Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED

Unanimously

1.            That Recommendation A be agreed as follows:

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 outlined in Section 11 “Legal Agreement” including such other amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

2.            That Recommendation B be agreed as follows:

Subject to completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PERMISSION subject to conditions, including those set out in the officer’s report and with such amendments as are considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

·                     Subject to an additional informative requiring that the developer take into account the history and heritage significance of the application site and area, when finalising the detailed design for the development

RESOLVEDMEMBER(S) UNDER STANDING ORDERS ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: N/A

MEMBER(S) OF THE COMMITTEE ALSO JOINING THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: Andre Bourne

MEMBER(S) UNDER STANDING ORDERS ALSO JOINING THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: N/A

NB: Those Councillors listed as joining virtually were not in attendance for the purposes of the meeting being quorate, any decisions taken, or to satisfy the requirements of s85 Local Government Act 1972.

OFFICER(S) ALSO JOINING THE MEETING VIRTUALLY:  Planning Officers, Paula Young, Senior Lawyer, Legal Services

Clerk: Committee Officers.

Apologies were received on behalf of Councillors Suzannah Clarke, Aisling Gallagher and Stephen Penfold.

Item

No.

1          Declarations of Interest

None

2          Minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meetings held on 2 September 2021 be agreed.

3          Land on the corner of Briant and Besson Street, London, SE14

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of Land at the corner of Briant and Besson Street, SE14, including demolition of existing structures to deliver a mixed use development comprising:

·      324 residential units (Use Class C3), flexible retail and commercial floorspace (Use Class A1/A3/B1), a Pharmacy (Use Class A1), a GP surgery (Use Class D1) and community space (Use Class D2) in buildings ranging from 3 to 12 storeys, provision of disabled car parking, cycle parking and servicing facilities, landscaping and other associated works.

Prior to the presentation the Planning Officer advised members of an error at paragraph 949 in the officer report. Members were advised that this currently reads as “moderate to high degree of less than substantial harm to the Hatcham Conservation Area”. This should read as a “moderate” degree of harm to be consistent with the “moderate degree of harm” reported throughout the report

The Committee noted the report.

Following the Officers presentation, no questions were addressed to the Officer, by Members.

The agent addressed the Committee and described the application site. The agent discussed: history of the joint venture and its’ intentions, potential income, tenure, employment, facilities provided, CIL section 106 contributions, technical issues, planning policy, consultation, community benefits ,noise impact and assessment, daylight and sunlight assessment, heritage assets and mitigation measures implemented to manage any concerns raised.

Following the address, no questions were put to the agent by Members.

A representative from the Telegraph Hill Society who was also representing the Hatcham Conservation Society addressed the Committee with objections. The representative discussed: the reduction in greenspace, parking, heritage, New Cross Gate Centre, materials, height, position of proposed tower blocks, privacy, public benefit, harms created, conservation area. The Committee was asked to oppose the proposal, not the concept.

A local resident addressed the Committee with objections. The resident discussed: history of the area, local impact on school capacity and neighbours, light loss, loss of sunlight, loss of privacy, negative impact on schools, general practitioner services (GP), parking, air pollution near schools, mitigation measures proposed by developer. The resident felt if the proposal was approved, it would set a precedent.

Following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.