That it be noted that the Committee agreed to:
REFUSE planning permission, with the final wording of the reason for refusal delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair for:
• the construction of a two-storey 3-bedroom single-family dwelling house on land at the rear of 148 Deptford High Street, SE8
Permission was REFUSED, contrary to Officer recommendation, for the following reasons:
The proposed development represents poor quality design that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and the adjoining dwelling at No1 Crossfield Street. The development will give rise to an enclosed amenity area and a poorly detailed roof form. The proposal provides insufficient detail with respect to quality of materials.
The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a two-storey 3-bedroom single-family dwellinghouse on land at the rear of 148 Deptford High Street, SE8.
The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:
· Principle of Development
· Urban Design and Impact on heritage assets
· Living conditions of neighbours
· Sustainable development
· Natural environment
Following members’ enquiries relating to height, fire risk and, loss of light.
The Officer confirmed the building would be less than 6m.
The Team Leader advised fire safety is not a planning issue. It would be a building control matter.
The Team Leader informed Members that the space affected by light was considered a non-habitable space. It was confirmed that the applicant had submitted an Internal Daylight Assessment. The Team Leader advised all habitable rooms would be provided with windows, and officers considered the levels of daylight and sunlight to be acceptable.
A Member lost connection to the meeting. The meeting was paused at 22.02pm. The Member telephoned into the meeting and was advised they would still be able to participate in the vote on Item 4 of the Agenda. The meeting was resumed at 22.04 pm.
A representative addressed the Committee, advising that residents were opposed to the proposal due to the impact on amenities, daylight, light and noise pollution, overlooking, privacy, enclosure issues, design, conservation, drawing inconsistencies, consultation, tree damage and fire risk.
The Members’ enquiries following the address related to drawing inconsistencies, design, materials, enclosure, architect qualifications, heating and the possible deferral of the Committees decision.
The Team Leader confirmed that the plans met the requirements for validation purposes with regard to planning. It was advised that a condition on the decision notice that the development would be built strictly in accordance with the approved application plans, drawings and documents. The Team Leader noted Members concerns regarding design.
The representative reiterated concerns raised regarding tree issues, drawing inconsistencies and design stating the proposal was ‘not a competent design’. The representative also advised of maintenance concerns.
A Member lost connection to the meeting during Members enquiries. The meeting was paused at 22.29pm. The Member reconnected to the meeting at 22.33pm.
The Officer provided additional clarification advising of adding conditions that would ensure the quality of the materials were checked and provide tree protection. The Team Leader advised that the materials for the proposal were acceptable, high quality and policy compliant. The Team Leader also reminded Members that maintenance at the householder level, was not a planning consideration.
The Officer used the Committee presentation to provide clarification regarding the flat roof design in relation to the health of trees in close proximity to the development. The Officer reiterated the advice regarding conditions that could be added to ensure materials quality and tree protection.
The representative advised the Committee of the windows in his home that he felt would be affected by a sense of enclosure and overlooking, as a consequence of the development being built.
The Team Leader advised Members that a daylight and sunlight assessment survey had been conducted. The Committee were informed that all habitable rooms would be provided with windows, and officers considered the levels of daylight and sunlight to be acceptable.
The Chair reminded the Committee to only consider material planning considerations.
The Team Leader stated that as the developer could install a communal air source heat pump without planning permission, a condition could be added to sustainability. It was advised that the qualifications of the architect was not a material planning consideration.
The Chair advised it was felt there was enough information provided by the officers for the Committee to make a decision.
The Team Leader informed Members that the application and the plans submitted were planning policy compliant. It was advised a motion could be proposed to defer decision-making, provided firm reasons were provided to support the deferral.
During the Members discussion that followed the applicant’s absence was noted and, consideration was given to deferring decision-making until the applicant was available to appear before the Committee. Members reiterated the concerns and objections raised by the representative such as design, materials, conservation area and the sense of enclosure.
Following further consideration by Members, it was proposed that planning permission be refused on the grounds of design, materials and context. It was agreed that the officers would formalise the wording for the reasons for refusal. The proposal to refuse planning permission was seconded. The Team Leader advised Members on the risks attached to each issue raised in the proposed refusal.
The Legal Representative advised Members the proposal to refuse planning permission would need to be supported by clearly defined reasons. The Member who made the proposal to refuse planning permission, reiterated the reasons for the proposal provided earlier in the discussion. It was advised that as Members had proposed a motion and it had been seconded, a vote must be conducted on that motion.
Members voted on the proposal to refuse the recommendation in the report with a result of 7 in favour of the proposal and 2 against.
That it be noted that the Committee agreed to:
REFUSE the recommendation set out in the report for planning permission for the construction of a two-storey 3-bedroom single-family dwelling house on land at the rear of 148 Deptford High Street, SE8 and, to delegate the final wording of the reason for refusal to Officers in consultation with the Chair outside of the meeting.
The meeting closed at 11.00 pm
Subsequently the reason for the refusal that was issued after discussion with the chair by the Planning Officer was as follows:
· The proposed development represents poor quality design that is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area and the adjoining dwelling at No1 Crossfield Street. The development will give rise to an enclosed amenity area and a poorly detailed roof form. The proposal provides insufficient detail with respect to quality of materials.