Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Paschoud advised that he was a member of the Sydenham Society and confirmed he had no interests in Item 4 on the Agenda.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee A meeting held on 7 January 2021 be agreed.

The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the Prior Approval under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended)) for the construction of an additional storey to 54b Trundley's Road, SE8 to provide:

·      1 x 1-bed and 2 x 2-bed flats.

The Committee noted the report.

Following the Officer’s presentation, there were no questions for the Officer from Members.

The applicant made no address to the Committee, but advised he was available to answer Members questions.

No questions were put to the applicant by the Members.

A local resident addressed the Committee. The resident advised Members of resident’s objections to the proposal due to the developers’ actions, such as the: removal of (his) solar panels, green building converted back to a normal building, charges levied to reinstate the solar panels and green building, bin and bicycle storage, complaints ignored and lack of engagement. The resident concluded due to the issues raised, the application should be refused.

At the Chairs request, the representative expanded on their concerns regarding bins and the bicycle store.

The representative advised that due to complaints received, the developer added new bin storage. However despite requests, CCTV was not installed to mitigate fly tipping. It was felt the developer was only addressing issues raised by residents, because of the application now put before the Committee. The representative advised this attention from the developer would be ‘short term’ for the benefit of gaining approval of the application. It was concluded that the developer’s service was ‘poor’ and if two extra units were allowed to be built, there would be more people at the development and ‘more problems’.

The Chair acknowledged that the concerns raised by the representative were important. However, the Chair was minded to advise the representative that the issues raised were not planning considerations. The issues raised were matters between landlord and tenant. As such, they could not be considered by the Committee.

The representative was advised of legal recourse avenues they could follow by a Committee Member and the Chair, who also outlined the decision making powers held by the Committee.

The Chair addressed the representatives concerns regarding bicycle storage and the bins to the Officer.

The Officer confirmed that advice had been taken from Highways, which confirmed the development would be car free, therefore bicycle storage was important. Members were advised that the applicant was willing to have conditions implemented by the officers to mitigate this raised concern.

The Committee were advised by the Officer that following legal advice, it was determined not possible for the bin storage to be conditioned. However, the applicant had also agreed that the officers could implement a condition regarding bin storage.

Members put questions to the Officer regarding the removal of the solar panel and fire safety.

The Officer advised the Committee the removal of the solar panels by the developer was not a planning consideration.

Clarification was provided by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of existing double garage and construction of a two storey two bedroom house to the side and rear of No 10 Thorpewood Avenue SE26 at lower ground and ground floor levels and adjustment to the existing dormer.

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

·      Principle of Development

·      Housing

·      Urban Design

·      Impact on Adjoining Properties

·      Transport

·      Natural Environment

Following the Officer presentation, Members put questions to the Officer regarding refuse, garage access and the dormer.

The Officer advised the Committee that a condition relating to refuse storage could be implemented, so that it was specific to 10 Thorpewood Avenue.

The Committee were given further clarification by the Officer with regard to garage access as outlined in the officer report via reference to their Officer’s presentation slides.

The Officer confirmed to Members that the reduction and refinement of the dormer, could be assured via condition on the applicant.

The agent addressed the Committee. The agent advised Members they had lived in the neighbourhood for 35 years. They advised the Committee that the proposed development would provide needed ‘high quality’, ‘elegant’, ‘low profile’ housing. The neighbouring properties were described in a very positive manner by the agent. They stated the new house built would ‘complement’ the existing neighbouring homes, as well as the courtyards. The agent informed the Committee that there had been consultation with neighbours and raised issues had been addressed. The agent then went on to describe the landscape, environment and materials that related to the proposed house. It was advised the timber to be used, blended with the surrounding woodland. The applicant advised Members there was support from local residents for the proposal.

A resident joined the applicants address to reiterate the applicant’s sentiments and inform the Committee there were no issues with overlooking or transport links. The resident concluded the address by assuring Members the proposal would make a ’positive contribution’ to the neighbourhood.

Members asked the applicant questions relating to the new application in contrast to the previous application and overlooking.

The applicant advised the previous proposal had been much larger. However the new proposal had a reduced footprint and height.

It was also advised that the two storey elevation of the previous proposal was now ground level.

The Committee were advised that the overlooking issue had been resolved due to the reductions. In addition, the proposal was set back from the boundary and screened with a solid screen. The overlooking would therefore be the same as overlooking on a garden, in a normal suburban setting. The applicant concluded that neighbours agreed privacy had been maintained.

The Sydenham Society addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents. They advised Members of resident’s objections to the proposal due to Thorpewood Avenue being a school street and access to the site via Hassocks Close. The Society also felt the intention to have access to the garages at the rear of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the change of use of 70 Deptford High Street SE8 to an amusement centre - adult gaming (sui generis)

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

·      Principle of Development

·      Urban Design & Heritage

·      Transport

·      Impact on Adjoining Properties

Member’s questions following the officer’s presentation related to the definition of concentration of betting shops on Deptford high street.

The Officer advised the Committee that in regard to the proposed use, there were no policies specifically preventing changes of use to adult gaming centres. However, the London Plan (March 2021) identified the harm that could arise from an overconcentration of certain uses and highlighted gambling uses, such as betting shops and amusement centres within those potentially harmful uses. The Development Management Local Plan identified the detrimental impacts that could arise from an overconcentration of these types of uses. The Officer advised the Committee that the proposed change of use would not result in the loss of a retail unit. Nor would it increase the concentration of gambling uses within the high street.

The applicant did not attend the meeting.

The Deptford Society addressed the Committee. The Society advised Members of their objections to the proposal due to lack of community benefit. The Society noted the petition raised by local businesses and residents against the premises proposed change of use. The Society stated the principle of development was to sustain and enhance the quality of community life. It was felt this proposal would not do so. It was noted that during the pandemic, vibrancy on the Deptford High Street had been lacking and this development would not do anything to add to increased vibrancy. The Society advised Members that local councillors and residents were against the proposed change of use. It was felt that despite the possible threat of an appeal by the applicant, the local authority should refuse the application. Emphasis was placed on the deprivation of the area and the difficult times currently faced by many of the residents during the pandemic and even before.

There were no questions for the Deptford Society from Members.

New Cross Ward Councillor Brenda Dacres addressed the Committee, under Standing Orders. Councillor Brenda Dacres was against the application. The Councillor advised that the proposal in a high deprivation area, would have a ‘detrimental’, ‘accumulative’ and ‘negative’ effect on the local community. It was also noted that primary and secondary schools were in close vicinity to the premises. The Councillor expressed concern over the message this proposal would send to young, vulnerable children seeing gambling activity in such establishments. Members were advised that near the premises, there were also organisations that offered support to the homeless and those affected by drug addiction. In addition, there was also a pawn shop close to the proposal. The Committee were informed the proposal would have an impact on the level of drinking and drug abuse affecting the area. This was a problem  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.