Agenda item

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

3.1.      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the proposed application for the partial demolition of the front of the existing light industrial building and alteration and extension to provide a terrace of 4 two-storey, live/work units, together with the provision of private amenity space, associated cycle parking and refuse collection facilities at Unit 1 Ashby Mews SE4.

The key planning considerations were Principle of development; housing; urban design; transport impact; sustainable development; natural environment. The planning officer stated that the planning considerations were deemed acceptable. It was the officer recommendation for approval of the application.

3.2.      It was asked how officers were going to ensure that this would be a live/work space and not just residential. The planning officer stated that the conditions are enforceable which will ensure the correct use of the units. The workspace will be finished before the residential units. The existing work use is also outlined in the planning conditions and safeguards employment use.

3.3.      It was asked if an application could be put in for change of use in the future. The officer responded that each application will be considered on its own merit. Policies would be triggered and the application would need to be policy compliant.

3.4.      It was also asked how it can be ensured that the residents would not sublet the workspaces and that they would be the ones using it. The officer responded that this eventuality is covered by planning condition.

3.5.      The applicant then gave their presentation. They summarised that:

3.6.      The scheme would be of a high quality design and would be another positive impact on the local environment and street scene, preserving and enhancing the mews conservation area. The design, scale, massing and materials of the proposal would be in keeping with the character and appearance of this part of Ashley Mews and it would preserve its significance. The living conditions of the future occupiers would be acceptable and there would be no harm to the amenities and neighbouring properties and no adverse impact on parking. In its context within the historically light industrial character of this part of the conservation area setting, it provides 4 live/work units with clear differentiations between the living and workspaces that will ensure the light industrial character uses in Ashby Mews are maintained and reinforce the overall form of investment is the same.

Retaining a semi industrial appearance including the presence of ground floor courtyards at the rear the scale massing and appearance of the proposal would not be dissimilar to the existing building. To further facilitate and define the internal network spaces the proposal will provide for bin storage, cycle parking courtyards and soft landscaping. They also stated that the objections should also be mindful of the fact that the existing building has an unfettered commercial use that could be used without restriction to all manner of industrial and commercial uses.

3.7.      Members asked why there was no pre-application engagement on the application. The applicant stated that they did not feel it was necessary given the history of the site and that there was lengthy discussion with planning officers.

3.8.      A supporter of the application also spoke in favour of the proposal. His key points were:

20 years ago him and his partner moved into a little work warehouse in Victoria Works and in the 20 years that they have lived there they have seen Victorian Works developed and transformed into a vibrant community of creators and artists who now occupy and brought some life back into the old buildings. He stated that it is a great place to live and work and having seen the development plans for Ashby Mews, he believes that it too could expand and develop and continue to be a viable place for creatives to live and work together with the community spirit. He gave examples of the successful works that have come from creators from the area and said that having looked at the layout and scale of the proposed 4 units, he believes that they are large enough and designed well enough to attract some significant arts to the Mews and those who might require these types of spaces to live and work.

3.9.      Members asked if the supporter had an interest in Ashby Mews or is he speaking generically on the practicality of the space. He responded that the advantages were quite wide and that it is a community and the advantages are significant.

3.10.   The objector then spoke and the following were their key points:

They felt that there had been misleading representations which suggests the application is not viable. The developer in the previous application stated that unit one was granted planning permission previously as a joint live/work unit with unit 2, however according to council records it had supposedly been under construction for the past five years during which no business rates have been paid. Unit 1 is now covertly a house, so perhaps unit two is an ambitious proposal. The lowering of a party fence is opposed due to potential lack of amenity in neighbouring gardens, the increased light pollution and noise disturbances. There are overstated dimensions of the wall between the development in neighbouring gardens which raises questions to the accuracy of the information provided in the application.

3.11.   The planning officer addressed the 2013 decision referenced. Members were to only to consider this current application as the previous application was not planning consideration. He confirmed that a Parking Stress survey had been conducted- one after covid, and one before that- a further assessment was not necessary.

3.12.   Councillor Penfold spoke under standing orders. The following were his key points:

The Mews originated as an unmade service road running behind the large Victorian houses in the Brockley conservation area. Over the last 10 years particularly in the case of Ashby Mews there has been a movement away from workshops to live/work units. There have been three previous attempts by the applicant to change the unit into solely residential combination but the applicant has reverted back to the live/work approach. Many of the objections accept the work unit however they have a high degree of scepticism as to whether this is what the applicant really wants. He accepted that the planning officers can only deal with facts and not intentions however given the history of the applications for this unit, he stated that it is a very real possibility that the applicant will at some stage try to make the unit solely residential. With this, space will be lost and the character of the Mews will be further diluted and undermined.

He also stated that officers believe that the site is a low flood risk about this there is frequent water pooling on the tarmac road north of the Mews. He also raised concerns about units not using the bin storage and that bins may be left on Ashby Road without enforceability. He stated that an explicit stewarding strategy is needed.

3.13.   The Planning Officer emphasised that enforceability of these concerns is secured by conditions outlined in the report. The consequence of not adhering to these conditions would be enforcement action.

3.14.   It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the application.