Issue - meetings

RESOLVED

That it be noted that the Committee agreed to:

REFUSE planning permission for the demolition of the existing extension to the rear of 433 New Cross Road SE14 and the change of use, alterations and rear extensions to the existing building, together with the construction of a 5 storey building at the rear of the site with access onto Glenville Grove to provide 9 self-contained flats incorporating balconies and terraces, provision cycle store, bin store and plant structure in the centre of the site (to be accessed directly off Mornington Road) for the following reason:

The impact on the standard of the residential accommodation would on balance, be negative as the proposal would:

·         Fail to provide external amenity space without equivalent internal compensation for Units 7 and 9.

The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation, recommending the grant of planning permission for the proposal, as outlined in the Officer’s report.

The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

Principle of Development • Housing • Urban Design • Impact on Adjoining Properties • Transport • Sustainable Development

• Natural Environment • Planning Obligations

Following the Officers presentation, Members questions related to space.

The Officer advised officers were confident with the measurements provided in the plan, by the development’s architect. It was felt there would be enough space.

The agent addressed the Committee and described the application site. The applicant discussed: collaboration process and engagement with the local authority, design issues and the visual enhancement to the area.

Questions were put to the agent by the Committee members related to: viability, accessibility, daylight/sunlight,

The agent advised Members that the creation of 8 units on the development, instead of the proposed 9, would have a negative effect on financial viability of the development. The agent acknowledged the need for affordable housing and advised Members the applicant was disappointed, that they would not be able to provide 10 or more units, due to the negative effect on the developments’ viability.

The Officer provided clarification with regard to accessibility, as outlined in the Officer’s report.

A representative with objections addressed the Committee. The representative discussed: light, privacy, balcony, and design.

No questions were put to the representative by the Committee.

The following member’s questions put to the Officer related to: height, overlooking, design, materials, parking, cycle storage security and space.

The Officer advised the Committee that the developer was limited to 9 units due to space constraints and it was not possible to builder a taller scheme. The maximum allowance for the development, had been reached.

Members were advised by the Officer that, the already existing overlooking to gardens, was not considered harmful by officers.

The Committee were also advised the balcony was not built higher, as that would be intrusive. The screening instead, created no harm. The Committee were informed all design measures taken, were in keeping with planning policy.

The Officer confirmed London stock brick would be used, to match the existing brickwork in the vicinity. There would also be the use of zinc on the top floor, to provide visual interest and to provide vertical differentiation between the top, middle and bottom of the development. Assurance was given by the Officer that materials, were of good quality.

Members were informed by the Officer that there were existing short stay parking to the front of 445 New Cross Road. The Committee were assured that Transport for London (TfL), were satisfied that the existing five spaces on site, would accommodate the parking requirement for the development.

The Committee were advised that although the cycle store would open directly onto the public realm, increased passive surveillance provided by the new residential accommodation, would help mitigate security concerns. It was also advised that details of other security measures would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3