Council meetings

Agenda item



3.           154-158 Sydenham Road


Planning Manager Michael Forrester introduced the details of application and outlined the consultation undertaken that resulted in 9 letters of objection, including an objection from the Sydenham Society, and 5 letters of support. It was also noted that the proportion of affordable housing provided has been increased to 28% following the viability assessment.


Council Paschoud asked if the affordable units would be segregated. Michael Forrester responded that the applicant would be able to answer questions relating to plot allocation. Councillor Ingleby asked a question relating to the set back of the blocks from Sydenham Road. Michael Forrester demonstrated the distances from Sydenham Road on a site map. Councillor Holland asked whether all the blocks are the same size. Michael Forrester responded that the blocks are a mix of 2 and 3 stories. Councillor Amrani asked a question regarding the separation distance of the windows to the nearest residential buildings. Michael Forrester stated that all of the windows are more than 21m from the nearest buildings.


The committee then heard a verbal representation from the agent for the application Mr Tim Gaskell representing CMA Planning. Mr Gaskell explained that the site was originally a car yard and that a previous application for four storey building with houses to the rear had been refused and dismissed on appeal due to the height and resulting impact on surrounding properties. Mr Gaskell then noted that the heights of the blocks has now been reduced and that the distances to surrounding properties are greater than 21m in accordance with Council guidance.


Tim Gaskell then explained that the scheme provides 14 car spaces, cycle spaces and a car club. Mr Gaskell also clarified for members that there would be a mixture of tenures within the buildings and that all of the residential units would be of the same quality. Councillor Paschoud asked whether the parking spaces are allocated. Mr Gaskell responded that parking spaces are provided for the houses and that disabled spaces would be individually allocated.


The Committee then received a verbal representation from Pearl Hind objecting to the proposal. Mrs Hind explained that she lives on a neighboring road and was concerned with a loss of light, loss of privacy and potential noise disturbances from the development. Mrs Hind stated that the buildings would be overbearing and that the amount of parking would be insufficient adding increased pressure in the surrounding area. Mrs Hind concluded by stating that trees should be used to provide screening.


Planning Manager Michael Forrester stated that the amount of parking provided is considered to be satisfactory within a site with a PTAL of 4 and also noted that the Highways Department had reviewed the scheme and raised no objection. Mr Forrester then commented that the scheme complied with Council guidelines on separation distances to surrounding houses and acknowledged that the outlook from those properties would change. However, the change to the outlook has been assessed and was considered reason to refuse the application.


Councillor Paschoud asked a question relating to the existing outlook. Michael Forrester explained that the existing outlook is buildings and open space. Councillor Campbell asked whether trees have been proposed as part of the landscaping scheme. Michael Forrester explained that the detailed of the landscaping scheme would be secured by condition but that the condition could be expanded to include the provision of trees. Councillor Amrani stated that he sympathized with neighbours but that the new homes where needed within Lewisham and noted that the scheme was much improved on the previous proposal.


Councillor Ingleby moved to approve the application with the amended landscaping condition. The motion was seconded by Councillor Paschoud.


Members voted as follows:


FOR APPROVAL:  Councillors Amrani, Holland, Campbell, Ingleby and Paschoud


Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/17/104571 subject to the negotiation of the Section 106 Agreement.


Supporting documents: