Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Muldoon declared that he had been lobbied with regard to item 3 but did not have any personal interest in the application and could make a decision with an open mind.

The Chair declared that he lived in the same road as the application site in item 8 but did not have any personal interest in the application and could make a decision with an open mind.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee A held on 20 October 2022 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the construction of 2, two storey, two-bedroom, semi-detached dwelling houses adjacent to 8 South Park Crescent SE6, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

3.1      The Planning Officer said that since the agenda had been published, one of the 3 objectors had resubmitted their objection, but it did not raise any additional concerns to the ones already made. She gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of 2, two storey, two-bedroom, semi-detached dwelling houses adjacent to 8 South Park Crescent SE6 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report:

3.2.      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

3.3      A presentation was made on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.

3.4      Objectors were not present.

3.5      Members did not have any questions.

3.6       The Committee considered the submissions made at the meeting and

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the construction of a single-storey rear extension together with raising of the ridge line and the installation of roof lights in the rear roof slope for the properties at Chalsey Lodge, Chalsey Road, SE4 and associated soft landscaping and refuse storage to the front elevation, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

4.1      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a single-storey rear extension together with raising of the ridge line and the installation of roof lights in the rear roof slope for the properties at Chalsey Lodge, Chalsey Road, SE4, and associated soft landscaping and refuse storage to the front elevation, subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

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

· Principle of Development

· Urban Design

· Impact on Adjoining Properties

            Applicant

4.3      A presentation was made on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He drew members’ attention to an error on page 58 of the agenda. The proposed extension would be 11m from the boundary with Bridge House on Montague not 1.1m as stated in the agenda.

4.4       In response to a question, members were advised that the maisonettes at the rear would not have any additional bedrooms. Maisonettes at the front would have an additional bedroom, and it was expected that there could be an increase of two people occupying the building with 8 people over the whole site.

4.5       Objectors were not present.

4.6       The Committee considered the submissions made at the meeting and

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the construction of a single-storey rear extension together with raising of the ridge line and the installation of roof lights in the rear roof slope for the properties at Chalsey Lodge, Chalsey Road, SE4, and associated soft landscaping and refuse storage to the front elevation, subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the construction of a single storey rear and side extension, installation of replacement windows at the front and rear elevations and hard and soft landscaping works to the front garden including installation of cycle and refuse stores at 156 Erlanger Road SE14, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

5.1      The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant planning permission for the construction of a single storey rear and side extension, installation of replacement windows at the front and rear elevations and hard and soft landscaping works to the front garden including installation of cycle and refuse stores at 156 Erlanger Road SE14.  

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

•Principle of Development;

• Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets;

• Impact on Adjoining Properties;

            Applicant

5.3       The Architect for the application, said that the156 Erlanger Road was in a poor state and would be restored to an excellent condition. Several of the original features had been lost and would be restored to enhance and preserve the character of the Conservation Area. The energy efficiency of the premises would be enhanced.

5.4       The key driver behind the design for the proposed extension was to keep a visual distinction between the original property and the proposed new addition. This would be achieved by using glazed elements between the two and use of cladding material that were sustainable and visually different to the original property. The Architect outlined the suitability of the cladding.

5.5       The new party wall and rear wall to the proposed extension would be insulated to current building regulations and new windows would be triple glazed. Modern residential extensions, like this application, were common in Victorian houses; there were several similar extensions in the same road and surrounding streets.

5.6       The boundary wall would be 2 metres high. Although the land at 154 Erlanger Road was slightly higher and at 158 Erlanger Road slightly lower, the wall would not exceed the maximum height allowed under permitted development.

5.7      Members were advised that the dining room would be in the kitchen rather than having two separate rooms, and the application did not breach the maximum height and depth allowed under the 25 and 35 degree rule which had been tested. Resident’s privacy at 154 Erlanger Road would not be compromised and residents at 158 would gain more privacy because the extension would protrude 1.2 metres further than the lean-to shed. There would not be any loss of sunlight at either of the properties.

5.8       In conclusion, the Architect said that there were similar extensions in the area, the poor condition of the property would be improved, and energy efficiency increased. The restoration of the original features, along with the extension, would ensure that the property could be enjoyed long into the future.

            Representation

5.9       The objector, the Chairman of the Telegraph Hill Society, addressed the Committee. The Society did not have any objection to the proposals for the front of the property. The objection related to the rear and the destruction of the original features. Extensions to existing properties should not be permitted if incompatible with the special characteristics of the area. The SPD stated that extensions should respect the original design and architectural feature of the existing building. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the construction of a single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, and the replacement of windows on the front, side and rear elevations with matching double-glazed timber painted window at 70 Jerningham Road, SE14, subject to the conditions and informatives  set out in the report.

6.1      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, and the replacement of windows on the front, side and rear elevations with matching double-glazed timber painted window at 70 Jerningham Road, SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

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

:           •Principle of Development.

• Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets;

 • Impact on Adjoining Properties.

6.3       Members raised questions and officers’ responses were as follows:

·         The picture of the rear extension was an accurate representation. There were large patios doors onto the garden and the room would be a kitchen/living room.

·         The proposed extension would protrude 1 metre into the garden from the rear existing wall. This protrusion was permitted within regulations and could be up to 3 metres. This proposal was also acceptable within a Conservation Area particularly since the design and materials to be used were of high quality.

·         There was a distinction between changes to buildings that were visible to the public realm and those that were not. Members were advised that within the National Policy Planning Framework, there was a reference to the significance of heritage assets. An extension was not considered acceptable simply because it could not be seen from the public realm. Officers must consider the significance of the heritage asset and the extent to which proposed works would affect that significance.

Applicant

6.4       The agent, on behalf of the applicant, attended the meeting. He outlined the services offered by his company with regard to residential architecture, particularly extensions of period properties. The applicant wanted to redesign aspects of the property. They understood and respected the unique character of the area. They intended to be responsible custodians of the property; they would repair and re-instate original features and make it more energy efficient.

6.5       The agent outlined the following:

·         Two key design strategies for the rear extension; a modest scale and appearance and a clear differential between extension and host dwelling.

·          Details of the materials to be used in the extension were outlined.

·         Side and rear extensions would be significantly glazed to increase natural daylight.

·         Objections of light pollution were addressed.

·         This was not an uncommon extension in a Conservation Area and similar applications had been granted in the area. The extension was not visible from the public realm.

·         A letter of support was submitted for the roof extension and the rear extension.

6.6       Members questions were answered as follows:

·           Timber would be used rather than London brick because the brick on the host building was weathered and new bricks were yellow and would not age in the same way. It was considered more appropriate to use timber which was natural and textured so there would be a subtle difference in the materials

·           In the report it stated that there was ‘potential’ for high quality materials. One of the conditions stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear elevation and the installation of timber windows to the front elevation of the basement at 34 Erlanger Road, SE14, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

7.1      The Planning Officer said that the only objection to the application, which had been received from the Telegraph Hill Society, had been withdrawn. Due to the late stage of this withdrawal, the agenda had been published.

7.2      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear elevation and the installation of timber windows to the front elevation of the basement at 34 Erlanger Road, SE14 subject of the conditions and informatives in the report.

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

• Principle of Development

• Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets

 • Impact on Adjoining Properties

7.4       The applicant did not attend the meeting and members did not have any questions. There were no objectors.

7.5       The Committee:

RESOLVED that planning permission be Granted for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear elevation and the installation of timber windows to the front elevation of the basement at 34 Erlanger Road, SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the construction of a single storey rear and side extension at 41 Drakefell Road, SE14. The reason for refusal was the proposed extension by virtue of its siting, scale, form and design, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the host property in the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area causing the loss of a prominent historical architectural feature

8.1      The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant planning permission for the construction of a single storey rear and side extension at 41 Drakefell Road, SE14.subject of the conditions and informatives in the report.

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

•Principle of Development

• Urban Design

• Impact on Adjoining Properties

8.3       Members were advised that the foliage masking the extension was in the park and therefore the responsibility of the Council to maintain. Officers did not consider that the applicant needed extra planting on their property because the foliage in the park was of a good quality.

            Application

8.4       The agent addressed the Committee. He said that the applicant was conscious of the sensitive location of the site and would ensure that the extension would not have a harmful impact on the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area. The proposed extension would retain the existing side bay window and would use high quality materials.

8.5       The proposed roof extension would be fully compliant with the Council’s local policy and there would be a clear distinction between the traditional host building and the contemporary extension.

8.6       The existing vegetation on the boundary with the park would provide sufficient screening for the extension and the impact on the character of the Conservation Area would be negligible. Planning permission had been granted for a contemporary extension in a property opposite the application site and had less vegetation screening in place.

            Representation

8.7       The Chair of the Telegraph Hill Society addressed the Committee. He was opposed to the application which would be very visible to the public realm if granted. He reminded those present, of his previous statement that a traditional design could be a more sensitive response to an historic building.

8.8       The Chair of the Society said that in a conservation area, uniformity of style was important. This application did not satisfy two local policy conditions. The extension was not in keeping with the character of the area nor did it respect the original design and architectural feature. These were legal considerations and grounds for objection.

8.9       The following points were raised by members.

·         This application failed the test of being visible from the public realm.

·         The non-traditional nature of the extension was not in keeping with the character of the conservation area

·         The report was inconsistent regarding the impact the extension would have on the Conservation Area. Just because an incongruous extension had been built on the other side of the entrance to the park, this should not be a relevant factor for members when considering this application.

8.10    The Presiding Officer addressed some of the issues that had been made. He said that officers did not intend to give members the impression that if an extension could not be seen from the public realm, then it did not matter. Significance tended to diminish as a structure became less visible but was still an important consideration. Officers required high quality design and materials  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.