Agenda item

RESOLVED Unanimously

To agree the proposals to RECOMMENDATION (A), andrefer the application, this report, and any other required documents to the Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

To agree the proposals to RECOMMENDATION (B), subject to no direction being received from the Mayor of London, authorise the Head of Law to complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the principal matters as set out in Section 12 of this report, including other such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

To agree the proposals to RECOMMENDATION (C), subject to determination of the s96a Non-Material Planning Application (DC/23/130911) and completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PLANNNG PERMISSION subject to conditions including those set out below and such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

4.1     The Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation to the report, with a suggestion that the Committee should approve the recommendations therein.

4.1.1   The Committee noted the report in conjunction of the addendum to it.  It was recognised that the proposal was for a full planning permission for a Mixed-use redevelopment for five buildings at Land bounded by Oxestalls Road, Evelyn Street, Dragoon Road and Grove Street SE8 – Plot 5, comprising of:

·       405 residential units (C3)

·       382 student bedspaces

·       Employment units, including affordable workspace

·       Commercial floorspace

4.1.2   The Officer informed the Committee that the proposals aimed to deliver:

·       Building heights ranging between 6-storeys and 29-storeys, 13

·       13 blue badge bays

·       Soft landscaping, including a podium garden

·       Affordable C3 housing –35% by habrooms (126 units)

·       Affordable student units (35%)

4.1.3   The Committee noted key public benefits and that upon implementation, the following would be realised:

·            Evelyn Tower (5A) -22-storeys - student rooms

·            Court Building (5B) -11-storeys - 81 affordable units

·            Waterline Tower (5C) -29-storeys - 220 units

·            Corner Building (5D) -12-storeys - 104 units (S/O & Mar) 

·            Timberyard Studios (5E) –Employment space

4.2      The agent on behalf of the applicant:

·            That the application was related to a revised scheme for Plot 5 of the consented scheme for the wider Deptford landing site, and the proposals would provide an uplift in new homes and employment space, and that was consistent with Lewisham Council’s emerging plan.

·            That the applicant was proud of what had been achieved on the Deptford landing site to date, and was keen to build more high-quality homes, and deliver employment space.

·            That the proposed scheme would deliver 126 new affordable homes, with habitable rooms in accordance with the tenure breakdown outlined by the presenting Officer

·            That the applicant had worked closely with the Council’s Planning Team and Housing officers to ensure that the proposals were acceptable in terms both design and impacts on residential amenities.  It was stated that the applicant also engaged with the Design Review Panel (DRP), Greater London Authority (GLA), and the local community.  It was stated that the DRP raised a few concerns, and those had been responded to.

·            That the current scheme had been subjected to an environmental impact assessment, which was tested by an independent specialist and Council’s experts were satisfied with the conclusions.

·            That the proposed area was assessed as a good location for developing taller buildings, subject to the Local Views Management Framework Compliance (LVCF)

·            That the DRP endorsed the scale and height of the massing of the development, subject to the impact of the LVCF and achievement of exemplary standard of design and architecture, and both had been achieved.

·            That the GLA considered that the proposed building would not detract from viewers’ ability to recognise St Paul’s Cathedral, and on heritage, the GLA concluded that the scheme would result in a low level of less than substantial harm, and that was in accordance with the Council’s emerging local plan.

·            That the applicant noted that few representations were received objecting to approach of the development but was satisfied the Council officers had investigated each of the areas of concern and responded to fully to those in their report.

·            That £13m Community Infrastructure Levy funds commissioned for the whole of the Deptford landing site presented a significant sum to support the impact on the community and the social infrastructure, including s106 contributions to be provided by the developer to improve and enhance bus service in consultation with Transport for London (TfL) officials.

·            That the proposals represented a well-designed and high-quality development to expedite the delivery of additional new homes on the Deptford Landing site, with substantial CIL and s106 contributions to provide significant benefits for Lewisham’s residents.  Thus, the applicant endorsed the officers’ recommendation in the report and was suggesting that the Committee should approve them.

4.3     The Committee also noted concerns expressed by two residents who addressed the meeting as objectors of the proposals.  The objectors raised similar concerns to those outlined in earlier discussions under Item 3 of report, namely:

·                 Impact on social infrastructures to deliver additional nurseries, doctors, and transport.

·                 The need to develop adequate landscape designs to support the public realms of the emerging population.

·                 Overdevelopment resulting in loss of views and sunlight and daylight

·                 Impact of wind on residential blocks.

4.4      In its deliberations, The Committee also noted the following clarifications:

·                That the impact on the local infrastructure would be mitigated by CIL contribution and s106 contributions.

·                That the first-floor podium was not designed to have public access

·                That there would be pepper potting of housing tenures in Block D

·                That no objection was raised from officials at the school that was close to the proposed site.

·                That the distance between the proposed development and the school was approximately 25 metres.  Thus, overlooking would likely be of minimal impact.

·                That affordable housing included a mixture of social affordable units and the intermediate stake in the form of shared ownership.

4.4      Following a direction from the Chair, Councillor Peter Bernards, the Officers’ recommendations were moved by Councillor John Paschoud, seconded by Councillor Aliya Sheikh, and voted upon.

4.5      The Committee RESOLVED

Unanimously

To agree the proposals to RECOMMENDATION (A), andrefer the application, this report, and any other required documents to the Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

To agree the proposals to RECOMMENDATION (B), subject to no direction being received from the Mayor of London, authorise the Head of Law to complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the principal matters as set out in Section 12 of this report, including other such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

To agree the proposals to RECOMMENDATION (C), subject to determination of the s96a Non-Material Planning Application (DC/23/130911) and completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PLANNNG PERMISSION subject to conditions including those set out below and such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.