3.1. The officer gave an illustrative presentation on the proposed application of the construction of a replacement single storey cafe building (Tea Hut) and associated works at the junction of Shooters Hill Road and Goffers Road (Blackheath Tea Hut Site), SE3.
3.2. The previous site was destroyed in a traffic incident and has been operating in a temporary construction.
3.3. The key considerations were Principle of Development; Urban Design and Heritage Impact; Transport Impact; and Living Conditions of Neighbouring Properties.
3.4. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application, subject to the conditions set out in the officer report.
The applicant was not present at the meeting.
3.5. The objector gave their presentation. Their main points were that the space is sensitive in which the Tea Hut is proposed to be is sensitive. The Telegraph Society is not against the existence of the tea hut at the site, but planning is not suitable for the development at this location. If granted, highest of standards must be maintained and achieved through conditions. The objector went on to say that the officers report justifies the development as the existing construction was to be replaced by it, however, they said, there is no existing right for the current development to be there. They also disagreed that the form and materiality of the hut would cause no harm to the conservation area and stated that the building was out of character. They also said that if there were no history of tea hut, this proposal would be rejected.
3.6. He also stated that the report suggests it is similar to the old construction but it is significantly bigger. He criticised that the officer has not proposed any condition around landscaping and said that the area is eroded due to vehicle use- a condition attached should prevent such things from happening. They proposed that fixed posts are added around the hut, if agreed.
3.7. It was asked what was meant in the Society’s objection that planning permission not being the right solution and what he would suggest. He responded that the hut has no real status- there should be no permanent presence there. Councillor Paschoud responded that the Tea Hut had been around for decades so it was a prominent development in the area.
3.8. It was asked if mitigations can be made to prevent further erosion- the presenting officer responded that it was negotiated that it is placed on the existing eroding land as opposed to the grass area which was initially proposed, to prevent further erosion. He stated that they can be confident then that there will be no further erosion caused by this construction. The Presiding Officer stated that there are 6 tests around imposing conditions provided by the MPPF, which include necessity, and asked the Committee to consider the necessity in imposing certain conditions.
3.9. It was also asked of the Principal lawyer, if planning permission was necessary in this instance of an existing hut. She stated that MPPF guidance established the construction and replacement of a building. This is a replacement of a building according to MPPF guidance and not materially larger or can cause further impact than what was already there. She concluded that the recommendation was valid.
It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the application.