Council meetings

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Remote via Microsoft Teams - The Public are welcome to observe this meeting via the Council's website at

Contact: Jasmine Kassim 


No. Item


Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 112 KB


No interest was declared at the meeting.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 6 KB

Additional documents:


RESOLVED that minutes of meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 9 June 2020 and 30 July 2020 be confirmed as correct records, subject to amendments agreed with the Chair, Councillor John Paschoud, prior to the start of the meeting.



Temporary changes to the Scheme of Delegation - update pdf icon PDF 329 KB

Additional documents:






That it be agreed to


·                    AUTHORISE the temporary amendment of the list of matters that are reserved to Planning Committee’s A, B and C and to Strategic Planning Committee in the Council’s Scheme of Delegation set out on page 311 of the Council’s Constitution to enable the following matters to be delegated to officers (unless the recommendation is for refusal):

·                    APPROVE the threshold of objections for applications being required to go to Planning Committee for decision to be raised from 3 to 5

·                    APPROVE that any application with an amenity society objection to be subject to case review with Chair to determine whether it is referred to planning committee for a decision

·                    APPROVE that applications with 5-9 objections to be subject to case review with Chair to determine whether it is referred to planning committee for a decision;




·                    AGREE that the above changes to working practices will be reviewed by the Strategic Planning Committee after a further 6 month period expiring on 10th March 2021.


The Service Group Manager introduced the report and highlighted to Members reasons for a decision to temporarily amend matters in the Council’s Scheme of Delegation (SoD) that were reserved to Planning Committees A, B and C, and to Strategic Planning Committee.  It was stated that the current proposal recommended that the temporary measures, which were initially agreed on 9 June for a period of three months should be extended to 10 March 2021.  The Officer stated that the extended timeline would enable the Planning Service to continue to operate efficiently and ensure that it remains able to meet its statutory responsibility to determine the full range of planning applications in a timely fashion.


The Committee noted the report and the rationale for the proposal.  It was understood that the changes to the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, which were made at the time the initial temporary measures were agreed, would continue to remain effective throughout the extended period.


In response to questions raised, the Officer reiterated to Members that the changes and extended timeline were publicised on the Council’s internet.  In addition to that, key stakeholders were notified.  It was stated that a number of responses were received, and the concerns which they raised were reproduced in the addendum report.  Members also received confirmation that the safeguards initially implemented would remain throughout the extended period, in order to ensure transparency and democratic accountability in decision making.


Continuing with his response, the Officer advised Members that arrangements for considering planning applications during the current crisis would vary because each council had to identify its own threshold markers for referring planning applications to committees.  However, Lewisham’s thresholds were lower in comparison to many other London boroughs, but the temporary proposed measures had brought it in line with the general picture across London boroughs.


Councillor Kevin Bonavia, a Member of the Committee, and also Cabinet Member for Democracy, Refugees and Accountability, emphasised that the system in place should remain accountable in light of recommendations from the Council’s recent review on local democracy.  Councillor Bonavia stated that it was vital for Members and officers to actively consult and liaise with objectors and applicants at the outset, and consider feedback and responses in time, with a view to submitting improved applications to planning committees.  Commenting on restrictions relating to face-to-face contacts as a result of the current pandemic, Councillor Bonavia suggested that residents and local amenity groups could lobby on planning applications via the telephone, emails, and/or make appointments for virtual meetings with their respective ward councillors.


In considering submissions made at the meeting, Members agreed that the Council should be supported to continue meeting its statutory duties.  However, the temporary measures should not be viewed as a precedent.  Views expressed by Councillor Bonavia that residents and local amenity societies should continue to be consulted about development proposals was also echoed.


The Committee voted on the proposals and






That the following be agreed for a time-limited 6 months’ period expiring on 10th  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.


Land and Property Comprising Silwood Street, London, SE16 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:






That it be agreed to


·                    AUTHORISE officers to negotiate and complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the principal matters set out in Section 11 of this report, including such other amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

·                    AUTHORISE the Head of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION to conditions set out in the report and the addendum to it subject to completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, including additional condition agreed at the meeting as follows:


All of the external amenity spaces within the development, including the roof-top amenity space on Block A shall be made accessible to all residents of the entire development at all times for the duration of the development, unless a report has been submitted to, and approved by the Local Authority, prior to first occupation of the development, detailing how such a requirement would prevent the development from achieving ‘secured by design’ certification.


The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation to the report, recommending to the Committee to approve planning application for the construction of a mixed-use development to deliver at Silwood Street, SE16.  It was confirmed that the proposed development comprised of four (4) building blocks, A. B and C, with heights ranging between five to nine (5-9) storeys, including associated landscaping with street trees, play space, public realm improvements, and service facilities.


The Committee noted the report, and that the proposal would deliver sixty-one (61) residential dwellings, including commercial, business and service floorspaces.  It was recognised that Block A would be nine (9) storeys in height, with no affordable units.  The Committee understood that the affordable units would be located predominantly in Blocks B and C.  It was noted that Blocks B to D would stretch the remainder of the proposed site, and would provide commercial uses at the ground and first floors.


In response to questions raised the Officer advised the Committee that the Council had made no request for further contribution from the applicant for additional play space because the provision was considered at pre-application stage as adequate for the type of development.  However, in regards to older children, the expectation was that they would visit public parks close to the application site to hang-out and play.  It was stated that the applicant had also proposed to provide a table tennis facility on-site which older children could use.


Continuing with her response, the Officer informed the Committee that empirical evidence had shown that railway arches were attractive for business operations, and that it was not unusual to have higher buildings close them in a London urban area.  Thus, it was unlikely that the proposal would prevent future entrepreneurs from using the railway arches at Silwood Street.


In a follow-up question to the latter, the Officer gave an assurance to the Committee that the anticipation to increase footfall at Silwood Street and its environs would be realised because the proposal aimed to deliver open and accessible outside areas, with a view to attract businesses to operate from the railway arches at the back of the proposed buildings.  It was stated that the spaces at the back of the proposed buildings in the design illustrations were considered adequate for potential customers to move about in with ease.  Members were advised that it was likely that the business potentials would result in increased job opportunities once the development becomes operational.


The Committee also received clarification from the Officer that car-free development schemes were not unusual in a London urban setting.  Therefore, it had come with no surprise that objections were not raised by the Council’s Highway Team and officials at Transport for London (TfL) regarding plans by the applicant to deliver a car-free development, with the exception of six (6) blue badge spaces for potential disabled occupants. 


In light of a concern expressed by Members, the Officer reiterated that it was unlikely that the development would impact adversely on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.