Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Civic Suite. View directions
Contact: Samuel James 0208 314 3722
No declarations of interest
Members approved the minutes for Committee B held on 26th April.
Members approved minutes for Committee B held on subject 7th June to some minor amendments.
The presenting Planning Officer Suzanne White (SW) explained the details of the existing site which is currently a 2/3 storey building in Council ownership, used as a hostel for emergency accommodation for homeless families.
SW outlined the details of the proposal would comprise the demolition of the existing building, and the construction of a five/six storey building comprising 24x two bedroom, 16x three bedroomed self-contained flats, a two storey commercial space (flexible use classes A1 / A2 / A3 / B1(a) / D1 (crèche, education, museum, art gallery) and 7x two storey houses at Mayfields 47 Burnt Ash Hill.
The scheme would result in 47 self-contained, 100% socially rented residential units. 66 new trees would be planted, and photo voltaic panels would be installed on the roof.
SW went on to mention that the Council had received 18 letters of objection and 4 letters in support of the proposal. A local meeting was held on 13th December 2017. The Council’s housing team are in support of the proposal.
The proposal was recommended for approval, subject to 26 conditions.
Questions from Councillors followed:
Councillor Rathbone (CR) noted that Lewisham Homes were not yet present, and stated that he would save some of his questioning for them.
Councillor Kelleher (CK) sought clarification on the number of trees to be planted, to which SW replied it would be 66.
Councillor Johnston-Franklin (CJF) asked whether the ground floor would be in commercial, community or flexible usage. SW clarified that it would be mixed or flexible usage, which could change over time.
CJF expressed interest in conditioning the use to be for community only, and stated that since the applicant was Lewisham Homes this should be possible. SW stated that there were no policies in place to allow a preference of one use over another in this location.
CR noted that Lewisham Homes had previously said that the ground floor use would be community usage, and this appears to have changed, a question for Lewisham Homes.
Chair Councillor Clarke (CC) noted that 10m² of playspace per child had been calculated as being provided, and queried whether this space included the bin storage and parking spaces that could not be used for play in reality.
SW clarified that 690m² of playspace would be provided in total over 2 areas. The London Plan SPG (Providing for Children and Young People’s Play) sets guidelines which would require 700m² to be provided. The figure of 690m² did not include parking spaces, landscaping or bin storage areas. However it was noted that this did include a hard landscaped area, which would occasionally be used by vehicles accessing or leaving the disabled parking spaces.
CC asked about the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and whether the Council had any control over it. SW stated that a condition could be added requiring consultation with local residents regarding the CPZ, but this would be difficult to enforce. It was noted that there was sufficient funding for this in the scheme’s costing. ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
SW outlined the facts of the case as the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a 3-storey plus basement development comprising 4x two bedroom, 2x one bedroom and 1 studio self-contained flats/maisonettes. The site is located within the Brockley Conservation Area, and subject to an Article 4 direction.
Over 3 separate consultations 20 objections were received, and 6 letters in support of the proposal. Subsequently the application has been revised considerably following a local meeting. The Brockley Society withdrew their objections to the scheme following these revisions.
It was acknowledged by SW that there is a loss of employment space in the form of an existing MOT garage, however this is vacant, in poor quality, and located in a residential area. She stated that the scheme has been recommended for approval by officers, subject to 18 conditions. Questions from Councillors followed:
CJF raised concern over the pavement width along Geoffrey Road that would be left as a result of the proposal as well as concerns over the amount of traffic. She also queried the proposed cycle path, and how this would be paid for.
The applicant, Steven Seiver (SS) was then invited to speak in support of his proposal. He stated that following refusal and dismissal at appeal of the previous scheme they had responded to the issues raised, including removing provision of office space, relocating refuse and cycle storage and submission of daylight/sunlight report. He also stated that the Brockley Society are in support of the scheme.
CK asked why there was no longer provision of 3 bedroom units, to which SS responded the reduction in footprint of the proposal had resulted in less floorspace, and the 2 bedroom units now proposed were more financially viable.
CC asked about the proposed materiality, specifically why London stock brick was not proposed. SS stated that this material had been negotiated, but if required could be amended.
The local objector Ali Williams (AW) was next invited to speak against the scheme. She raised concerns over the loss of employment space; the design of the proposal (and its impact on the Conservation Area); impact on neighbouring properties; traffic issues; the specific use of S106 funds and the limited number of trees proposed. Questions from councillors followed:
CP stated that he did understand some of the concerns raised, however that lots of the objections relate to the proposal before substantial revisions were made. He stated that the proposal would look better than the existing garage buildings.
AW stated that in her opinion the building would be overbearing, would overlook neighbours at a distance of less than 20m, is too close to the pavement especially considering the amount of station footfall that uses the street.
CP asked SW what the pavement width would be, she measured it from the plan ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
SW outlined the facts of the case as the construction of an additional storey roof extension to The Glasshouse, 2A Morley Road, SE13, to provide a two bedroom self-contained flat, together with provision of bin and bicycle storage. She stated that the application has been revised to remove a balcony, and the scheme was now considered acceptable, and is therefore recommended for approval by officers.
CK noted that the extension would make the building taller than No.4, one of the adjoining properties and also queried the overlooking impact on that property. SW stated that this was true but that the impact would be acceptable, as there are no windows affected at that property, regarding the overlooking issue, the windows to that side would be high level and serve a kitchen/diner.
CR queried how planning policy has changed since 1996 when the original building was granted permission. SW replied that there is a new context of policies and built form now, with a greater emphasis on the delivery of new homes so if an additional residential unit can be achieved within a new storey that is well designed, then it would be supported in principle.
CJF raised safety concerns regarding fire escape from the new flat, and queried whether there would still only be 1 escape route with an additional storey being added. SW replied that fire safety is a building control matter so not a material planning consideration, and that yes, there would still only be 1 means of escape.
CC asked whether hours of construction could be conditioned, and SW stated that they could should the application be approved.
The architect of the scheme, Richard Hodgekinson and the developer Barry McKevey were then invited to speak in support of the scheme. They stated that they had strived to improve the proposal based upon previous refusal reasons. They claimed there would be no overlooking and that they wanted to work with existing residents, whilst ensuring there is no cost to them.
CR asked the applicants to clarify how the previous refusal reasons had been addressed, they answered that the revised scheme is more in keeping, steps back, has smaller balconies – concluded that it is a very different scheme this time.
Michael Park, the owner of the existing top floor flat and the tenants of the flat were then invited to speak. He stated that the consultation had been flawed and biased, giving just 3 weeks to comment on the proposal. He stated that his property would be the most impacted during construction works and by the addition of a new flat above his, ruining the general enjoyment of the flat. Also that the flat would not be suitable for a family.
He stated that the previous refusal reason had not been overcome, and that it was unfair that he would suffer the brunt of the impacts for a development of which the sole purpose is to make money for a private developer.
CR queried whether the applicants could come ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
Meeting Closed at 21:25