Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interests.

Meeting Commenced at 19:30. The minutes of the meeting Planning Committee (C) held on the 11^th September were approved.

Councillor Ogunbadwa (CO) welcomed all attendees, and announced that the order of items as set out in the agenda would be amended.

The presenting officer (MR) outlined the facts of the case for the construction of a single storey side and rear extension at 10 Bowman's Lea, SE23 together with the conversion of the garage into a habitable space, replacement of the front garage

door with a window, replacement of first floor front elevation windows and alterations to the external landscaping. He discussed the site location and character, stating that officers did not have concerns of overdevelopment or overshadowing. MR stated that a Lawful Development Certificate (Proposed) has already been issued for the majority of the extension proposed and that only the corner infill which has been added in the application would be added.

Members asked for clarification regarding the corner infill and this was provided by MR.

The applicant, Simon Nolan, was asked by the chair to speak in favour of the application. He stated that he had been a resident for many years and wished to improve his family home. He mentioned the application history including the previously refused and appealed application which was disallowed. He stated that the works would be carried out responsibly to reduce noise impact on neighbours and that the officers report recognises that the proposal would cause no material harm to neighbour amenity.

SS asked the applicant how they would limit the hours of construction. The applicant advised he would discuss this with his architect. SS then asked the applicant if he had discussed this with his neighbours. The applicant advised that he initially consulted with the neighbours but they later objected.

The applicant left the table and OO invited any objectors to speak.

Jonathon Mitchell of 1 Haredon Close, Paul Bibby of 9 Bowman’s Lea and third objector came forward (who did not register to speak). Mr Bibby handed out a sketch showing overshadowing from the proposal to councillors.

Mr Mitchell stated that he supports his neighbour improving their family home, but objects to the proposal as he felt this would have a negative impact on his amenity. He stated that the extension would be 6 to 6.5m higher than the ground floor of his house. He argued that the wrap around the garden to the side would create a sense of enclosure that would be unacceptable as it would remove the only long distance view from his house. He referred to the planning inspector’s statement from the appeal APP/C5690/D/18/3197132. Mr Mitchell also objected to the large glass door which he said would have a direct view into his garden and that the proposed tree works would lead to a further loss of privacy.

Mr Bibby then took over for the remainder of the allotted five minutes. He stated his objection to the 3m wall directly next to their garden wall. He referred the members to his sketch, and stated that this application was almost identical to the one previously refused, with a height reduction of 20cm and stated that he felt this small reduction was insignificant, and that he felt that planning officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The presenting officer (MR) outlined the facts of the case for the retrospective application for the demolition of existing buildings at Wastdale Mews, Wastdale

Road SE23 and the part-retrospective construction of a part one/part two storey

building to provide studio's/workshop's (B1/B8 use). MR mentioned the objections received regarding privacy, parking, noise and operating hours, stating that these can be conditioned to make the scheme acceptable.

AS asked the presenting officer how the previous layout of the building was determined given that demolition works had already begun, and queried the presenting officer regarding the requirement for a demolition method statement.

MR advised that the previous layout of the building was taken from the applicant plans provided as there was no planning history available. MR also stated that a demolition method statement was not within remit.

Councillors discussed the retrospective nature of the application with the presenting officer and it was clarified that the principle of a retrospective application is acceptable by KC.

SP asked the presenting officer to clarify the location of the site and also queried the sites previous use. MR responded by confirming the site location and advising that the previous use is thought to be a mechanics.

The presenting officer then presented addendums to the committee report. These were amending paragraph 7.13 to reference part 12 of the NPPF, amending paragraph 9.1 as only the first 2 bullet points are applicable, amending paragraph 9.4 to state it is a new building instead of a residential extension, removing DM32 from condition 10, removing condition 11, and amending conditions 5, 7, 10 and 11 to reference paragraph 180 of the NPPF.

KC advised the reason for these changes regarding the NPPF were due to the NPPF being updated in July 2018. MR stated that these changes do not affect the officer’s recommendation.

SP wanted clarification on what the site could be used for within use class B2/B8. MR advised light industrial / storage / workshops.

The applicant James McDonnel was invited to speak by the chair.

James McDonnel stated that the application was to reinstate the original building to provide 13 artist studios and that the new building would remove some external features such as staircases and doors but would retain the same internal layout.

AS asked the applicant if any of the studios would be rented out at affordable rental prices. James McDonnel advised that a similar workshop charges around £260pcm for a studio which he feels is affordable.

SP asked about the opening hours of 6 – 11pm. The applicant stated that the studio spaces were of non-commercial size and would be used as secondary workspaces for creative people to work on projects after office hours and on weekends. The presenting officer then clarified that the proposed use is actually B1 / B8 which is light industrial and office space.

Objectors were then invited to come forward.

Henry Mulligan and Karen Thomlin sat at the table along with Councillor Bill Barnham who would speak later under standing orders.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The presenting officer (MR) outlined the facts of the case for the retrospective application for the construction of a raised platform (terrace) and new stairs down to rear garden space at 16 Shell Road, SE13. He stated how the principle of the terrace is not objectionable, would provide disabled access, and highlighted the trellises as being obscuring features. He noted that objections received were related to noise, privacy and appearance and argued that these were not considered to be material planning considerations.

OO asked the members if they had any questions for the presenting officer.

Councillors discussed whether the doorway was suitable for wheelchair users. MR said that this was not a material consideration at this point.

SP asked if the design of the terrace was a material consideration. MR said it didn’t have much consideration as it is not visible from the public realm and therefore any harm created would not be on the street scene.

The applicant was invited by the chair to speak.

Marcus Krackowizer came forward and stated that he feels the door is acceptable for wheelchair users. He stated that the reason he didn’t apply for permission initially was because he didn’t know it was required. He discussed the design and said that this is intended to have planting to soften the appearance.  

JM asked the applicant about the widening the doorway and inserting another door.

The applicant stated he had not considered this. JM asked the presenting officer if he would need permission to widen the door and MR advised him that he would.

OO dismissed the applicant from the table and summoned the objectors.

Yashim Halil of 18 Shell Road came forward arguing that the owner and applicant does not live in the property and that the tenants which do occupy the property are not permanent and have a history of antisocial behaviour and noise complaints, of which there are records. She cited the use of the terrace would mean noises, loud music and smoking. She stated that the high turnover of tenants in the property would make the terrace a security risk. She raised concerns over privacy as she feels it overlooks her garden.

OO asked the councillors of they had any questions.

JM asked the objector about the records of noise complaints. The objector said this was a couple of years ago and that she didn’t have the records. Councillors felt that this could not be considered without the records. LK asked the presenting officer if the raised height of the terrace would increase noise levels and MR said this was not the case, and that tenants is an environmental health issue not a planning consideration.

SS asked the presenting officers if the overlooking concerns had been addressed and MR advised that officers felt they had.

Councillors discussed the occupancy of the property and concluded that this was not a planning consideration.

Councillor Smith moved to accept the officer’s recommendation and approve planning permission.

Councillor Krupski seconded.

Members voted as follows:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The presenting officer (MR) outlined the facts of the case for the Construction of a single storey extension to the rear of Flat 2, Summerhill, 41 London Road, SE23. He stated that the objections raised were regarding noise during construction, overlooking concerns and the impact on a tree. He stated that the working hours would be conditioned and that the tree is not within the curtilage of the application site.

OO asked the members if they had any questions for the presenting officer and members declined.

OO invited the applicant to speak but none were present.

OO invited the objectors to speak but none were present.

Councillor Moore moved to accept the officer’s recommendation and approve planning permission.

Councillor Mallory seconded.

Members voted as follows:

For: Councillors Ogunbadwa (Chair), Penfold (Vice Chair), Smith, Mallory, Sheikh, Krupski, Gallagher and Moore.

Against: None.

RESOLVED: Vote to accept officer’s recommendation to grant planning

permission for DC/18/107541.

The meeting ended at 21.55, 18th October 2018.