Council meetings

Agenda item



294A Brockley Road


Councillor Walsh arrived and participated in the determination of the application.


Planning Manager Michael Forrester introduced the details of the application and noted that the development had been implemented prior to the submission of the application. Michael Forrester also highlighted that previous application to provide two one bedroom flats had been refused and dismissed at appeal as the proposed flats were undersized. Mr Forrester concluded by explaining to members that the consultation had resulted in an objection from the Brockley Society.


Councillor Walsh asked for clarification of the floor to ceiling height as they appeared to be low in the site photographs. Michael Forrester replied that the floor to ceiling heights meet the required standard. Mr Forrester then explained to members that the issue with the previous application was poor surveying that did not accurately measure the size of the units as the stairs and storage were not included within the area of the flats in accordance with the London Plan. It was also noted that the flats are dual aspect and a site inspection confirmed that the standard of finish was acceptable.


Councillor Paschoud asked whether the loss of the previous dwelling was policy compliant. Michael Forrester explained that DM Policy 3 protects single family housing but as the property was a maisonette the policy did not apply and therefore the principle of development was considered acceptable. Councillor Amrani asked why the application was retrospective given that the previous development had been refused. Michael Forrester noted that it is not illegal to submit a retrospective application and was carried out at the developers own risk. Councillor Amrani stated that the Committee are against retrospective application and that applications should be submitted on time.


The committee then received a verbal representation from Tim Cropper from Mialex, the agent for the application. Mr Cropper stated that the application had been lodged to correct inaccurate advice previously given to the applicant that had under calculated the internal area of the flats. Mr Cropper highlighted that one flat exceeds the National Technical Standards and noted that although the second flat had been determined to be slightly under size it provides a good standard of accommodation.


Councillor Ingleby asked why the application had been submitted after the development had taken place. Mr Cropper stated that it was not his decision but that it is not a criminal offence and that the flats have been determined to provide a good standard of accommodation. Councillor Paschoud asked whether it is possible for the Council to question how flat size is determined. Michael Forrester responded that it was not possible in policy terms. Councillor Holland asked what makes the undersized unit acceptable. Michael Forrester replied that the flat is dual aspect and that the fit out had been taken into account.


Councillor Walsh criticised the approach taken by the developer but could not see any legal grounds to refuse the application so moved to approve the application. The motion was seconded by Councillor Campbell.


Members voted as follows:


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




Resolved: That planning permission be approved in respect of application DC/18/106122


Meeting ended at 21:15



Supporting documents: