Agenda item

SW outlined the facts of the case as the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a 3-storey plus basement development comprising 4x two bedroom, 2x one bedroom and 1 studio self-contained flats/maisonettes. The site is located within the Brockley Conservation Area, and subject to an Article 4 direction.

Over 3 separate consultations 20 objections were received, and 6 letters in support of the proposal. Subsequently the application has been revised considerably following a local meeting. The Brockley Society withdrew their objections to the scheme following these revisions.

It was acknowledged by SW that there is a loss of employment space in the form of an existing MOT garage, however this is vacant, in poor quality, and located in a residential area. She stated that the scheme has been recommended for approval by officers, subject to 18 conditions. Questions from Councillors followed:

CJF raised concern over the pavement width along Geoffrey Road that would be left as a result of the proposal as well as concerns over the amount of traffic. She also queried the proposed cycle path, and how this would be paid for.

SW stated that the pavement width would be acceptable, and that the developer is committed to delivering the cycle lane as well as removing the redundant vehicle crossover with a £6000 payment.

The applicant, Steven Seiver (SS) was then invited to speak in support of his proposal. He stated that following refusal and dismissal at appeal of the previous scheme they had responded to the issues raised, including removing provision of office space, relocating refuse and cycle storage and submission of daylight/sunlight report. He also stated that the Brockley Society are in support of the scheme.

CK asked why there was no longer provision of 3 bedroom units, to which SS responded the reduction in footprint of the proposal had resulted in less floorspace, and the 2 bedroom units now proposed were more financially viable.

CC asked about the proposed materiality, specifically why London stock brick was not proposed. SS stated that this material had been negotiated, but if required could be amended.

The local objector Ali Williams (AW) was next invited to speak against the scheme. She raised concerns over the loss of employment space; the design of the proposal (and its impact on the Conservation Area); impact on neighbouring properties; traffic issues; the specific use of S106 funds and the limited number of trees proposed. Questions from councillors followed:

CP stated that he did understand some of the concerns raised, however that lots of the objections relate to the proposal before substantial revisions were made. He stated that the proposal would look better than the existing garage buildings.

AW stated that in her opinion the building would be overbearing, would overlook neighbours at a distance of less than 20m, is too close to the pavement especially considering the amount of station footfall that uses the street.

CP asked SW what the pavement width would be, she measured it from the plan and replied it would be just less than 2m wide, which is greater than the minimum 1.2m usually sought by Highways and therefore acceptable.

Deliberations between members followed, and CP started to raise a motion but CC asked SW whether the materials condition could be strengthened. SW stated that an informative could be added and stated that the wording of the construction management plan condition would need to be amended to require the developer to develop in accordance with the plan.

Councillor Paschoud raised a motion to accept the officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission, this was seconded by Councillor Muldoon.

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.  

Councillor Paschoud left the meeting at 21:20