Agenda item

RESOLVED

That it be agreed to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and informatives outlined in the report for:

·                The demolition of existing community building and associated outbuildings at 39-43 Eddystone Road SE4 ;and

·                The construction of a three storey building to provide:

o    6 self-contained flats ( 3 x 1 Bed, 1 x 2 Bed & 2 x 3 Bed), together with community space at ground floor level (Use Class F), landscaping, external bin store, and

o    11 cycle spaces, with pedestrian and cycle access onto Buckthorne Road and Brockley Path.

And to further reinforce conditions 6 and 28 regarding sound insulation and restriction on amplified music, a new condition should be added to state:

·                That potential occupiers of the flat above the ground floor level on the site should be given a welcome pack, with information detailing the use of the community space.

Councillor Tauseef Anwar left the room and did not take part in the discussion or vote on the Officer’s recommendation relating to this Item, as he had declared a pecuniary interest.  It was noted that Councillor Anwar spoke against the proposal at a meeting which was conducted by councillors and community members, and that his opposing view had remain.

3.1     The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the report, advising the Committee to agree the recommendations therein.

3.2     In considering the report, the Committee noted the following:

·            That the proposal was brought for a decision following a recommendation by Members to defer consideration of the application at a meeting of the Committee held on 30 September 2021 to allow an additional ecological survey of the area and review the Asset of Community Value (ACV) position of the existing building on the proposed site, known as The Royal British Legion Community Hall.

·            That the proposed site location comprised of a triangular plot of land on the south-westerly corner junction of Eddystone Road and Buckthorne Road, “Brockley Path”.

3.3     Councillor Jacq Paschoud, the Chair of the Committee, echoed statement made by the Planning Officer to highlight that the recommendation in the report required Members to agree works to demolish the existing community building, which was in disrepair, and associated outbuildings, and to construct a three-storey building. 

3.4     In response to questions for clarification, the Planning Officer informed the Committee as follows:

·            That the main issues considered by officers when formulating the proposal were related to the principle of development, housing urban design, impact on adjoining properties, transport, sustainable development, and the natural environment.  It was stated that the Members were under a duty to have regard to the applicable policies relating to those issues as material considerations when deciding on the proposal.

·            That the Council’s Highways Team and Ecological Regeneration Team raised no objection the proposal, subject to the relevant conditions in the report.

·            That no comment was submitted by the Tree Officer regarding the proposal.

·            That the bat survey for which consideration of the application under consideration was deferred on 30 September 2021 had been undertaken, and a report on the findings had been produced.

·            That the existing building had been assessed and confirmed as an ACV.

·            That a public pathway mentioned about in the report was situated on the southern end between the site and the boundary line of 66 Buckthorne Road.

·            That the proposed three-storey building to be constructed would provide:

o           6 self-contained flats;

o           community space at ground floor level;

o           landscaping, external bin store and 11 cycle spaces; with

o           pedestrian and cycle access onto Buckthorne Road and Brockley Path.

·            That although conditions 6 and 28 had addressed matters relating to the mitigation of sound insulation and restriction on amplified music.  the Committee could reinforce the provisions with a further condition for a welcome pack with details about the use of the community space to be provided to future occupiers of the flat above the ground floor level.

3.5     The meeting was addressed by the agent for the applicant, who advised Members that he was also the architect for the project.  The agent gave a background about the history of the application process to highlight that the applicant had conformed with the relevant the planning requirements.  Considering that, the agent advised the Committee as follows:

·            That the alternations in terms of reinstatement of the community use of the ground floor, massing, privacy and refuse collection arrangements were considered prior to the formulation of the recommendation I the report.  Therefore, the Council’s Planning department was supportive of the application.

·            That the proposed building was dilapidated and had been vacant for several years.  Thus, it was subjected to several acts of vandalism, and had subsidence and structural defects.

·            That the applicant had been working with The Royal British Legion to facilitate the proposal and the development plan.

·            That after the proposal was deferred, the transport statement lapsed due to its six-month validity.  However, that, together with the delivery and service plans were revised and resubmitted to ensure currency on the matters prior to submitting the application for consideration.

·            That during the consultation exercise on the proposal, there were comments about war memorials remaining on the proposed site.  It was stated that the developer had confirmed that none was found.

3.6     The agent for the applicant responded to questions raised, clarifying to the Committee as follows:

·            That the site would be developed into an active community space, and the wooded area bordering the railway line close to the proposed site would be unaffected.

·            That to ensure the proposed development enhance the local area, its scale, form, and articulation were carefully considered in relation to the character of the environment, including existing properties in the street scene.

·            That the existing local community gardens and the public cycleways would be unaffected by the proposed development.

·            That should the application under consideration become successful, the future management of the proposed site would be out of the applicant’s control, as it would be sold off.

·            That considering the history of the site, it would be reasonable to assume that the proposed community space would support different uses in the future.

·            That the applicant was satisfied with conditions that implementation of the proposal should conform with planning obligations which required that there should be no activity in the proposed community space for a clubhouse, as was the case when it was managed by The Royal British Legion.

3.7     The Committee also heard from two residents who addressed the meeting individually with objections to the proposal.  The Committee noted the following views expressed by the residents:

·            That the application was contrary to the Local Neighbourhood Plan (LNP) because the existing building on the proposed site would not be enhanced and protected because of the following reasons:

o           The report made no statement on how to gain access into the community space within a private residential setting.

o           There would a reduction in the size of the existing building.

o           There would be loss of kitchen and toilet facilities in the community space.

·            That because the proposed site sat between a nature reserve and an ancient woodland, residents’ expectation was that the ecological survey would be up-to-date, and robust.  It was stated that was not the case, therefore, residents could not rely on the report submitted because of the following reasons:

o           That the information about the bat survey was obsolete because it was based on 2019 data.

o           That there were three ponds within 500 metres from the proposed site.  Therefore, the information in the survey report in that there were no ponds within that distance was misleading.

o           There was no evidence that the topographical survey, which should have been submitted with the bat report, had been completed.

·            That given the level community engagement about the review of the ACV, residents were disappointed that, prior to submitting the application to the Committee for reconsideration, the Council gave no feedback as a matter of courtesy when the ACV was approved.

·            That although the area was an archaeological priority, there was no evidence that an assessment in that regard was undertaken as part of Roman Roads’ heritage site.

·            That the area earmarked for storage of refuse bins at the boundary of the proposed site would cause obstruction to the access gate currently used by cyclists, push chair users, dog walkers and other pedestrians.   Therefore, the likelihood for conflict by members of the public, operators of the community space and potential occupiers of the dwellings was inevitable. 

·       That the Council should ensure that the developer implement opaque windows at the back of the proposed development stated in the report because the neighbours had expressed concerns that their privacy would be compromised by overlooking from the new dwellings into their gardens.

3.7.1   In response to questions raised, the residents expressed the following concerns to the Committee:

·            That the drawing plans indicated that there would be two access doors at the back of the proposed development where cycle hangers and bins would be located.  On bin-collection days, wheelie bins would have to be taken to the front end of the proposed development, and afterwards, to the back of the proposed development until the next round of collection.  Therefore, residents were expecting confirmation that refuse disposal would be properly managed to prevent disruptions to neighbours and minimise obstructions to users of the alleyway.

·            That there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed design was led by an ecological expert.

·            That the survey report suggested that fences should be erected between the two green spaces.  Thus, residents believed that the areas around the ponds currently used as travel corridors by hedgehogs and other local species had not been carefully organised.

3.7.2   In light a concern by the objectors to the proposal, the Committee observed that, given the history of holding funerals reception, parties, and music events when the venue was operated by the Royal British Legion, it was likely that the neighbours would be able to absorb the impact from similar social uses of the proposed community space.

3.7.3   Commenting on the Committee’s observation, the objectors were of a view that if the proposal was approved, there was no guarantee that neighbours would not be disturbed by amplification of noise from late night events, as was the case from complaints when the site was managed by The Royal British Legion, which subsequently led to restriction of opening hours by a license.

3.8          In closing the Committee noted responses and statements made by planning and legal officers as follows:

·            That it was for Members to determine whether the proposal had complied with the LNP because in planning terms:

o           a replacement of a derelict building with a functioning one could be considered an enhancement;

o           although the proposed development would be smaller in size when compared to the existing one earmarked for demolition, it should be noted that brand new flats with modern insulation and ventilation would be constructed;

o           the physical aspects of the community space would be of improved quality.  Thus, the provision of a new, usable community space was a planning merit, and carried a very significant weight.

·            That regarding concerns about sound insulation and restriction on amplified music, the Committee could reinforce conditions 6 and 28 with a new condition to state that the welcome pack to be provided to potential occupiers of the proposed flat above the ground floor level on the site should have information detailing the use of the community space.

·            That for Members to make changes to the proposed building in addition to what had been recommended in the report would be inappropriate in legal terms because the issue under consideration was in relation to an ACV which had been determined.  Thus, to do so would be outside the powers of the Council. 

·            That to ensure that the impacts of the future community use do not harm the surrounding transport network, details of a final delivery and servicing plan would be secured by a condition prior to commencement of the use to ensure that the impacts of the future community use do not harm the surrounding transport network.

·            That the details of the proposed boundary treatments, including any gates, walls or fences would be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning department prior to construction of the above ground works.

·            That the approved boundary treatments would be implemented prior to occupation of the buildings and retained in perpetuity.

·            That the earlier ecological survey was accepted as an updated report because it was assessed and reviewed by an expert in 2022

3.9   Following a direction by the Chair of the Committee, Councillor Jacq Paschoud, Councillor Laura Cunningham proposed, and Councillor Stephen Penfold seconded a move of the recommendations in the report, together with additional requires, which were voted upon.

3.9.1The meeting noted that Councillor Hau-Yu Tam abstained from voting, and Councillor Anwar did not take part in the vote as he was not present in the room during consideration of the report.  With the other Members voting in favour of the recommendation, the Committee

 RESOLVED

To grant planning permission, subject to conditions and informatives outlined in the report for:

·                The demolition of existing community building and associated outbuildings at 39-43 Eddystone Road SE4; and

·                The construction of a three-storey building to provide:

o             6 self-contained flats (3 x 1 Bed, 1 x 2 Bed & 2 x 3 Bed), together with community space at ground floor level (Use Class F), landscaping, external bin store, and

o             11 cycle spaces, with pedestrian and cycle access onto Buckthorne Road and Brockley Path.

And with additional requirements as follows:

·                To reinforce conditions 6 and 28 regarding sound insulation and restriction on amplified music

·                To add a new condition to state that potential occupiers of the flat above the ground floor level on the site should be given a welcome pack, with information detailing the use of the community space.