Agenda item

RESOLVED –

That it be agreed to approve Recommendations A and B under paragraphs 13 and 14 on page 75 of the agenda, subject to the following amendments:-

      i.        Add details to Condition 30 to include wind mitigation measures to all landscaped areas of the development and the adjacent courtyard of Plot 6 Deptford Timberyard to be submitted and approved by the LPA prior to above ground works.

    ii.        Add a condition to ensure that all lifts within the building provide access to all floors within the building in perpetuity.

   iii.        Add a condition requiring that full details of physical measures to be installed to limit access to the proposed outdoor playspace to occupiers of the proposed development [and their guests).

The Senior Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the report, recommending to the Committee to agree the recommendations therein.  It was confirmed that an addendum report with corrections to the main report at paragraph 29 was published in a supplementary agenda.

The Panel noted the report and the supplementary to it, together a document of objections circulated to Members after the main agenda was published.  It was recognised that the application site comprised of Scott House, the host building, which existed as a non-designated heritage asset.

In response to questions raised, the Officer advised the Committee that although the level of affordable housing fell short of the 50% target in Core Strategy Policy 1, the Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) submitted by the applicant was endorsed by the Council’s independent assessor to be the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that can be delivered at this time.  Thus, affordable housing provision of 27.59% affordable housing with a 50/50 split between London Affordable Rent and London Living Rent the maximum that could possibly be delivered on the proposed site.  In addition, early and late review mechanisms would be in place to ensure that significant changes to the current financial viability outcome are captured and adjusted in a timely fashion.

Continuing with his response, the Officer clarified that the proposed affordable housing would not be sub-standard in delivery when compared to those developed for private sales.  It was stated that the affordable units would be ‘tenure blind’, with access via the same residential core.  Furthermore, all residents would have equal lift access from the same lobby and entrance area, and the café and ground floor level.  The Committee was advised that there would also communal outdoor spaces and cycle core at basement level to be used by all residents.

In light of further enquires, the Officer advised the Committee that the host building is afforded no statutory protection or Article 4 Direction.  The proposed commercial space would have strong street frontage onto Oxestalls Road and Grove Street.  It was confirmed that the retention of the frontage of the host building will help protect and enhance the Borough’s character and the street scene through appropriate high-quality design.  Thus, the retention of the most visible front elevations was considered an acceptable approach in an area of tall buildings and higher density.

Also clarified by the Officer was that doorstep play provided on-site for under 5s would be accessible to all residents and users of the café as an intuitive and integrated area of play within the formal landscape setting.  It was stated that public open spaces close to the application site had been identified as access play areas for older children.

Further clarification by the Officer was that wind speeds would be mitigated by the massing of the building and the presence of proposed landscaping, and trees at street level.

The meeting also noted representation by an architect and planning consultants on behalf of the applicant.  The representatives spoke in favour of the application, and suggested to the Committee to agree the recommendation in the report.

Responses to questions by the representatives [YP1] in relation to affordable housing provision, height, scale and bulk, access and residential amenities were noted by the Committee. 

Councillors Caroline Kalu, Silvana Kelleher and Lionel Openshaw also made representations on behalf of Evelyn Ward residents, advising that they were not opposed to the development of Scott House.  The Councillor stated that they were opposed to the fact that the proposal had not been presented as part of the wider planned development in the immediate area, and in light of potential cumulative  impacts.  The Councillors asked that it should also be noted that Evelyn Ward residents were universally opposed to the proposal. 

The meeting also received objections by representatives on behalf of nearby residents, residents of the Pepys Estate and the Deptford Society.

The Committee noted concerns expressed by the objectors about the impact of the proposed development on the character of the wider Pepys Estate and those living  close to it.  It was the view of the objectors that the scale of development and quality of design were excessive, that the proposal would impact adversely on the special architectural character of Scott House.  Concerns relating to the loss of daylight and sunlight to nearby properties were also noted by the Committee, including views of insufficient public open spaces on site, and the impact on local services and infrastructure.  Issues relating to overshadowing, the need for adequate sunlight and pedestrianised pathways, the impact on the adjacent youth and sport club were also noted by the Committee, including views about insufficient affordable housing and affordability of affordable housing.

Members discussed the issues raised by the objectors and representatives on behalf of the applicant.   In light of a concern[YP2] , the Service Group Manager advised the Committee that the PTAL rating was considered acceptable.  The applicant was not expected to make contributions outside the scope of the application but had taken steps to mitigate against potential traffic congestion through financial support for an additional bus route in the area.

Members unanimously consented to a request by the Chair, Councillor John Paschoud at 10.00pm to suspend Standing Orders

Continuing with their discussion on submissions made at the meeting, Councillor Leo Gibbons proposed a refusal to the recommendations in the report.

Councillor Walsh suggested that legal guidance was required in a closed-session setting on matters relating to the sustainability of the reasons for refusal informed by Councillor Leo Gibbons.  Members presented consented, and the Chair gave the direction.  Members left the meeting room at 10.07pm.

Members resumed from the closed-session at 10.37pm.

Councillor Leo Gibbons proposed a refusal of the application on the basis that the design and quality of the proposed development were contrary to the local policy.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Paul Bell and voted upon, with a result of 4 against, and 3 in favour of the proposal to refuse the planning application.

The meeting noted an alternative proposal by Councillor James-J Walsh with the following amendments that subject to referring the application to the Greater London Authority, to:

·         Amend condition 30 to require details of wind mitigation measures to all landscaped areas of the development and the adjacent courtyard of Plot 6 Deptford Timberyard to be submitted and approved by the LPA prior to above ground works.

·         Add a condition to ensure that all lifts within the building provide access to all floors within the building in perpetuity.

·         Add a condition requiring that full details of physical measures to be installed to limit access to the proposed outdoor playspace to occupiers of the proposed development [and their guests.

The motion by Councillor Walsh was seconded by Councillor Olurotimi Ogunbadewa and voted, with a result of 3 against and 4 in favour proposal.

The Committee

RESOLVED –

That it be agreed to approve Recommendations A and B under paragraphs 13 and 14 on page 75 of the agenda, subject to the following amendments:-

i.          Add details to Condition 30 to include wind mitigation measures to all landscaped areas of the development and the adjacent courtyard of Plot 6 Deptford Timberyard to be submitted and approved by the LPA prior to above ground works.

ii.          Add a condition to ensure that all lifts within the building provide access to all floors within the building in perpetuity.

iii.          Add a condition requiring that full details of physical measures to be installed to limit access to the proposed outdoor playspace to occupiers of the proposed development, and their guests.

The meeting closed at 10:41pm

Chair