Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Muldoon said that he had received an email from Mr Crombie who was making a representation with regard to item 5.

Councillor Smith said that he had also received emails from Mr Crombie but since he had not read them, he did not have a declaration of interest.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee B held on 15 and 16 July 2020 be considered at the next meeting.

The Committee

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the demolition of the existing house at 109 Honor Oak Park, SE23 and the construction of a three storey plus basement building consisting of 8 three bedroom self-contained flats, together with associated refuse storage, cycle storage and landscaping subject to the conditions and informatives as outlined in the report.

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of the existing house at 109 Honor

Oak Park, SE23 and the construction of a three storey plus basement building consisting of 8 three bedroom self-contained flats, together with associated refuse storage, cycle storage and landscaping. She also said that an additional late representation had been received. The objection was with regard to the number and size of the flats proposed, parking stress issues and the house allowed to fall into disrepair.

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

·Principle of Development

· Housing

· Urban Design

· Impact on Adjoining Properties

· Transport

Following a question from a member, the planning officer advised that the current condition of the building could not have been controlled by planning officers, the owner had allowed it to fall into its current dilapidated condition.

The Agent made his presentation to the Committee. He said that in May 2018, the planning appeal inspector requested evidence to prove that it would not be economically viable to retain the property. In all other respects, the proposed development was acceptable. This application had been made to submit the detailed viability assessment for members’ consideration. The question regarding the owners’ responsibility for allowing the building to dilapidate was not relevant because the starting point of the property was that it was structurally unsound. 

There was a question about how the gardens would be subdivided between flats 3 and 8. Members were advised that each garden will be independently accessed for each unit and each garden will be screened and landscaped to ensure privacy, and security for the residents.

Residents who had opposed the application did not attend the meeting.

Councillor Smith said that he agreed with the viability report. He moved that the officer recommendation be agreed, this was seconded by Councillor Muldoon.

Members voted on the recommendation in the report with a result of 7 in favour of the proposal and 2 abstentions.

The Committee

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the demolition of the existing house at 109 Honor Oak Park, SE23 and the construction of a three storey plus basement building consisting of 8 three bedroom self-contained flats, together with associated refuse storage, cycle storage and landscaping, subject to the conditions and informatives as outlined in the report.

The Committee

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the construction of an additional storey at roof level to provide 2x 1b/2p and 4x 2b/3p flats and construction of 1x 1b/2p house to the side of Lee Court, Lee High Road, SE13, together with the associated landscaping, bin and cycle storage subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report and the following additional condition

Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, revised details of cycle parking provision for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of an additional storey at roof level to provide 2x 1b/2p and 4x 2b/3p flats and construction of 1x 1b/2p house to the side of Lee Court, Lee High Road, SE13, together with the associated landscaping, bin and cycle storage.

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

· Principle of Development

· Housing

· Urban Design and impact on locally listed building

· Transport

· Impact on living conditions of neighbours

· Sustainable Development

The agent, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee. He said that research had been carried out into the history of Lee Court. Features which made both a positive and negative contributions to the Art Deco character had been identified.

Design work began from recognising the positive features of the building including the vertical emphasis created by stair cores and the horizontal emphasis created by the band coursing above and below windows.

The heritage value of the building was recognised: For example, the new roof top extension adopts vaulted roofs over stair cores to emphasize the existing stair core features, without overwhelming them. The extension as a whole is set back to provide a softer visual transition at the top of the building. The extension also incorporates strong elements of art deco design, including Crittall style windows and horizontal banding in the cladding. The proposed house hides the unsightly flank wall and is designed to be subservient to the host building.

The applicant then outlined the technical matters with regard to the structural assessment of the existing building, the proposed structure that will float above the existing roof, and two entirely separate means of escape to be located at the front and rear of the building.

Members were advised that access for construction would be clarified at the planning condition stage in the construction method report and a detailed report would be produced during the technical design to ensure that service provision to the building is adequate and supplemented if necessary.

The Chair invited members to ask questions. The key points were as follows:

The energy efficiency of the building will exceed building regulations. The question of whether the building would overheat in summer had been given consideration. It was proposed that mass would be built into the structure using plasterboard with a higher latent heat capacity. In addition windows could be fitted with a solar reflective finish.

Access from the fourth to the fifth floor would be via one flight of stairs. These stairs are currently used to access the roof.

Cycle storage would be at the rear of the building for new residents. This was due to the limitation of space as location of bins would also have to be considered at the rear. There would be storage for between 13-15 cycles; this was more than recommended in the conditions. However, it was agreed that the following be added to the conditions. ‘Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED that retrospective planning application be approved for the installation of rooftop safety railings to both the Northern and Southern Blocks of Greyladies Gardens, Wat Tyler Road SE10 (as amended on 24/2/2020) subject to the condition and informative outlined in the report and an additional condition requiring the railings to be painted grey.

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for retrospective planning application for the installation of rooftop safety railings to both the Northern and Southern Blocks of Greyladies Gardens, Wat Tyler Road SE10 (as amended on 24/2/2020).

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

· Principle of development

· Urban design impacts, including heritage impacts

· Impacts on occupiers of adjoining properties

Following a question regarding procedure, the service group manager explained that the planning application had been referred to the planning committee by officers in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.

Applicant

The agent outlined the history of the application. He said that the access hatches and the steps themselves had been granted planning permission. The railings were a normal part of the safety product. Since planning permission had been granted, there had been significant discussions with planning officers. Part of the proposals had been to paint the steps anthracite grey, which the applicant was willing to do if necessary. The railings were installed because it is the safest way of accessing the roof. Alternate systems had been considered for the railings, including the anchor and hook system but none were considered to be as safe as the current railings.

The agent said that with regard to harming visual amenity, the railings have a negligible impact

In conclusion, the conservation officer and the planning officer agreed that there is not harm to the conservation area nor does it have any heritage impact. The railings are a necessary part of maintaining the building.

Representation

A resident addressed the Committee He said that he was speaking on behalf of eight residents in Dartmouth House and the board of Dartmouth House and all 18 freeholders of the property. He said that this planning application is of concern to residents’ because it affects their lives every day. The fixtures obstruct their view of the heath. The scale of the impact from their gardens and windows is greater than the photographs in the planning report. He requested that members consider alternative low profile safety systems instead of the current fixtures. Contrary to the claims of the agent, it was his belief that there are other viable alternatives which are readily and easily available, including the rope and tether system. Details of alternative safety systems had been given to planning officers.

It was the understanding of the resident, that the conservation officer also wrote to the planning officer regarding their concerns about ‘the negative cumulative impact of the fixtures and recommended the rope and tether system. It was also his understanding that the conservation design officer shared residents’ view that a low profile solution would be a more appropriate design. He recommended that the application be refused and recommend a low profile alternative to replace all steps and railings including around the hatches.

A question was raised regarding the necessity for hand rails which a member considered to be an important safety feature of the building. The resident  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.