Agenda item

The presenting Planning Officer Suzanne White (SW) explained the details of the existing site which is currently a 2/3 storey building in Council ownership, used as a hostel for emergency accommodation for homeless families.

SW outlined the details of the proposal would comprise the demolition of the existing building, and the construction of a five/six storey building comprising 24x two bedroom, 16x three bedroomed self-contained flats, a two storey commercial space (flexible use classes A1 / A2 / A3 / B1(a) / D1 (crèche, education, museum, art gallery) and 7x two storey houses at Mayfields 47 Burnt Ash Hill.

The scheme would result in 47 self-contained, 100% socially rented residential units. 66 new trees would be planted, and photo voltaic panels would be installed on the roof.

SW went on to mention that the Council had received 18 letters of objection and 4 letters in support of the proposal. A local meeting was held on 13^th December 2017. The Council’s housing team are in support of the proposal.

The proposal was recommended for approval, subject to 26 conditions.

Questions from Councillors followed:

Councillor Rathbone (CR) noted that Lewisham Homes were not yet present, and stated that he would save some of his questioning for them.

Councillor Kelleher (CK) sought clarification on the number of trees to be planted, to which SW replied it would be 66.

Councillor Johnston-Franklin (CJF) asked whether the ground floor would be in commercial, community or flexible usage. SW clarified that it would be mixed or flexible usage, which could change over time.

CJF expressed interest in conditioning the use to be for community only, and stated that since the applicant was Lewisham Homes this should be possible. SW stated that there were no policies in place to allow a preference of one use over another in this location.

CR noted that Lewisham Homes had previously said that the ground floor use would be community usage, and this appears to have changed, a question for Lewisham Homes.

Chair Councillor Clarke (CC) noted that 10m² of playspace per child had been calculated as being provided, and queried whether this space included the bin storage and parking spaces that could not be used for play in reality.

SW clarified that 690m² of playspace would be provided in total over 2 areas. The London Plan SPG (Providing for Children and Young People’s Play) sets guidelines which would require 700m² to be provided. The figure of 690m² did not include parking spaces, landscaping or bin storage areas. However it was noted that this did include a hard landscaped area, which would occasionally be used by vehicles accessing or leaving the disabled parking spaces.

CC asked about the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), and whether the Council had any control over it. SW stated that a condition could be added requiring consultation with local residents regarding the CPZ, but this would be difficult to enforce. It was noted that there was sufficient funding for this in the scheme’s costing.

CC asked what rooms the windows facing Swallow Court would serve. SW stated that officers had sought to confirm this through the planning records but no plans were available,  but added that they would likely serve as secondary windows.

Councillor Anwar (CA) asked how many commercial units were proposed and SW clarified 1 with a floor space of approximately 260m². CA asked whether the unit could in theory be occupied by whoever successfully applied to use it, and SW confirmed this was true.

CJF stated that the CPZ appeared to be committed to, but noted that in reality we cannot promise it, so it should be removed from the proposal.

The applicant (Lewisham Homes Representative) and their architect were then invited to speak in support of their scheme.

The Architect started by stating 500 new Council homes are required to be built in 2018. He stated the existing building is in a poor condition, but the site has excellent transport links and then went on to discuss the merits of the application.

He stated that it was an innovative design and that modern construction methods would be used – 90% of the construction works to be completed off-site.

Kevin Barker (KB) of Lewisham Homes (LH) stated that the proposal is key to delivering the Mayors housing targets, it complies with all space standards policies, and that local residents have been engaged, and will continue to be informed of progress.

Questions from Councillors followed. 

CR welcomed the design of the proposal and stated that he was happy with the way LH engaged with the community. He then expressed disappointment that the ground floor unit would no longer be solely for community usage and questioned why.

KB stated that he wasn’t aware this had changed as the development team are not involved in that, rather the communications team were. He stated that maybe it was down to concerns that a suitable user for the space would be difficult to find if the use class was restricted.

CR stated that there had been previous communications between councillors and LH regarding the community usage, and asked again why the use hadn’t been limited to community uses, CA shared these concerns.

Councillor Paschoud (CP) asked who would manage the freehold of the commercial unit. KB stated that this was not known at this stage and Councillor Rathbone stated that this was in a pre-negotiation stage between the charity and LH and that nothing had yet been agreed.

KB stated that he would take the councillors concerns regarding community usage back to the LH office.

Councillors queried the details of the Photo-Voltaic panels, it was concluded that discussions are still ongoing regarding the specifics, but that they would result in a reduction in energy bills for the building.

CC expressed concern that some of the play spaces could result in anti-social behaviour on site, would also be used by vehicles, and that the 4m deep amenity areas are too small for children’s play. The architect replied that the only parking would be for disabled users, so vehicle movements would be limited. He stated that anti-social behaviour had been considered at the formal design stage.

CC asked whether the units would eventually be available as Right to Buy homes, and KB stated that this was currently the case because there was no alternative. CC raised concern over the long-term provision of temporary accommodation, as the existing hostel would be lost. KB stated that the Edward Street Hostel provides 50% more than the existing Mayfields Hostel.

Mr Kirk, the objector and representative of the Pitfold Resident’s association was then invited to speak against the proposal.

He stated that he supports the need for social housing but not this scheme in particular. His concerns include the lack of parking and insufficient play space for a large volume of families with children; the design of the proposal being too high and massive – dwarfing the neighbouring church; loss of a large number of mature trees; lack of servicing/social infrastructure in local area including schools and hospitals; stated the proposal only meets half of the policy requirements for new homes in Lewisham.

CR thanked Mr Kirk and stated that Cllr Mallory had been working with LH and had negotiated for less trees to be lost and more replaced, as well as for the overall build height to be reduced. He stated that due to the semi-judicial nature of planning committee decisions, the proposal could only be assessed against relevant legal requirements and material planning considerations, including policies.

Deliberations followed regarding the suitability of the children’s play space, the parking issues and suitability of CPZ proposal.

CR stated that this was clearly a contentious case and could go either way. Considering the context, and the issues raised it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the marginal 10m² failure on provision of playspace, where 47 high quality socially rented homes would replace the existing poor quality accommodation where there is a clear need.

Councillor Rathbone then raised a motion to accept the officers’ recommendation, on the condition that Lewisham Homes are held to account on the issues raised, and grant planning permission, this was seconded by Councillor Paschoud.

Members voted as follows:

FOR RECOMMENDATION: Councillors Clarke (Chair), Anwar, Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud and Rathbone.

AGAINST RECOMMENDATION:              None

ABSTAINED:            None

RESOLVED:   Unanimously accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission