Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

The minutes of the last meeting were agreed.

The minutes of the last meeting were agreed.

No interests were declared.

No interests were declared.

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

3.1.      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the proposed application for the partial demolition of the front of the existing light industrial building and alteration and extension to provide a terrace of 4 two-storey, live/work units, together with the provision of private amenity space, associated cycle parking and refuse collection facilities at Unit 1 Ashby Mews SE4.

The key planning considerations were Principle of development; housing; urban design; transport impact; sustainable development; natural environment. The planning officer stated that the planning considerations were deemed acceptable. It was the officer recommendation for approval of the application.

3.2.      It was asked how officers were going to ensure that this would be a live/work space and not just residential. The planning officer stated that the conditions are enforceable which will ensure the correct use of the units. The workspace will be finished before the residential units. The existing work use is also outlined in the planning conditions and safeguards employment use.

3.3.      It was asked if an application could be put in for change of use in the future. The officer responded that each application will be considered on its own merit. Policies would be triggered and the application would need to be policy compliant.

3.4.      It was also asked how it can be ensured that the residents would not sublet the workspaces and that they would be the ones using it. The officer responded that this eventuality is covered by planning condition.

3.5.      The applicant then gave their presentation. They summarised that:

3.6.      The scheme would be of a high quality design and would be another positive impact on the local environment and street scene, preserving and enhancing the mews conservation area. The design, scale, massing and materials of the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of this part of Ashley Mews and it would preserve its significance. The living conditions of the future occupiers would be acceptable and there would be no harm to the amenities and neighbouring properties and no adverse impact on parking. In its context within the historically light industrial character of this part of the conservation area setting, it provides 4 live/work units with clear differentiations between the living and workspaces that will ensure the light industrial character uses in Ashby Mews are maintained and reinforce the overall form of investment is the same.

Retaining a semi industrial appearance including the presence of ground floor courtyards at the rear the scale massing and appearance of the proposal would not be dissimilar to the existing building. To further facilitate and define the internal network spaces the proposal will provide for bin storage, cycle parking courtyards and soft landscaping. They also stated that the objections should also be mindful of the fact that the existing building has an unfettered commercial use that could be used without restriction to all manner of industrial and commercial uses.

3.7.      Members asked why there was no pre-application engagement on the application. The applicant stated that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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

4.1.      The planning officer gave an illustrative presentation on the application for the demolition of existing garages and construction of 9 dwelling houses, together with associated car and cycle parking spaces, refuse and recycling stores, amenity space, landscaping and associated works on land to the Western Side of Millbank Way, London, SE12.. The key planning considerations were: principle of development; housing; urban design; impact on neighbouring amenity; transport; sustainable development and natural environment. The application was recommended for approval by the officer.

4.2.      Members asked that given the space at the front of unit for bin storage is very tight, could this be amended so residents have space to move them in and out, particularly those with accessibility issues. The officer responded that the bin storage area was reviewed by the highways officer, and they raised no concerns with regards to space or accessibility.

4.3.      Members also asked who would be responsible for maintaining the green roof. The officer responded that it was conditioned that it must be looked after by developer.

4.4.      The applicant was invited to give his presentation. the following were his key points:

The site benefits from a previous planning application which was approved planning for a block of flats. The optimised construction provide less density and more families and the design of the building is in keeping with the neighbouring buildings. The scheme has received support from the planning team and the Lee Manor society welcome the provision of family homes and the retention of the green space. The scheme has considered the comments received from ecology by including the green roofs, net zero and flood risks. There were no objections from highways officers, environmental protection, urban design and tree officers.

Planning consultants advised the applicant to send out letters to neighbours which they took on board. The 16m distance has been kept between front facing windows and non-habitable windows are facing the rear of the property to protect the privacy zone of the rear garden.  A condition has been imposed to keep the obscured glazed windows. A daylight/sunlight impact assessment was undertaken where all windows comfortably passed the BRE recommendation.

The development maintains the majority of the green space in addition to a green roof and children’s play area. the overall massing as a lower roof than the previous scheme. Two parking spaces were allowed for the development and have been provided.

4.5.      It was asked by members how the risk of overlooking was mitigated. The applicant responded that there was no overlooking at the rear of site. Beyond that is the 10 metre zone which protects the private area and prevents overlooking.

4.6.      The objector spoke and raised the following points:

4.7.      In correspondence to the letter sent by the applicant, the objector stated that the letter should have been canvassed to 60 neighbouring properties, not the 20 that had received a letter. He wanted to express some broader concerns aspects and believes that a consultation still needs to take place to alleviate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

This item was deferred and will be heard at another planning committee.