Council meetings

Agenda item

3 MANTLE ROAD DC/22/129343


It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.


4.1.      The application was for Prior Approval under Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the construction of an additional storey to provide 5 self-contained flats at Nicholas Court, 166 Burnt Ash Hill, SE12. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

4.2.      The prior approval conditions were as follows: Transport and highways impact; Air traffic and defence asset impact; Contamination risks; Flooding risks; External appearance of the building; Provision of internal natural light to habitable rooms; Impact on neighbouring amenity; Impact on protected views; Fire safety where the building is over 18m in height. It was considered that all the conditions were considered acceptable and that there was no considerable impact on them.



4.3.      It was asked what the waste management plan would be. The Officer responded that the residents would be using 1100l capacity bins- the refuse storage would be enlarged to what it currently is. The waste management plan condition was outlined in the report.


4.4.      It was also asked if the building would be any higher than surrounding flats. The officer responded that it would be of lesser height than blocks to the north.


4.5.      There was no applicant present at the meeting. The objector was invited to speak. Their main objections were as follows:


They stated that the applicant had not engaged with residents enough. They contested the view that the loss of space is minimal and that the refuse space takes up 4% of the rear garden area whereas the proposed cycle and refuse space will take up 15% according to their calculations. The block is near 3 schools and potentially 12 or more children might be residents-providing outdoor space for children is a priority for the council.

The previously refused application proposal was non-contextual that would cause visible harm to the character of the area, and they felt that the current application was not much different. The proposed cladding does not resemble any existing construction material in the area form which Nicholas Court is visible. It is also less attractive than original proposal. The inset should be deeper or be inclined. They stated the proposal was ugly, with minimum space and was an unhabitable space.

In terms of lighting, they stated that some units only have a roof window for natural light and that there was no clothes-drying area. Objectors felt the quality is substandard.


4.6.      The Officer was asked to respond to the objector’s points. He highlighted that the application was for prior approval and not planning permission so the assessment that can made is minimal. He stated that it meets all accommodation requirements, in terms of space standards and light requirements. The building itself is of its time and lacks architectural merit. It would not be built today, so there is very little scope on the appearance. For roof extensions, officers ask for modern materials so there is distinction between the old and contemporary. The material often asked for is zinc as it is both sustainable and high quality. He stated that it is the officer belief that it meets the required standards and in regard to loss of garden space, the minimum sufficient amount remains. The bin store could be allocated at the front or rear, the applicant determines this, and their decision meets all policy guidance.


It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the application subject to the conditions in report.

Supporting documents: