Agenda and minutes

Councillor Muldoon was lobbied by friends of Honor Oak regarding Item 3.

The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as an accurate record.

The Planning Officer presented this application. This application  was submitted under Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a Minor Material Amendment to allow for an amendment of Condition (2) relating to the construction of 2, two-storey, two bedroom houses at the rear of 97 Honor Oak Park, SE23. The application had received 8 objections.

The proposed amendment was to allow siting of House B closer to the western boundary; repositioning of two dormers to 'House A'; the addition of front door canopies; insertion of a ground floor flank window to 'House A'; formation of circular opening at first floor; installation of automated sliding gate to the rear; erection of fence between new dwellings and main building; resiting of parking bays; relocation of bin store and cycle store; and additional paving measures. The houses were unoccupied at this time.

The committee report of 2011 advised that the footprint of both house would be the same- 9.3m in length and 5.2m in width. In comparison, the house A footprint had been measured as 9.4m in length and 5.4m wide. House B measured at 9.57m in length and 5.4m wide, both houses being larger than the approved measurements. The houses were also built slightly closer to the boundary.

The key planning considerations are the design and appearance of works undertaken, and those proposed; whether the works represent a significant change from the approved scheme; residential amenity; standard of accommodation; landscaping proposals.

The development was considered to be acceptable in its merits. The changes to the construction are not considered significantly different to those proposed. Therefore it was recommended by officers to grant permission, subject to the appropriate planning conditions.

Councillor Paschoud asked about the previous appeal of this application. The planning officer clarified that the application went to Committee in 2011 with the recommendation to approve. It was refused for design and scale reasons. The applicants appealed and the appeal was upheld in 2016 with conditions attached to the planning consent.

The applicant then spoke on the proposed amendments. He stated the following:

His parents bought the house as a family home in 1971 as an already dilapidated building with the intention of restoring the Victorian structure back to its original form and enhancing the accommodation. His parents worked hard to restore the home for future generations. The applicant undertook the task of restoring the house and converting it to 6 apartments and building the two new house at the rear of the garden.

The siting of House B is closer to the western boundary because it was discovered that an ancient sewer had been directed across the development, cutting across the proposed position of House B. the decision was taken to move the site of House B a distance away from the sewer but still far enough away from the western boundary so as not to disturb the sewer.

The dormer windows on the ground floor and the flank window of House A are positioned exactly as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Planning Officer presented the report for this application.

The planning application was for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey building to accommodate 20 residential units with basement plant room and associated works at Inglemere Domus, 27 Inglemere Road.

There were verbal corrections to the written report as follows: paragraph 11, mention of the 6 parking spaces where 5 are being proposed; paragraph 98 states that Flat 19 is not dual-aspect when in fact it is.

The officer stated that the application site is not in the conservation area, nor is it in close proximity to a listed building, it is within a PTAL 3 area and the surrounding area is residential in character. The building was last used in 2015 as a residential care home. The applicant successfully demonstrated that a care home is no longer needed at the site. The materials and design of the proposed development had been considered high quality. Parking, bin storage and a communal garden to the rear had been included in the site plans. The proposed development had been set to exceed the floor space according to London Plan minimum standards. The application followed the viability tested route and will deliver 3 units for London affordable rent, which will be secured by section 106. 2 wheelchair accessible unit were also proposed.

The key material planning considerations were as follows: principle of development (loss of care home and provision of residential accommodation); affordable housing; urban design (scale and massing); impact on neighbour amenity; transport and Highway (car parking, refuse, construction); sustainability. Planning officers consider all of these justified.

Permission was recommended subject to conditions and the section 106 agreement.

Councillor Lavery asked for context as to why only 3 of 20 of the properties were under London affordable rent. The officer stated that initially, no affordable housing was proposed and the applicants liability assessment was reviewed by a third party viability consultant and it was indicated that a nominal quantity of affordable housing was deliverable, so negotiations took place. This resulted in the above affordable housing proposal. It was felt that this was the maximum that can be achieved through the viability route.

Councillor Johnston-Franklin stated that the spaces which are for affordable rent, are not suitable for families and why it wasn’t considered that one of the larger units be used for affordable rent. She also raised concern about the potential lack of light in flat 3 which has been made accessible for a wheelchair user. The Presiding Officer stated that a judgement had to be made for affordable housing as choosing one of the larger properties for this would result in fewer units being rented out affordably, potentially just 1. Regarding the sunlight levels, it was said that flat falls marginally below the 2% recommendation- all of the other flats meet or exceed the percentage. This is because Flat 3 is mostly north-facing. It is not considered to be significantly below the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Planning Officer outlined the following in his presentation:

The application was considered for the construction of a mansard extension to the roof of 4 Lind Street, SE8, together with the construction of single storey extension to the rear elevation, the installation of replacement timber windows in the front elevation and the insertion of new windows in the flank elevation.

3 other addresses on Lind Street have had the construction of mansard extensions to their roofs. 140-146 and 158 of Albyn Road at the end of Lind Street all have a higher mansard extension to the roof.  The development plan is generally satisfied with people altering or developing their homes and therefore the principle of development is considered supported. Officers are satisfied that the extension will not cause any harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area given that mansards already form part of the street and would be fully compliant with the design scheme. Officers are also satisfied that there will be no impact on neighbouring properties. It is therefore the officer recommendation to approve this application subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

The applicant gave their presentation and raised the following:

The extension will have minimal impact on the neighbourhood as it will be almost completely concealed from the main street. The mansard will be set back at floor level at 250mm which is specified in the recommendations of the SPD. The improvements will provide a better family home while being historically sympathetic in terms of design and in keeping within the established character of the roofscape. Additional benefits to the character of the area include the enhancements resulting from removing the current non-compliant windows and reinstating at the front. There extension will also improve energy efficiency in the house.

A representative from St John’s Society also spoke in favour of the application, stating that ta mansard roof is an accepted building form and is common across London. The society deem this extension to conserve the heritage of the building. Such additions will allow for families to stay in the community for schools, work and other social networks. The mansard will be built with high quality materials which substantially improve the environmental quality of the building thus preserving energy and carbon. He added that mansards are already an established extension on Lind Street.

The objector argued the following:

This objection was for both mansards in Lind Street and Bolden Street, which was discussed on the next agenda item. Amenity societies, such as Brookmill, represent the historic memory of conservation areas which is important to consider. The odd number side of Bolden Street still retains the original and distinctive roofscape that is a defining characteristic of the Brookmill Road Conservation Area. A previous application at this same site was refused in 2016 and was dismissed on appeal in 2017. The planning inspector’s reasons for upholding are still relevant for both applications.

Officer support in their reports for both applications is primarily  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Planning Officer presented this report.

The application was for construction of a mansard roof extension with two dormer windows to the front roof slope and two windows to the rear at 13 Bolden Street, SE8.

A neighbouring property, number 18, is currently constructing a mansard roof which is almost complete. South-east from Bolden Street is Albyn Road which has a considerable amount of mansard roofs.

The key material considerations were urban design, neighbouring properties and principle of development. Officers felt that these considerations were satisfied, therefore it was the officer recommendation to approve this application.

The applicant for this item gave their presentation. She stated the following:

She and her family currently reside at the property. As with growing families, they require the extra space that the extension would provide. In the area, mansard roofs are a sympathetic solution, while protecting the conservation of the area and providing the family with the room needed. The national planning policy framework, published in July, states that all planning applications should support opportunities to use the air space above existing residential and commercial properties. She furthered that considering all the other mansards built in the area, a precedent has been set.

The objector echoed her points from the last item and stated that there is no policy supporting mansard roofs that requires consideration that the Committee needs for consistency in decision making.

Councillor Lavery proposed that the application be accepted.

The Committee voted in favour of the application.

The Planning officer gave their presentation for this application. The application was for the construction of hip to gable and rear dormer extensions to the roof of 106 Brookbank Road, SE13, together with the installation of three roof lights in the front roof slope.

The property is based in a predominantly residential area. It is not a listed building, neither is it located near one.

The key planning considerations are the principle of development, urban design and the impact on living conditions of neighbours, all of which are considered acceptable. The officer recommendation is to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

There was no applicant for this item.

The objector who wished to speak was experiencing microphone issues so provided some text via the Teams chat summarising her argument. The Presiding Officer summarised her text to the Committee. The following was taken from the transcript of the Teams chat:

-          enclosure - extending the brick mass to a gable end will impact the light into my garden and will take early morning sunlight

-          there has been no site visit to appreciate from the ground the impact of extending the brick mass up in effect a storey will have

The Planning Officer stated that officers are of the opinion that there is sufficient distance between the application site and the properties on Overcliffe Road which provides mitigation against the loss of light and enclosure. The proposed development is typical of this residential typology.

The Committee voted in favour of the application.

The meeting concluded at 10.32pm