Agenda and draft minutes

The Minutes of the meeting on 10 November 2022 were agreed as an accurate record.

There were no interests to declare. Members of the Committee who are Ward Members for wards referred to in the items, stated that they were lobbied by residents in regards to individual items.

3.1.      The application proposed for the Demolition of the 2 existing dwellings and the construction of a 4-storey building with roof terrace above to provide 16 self-contained flats at (Greenbank Cottage and Taymount Lodge) Taymount Rise SE23, together with the provision of accessible parking spaces, cycle and bin storage and associated amenity space, play area and landscaping. The application received 119 objections.

3.2.      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation on the application. The key considerations were: Principle of Development; Housing; Urban Design; Impact on Adjoining Properties; Transport; Sustainable Development; Natural Environment; Planning Obligations. All of the considerations were deemed acceptable and supported by officers. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

3.3.      Members asked private external amenity space such as balconies. It was responded that 6 of the units do not have balconies which prevents noise and overlooking. The balconies were removed to provide better relationship with unit adjacent to the site. The Planning Officer said that a communal amenity space is provided at roof level.

3.4.      Members also asked what pressures were placed on the infrastructure with concerns that 16 units could lead to further flooding. The Presiding Officer replied that Thames Water did not have any concerns and that the are was a flood risk zone 1 location so there was a low level risk- the applicant therefore did not need to provide a flood risk assessment. It was said that the drainage manager was unable to provide feedback on this application but on the last application, they had no objections.

3.5.      Members mentioned that there is significant parking stress in the area and asked how would this be managed. The officer responded that the London Plan policy T6 determines a high public transport rating for such locations and that developments should be car-free. There are 2 accessible parking spaces also located on site.

3.6.      It was asked why the development did not include any affordable housing. The Presiding Officer replied that this was becoming more common and likely a consequence of current economy. The London Plan framework allows a viability tested route for any scheme that is not delivering 50% affordable housing. He said that, in this instance, the application was accompanied with a financial viability assessment which was interrogated to assess if affordable housing could be included in the development as the submission came in at 0%. It was concluded that the scheme could not viably provide affordable housing, either on-site or in a cash in-lieu option.

3.7.      The applicant was invited to speak on their application. The following was discussed:

3.8.      The officers report was robust and balanced; The previous site was for 20 properties and was revised down to 16; Scale and sighting was original reason for refusal; The scheme was developed with conservation officers and co-signed by the highways and design officer; The change allows a reduction in hard surfacing and allows disabled parking; The 5 trees will be replaced by 38; The site will continue to be car free,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.1.      The application was for the construction of a single storey office/studio on site of 3 demolished garages at Wickham Mews rear of 4 Wickham Road.

4.2.      The Planning Officer presented an illustrative presentation of the proposal. He highlighted the following considerations: Principle of Development; Urban Design & Heritage Impact; Transport Impact; Living Conditions of Neighbours; Natural Environment. Planning officers considered these considerations to be satisfied. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

4.3.      Members asked about use of the site- enforcement which would prevent the conversion to residential space- the officer responded that this is covered by condition 10.

4.4.      Members asked about the height of the building stating that it is relatively shorter than neighbouring sites. The officer said that it was keeping with the heights accepted for the Mews development.

4.5.      Members asked officers to outline the features compared to previous versions of application. The presenting officer explained that it was not fit for purpose for a commercial unit and it was not providing appropriate workspace.

4.6.      The applicant was invited to present the proposal. Their main points were: dangerous levels of white asbestos were found in the small garages which were removed for the safety of residents; discussion with local groups, neighbours and the Council took place and ultimately, no residential application was made initially; the design was adapted; the planners support for the application shows that the applicant has successfully overcome all technical constraints; the structure can be built economically and would be bringing new life to underused resource of Wickham Mews; the rent will form a vital part of income in retirement.

4.7.      Members asked how many people would use the space. The applicant responded that they could be approached by a single company or multiple people may want to use the space. Time constraints on the use of the property have been conditioned. The Presiding Officer added that the use class had been proposed for the scale of the development and it is expected numbers would be fairly minimal- typical use of such developments are 4-5 people.

4.8.      The objector was then invited to speak. Their main points were:

4.9.      The building line, proximity, scale, materials and height are the main issues. Wickham Mews is the last surviving undeveloped site in the area and is considered an unpopulated solitude. Regarding the building line, the 3 garages demolished were decades old and the applicant is applying to extend much further to include the forecourt. the effect of coming far forward would be to narrow the length of the Mews by 5metres. That is below the width that is recommended on the Lewisham small sites SPD.

4.10.   The national 43 degree BRE rule aims to avoid overbearing proximity and squeezes tightly to its northern boundary. The proposed ridge height is 4.5metres. this is an unnecessarily lofty roof space for a single storey building. The Mews is a conservation area and a heritage asset.

4.11.   Officer clarified that the utility connection is not material consideration.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.1.      The application proposed for the replacement of the existing garage with a new two storey, two-bedroom dwellinghouse at the land to the side of 31 Clayhill Crescent, SE9, together with the provision of a car parking space, cycle storage and bin store. There were 4 objections received from neighbours.

5.2.      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation for the application. The key considerations were: Principle of Development; Housing; Urban Design; Standard of Accommodation; Impact on Adjoining Properties; Highway and Transportation; Sustainable Development. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

5.3.      Members asked what the grounds for refusal were for the previous application to which the officer replied was design and impact on amenity. The principle of having a new dwelling to that land was supported and the design had been amended since the previous application.

5.4.      It was also asked if fitting a gas boiler was the best decision and if a different heating method was an option, taking into consideration the Council’s net zero target. The officer responded that a condition had been set which required the boiler to be in line with new climate changes and policies on boiler gas. The Presiding Officer added that as this is a single building proposed, the most that can be required is a low emissions boiler.

5.5.      The applicant then gave their presentation. Their main points were:

5.6.      He purchased the land after buying 31 Clayhill Crescent. He had been working with the Council on the new plans for over a year, after the first plans were refused. The land itself had been derelict for many years

5.7.      Members had no questions for the applicant. They asked the officer about the positioning of the bin store, and if it were a suitable position for neighbours at the front of the property. The Presiding Officer responded that upon visiting the property, it is his opinion that storage unit would be aesthetically better, than the informal bin storage around the crescent. It is conditioned that full details of refuse storage be submitted for approval.

5.8.      The objector was unable to attend the meeting online. There were also difficulties Members accepted that they had previously read the objections that were sent and appended to the report.

5.9.      It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that application was approved.

6.1.      The proposal was for the provision of a sculpture (3800mm x 1060mm x 1000mm) for the River Quaggy located on the Junction of Granville Grove and Lewisham High Street SE13.

6.2.      The Planning Officer gave a presentation of the application. The key considerations highlighted were Principle of Development; Highways and Pedestrian Impacts; and Flood Risk. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

6.3.      The artist and applicant gave their presentation. they stated that the site was chosen as it was quite built up, and the history of the river being enclosed although the Lewisham Gateway Scheme has opened up part of the river. It was said that the sculpture would be of an abstract design, and is installed as part of Lewisham’s status as the London Borough of Culture 2022, recognising the heritage of the River Quaggy. The material would be brushed stainless steel instead of polish so that it does not reflect light in a dramatic way for nearby drivers. The positioning of the sculpture was said to be contextually important for the value of the piece and that it would be good for members of the public to encounter the art that way.

6.4.      The objector then gave their presentation. the raised four key points. The first being that the there should have been some pre-application consultation about the proposal. There was a concern that people do not feel engaged due to the visibility of the sculpture. It was also raised that there had been no consultation with disability or equality groups as the location shows a dropped curb in the plan. The objector also said that a better location for the sculpture would be at the bottom of St Stephen’s Grover where there is no pedestrian walkway.

6.5. The presiding officer commented that the Committee can only determine if the proposed location is suitable and are not able to consider another location for suitability.

6.6.      It was asked by Members to officers what the disability impact would be. The presenting officer highlighted the report which outlined that officers had discussed potential impact with the Highways team who responded that there needed to be a minimum clearance for which there is easy access around the sculpture. It was determined that the sculpture far exceeded this minimum requirement.

6.7. It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the application.

7.1.      The application proposed the construction of a garden studio in the rear garden of 1 Algiers Road SE13. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

7.2.      The officer gave a presentation of the application. The key considerations were Character; Heritage; Local Environment and Transport. It was the Planning Officer view that these considerations were satisfied by the proposal.

7.3.      After hearing the Officer presentation, Members agreed the vote on the application, as there were no objectors present.

7.4.      It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the application.