Agenda item

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for construction of a rear roof extension and rooflights to the front and rear roof slopes at 199 Waller Road SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

5.1      The Planning Officer said that there was an error under Section 2 of the officer report. Relevant planning permission was missing. Records showed that in 2018 an application for the construction of the roof extension and roof light to the rear roof as well as two front roof slope lights in the front elevations was approved.

5.2      The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of a rear roof extension and rooflights to the front and rear roof slopes at 199 Waller Road SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

5.3       The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

• Principle of Development;

• Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets;

• Impact on Adjoining Properties;

Applicant

5.4       The Architect involved in the project, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that the planning application guidance for the area had been followed. The conservation area had been respected and planning permission was granted in 2020 for a similar development at neighbouring property in Waller Road. It was considered that this was a good precedent for the rear dormer because the design was almost exactly the same as for this application. The street facing the proposed heritage style roof light, was below the limit required by the SPD.

5.5      In response to a question from the Chair, the applicant advised that a new application had been made because a previous application for this development had not begun before the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the permission was granted.

Representation

5.6      The Chairman of the Telegraph Hill Society, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He said that the Society were grateful for the changes that had been made to this application following comments made by the society. The previous application had been made prior to the current extensions SPD, which was considered to have made a material difference.

5.7       The Chairman said that the Society had concerns regarding the rear elevation. It was not the same application as the one granted to the neighbouring property in 2020, because this application was for two dormer windows and a skylight. The previous application did not have a skylight.

5.8       The major concern for the society was whether the front roof light met the requirements of the SPD. The applicant claimed that it was smaller than the maximum allowed. The Society considered that it was probably more than the maximum allowed.

5.9      The Chairman said that the Society accepted that this section of Waller Road had several roof lights and was an accepted characteristic. However, unlike council officers, they considered this to be of material harmful to the area. This application, however, would take up the whole middle section of the roof and was considered to be unacceptable in a conservation area.

5.10    In response to questions asked by the Chairman of the Telegraph Hill Society, those present were advised that in paragraph 5.5.4 of the SPD, it stated that a replacement rooflight should not exceed 600mm in width. This application did not exceed that maximum and so it was acceptable in a conservation area. It was also   a replacement within the middle roofline which was also acceptable.

5.11    In a response to a question about the skylights from the Chairman, the planning officer displayed the drawings of the roofs as shown on page 57 of the SPD. The Area Team Leader drew members’ attention to paragraphs 48 and 49 in the report. He said that officers were not saying that it was an example of drawing 2 but rather that it was an adaptation of drawing 1. There were no dimensions on the drawings, so it was not possible to infer whether or not the ones shown on drawing 1 were less than 600mm wide or more than the 740mm of the height of the roof light that was being proposed. Officers were clear that it was an adaptation of drawing 1 and not an example of drawing 2. It was proposing one less roof light than was shown in drawing 1.           .

5.12    The Committee considered the submissions made at the meeting. It was moved and seconded and with one member abstaining it was

RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the construction of a rear roof extension and rooflights to the front and rear roof slopes at 199 Waller Road SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.

ESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for construction of a rear roof extension and rooflights to the front and rear roof slopes at 199 Waller Road SE14 subject to the conditions and informatives in the report.