Agenda and minutes

There were no declaration of interests.

The minutes of the meeting Planning Committee (A) held on the 16^th August 2018 were agreed.

The presenting officer outlined the details of the case for the demolition of existing buildings (Axion House), 1 Silver Road, SE13 and the construction of buildings ranging from ground level plus4 to 15 storeys in height, to provide 136 residential units, and flexible B1/A1/A3/D2 commercial uses, associated landscaping works, vehicular access, cycle and car parking (Amended description - revised scheme).

The presenting officer highlighted that the application site is within Lewisham Town Centre and the application site is not an allocated site. The presenting officer explained the layout of the proposed scheme and that explained that at the 5^th storey that the building would split with the tallest tower to the south. The presenting officer also highlighted that the scheme has been revised as it was originally submitted with 153 units and due to concerns with daylight and sunlight this was reduced to 136 units. It was also explained by the presenting officer that the scheme would provide 9.8% of the current new units target and explains that this target is increasing. The presenting officer explained the network rail access to the site and the scheme relationship with the Ravensbourne River.

The presenting officer outlined that 242 objections had been received which are outlined in paragraphs 5.10- 5.11 of the report. The presenting officer also outlined that 162 signature petition was received and that the Ladywell Society object to the application.

The presenting officer highlighted that due to re-design of the scheme that the scheme is proposing 28 affordable homes and that the applicants submitted viability review has been agreed with by the Council’s viability consultants, Urban Delivery and has also been reviewed by the GLA.  The presenting officer outlined that the application is subject to Section 106 Contributions and a viability review mechanism.

The presenting officer outlined that a second affordable housing offer has been presented to Members in the addendum, which would provide 30 London Living Rent units. The presenting officer outlined that second affordable housing offer is not supported by officers.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asked whether it was only the affordable housing contribution in the addendum which is not supported by officers. The presenting officer confirmed that only the affordable housing contribution in the addendum is not supported and that the Planning Obligation amendments are supported by officers.

Councillor Sorba asked whether the land at the application site would be publically accessible. The presenting officer confirmed that the land is privately owned and would be accessible to the public and also highlighted that the land could be sold and any changes to the access of the land such as gates would require planning permission.

Councillor Ingleby asked for clarification in regards to 5.27 of the report which outlined that the GLA stage 1 response highlights that the proposal does not comply with the London Plan. Elisabeth Glover – Planning Officer clarified that the GLA stage 1 report was in response to the original submission before the application was revised and that discussion have been ongoing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The presenting officer outlined the details of the case for the Application for the demolition of existing car garage and construction of part 3 and 4 storey building comprising 17 new dwellings and commercial space (Use Class B1) at ground floor and basement level with associated car parking, cycle parking, recycling and refuse facilities at 152A Lee High Road, SE13.

The presenting officer highlights that the application site is not within a conservation area. The presenting officer highlighted that 5 objections and an objection was received from the Lee Forum which are detailed in paragraphs 5.3 – 5.8.

The presenting officer detailed that the scheme would not provide any affordable units on site but  a £60,000 contribution for off-site affordable housing is proposed and that the scheme would be subject to a viability review mechanism. The presenting officer also detailed that the separation distances are adequate, the proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on daylight and sunlight and that the proposal is not considered to increase parking demand.

Councillor Curran asked for clarification on the overlooking and loss of light objection. The presenting officer highlighted that proposal would result in step change in urban form but as separation distance is adequate and due to the layout overlooking is considered to be minimised. Councillor Curran asked for further clarification on whether the proposal would overhang the river and the proposed materials. The presenting officer confirmed that the proposal does not overhang the river and that materials would be secured via a condition.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) asked how the affordable housing contribution works as £60,000 does not equate to one unit. The presenting officer highlighted that the contribution will go Council’s funds for the delivery of housing.

Councillor Sorba asked whether Committee Members have the power for Section 106 contributions to be renegotiated. Kheng Chau- Legal Services stated that the application needs to be determined on the current offer.

The committee received verbal representation from David Stengel and Alex Wythe – bptw Partnership on behalf of the applicant. David Stengel outlined that 17 residential units and commercial units are proposed. It is outlined that 31 jobs would be provide in commercial units and that the residential units exceed the minimum space standards. David Stengel also highlights the other proposed contributions which include a contribution to a CPZ review.

Councillor Curran suggests that the balustrades on the terraces could be opaque. Alex Wythe states that all windows on the rear would be obscure glazed and that a screening can be added if considered necessary but highlights that terraces are 35m from the rear elevations of neighbouring properties.

Councillor Curran asks for clarification about the river ledge as to whether it’s an ecological improvement. David Stengel states that proposed ‘shelf’ would include ecological improvements.

Councillor Ingleby asks whether a contribution is being made to the Cycle Super Highway. Davide Stengel confirms that a contribution would be made.

The presenting officer highlights that proposed condition 28 is in regards to ecological enhancements.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the installation of one internally illuminated free-standing sign mounted onto the building parapet, two externally illuminated fascia signs and two non-illuminated signs painted onto brick facade at the Faircharm Trading Estate, Creekside, SE8 3DX.

The presenting officer outlines the proposed signage and the location of the proposed signage.  The presenting officer also outlines that no objection has been raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer and that 4 neighbour objections have been received and these are outlined in paragraph 4.3 of the report.

Councillor Curran asks for clarification of when the signage would be illuminated. The presenting officer confirms that the sign A would only be illuminated during the day and that signs D and E would be illuminated at night for security reasons. Councillor Curran asked whether light spill is a concern, the presenting officer highlighted that if conditioned that proposal can be considered to be acceptable. Councillor Curran asked whether the condition of 5 years can be reduced to 1 year. Kheng Chau – Legal Services highlighted that advertisement consent is usually for 5 years but this will be looked into.

The committee received verbal representations form Bolivar Marcon on behalf of the applicants. Bolivar Marcon highlighted that the graphic identity is important to the business and inspiration for the design has been taken from the industrial conservation area. Bolivar Marcon also highlighted that he is happy for sign A to be turned off a night.

Councillors Bernards and Sorba asked for clarification as to whether the signs would be illuminated during hours of operation or dawn to dusk, as at different time of the year the days are shorter as such the signed would be off during operating hours. The presenting officer highlighted that sign A would only be lit during daylight hours.

The committee received verbal representations from Rowan on behalf of the Crossfields Residents Association. Rowan highlighted the main concern is in regards to sign A and the hours that this sign would be illuminated as residents do not want the illuminance to interfere with daily lives.

Kheng Chau – Legal services advised that 5 years for advertisement is the default period but that the Local Planning Authority can grant a consent for a smaller time period.

Councillor Dacres spoke under standing orders and thanked members for clarifying the hours that sign A would be illuminated.

Councillor Curran moved a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation subject to the time period for the permission being reduced to 1 year. This was seconded by Councillor Ingleby.

Members voted as follows:

FOR: Councillors Curran, Ingleby, Bernards, Maslin, Paschoud (Chair) and Sorba.

RESOLVED: That the application DC/18/106637 be approved subject to an amended time period condition of 1 year.  

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the construction of a 2 storey extension to the side and replacement of the single storey extension at the rear of 49 Beaulieu Avenue, SE26, together with a new canopy and balustrade to the rear first floor terrace.

The presenting officer clarified that the property benefits from an existing extension and first floor terrace and explained that that gaps within the terraces are only visible when standing in front of the properties.

The presenting officer outlined that 4 objections were received. The objections were in regards to impact of the extension on the character of the terraces. The presenting officer explained that the proposed side extension would only really be visible standing in front of the application property and the proposal is not considered to be unacceptable in terms of design or impact on neighbouring amenity.

Councillor Ingleby asked for clarification on paragraph 7.24 in regards to the first floor terrace. The presenting officer clarified that terraces are not usually supported but as the proposal is replacing an existing terrace no objection is raised.

Councillor Curran asked what the original purpose of the gaps would be and whether access would be blocked. The presenting officer clarified that the gaps are just breaks in the terraces and the proposal is not considered to change the character and clarified that no access would be blocked as the access would be the same as the other properties within the terrace.

The committee received verbal representations from Gordon Osbourne who is the agent representing the applicants. Gordon Osbourne outlined that the extension has been designed to provide additional accommodation, the proposal is modest in scale and that terraces are a characteristic of the existing terraces.

Councillor Ingleby asked for clarification on the proposed materials. Gordon Osbourne confirmed that the materials would be brickwork and hanging tiles.

The committee received verbal representations from Roberto Polizzoto. Roberto Polizzoto outlined that his objection was in regards to the closing of the gap between the terraces and the impact that this will have on the character of the street, concern with the maintenance of the side wall, parking concerns and concerns over a tree which in on the boundary.

Councillor Bernards asked the objector if there were any concerns over the ownership of the land apart from the ownership of the tree. Roberto Polizzoto stated that he hasn’t seen the ownership certificate but he does not have any issues from his side.

Councillor Paschoud (Chair) states that the tree has not been included in the description of the application. The presenting officer clarified that the application does not include the removal of the tree and the permission is not required for the lopping of this tree.

Councillor Sorba asked if the tree is on both neighbours land how do we arbitrate. The presenting officer stated that the tree would only be in one neighbour’s ownership.

Councillor Ingleby asked is there are any parking issues. The presenting officer clarified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.