Agenda item

The Planning Officer outlined the proposal for minor material amendments to the planning permission DC/09/72554 dated 22 March 2010 as amended by planning permissions DC/10/75267 dated 29 September 2010, DC/10/75395 dated 11 November 2010 and DC/12/81165 dated 24 January 2013 for the redevelopment of the Heathside and Lethbridge Estates, Blackheath Hill and Lewisham Road SE10 comprising outline planning permission (Phases 2-6) for up to 512m² of retail floorspace, 768m² of community floorspace, an energy centre and 1,054 residential units in buildings ranging from 3 to 17 storeys in height, together with car and cycle parking, associated highway infrastructure, public realm works and provision of open space and detailed planning permission (Phase 1) for the redevelopment of land fronting onto Blackheath Hill for 138 residential units in buildings ranging from 4 to 7 storeys in height, together with car and cycle parking, associated highway infrastructure, public realm works and provision of open space; to allow for the provision of an additional storey on blocks Db, Dc, Fa and Fb and associated changes in the footprint and elevational treatment of blocks (D and F) in Phase 4, and recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from the applicant Mr M Gibney, and from the applicant’s architect Mr P Woodford who said a sunlight/daylight assessment had shown negligible loss of light to existing properties and that while various amendments had resulted in the loss of one unit, the remaining units would be larger overall. They asked that planning permission be granted.

The Committee received verbal representation from a resident of 45 Mountsfield House who objected to the proposal. He was concerned that the increase in footprint and height as proposed would create a canal like effect and cast shadow over neighbouring properties. He asked that permission be refused.

Councillor De Ryk spoke under standing orders and objected that the cumulative impact of the various amendments to the scheme as first approved would have a significant negative impact on the neighbouring properties and should therefore not be treated as a minor material amendment. She asked that permission be refused.

Councillor Bonavia spoke under standing orders and objected that potential for the increase in noise had not been assessed nor had the residents in Phase 1 of the development been consulted. He asked that permission be refused, or at least deferred, to ensure the residents in Phase 1 were consulted and that the applicant assess the cumulative impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties.

Following deliberation, Councillor John Paschoud moved a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for application DC/14/87335 subject to Conditions as laid out in the report. The motion was not seconded.

Following further deliberation, Councillor Coughlin moved a motion to defer decision on the application DC/14/87335 to request that the applicant provide (a) an assessment of the financial viability of the changes, and (b) a report on the number of units lost if the height were kept the same as originally approved. The motion was seconded by Councillor Bell

Members voted as follows:

FOR:                   Councillors Bell (Chair), Clarke, Coughlin, Hooks, Klier, and Slater

AGAINST:          Councillors John Paschoud and Ogunbadewa

RESOLVED:     that planning permission be deferred for 6 weeks in respect of application DC/14/87335 in order to request that the applicant provide (a) an assessment of the financial viability of the changes, and (b) a report on the number of units lost if the height were kept the same as originally approved.