Agenda and minutes

There were no declaration of interests.

The minutes of the meeting Planning Committee (C) held on the 21^st June were discussed. Councillors raised the following amendment to be made.

Paragraph 3 on page 2 should be amended to read: Cllr Sheikh asked the applicant what they had done to investigate the claims by residents that their planned construction could have a negative effect on the foundations of the local residents neighbouring houses - Cllr Sheikh began by stating she understood this was not a planning consideration. Councillor Sheikh also asked for clarification on the concerns raised by the Environment Agency, the presenting officer outlined that the initial concern was in regards to floor levels and that this has been addressed and that a condition will also be added to a permission.

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part 6/ part 7/ part 8-storey mixed use development comprising 23 self-contained residential units, and 59sqm (GIA) commercial ground floor space (Use Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) & B1 (Business), 5 car parking spaces, 40 cycle parking spaces, refuse stores, and private residential balconies and communal amenity area at 86-92 Bell Green SE26.

The presenting officer clarified the design of the building, outlined the proposed amenity space and outlined that all of the units are at least dual aspect.

The presenting officer outlined that 3 comments, 5 objections and 32 letters of support were received. An objection was also received from the Sydenham Society. The objections were in regards to the height of the proposed building, issues in regards to parking and traffic congestion, the design of the proposed building and the lack of amenity space for families.

The presenting officer outlined that the viability assessment shows that the scheme cannot provide affordable housing and that two review mechanisms to contribute to affordable housing would be attached to a permission. The presenting officer outlines the contributions that would be attached to a permission, these include an £92,500 towards an off-site payment in lieu of contribution towards affordable housing. 

Councillor Mallory raised concerns in regards to viability and the review process, as the Council should be looking for genuinely affordable housing, and as such the scheme does not meet the housing need. Councillor Mallory asked why we wait for the review and how it is enforced. The presenting officer stated that expert consultants on viability sometimes conclude that it is not viable for more affordable housing to be provided initially, and in line with policy a review mechanism is attached to a permission. The presenting officer highlighted that review mechanisms are not an uncommon requirement.

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification of the type of units proposed. The presenting officer highlighted that all of the units are market housing. Councillor Mallory asked why the scheme is being considered if no affordable housing is being proposed, the presenting officer clarified that the viability review demonstrated that affordable units could not be delivered.

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the figures in the viability report. The presenting officer highlighted that the viability report is reviewed by an independent expert, and later provided clarification of the figures cited.

Councillor Sheikh stated that she supports the concerns raised by Councillor Mallory.

Councillor Gallagher stated she agreed with the clarification sought by Councillor Penfold in regards to the figures in the viability report. Councillor Gallagher also stated that it needs be clear that Members are understanding the viability reports correctly as they are held to account and need to ensure that they understand what they are voting on as the viability reports is a part of the decision making process. The presenting officer stated that Urban Delivery are contracted to assess the viability evidence and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The presenting officer outlined the details of the case for the installation of a new shopfront and a single storey extension to the rear of 56 Honor Oak Park, SE23, together with the blocking up of a ground floor window and the installation of replacement HVAC equipment, including fresh air intake, extraction ducts and A/C compressors.

The presenting officer clarified that the application is only in relation to the single storey rear extension, the shop front and the AC and plant material. The presenting officer also highlighted that the use class of the unit is already a hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) and as such change of use is not required or sought by this application. The presenting officer also highlighted that the applicant would require a planning application if hours of operation were desired to be changed.

The presenting officer outlined that 38 objections had been received and that this was considerably more than the number of properties which were consulted. The presenting officer outlines that full details of the objections can be found in Table 1 in the report and the objections include concern of whether a change of use is required, noise and disturbance concerns and traffic concerns.

Councillor Sheikh asked for clarification in regards to the scale of the consultation, whether refusal of the application would stop the owner opening, and what options are available to residents to raise their concerns. The presenting officer highlighted that A5 is the lawful use of the unit so any take-away could occupy the unit ‘tomorrow’ without an application, the presenting officer highlighted that a planning permission is not restricted to any particular occupier or type of takeaway operator. The presenting officer highlighted that Lewisham is in the early stages of its Local Plan review which looks at new policy formation and that the public consultation will take place in the next few months.

Councillor Penfold asked whether the new owners would be bound by the existing opening hours of the permission from 1994. The presenting officer confirmed that the owner are bound by the existing opening hours, unless they could demonstrate that any deviation from those hours is already immune from enforcement action, and thus that a planning application would be required to change them.

Councillor Gibbons reminded the public that concerns relating to the application in question to be taken into account and that the saturation of pizza takeaways is not something that can be considered on the current application.

The committee received verbal representations from Robin Dunne on behalf to the applicant. Robin Dunne clarified that the application is not for a change of use and that the A5 use was granted consent in 1994. Robin Dunne highlighted that he attended he local meeting and the concern over the illumination was noted and the proposal was amended and that the applicants are committed to Honor Oak Park. Robin Dunne also highlighted that an acoustic report was submitted with the application and that Environmental Health raised no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The presenting officer outlined the details of the case the demolition of the existing structures at 1 White Post Street SE15 and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development comprising the construction of two buildings ranging from 3-7 storeys and refurbishment of the 6 railway arches (No's 62 - 67), providing 975 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (A1/A2/B1/D1) and 25 residential units; together with the provision of associated plant, amenity space, 3 accessible car parking spaces and 56 cycle spaces.

The presenting officer clarified that 3 car parking spaces would be provided, that 6 arches would be refurbished and that proposal is a more intensive and mixed use of the site. The presenting officer also highlighted that proposal is without on-site affordable housing provision and that a permission would be subject to a review mechanism.

The presenting officer outlined that 5 objections had been received and that the objections were in regards to overdevelopment of the site, addition of traffic and noise, overlooking and invasion of privacy, loss of sunlight into gardens, the construction impact, site security issues, loss of existing buildings and displacement of tenants and devaluation in house prices.

Councillor Krupski asked for clarification in regards to refuse collection as paragraph 4.12 states that there is limited room for refuse collection. The presenting officer clarified that servicing management would conditioned.

Councillor Sheikh asked for clarification on the issues raised in regards to the displacement of existing tenants. The presenting officer clarified it cannot be taken into account in terms of existing and new tenants as it is looked at in terms of the quantum and the range of uses lost and gained. The presenting officer also highlighted that impact on house prices is not a material planning consideration. Councillor Sheikh asked whether the existing businesses will be removed from the arches. The presenting officer clarified that the employment policy does not allow for the protection of existing users and the planning decision does not take into account the terms of the lease.

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification in terms of the further perceived gaps in the viability reports and whether the surplus has been looked into. The presenting officer highlighted that he is wary of commenting on individual paragraphs in the various report without taking them all in their proper context, and that a financial contribution may not equate to a whole affordable housing unit offsite contribution.  The highlighted inconsistencies were later addressed by identifying the other parts of the report which explained that the gaps identified were not in fact gaps.

The difficulty in securing single units within development schemes was also highlighted, as registered provider will often seek instead to take on units accessed form access cores serving only that tenure. 

Councillor Gallagher asked if why the figures between the two reports are so different in terms of viability, why is the application recommended for approval. The presenting officer clarified that there is an off-site affordable housing contribution of £107,000 and that in most instances there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.