Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee A held on 5 January 2023 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

Councillor Muldoon declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 3. His employer had a professional relationship with one of the project team. In the interests of total transparency, he said that he would take no part in the discussion of the application and would leave the room for the duration of this item.

It was agreed that the order of business be changed so that item 3, 1 & 1A Brockley Cross SE4 2AB, be considered at the end of the agenda items.

RESOLVED that the application be granted for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a part two/part four storey plus basement, to provide 7 self-contained flats, together with 12 cycle storage, refuse storage and associated landscaping at 1-1a Brockley Cross SE4, subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and to the conditions and informatives in the report and an additional planning obligation to investigate best endeavours to either (a) provide a loading bay for goods and services to the site on the highway; or if a highways assessment concludes this to be an unsafe option, (b) secure a delivery and servicing plan.  

3.1      Councillor Muldoon declared an interest and left the room during the discussion of this item.

3.2      The Planning Officer said there were two minor errors. The second sentence in paragraph 78 should not have been included in the report. In paragraph 218, fourth bullet point, there was a small error in the figure for the financial contribution towards consultation of a CPZ in the local area which should read ‘£15,000’.

3.3      The Planning Officer then gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a part two/part four storey plus basement to provide 7 self-contained flats, together with 12 cycle storage, refuse storage and associated landscaping at 1-1a Brockley Cross SE4, subject to a Legal Agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to the conditions and informatives in the report.

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

            • Principle of Development

• Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets

·  Impact of Neighbouring Amenity

• Transport Impact

• Natural Environment

•Planning Obligations

In response to members’ questions, officers clarified points about the height of the proposed building in relation to neighbouring properties and the reasons why this was considered to be a high-quality design.

Applicant

3.5      A presentation was made by the agent in support of the application. He clarified that the material on the top floor was not copper it was a bronze-coloured powder coated metal.

3.6      The agent said that this was a revised planning application for a prominent site in the heart of Brockley. He said that previous applications did not include the high-quality materials as proposed in this application. The applicant had recently completed a development on Brockley Road and wanted to bring forward a scheme that residents in Brockley would be proud of. Architects who had been successful in the brough had been engaged and this team understood the importance and sensitivity of this constrained site.

3.7      Discussions had been held with this Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Officer and they had not raised any objections to the proposal following amendments made after the pre application meeting. The Conservation Officer considered this application to be of high quality and that the scheme was a significant design improvement over the previous scheme which was upheld at appeal.

3.8      The agent said that the site was challenging because of its size and proximity to the highway. He said that the design had been successful in providing high quality residential accommodation. Impact on neighbours had been mitigated as outlined in the report. There was a high level of compliance for daylight/sunlight. There had been positive engagement with the community and a number of letters of support had been sent to this authority.  There had been a small number of objections, but  these comments were in conflict with the opinions of officers.

3.9      Members then asked questions and were advised that:

·      The intention for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

RESOLVED that the application be granted for the retention of a community hub building, comprising of a mixed use of a shared office space (Class E(g)(i)) and multi-use community space (Class F2(b)., subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

4.1       The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the retention of a community hub building, comprising of a mixed use of a shared office space (Class E(g)(i)) and multi-use community space (Class F2(b)., 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 and Impact on Heritage Assets;

• Impact on Adjoining Properties;

• Highways and Transport

• Sustainability

            Applicant

4.3      A presentation was made by one of the volunteers from RUSS (Rural Urban Synthesis Society) in support of the application. He outlined the principles and the history of RUSS. He said that the community hub, which had been created by RUSS in 2019, had sustainable credentials with many of the construction materials originating from reclaimed sources. In order to continue this sustainability legacy, the community hub should be retained.

4.4       The running of the community hub was taken very seriously by RUSS and was operated professionally. The building held all the necessary compliance certificates and insurance. There was also robust management policies and controls in place for all users of the hub. Potential hirers were vetted by the volunteer hub manager and required to comply with their standard conditions of hire. Local key holders were available to resolve issues but this had never been necessary.

4.5       When the adjacent residential scheme was complete, RUSS residents and volunteers would closely supervise the community hub and its users. Since 2019, the hub had been of benefit to hundreds of people from a wide range of groups. The groups that use the hub and regular external bookings were then outlined. RUSS’s hire charges were competitive and local community groups and near neighbours were offered a ‘pay what you can’ rate. All income from the hub was reinvested into community objectives.

4.6       There was proven current and anticipated demand to retain the hub for RUSS and the community, based on nearly 4 years of operating experience and associated data. Retaining community assets was in alignment with key local, regional, and environmental policies and was of benefit to all. There were no plans to change the hub, the application had been made to ensure that the existing and successful hub was made permanent for the benefit of the local community.

4.7       In response to a question about the reason for retrospective planning consent, members were advised that a pre application meeting was held in January 2022. An application was made in May 2022 but due to resourcing challenges within the planning team, it had taken in excess of a further 14 weeks before it was submitted to Committee. The applicant then read out the hours of operation as outlined in the report.

4.8       There were no objectors present.

4.9       The Committee considered the submissions made at the meeting. It was moved and seconded and;;

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the retention of a community hub building,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for construction of a rear roof extension and rooflights to the front and rear roof slopes at 199 Waller Road SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

5.1      The Planning Officer said that there was an error under Section 2 of the officer report. Relevant planning permission was missing. Records showed that in 2018 an application for the construction of the roof extension and roof light to the rear roof as well as two front roof slope lights in the front elevations was approved.

5.2      The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a rear roof extension and rooflights to the front and rear roof slopes at 199 Waller Road SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

5.3       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;

Applicant

5.4       The Architect involved in the project, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that the planning application guidance for the area had been followed. The conservation area had been respected and planning permission was granted in 2020 for a similar development at neighbouring property in Waller Road. It was considered that this was a good precedent for the rear dormer because the design was almost exactly the same as for this application. The street facing the proposed heritage style roof light, was below the limit required by the SPD.

5.5      In response to a question from the Chair, the applicant advised that a new application had been made because a previous application for this development had not begun before the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission was granted.

Representation

5.6      The Chairman of the Telegraph Hill Society, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He said that the Society were grateful for the changes that had been made to this application following comments made by the society. The previous application had been made prior to the current extensions SPD, which was considered to have made a material difference.

5.7       The Chairman said that the Society had concerns regarding the rear elevation. It was not the same application as the one granted to the neighbouring property in 2020, because this application was for two dormer windows and a skylight. The previous application did not have a skylight.

5.8       The major concern for the society was whether the front roof light met the requirements of the SPD. The applicant claimed that it was smaller than the maximum allowed. The Society considered that it was probably more than the maximum allowed.

5.9      The Chairman said that the Society accepted that this section of Waller Road had several roof lights and was an accepted characteristic. However, unlike council officers, they considered this to be of material harmful to the area. This application, however, would take up the whole middle section of the roof and was considered to be unacceptable in a conservation area.

5.10    In response to questions asked by the Chairman of the Telegraph Hill Society, those present were advised that in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.