Council meetings

Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2 - Civic Suite. View directions

Contact: Jesenka Ozdalda  0208 314 3530

No. Item


Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 203 KB


No declarations of interests


Minutes pdf icon PDF 173 KB


Cllr Copley asked for minutes to be corrected under Section 1 Declaration of interests to read: The Campaign for Real Ale.


Cllr Paschoud asked for clarification of two paragraphs under Section 2. Minutes to be corrected to read: Cllr Clarke (Chair) pointed out that planning permission conditions for the Ashmead Primary School application should be included in the minutes.



Additional documents:


Cllr Clarke (Chair) clarified that the application is in Perry Vale Ward and not Forest Hill as listed.


The presenting officer introduced the details of the application.


The case officer Jeremy Ward presented addendum report and amendments to this application: The key point of addendum report is new recommendation B which gives authority to the Head of planning, once legal agreements are in place to grant permission subject to the conditions outlined in the original report. Amendments relate to the condition for “hours of operation” to be improved so the hours of operation are enforceable and condition relating to a road safety that highways officer requested. The addendum also refers to some inaccuracies in the report regarding policies, highways and street design technical issues identified which should be included in Section 278 agreement and that is corrected in the report.


Cllr Kelleher asked for clarification on S278.


The case officer clarified that it is an agreement between the developer and planning and highways authority regarding improvements to the highway.


Cllr Paschoud clarified with case officer that Reason for condition no 14 – Hours of operation of the retail unit is given in the original report but not in addendum report. Case officer clarified that only correction to the wording of the condition is included in the addendum report. It is further clarified that addendum report is replacing condition 13 of the original report relating to the hours of the operation and not condition 14 as stated. The presenting officer introduced further details of the application and noted that during initial statutory consultation period no objections had been raised by Highways, Environmental Health and Protection or Drainage. Non-statutory bodies, Thames Water, Met Police, London Fire and Emergency Services and Transport for London were also consulted and raised no objections. 12 objections were received by local residents and businesses regarding highways matters, air quality, loss of retail unit, scale, design and principle of development.


Cllr Paschoud clarified with presenting officer use of branding in the planning application, as “Co-Op” is mentioned in paragraph 4.1 of the original report .The case officer clarified that it is a Class A1 unit and reference to Co-op is not a planning matter.


Cllr Paschoud asked for his interest as as a Labour and Co-operative Party member to be recorded. Cllr Muldoon and Cllr Copley asked for their interests as Labour and Co-operative Party members to be recorded as well.


Cllr Kelleher asked for a clarification on the bin collection. The case officer clarified

that there is a servicing internal corridor adjacent to the shop.


Cllr Johnston-Franklin asked for a clarification on the use of 6th floor space on the

corner. The case officer clarified that it is a small lift plant space for the operation of the lift and architectural feature on the corner.


Cllr Johnston-Franklin asked for a clarification on landscaping and as this is a busy road if there is going to be a site barrier. The presenting officer clarified that pavement would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.


REAR OF 110, WOOD VALE, LONDON, SE23 3DY pdf icon PDF 248 KB

Additional documents:


The presenting officer introduced the details of the application. There is an addendum to read to members which refers to page 59 under section 5.12 list of the relevant policies, the case officer omitted to place in the DM Policy 33 which is entitled infill, backland, back garden and amenity area. Officers can confirm that policy has been looked into and there is no material change in their recommendation. During the consultation period, no objections

were raised from Highways (subject to conditions) or Environmental Health and Protection.


The Forest Hill Society made no comments. 5 objection letters were received from local

residents raising concerns about overshadowing, overdevelopment, overlooking, parking, design and loss of employment. The officers consider the principle of development acceptable, that design and architectural detailing are of high quality and in context and the applicant had overcome previous reasons for refusal.


Cllr Bourne asked for clarification on width of a Moonlight Drive and emergency vehicle access.


The presenting officer advised that Highways officers carry out those assessments and they did not come back with concerns, the drive is wider than an average car, with an approx. guess the drive is 5-6m wide.


Cllr Bourne asked for clarification whether, in terms of objections and privacy to rear gardens, any windows of the development overlook the rear gardens on Wood Vale. Cllr Clarke (Chair) also asked for clarification on the balconies overlooking.


The presenting officer advised that there are windows on the side of the development but officers are satisfied with the distances in terms of privacy issues. There is approx. 20m if not more to the end of the curtilage of neighbour’s site and then 15m or more from there onwards.


Cllr Kelleher supported Cllr Bourne and raised concerns in terms of emergency vehicles beingable to get in, turn around and get out.


Cllr Clarke (Chair) clarified from previous similar example on the committee that emergency vehicular access is not needed, fire brigade only needs to be able to get fire hoses within the certain distance to the building.


Cllr Johnston-Franklin stated that 4 out of 7 units will not have a dual aspect and that in report under paragraph 6.37 is stated that a number of bedrooms will be served by angled windows and asked approx. what would that number be.


The presenting officer clarified that there would also be skylights placed in the roof which would complement angled windows.


Cllr Copley: It states that bedrooms with angled windows would be within dual aspect flats, does that mean that single aspect flats don’t benefit from these angled windows.


The presenting officer clarified they would only be within dual aspect flats.


The members received verbal representation from Ms Olivia St Armour, planning

consultant at Rapleys, the agent for this application. The applicants who were also present at the meeting were born and grew up in the area. This is the second application submitted for the residential redevelopment of this site, the first was refused in March 2018  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.


59 QUENTIN ROAD, LONDON SE13 5DG pdf icon PDF 179 KB

Additional documents:


The presenting officer introduced the details of the application. The application received 4 objection letters from local residents raising concerns on material planning issues like overshadowing and noise and disturbance and non-material issues like land ownership, access for maintenance personnel, trespass and loss of view. Paragraph 5.2 of the officer’s report responds to these concerns.


Cllr Kelleher asked for a clarification on the ownership and ability to build on someone else’s space.


Cllr Clarke (Chair) clarified that ownership is not clear and from planning committee perspective it makes no difference. It is possible to apply for planning on someone else’s land, but issue would raise when you want to build it and it is a civil matter. The ownership is irrelevant from planning perspective.


Cllr Rathbone asked for a clarification on why this application was brought to committee as it doesn’t seem to raise any real issues or valid objections.


The presenting officer clarified that potential overlooking and overshadowing issues raised by objectors are valid objections.


The legal officer further clarified that it is the number of objections that sends applications to the committee.


Cllr Adefiranye moved the motion to approve officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Johnston-Franklin. Members voted as follows:


For: Councillors Copley, Adefiranye, Clarke (Chair), Anwar, Bourne, Johnston- Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud, Rathbone.


Against: None

Vote was unanimous.


RESOLVED: Approve application DC/18/107273 subject to the conditions from the officer’s report.


The meeting ended at 21.20.

10 January 2019.