Agenda item

RESOLVED

Unanimously

That it be agreed to GRANT the discharge of Condition 53 (Retention of Amenity Spaces) subject to the following informatiives:

i.             That the drawings submitted with the application, namely the design statement have been assessed only in relation to the conditions as referred to on the application, and do not provide acceptance or otherwise pertaining to any other outstanding conditions or subsequent applications; and

ii.            In relation to outstanding conditions to be discharged, as outlined in the report.

4.1      The Committee noted the following regarding this Item:

·            Councillor James-J Walsh disclosed a pecuniary interest, advising the that he works for a university. 

·            Councillor Will Cooper stated that he had received correspondence from residents in his ward in relation to this item but had expressed no prior personal views about the proposals.

4.2     The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the report, advising the Committee that the proposal was brought for a decision at the request of the Committee which had considered and agreed an earlier scheme that the application under consideration was related.

4.3     The Committee noted the report, and a recommendation for it to consider and agree details submitted pursuant to Condition 53. Part A (Retention of Amenity Spaces) of an approved scheme relating to 164-196 Trundley’s Road and 1-9 Sanford Street, London SE8 5JE.

4.4     In determining the recommendation, Committee noted:

·            That the application to discharge Condition 53 was submitted in conjunction with a non-material amendment application (DC/22/127348) to increase the number of student bedspaces to 402 and therefore the benchmark of 1.25sqm applies.

·            That the proposals exceeded 1.25sqm and would 1.3sqm of internal communal amenity space per student, and that the addition of the external amenity space (203sqm) in the calculation summed the ratio to 1.8sqm.

·            That when considering other amenity spaces (including shared kitchens, laundry rooms and external amenity space), the quantum of amenity space equated to 5.2sqm per student bedspace.

4.5   The Planning Officer also clarified to the Committee:

·            That given that the non-material amendments had been agreed under Item 3 above, all cluster units would be served by a minimum of 4sqm of communal amenity space, to deliver an average of 4.6sqm per student across the scheme.

·            That the proposed shared amenity areas of the student accommodation would comprise of:

o           lounge at Ground Floor;

o           games area at Level 1;

o           study rooms at Level 1;

o           external amenity space at Level 1;

o           gaming/gamer room at Level 1;

o           laundry facilities; and

o           communal kitchens serving the cluster units

·            That all the units would have access to the shared amenity spaces at ground and first floor level, and occupiers of the studio units would have access to their own cooking facilities within each unit.

·            That the units within a cluster would have shared kitchen facilities with other units within their cluster, and the size of cluster units would be in a range of 6-, 7- and 8- and 9-bed clusters across the scheme.

·            That the larger cluster units would be delivered in accordance with the preferences of universities to deliver larger clusters of units with a shared single communal kitchen to help foster a greater sense of social interactions to minimise the potential for social isolation.

·            That the communal kitchens designs would be delivered in accordance with the guidance for Homes in Multiple Occupation to ensure adequate facilities and amenities in the use of the kitchen.

4.6   The Committee further noted:

·            That the proposed scheme would include 203sqm of external media space solely for the use of students in the affordable and regular accommodation and would comprise of podium gardens and access from the communal area to Level 1, together with a range of hard and soft landscaping and areas for students to sit and socialise.

·            That the shared amenity spaces at Ground and First Floor level would provide a total of 515sqm, with access to all units.

·            That the details for the external spaces in terms of soft and hard landscaping would be covered by Conditions 5 and 6 to be discharged under the supervision of the Planning Division.

·            That all cluster units would be served by at least 4sqm of communal amenity space for each unit, when considering the communal kitchens and laundry facilities, and the average across the scheme is 4.6sqm per student.

·            That the largest of the cluster units would be served by 46sqm of communal amenity space, equating to 5.1sqm per unit.

4.7     In response to questions raised, the agents for the applicant informed the Committee:

·               That each studio and cluster unit would have their own laundry room/facility, and the machines to be installed would have washer/dryer facilities.

·               That the increase in the cluster accommodation was to prevent social isolation.

4.8     The Committee also noted clarification by the Planning Officer:

·                That from an architectural perspective, although the two terraces on the first floor would serve both the residential and the students’ areas, there would be a screen to prevent overshadowing between the elements.

·                That to prevent exposure, the landscaping would be set back to divide the residential and students’ elements.

4.9    The Committee understood that the proposed amendments would not be non-material if:

·                They would alter the nature or description of development.

·                There would be an increase in size (by volume and/or height) to the extent where this would have a material impact on the design, external appearance and/or local amenity.

·                There would be an increase in the number of openings, or a noticeable increase in size and/or the location of openings, which would affect the proposal’s external appearance or result in loss of privacy or amenity to neighbours.

·                There would be a reduction in design quality owing to a loss of detail or lower quality materials that would affect visual amenity.

·                The scheme becomes contrary to the Lewisham Development Plan; and/or would conflict with any existing planning conditions.

4.10    The Chair of the Committee, Councillor Suzannah Clarke, pointed out that the recommendation required Members to discharge of Condition 53.  A motion in support of the recommendation was moved by Councillor James J. Walsh and seconded by Councillor Will Cooper.

4.10.1  The Committee expressed a view to agree the motion on the basis that the proposal would deliver a high-quality design and a level of amenity as a standard requirement in the students’ accommodation sector.  Thereafter, the Committee voted on the motion and

RESOLVED unanimously

To GRANT the discharge of Condition 53 (Retention of Amenity Spaces) subject to the following informatiives:

i.               That the drawings submitted with the application, namely the design statement have been assessed only in relation to the conditions as referred to on the application, and do not provide acceptance or otherwise pertaining to any other outstanding conditions or subsequent applications; and

ii.          In relation to outstanding conditions to be discharged, as outlined in the report.