Agenda item

RESOLVED

Unanimously

That it be agreed to grant planning permission, subject to a S106 Legal agreement in the terms set out in Section 10 of report, and conditions and informatives outlined in the report for:

·                     The construction of a three-storey, four-bedroom dwelling house on land at the corner of Burnt Ash Road and Dorville Road, SE12, together with bin and bike shed, replacement street trees and associated landscaping;

·                     and an additional requirement:

o        That implementation shall remain Class C3 Use (dwelling house), and that any change by the applicant to Class C4 Use (large shared home of multiple occupancy of over six people) be subjected to a planning application for consideration by the Planning Authority.

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

5.2     The Committee noted that the recommendations were in relation to a proposal for the construction of a three-storey, four-bedroom dwelling house on land at the corner of Burnt Ash Road and Dorville Road, SE12, together with bin and bike shed, and the replacement of street trees and associated landscaping.

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

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

·            That the Council’s specialists in the Highways Team had raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the relevant conditions outlined in the report.

·            That the Ecological Regeneration Team commended the biodiversity improvements to be achieved because of the proposal.

·            That the Council’s Conservation Team raised concerns about the site’s suitability for development, but the Planning Case Officer was satisfied that there were mitigation factors against those.

5.4     In response to questions raised, the Committee noted Planning Officers’ responses as follows:

·            That considering the proposed site’s location within PTAL 3, the car free development to be applied was compliant with the requirement of the London Plan, and therefore considered acceptable.

·            That given the scale of the development as a single-family dwelling, Planning Officers had not considered future Controlled Parking Zones, and a need for a parking survey to be undertaken.

·            That the applicant had not requested a permission to develop a House of Multiple Occupants (HMO), therefore consideration was not on that basis, but on the information in the submitted application. 

·            That Members should be mindful to reach a decision based on the current SPD under which Planning Officers assessed the application under discussion.  Thus, it was for the Committee to apply a balanced judgement about losing one tree, with the provision of new trees, and meeting the Council’s housing targets. 

·            That the Council’s Tree Officer valuation of the matured trees to be replaced was £42,396.  However, Planning Officers considered that the developer’s contribution of £9,000 was fair and reasonable for the following reasons:

o        The Tree Officer’s valuation was not commensurate to the scale of the development.

o        That considering the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework, the proposal would deliver a family sized dwelling, which would be net-zero in carbon emissions once constructed.

o        That the legal test for financial viability was that contribution should be relevant in scale to the development sort.  It was stated that in the circumstance, the developer’s contribution for the treatment and replacement of trees was appropriate.

5.5     The applicant also addressed the meeting, advising the Committee as follows:

·            That the proposal was for a family-sized dwelling, with net-zero in carbon emissions once constructed.

·            That he considered the history of the area and followed design guidance in Lewisham’s Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) relating to the development of corner sites.

·            That he had participated in community consultation exercises, including sending letters to his neighbours, and having face-to-face or virtual meetings with them to talk about the proposal, including online neighbourhood meetings organised by Planning Officers.

·            That he kept in close contact with Planning Officers through the design process and took on board their feedback on matters relating to landscaping, massing, height, street scene, and other issues relating to the alignment of windows and doors.

·            That prior to submitting the application in view, he had omitted the design of an earlier rooftop structure because of feedback from consultations that it would be too heavy for the proposed building.

·            That alongside the green wall to the implemented, biodiversity in the area would be further enhanced by the planting of new hedges and shrubs.

5.6     A resident also addressed the Committee, advising that he was objecting to the proposal on behalf of 14 residents, and members of the Lee Manor Society because of their interest in conversation areas.  The concerns outlined by the objector were noted by the Committee as follows:

·            Inadequate parking provision, and the potential impact of that in the local area.

·            That with local parks hundreds of metres away from the proposed site, there would be a significant reduction in public open spaces due to the loss of a corner plot of land with greenery scene.

·            That the proposed dwelling would project in front of the boundary line of adjoining houses on Dorville Road.

·            That because of the size of the property, residents were concerned the use would potentially be converted into an HMO.

·            The proposal had deviated from the local SPD because there would be a loss of a network of green infrastructure in a public realm.  It was stated that Planning Officers had ignored the advice provided by the Council’s Conservation Officer in that regard.  Therefore, residents were disappointed that the need for the Council to provide housing seemed to override requirements of adhering to planning guidelines.

5.6.1   In response to a question, the objector to the proposal advised the Committee that while the replacement of trees along Dorville Road sounded attractive, it continued to remain that residents were opposed to the fact that an area of greenery in the proposed conner plot would be lost because of the development.

5.7   The applicant also responded to a question, confirming to the Committee that the plot of land mentioned about at the meeting by the objector was not part of his property, however, the owner of that freehold land had agreed to sell it to him for the development to be implemented if the application under consideration was approved.

5.8     The Committee sought advice about HMOs and was advised by the Senior Legal Officer that the Government had established policy in place for permitted development rights.  Therefore, it would be unusual in legal terms for the Council to automatically exclude an application for a change of use into an HMO without outlining the local circumstances. 

5.8.1   Members understood that the Council had legal powers to withdraw permitted development rights by Article 4 Direction, but it was for the relevant committee(s) to decide what the local circumstances should be at the time of an application for an HMO.  It was further understood that if the applicant wished to convert the application to deliver an HMO, he would have to apply for a separate planning permission.

5.9     The Planning Officers responded to further questions, clarifying to the Committee that concerns about a prominent development would not necessarily be considered unacceptable or harmful because each application should be assessed on its own merits.  It was stated that in the circumstance, Planning Officers had assessed and considered as acceptable that the proposed building would be set back from the Burnt Ash Road’s view, and project into Dorville Road.

5.10    In its deliberation, the Committee understood that the reason why the site was considered acceptable for the development was due to the package elements presented regarding the street scene, offsite tree planning, green roof, new dwelling, active surveillance.

5.10.1Following a direction from Councillor Jacq Paschoud, the Chair of the Committee, Councillor Stephen Penfold proposed to move the recommendation, but only on the basis that the proposed development would remain C3 use, and that the applicant would apply for a planning permission if he decided to change the use to C4 in the future.

 5.10.2 The recommendation was seconded by Councillor James Royston and voted upon, and the Committee

RESOLVED

Unanimously

To grant planning permission, subject to a S106 Legal agreement in the terms set out in Section 10 of report, and conditions and informatives outlined in the report for:

·                The construction of a three-storey, four-bedroom dwelling house on land at the corner of Burnt Ash Road and Dorville Road, SE12, together with bin and bike shed, replacement street trees and associated landscaping;

As to add an additional requirement to state as follows:

·                That implementation shall remain Class C3 Use (dwelling house), and that any change by the applicant to Class C4 Use (large shared home of multiple occupancy of over six people) shall be subject to a planning application for consideration by the Planning Authority.