Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Councillor Johnston-Franklin declared that she was one of the ward councillors for Ladywell. The first item Flat 1, 2 Algiers Road SE13 7JE, was in her ward. She knew the area well and had been in email correspondence with some of the residents and a planning officer. This correspondence had been prior to the current enforcement notice served on the property.

Councillor Sorba said that he was the ward councillor for 49 Pepys Road which was in his ward. He had not received communication from any of the relevant parties for this application.

The Chair said that he had not been recorded as being present in the minutes of 12 April 2022. With this amendment it was:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings of Planning Committee B held on 25 May and 12 April 2022 be confirmed and signed as accurate records.

RESOLVED that planning permission be REFUSED for the construction of a basement extension with patio to the rear of Flat 1, 2 Algiers Road, SE13, together with construction of a two storey rear extension, on the following grounds:

1. The proposals, by reason of insufficient information had not demonstrated that the proposed excavation of the basement would retain the structural integrity of the host property 2 Algiers Road and adjacent property 4 Algiers Road and therefore amounted to harm to neighbouring occupiers amenity and the Ladywell conservation area, contrary to Policy HC1 'Heritage conservation and growth' of London Plan (March 2021); Policy 15 'High quality design for Lewisham' and Policy 16 'Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment' of the Core Strategy (June 2011); DM Policies 30 'Urban design and local character', Policy 31 'Alterations and extensions to existing buildings including residential extension' and Policy 36 'New development, changes of use and alterations affecting designated heritage assets and their setting: conservation areas, listed buildings, schedule of ancient monuments and registered parks and gardens' of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014); Section 4.8 Basements of Alterations and Extensions SPD (April 2019); and the provisions of the Ladywell Conservation Area SPD.

2. The proposed basement relied on a single narrow rear window to provide natural ventilation to the basement, therefore in the absence of a scheme of mechanical ventilation, or demonstration that the basement had adequate natural ventilation, the development would fail to provide sufficient natural ventilation to the basement space contrary to Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021); Policy 15 'High quality design for Lewisham' of the Core Strategy (June 2011); Policy 30 'Urban design and local character', Policy 31 'Alterations and extensions to existing buildings including residential extensions' of the Development Management Local Plan (November 2014); and the Alterations and Extensions SPD (April 2019).

3.1       The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a basement extension with patio to the rear of Flat 1, 2 Algiers Road, SE13, together with construction of a two storey rear extension.

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

·         Principle of Development

·         Urban Design

·         Residential Quality

·         Living conditions of neighbours

·         Impact on trees

3.3      A member asked whether there had been any further discussions with the developer about improving the situation after November 2021 when the basement was filled with concrete. The officer had not been the original case officer but said that there had been two subsequent applications whilst the enforcement notice was going through and both applications were refused.

3.4      The applicant did not attend the meeting.

3.5      The first person to make a representation in opposition to the application said that they were the owner of the property above the development. Everything that had been said at the meeting had been positive because the developer had not observed any of the legal obligations with regard to the development. She had been willing to collaborate with the applicant on finding a way forward but he had not been prepared to do this.

3.6      The second person to make a representation said that he objected to the development and agreed with the officers that it should be refused. He made the following points:

·      Principle of Development: As stated in the enforcement notice issued on 11.02.21 the basement proposal “is harmful to the surrounding amenity of this residential area. The creation of a basement flat at this site is considered to be an out of character, incongruent development” It was a grotesque over-development of a viable 1bed garden flat for profit & sets a dangerous precedent.

·      Urban Design: The light wells were out of character and the proposed section indicated that the rear garden was to be extensively excavated below the existing level. This undermined neighbouring properties and had a negative impact on environment and drainage. Works impacting adjoining properties were subject to the Party Wall Act, which the developer had confirmed he would not engage in, just as he also refused to engage in planning and building control until residents’ intervention. There was no acknowledgment of what happens to the illegal underpinning, carried out without Building Control or Structural Engineer’s drawings.

·      Residential Quality: A basement extension would result in sub-standard accommodation. It had clearly been designed as a multiple occupancy. A windowless room disingenuously labelled as a ‘hobby room’ with be marketed as a bedroom to maximise profit.

·      Living conditions of neighbours: The adjoining owners had been subject to unacceptable trespass, nuisance, criminal damage, encroachment & vibration. The upper flat had been rendered uninhabitable & unsellable. Unnecessary and dangerous excavation would delay reinstatement of both properties. The properties needed to be reinstated urgently to bring an end to the unacceptable impact on the upper flat as a viable home, and on the adjoining neighbours.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the Installation of external insulation with brick slip finish to the elevations that are facing the recently approved single storey rear extension and the wall between the two chimney breasts on the southern elevation of the house of 49 Pepys Road, SE14, together with alterations to the eaves and window sills, subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report.

4.1      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the installation of external insulation with brick slip finish to the elevations that were facing the recently approved single storey rear extension and the wall between the two chimney breasts on the southern elevation of the house of 49 Pepys Road, SE14, together with alterations to the eaves and window sills.

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

4.3      The applicant said that the application had been made to improve the energy efficiency and ­sustainably of their family home. They were committed to living in a manner that reduced waste and energy consumption whilst respecting and valuing built environment heritage assets. He raised the following points in support of his application:

·      Architects had been appointed who had a strong record of providing good quality new and eco-retrofit housing, linked to the best possible ecological and sustainable construction techniques.

·      Reducing the use of fossil fuels and making progress towards net-zero carbon emissions over the next 20 years was recognised by the government as essential and this was supported by Lewisham’s stated policy of being carbon-neutral by 2030.

·      The proposal sought to take modest steps towards this by insulating the elevations facing the new extension approved in 2021 and the wall between the two chimney breasts on the south elevation of the house. The front, rear and the return to the first chimney breast would remain untouched so that the appearance from the street would be largely unchanged. As part of this, the eaves of the flank wall would be amended. Window sills and heads would be pulled forward to match the existing. This programme of works to the house would deliver the best possible living environment and lower energy consumption for its occupants.

·      All of this work would incorporate the highest quality materials and the design had been crafted to be appropriate to its context. A MVHR (Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery) system would be installed, which would maintain appropriate moisture levels throughout the house

·      Conscious of the conservation area setting and informed by the surrounding historic environment, the finer detail of the proposal was developed following detailed pre-application advice from the LPA’s officers. This constructive input was reflected in the use of material with particular attention to ensure the existing building fabric would be maintained to a high standard. A Heritage Statement had been undertaken and a proportionate assessment of the significance of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area and the impact of the proposed scheme upon that significance.

4.4       In response to questions asked, members were advised that:

·      The guarantee for the external wall installation was 25 years.

·      An air source heat pump would be installed if the building could be insulated sufficiently.

·      Internal insulation measures had been considered to the front and rear of the property. The risk of intersectional condensation was higher with internal insulation,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing garage at the rear of 71 Peak Hill, SE26 and the construction of a partially sunken two storey 1 x 1 bedroom separate dwelling, with associated cycle and bin storage subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report..

5.1      The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of the existing garage at the rear of 71 Peak Hill, SE26 and the construction of a partially sunken two storey 1 x 1 bedroom separate dwelling, with associated cycle and bin storage.

5.2      The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

· Principle of Development

· Housing

· Urban Design

· Impact on Adjoining Properties

· Transport

· Sustainable Development

· Natural Environment

5.3       In response to questions asked, members received the following information:

·      The category grading of trees was explained.

·      Officers did not have concerns regarding light to the basement bedroom and bathroom because the development was not wholly in the basement. The main habitable room was on the ground floor. The bedroom was double aspect with windows on both sides of the elevation which lead out to the large sunken courtyard which would allow ample light and ventilation to the room.    

5.4       The agent was present but declined to make a presentation. Members did not have any questions.

5.5       The Committee considered written submissions and the submissions made at the meeting and;

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing garage at the rear of 71 Peak Hill, SE26 and the construction of a partially sunken two storey 1 x 1 bedroom separate dwelling, with associated cycle and bin storage subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report..

RESOLVED that

DC/22/126213: planning permission be GRANTED for the construction of a new vehicular access into the site on Brandram Road and alterations to the boundary walls and the provision of new sliding gate and brick piers, the reconfiguration and resurfacing of the existing car parking area providing a total of nine car parking spaces and two blue-badge spaces, the relocation of the bin store, and the reconfiguration of the pedestrian pathway through the site with installation of low-level lighting to the Merchant Taylors' Almshouses, Brandram Road SE13, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report;

and

DC/22/126214: Listed Building Consent be GRANTED for the construction of a new vehicular access into the site on Brandram Road and alterations to the boundary wall with the provision of new sliding gate and brick piers, the reconfiguration and resurfacing of the existing car parking area providing a total of nine car parking spaces and two blue-badge spaces, the relocation of the bin store, and the reconfiguration of the pedestrian pathway through the site with installation of low-level lighting to the Merchant Taylors' Almshouses, Brandram Road SE13, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

6.1      The Planning Officer, said that the committee report incorrectly stated that pre-application advice had not been sought ahead of the submission of the application. Pre application advice had been sought and provided. He gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for two applications:

DC/22/126213: Construction of a new vehicular access into the site on Brandram Road and alterations to the boundary walls and the provision of new sliding gate and brick piers, the reconfiguration and resurfacing of the existing car parking area providing a total of nine car parking spaces and two blue-badge spaces, the relocation of the bin store, and the reconfiguration of the pedestrian pathway through the site with installation of low-level lighting to the Merchant Taylors' Almshouses, Brandram Road SE13; and

DC/22/126214: Listed Building Consent for the construction of a new vehicular access into the site on Brandram Road and alterations to the boundary wall with the provision of new sliding gate and brick piers, the reconfiguration and resurfacing of the existing car parking area providing a total of nine car parking spaces and two blue-badge spaces, the relocation of the bin store, and the reconfiguration of the pedestrian pathway through the site with installation of low-level lighting to the Merchant Taylors' Almshouses, Brandram Road SE13.

6.2       The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

·         Principle of Development

·         Urban Design and Heritage Impact

·         Impact on Adjoining Properties

·         Transport

6.3       Ms Barrett, the planning agent for the application, made a presentation.

·      The long complex history of the site was explained.

·      The objections were addressed. With regard to the visibility and odour of the bin store, it was sensitively designed, timber clad, it would not be against the boundary wall and located to enable easy access for the refuse vehicles. With regard to the grassed area to the south of the site, the applicant would make good this area as this had always been his intention.

·      The soft and hard landscaping, the car parking and lighting had already been approved.

·      The design of the gate had been amended in collaboration with officers to make it flush with the wall. Without this gate, the whole development would not be able to comply with building regulations and would be unsafe for residents in an emergency.

·      The application had he support by the Blackheath Society, planning officers conservation officers and highways officer.

6.4       A resident living close to the premises then made a presentation objecting to the application. She said highlighted the following issues :

·           The top of one of the pillars and both of the grade 2 listed wrought iron gates had been knocked off by one of the lorries turning into the site, proving that the turning circle was not wide enough.

·           The design and location of the bin store was intrusive. The walls surrounding the store would not be high enough and could be seen by the public from the pavement and residents opposite in Brandram Road. It should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.