Agenda, decisions and minutes

No interest was declared at the meeting.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting held on 11 June 2024, be confirmed, and signed as an accurate record.

MOVED, SECONDED, and unanimously RESOLVED to GRANT planning permission for the construction of 5 two-storey dwellinghouses, together with cycle parking, refuse storage and associated landscaping on land on the east side of 68 Ravensbourne Park Crescent, SE6,

•         Subject to a unilateral undertaking and to the conditions and informatives as outlined in the report, with additional conditions as follows:

i.         That the side access to No. 68’s rear garden would be paved and secured with a lockable gate.

ii.        That steps would be taken to ensure high-quality lighting design and installation in order to prevent adverse impacts of light pollution which can have a detrimental impact on biodiversity and wildlife, local character, pedestrian environment, residential amenity and views of the night sky.

3.1   The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation to the Addendum Report under consideration at the meeting. The Addendum Report stemmed from the original report considered by Members on 11 June 2024, wherein the Committee approved planning permission for the construction of 5 two-storey dwellinghouses, together with cycle parking, refuse storage and associated landscaping on the east side of 68 Ravensbourne Park Crescent, SE6.

3.2   In considering the submission, the Committee received clarification from the Officer that the recommendations in the approved scheme were granted subject to the conditions that were stated therein, however, the completion of the unilateral undertaking remained unchanged. Thereafter, following complaints by residents about the decision that was taken when the scheme was approved, the local Planning Authority concluded that the original application should be reported back for Members to consider minor updates and the history of the proposed site, including matters relating to the historical buildings and the provision of local open space in the vicinity.  

3.3   In clarifying the rationale for the update, the Planning Officer submitted that although the proposed site was next to an area of archaeological priority, it did not bear any weight on the planning application that was considered before the scheme was approved because the site was not located within the archaeological priority area. Moreover, the proposed site was not identified as open space within the Lewisham’s Parks and Open Space Strategy 2020-25 nor was it located in an area of open space deficiency for district parks or local, small and pocket parks. The Planning Officer also drew the Committee’s attention to the approved scheme to highlight that there were 5 parks within 1km of the site, not 14 as stated in the original report.

3.4   The Committee heard submissions by the applicant and noted the following:

·       That the applicant’s team engaged extensively both with the Council’s Planning Team during the pre-application process and with residents during consultation.

·       That the proposed site would be a car free development and the applicant would secure a unilateral undertaking preventing future occupants from accessing parking permits.

·       That overlooking into premises in Ravensbourne Park and Ravensbourne Park Crescent would be minimised using obscured windows in the proposed site and extensive planting.

·       That the proposed development would contribute to the Borough’s annual housing target by delivering 5 new dwellings. In addition to that, the proposal would introduce extensive landscaping, native species of plants and a pocket park including a wildlife conservation area.

·       That the applicant would adhere to the two additional conditions recommended by the Committee on 11 June 2024 regarding the following:

o   Upgrading of the gate for the side access to 68 Ravensbourne Park Crescent.

o   Installation of low- level lighting along the route adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed site.

3.5 With the understanding that the information in the Addendum report did not materially affect the merit of the original planning application, Councillor Luke Warner moved the recommendation on the proposal, including the two conditions previously imposed, which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

MOVED, SECONDED, and unanimously RESOLVED to GRANT planning permission for the demolition of the existing caretakers cottage, 6th form building and a single storey of the lodge building and the construction of a three-storey building to the front of the site, a new sports pavilion at the rear and a two storey extension and alterations to the facade, installation of steel walkway with glass balustrade and air source heat pump to the lodge building, together with new railings and associated landscaping at Sydenham High Senior School, 19 Westwood Hill SE26:

•         Subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and to the conditions and informatives as outlined in the report, and to add a new condition 3(j) to state as follows:

•         That the Construction Environmental Management Plan should include a line on best endeavours to prevent contractor parking on Amberley Grove.

4.1  The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the report, with a suggestion that the Committee should grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing caretaker’s cottage, the sixth form building, and the single storey of the lodge building.

4.2  The Committee noted the report, and that after the demolition works, the applicant would deliver the following:

·                   A three-storey building to the front of the site.

·                   A new sports pavilion at the rear of the site.

·                   A two-storey extension and alterations to the facade, and

·                   Installation of steel walkway with glass balustrade and air source heat pump to the lodge building, together with new railings and associated landscaping at Sydenham High Senior School, 19 Westwood Hill SE26.

4.2.1     In considering the submission, the Committee asked questions on the following matter:

(a)   Clarification about Transport arrangements. Officers responded as follows:

·     That during the internal consultation period, the Council’s Highways officials requested additional information relating to sustainable mode of transport and, they suggested that the applicant should provide a School Travel Plan to address Highways’ concerns, which should be secured via Section 106 Legal Agreement.

·     That because the site was in an area that would be considered as Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the future, the Council’s Highways officials also requested that the applicant should demonstrate how students and staff members would use more sustainable mode of transport after implementation of the proposal.

4.3  The Committee heard submissions by the applicant and her agent. The agent advised he was also acting as the architect in relation to the application. Both advised the Committee as follows:

·     That the school had failed to retain a number of pupils going into the sixth form in recent years due to its outdated facilities. Hence, the proposal under consideration. Considering that, the applicant would be providing suitable teaching space on the school site by replacing spaces that were no longer fit for purpose.

·     That the applicant undertook effective consultation exercise during the pre-application period including engagement with the Council Planning Team, the local community, and the Lewisham Design Review Panel.

·     That the applicant would address concerns about overlooking by planting canopy trees along the western side of the site to provide an obscured boundary to neighbouring properties.

4.4In response to questions raised, the applicant’s team advised the Committee on the following matters:

a)  Number of pupils. It was stated that the applicant had no intention to increase the capacity of the school in terms of pupils’ numbers. However, with the new up-to-date facilities to be provided, the applicant hoped that sixth form students’ numbers would be retained, and that would bring the overall capacity in the establishment to an increase of approximately 7%.

b)  Noise during the construction period. It was stated that noise caused by construction works would be managed under the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development works on the proposed site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.