Agenda item

4.1.      The application was for the construction of a single storey office/studio on site of 3 demolished garages at Wickham Mews rear of 4 Wickham Road.

4.2.      The Planning Officer presented an illustrative presentation of the proposal. He highlighted the following considerations: Principle of Development; Urban Design & Heritage Impact; Transport Impact; Living Conditions of Neighbours; Natural Environment. Planning officers considered these considerations to be satisfied. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

4.3.      Members asked about use of the site- enforcement which would prevent the conversion to residential space- the officer responded that this is covered by condition 10.

4.4.      Members asked about the height of the building stating that it is relatively shorter than neighbouring sites. The officer said that it was keeping with the heights accepted for the Mews development.

4.5.      Members asked officers to outline the features compared to previous versions of application. The presenting officer explained that it was not fit for purpose for a commercial unit and it was not providing appropriate workspace.

4.6.      The applicant was invited to present the proposal. Their main points were: dangerous levels of white asbestos were found in the small garages which were removed for the safety of residents; discussion with local groups, neighbours and the Council took place and ultimately, no residential application was made initially; the design was adapted; the planners support for the application shows that the applicant has successfully overcome all technical constraints; the structure can be built economically and would be bringing new life to underused resource of Wickham Mews; the rent will form a vital part of income in retirement.

4.7.      Members asked how many people would use the space. The applicant responded that they could be approached by a single company or multiple people may want to use the space. Time constraints on the use of the property have been conditioned. The Presiding Officer added that the use class had been proposed for the scale of the development and it is expected numbers would be fairly minimal- typical use of such developments are 4-5 people.

4.8.      The objector was then invited to speak. Their main points were:

4.9.      The building line, proximity, scale, materials and height are the main issues. Wickham Mews is the last surviving undeveloped site in the area and is considered an unpopulated solitude. Regarding the building line, the 3 garages demolished were decades old and the applicant is applying to extend much further to include the forecourt. the effect of coming far forward would be to narrow the length of the Mews by 5metres. That is below the width that is recommended on the Lewisham small sites SPD.

4.10.   The national 43 degree BRE rule aims to avoid overbearing proximity and squeezes tightly to its northern boundary. The proposed ridge height is 4.5metres. this is an unnecessarily lofty roof space for a single storey building. The Mews is a conservation area and a heritage asset.

4.11.   Officer clarified that the utility connection is not material consideration. He added that there are 25m between the application site and the upper floors of 4 Wickham Road. The extension at basement level reduces that distance to 19m it is of planning officers judgement that the impact in terms of enclosure and overbearing impact would not be unacceptable. This is a usual separation distance. The area does have tranquil character, but portion of the Mews also has such development.

4.12.   He also said, in terms of overbearing impact, that the applicant has provided an analysis of a 25 degree line which is the correct assessment.

4.13.   Members expressed concern over sunlight and daylight accessible from the basement flat of 4 Wickham Road and wanted to know how much sunlight and daylight would be lost if any. The Presiding Officer responded that if the application or proposed development does pass the 25 degree test then further testing is not required. He advised that the application should not be refused for lack of daylight or sunlight on this basis, but if necessary, to gather further information on the daylight and sunlight. Planners were of the opinion that the impact was acceptable.

4.14.   The officer clarified for Members that the passageway, although it has been used by residents, is not a public right of way. Planning legislation does not extend to if there was a public right of way, which would need to be done by highways order and are not material to the planning application

4.15.   It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the officer recommendation to approve the application..