Agenda item

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part 6/ part 7/ part 8-storey mixed use development comprising 23 self-contained residential units, and 59sqm (GIA) commercial ground floor space (Use Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) & B1 (Business), 5 car parking spaces, 40 cycle parking spaces, refuse stores, and private residential balconies and communal amenity area at 86-92 Bell Green SE26.

 

The presenting officer clarified the design of the building, outlined the proposed amenity space and outlined that all of the units are at least dual aspect.

 

The presenting officer outlined that 3 comments, 5 objections and 32 letters of support were received. An objection was also received from the Sydenham Society. The objections were in regards to the height of the proposed building, issues in regards to parking and traffic congestion, the design of the proposed building and the lack of amenity space for families.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the viability assessment shows that the scheme cannot provide affordable housing and that two review mechanisms to contribute to affordable housing would be attached to a permission. The presenting officer outlines the contributions that would be attached to a permission, these include an £92,500 towards an off-site payment in lieu of contribution towards affordable housing. 

 

Councillor Mallory raised concerns in regards to viability and the review process, as the Council should be looking for genuinely affordable housing, and as such the scheme does not meet the housing need. Councillor Mallory asked why we wait for the review and how it is enforced. The presenting officer stated that expert consultants on viability sometimes conclude that it is not viable for more affordable housing to be provided initially, and in line with policy a review mechanism is attached to a permission. The presenting officer highlighted that review mechanisms are not an uncommon requirement.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification of the type of units proposed. The presenting officer highlighted that all of the units are market housing. Councillor Mallory asked why the scheme is being considered if no affordable housing is being proposed, the presenting officer clarified that the viability review demonstrated that affordable units could not be delivered.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the figures in the viability report. The presenting officer highlighted that the viability report is reviewed by an independent expert, and later provided clarification of the figures cited.

 

Councillor Sheikh stated that she supports the concerns raised by Councillor Mallory.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated she agreed with the clarification sought by Councillor Penfold in regards to the figures in the viability report. Councillor Gallagher also stated that it needs be clear that Members are understanding the viability reports correctly as they are held to account and need to ensure that they understand what they are voting on as the viability reports is a part of the decision making process. The presenting officer stated that Urban Delivery are contracted to assess the viability evidence and produce a summary report on behalf of the Council. The presenting officer highlighted that the review mechanism process is a common process and is an open book process. 

 

The Committee received verbal representations from Richard Evans –WYG who represents the applicant. Richard Evans responded to some of the raised viability issues, outlined the design process and explains that the shops on the site are currently vacant. Richard Evans highlights that the scheme would provide 23 residential units which would comply with the Council’s policy on mix of unit sizes. Richard Evans also highlighted that the commercial units would have subsidised rents (in the form of a 3 month initial rent free period), that the scheme would exceed cycle storage requirements, provide 5 car parking spaces, would meet the sustainability requirements and that the Lewisham Design Review Panel stated that the scale of the scheme is acceptable.

 

Councillor Mallory asked why is the applicant is committed to providing housing, why is no genuine affordable rented housing proposed. Richard Evans highlighted that the guidelines of affordable housing accept that there needs to be an incentive to developers to bring development forward and that 15-20% profit is the profit level that is accepted. Richard Evans highlights that that a contribution of £92,500 towards off-site affordable housing is proposed.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated the developers need to account for policy when the site is purchased and raised two questions. The first question asked how long the commercial units would benefit from subsidised rent and whether this would be secured via a condition. The second question raised was in regards to the whether the communal space is appropriate for families given its location at the top of the building. Richard Evans clarified that the value of the site was reflected in the Benchmark Land Value. Richard Evans also clarified that the amenity space is served by lifts and the due to the constraints of the site its location is the only place it could go. Richard Evans also stated that the present offer for the subsidised rents is 3 months from occupancy.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the build costs due to perceived discrepancies in the viability report. Richard Evans stated that the author of the report is not at the meeting so he is unable to comment on the perceived discrepancies but did highlight that the report has been reviewed by the council officers and Urban Delivery on their behalf. The presenting officer stated that he appreciated that members wanted to be correct with the figures and highlighted that findings of the independent review cannot be disregarded.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification in regards to the review if flats are already sold. Kheng Chau – Legal Services clarified that the early stage review is within 2 years of the planning permission if the scheme hasn’t reached the agreed point and that the review would be on an open book basis, the assumptions would be checked and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided it would be secured on site if it found during the early stage review. The late stage review is at the point of 75% sale and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided then it is an offsite contribution.

 

Councillor Sheikh asked how review mechanisms on other developments have worked and how it is ensured that the review takes place. The presenting officer clarified that the early stage review is takes place if there is no substantial start within two years of the planning permission. The presenting officer also clarified that he doesn’t have the figures to hand in regards to review mechanisms on other schemes.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification from legal services in regards to whether a contribution for affordable housing is solely for affordable housing or whether it contributes to other works. Kheng Chau – Leal Services stated that he does not know the answer but that common sense would suggest that there would be admin costs involved. The presenting officer clarified that a S106 contribution for affordable housing can only be spent on the purpose for which that s106 defines it must be spent.

 

The committee received verbal representations from Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society and a local resident Mareline Sterling. The Sydenham Society stated that they maintain the objection that is outlined in the officer’s report, and highlighted that the scheme provides no affordable housing, traffic concerns and that the design, height and massing of the proposal is out of context and over dominant.

 

Mareline Sterling stated that the proposal would be another tall building which would block in Holmshaw Close, raised concerns in regards to parking, the building works and stated that the site is too small to accommodate the proposal. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if as a local resident she would like to add anything further. Mareline Sterling said she would and that 3 developments of tall buildings have been built so far and it is too much for residents. Mareline Sterling also raised concerns in regards to access for emergency vehicles and stated she appreciates that the existing building needs to be replaced. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if she would say there is a sense of community, Mareline Sterling states that she is trying to set up a Tenants Association.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on who owns and manages the land, and whether it was in Lewisham Homes’ ownership.  Richard Evans confirmed that it was not.  The presenting officer highlighted that he does not know who owns the land, but does not understand it to be within Lewisham Homes’ ownership. Councillor Ogunbadwa (Chair) stated that the owner of the land is irrelevant to the planning application.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked the Sydenham Society for clarification in regards to the objection in regards to design and protecting and enhancing Lewisham’s Character. Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society stated that area has a number of characterful buildings and the proposal is being crammed onto a site which is too small to accommodate it. 

 

Councillor Curran spoke under standing orders to object to the application. Councillor Curran stated that the artists impression are deceiving, clarified that the other developments referred to in the officers report are set back from the road whereas the proposal is built to the edge of the pavement. Councillor Curran also raised concerns in regards to the width of the pavement.

 

Councillor Curran highlighted that paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that new development should be appropriate for the location and this is why the other developments in the area have been set back. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to traffic, air quality and design. The presenting officer highlighted that in regards to air quality, Environmental Health agree with the submitted report and the concern in regards to air quality would be the same irrespective of the height of the building. The presenting officer highlighted that the amended NPPF states that traffic impacts need to be severe to be refused on traffic impacts.

 

Councillor Curran stated that the submitted evidence needs to be checked in terms of air quality, as more up to date data was available and had not been considered, that the photos provided are misleading, there is concern over the height of the building. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to the commercial units in regards to whether they would eventually be turned into flats and raised concern in regards to the management of the community space.

 

The presenting officer stated in terms of wrapping up, in regards to the new information and evidence in terms of air quality, Environmental Health have not been able to assess this alleged evidence and highlighted that the application should, if necessary be deferred rather than refused. The presenting officer also highlighted in terms of affordable housing, that affordable housing is a priority, but there is a wider housing target that needs to be contributed to. It was further highlighted by the presenting officer that any objection advanced by members must be based upon specific deficiencies and evidence, where necessary.

 

Councillor Krupski highlighted that there is a concern, but raised the question of what are members expecting to happen on the site and highlighted that the design quality of the proposal is better than what currently exists on site.

 

Councillor Mallory stated that he doesn’t have concern in regards to the height of the proposal and that his concern is in relation to the lack of affordable housing.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification on the process of deferring the application. The presenting officer highlighted that deferring would allow for the new evidence to be reviewed. The presenting officer did highlight that there are always solutions to mitigate against air quality. Kheng Chau- Legal Services highlighted that members are open to defer the application to allow for an assessment in terms of air quality and the questions on viability.

 

Councillor Brown moved a motion to defer the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mallory. 

 

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors Brown, Mallory, Ogunbadwa (Chair) Penfold (Vice-Chair), Gibbons, Krupski, Moore and Sheikh. 

 

AGAINST: Councillor Gallagher

 

RESOLVED: That the application DC/17/102792 be deferred.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part 6/ part 7/ part 8-storey mixed use development comprising 23 self-contained residential units, and 59sqm (GIA) commercial ground floor space (Use Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) & B1 (Business), 5 car parking spaces, 40 cycle parking spaces, refuse stores, and private residential balconies and communal amenity area at 86-92 Bell Green SE26.

 

The presenting officer clarified the design of the building, outlined the proposed amenity space and outlined that all of the units are at least dual aspect.

 

The presenting officer outlined that 3 comments, 5 objections and 32 letters of support were received. An objection was also received from the Sydenham Society. The objections were in regards to the height of the proposed building, issues in regards to parking and traffic congestion, the design of the proposed building and the lack of amenity space for families.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the viability assessment shows that the scheme cannot provide affordable housing and that two review mechanisms to contribute to affordable housing would be attached to a permission. The presenting officer outlines the contributions that would be attached to a permission, these include an £92,500 towards an off-site payment in lieu of contribution towards affordable housing. 

 

Councillor Mallory raised concerns in regards to viability and the review process, as the Council should be looking for genuinely affordable housing, and as such the scheme does not meet the housing need. Councillor Mallory asked why we wait for the review and how it is enforced. The presenting officer stated that expert consultants on viability sometimes conclude that it is not viable for more affordable housing to be provided initially, and in line with policy a review mechanism is attached to a permission. The presenting officer highlighted that review mechanisms are not an uncommon requirement.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification of the type of units proposed. The presenting officer highlighted that all of the units are market housing. Councillor Mallory asked why the scheme is being considered if no affordable housing is being proposed, the presenting officer clarified that the viability review demonstrated that affordable units could not be delivered.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the figures in the viability report. The presenting officer highlighted that the viability report is reviewed by an independent expert, and later provided clarification of the figures cited.

 

Councillor Sheikh stated that she supports the concerns raised by Councillor Mallory.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated she agreed with the clarification sought by Councillor Penfold in regards to the figures in the viability report. Councillor Gallagher also stated that it needs be clear that Members are understanding the viability reports correctly as they are held to account and need to ensure that they understand what they are voting on as the viability reports is a part of the decision making process. The presenting officer stated that Urban Delivery are contracted to assess the viability evidence and produce a summary report on behalf of the Council. The presenting officer highlighted that the review mechanism process is a common process and is an open book process. 

 

The Committee received verbal representations from Richard Evans –WYG who represents the applicant. Richard Evans responded to some of the raised viability issues, outlined the design process and explains that the shops on the site are currently vacant. Richard Evans highlights that the scheme would provide 23 residential units which would comply with the Council’s policy on mix of unit sizes. Richard Evans also highlighted that the commercial units would have subsidised rents (in the form of a 3 month initial rent free period), that the scheme would exceed cycle storage requirements, provide 5 car parking spaces, would meet the sustainability requirements and that the Lewisham Design Review Panel stated that the scale of the scheme is acceptable.

 

Councillor Mallory asked why is the applicant is committed to providing housing, why is no genuine affordable rented housing proposed. Richard Evans highlighted that the guidelines of affordable housing accept that there needs to be an incentive to developers to bring development forward and that 15-20% profit is the profit level that is accepted. Richard Evans highlights that that a contribution of £92,500 towards off-site affordable housing is proposed.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated the developers need to account for policy when the site is purchased and raised two questions. The first question asked how long the commercial units would benefit from subsidised rent and whether this would be secured via a condition. The second question raised was in regards to the whether the communal space is appropriate for families given its location at the top of the building. Richard Evans clarified that the value of the site was reflected in the Benchmark Land Value. Richard Evans also clarified that the amenity space is served by lifts and the due to the constraints of the site its location is the only place it could go. Richard Evans also stated that the present offer for the subsidised rents is 3 months from occupancy.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the build costs due to perceived discrepancies in the viability report. Richard Evans stated that the author of the report is not at the meeting so he is unable to comment on the perceived discrepancies but did highlight that the report has been reviewed by the council officers and Urban Delivery on their behalf. The presenting officer stated that he appreciated that members wanted to be correct with the figures and highlighted that findings of the independent review cannot be disregarded.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification in regards to the review if flats are already sold. Kheng Chau – Legal Services clarified that the early stage review is within 2 years of the planning permission if the scheme hasn’t reached the agreed point and that the review would be on an open book basis, the assumptions would be checked and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided it would be secured on site if it found during the early stage review. The late stage review is at the point of 75% sale and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided then it is an offsite contribution.

 

Councillor Sheikh asked how review mechanisms on other developments have worked and how it is ensured that the review takes place. The presenting officer clarified that the early stage review is takes place if there is no substantial start within two years of the planning permission. The presenting officer also clarified that he doesn’t have the figures to hand in regards to review mechanisms on other schemes.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification from legal services in regards to whether a contribution for affordable housing is solely for affordable housing or whether it contributes to other works. Kheng Chau – Leal Services stated that he does not know the answer but that common sense would suggest that there would be admin costs involved. The presenting officer clarified that a S106 contribution for affordable housing can only be spent on the purpose for which that s106 defines it must be spent.

 

The committee received verbal representations from Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society and a local resident Mareline Sterling. The Sydenham Society stated that they maintain the objection that is outlined in the officer’s report, and highlighted that the scheme provides no affordable housing, traffic concerns and that the design, height and massing of the proposal is out of context and over dominant.

 

Mareline Sterling stated that the proposal would be another tall building which would block in Holmshaw Close, raised concerns in regards to parking, the building works and stated that the site is too small to accommodate the proposal. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if as a local resident she would like to add anything further. Mareline Sterling said she would and that 3 developments of tall buildings have been built so far and it is too much for residents. Mareline Sterling also raised concerns in regards to access for emergency vehicles and stated she appreciates that the existing building needs to be replaced. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if she would say there is a sense of community, Mareline Sterling states that she is trying to set up a Tenants Association.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on who owns and manages the land, and whether it was in Lewisham Homes’ ownership.  Richard Evans confirmed that it was not.  The presenting officer highlighted that he does not know who owns the land, but does not understand it to be within Lewisham Homes’ ownership. Councillor Ogunbadwa (Chair) stated that the owner of the land is irrelevant to the planning application.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked the Sydenham Society for clarification in regards to the objection in regards to design and protecting and enhancing Lewisham’s Character. Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society stated that area has a number of characterful buildings and the proposal is being crammed onto a site which is too small to accommodate it. 

 

Councillor Curran spoke under standing orders to object to the application. Councillor Curran stated that the artists impression are deceiving, clarified that the other developments referred to in the officers report are set back from the road whereas the proposal is built to the edge of the pavement. Councillor Curran also raised concerns in regards to the width of the pavement.

 

Councillor Curran highlighted that paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that new development should be appropriate for the location and this is why the other developments in the area have been set back. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to traffic, air quality and design. The presenting officer highlighted that in regards to air quality, Environmental Health agree with the submitted report and the concern in regards to air quality would be the same irrespective of the height of the building. The presenting officer highlighted that the amended NPPF states that traffic impacts need to be severe to be refused on traffic impacts.

 

Councillor Curran stated that the submitted evidence needs to be checked in terms of air quality, as more up to date data was available and had not been considered, that the photos provided are misleading, there is concern over the height of the building. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to the commercial units in regards to whether they would eventually be turned into flats and raised concern in regards to the management of the community space.

 

The presenting officer stated in terms of wrapping up, in regards to the new information and evidence in terms of air quality, Environmental Health have not been able to assess this alleged evidence and highlighted that the application should, if necessary be deferred rather than refused. The presenting officer also highlighted in terms of affordable housing, that affordable housing is a priority, but there is a wider housing target that needs to be contributed to. It was further highlighted by the presenting officer that any objection advanced by members must be based upon specific deficiencies and evidence, where necessary.

 

Councillor Krupski highlighted that there is a concern, but raised the question of what are members expecting to happen on the site and highlighted that the design quality of the proposal is better than what currently exists on site.

 

Councillor Mallory stated that he doesn’t have concern in regards to the height of the proposal and that his concern is in relation to the lack of affordable housing.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification on the process of deferring the application. The presenting officer highlighted that deferring would allow for the new evidence to be reviewed. The presenting officer did highlight that there are always solutions to mitigate against air quality. Kheng Chau- Legal Services highlighted that members are open to defer the application to allow for an assessment in terms of air quality and the questions on viability.

 

Councillor Brown moved a motion to defer the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mallory. 

 

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors Brown, Mallory, Ogunbadwa (Chair) Penfold (Vice-Chair), Gibbons, Krupski, Moore and Sheikh. 

 

AGAINST: Councillor Gallagher

 

RESOLVED: That the application DC/17/102792 be deferred.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part 6/ part 7/ part 8-storey mixed use development comprising 23 self-contained residential units, and 59sqm (GIA) commercial ground floor space (Use Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) & B1 (Business), 5 car parking spaces, 40 cycle parking spaces, refuse stores, and private residential balconies and communal amenity area at 86-92 Bell Green SE26.

 

The presenting officer clarified the design of the building, outlined the proposed amenity space and outlined that all of the units are at least dual aspect.

 

The presenting officer outlined that 3 comments, 5 objections and 32 letters of support were received. An objection was also received from the Sydenham Society. The objections were in regards to the height of the proposed building, issues in regards to parking and traffic congestion, the design of the proposed building and the lack of amenity space for families.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the viability assessment shows that the scheme cannot provide affordable housing and that two review mechanisms to contribute to affordable housing would be attached to a permission. The presenting officer outlines the contributions that would be attached to a permission, these include an £92,500 towards an off-site payment in lieu of contribution towards affordable housing. 

 

Councillor Mallory raised concerns in regards to viability and the review process, as the Council should be looking for genuinely affordable housing, and as such the scheme does not meet the housing need. Councillor Mallory asked why we wait for the review and how it is enforced. The presenting officer stated that expert consultants on viability sometimes conclude that it is not viable for more affordable housing to be provided initially, and in line with policy a review mechanism is attached to a permission. The presenting officer highlighted that review mechanisms are not an uncommon requirement.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification of the type of units proposed. The presenting officer highlighted that all of the units are market housing. Councillor Mallory asked why the scheme is being considered if no affordable housing is being proposed, the presenting officer clarified that the viability review demonstrated that affordable units could not be delivered.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the figures in the viability report. The presenting officer highlighted that the viability report is reviewed by an independent expert, and later provided clarification of the figures cited.

 

Councillor Sheikh stated that she supports the concerns raised by Councillor Mallory.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated she agreed with the clarification sought by Councillor Penfold in regards to the figures in the viability report. Councillor Gallagher also stated that it needs be clear that Members are understanding the viability reports correctly as they are held to account and need to ensure that they understand what they are voting on as the viability reports is a part of the decision making process. The presenting officer stated that Urban Delivery are contracted to assess the viability evidence and produce a summary report on behalf of the Council. The presenting officer highlighted that the review mechanism process is a common process and is an open book process. 

 

The Committee received verbal representations from Richard Evans –WYG who represents the applicant. Richard Evans responded to some of the raised viability issues, outlined the design process and explains that the shops on the site are currently vacant. Richard Evans highlights that the scheme would provide 23 residential units which would comply with the Council’s policy on mix of unit sizes. Richard Evans also highlighted that the commercial units would have subsidised rents (in the form of a 3 month initial rent free period), that the scheme would exceed cycle storage requirements, provide 5 car parking spaces, would meet the sustainability requirements and that the Lewisham Design Review Panel stated that the scale of the scheme is acceptable.

 

Councillor Mallory asked why is the applicant is committed to providing housing, why is no genuine affordable rented housing proposed. Richard Evans highlighted that the guidelines of affordable housing accept that there needs to be an incentive to developers to bring development forward and that 15-20% profit is the profit level that is accepted. Richard Evans highlights that that a contribution of £92,500 towards off-site affordable housing is proposed.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated the developers need to account for policy when the site is purchased and raised two questions. The first question asked how long the commercial units would benefit from subsidised rent and whether this would be secured via a condition. The second question raised was in regards to the whether the communal space is appropriate for families given its location at the top of the building. Richard Evans clarified that the value of the site was reflected in the Benchmark Land Value. Richard Evans also clarified that the amenity space is served by lifts and the due to the constraints of the site its location is the only place it could go. Richard Evans also stated that the present offer for the subsidised rents is 3 months from occupancy.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the build costs due to perceived discrepancies in the viability report. Richard Evans stated that the author of the report is not at the meeting so he is unable to comment on the perceived discrepancies but did highlight that the report has been reviewed by the council officers and Urban Delivery on their behalf. The presenting officer stated that he appreciated that members wanted to be correct with the figures and highlighted that findings of the independent review cannot be disregarded.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification in regards to the review if flats are already sold. Kheng Chau – Legal Services clarified that the early stage review is within 2 years of the planning permission if the scheme hasn’t reached the agreed point and that the review would be on an open book basis, the assumptions would be checked and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided it would be secured on site if it found during the early stage review. The late stage review is at the point of 75% sale and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided then it is an offsite contribution.

 

Councillor Sheikh asked how review mechanisms on other developments have worked and how it is ensured that the review takes place. The presenting officer clarified that the early stage review is takes place if there is no substantial start within two years of the planning permission. The presenting officer also clarified that he doesn’t have the figures to hand in regards to review mechanisms on other schemes.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification from legal services in regards to whether a contribution for affordable housing is solely for affordable housing or whether it contributes to other works. Kheng Chau – Leal Services stated that he does not know the answer but that common sense would suggest that there would be admin costs involved. The presenting officer clarified that a S106 contribution for affordable housing can only be spent on the purpose for which that s106 defines it must be spent.

 

The committee received verbal representations from Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society and a local resident Mareline Sterling. The Sydenham Society stated that they maintain the objection that is outlined in the officer’s report, and highlighted that the scheme provides no affordable housing, traffic concerns and that the design, height and massing of the proposal is out of context and over dominant.

 

Mareline Sterling stated that the proposal would be another tall building which would block in Holmshaw Close, raised concerns in regards to parking, the building works and stated that the site is too small to accommodate the proposal. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if as a local resident she would like to add anything further. Mareline Sterling said she would and that 3 developments of tall buildings have been built so far and it is too much for residents. Mareline Sterling also raised concerns in regards to access for emergency vehicles and stated she appreciates that the existing building needs to be replaced. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if she would say there is a sense of community, Mareline Sterling states that she is trying to set up a Tenants Association.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on who owns and manages the land, and whether it was in Lewisham Homes’ ownership.  Richard Evans confirmed that it was not.  The presenting officer highlighted that he does not know who owns the land, but does not understand it to be within Lewisham Homes’ ownership. Councillor Ogunbadwa (Chair) stated that the owner of the land is irrelevant to the planning application.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked the Sydenham Society for clarification in regards to the objection in regards to design and protecting and enhancing Lewisham’s Character. Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society stated that area has a number of characterful buildings and the proposal is being crammed onto a site which is too small to accommodate it. 

 

Councillor Curran spoke under standing orders to object to the application. Councillor Curran stated that the artists impression are deceiving, clarified that the other developments referred to in the officers report are set back from the road whereas the proposal is built to the edge of the pavement. Councillor Curran also raised concerns in regards to the width of the pavement.

 

Councillor Curran highlighted that paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that new development should be appropriate for the location and this is why the other developments in the area have been set back. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to traffic, air quality and design. The presenting officer highlighted that in regards to air quality, Environmental Health agree with the submitted report and the concern in regards to air quality would be the same irrespective of the height of the building. The presenting officer highlighted that the amended NPPF states that traffic impacts need to be severe to be refused on traffic impacts.

 

Councillor Curran stated that the submitted evidence needs to be checked in terms of air quality, as more up to date data was available and had not been considered, that the photos provided are misleading, there is concern over the height of the building. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to the commercial units in regards to whether they would eventually be turned into flats and raised concern in regards to the management of the community space.

 

The presenting officer stated in terms of wrapping up, in regards to the new information and evidence in terms of air quality, Environmental Health have not been able to assess this alleged evidence and highlighted that the application should, if necessary be deferred rather than refused. The presenting officer also highlighted in terms of affordable housing, that affordable housing is a priority, but there is a wider housing target that needs to be contributed to. It was further highlighted by the presenting officer that any objection advanced by members must be based upon specific deficiencies and evidence, where necessary.

 

Councillor Krupski highlighted that there is a concern, but raised the question of what are members expecting to happen on the site and highlighted that the design quality of the proposal is better than what currently exists on site.

 

Councillor Mallory stated that he doesn’t have concern in regards to the height of the proposal and that his concern is in relation to the lack of affordable housing.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification on the process of deferring the application. The presenting officer highlighted that deferring would allow for the new evidence to be reviewed. The presenting officer did highlight that there are always solutions to mitigate against air quality. Kheng Chau- Legal Services highlighted that members are open to defer the application to allow for an assessment in terms of air quality and the questions on viability.

 

Councillor Brown moved a motion to defer the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mallory. 

 

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors Brown, Mallory, Ogunbadwa (Chair) Penfold (Vice-Chair), Gibbons, Krupski, Moore and Sheikh. 

 

AGAINST: Councillor Gallagher

 

RESOLVED: That the application DC/17/102792 be deferred.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part 6/ part 7/ part 8-storey mixed use development comprising 23 self-contained residential units, and 59sqm (GIA) commercial ground floor space (Use Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) & B1 (Business), 5 car parking spaces, 40 cycle parking spaces, refuse stores, and private residential balconies and communal amenity area at 86-92 Bell Green SE26.

 

The presenting officer clarified the design of the building, outlined the proposed amenity space and outlined that all of the units are at least dual aspect.

 

The presenting officer outlined that 3 comments, 5 objections and 32 letters of support were received. An objection was also received from the Sydenham Society. The objections were in regards to the height of the proposed building, issues in regards to parking and traffic congestion, the design of the proposed building and the lack of amenity space for families.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the viability assessment shows that the scheme cannot provide affordable housing and that two review mechanisms to contribute to affordable housing would be attached to a permission. The presenting officer outlines the contributions that would be attached to a permission, these include an £92,500 towards an off-site payment in lieu of contribution towards affordable housing. 

 

Councillor Mallory raised concerns in regards to viability and the review process, as the Council should be looking for genuinely affordable housing, and as such the scheme does not meet the housing need. Councillor Mallory asked why we wait for the review and how it is enforced. The presenting officer stated that expert consultants on viability sometimes conclude that it is not viable for more affordable housing to be provided initially, and in line with policy a review mechanism is attached to a permission. The presenting officer highlighted that review mechanisms are not an uncommon requirement.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification of the type of units proposed. The presenting officer highlighted that all of the units are market housing. Councillor Mallory asked why the scheme is being considered if no affordable housing is being proposed, the presenting officer clarified that the viability review demonstrated that affordable units could not be delivered.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the figures in the viability report. The presenting officer highlighted that the viability report is reviewed by an independent expert, and later provided clarification of the figures cited.

 

Councillor Sheikh stated that she supports the concerns raised by Councillor Mallory.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated she agreed with the clarification sought by Councillor Penfold in regards to the figures in the viability report. Councillor Gallagher also stated that it needs be clear that Members are understanding the viability reports correctly as they are held to account and need to ensure that they understand what they are voting on as the viability reports is a part of the decision making process. The presenting officer stated that Urban Delivery are contracted to assess the viability evidence and produce a summary report on behalf of the Council. The presenting officer highlighted that the review mechanism process is a common process and is an open book process. 

 

The Committee received verbal representations from Richard Evans –WYG who represents the applicant. Richard Evans responded to some of the raised viability issues, outlined the design process and explains that the shops on the site are currently vacant. Richard Evans highlights that the scheme would provide 23 residential units which would comply with the Council’s policy on mix of unit sizes. Richard Evans also highlighted that the commercial units would have subsidised rents (in the form of a 3 month initial rent free period), that the scheme would exceed cycle storage requirements, provide 5 car parking spaces, would meet the sustainability requirements and that the Lewisham Design Review Panel stated that the scale of the scheme is acceptable.

 

Councillor Mallory asked why is the applicant is committed to providing housing, why is no genuine affordable rented housing proposed. Richard Evans highlighted that the guidelines of affordable housing accept that there needs to be an incentive to developers to bring development forward and that 15-20% profit is the profit level that is accepted. Richard Evans highlights that that a contribution of £92,500 towards off-site affordable housing is proposed.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated the developers need to account for policy when the site is purchased and raised two questions. The first question asked how long the commercial units would benefit from subsidised rent and whether this would be secured via a condition. The second question raised was in regards to the whether the communal space is appropriate for families given its location at the top of the building. Richard Evans clarified that the value of the site was reflected in the Benchmark Land Value. Richard Evans also clarified that the amenity space is served by lifts and the due to the constraints of the site its location is the only place it could go. Richard Evans also stated that the present offer for the subsidised rents is 3 months from occupancy.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the build costs due to perceived discrepancies in the viability report. Richard Evans stated that the author of the report is not at the meeting so he is unable to comment on the perceived discrepancies but did highlight that the report has been reviewed by the council officers and Urban Delivery on their behalf. The presenting officer stated that he appreciated that members wanted to be correct with the figures and highlighted that findings of the independent review cannot be disregarded.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification in regards to the review if flats are already sold. Kheng Chau – Legal Services clarified that the early stage review is within 2 years of the planning permission if the scheme hasn’t reached the agreed point and that the review would be on an open book basis, the assumptions would be checked and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided it would be secured on site if it found during the early stage review. The late stage review is at the point of 75% sale and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided then it is an offsite contribution.

 

Councillor Sheikh asked how review mechanisms on other developments have worked and how it is ensured that the review takes place. The presenting officer clarified that the early stage review is takes place if there is no substantial start within two years of the planning permission. The presenting officer also clarified that he doesn’t have the figures to hand in regards to review mechanisms on other schemes.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification from legal services in regards to whether a contribution for affordable housing is solely for affordable housing or whether it contributes to other works. Kheng Chau – Leal Services stated that he does not know the answer but that common sense would suggest that there would be admin costs involved. The presenting officer clarified that a S106 contribution for affordable housing can only be spent on the purpose for which that s106 defines it must be spent.

 

The committee received verbal representations from Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society and a local resident Mareline Sterling. The Sydenham Society stated that they maintain the objection that is outlined in the officer’s report, and highlighted that the scheme provides no affordable housing, traffic concerns and that the design, height and massing of the proposal is out of context and over dominant.

 

Mareline Sterling stated that the proposal would be another tall building which would block in Holmshaw Close, raised concerns in regards to parking, the building works and stated that the site is too small to accommodate the proposal. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if as a local resident she would like to add anything further. Mareline Sterling said she would and that 3 developments of tall buildings have been built so far and it is too much for residents. Mareline Sterling also raised concerns in regards to access for emergency vehicles and stated she appreciates that the existing building needs to be replaced. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if she would say there is a sense of community, Mareline Sterling states that she is trying to set up a Tenants Association.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on who owns and manages the land, and whether it was in Lewisham Homes’ ownership.  Richard Evans confirmed that it was not.  The presenting officer highlighted that he does not know who owns the land, but does not understand it to be within Lewisham Homes’ ownership. Councillor Ogunbadwa (Chair) stated that the owner of the land is irrelevant to the planning application.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked the Sydenham Society for clarification in regards to the objection in regards to design and protecting and enhancing Lewisham’s Character. Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society stated that area has a number of characterful buildings and the proposal is being crammed onto a site which is too small to accommodate it. 

 

Councillor Curran spoke under standing orders to object to the application. Councillor Curran stated that the artists impression are deceiving, clarified that the other developments referred to in the officers report are set back from the road whereas the proposal is built to the edge of the pavement. Councillor Curran also raised concerns in regards to the width of the pavement.

 

Councillor Curran highlighted that paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that new development should be appropriate for the location and this is why the other developments in the area have been set back. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to traffic, air quality and design. The presenting officer highlighted that in regards to air quality, Environmental Health agree with the submitted report and the concern in regards to air quality would be the same irrespective of the height of the building. The presenting officer highlighted that the amended NPPF states that traffic impacts need to be severe to be refused on traffic impacts.

 

Councillor Curran stated that the submitted evidence needs to be checked in terms of air quality, as more up to date data was available and had not been considered, that the photos provided are misleading, there is concern over the height of the building. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to the commercial units in regards to whether they would eventually be turned into flats and raised concern in regards to the management of the community space.

 

The presenting officer stated in terms of wrapping up, in regards to the new information and evidence in terms of air quality, Environmental Health have not been able to assess this alleged evidence and highlighted that the application should, if necessary be deferred rather than refused. The presenting officer also highlighted in terms of affordable housing, that affordable housing is a priority, but there is a wider housing target that needs to be contributed to. It was further highlighted by the presenting officer that any objection advanced by members must be based upon specific deficiencies and evidence, where necessary.

 

Councillor Krupski highlighted that there is a concern, but raised the question of what are members expecting to happen on the site and highlighted that the design quality of the proposal is better than what currently exists on site.

 

Councillor Mallory stated that he doesn’t have concern in regards to the height of the proposal and that his concern is in relation to the lack of affordable housing.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification on the process of deferring the application. The presenting officer highlighted that deferring would allow for the new evidence to be reviewed. The presenting officer did highlight that there are always solutions to mitigate against air quality. Kheng Chau- Legal Services highlighted that members are open to defer the application to allow for an assessment in terms of air quality and the questions on viability.

 

Councillor Brown moved a motion to defer the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mallory. 

 

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors Brown, Mallory, Ogunbadwa (Chair) Penfold (Vice-Chair), Gibbons, Krupski, Moore and Sheikh. 

 

AGAINST: Councillor Gallagher

 

RESOLVED: That the application DC/17/102792 be deferred.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the application is for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part 6/ part 7/ part 8-storey mixed use development comprising 23 self-contained residential units, and 59sqm (GIA) commercial ground floor space (Use Class A1 (Retail), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) & B1 (Business), 5 car parking spaces, 40 cycle parking spaces, refuse stores, and private residential balconies and communal amenity area at 86-92 Bell Green SE26.

 

The presenting officer clarified the design of the building, outlined the proposed amenity space and outlined that all of the units are at least dual aspect.

 

The presenting officer outlined that 3 comments, 5 objections and 32 letters of support were received. An objection was also received from the Sydenham Society. The objections were in regards to the height of the proposed building, issues in regards to parking and traffic congestion, the design of the proposed building and the lack of amenity space for families.

 

The presenting officer outlined that the viability assessment shows that the scheme cannot provide affordable housing and that two review mechanisms to contribute to affordable housing would be attached to a permission. The presenting officer outlines the contributions that would be attached to a permission, these include an £92,500 towards an off-site payment in lieu of contribution towards affordable housing. 

 

Councillor Mallory raised concerns in regards to viability and the review process, as the Council should be looking for genuinely affordable housing, and as such the scheme does not meet the housing need. Councillor Mallory asked why we wait for the review and how it is enforced. The presenting officer stated that expert consultants on viability sometimes conclude that it is not viable for more affordable housing to be provided initially, and in line with policy a review mechanism is attached to a permission. The presenting officer highlighted that review mechanisms are not an uncommon requirement.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification of the type of units proposed. The presenting officer highlighted that all of the units are market housing. Councillor Mallory asked why the scheme is being considered if no affordable housing is being proposed, the presenting officer clarified that the viability review demonstrated that affordable units could not be delivered.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the figures in the viability report. The presenting officer highlighted that the viability report is reviewed by an independent expert, and later provided clarification of the figures cited.

 

Councillor Sheikh stated that she supports the concerns raised by Councillor Mallory.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated she agreed with the clarification sought by Councillor Penfold in regards to the figures in the viability report. Councillor Gallagher also stated that it needs be clear that Members are understanding the viability reports correctly as they are held to account and need to ensure that they understand what they are voting on as the viability reports is a part of the decision making process. The presenting officer stated that Urban Delivery are contracted to assess the viability evidence and produce a summary report on behalf of the Council. The presenting officer highlighted that the review mechanism process is a common process and is an open book process. 

 

The Committee received verbal representations from Richard Evans –WYG who represents the applicant. Richard Evans responded to some of the raised viability issues, outlined the design process and explains that the shops on the site are currently vacant. Richard Evans highlights that the scheme would provide 23 residential units which would comply with the Council’s policy on mix of unit sizes. Richard Evans also highlighted that the commercial units would have subsidised rents (in the form of a 3 month initial rent free period), that the scheme would exceed cycle storage requirements, provide 5 car parking spaces, would meet the sustainability requirements and that the Lewisham Design Review Panel stated that the scale of the scheme is acceptable.

 

Councillor Mallory asked why is the applicant is committed to providing housing, why is no genuine affordable rented housing proposed. Richard Evans highlighted that the guidelines of affordable housing accept that there needs to be an incentive to developers to bring development forward and that 15-20% profit is the profit level that is accepted. Richard Evans highlights that that a contribution of £92,500 towards off-site affordable housing is proposed.

 

Councillor Gallagher stated the developers need to account for policy when the site is purchased and raised two questions. The first question asked how long the commercial units would benefit from subsidised rent and whether this would be secured via a condition. The second question raised was in regards to the whether the communal space is appropriate for families given its location at the top of the building. Richard Evans clarified that the value of the site was reflected in the Benchmark Land Value. Richard Evans also clarified that the amenity space is served by lifts and the due to the constraints of the site its location is the only place it could go. Richard Evans also stated that the present offer for the subsidised rents is 3 months from occupancy.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on the build costs due to perceived discrepancies in the viability report. Richard Evans stated that the author of the report is not at the meeting so he is unable to comment on the perceived discrepancies but did highlight that the report has been reviewed by the council officers and Urban Delivery on their behalf. The presenting officer stated that he appreciated that members wanted to be correct with the figures and highlighted that findings of the independent review cannot be disregarded.

 

Councillor Mallory asked for clarification in regards to the review if flats are already sold. Kheng Chau – Legal Services clarified that the early stage review is within 2 years of the planning permission if the scheme hasn’t reached the agreed point and that the review would be on an open book basis, the assumptions would be checked and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided it would be secured on site if it found during the early stage review. The late stage review is at the point of 75% sale and if it is found that more affordable housing can be provided then it is an offsite contribution.

 

Councillor Sheikh asked how review mechanisms on other developments have worked and how it is ensured that the review takes place. The presenting officer clarified that the early stage review is takes place if there is no substantial start within two years of the planning permission. The presenting officer also clarified that he doesn’t have the figures to hand in regards to review mechanisms on other schemes.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification from legal services in regards to whether a contribution for affordable housing is solely for affordable housing or whether it contributes to other works. Kheng Chau – Leal Services stated that he does not know the answer but that common sense would suggest that there would be admin costs involved. The presenting officer clarified that a S106 contribution for affordable housing can only be spent on the purpose for which that s106 defines it must be spent.

 

The committee received verbal representations from Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society and a local resident Mareline Sterling. The Sydenham Society stated that they maintain the objection that is outlined in the officer’s report, and highlighted that the scheme provides no affordable housing, traffic concerns and that the design, height and massing of the proposal is out of context and over dominant.

 

Mareline Sterling stated that the proposal would be another tall building which would block in Holmshaw Close, raised concerns in regards to parking, the building works and stated that the site is too small to accommodate the proposal. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if as a local resident she would like to add anything further. Mareline Sterling said she would and that 3 developments of tall buildings have been built so far and it is too much for residents. Mareline Sterling also raised concerns in regards to access for emergency vehicles and stated she appreciates that the existing building needs to be replaced. Councillor Sheikh asked Mareline Sterling if she would say there is a sense of community, Mareline Sterling states that she is trying to set up a Tenants Association.

 

Councillor Penfold asked for clarification on who owns and manages the land, and whether it was in Lewisham Homes’ ownership.  Richard Evans confirmed that it was not.  The presenting officer highlighted that he does not know who owns the land, but does not understand it to be within Lewisham Homes’ ownership. Councillor Ogunbadwa (Chair) stated that the owner of the land is irrelevant to the planning application.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked the Sydenham Society for clarification in regards to the objection in regards to design and protecting and enhancing Lewisham’s Character. Annabel McLaren of the Sydenham Society stated that area has a number of characterful buildings and the proposal is being crammed onto a site which is too small to accommodate it. 

 

Councillor Curran spoke under standing orders to object to the application. Councillor Curran stated that the artists impression are deceiving, clarified that the other developments referred to in the officers report are set back from the road whereas the proposal is built to the edge of the pavement. Councillor Curran also raised concerns in regards to the width of the pavement.

 

Councillor Curran highlighted that paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that new development should be appropriate for the location and this is why the other developments in the area have been set back. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to traffic, air quality and design. The presenting officer highlighted that in regards to air quality, Environmental Health agree with the submitted report and the concern in regards to air quality would be the same irrespective of the height of the building. The presenting officer highlighted that the amended NPPF states that traffic impacts need to be severe to be refused on traffic impacts.

 

Councillor Curran stated that the submitted evidence needs to be checked in terms of air quality, as more up to date data was available and had not been considered, that the photos provided are misleading, there is concern over the height of the building. Councillor Curran also raised concern in regards to the commercial units in regards to whether they would eventually be turned into flats and raised concern in regards to the management of the community space.

 

The presenting officer stated in terms of wrapping up, in regards to the new information and evidence in terms of air quality, Environmental Health have not been able to assess this alleged evidence and highlighted that the application should, if necessary be deferred rather than refused. The presenting officer also highlighted in terms of affordable housing, that affordable housing is a priority, but there is a wider housing target that needs to be contributed to. It was further highlighted by the presenting officer that any objection advanced by members must be based upon specific deficiencies and evidence, where necessary.

 

Councillor Krupski highlighted that there is a concern, but raised the question of what are members expecting to happen on the site and highlighted that the design quality of the proposal is better than what currently exists on site.

 

Councillor Mallory stated that he doesn’t have concern in regards to the height of the proposal and that his concern is in relation to the lack of affordable housing.

 

Councillor Gallagher asked for clarification on the process of deferring the application. The presenting officer highlighted that deferring would allow for the new evidence to be reviewed. The presenting officer did highlight that there are always solutions to mitigate against air quality. Kheng Chau- Legal Services highlighted that members are open to defer the application to allow for an assessment in terms of air quality and the questions on viability.

 

Councillor Brown moved a motion to defer the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mallory. 

 

Members voted as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors Brown, Mallory, Ogunbadwa (Chair) Penfold (Vice-Chair), Gibbons, Krupski, Moore and Sheikh. 

 

AGAINST: Councillor Gallagher

 

RESOLVED: That the application DC/17/102792 be deferred.