Venue: Civic Suite, Lewisham Town Hall, Catford, SE6 4RU
Contact: Email: email@example.com
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Planning Committee B held on 24 August 2023 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.
Councillor Muldoon said that he would be recusing himself for the determination of item 4, Garages to the rear of Creeland Grove SE6 4LE, because his employer had a professional relationship with one of the project team. He intended to leave the meeting before consideration of this item.
It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that temporary planning permission for the change of use from garden land to holiday let accommodation, comprising three shepherds huts, together with comprehensive landscaping works and community accessible forest garden on land to the rear of 14 Wickham Road SE4. be GRANTED subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and to the conditions and informatives set out in the report. In addition, an extra informative be added so that if the developer applied for the extension of this temporary planning permission or applied for future permanent planning permission, that they be encouraged to engage in wider consultation with local residents.
3.1 The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of Temporary planning permission for the change of use from garden land to holiday let accommodation, comprising three shepherds’ huts, together with comprehensive landscaping works and community accessible forest garden on land to the rear of 14 Wickham Road SE4.
3.2. The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:
· Principle of Development
· Urban Design & Heritage Impact
· Impact on Adjoining Properties
· Natural Environment
· Planning Obligations
3.3 In response to questions asked, members were advised that:
· Temporary planning permissions were rare. The reason why they were granted was that a trial run was required to test the impacts of a development. This was an unusual application in the context of a residential area. Along with the management plan, officers considered it to be sufficient to prevent any harm to residents. If an application was received for permanent planning permission, officers would have the benefit of knowing the effects of the management plan and how they co-existed with the residential properties.
· If, at the end of the temporary planning permission, an equal number of complaints/support for the application were received, officers would weigh up the benefits of the community scheme with any harm experienced by neighbours. Officers would also have the benefit of knowing about the enforcement of the management strategy and whether the management plan should be strengthened.
· It was noted that there was only one entrance/exit to the site. Officers considered this to be sufficient for the small number of people expected to use the site.
· Highways officers had reviewed the scheme and agreed that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on parking stress in the surrounding roads. There would be cycle parking on the site to encourage active travel; one per person for those using the holiday accommodation.
· Within the management plan there several ways in which residents could contact the applicant. There would be a phone number, email address and a website where noise nuisance could be logged. The applicant was also committing to installing noise monitors and would be secured within the management plan.
· Previous planning applications had been refused for the site because the plans were more intensive in terms of the use and the scale. This application was more in keeping with the character of the area, respecting the scale of the garden area and had the benefit of community use and landscaping with the planting of trees which would enhance the verdant character.
3.4 The agent Paul Webster and the applicant Joe Bradby attended the meeting. Mr Webster said that they were proud to present a new, innovative mixed-use concept that bridged the divide between public and private. He outlined the reason for application and said it would bring back an unused site into beneficial use. He raised the following points:
· The proposal would open the site up to community partners on a programmed basis Monday to Wednesday. Accommodation would be open to short stay guests Thursday to ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing garages and construction of 3 x part one/part two storey dwellings and 3 x two storey plus roof space dwellings, together with associated landscaping, refuse storage and 14 cycle spaces on the garages to the rear of Creeland Grove SE6. subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
4.1 The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of the existing garages and construction of 3 x part one/part two storey dwellings and 3 x two storey plus roof space dwellings, together with associated landscaping, refuse storage and 14 cycle spaces on the garages to the rear of Creeland Grove SE6.
4.2 The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:
· Principle of Development
· Urban Design
· Impact on Adjoining Properties
· Sustainable Development
· Natural Environment
4.3 In response to questions asked, members were advised that:
· The applicant was not required to provide accessible parking spaces; no parking spaces were proposed in this application. This was in line with the London Plan principles for this type of development.
· There would not be access to the flat green roofs from any windows or doors.
· One of the bins stores was 40 metres away from the pickup point. There was a management agreement in place, secured by a condition, so that the management company would drag all the bins to the pickup point for Lewisham’s waste operatives to empty. The management company would then place the bins back in the store.
· The design of the proposed buildings would sit comfortably with the existing street scene.
· The layout of the buildings had been considered to ensure that it did not impact on neighbours. Separation distances were shown on slides to those present.
4.4. The planning agent Max Plotnek addressed the Committee. He outlined the history of the application and said that reasons behind the appeal refusal had been carefully considered. The scale of the development had been reduced, separation distances between blocks had been increased, houses were proposed instead of flats, parking had been removed in favour of landscaping and the TPO trees would be retained. Mr Plotnek believed this new application addressed all of the reasons for refusal; officers supported the application, and the proposed development would have minimum impact on neighbouring properties.
4.5 Visual impact was considered acceptable. Windows along Exbury Road would be obscured at first floor level and above. The line of protected trees along the site frontage had been respected with the development framed around them.
4.6 The scheme was car free with sufficient parking along Creeland Road and within 200 metres of the site. A comprehensive landscaping proposal had been submitted despite this being a minor development and demonstrated a commitment to improving biodiversity and environmental quality. This would be achieved by bringing back into use land that was regularly used for fly tipping and anti-social behaviour.
4.7 Mr Plotnek said that plans for the development of the site had been challenging due to its small, constrained shape, yet he considered the design to have been successful in providing high quality residential accommodation, including much needed family units. A positive pre application engagement process had been carried out and a further public meeting during the application determination. Complaints from residents had been covered in their submission. ... view the full minutes text for item 4.