Venue: Civic Suite, Lewisham Town Hall, Catford, SE6 4RU
Contact: Email: committee@lewisham.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Additional documents:
Minutes: RESOLVED that minutes of meeting of 29 February 2024 and 27 March 2024 be confirmed and agreed as accurate records.
|
|
Declarations of Interests Minutes: There was no interest declared at the meeting. It was however noted that the Chair, Councillor Jack Lavery, received documents via email in relation to Item 3, “5-9 Creekside, London, SE8 4SA” which he advised were shared to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting. Councillor John Muldoon stated that he also received an email from the applicant in relation to the Item prior to the meeting. |
|
5-9 CREEKSIDE, LONDON SE8 4SA Additional documents:
Decision: The Committee unanimously
RESOLVED to GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement, and the conditions and informatives outlined in the report, subject to the following requirements:
1. To revise conditions 15 and 33 to ensure that when undertaking the proposed excavation works, the applicant consider the impact of ground water a result of the proposals on the proposed site and onto neighbouring properties.
2. To add an informative so that the applicant will continue dialogue with officials at the Art in Perpetuity Trust Agency, with a possibility to agree a financial compensation for the impact on light and inconvenience that might arise as a result of the proposed development and during the construction of works. Minutes: 3.1 The Principal Planning Officer presented the report at the meeting and gave an illustrative outline of the context of the aerial site’s plan and the environmental surrounds,
3.1.1 The Officer advised the Committee that the proposal was for the demolition of existing buildings at 5-9 Creekside, SE8, and to redevelop the site thereafter. It was stated that the redevelopment of the proposed site would deliver a part5/ part7-storey building, together with public realm works and landscaping measures with the following specifications:
· 3101sqm employment floor space · 231 student bedspaces, of which 35% would be affordable · 172 long and short stay cycle parking spaces · On-street loading bay · 2 Blue Badge parking bays
3.2. The Committee noted the report and the relevant planning considerations specific to the proposal. T
3.2.1 The Committee also noted that the following updates and amendments were contained in the addendum to the main report:
· An affordance workspace on-site financial contribution by the applicant of £130,556 to replace the original offer of the 10% provision that was proposed under paragraph 264 in the original report; · The provision of a Community Art Fund contribution of £20,000 by the applicant which would be secured in a Section106 Agreement; · The addition of planning Condition 60, which required the submission of details of a fire hydrant on the proposed site; and · Amendments to the winter readings in paragraphs 485-487 in the main report.
3.3 Speaking on the proposal, the Committee asked questions on the following matters:
(a) Timeframe for delivering affordable workspace. The Officer advised the Committee as follows:
· That affordable workspace rents would be maintained below the market rate in perpetuity, and the discounted arrangements for that would be secured by a Section 106 Agreement.
(b) To clarify how affordable rent as outlined in the report would apply to the students’ accommodation. The Officer advised the Committee as follows:
· That the arrangement complied with the London Plan policy because the units to be delivered at the rental cost for the academic year would equal to or set below 55% of the maximum income which a full-time student studying in London and living away from home would receive under the Government's initiative.
(c) Whether there was a particular need in Lewisham for students’ accommodation, as opposed a London-wide need. The Officer advised the Committee as follows:
· That the London Plan specified a target of achieving three and a half thousand bedspaces per annum, but with no particular cap. Thus, each London borough should decide how to contribute to the annual target. Considering that, the provision of accommodation in Lewisham included students’ dwellings, and that formed part of the Council’s core strategy for delivering bedspaces in Lewisham.
(d) To clarify statement about groundwater flood risk as outlined under paragraph 597 in the main report. The Officer advised the Committee as follows:
· That the Lewisham Strategic Flood Risks Assessment identified that “no significant known issues with groundwater flooding had been identified across the Borough.” · That following extensive pre-application discussions relating to ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
135 MINARD ROAD, LONDON, SE6 1NN Additional documents:
Decision: The Committee unanimously
RESOLVED to REFUSE retrospective planning application for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 135 Minard Road SE6 1NN on the basis:
1. That the extension exceeds the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents in relation to building height recommendation for rear extensions in conjunction to poor design quality, use of inappropriate materials and overall, not in keeping with the design of the host property and properties in the wider terrace.
2. That the excessive height and scale of the extension impacts on the neighbouring amenity of the adjoining residential properties in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight and outlook. Minutes: 4.1 The Committee received an illustrative presentation to the report by the Principal Planning Officer, with a suggestion that it should grant for retrospective planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 135 Minard Road SE6 1NN.
4.2 In discussing the proposal, the Committee heard objections by a resident who addressed the meeting via remote access, and submissions made by Councillor Mark Ingleby as a Member of the Hither Green Ward.
4.3. In considering the report and submissions made at the meeting, the Committee expressed a view that the application was not in compliance to policy requirements regarding design quality and height. Considering that, , Councillor James Rathbone proposed that the Committee should refuse the application. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Stephen Penfold and voted upon.
The Committee unanimously
RESOLVED to REFUSE retrospective planning application for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 135 Minard Road SE6 1NN on the basis:
1. That the extension exceeds the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents in relation to building height recommendation for rear extensions in conjunction to poor design quality, use of inappropriate materials and overall, not in keeping with the design of the host property and properties in the wider terrace.
2. That the excessive height and scale of the extension impacts on the neighbouring amenity of the adjoining residential properties in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight and outlook.
The meeting closed at 9.25pm _________________________ Chair |