ranging from ground level plus4 to 15 storeys in height, to provide 136 residential units, and flexible B1/A1/A3/D2 commercial uses, associated landscaping works, vehicular access, cycle and car parking (Amended description - revised scheme).

The presenting officer highlighted that the application site is within Lewisham Town Centre and the application site is not an allocated site. The presenting officer explained the layout of the proposed scheme and that explained that at the 5^th storey that the building would split with the tallest tower to the south. The presenting officer also highlighted that the scheme has been revised as it was originally submitted with 153 units and due to concerns with daylight and sunlight this was reduced to 136 units. It was also explained by the presenting officer that the scheme would provide 9.8% of the current new units target and explains that this target is increasing. The presenting officer explained the network rail access to the site and the scheme relationship with the Ravensbourne River.

The presenting officer outlined that 242 objections had been received which are outlined in paragraphs 5.10- 5.11 of the report. The presenting officer also outlined that 162 signature petition was received and that the Ladywell Society object to the application.

The presenting officer highlighted that due to re-design of the scheme that the scheme is proposing 28 affordable homes and that the applicants submitted viability review has been agreed with by the Council’s viability consultants, Urban Delivery and has also been reviewed by the GLA.  The presenting officer outlined that the application is subject to Section 106 Contributions and a viability review mechanism.

The presenting officer outlined that a second affordable housing offer has been presented to Members in the addendum, which would provide 30 London Living Rent units. The presenting officer outlined that second affordable housing offer is not supported by officers.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asked whether it was only the affordable housing contribution in the addendum which is not supported by officers. The presenting officer confirmed that only the affordable housing contribution in the addendum is not supported and that the Planning Obligation amendments are supported by officers.

Councillor Sorba asked whether the land at the application site would be publically accessible. The presenting officer confirmed that the land is privately owned and would be accessible to the public and also highlighted that the land could be sold and any changes to the access of the land such as gates would require planning permission.

Councillor Ingleby asked for clarification in regards to 5.27 of the report which outlined that the GLA stage 1 response highlights that the proposal does not comply with the London Plan. Elisabeth Glover – Planning Officer clarified that the GLA stage 1 report was in response to the original submission before the application was revised and that discussion have been ongoing with the GLA.

Councillor Curran asked for clarification on public access and whether a proposed condition is in regards access being retained. The presenting officer outlined that the plans do not show that the land to be inaccessible and that Public Access Management Plans can be requested.

Councillor Bernards asked whether the Fire Brigade are required to be consulted due to the scale of the building. Elisabeth Glover – Planning Officer  stated that the Fire Brigade had not been consulted but the applicant has been liaising with the Fire Brigade.

Councillor Curran asked what is the maximum acceptable height for a tower block on the application site. The presenting officer highlighted that the application is for ground floor level plus 15 storeys and that is what is under consideration. The presenting officer highlighted that a pre-application was submitted for 20 storeys and the applicant was advised that this was not supported. Elisabeth Glover- Planning Officer also highlighted that an Impact Assessment was submitted with the application showing the tower with 12 and 20 storeys, 20 storeys was considered to be unacceptable and that 12 storeys reduced the design quality of the proposal. Councillor Curran highlighted that views on design and height are subjective.

The Chair reminded members that only the submitted scheme can be assessed.

The committee received verbal representations Marlon Dean – DP9 Ltd on behalf of the applicant. Marlon Dean highlighted that the proposed affordable units would be genuinely affordable and that the family units would be have rents of £161 per week. Marlon Dean also highlighted that the application site is within an opportunity area, that the revised design is supported by the Design Review Panel and that the proposed building would be 21m from the nearest property. It was further highlighted by Marlon Dean that the scheme would be publically accessible, play spaces would be provided on site, and that proposal has been subject to pre-application, public meetings and review by the GLA.    

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asked whether the affordable housing would be located throughout the development and whether it would be of the same design quality as the market units. Marlon Dean said that the affordable housing would be in one block as this is a requirement by registered providers and that the scheme would be tenure blind.

Councillor Ingleby asked for clarification on proposed cycle parking. Marlon Dean confirmed that 264 cycle spaces would be provided for the residential accommodation and 12 cycle spaces for the commercial units.

Councillor Curran stated that residents are concerned about loss of privacy and loss of light. Marlon Dean highlighted that the application complies with the required setbacks and that the shape of the building reduces the number of windows overlooking neighbouring properties. Marlon Dean asked Nick Lane to respond on loss of light, Nick Lane highlighted that any development in London results in a change in light levels but that the change for this scheme is considered to be acceptable.

Councillor Bernards asked whether the separation of affordable housing increases inequality. Marlon Dean stated that registered providers prefer separate blocks as then they are not liable for service charges which are across the rest of the scheme. Marlon Dean highlighted that on the scheme the affordable housing units are closest to public transport and shops.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asked whether the registered provider has been confirmed. Simon Parker stated that the no formal agreement has been made to date.

Councillor Curran asked a follow up question in regards to whether impact assessment has been submitted. The presenting officer confirmed that this was submitted but has not been included in the presentation.

Councillor Sorba asked whether the views and general environment of the affordable housing units are different from the market units. Marlon Dean confirmed that the views would be the same and that the affordable units would be by one of the railway lines whereas the market units are by both railway lines. Craig Stececk confirmed that 87% of the affordable units would be dual aspect and the design is tenure blind.

The presenting officer highlighted that when the original larger scheme was submitted officers raised concerns in regards to loss of sunlight and overshadowing and that the scheme was been revised and the revised scheme is considered to result in an acceptable level of change. Councillor Curran states that the proposal does not comply with BRE guidelines and that the character of the area is low rise suburban so there will be an impact on light.  The presenting officer highlights that the application site is a town centre site and that the application would not be presented to committee if the light levels were not considered to be acceptable.

The committee received verbal representations from Allison Waldron on behalf of local residents. Allison Waldron was joined by Maria Darmon, Bill Jeffries, Brian Harrison and Patricia Gueria. Allison Waldron firstly asked for clarification of the height of the building, Elisabeth Glover confirmed that is ground floor plus 15 storeys. Allison Waldron raise objections on behalf of local residents on the following grounds, the proposed building is out of keeping with the local area, the proposal would cast large shadows and result in a loss of light to the estate, increased flood risk, concern over train derailment, the area is densely populated, impact on social infrastructure and amenities, increase in crime, and infringement of privacy and quality of life of residents.

Councillor Curran asked the objector what evidence is there for the impact on flood risk. Allison Waldron stated that this is detailed on the Environment Agency website.

The presenting officer highlighted that the river is not proposed to be widened and that the Environment Agency did not object to the application.

Councillor Maslin asked the objectors to clarify on the objection in regards to social infrastructure. David of Marsala Road highlighted the increasing pressures on local GP surgeries and hospitals and that the existing surgeries cannot cope with a development of this scale.

The presenting officer highlighted that all development is CIL chargeable, and that this is collected to go towards improved services as a part of the Councils wider strategy. Councillor Sorba asked whether the CIL figure for this application is adequate to mitigate against the proposal. Councillor Paschoud (Chair) stated that CIL has statutory calculation.

In response to earlier questions in regards to loss of light and overshadowing the presenting officer goes through the submitted diagrams. Councillor Curran asks when the study was undertaken, the presenting officer confirms that the study was done on the 21^st March and explains that the shadow is not static and moves throughout the day. The presenting officer proceeds to explain the results from the 21^st December.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asks is any Councillors are speaking under standing orders. Councillor Johnston-Franklin spoke under standing orders and raised concerns in regards to affordable housing and the height of the proposal. Councillor Johnston-Franklin states that the affordable housing contribution is too low and that the threshold for the shared ownership is not suited to local residents. Councillor Johnston-Franklin also outlined that the proposal would be situated in a low density area and as such the proposal is out of character.

Councillor Brown also spoke under standing orders to highlight that a registered provider has not been confirmed for the affordable housing units. The presenting officer highlighted that it is normal that registered providers are not secured prior to the granting of planning permission.

The presenting officer highlighted that the applicant as proposed two affordable housing offers and that the first offer is supported by officers. The presenting officer also highlighted conditions can be added in regards to public access.

Councillor Curran highlights that he is minded to move a motion to reject the officers recommendation due to lack of affordable housing, the proposal does not confirm with BRE guideline and the inappropriate massing of the proposal.

The presenting officer highlighted that the affordable housing contribution is subject to a viability assessment which has been reviewed by the Council and the GLA as such it would be difficult to sustain this refusal and that the BRE guideline are intended to be applied flexibly. Councillor Curran states that he acknowledges the point in regards to affordable housing.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asks if the motion is being seconded, Councillor Sorba asks if impact on social infrastructure can be included as a refusal reason. The presenting officer comments that social infrastructure is included as a part of CIL and that TfL and highways have raised no objections. Kheng Chau – Legal Services advises that if impacts on social infrastructure is to be included as a refusal reason, substantive evidence will need to be provided to sustain this.

Councillor Curran moves a motion to reject the officer’s recommendation as proposal does not comply with BRE guidelines and as massing of the proposal is inappropriate for the site. This was seconded by Councillor Sorba.

Members voted as follows:

For: Councillors Curran, Sorba, Bernards and Ingleby.

Against: Councillors Maslin and Paschoud.

RESOLVED: That application DC/17/102703 be refused as it does not comply with BRE guidelines and as the massing of the scheme is inappropriate for the site.