Council meetings

Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Venue: Civic Suite, Lewisham Town Hall, Catford, SE6 4RU

Contact: Email: 


No. Item


Minutes pdf icon PDF 6 KB

Additional documents:


Councillor Paschoud wanted it clarified in the Minutes that he was the Member who declared the interest at the last meeting. The Minute were agreed as an accurate record.


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


Councillor Paschoud stated that his declared interest at the last meeting was anonymised and would like to be identified.


Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 204 KB


Councillor Harding declared that the first item is regarding a development in his ward.

Councillor Moore declared that the third item takes place in her ward.


HORNIMAN MUSEUM AND GARDENS DC/23/ 130987 & DC/23/130988 pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:


It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.



3.1.      The proposed application was for a Sustainable Gardening Zone, including demolition of existing structures and the construction of two new glass houses with external covered area in the nursery hub, paved terrace, paths and landscaping for the Winter Garden, paving and planting for Community wellbeing garden, new cafe, toilet block, store building and play area within old boating lake to Nature Explorers Zone, interpretation panels and entrance gate and ramp on the nature trail; external works to the Natural History Gallery to include new roof coverings, louvres to eastern windows; enlargement of western plant enclosure; plant enclosure on west side of gallery; ductwork penetrations, guardrail's to east elevation, new fencing and gates and other internal and external alterations to the elevations at Horniman Museum and Gardens, 100 London Road SE23.

3.2.      It was the Officer recommendation to approve the application. The Presenting Officer highlighted that the site is in the Forest Hill conservation area and is a Grade II statutorily listed heritage asset.

3.3.      Officers were satisfied the proposed development would not have negative impact. Nature rail will improve accessibility and allow for more exploration. The developments to the Sustainable gardening zone would further enhance the area and provide several opportunities for community engagement. The public would also benefit from accessibility, community activities, environmental sustainability and multi-cultural activities and this would outweigh the less than substantial harm.

3.4.      The key planning considerations were: principle of development, urban design and impact heritage assets; impact on adjoining properties; transport; sustainable development; and natural environment subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Officers were satisfied that all of these considerations would not cause any substantial harm and were acceptable.


3.5.      It was asked if the toilets would be accessible as long as the gardens were open to which the officer confirmed they would be. The question of the use of Horniman drive for construction traffic was also raised. The officer responded that the highways officers have reviewed the plan and raised concerns of use of Horniman Drive. As a result, they requested that only London Road, Honor Oak Park and Westwood Park be used for vehicular access. The conditions outlined in the report includes the restriction.


3.6.      It was also asked if Noise impact to neighbours had been considered. The officer responded that the area is quiet but all things considered it is a park. The adventure zone and café are open during the same hours as the park so there would be no substantial noise impact outside of park noise during the operational hours. There also is a maximum separation distance of 80m and the environmental protection teams review outlines that they were overall satisfied.


3.7.      It was asked if the new developed zones would create more urbanisation and be too modern for the conservation area. The officer responded that no green space would be reused, and the developments are hidden away from main park. The applicant team had explored different options in terms of design and any impact has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.


3 MANTLE ROAD DC/22/129343 pdf icon PDF 570 KB

Additional documents:


It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.


4.1.      The application was for Prior Approval under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the construction of an additional storey to provide 5 self-contained flats at Nicholas Court, 166 Burnt Ash Hill, SE12. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

4.2.      The prior approval conditions were as follows: Transport and highways impact; Air traffic and defence asset impact; Contamination risks; Flooding risks; External appearance of the building; Provision of internal natural light to habitable rooms; Impact on neighbouring amenity; Impact on protected views; Fire safety where the building is over 18m in height. It was considered that all the conditions were considered acceptable and that there was no considerable impact on them.



4.3.      It was asked what the waste management plan would be. The Officer responded that the residents would be using 1100l capacity bins- the refuse storage would be enlarged to what it currently is. The waste management plan condition was outlined in the report.


4.4.      It was also asked if the building would be any higher than surrounding flats. The officer responded that it would be of lesser height than blocks to the north.


4.5.      There was no applicant present at the meeting. The objector was invited to speak. Their main objections were as follows:


They stated that the applicant had not engaged with residents enough. They contested the view that the loss of space is minimal and that the refuse space takes up 4% of the rear garden area whereas the proposed cycle and refuse space will take up 15% according to their calculations. The block is near 3 schools and potentially 12 or more children might be residents-providing outdoor space for children is a priority for the council.

The previously refused application proposal was non-contextual that would cause visible harm to the character of the area, and they felt that the current application was not much different. The proposed cladding does not resemble any existing construction material in the area form which Nicholas Court is visible. It is also less attractive than original proposal. The inset should be deeper or be inclined. They stated the proposal was ugly, with minimum space and was an unhabitable space.

In terms of lighting, they stated that some units only have a roof window for natural light and that there was no clothes-drying area. Objectors felt the quality is substandard.


4.6.      The Officer was asked to respond to the objector’s points. He highlighted that the application was for prior approval and not planning permission so the assessment that can made is minimal. He stated that it meets all accommodation requirements, in terms of space standards and light requirements. The building itself is of its time and lacks architectural merit. It would not be built today, so there is very little scope on the appearance. For roof extensions, officers ask for modern materials so there is distinction between the old and contemporary. The material  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.


NICHOLAS COURT DC/23/130851 pdf icon PDF 735 KB

Additional documents:


It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.



Councillor Muldoon was present for the final item and therefore able to vote.


5.1.      The proposal was for the construction of a six-storey building at 3 Mantle Road SE4 comprising a ground floor commercial unit and 9 self-contained flats, together with the provision of refuse and cycle storage.


5.2.      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation, outlining the proposal. The key planning considerations were; Principle of Development; Housing; Urban Design; Impact on Adjoining Properties; Transport; Sustainable Development; and Natural Environment


The Officer commented that the development meets requirements and that the proposed scheme has much cleaner design than the previously submitted application. It was the Officer recommendation to approve the application.


5.3.      It was asked by Members if a waste management scheme condition could be added. The officer responded that a condition similar to that of the previous scheme could be included. He added that it was the view of officers that there was street level access to storage which was in an unsuitable area due to the proximity of the school.


5.4.      The officer confirmed that impact on school with regards to light is minimal. He stated that in terms of privacy, there were minimal windows to south elevation, which would otherwise overlook into the school, which are obscure glazed. The balcony also has opaque screens.



5.5.      The applicant summarised their argument as follows:


The development would transform a poor quality, unattractive employment site. The building currently only supports 2 jobs, but the development would create about 11 jobs. This revised application addresses issues of quality. The final design respects the local context while adding interest and raising design standards. The sites potential is raised through job creation in the borough and the delivery of high-quality homes. It exceeds minimum internal space standards and generous private amenity spaces. As well as a communal courtyard. 


There were no further questions from Members. There was no objector present.


It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the application, subject to the additional condition discussed.