Agenda and minutes

Councillor Muldoon declared an interest stating he had been lobbied in respect of item 4 and approached this decision with an open mind.

The minutes of the 16 July 2020 were agreed as an accurate record.

The minutes of the 17 September 2020 were agreed as an accurate record

The Planning Officer presented this report for the application. The application was before Members due to the submission of a petition against the application, with 21 signatures. The application was for the addition of an extra storey via the self-contained flat, to provide a two bedroom, three person flat.

The current proposal was largely identical to the scheme granted planning permission in May 2017, which would have also seen a mansard roof extension to provide a two bedroom, three person flat.

The former public house was converted to accommodation almost 20 years, as so the principal of an addition residential accommodation was not objectionable. The proposed roof extension by virtue of its mass in size and setback within the existing roof footprint would result in for the dwelling that would not set back the amenity of the neighbouring buildings or the surrounding area. The standard of residential space was considered acceptable.

Officers had not identified any adverse impacts to transport or flood risk vulnerability, therefore the officer recommendation for the application was for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report. For note, the officer pointed out an error on condition 6 of the report- the condition whereby the details of landscaping be submitted prior to commencement should rather state they should be submitted and approved prior to occupation.

The agent for the application presented on behalf of the applicant. He stated the following:

The objections had been considered throughout the process of the application and all matters were appropriately dealt with as seen in the officer’s report. The proposed work is policy compliant. The planning history of the property was important for Members to consider- in 2017 planning permission was granted by Lewisham Council and the decision was made under the same planning policies. There had been no material changes in policy to suggest a different decision should have been reached. He stated that as consistency in decision making is important and vital component in the planning process and asked that Members give that due weight.

He further discussed three considerations 1) the impact on neighbours- the planned work will not produce a lack of light or vision for the neighbours and the height difference between the existing building and surrounding buildings it is unlikely to result in any overlooking. 2) the design- the flat is a well-considered layout as officers agreed and complies with the London Plan Minimum Internal Space standards and 3) sustainable transport- there are 8 cycle spaces to the benefit of the proposed occupants and the existing occupants. This is secured by planning permission considerations.

The objector spoke on behalf of a number of parties who reside on the same street. He raised the following points:

Regarding the quality of the proposed accommodation, he stated that there is a failure to meet the 2.5m height requirement in the proposed development and that the there is a lack of a high quality outlook because of the wall outside of the windows. He said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Planning Officer presented the report for this application. He stated the application has come before Members due to objections from the Brookmill Road Conservation Area Society, raising concerns about the impact that the development will have on the character and appearance of the conservation area. The following was discussed:

The property is within the Brookmill Road Conservation Area and subject to an Article 4 Direction, which restricts permitted development rights on elevations that front a public space. The character and appearance of the Brookmill Conservation Area is made up of modest, two storey houses.

The proposed development would see the construction of a mansard extension to the butterfly roof. The mansard would measure 7m deep x 5.1m wide with a height of 1.4m above the parapet. The front roof slope of the mansard would be set back 0.3m from the top of the parapet and would be pitched to match the angle of the neighbouring mansard at No.206.

The officer said that the development plan is generally supportive of people extending or altering their homes, therefore the principal of the development is supported. The proposed addition of a mansard roof would infill a gap on the roof scape providing a consistent roofline to the terrace. It was therefore concluded that the proposed works would lead to no harm on the Brookmill Road conservation area. The impact in terms of flood risk vulnerability and the living conditions of neighbouring properties were also considered and were assessed to be acceptable.

The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

The officer asked Members to note that the material condition 3 part a) in the report should be amended to say “prior to the relevant part of the works” rather than prior to commencement of works.

There were no applicants or objectors for this item.

Members voted 8 votes in favour, none against.

The application was approved