Agenda item

It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing garages and construction of 3 x part one/part two storey dwellings and 3 x two storey plus roof space dwellings, together with associated landscaping, refuse storage and 14 cycle spaces on the garages to the rear of Creeland Grove SE6. subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

4.1       The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of the existing garages and construction of 3 x part one/part two storey dwellings and 3 x two storey plus roof space dwellings, together with associated landscaping, refuse storage and 14 cycle spaces on the garages to the rear of Creeland Grove SE6.

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

· Principle of Development

· Housing

 · Urban Design

 · Impact on Adjoining Properties

 · Transport

· Sustainable Development

· Natural Environment     

4.3      In response to questions asked, members were advised that:

·         The applicant was not required to provide accessible parking spaces; no parking spaces were proposed in this application. This was in line with the London Plan principles for this type of development.

·         There would not be access to the flat green roofs from any windows or doors.

·         One of the bins stores was 40 metres away from the pickup point. There was a management agreement in place, secured by a condition, so that the management company would drag all the bins to the pickup point for Lewisham’s waste operatives to empty. The management company would then place the bins back in the store.

·         The design of the proposed buildings would sit comfortably with the existing street scene.

·         The layout of the buildings had been considered to ensure that it did not impact on neighbours. Separation distances were shown on slides to those present.

4.4.     The planning agent Max Plotnek addressed the Committee. He outlined the history of the application and said that reasons behind the appeal refusal had been carefully considered. The scale of the development had been reduced, separation distances between blocks had been increased, houses were proposed instead of flats, parking had been removed in favour of landscaping and the TPO trees would be retained. Mr Plotnek believed this new application addressed all of the reasons for refusal; officers supported the application, and the proposed development would have minimum impact on neighbouring properties.

4.5       Visual impact was considered acceptable. Windows along Exbury Road would be obscured at first floor level and above. The line of protected trees along the site frontage had been respected with the development framed around them.

4.6       The scheme was car free with sufficient parking along Creeland Road and within 200 metres of the site. A comprehensive landscaping proposal had been submitted despite this being a minor development and demonstrated a commitment to improving biodiversity and environmental quality. This would be achieved by bringing back into use land that was regularly used for fly tipping and anti-social behaviour.

4.7       Mr Plotnek said that plans for the development of the site had been challenging due to its small, constrained shape, yet he considered the design to have been successful in providing high quality residential accommodation, including much needed family units. A positive pre application engagement process had been carried out and a further public meeting during the application determination. Complaints from residents had been covered in their submission.

4.8       Mr Plotnek clarified that all the properties would be wheelchair accessible in accordance with building regulations. The London Plan required all units to be wheelchair accessible unless there was good reason for them not to be.

            Objection

4.9      The first objector addressed the committee. He expressed concern about privacy for his property which adjoined the site. He was pleased to note that there would not be any access to the flat roofs. Plans had been changed to save the trees with the TPO orders, however, the Council’s tree expert had concerns about how they would survive.

4.10    The objector also had concerns about the impact that building works would have on the existing mature trees and the wildlife close to the boundary with Exbury Road. He asked that any foundations/ new development be set back from the shared wall boundary. Originally, the developer mistakenly claimed that he owned the party wall, but it was half owned by the residents and half by the developer. He requested that this wall should remain, and everything pushed back approximately one foot. Residents would then have less concerns about the development because they would retain a brick wall at the end of their garden instead of a slatted wooden fence which would not be secure or as nice to look at.

4.11 The Chair explained that members of the committee would be making a decision on the application before them.        He asked for clarity regarding the objector’s concerns about possible future alterations. The Development Management Team Leader said that officers had recommended condition 9 in the agenda pack. It removed the ability for any of the occupiers to extend or alter their homes under permitted development. It did not prevent them from submitting an application for planning, if they wanted to extend their property, a full planning application would need to be submitted.

4.12  In response to a member’s question about whether the trees on the site would survive, members were advised that Lewisham’s tree officer had raised concerns but was grateful that the trees would be kept on site. There was a tree protection plan in place which would mean that the developers would need to protect trees and tree roots from the development. The pathway and soft landscaping around the trees had been considered with the trees and tree root protection zone in mind.  Although there were some concerns, a balanced decision had been made and officers believed that the application was acceptable in terms of the two TPO Ash trees.

4.13  The Committee considered written submissions and the submissions made at the meeting and it was:

          It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted for the demolition of the existing garages and construction of 3 x part one/part two storey dwellings and 3 x two storey plus roof space dwellings, together with associated landscaping, refuse storage and 14 cycle spaces on the garages to the rear of Creeland Grove SE6. subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report.