Agenda item

Viv Evans introduced the planning application, explaining that the site is in a strategic location and is identified in the Local Plan as a site for  edevelopment. He stated that the Mayor of London has identified Lewisham as one of four transport hubs and includes the proposal for the extension of the Bakerloo Line extension.

Michael Forrester presented an overview of the scheme and planning context. He stressed that this scheme is to be considered as a fresh application and is not a resubmission of an earlier application. He tabled an addendum to the committee report which contained clarification on the cycle provision and an update on recently received consultation responses.

Cllr Paschoud asked for confirmation of the public realm contribution and works on the river. Michael Forrester confirmed that with extensive discussion with the Environment Agency, the applicant has worked up a model to pay half the cost of the proposed river works. This will be secured in a S.106 Agreement and the river works will commence when the Tesco sites

comes forward.

Cllr Bell queried whether the levels of social and affordable rents had been agreed with the Lewisham housing team. Michael Forrester confirmed that the team supported these levels, but details would be secured in a s106.

In answer to a query from Cllr Reid, Michael Forrester explained that the comments from the GLA (para 6.16 of the committee report) were received at an early stage in the planning process and that the GL Hearn Viability review had not yet been received. Subject to the committee’s decision, this  application will be referred to the GLA for stage 2 and they would

then be able to provide a further response on the scheme.

Cllr Paschoud requested confirmation that the public access to the sky deck was secured in the S. 106 Agreement along with operating times, etc. The operating costs would be paid from the profits of the ground floor café.

The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes until 20:16 due to IT issues in displaying the applicant’s presentation. Jamie Pearson (Meyer Homes), James Everitt (EPR architects) and Steven Butterworth (Lichfields), representing the applicant team, presented their scheme.

Cllr Paschoud stated that the Sky Deck could be a possible lunch destination for residents and workers in the area. Cllr Clarke queried security access and health & safety issues with the applicant. These had been reviewed, groups would be pre-booked in advanced and requirements would be similar to the Sky Garden.

Cllr Bell again requested clarification on the levels of affordable housing provided and why they were thought to be acceptable. The applicants responded that they had worked to address the requirements for affordable housing requested by officers.

Cllr Walsh queried the scheme’s public benefits which mitigate and justify the height of the building; including what amenities were going to be provided in the public square. The applicant confirmed that facilities for pop up markets could be conditioned. Cllr Walsh requested that market pitches at affordable rents.

Cllr Reid asked that given the proposed height of the building, can you explain how you think this building can be defined as exceptional design. The  applicant replied that many people have been engaged in its design, including Lewisham Design Review Panel.

Cllr Clarke stated that she was of concerns from local resident on the overshadowing and effect on amenity from such a tall building. The applicant responded that they would conduct a survey at the start of the construction and that sunlight and daylight reports have been undertaken.

Mr and Mrs Walsh’ a local residents, addressed the committee. They live in a Victorian terrace, which is the closest building to the new development. They circulated images of the superimposed new building on their view. He stated that his property would be overshadowed by the development and would lack privacy. He objected to the public square 13m from his home. He raised concerns that the air quality was over the legal limit; that there was not enough trees, green roofs, and living walls in the area. He stated that no

vibration monitoring or air quality monitoring had been undertaken at his house.

Mr Geoff Fleming, resident of Silkman’s Path, addressed the committee and was also speaking on behalf of a fellow neighbour, a GP. He raised concerns on the dearth of primary health care in the area and urged Meyer homes to consider a more modest scheme with less impact on infrastructure.

Maggie Gravel, representing the Blackheath Joint Working Party, addressed the committee. She raised concerns of the impact on Blackheath from the visual impact of the tower.

Nick Patton addressed the committee on behalf of both the Blackheath Society and Ladywell Society. He raised concerns that the reasons for rejection last April had not been addressed in the new scheme. He read from a written statement circulated to members in advance of the meeting.

Cllr Clarke asked the objectors for their expectations on the use of the site.  they explained that they welcomed a development that was not so high with such deep piling.

Michael Forrester responded to some of the objector’s comments. A Construction and Environmental Management plan would be signed off by officers in conjunction with Highways and Environmental Health. He acknowledged that there will be an impact on daylight, but within acceptable levels. The applicant’s Daylight & Sunlight report has been independently verified. The view of tall building from Blackheath was considered acceptable

as similar to Canary Wharf.

Cllr Bonavia, addressed the committee under standing orders, on behalf of other councillors that could not attend the meeting. He declared that he was the Chair of the Blackheath Working Party and a Blackheath ward councillor. A note from the ward councillors had been previously circulated to members. He raised concerns on rail capacity due to pressure of increase population in the area. The committee were being asked to approve the highest building in Lewisham. The scheme’s impact needs to be mitigated by significant public

benefits and that the inclusion of a Skydeck and landscaping were cosmetic.

The building needs to have homes that Lewisham’s residents and their children can live in; 12% affordable in unacceptable. He asked members to reject the application Cllr Clarke asked for more detail on the primary health care provision in the area. Michael Forrester responded that this would be addressed by CIL receipts in delivered developments.

Cllr Smith stated that a refusal of the scheme would be unacceptable when the viability had been externally agreed.

Cllr Walsh asked whether officers could draft suitable conditions to extend landscaping condition with a link to the market stalls at affordable rents. He requested officers’ assurance that the maximum affordable housing and public benefits have been squeezed out of the applicant.

Cllr Bell stated that 12% affordable units was unacceptable and that he was not against tall buildings and increased density, but that there had to be public justification for a building of this nature.

Cllr Clarke stated that she was unconvinced of the commercial viability of the Skydeck and was concerned about the building’s height and impact on the buildings nearby.

Cllr Walsh requested clarification of how the cafe would subsidise the operation of the Skydeck. This would be secured in perpetuity through the S.106 Agreement.

Cllr Smith stated he was uncomfortable with the level of affordable units provided, but this was not a reason for refusal if the scheme’s viability is acceptable. He moved a motion to recommend grant of the scheme with a condition on landscaping and public realm amenities. It was seconded by Councillor Ogunbadewa.

Members voted as follows for motion of recommendation of grant with additional conditions to GLA:

FOR: Councillors Pashcoud (Chair), Smith, Ogunbadewa and Walsh

AGAINST: Councillors Bell, Clarke and Reid.

Planning permission is granted with recommendations in the report.. Scheme to be referred as Stage 2 to the GLA

Meeting closed at 21:48