Planning Committee A - Thursday, 25th June 2020 at 7:30pm - Lewisham Council Webcasting

Planning Committee A
Thursday, 25th June 2020 at 7:30pm 









Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
2 Minutes of the Meetings on 9 January 2020 and 27 February 2020
1 Declarations of Interests
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

good evening and welcome everyone's this virtual meeting of Planning Committee A might as Councillor Walsh and I am the Chair for tonight's meeting as you on dazzling aware of the United Kingdom still socially isolating and as such with move saving of Lewisham's Planning Authority business online before we start the meeting I have a few housekeeping matters for councils councillors officers or members of the public involved in this meeting it is clear remind and you to ensure your microphone is reset to me unless you are speaking as this produces background noise if he wished to speak at any point during the meeting please indicate this using or by typing in the chat facility every one is reminded that the meeting is being webcast live as a matter for the public record I would ask all participants to ensure you conduct ourselves in an appropriate manner in the same way you would at any physical meeting for ensure spiritual meeting run smoothly and one individual may be allowed to speak at a time and I was Chair will all upon individuals to speak
any person speaking must be permitted to finish what they are saying without interruption if I request as an individual stopped speaking they should do so immediately as reminder this is a meeting held in public and not a public victim continued or significant interruptions may result in your participation in this meeting game limited or stopped members of the public are reminded the chap panel is not for public use and he must messages left on the chap panel by me was off the public will be disregarded by Committee members members of the public disconnected from the meeting due to technical do what his should use a link or dial instructions they were sent initially to return to the meeting members of public who participate in the meeting and reminded that this is being streamed live on the Council's website recorded for future reference he may choose to switch off the camera for the over your voice will be heard
but arrangements for consultants knife meeting will be as follows officers will introduce each application any applicants or agents are members of the public have registered speak will then be invited by me to address the committing in turn with questions to follow each quote him meeting members will then discuss and decide on the officer's recommendations on each application
when we come to vote on each application I will come to each committee member intern asking you to firm with a urine agreements with a recommendation against the recommendations or abstaining and asking if voting against or abstaining the reasons for doing so should there be any doubt as to whether Members present for the whole of an item that we asked not to vote on that application I will
I will now one-man

2 Minutes of the Meetings on 9 January 2020 and 27 February 2020

I have some initial notices to give you a head of starting but tonight's formal business the first notices that the item label Greylake it has been withdrawn from tonight's meeting following additional information received from me that we as the planning authority wanted to afford members opting for review and comment on as necessary down the MTV onto the formal part of the agenda so minutes we are going to sets of minutes seething I received no notice from Members wishing to raise concerns such with any of the units at can I assume then that the minutes dated 3rd of January are an accurate record I hear no dissent
27th February but they agreed as an accurate record
I'm testing those minutes fall now

1 Declarations of Interests

I'm so roll-call and declarations in a moment I shall ask the Clerk to conduct a one core of all Members present at knife meeting and members when their names are called please respond with the odd they are present and confirm if they do or do not have any declarable interests the make regarding tonight's proceedings and I ask at this point
the applicant and objectors that are in the room if you wouldn't mind switching off your wet adds more call upon me when appropriate to switch them battle
32 that's Mr. Mrs. Southwell you personally video camera I quote either is on the bottom bar
excellent album so I clocked could I ask that you carry out a roll-call Amram members please ERT say you're here and whether or not you have any declarable interests
a council should I'm here and I have no declarable interest
Councillor added Ferronnière I'm here nothing to declare
Councillor Davis
Councillor Davies has sent apologies for lateness tonight you'll be joining us after the first item by Councillor common he's also sent apologies Councillor Kelly
I'm here nothing to declare Councillor share I'm here and if not declarable interests Councillor Sauber I'm here and have no declarable interest and kept the Hollande has and apologies


excellent thank you very much for conducting that forming we will now move on to the substantive item on the agenda there is a slight change in the agenda line up as to the one that was published we will be starting first with 60 along a road as he 14 ITT
Patricia is on presenting officer Patricia could I ask you please percent this first item
thank you Chair
so this is item 4 on the published committee agenda the proposed development is for construction of a rubber found extension following demolition of existing brick session and reallocation of gates this application is before members because officers were confirmation is to approve the application and three objections had been received from local residents against are the proposal
the application site is located at the corner plots between the judgement of a longer out and showing Road in Telegraph head he'll words application is marked red on the plan that is in front of you
the I felt very sorry County calling this is an aerial View of the application site from the rear
in view of his own innovation and the rear when approaching from the property from sharing Road
this though these are photographs of the rear and side elevation of the property as existing
the existing rear extension which marked red on the plans will be demolished
and it will be replaced with an extension which was wraparound around existing outrigger the existing a wall are key to the boundary with any property which is marked in red bubble will be retained
the next images showing the existing building with the proposed extension
next journeys are showing the existing and proposed boundary while members will know that the existing gates would move slightly to the right
the next image is a CGI image of the proposed extension and here is another surge CGI image are showing the property with the side extension when approaching a Olango from serving Road
the keep peddling consideration for determination of this application is the principle of development and design impact on heritage assets and neighbour amenity the principle of development is considered to be acceptable the proposal enlarge an existing family house in a sensitive manner with regards to design of the proposed development over the extension will be visible from a number of public vantage points officers are satisfied that design is of high quality the materials used over the extension are also acceptable this application has been reviewed by the Conservation Officer who has raised no concerns in relation to heritage asset and the impact of the proposal
the location of the gate it is also considered acceptable existing brick wall will be retained and used to inform the resulting gap in the brick wall the development will not result in material harm to the living conditions of neighbours
and to summarise the proposal will be of high quality design and materials it will preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and took off Hill conservation area as such approval is recommended subject to condition set out in the officer report thank you Jack
the opportunity to ask the planning of service first how line if you have any additional information point you'd like from them if you like ask anything please can winter coat in the chops by striking any key once
I am seeing now
indication of that in the chat therefore I'm going to Patricia and asked the PAC of bench return on their webcam and microphone
Hurley good evening Mr. Archer Mr. Archer in a moment I shall give you up to 5 minutes to present your application to us as Members of tonight Panny
before we start that please can you introduce yourself and your relationship to the site and my name is Joe Archer and one of the directors about Chevron and I'm the applicant of I'm up the cycle fantastic thank you very much Mr. Archer her I now make it 19 41 I shall give you to five-nation take us around 19 46 the note view state the reasons why we should be supporting me tonight thank Farage councillor so as I've said I'm sure to one of the directors about trimmed brawn we are the architects of work was projects as the property is in a conservation area and is visible from the street we advise the client that a pre-application meeting would be beneficial we had a positive pre-application meeting as we had designed a wrap-around extension to be compliant with the Lewisham SPG on extensions and outbuildings we quote from the pre-application feedback received the principle of extending or altering buildings within conservation area is not resisted the existing side bay window would be retained which is welcomed and recommended to be maintained in any design revisions
we ensured that we took into consideration neighbouring boundary walls and at the boundary extensions 2 point 5 metres or less in height inline with the SPG the critical feedback we received was first to explore a more lightweight material than the brickwork we had previously shown in the pre-application so we took that on board to the application itself we also contacted Malcolm backers at the Telegraph Hill Society which I first presence night for their comments at an early stage but received no further correspondence from until three hours before the start of this committee after five months of the application being online this has not afforded as any time to respond to his concerns
we certainly we submitted a planning application in January with the external material change to a lightweight high quality timber cladding for the design and detailing of the cladding we worked closely with the Scottish supply called referred to ensure that the timber well will weather well have a long lifespan and require no maintenance this supply works predominantly in the Scottish Highlands and Islands and was chosen as affair supply of high grade timber that's detailed to withstand severe weather conditions
and and I've worked with them personally for many many years the neighbour raised objections to this material regarding the durability and maintenance of the product which we strongly believe as unfounded and in order to try to alleviate their concerns me suggested that the entire sidewalk could be constructed of brick by e-mail we were not taken up on this offer there were also some concerns from the same neighbour regarding the rainwater gutter detail and clarity on the retention of a garden more which is a party wall we provided revised drawings to clearly show the party wall in question being retained as well as additional detail drawings of the proposed concealed gutter system which will drain rainwater when it our our external wall clarifying that there will be no rainwater drained on to the neighbouring land
we have been retained by the clients and supervise the works to ensure that the design and tennis carried out in accordance with the drawings and to conclude we note that the Council has recommended this application for approval
and that we have received 9 number letters of supports this application the proposals are in accordance with Lewisham S B G are lightweight subservient and sensitive to the existing building and are of high architectural quality and merit
thank you that's the end thank you very much Mr. Archer members of the Committee if I could I turn to you and ask if you have any questions for this applicant
someone's just coming back
members you have any questions for the applicant
Councillor pursue
another in in thinking that this this was originally going to be a a brick built extension and the was decided that that this construction that the lightweight timber cladding what was a better option yeah so initially we we and proposed that was can be brickwork at pre at pre-application stage and feedback from the Conservation Officer and from the case officer was that maybe a more lightweight material might be more suitable so that's lie we disagree certainly found and proposed that the Budget timber cladding
thank you very much and King
any other questions the applicant
I do not see any other questions the Atkin at this stage Mr. Hartcher thank you very much coming along presenting if I could ask you to mute yourself and turn your camera off will then move to the objectives and allow for them to stay their case
good evening being my here I think yes so my understanding is from all three pre-meeting concentrated in just that there was this externally split time of 3 minutes and two minutes with you now from going first and Southwell's going second for 2 minutes I will put a cock-up wedding have 30 seconds remaining on your time you loved now Crime and the second on your time for you south of
all you are burnt to begin first of all could I ask you
Malcolm could you introduce yourself and your relationship to the site and why are here this evening yes indeed below knocking back us I am Chair of the tenant lawful society and in questions if necessary I can explain why I didn't respond earlier to the applicant as he mentioned but I am here effectively representing those residents who also separately made their individual complaints about the design of the Coptic
thank you very much for that and Southwell's would you not introduce yourselves nor relationship to this property
clear lively shall terrace with them and their end of terrace and that way we share the terrace and the are relatively new neighbours we lifted for about 36 years and they are relatively new neighbours OK thank you very much for that I won't go to do if I can just the moment the Southwell's if you wouldn't mind muting yourself you have to put that stops feedback coming through Malcolm I'm going to ask you to look in your presentation by they'll make the time knowing time and he ate her and your time begins now over all thing that thank you Ms Walsh and good even if the other Councillors who I can't see I the contention that we have I think is that the undue weight has been placed on the SPG and its references to modern high quality design the SPD itself state that character is of great importance when proposing development within conservation area and that such cases proposals need to be in keeping with the scale mass and detailing of the area including use of sympathetic materials
CN Policy 36 however which of course carries more weight than the and SPG makes it clear that the council will not allow a permission and will not last permission for an extension which is incompatible with a special characteristics of the area its buildings form and materials there is no exemption there for modern high quality design the policy simply state that it will not permit extension of an incompatible design with incompatible materials which are incompatible with a special carrying twists of the area now those special characteristics are set out in the Conservation Carrick area character Appraisal which is a matter of material planning concern and isn't really referenced are taken into account in the officers' recommendations
DM Policy 36 requires that the extensions should respect or complement the architectural article characteristics and detailing of the original building it also says that him additional or enlarged windows doors and other openings should be in keeping with the original pattern of existing building and should not cause an incongruous element in terms of other important features of the character of the area
materials we will contend which include vertical wooden panelling and aluminium windows simply do not conform with this policy have no objection to wooden extensions conservation area type extensions in would fully understand where the Conservation Officer was coming from there but they still need to be compatible with the design of the Telegraph Hill Conservation Area Victorian area and these are not the having the windows for civically are not in keeping with the original pattern which is a requirement of the MPC 31
so we believe that it reflects none of the characters of the area and is wholly incongruous there has been and was reference was made to a wooden extension elsewhere in the area as precedent that was built without planning permission so we disregard that so we'd say that is gates Council policy than application we note that the alterations and extension policy guidance both a Site 30 seconds also says that it needs to be it uses the word generally but says that in some locations a traditional approach can be more sensitive particularly where hominid JT and group buildings is part of the spatial character and in a terrace of houses we would have thought that was definitely the case so in summing up asked that was sitting on it against Policy 31 is going wrong uncertain fate and it's against the Conservation Area Appraisal
thank you very much a very good as distinct timing their thank you
so the South Wales
you have two minutes left
to state your case your time begins now what we're asking for is that the flute horn of an extension be located in the same position as the existing extension which was built around 50 years ago and they had been redesigned more sympathetically to the period that the house and my concern is the record as direct night but is that the work will need to take place what will need to take place to rebuild the wall given the lifespan of the cladding products and for treatment and repair property purposes as you can see from British that research data that we have submitted the service life of SYFR it Siberian Larch cladding is just 15 to 30 years in fact 100 50 square foot of original brickwork will be demolished and replaced with cladding with a service life of only 15 to 30 years the statement body architect Siberian Lodge has a 50 to 100 years life is simply not true in fact the extension is so badly designed that the flank wall can only be rebuilt and repair from our property the area of the new proposed extension is 200 square foot so the loss of its Flöge Wi-Fi five foot long strip is minimal our worry with this is that we will have built as coming through our service properly with equipment and chemicals just 1 metres away from our kitchen French doors so work on or rebuild the neighbours wall because it can only be accessed through our house the architect says in the Local Planning Policy Statement that the impacts of neighbouring properties is not significant the sign of the new flank wall on the boundary line would involve the destruction of a terrace of mature bushes and prance because we would be unable to fix them answered Newcraighall without damage in it but more would be three-foot from our kitchen doors and we have submitted a photo of the concepts we understand that in the householder application for planning permissions structural surveys required where development is affecting the neighbours foundations number 68 is a corner terraced property another feel of to young kids that slopes severely and there is a history of spillage in of slippage in celebrated Hill in this case 100 for Southwell I'm afraid your time is now right okay
I've had thank you very much for that thing tout insight
so now can we understand your camera back on
at members do you have any questions for the objectors here at this point
Councillor Bashir ICU
thank you Chair and I think that that the question does need to be asked is why Mr. Bacchus did not respond he said he was willing to her answer that you were in return to it question and I think I need to ask for some clarification about the SWL see say that the only way this war can be built is if they give access to their property and they seem to be irregular somehow that the got to allow builders to work from their property so can I ask both those things play but if I could if I could come in your first Southwell's if I could not ask you just hang on for one second call shopping if you could include in your response that equipped to Council of a shoe or if you could include the policy areas that you think are being reached as well that would be my question just so that I can follow those up with officers when we come through so now come over to you
Malcolm you send my final
to the first one is quite simple I'm I was ill I didn't see their originally nail I don't think they chased me about it anyone says they must have just sent me a single e-mail I don't even recall it now had I known about it earlier I'd have gone back to my e-mails and try to find it as I was as I was ill at the time and I also didn't see the original application details so it was quite a gone before the local residents contacted me and said what did I think of it so it's as simple as that it was a failure
and it was a failure due to the fact that at the time I wasn't very least Tom I think they said that they send it I live certain period I wasn't quickly well I'm had had they send it to me the public wouldn't be able to deal with it but I would certainly got another member of our Committee to deal with it
but I simply don't recall seeing one at that time and say I've had a chance to look back but I don't recall them following the appalling it up for me on occasions and certainly other people who wanted my response that either tried telephony Oxenford left that rather than just an e-mail
OK that's it simply isn't it as far as the as far as the SPG is concerned but as far as the planning policy is concerned I think the fundamental one is deemed Policy 36 which says that the Council will not permit an extension which is incompatible with the special characteristics of the area its buildings form a material
it simply as that it's just will not permit
that is that the first but it was already in Policy 31 which talked about it respecting the architectural characteristics of the area which must go a reference to the Conservation Area Appraisal statement which was not taken into consideration as far as I can see it's also that same policy also requires that in large and additional windows doors and other opening shall be in keeping with the original pattern
so that's another one so they lose are the two big areas DM 30 1 and the emphatic fix I think it's the 36 4 deals something rather I have got in front of me the two fundamental ones there is then the references within the SPG which talk about the tradition traditional approach being needs a more sensitive character where a majority of buildings as necessary as it is an a terrace we the prime applying the areas where I would say that this bitch's policy OK that's very clear and I shall ask all officers specifically on those are DM policies as to have a belief that his client I note that Councillor Davies is now to join us your most welcome Councillor Davis to join us to this point afraid you won't be able to participate in this item as so if I could ask you to the yourself and turn your camera off it will come back to you on the second serve started which will be the former police station OK thank you very much Malcolm over to the Southwell's you asked a question
do you feel that respond
the Council were asked why the woman would need to come from warehouse to retain someone else's house
their houses the terrace joined together and the proposal is to be at the moment the existing extension he cited back from the boundary line so that it's been there for 50 years and the people of all waste might side it from their property the proposal is to move it or to to build Rideal the bounce of the centre of the boundary line and the only way that flank wall can be accessed is from our property
does that make sense because basically because it's what
it is our understanding you received from the literature that we save you from various organisations credible organisations British Standards
the senior Research associate safety etc. this is not a high grade looked and they are suggesting that it will need an treating every four to five years and that's without any necessary remedial works that might be necessary I shrinkage or whatever because it's would I'm so like I say the only way they can get to have any neatly coating for instance and then chemicals need to be carried through it we have seen a photograph showing context between the war and our kitchen
as though it is just so close the Wigan they have into have this work undertaken over thankfully it will cause us some distance back you of all phases of his the particle agreements and access to hop is an isn't dealt with through the planning system
about all that will happen some of the the applicant if this was to go through
this is not to suggest they it's it's the quality of the work now the architect is suggested last for 100 years and is of excellent quality if you read the literature we send you from these organisations accredited organisations
they're they're not affiliated to any particular Cumdivock companies or individuals they're independent and they give a completely utterly completely different take on it I missed guested that it is not I'm going to last more than 15 to 30 years though very much about I've seen of the following Members we wish to ask questions Councillor Sauber
thank you transverse trait food 1 and Southwell's alluded to a photograph a panel of the papers but I can't find it maybe it's
is it something that could be made available now to the committing ID I definitely seen it I've got a copy here on not when ovarian technically Ivel if you can suggest a way that I can send it or give it to you know I'm quite happy to do it and we could try holding up your webcam a gala surplus while you 18 necessary actually that's why we seem to in English you the context of exactly how close is to our property handkerchief
trying to talk to my wife and should be Alfie minded that if this isn't an Officer paper work is can't be verified yeah if part of it is not we can only take this anecdotal we can't be verified I go and gone through officers they might need to lift that up slightly higher if the SWL cause I can just see a spire
it was proposed that our conservatory and inched up the terraces next to the conservatory and in the wall the existing wall
Peter Weir defences of the existing fence wooden fence in the existing extension is so is about full by from the fence Hughes and existed
yes I think that other guy that's very good thank you very much you got from hoping us answered your question of Krakatoa Callow you've asked a question
yes Year R did Aegis regarding on what the proposal about the that he sings handed to one her day
in the past the architects consider that before coming to the Planning Committee OK Councillor Carter I think is a very good question which I think we might be out to follow up with an officer's I'm not sure that we need to hold our objectors to account on that one I think it's officers and if necessary we can go back to the applicant for those answers ballet's less pop after small period of time if that's OK
happy to take that into the next section once we've stood down these objectors OK thank you
none members OK Mr. Mrs. Southwell Malcolm thank you very much for your diligence and coming along the seething is always good to have you as part of our funding processes have if you'd like now 10 of your microphone and camera you're still more than welcome to what's along inside this teens environment until the end of his item tonight though if you'd like to turn off your camera and microphone and we will then move on to Pen yr Ole with officers
Patricia without planning officer
thank you Chair
say there is a number of issues I'm that have been raised by objectors and I remember take of Hill's society so I think on the policy and found a I can assure you that when we are considering this application we have fought about the impact the extension will have on the building and the wider Conservation Area so DM 31 and 36 have been taken into account as well as a alterations extension as PD which provides further guidance on extensions which includes extensions in a conservation area so we have thought about this and together with the Conservation Officer on further analysis of the proposal or we came to a conclusion that whilst the extension will be larger than existing because it will add I'm a bit to decide of the building which was nothing that it's a if fits with the application site and a building and it actually complements the building other than trying to replicate its original features and we felt that it was quite well and it didn't it not going to cause a significant harm to the Conservation the reasons why is trying to be preserved so that is how we reach our conclusion in terms of policy backing I know that they have been quite of discussions about the quality of materials I just want to remind officers that this is actually not some being at a Polish sees seeking to to quantify as as in how what is a good quality and how long of materials need to last-four
I'm sure that when they are attacked was designing the extension they have taken that into consideration and they have explained to the applicant that the the timber will have to be treated every now and then and how that material 8 will depend on how it's being looked after by the applicant but I want to stand the owner is committing to do the necessary upkeep I'm of that material so I think that does an important thing to consider and lastly on the point I am about HAP needing to gain access to neighboring property to treat that that's something that I'm we'll come under party Wall Act and the the to interested parties I I the applicant and the
the Minister will have to come to agreement on how they got to deal with it but it's I don't think it's something that stands in a way of granting this planning permission and I think that's Coppersmith Smith of point by anything is unclear I'm happy to clarify thank you John
Member any additional questions at this point for firing offices
2 m to 2 furniture to Mali scream are confounded by good question she as you know mine of course Councillor are frowning thank you and go back to officer that's where she was making her presentation
that the Conservation Officer has no objection I'd like to know how much involvement because official because the officer agreed had in the development of his application
thank you
chaired by May
so the Conservation Officer has been consulted on the application so they had an opportunity to review all this admittance and I've provided feedback on what they think of the proposal and they said that there are certain despite that I'm the height massing and materials that will be useful not raised any concern or think sorry they wouldn't cause any harm to the conservation area so based on that assessment we then proceeded with making own assessment in terms of the overall design and we agreed with what the Conservation Officer has said and that's what led to the recommendation on the design being acceptable
thank you Chair
thank you very much I now say Council of shoe
the applicant has said that this requires no Lenton's whatsoever I can think of ever known a house that indeed no maintenance whatsoever so I do feel a little bit concerned that he would say it doesn't need any maintenance whatsoever because if this can only be maintained from somebody else's property I think you know in an ongoing way that this feels an unsustainable to me as a as as a building I know that the they were agreements and and so on but some it just feels undesirable for a building and and I'm sure that would needs more treatment than brick and brick needs treating so I'm just a little bit concerned about no maintenance whatsoever and over the years if this is going to last a hundred years you you cannot depend on a on an agreement now carrying on for 100 years
card won't coming off the people's come back into the heart of all and arms just a touch flat I think purposes are one of the other but would sear number faces if you just want to make me happy if Members were minded to under 18 outcome wish to speak on it but that isn't necessarily about our by pursuing the if Members so forgive me applicant thing they can of by what her first from the officer so Patricia King mind just talking about how that won't found the reality
it said that the party Wall Act is designed to resolve any neighbour disputes so the fact that the applicant will have to gain entry onto the neighbouring property to paint I will be subject to their agreement between the two parties and it doesn't mean that if someone gets an agreement one year it might be an ongoing thing that need to be maintaining the range of needs to be managed between the two interested parties
there are different ways that you could do it on but I think that this mystery standing in the way of approving the application this is something that I'm sure Ltd applicant seem have fought about when they designed this extension and and there will be recommending ways of how the the timber could be treated without causing too much of an issue for anyone involved and in the future think if I'm if you are not confident that we could potentially ask the applicant to
submit this information on how they gonna deal or treat the timber in future years when needs to because of the something if you look after timber cladding it will last if it doesn't it needs to be replaced so we could put something together asked them to put something together to give us reassurance that a there is a management an enticement thought about thank you Chair
thank you for
are now saying sorry Councillor should answer your question
the question that the owner was really asking is about the that the likelihood of this statement that this this will need absolutely no treatment whatsoever because we were being told this when until the on the basis that this will lead absolutely no treatment whatsoever that that we should approve it being so close to these other people's properties an an I am just and I always worry about blanket statements s-like this will need no treatment whatsoever just worries me I hear your concerns Panel Councillor pursued I think I think that this is one of those difficult spots where planning stops and starts next to another record low regulatory action I'm exists and I think the Patricia I don't want to paraphrase what you said badly I think you said that the quality of the material and how it was going to loss isn't one of those planning considerations that we would take into account of this point I've seen from your head a nod and a shakes I'm hoping that was being in agreement with me
that does not honour that a very awkward answer Councillor of shoe is that that meet that need with one the passing of CETA grit regarding I understand the answer that I still have my doubts about the wisdom yet
councillor Sauber
chair up to questions the first is a a co also about the the would materials I'm not quite clear if the quality of the wood is a material consideration that we should give weight to if we accept that it is of low quality and that's been proposed does that is something we should take into account that's my first question if we accept that
I'm sorry some Members may in some Members may not for a second question and this is always difficult when we're in a con conservation areas because the wording seems to be so loose that one can have an Officer's interpretation and we can have the Telegraph Hill society's interpretation they really vary so difficult for me to arbitrate so I just focus on one feature the Panamanian complicit windows and I happened to be by coincidence resident in his conservation area
I thought they were
typically regarded as not being in keeping I could be wrong
that sounds like clarification on that as well please OK thank you Patricia Hewitt yet they will keep shared so the accession is being proposed is going to be a ground floor and there's quite a high boundary walls if at their windows where be
don't be more visible and I will be resisted but when you ring we serve considering their proposal that we are dealing with now we think that was an appropriate approach given the scale and the size Awarey is an on the building so that's why that material is considered to be acceptable levels elsewhere we might have something something different and on a show matures just to go back and what is regarded as high quality material it could mean a lot to different things in those obviously different opinions and standards and the different companies have their own interpretations of its own but just to go back it's not something that the policy is required high quality materials but it's not talking about the lifetime of this materials I'm having it that information has been given to us by the applicant we were satisfied that the materials that there will be using I'm would not harm the appearance of the conservation area and they will be of sufficient high quality in officers opinion to justify recommending his application for approval and this is something that members will have to also consider it's just as it could be a bit more subjective then we think so it's not black and white
thank you Chair
can I ask a follow-up to her Councillor Saunders question if phone I only mentioned in your address back then that because of the boundary wall obscuring the windows we wince we don't it's not necessarily as
as important that they're not aluminium but would that be true for windows that were built into the property and the were obscured by the boundary walls and whether or not we should be pushing for a higher quality than that you're standard aluminium windows and whether or not that would be right for us to do so
say they excision itself eighth a little bit more contemporary dead I'm walk then the existing building anything that it very difficult for accession State exactly replicate the design of the house especially if those slightly bigger I'm so the projects I'm the applicant has taken is considered to be appropriate and they are retaining the windows and all in a bay which is being retained on the side elevation and really want to lose that because that's part of the original house given that it's a new addition which is clearly a new addition I'm it's considered to be appropriate in this instance I obviously were very a case to case but in in this occasion I'm concerned this proposal its cause it to be appropriate
thank you very much Patricia I don't see any more indications to ask questions
so at this point members this is where we have to stock including the business on this item which we given a good and thorough looking at over the last 40 minutes so
yes Councillor Elliott
I am very concerned about disappointment and also about a coalition from officers yes I think what Kelly how desecration of course a few area came about it wasn't just a luxury for the habitants of this barrel it was something that does something within their work is worth kicking
as of historical was of package available and then let me ANC London dictators' because of you area again quietly being denuded whereby attrition to express as far as I know
for poverty in coastal area it should be such that enhance what is there already
having listened to both sides I do not complaint that this development is good to enhance economy because of your area of Telegraph Hill and won't you lost part of clutter air you cannot get it back and
I think the case is made that this is going to her puppy damage you don't know it will be in keeping with what is already there
because the pursuit motion re timber and brick or K may not be a penny issue but a fact that was classic first settler clearly by the developer that this would not need maintenance if you take from route to Cheetham brick wall to wood cladding
is a complete Councillor other founding ideal here I do you know you're saying answer but I think was set on slightly shaky ground here because I officers have been very clear that the lifespan of materials isn't a planning consideration momentarily
so we need to be making sure that if if there is anything that is coming forward that it sits with inside the policy framework that we've got so needs we need to be very clear about it we're going to go against or renewals going to come against I need to know clearly why we are rejecting the officer recommendations are
to not look at yeah I just a care simple reason this would not and comes because our vision because of your area of the record therefore not is about of of such accommodation thank you for that and I do have all all legal team at that would like to come at this point Charlie would you like to to weigh in here
is it is my consent like connections OK other going and I can see you perfect thank you and I completely accept the councillors point about preserving a conservation area and but I would just like to help flesh out the correct approach and there I think a two points which need to be noted the first of which is that the duty isn't solely to enhance the conservation area it also to preserve it I think that needs to be borne in mind under Section 72 what you're not just considering his does this make it better but does it preserve it
the second point is that if when you'll reaching that judgment you come to the conclusion that it neither preserve nor enhance or so damages that doesn't mean that you have to automatic is I'm sure you know refused planning permission it is a matter which attract significant weight under the MPP Athletic the crack paragraphs are 1 5 1 6 I'm sorted out in front of me I'm but even if you reach that conclusion which is of course open to you I would just like to 2 am help or and underline the point that isn't necessarily the end of the matter it may begin to the matter but I think you need to
make sure that the planning balance is is is conducted properly in this matter of if that's if I buy that points as a bit clearer yes I think you have if I can just keep their for one moment Councillor sheeted you answer raise a question
yes indeed
it's in relation to what Councillor Eddy for early to say x about these windows and about talking about conservation because what we're saying is we don't need to conserve it as long as there's a fence between that we know and the public realm so it's saying you don't have to conserve it as long as nobody can see it standing in the street and that sort of fails and comfortable about maintaining or conserving something that it's all right to detract from that as long as there's a fence in the way and I are failing you know slightly discomforting bearing in mind that we talk about things like roof lights in conservation areas we don't like rooflights in conservation in areas even if when you are standard on the ground in the street you cannot sing the rooflight and so if you're not allowed to put an aluminium rooflight it I don't quite see if it's at ground level but as long as being a stand in the street you can't see it it's OK to stick an outing windowing
I hear what you're saying I'm not sure if I personally had to agree with that because I think this is very clearly there are another part of the show's young for the the House answered their forties in open what's have little Huggins and people need to be able to you know still live in their their how to plan and allowed the NSA to grow around them
Patricia Charter you are if you want to come back
thank you Chair
it so any conservation areas it doesn't mean that you can't put a roof light or you can't have an extension which is different to the design of the original house it just means that you have to be a lot more careful how he decided how big it is and how it relates to you the original building
so when we were discussing this together with the Conservation Officer we felt that this extension
no tying the building that has been attached to all the wider conservation area it is of a different appearance but sometimes when you are she adds something which is slightly different it's helping to preserve the what you trying to keep I'm anything out all the original features such as the bay window or all the other windows within a verbal build search for the new building are being preserved and we feel that this accession is not detracting from what the conservations trying to preserve I'm so we feel as officers that this application is a complying with the test that we needed to make in order to assess it and to recommend approval for the spying permission
some of the concert hall pastiche you want contrast sometimes when you're looking to preserve stuff
yes it could be the case is very difficult to possess a vein which is exactly I've been keeping an obviously this is a larger extension to existing house and so we felt that the direction as advised by at the pre-application stage was the applicant listened to us and if taken out to buy some board and 8 come up with a design that works really well for the building and the area
I'm talking to you won't come back on though I go to Councillor Sauber for his question
I'm not good enough to draw down funds are not covered everything I was I would have said in a much more sober how Sauber furniture so I'm also leaning towards Council out of tyrannies
sort of assessment that that that that this does not preserve the the character of the Conservation Area by token board that complementary design are also welcome but I want to to ask Charlie because you said that even if we do feel this to be the case we need to balance this against other factors before we come to our decision now I'm not quite sure what the other factors are in this particular instance so I totally recognise two things one is the efforts had been made architecturally but by the applicant I appreciate those efforts and also the need sometimes families are expanding its for children or people grow older the extra space and I think it's very important thing to balance but because there's already an extensions it doesn't seem to me that this application
it is that are driven by the need for extra space which many many families need it seems to be more of a design decision to replace the old design with a new one and therefore was asking to what extent how do we balance those to what's the formula should we apply
so the in the event that you conclude that there is harmed the conservation area what you are directed to do under the empty PF as you have to identify the level of harm whether substantial less than substantial and from that you then have to apply bouncy exercise so what paragraph 196 tells you is where there's less than substantial harm that should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including where appropriate securing its optimum viable use
in terms of identifying what the benefits are that is ultimately a matter of planning judgement for you to exercise I'm but I do note and the paragraphs I believe 73 and 74 of the report which is in section 10 the conclusion
do identify a number of the benefits of the scheme and I note that it is said to be in compliance the development plan and unfortunately I can't direct you as to specifically what conclusion you should reach and but provided you adopt that approach
and of course is open to you to to reach any conclusion on on the benefits which you may or may not considered to be of a scheme that will be a legitimate decision
they from what you said there Charlie sounds like a first task that we have is whether or not we feel there is substantial harm to others conservation area by introducing the wooden extension yes you did those things do identify whether substantial or less than substantial harm
there is a
indication in the idea of what substantial Hamas
and that it it if if you do want to look at that rather than me paraphrasing it but I think would only be to everyone's detriment that's from paragraphs 100 93 onwards of of the framework
93 Charlie actually technicians
is Charlie a presenter because it would be good if he could share his screen or if one of their officers could share their screams avoiding members could see what that paragraph is specifically saying
try give me and pewter will find it OK
we will just need to wait for a moment for that Test so once we get through that test than there are other things that we need to consider as well
before we do that
but here we are
so paragraph 1 9 fines that were looking at Charlie
yes the daughter of one knowing if the thrive is is where as you see an issue decisively to substantial harm
that is directing you that you should refuse consent
unless the harm is an old is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits and all particular note in that paragraph
it how it says in that middle sentence and the substantial harm or total loss and and that's because there is a very very high threshold as to what substantial harm will be it doesn't have to be the total loss but it has to be significant in its nature
I think that while for me that that's quite clear this is quite a high test why a high bar that we have to to to get through to get through that test
I'll I'll play with a straight bat here with you I personally do not think that we are seeing in this application before us tonight a a application that would reach that test of substantial harm to the conservation area
they are coming Chair because she can do is agree with you by stronger
I'm not to go to all the elements which have been mentioned
but this property is allowed to go the way it had been proposed to be old one out in the street
and therefore to me that is of Staysure like just minor sorry just on that point but I would ask you to bear in mind is that the heritage asset here is entirely the conservation area and not just the property
I'm so when considering whether there is such harm I I would ask you to consider not just in relation to the property or even the street but the area as a whole and it of course that doesn't change your doesn't understand but I would just ask you to adopt that approach Clare's
Baskin advice thank you very much
members we seem to be at an impulse
I consider Friday is a long view and I am of another
we therefore need to start and what I think we have a standard there is a a bar here for us about substantial harm verses non substantial harm Councillor own
Councillor Sobel and Councillor pursue I've seen that you've both wish to ask questions Councillor Sauber do you want to go further to mark for thank you Chair sorry to and maybe Peroni things but I actually agree with you Chair that it is lessons Stanshall harm however I would probably vote to reject because even when this is the harm is less substantial it has has to be balanced by the public benefit and I'm not persuaded on the evidence presented today that the public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm even though that harm is less than substantial if you take my point okay Patricia
would you mind allowing a refreshing members of opinion about walks that public benefit is in this batting application to walk more we counteracting this
this width of what is the applicant trying to counteract this less than substantial harm
thank you Chair and officers I she didn't think that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm so we didn't look for within feel that as a need to have a public benefits to this I application but there was a point made about this application being the only one is sticking out I just went on Google images and behalf when through that exercise Villiers I think the application and awkward share my screen
there have been a number of extensions at 2 May of the properties in Telegraph Hill society I mean a conservation area
and we don't feel that this one will be the only one I'll done in isolation and going back to the point that he made earlier is felt that the design is not going to harm the wider conservation area and the reasons why it has indicated Sir just want to remind that
we went through to the test that needed to be taken we thought about it very carefully with conservation officers who were involved De Valley stage of development on of this scheme and we are satisfied that there's not going to be any harm done to the heritage I said that we tried to protect
Councillor Hugh
following on from Councillor Seward this thing about public good that there is a perfectly liveable house before this that there is no problem with this House the is being corrected by the erection of this building that has got different windows a different construction is different in every way from the houses it now stands so other than giving the people who live there a bigger house because they want a burger her house I don't quite see the benefit wait when you buy a house when I bought a house I looked round and Thorpe is there enough space in his house to live in and so I don't see a benefit on a perfectly liveable House just because you suddenly find yourself not happy with the size of 8 I don't see how that can possibly be for the public good saying I need a bigger house OK I I hear on Samuel fame there I'm upping Patricia of the plan of the pointed out
that the authors as there was no harm
by this development because multiple houses in the near in the near vicinity and in a conservation area or so have these this type of SIF of extension I think that I would just come back and quickly argue though bat being out or move house now is quite limited for a lot of people and people outgrow the homes and want to stay in their in their homes and develop routes and our planning system does allow for that are so
the ability to be able to develop in your back garden
I'm to replace elements of your home is something back that is there and Members I I'm reading the mood of the room I must say that I am wholeheartedly and against the mood of the room at the moment it seems because I don't think I don't think that we are meeting the tests here we've had the Boris Solicitor and the the Planning Officer very clearly I think point out at the the bars that we have to reach and their assessments have been we have not reached their however I am minded that we have now been going at this for an hour and we have four items on force of start of item on tonight's agenda
My Council is I don't think this is is waltz convicted so far
is reasonable grounds for rejection
if Members would like to go however against me
you can always call right
bifocal we summarise I think looking at Sun the grounds at and assessment of the application I think every refused it we do I'm there's a potential debts this Woolgar took your my lose and this is because we have looked at all the assessment that had necessary to make this recommendation might be useful far members 3 to see so Charvy don't mind I could share the screen and show the extent of of additional extensions to various other buildings yesterday what will be been more is the book we'd say considering old the aspect of the application I don't think that this is going to cause harm individual commit criminal be we look at an earlier the extent of the happened on I and for that reason I don't think I'm that we should be refusing this application as we I don't think that we have enough grounds to to compose there
strong enough reason for refusal that could help be upheld at appeal and and is going to be Von answer my screen now
school to make it bigger
this is the application property I believe and Sky theme there's a number of exertion having done there's an one would has what appears like a lean-to Sir very safe there are various applications I am feeling there is around at the outrageous so there is quite a lot of development that has happened and that
to be also said on the other side were the application property is sited so I don't feel like I'm this I am design approach it will harm the conservation area and for older reasons that have been discussed in mentioned before I'm I think we all struggle at appeal and I don't really see a strong view for
I would sharing
there seems to be silence so therefore and do what I don't like doing home something it's as the Chair and private with except
the recommendations as outlined in the report
this item will penny one secondly on
I see no openings secondary on that
therefore members that asked for them I therefore awaits measures to move their own motion and as possible these have your reasons for anything that you approve a new unmoving ready for answers are moment I've Development Manager for the borough in a Kris
thank you Chair
I've been I've been listening to the debate and members concerns and I I I clearly officers are of the view that this this is one which they recommended for approval notwithstanding that the Committee seem to be concerned about the quality of the materials in the design of the of the extinction and we've heard advice from the legal tried about what type of assessment needs to be undertaken in in this instance in that and balancing the potential harm to the Conservation Area against any potential or benefits that the scheme might bring and I suppose I'm it is true to say that any benefits that the scheme might bring could be argued to be could be relatively minor so you know if if if members are concerned about the design siting and scale of the proposal then I think I've reason for refusal would need to be framed around policies 30 31 and 36 of the Council's armed valid management are plan hands I can provide some more detail wording if that word or be of assistance Chair but I think first you you may want to continue with the with the debate but I can or provide detailed reason for refusal if required
very helpful Falcon Crest
so members Chrysalis outlined living enlarging the areas that are seen to reflect your your wishes so 13 31 Arthington 36 while which have been outlined is that an area of those the areas that you have in mind at the moment the were this application is not fulfilling NEET
I am sure that does reflect my concerns were Christopher some sort of summary
it's OK so I'm Rusper you are offered Su
come up with a form of wording
that delegated responsibility sharing I 5 I'll just written something down here and the proposed rear extension by reason of its siting design and materials represents an unsympathetic and discordant addition which would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and in the absence of significant public benefits the proposal runs contrary to the policies 30 31 and 36 of the Development Management Plan and paragraph 1 9 6 of the NPP F
members are you have that are there for you is anyone going to move a motion based on that or anything else
where it is chair yes yes I want to go fast and so I think you probably both volunteering to propose it I think the reason no individual will reluctant is them at a personal respect to you James where
part of it
don't worry about that we just need to come to the right planning decision on this on this answer so thank you very much for your kindness and your thoughts but we can be of different minds and I think shows good democratic principles that we can can do what we need to do
is considering if if if the Council particularly see why she dared go culturally 2 8 for what the had be battle to let me see Council has got to while she gay let down and go ahead
syllabus will not have voting rights
the Minister speak with our policy is that as mentioned by of this this is subject subjective matter in the reason why we have these and committees is it is clean cut we would not need them
so Councillor Sobel or Councillor under frightening which one of you would like to to to do some formally
as the service should add to it if you get both I'll second you early I'm your gingerly position quite clear and there were passionate about our because of an area and I want to ask her EWTD for incoming generation therefore for all the adamantly made and I want to say thank you to the officer they language is causing much museum pushing away I do not go to any where as as quick return it as he made it quite clear where we stand and therefore our proposed that an officer condition is dictated and caring for the reasons as obviously what you mean is for the reasons stated in the draft produced by Christopher guest thank you Chair OK do I see a second of that I'll second that true O'Kelly's that has been formally moved clerks could I ask you to do a roll-call so that is
do officers are now do members
I agree with the motion put forward by Councillor out of her awning as detailed by and expressed through Christopher's wording so I'm when you to have a vote so if you agree with Councillor Farani you would vote yes if you don't you would vote no and if you are unsure you would abstain that clearly run yeah yeah could I ask for a roll vote please
Councillor Walsh against
Councillor Arif money for
Councillor Kelly
for Councillor pursued fall and Councillor Silver for OK that's cosy past thank you very much to everyone who was participating from the public and the applicant the
recommendation has been refused a on the reasons as outlined in the draft read to us by the officer
excellent we are now moving on to the next item on the agenda at this point I would like to well Council welcomed Councillor Davis to this meeting Councillor Davies would you like to turn on your camera up to me after test birthday flirtation has to refute


OK Councillor Davis welcome I just before we begin tonight on the next of starting an item can I just check with you that you have no declarable interests in any of the business of being heard tonight now at acre thank you very much so for Members following along at home I'm for members of the audience and also officers and elected Councillors are we're moving now onto the former Deptford police Station 114 100 16 Amersham Vale
before we start on this item can I ask a is Peter swaying in the room all Simon was I can see some unwise after excellent Mr. Wallace I will come to you in a moment of that's OK
the officer presenting this item is Gareth Gareth for you and us
excellent Gareth if you would like to load up your presentational decison please
as the capture what he says that her Gareth if he was reminding us through this application became so there are two applications for members receiving in relation to the forwarded for police station are the first of the planning application for external alterations including the demolition of the existing free at buildings associated with the alteration and conversion of POSC at ground floor and floors above to provide 9 self-contained apartments together with associated cycle parking refuse storage and outdoor amenity space and the second and related application is an application for listed building consent for the above works recognising that the application property is itself Grade II listed building
and this application these applications are before Members the seething as the officer recommendation is for approval and more than three objections have been received
so this is the site location plan so edged red is the formidably station located on Amersham Vale at the junction with Napier close and if I move on to the next slide which is the AERA image so we can see the before police station located here in terms of the adjoining property and this is a later replacement to plead the police station adjoining it the efficient property has a large rear yard enclosed by boundary walls that the rear and lies within a lively residential area surrounded by the Adolphus and the state and its importance to highlight at this stage that the application property since the closure of The police stated in its relocation is the adjacent building since about 2 thousand and 9 there was planning permission granted for the change of use of the building to artist's studios and the building has been used as artist's studio workspace since around 2 thousand and 9 and the recurrently around 45 of the studio is based within the property
so this is just an overhang the rear of the property and as I mentioned before it's a Grade II listed building and against showing the yard area to the rear which includes a number of shipping containers currently
which offers teams are based within this is the front elevation of the property for Amersham Vale
the property was constructed just after the turn of the last century
and again another of the front elevation at the junction with naked close here
and then this is the rear of the property looking from Napier close he can see the boundary wall which surrounds the rear yard area
and then this taken from within the rear yard itself so again the the rear elevation and the shipping containers which are currently within the yardage also house after stings
and again showing the shipping containers in the rear yard
there are also a range of outbuildings in the rear yard
which are also occupied by studio space and then these are saw the interior photos so the yeah of this studio space I say there are approximately 45 studios within the building and its outbuildings at the moment and when I undertook my site visit last year I think all but two of them were occupied
I can't answer more photos of the studio workspace inside the building
I was there as a Grade II listed building the the building as some attractive features these are some of the interior features so the original stairwell and the wooden sash windows and many of these figures are until the to be retained as part of the proposed works against more photos though this is the entrance lobbies the building and on the ground floor so the the former cells are still in existence and bay are currently used as exhibition space as part of the the studios
again this is 6 through sorry Sly chased them later Internal tracious and subdivision say over the it has been alterations he can see his but partition walls and a suspended ceiling at these fixed of introduced in the building against some of the later alterations and subdivision
OK so this plan shows the existing access arrangements at the ground floor level and I think it's important just to highlight is the Member's because the access arrangements are important consideration in relation to the proposed as well it's quite complex so essentially as existing the main entrance to the artistry spaces through the may entrance from Amersham Vale here as also secondary entrance here into this this unit here
then there is also access through the rear yard so Viennale close here and then which gives access to the ground floor here and downstairs here and here to the basement level and then also there's the outbuildings which access via the rear yard
so if we then move on sorry this is the lower ground floor again so vanish before downstairs to to access the lower ground floor so his choir QT nature deserted nothing is quite complex access arrangement currently
I'm in terms of the proposed access arrangements and so this is something officers since the application was submitted have worked with the applicant to to address and actually to try to see to for greater separation between the proposed residential uses and the artistry workspace which would be retained so the proposal is that the existing she 0 workspace at lower ground floor level and a part of the ground floor levels for the this rear element this rear wing would be retained as artists' workspace and but the remainder of the ground floor and the upper levels would be converted to residential accommodation and so the proposed access arrangements the residential units would be accessed principally via the main entrance he airing at Blair and will be secondary access to this unit independently presence closer access through the rear yard through a new gate introduced to give them access to the bin store and cycle store on their way and they could enter the building via the rear and and then in times of the Shia workspace the artist couldn't fully as existing through the rear access gate and further test the odd area and then products to the the lower ground floor level and the outbuildings
unsolicited existing Lower Ground floor Plan and then if we Philip to the proposed plan for level floor you can see that there are very limited alterations proposed apologia and floor and this would be retained as artists' workspace at this level and tells the existing part ground floor so the various sells I mentioned to retain their in this rear wing here and so the majority of those with the exception of these two would be retained so again the office studio workspace will be shown in blue so at the ground floor any outbuildings here and there will be two residential unit created at this level in the in the frontage Amersham Vale hum then if we go to the existing First floor Plan the sorry the proposed plan there will be three apartments created here one of which would have a balcony one of which would have an external roof terrace
the second floor Plan as existing and then as proposed again three units created at this level each of which would act or amenity space
and then finally the attic space at third floor the existing and proposed the would be one apartment created at that level again with its own private balcony
in terms of the proposed landscaping plan so the existing rear yard area is currently all hard landscaped and as you saw from the photos earlier there and rush shipping containers within here which contain additional studio space and so those shipping containers would be removed there will be soft landscaping introduced to the yard area which would be a shared space both for residents of the building or the the units together with
occupies in the studio workspace you could use this absence of recreation I had the would also be a cycle store and bin store provided for residents and a separate in store and cycle store provided for these cheating workspaces
these plans following register in terms of the proposed elevations so as this is the proposed West elevation to the front to front of building effectively tarnish Vale as you can see there are very limited alterations proposed the Salvation simply intends instructions from freestanding letterboxes to the front similar in terms of the side elevation very limited really in terms of the extensive external alterations there is an additional gate introduced into the boundary wall here and so the windows are its and the windows which have original window openings which have subsequently been blocked up would be reopened with with windows introduced
this is the rear elevation again the alterations here are limited principally to the removal of the emergency escape stairwell which runs down the rear of building and replacement with balconies which would be made from the reclaimed materials of that in black painted metal and then the north elevation finally so in summary that the proposed exile ratios are very limited in nature
this is just a section plan which again show some of the alterations I think the important things caravan just three conflicts like one of the things which we have required the applicant team to prepare as a sound investigation report and coves recognising that the building would it's a Grade II listed buildings it's an old building that you would have the artistry workspace coasting with residential units above and we ask them to undertake a sound insulation investigation report so that identified the mitigation measures that will be required to prevent the transference of unacceptable levels of noise from the student workspace to the residential units or of the very mindful of the principle of the H agent of change in this and we in introducing residential it's important to ensure that that would not in any way compromise the continued operation of the studio workspace so these drawings here show the proposed works of mitigation terms of introducing additional insulation at floor and ceiling level to prevent that transference of noise through a and in terms of the key planning considerations so
the principle of development
so as I mentioned earlier so that they would be studio space retained oath crown and lower ground floor level so there would be approximately 540 square metres or work space retained the conversion would have obviously result in the loss of existing occupied workspace asset that within the committee report an important consideration in this regard is an appeal decision from February 20 18 in relation to this property and an application which actually propose the loss of all and food floorspace and its conversion to residential entire building would be converted to residential and in that in appeal decision the Inspector found that the Falmouth actually found no conflict with policies of the Development plans for the inspectors saw effectively saw that there was there was no protection afforded to that existing employment use so that's all sets the the position in a sense and we recognise that there are policies in the emerging London Plan in relation to the creative enterprise zone which has recently been I didn't fight for this area and
but however though those policies in the in the London Plan effectively require afforded protection of themselves but they require the through Boris Local Plan they identifying designate the creative enterprise zone and for protection to the local plan and all Local Plan Conradi before adding weight in planning decisions at this stage given that it it its current stage of preparation so I think that principle development as set out within the report I think we consider that the loss of theage to workspaces clearly regrettable given that this year workspace makes a positive contribution to the local economy and the creative enterprise zone however on the basis of the appeal decision and the current planning policy context is not considered that the application can be resisted on that basis
just because there was quickly so in terms of housing quality as set out in the report so the the proposal would provide 9 self-contained apartments which would clearly make contribution to the Borough's housing requirement and all units would meet or exceed the minimum internal space standards and are considered to afford a suitable level of amenity for future occupiers and in terms of noise and disturbance as I mentioned before there are San investigation report has identified a series of mitigation measures in terms of insulation which would be installed to prevent any transference of noise between the studio space and the essentially it and that will be secured through condition in terms of and design and impact on Heritage assets obviously to Grade II-listed building and the Council's Conservation Officer is is is has raised no abject objection to the proposed alterations and their considered to be as as it's the external alterations that very limited in nature in terms of the interact turn alterations again that of the minimum necessary really toot of suicide conversion of the building and and in fact some of the Internal tracious would actually involved the removal of later insensitive additions such as the stud partition walls and suspended ceiling so so so I think on balance officers recommendation sorry not that officers clear recommendations on that point is that the development would result in lessons substantial harm and at that heart would be clearly outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme and intend to transport the dwelling would be car free would be cycle parking provision derided within the and Riyadh area and visitor cycle parking spaces introduced on Napier close in terms of the impact on adjoining properties and obviously it's an existing building as no new build element proposed so the existing windows in the relationships to the neighbours would remain as is an however of see those the infliction of balconies but it's not considered given the separation distances involved that there would be any unacceptable impact on adjoining properties
in terms of sustainable development the application property does lie within Flood Risk Zone 3 however the environmental 8 Environment Agency have confirmed that the on the next flood modelling that the site would not be subject to flooding in in the event is protected by the Thames Tideway a barrier and then finally in terms of planning obligations so officers have worked hard to fully with the applicant recognising that there would be a loss of employment floorspace here so applying the rather than policies within the draft plan and the Planning obligations SPD
to secure a contribution of 281 thousand pounds and which would be directed towards training and local employment and recognising the end would be that loss of employment floorspace so that could potentially be directly to supporting new affordable workspace for Streetcare workspace for instance
are so yeah I think those are the key issues and so the officer recommendation is to grant permission for both the planning application and the listed building consent application subject to conditions and completion of a Section 1 6 agreement
thank you very much for members are forcing indication the tracks if anyone else has any follow up questions please indicate now but was we get going Cassop shoe you were first Mark
yet a couple of things first of all it's about the use of the arch studios we had a an application some years ago where they were arched yo-yos close to housing and there were issues I know you say you gonna look or sound insulation and so on but snaking of some art can be a jolly noisy process and can lead to unhappiness between already existing artists and newly moved in residence and so I'd want to be really sure that they there's not going to be any conflict there and the other thing I wanted to ask about is the car-free status I don't think you can reasonably expect that a 3 bedroom and property which is a family property people are going to swear to never having a a car although people are willing to say that when the got three or four kids they might just chair and their mind and so I wondered what the street parking was like around there if although there's not specific Park came whether should someone alighted able to have private transport there is some way that they could park it without causing stress on the name of it thank you
very much answer that is questions around noise insulation and or parking and popular also could probably tagging that could you Tennison are it's in a sea present I could from your owl not be interesting tonight so Gareth's you became think so I'm since it was the first point and the noisiest you I say that you so that we offer to as officers were very concerned about to ensure that there will be an complexity the agent of change principle and to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impact on the continued operation of that retains Chigurh workspace and so as the applicant commissioned an and noise consultants to prepare a report which I don't find the various measures which could be in place and we've imposed quite stringent with proposed by astringent condition which would both require those measures to be installed and then required the testing of the the acoustics to to ensure that noise within the studio space wooden or buildable within those units and that the report of that would have to be submitted to the Council for approval prior to occupation of those units so we hope that that would give them as confidence and that that that there would be no unacceptable impact in that regard
I'm sorry I confirms the second point of parking so Amersham Vale itself there is no CPS Ed on Irish unveil so the the road the road does experienced parking during the daytime but I think that is largely due to people parking there to try to walk to Deptford station which is at the southern end of the road and travelling down and Highways didn't raise any objections proposal and I think it also must be recognised the obviously we're not creating additional Spacey where replacing studio workspace with residential so obviously there very the potential some of the existing occupies the Steger workspace couldn't use travelling choosing cause is currently occupied by 45 studios so clearly and there could be an impact in terms of cars from that and an on balance we don't consider that the residential use to generate and use them from existing Hughes beg Bernat for a clear
at rest
thank you can I have a couple of questions if I may so the first one is in relation to the convent legal precedent that you mentioned I just want to understand a little bit more basically how close it is for the situation at hand on I read the paragraph in the report but I just and also kind of like how settled as it was it like one decision of the Planning Inspectorate apologies I don't really I'm not as familiar we can of decisions of the Planning Inspectorate and how binding they are I just want to try and understand whether this situation in any way differs from the previous ruling and whether the fact that there is a creative enterprise zone already in place
adds or not to the fact that we're quite early in the in the Local Plan development and to the kind of case for prematurity I don't know I'd like to understand that are a little bit more that was my first question my second question is our one of the comments from the objectors the you've listed mentions the loss of outside space for the studios in terms of not kind of green space but space for them to use to actually make certain types of art I don't see that addressed in in the report and you talk about different entrances but not specifically about bad space for the art and I just wondered whether that is retained at all and finally my last point is around flooding just make sure that understood properly the difference between what's now being proposed and what was rejected by the Planning Inspector is the fact that the basement level is being used as artists' studios and not as housing is that right
so I will address each of those in time and so in terms of the the the reference in the report this year prematurity I think that that the that gap
he says that there has been a lot of extensive case law over the years and which has looked at that point and I think it's quite a well-established principle that further advanced a development plan is and the more weight can be given in planning terms and actually much be helpful to to to highlight Temba so the NPP F itself I think reflecting the case law and there was texting or operated in the latest version of the PPF which reflects them so if I just just can breed that to the south paragraphs 47 to 50 of the NPP F and it has paragraph 50 says refusal of planning permission granted prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft plans yet to be submitted for examination and obviously in terms of our draft local plan it's it hasn't even been published as a draft Local plans in tender submission for examination that that's likely to be I think more towards for 20 late 20 21 possibly 20 22 for submission for examination seriously we can't give weight to that as a as a document at this stage and as that I think but there has been extensive case law and and it's reflected that principles reflect in the MPF as well and in terms of the issue of the creative enterprise zone again say we recognise and I think we consider it regrettable in terms of the loss and this the sees that was announced I think in December 20 18 so there was a there was a boundary identified as part of the bid for the sees Ed and and and this property does lie within that boundary so it's likely that it would lie with the ENO in that sense in line in the CIES air and the issue is a policy that throw them policy in the emerging London Plan which is policy Hague see 5 says that it's for local plans or as Local plans to define the boundary of the seas ahead and then I don't find policies to protect creative workspace within that and so that is the challenge because we haven't progressed our local plans at that stage we will be incorporated map but it's not at that stage at so we haven't formally designated that boundary and we haven't developed policy that would afford protection to those uses and at this state there in terms of the loss of the outsides face if I can just share my screen again so yes or in terms of the the acted space and against Italy we negotiated and sought revisions once the application had been submitted cause originally the green space was intended simply for residents and but we specifically wanted this to be shared space that was accessible to both residents and for the she goes there was also a small area initially proposed it was just this sort of yard space to us here in front of the gates and for the sheer workspace and we asked than at the African team to increase the size of a hardstanding through response both points that were raised the local meeting about the need for the artist to have some space tetchily for for it you know creating larger installations outside and so given that a large portion of the are area is currently taken up by shipping containers I think
we think that this area is commensurate with with with what they currently have that there will be very slight reduction but it largely reflect that and obviously than the use of this green space would be in addition to that so if I just so I just mention the screening and and then I think the final point was flood risk and so yes you are correct in terms of the previous appeal decision that was one of the reasons for refusal however the difference being here that obviously that the previous application involved residential at lower ground floor level this application is not proposing any change at lower ground floor level to a beacon range student workspace and in terms of the government guidance on flood risk vulnerability residential is considered to be very vulnerable to flood risk obviously I am whereas workspaces considered to be less vulnerable because people will be sleeping in the collation of night for instance so it's not an acceptable in that sense in flood-risk times
OK thank you just to remind the Members and officers at the time is ticking a lot and I was given were getting good good up all the answers though I got down Councillor Farani wishes to ask questions and Council Callar would like to make a statement as a Councillor Farani the cheer most very quick and short as we understand it at the moment the only part of the building
he just listed as courage to Exeter
just correct now your treasure whiskered would be proposed to take place without completely remove the status or being the to all will be partially removed thank you
yes it was proposed that so the building is Grade II listed as a whole and that reflects all of the building so that reflect the exterior the interior fixtures fittings and even the boundary wall treatment the whole property as a whole is is listed and therefore in alterations that would affect the character of that building require listed Building consent and so that's the first point and then in terms of this the proposed works at know they the building would stay remain is a Grade II-listed building so the proposed works would in no way of that
OK thank you very much
Councillor Callow
injured here of a day spa and separate words Jacqueline as a registered of consideration be fully way of for the 3 bedroom their way to asked the property and better can about the parking remotely packing completely Tomos one way out where they agree to do that will be considered a familiar ring to them
sorry I think the connections with a little bit I'm I didn't quite today's is possible future stripping the question peace
then just saying I'm supporting what Detling has already said
information about the parking space of a 3 bedroom house so you are considered putting yet some those water why you consider removing parking for Blakey because work family of three had condemned the reading basecourse Anoto got their gap children we know that often tried to find that you if you can take the cottage
thank you so intense parking yet I mean it's it's near to the site is in a very accessible location it has a Pete out of five witches is on a scale of 1 6 and 6th highest Szirtes it's very IP TA that for train stations just and Road and so an Aussie bus routes of own you crossroads I think on that basis for new residential development in this area and even for new build development we would generally be seeking it to be car-free in this location and sorts of that's not unusual and as I said in this particular circumstance given that there is no total new build effectively the the residential is replacing were currently student workspace and so I think that we as officers are satisfied that there wouldn't be any increase in parking and Highways raise no objection and the Amersham Vale currently is not subject to a CPS add so there are no parking restrictions and in place of the man
again a lot of yellow line around the area
it unlikely Edinburgh yes I welcome the new line
what I know the area very well it was next to my ward you her CCAG noted thank you Lamb OK thank them as we have the applicant with us who othered off the present bisecting the moment at before the do that though time but away from us before as I'm going to ask that we suspend Standing orders is that greed
I see no dissent excellence thank you very much Mr. Wallis below the new cancer
but yes he didn't say hello Mr. Wallis would you mind introducing yourself and your relationship to leave her application we got the forest tonight
yes Chair and so that my name Simon was I'm from the Plan theme that several sign the planning agent on the scene
we also have two nights can be offset beat swing now you'll be shared sharing the and the five minutes of me that front basket you saw I can see him inside the chatter of get to hear that his head as his camera on would I tend to do so
yes I'm here to
we've seen enough excellent he added up to become a minister
homeless people inside day after the meeting that great Brit so debt written anything first I'll get there shall be a lesson 2 minutes they will start your heart of a whole five net countdown so tell Mr. swaying when you are going to hand over Mr. Swain I will give you a certain fecund notice towards the end of the five minutes
Mr. Wallis you'll climb begins now
thank you Chair so the application back in 2 thousand and 9 to use this full police station and the ASA studio was really and meanwhile yes during the last recession to attains an income while the own work through planning process for a longer term viable use for this listed building and to ensure its upkeep and masons' that this clearly has taken a lot longer than anticipated and the owner has kept the shoe year use going on however that that isn't a long term viable opposition and doesn't generate a return to be able to carry out any more than face it masons' works and building does need greater investment to allow the Birchwood restoration works
this application is referred to us following appealed for a scheme that thought to change the use of the whole building to residential I'm and considering the issue of whether after shoe do should be retained this sector did conclude that he had given careful consideration to the matter but the wouldn't be any conflict with policy and adopt the policy still insane situation of when inspecting his making his essentially so and that does need to be given significant weight but whilst a vision and currently policy protection this scheme does retain 504 square metres of space studios on a have heard they stay there shall be controlled by condition the going to be kept to such whereas the current situation and it doesn't have that they could be turned to any other B1 use and a shepherd this author contributions like employment to stoke 208 thousand the local training and employment
and this is mainly residential area it's not part of the created busters began confirmed by an Inspector so they build a mixed use approach of providing much needed housing alongside some of the shadier PIP space dusting focus that she heard the have workplace with officers to deal with issues on the layout and entrances the sound insulation and solar facetious concurred this together I'll hand over to peace now
good evening and Peter swine from proud architects and we're architect for the applicant the proposal the officer's report was was very clear I think the sating and supports the proposal I just like to touch on a couple of things about the revisions that we've made since the previous application that had been refused and the proposal has been substantially revised from the previously refused application to address those reasons for refusal together with points raised in subsequent appeal decision and the pre-application advice that we took before making his application with also addressed comments that have been raised during the course of the application from both the planning officer and the Conservation Officer and we've taken account of some of the consultation replies with head Fondi artist themselves in the building the key changes are summarised as follows the developments changed to a total of nine dwellings from the previous 22 and those nine dwellings only occupy now part of the existing building there are no proposed extensions the external alterations are very superficial as described by the planning officer
with the retained 540 square metres of Artur studio accommodation so that we've got a nice balanced mixed use development here
in previously intended a new building to the rear of the existing original building has been omitted entirely to preserve the character and setting of the listed building
and the internal layout of the dwellings have been revised throughout the building through careful reconsideration to retain as much of the existing stock fabric as possible and will work quite closely with the Conservation Officer as I said through the pre-application process and also through the application itself to come up with the right arrangement
so in conclusion really the proposed scheme has been sensitively designed to preserve or enhance the character and setting of the original listed building and deliver a high quality mixed use scheme that provide nine new dwellings the key positive benefits of the proposal are summarised as follows the providing nine new high quality Wellings that you make a contribution to the Barratt housing point at a secretive yet
be retained the artist's studio use for part of the building the listed building will be provided with a new beneficial use to ensure its long term future preservation and maintenance and investment in the repair and restoration of the listed building including removal of negative non original elements including the containers in the yard
Council officers agree the proposed works associated with the partial conversion of the property sensitive to historic fabric and result in less than substantial harm to the Grade II-listed building and public Barnett now yet and the public benefits of just mentioned we feel about way that less than substantial harm as confirmed by the Planning Officer in his in this report thank thank very manner that members are your arm and any questions may have his points your eyes the any members wishing to do such
I see Councillor Sauber
thank you Chair I very much appreciate the improvement of the offer compared to the previous application I'm just what one quick question regarding certain to for housing conclusion paragraph 1 to 7 so it says a change of use would facilitate question 9 dwellings that make a contribution to the Borough's housing requirement
can you tell me what the on sale values are likely to be the of the various serve apartments that you'll be an building
and and and I thought that quit and I'm not sure yet whether they would be sale or afar hold in there would be mental what I'll take a rental four-part rental figure so I'm just trying to mirror this supply with our forest housing requirement which I'm not sure if
that's being fully understood by the developers
you don't have any fears
not enough from happening on an MOT valleys be sorry you are you up for Savall's don't you
if an unknown status and under Planning 2 thousand 1 but fell you think like that my force all right now I'm sorry you couldn't help me out thank you Chair
thank you Councillor Sobel
I see no other questions for the applicants of this point
because if you'd like to stand down
members we have no one speaking in objection to night tours application that is before us and we have no members low councillors that wished to speak understanding was either on this one so therefore we're going to go into ping pong and speak to are planning officers against this opportunity to fall out with any additional questions that you got planning officers
gareth if you'd like to tell your camera back home
as well as a finding of so here
yes sorry again Super Size will have a question for our planning off them
this chair should if you're really before they found this an applicant reserve pointed to Castel solar mission well we look at the Vale of minute was a because some apple demographic change that collectable
it's about
it is something which you may not be punished
planning matter but we can see I'm remained mention clearly changing but a kind of new occupants will have little hesitation there for now about us and houses therefore whereby the happier had he put on the roof because truly the book record moving we have as a complete transforming patient with this will be living in foreign lands
careful so I just want to just add supporting Casazza things then oafishly question cannot be asked not answered but the 8 the question coming
OK thank you very much for that comment I would just to hasten to add that notions always been I fund and Wellbeing to anyone who wished to come and set up home here and I think that's really important that we reflect back so is there any other questions for the planning officer
now we've got no of questions the officer has therefore this I am in your hands again so we've got a recommend patients are laid out before us to not to I see anyone willing to move infer move that recommendation
this year I'm recommendations
on its way
no recommendation rejection it has been taught once and we are convinced that the OAG Kinney's little the niche acceptable those changes he made therefore without much out proposed we along with officers competition for a much pursue is that you are seconding and got excellent customer she has seconded there for against the club OK to do a roll call vote Swedes
Councillor Welsh I'm in favour of the recommendation as outlined in the report Councillor editor I mi army they was very much
Councillor Robert Davis for
Councillor Kelly
answer Calais
have the pitch to fall
hansard is all about
OK thanks very much back compromise giving us the numbers please that's 4 F for the application and to again
therefore the application has been passed and at this point we agreed that we would have a small recessed without comfort break and a staging can I ask the technicians to please suspense tonight's feet will we come back shortly after we
get the next set of Africa objectives
officers gets confirmations remove back running


officers Vega confirmations the stream is back up and running
yes shares no life fantastic welcome back everyone to the second part of tonight's meeting of Planning Committee a we have reconvened after sort recess to and welcome all the Executive speakers to the last use of sorts of items on tonight's agenda we are going to be going to pace as we have suspended Standing orders in order to complete business bit tonight at the next item on the agenda is sporting iron coal home Road I believe that we have Joshua knows from the planning team


to present this Tiller's Joshua over to you and me to this application as DC 19 1 4 5 6 sex is for the construction of two part two and three storey 2 bedroom dwelling houses and a garage it with a single storey red and Phil extinction and existing house at 49 Carholme Road and the book for committee as their full valid planning objections and the application is reflected for approval size located at the south-eastern corner of the junction of Mahler and Callahan roads nor this to the bottom of the site absolute and see the side elevation in weird the proposed dwellings would go this is the site met that was provided by the applicant
the total site area includes an existing two-storey end of terrace voting and is approximately 400 31 metres squared the surrounding area is residential that the site is not located in a conservation area for what is not close to any listed Buildings besides located within Flood Risk Zone 1 which is characterised as low probability of flooding or 1 in 1 thousand years chance of flooding the proposal was for two two bedroom 3 percent Wellens
the proposal also involves an extension and alterations to existing dwelling and the demolition of existing garage which would be replaced by a new garage the key planning considerations are the principle urban design standard of accommodation impacts on neighbours transport and the natural environment in terms of principle the proposal would contribute to the housing need which is discussed throughout policies 3 point 3 three-foot 5 and free point 8 of the current London Plan though that dim Policy 33 recognises that's street frontages including gardens to the side of houses are recognised as infill development sites our policies are supportive of residential development of infill sites subject to an assessment of the design character standard of accommodation and the impact prominent echoes
officers acknowledged that the proposed development would be in a highly visible location and would be the only two storey development at the individual's EPAs junction and we've got officers considered it the high quality of the proposed design mitigates the impacts of us the proposed scale and massing as appropriate for the location and would not overwhelm the neighbouring properties the highest part of the development is located towards the front of the site and romance lower than the existing adjoining buildings the height of the proposed development being reduces in a Stetson manner towards the rear of the site helping to break up the scale and massing the applicant has provided context or analysis of the local character and apology the proposed reclaim bricks would match the quoins and detailing of the existing buildings
they expressed would be laid side on so that the indentations would be exposed additionally this Brooks would be larger than standard Breck's windows along the Carholme Road elevation would maintain the size and space
from the process
the speech of creation of materials condition could be used to reply an example panel of the brick punishing both on-site be reviewed by the Council proposed development would not create black besides the said the orientation of the buildings facing onto Manor Road would provide passive surveillance and minimise the wall effect rather they would be areas of planting between the proposed buildings and a public footpath
the proposed units are both in line with the required space standards and are considered to provide good levels of outlook and daylight for future occupiers and the alterations proposed to the existing house would include the removal of one internal wall and the construction of a conservatory extension and these alterations have been demonstrated to ensure acceptable levels of natural light and outlook will be maintained by the existing dwelling the proposal would retain one off-street car parking space for the existing dwelling house no off-street parking would be provided for the proposed turn you to Elaine's a parking survey was submitted which showed that it expected he could generate a maximum of 1 point for vehicles and crazy low-key local parking stress by 0 point 6 9 percent for the would provide two cycle parking spaces for each of the proposed units in line with the London Plan policy and base would have ringers which is welcomed Beverley the purpose it backs an orientation of the buildings the proposed development is not considered to pose onto neighbouring properties by way of overbearing form invasion of privacy or reduce light who trees and shrubs would be lost but I was development none of these trees are protected in the way they are considered low polity by the of cultural report propose landscaped with became would provide new planting throughout the site if Members are minded to grant permission I can give it
members are minded to grant permission a condition could be used to require the applicant to provide an equal number and quality of Fraser's lost by the development finish on the proposed development is considered acceptable in principle and subject to conditions regarding landscaping materials the proposal is considered acceptable in regards to design standard of accommodation and packs on neighbouring properties transport and the natural environment he fought
the Committee is recommended to approve this application and finally one objection was received after the publication of the agenda and this was from someone who had already had been objection recognising and filled outflows an
thus further objections related to flood risk and in response to an officers would say that we understand their concerns and concerns and experience of local residents but we need to assess the proposal against policies in planning terms in a desert in a consistent way to other applications and that ways under mppa paragraph 1 5 5 in the Core Strategy a sequential approaches employed so that federal signs 3 and 2 with developments with two strategic flooding risk are restricted whereas the size within Flood Zone 1 which is identified as the most appropriate error would develop an idea forward elements and flutters on one did not replace the French you're tasting and it is considered that the site suitable for residential development of the proposed nature
first the law as now
consult embark Farm I'll recommendation for approval and you
thank you very much for your presentation that members I can see a question from Councillor pursue other members who might ask a question please indicate in the chat box asked up she
yet a couple of things ones about a me in the Teece space that the there's a a lot of lost amenity space there and I wonder how it pans out between well what's been described as three houses it's not being described as flats and it's been described as houses so I wonder her P amenity space etch plea works out looking at your your plan and the other thing is about the appearance against it this area sloping roofs tsar what you usually seen from the street and I wonder if there's a a good reason why flat moves are being used in is is it of this design feature the flat roof which is rather out of character with the
terraces of houses in this area
while the shimmer screen onesie consort ensured the arrangement of the gardens
the who failure the proposed front dwellinghouse would have access to the front garden
video and courtyard and between the two whereas the proposed Red Welling would have this courtyard the rear and existing house would EIA or that's face including the street frontage at the rear which provide
take the really adequate protection
so I think I'd dropped out there for a second but yeah hopefully you could see arrangement of those Gardens
I'm in terms of the flat roof L L and design offers those now left the Council looked to the and application first time and she was supportive of the design obviously I think as we discussed in the previous cases evening as novel about rape existing here about contracting since that end and in the site to be unique and to stand relate
Joshua just to say that you are breaking up quite substantial my and I didn't opens my connection yours so if you're all understudy mainly to step in at some point to answer further questions
let's see where we get to yes sorry I I've been dropped out as far as I've been heard everything instead so just for clarity the dwellings proposed have an adequate standard of amenity space attached to them
yet the good life with an acceptance of the of the policy regarding OK but the tonight thank you
Councillor Carter you have a question
yes cheer on them
when that over papers and also day complaints I heard about the flood I'm so long to go with this flood hazard new or to fight
OK suggests far and party because I'm not sure that Joshua's here and I guess flood yet get flooded in the area I so move into the nineties
Joshua could you because I think he cut out when you went through this in your officer report what is the Flood Risk in the years between Mater fun events once you I think you came up with a number sound like one in a thousand stoic
yes there's Flood Zone 1 which is characterised as 1 in 1 thousand year chance of flooding others that doesn't mean it's a Flood Risk 3 thousand years but it's a touted worked out the probability that meant sense that's good to know just to tell Members and officers and Joshua's intermittent connection if you want to turn on the subtitle function he actually picks up one says and recalls it you do that by pressing three dots in the middle of the Task Bar
yeah I've done it on now Super I'm so any more questions for the funding of service forecast of sheep
his mother a statement I know this area walk through it quite a lot at a lot of the junctions there is a problem with surface water if there's a stone and I think that that can give the impression of a flooding that sometimes there is extremely deep and surface water in this area it does pass quite quickly for that that the surface water does appear to be quite a problem for cars and so on them to drive on the pavement but is surface water
OK thank you it is notable questions for the planning officer going to ask him to stand down for the moment and invite the applicant to join us
they could access jobs
the applicant is Mr. Farry's
I can't see you haven't popped up on or mourn with you as you might say ELO's first boy Nurmi I can hear you now that's fantastic
could you introduce yourself and your relationship to this planning application place are we all I am the director of be LAF architecture we of are designed answered the application I will small award-winning practice based in south London
that's great thank you very much
no I'm going to give you five minutes to present your application to members I will give you an a la about 30 seconds towards the end of that's OK so long as and when you're ready please feel free to stop OK aren't sought to new dwellings are proposed to be built on the side garden of an existing property at 49 Carholme Road and reconceived as beautiful contemporary houses for families at the form Mosman scale of the proposed developments have been carefully calibrated to respond to the local street scene and respect the amenity views and natural lighting of the existing property the internal layout or split level open plan and of being developed to provide quality Internal modern environment filled with light which are considered highly desirable for contemporary ways of living
the standard approach to providing accommodation to such corner sites of this is to replicate the terraced units and mirror the layout and massing of the adjacent dwellings if we apply the standard approach to corner plots who locally we found Long Toll blank facades typically produced Alonso's routes such as Marler Road that provide little passive surveillance potential for crime and anti social behaviour they are typically and compartmentalised flat style internal layout which are not suited for contemporary lifestyles the area demands housetypes and units with garden spaces rather than single apartments rather than this we have tried to create a new piece of contemporary urbanism which creates active street frontages
at the size proportions and arrangement of the openings on new dwellings draw inspiration from the existing terrace at number 49 to 45 problem Road and provide a contemporary reinterpretation of the parts to create an elegant addition to the area I can temporary bay window at ground floor is added as a key component of the composition of the front façade stitching the building into its surrounding context the existing terms of bricks are absorbed into the colour palette and materiality of the new scheme at red brick corners coins and details of the existing buildings will be reflected in a red Berry brick for South
decorative volumes are incorporated in key locations on the new facades mirroring detail from the older buildings and giving it a modern twist
the overall effect of the materials and details proposed in this application is of a scheme that's dead deeply embedded into its site and context Pawlby an elegantly contemporary an expression rather than attempt to provide a pastiche version of an existing building these are unashamedly modern sustainable buildings fit prop fit for purpose and their time and the proposition is of the highest architectural quality they are visually attractive modern buildings and respond positively to its context with beautifully landscaped gardens that improve the existing condition are a pre-application meeting with the local authority the project was extremely well received at Lucian's owned and designed Team advised that the six exactly the type of high quality architecture that Bolloré wishes to encourage thank you
thank you very much Mr. Farry's and ongoing actually remember questions as I think I've got I think I started counsellor pursue
I then Councillor Sauber so Councillor to shoot now I think you see my previous question Chair OK councillors' offer
sorry the commuting up I think can what my colleagues mentioned earlier so I know it's not a beauty contest
I think the building is very handsome but I did notice they looked out to me that it didn't have that it had a flat roof I just wonder whether you might want to comment on that on I will it was a deliberately didn't have a pitched roof because we're trying to create something that's different to what's there one of the issues that we found with the existing buildings on the other street corners are that they are the Bard examples of these kind of beautiful historical buildings so we wanted to create an A contextual Building the stitches into the existing context using different ways such as historicism and playing on details if that answers your question
thank you very much for senior questions for the applicants are advocate if you got to stand down
thank you very much
we now move on to ask because objecting to this I have Mr. Hickford Mr. Hickman's welcome if he does turn or Cameron
the mistake could ignite to introduce yourself and your relationship to this development could you
she said sorry Chair seem to have flirt turn my camera around Shire and there is a button is normally on an iPad located on the far right side of the tool bar and trying to remember off the top of my head and that will make a go to France camera on your Apple device
about two-thirds and products are available
it's not spun round now to spit off of my videos will
mistakenly that it says in the chat Mr. Hickman has left the conversation on sounds like but he has disconnected impressed the red button rather than the cameras spin button
that is problematic or officers can you try and her connected Mr. Humphrey again numbers in the circumstance of cream is the little out of up after five minutes Minister referred to return if not we will take his written statement he is provided one all applicants and objectors were asked to provide written statements in case such things were to happen Mr. Hickman are you with us
now and then stop A then and 22 9
officers are quarks if you can try and get Mr. Hickman back back and be a great help
officers if you could ready the written statement if there is one for this item
for Mr. Hickman
Minister Hickford if you're watching online please just click back on the Lincoln he mother he was sent to rejoined the meeting shall allowing back through
for anyone viewing this are recording we have a process in place where we have to balance them they can't move on to a different agenda item and come back to it so the processes that we agreed to up to five minutes for Mr. Hickford to rejoin us in the meeting Ernest Hickford Adel applicants and objectors and speakers tonight were asked to provide a written statement in case such technical failure was to happen
so we will await the to are run down and we will see that point whether or not we have a written statement Mr. Hickford as was advised that fall it's are being told that Mr. Hickford is or other available through the tissue bafflement moment Mr. critic new are are listening or watching to this officers of the council are trying to reveal number so pleased to check your firm and the number that you gave us
if anyone needs to go and get a drink and minded to allow you to come back at quarter past
OK Councillor sober the antic
apologies were watching this live broadcast we of County lost one of the objectors the rest of ejector for tonight's business on this item we are awaiting officers to try to reconnect him into the system it seems like he accidentally pressed the hang of Botton rather than the the bus Matt Boyce change his camera from the front of his iPad to the Bakries iPad so we are just allowing him five minutes before we move forward business we must make good headway tonight into the business before us so we are just awaiting that he has gone out one more minutes to come back to us
five minutes is now on of trying to wake Mr. Hickford to come back and new joiners
sadly Mr. Hague fitted and take up the opportunity to provide a written statement of his concerns
for tonight's meeting now I have the so I cheer I have a statement I could read from Mr. hectored you have a statement yet OK
why OK just for clarity this as an e-mail from Mr. Hickman to the Chairs summarising his concern so it it's broadly reflective of the issues around flutters so that the case officer can read the statement
Glasgow about them so if you wouldn't mind during that first Joshua so just for our people watching along I Mr. Hickford worked me as Chair outlining his concerns regarding this case I shared that with officers as we do what we get any correspondence of the same chap I'd then outer to be fatiguing so Joshua in mind
thank you Chair the income Councillor Walsh the construction of two part two part three storey 2 bedroom dwelling houses and a garage on the Land adjacent 49 49 Carholme Road is he 20 23 together with a single storey rear extension to existing house above application is due to be considered at virtual Planning Committee a the saving I've read this morning the officer's report on the application and not that despite a number of objections officers are recommending the application to be granted and during the concern that the Committee as being misleading advice that could lead to an inappropriate decision being made I and a number of other objectors raised the issue of localised flooding by on the development itself and what area the officer's report dismisses our concerns indicating that flooding as a 1 in 1 thousand annual probability
I've looked at number 50 Carholme Road for 34 years and have witnessed numerous local flooding events at this location
I attach some photographs that indicate the scale of the problem other local residents have also submitted photographs showing the impact of the flooding proposed development had has two new houses both of which comprise see me basement rooms stated to be 1 point 2 9 metres below existing ground level but point does not appear to be mentioned in the officer's report in my opinion the Sunni basement and roads would be flooded on a regular and frequent basis to a height at least 1 point 2 9 Nato's the height of an average 8 year-old child in the UK I am extremely concerned that the committee members are being the lead on the issue and would ask that you consider rejecting yet this application I have to join the meeting this evening to raise these matters however I thought this would it would be wise to appraise you of in now in case technology prevents me from doing this are placed afraid to call me if you would like any further information on this matter Michael Hackford
thank you very much that Joshua Arsène Wenger's M Khan HOSC additional questions from the officer so we just have a statement to to go on now but we do have the opportunity to ask to move on to the next section which is to ask Joshua to come back to answer any further questions we might have of Joshua of that Saman or any other business that you would like to to Mr. Hickman now without join us
Joshua started his started reading Mr. Hickford Stainton 22 15 now 22 17 are all I am minded to allow Mr. hit for the three minutes to add anything that he wants because I think that is fair o committee in broad agreement with that yes Mr. Hickford if I could ask you to turn or Cameron Dexter and good
Mr. Hakeford
Mr. C it you have indicated in the chap you are here and one each to is to turn press the video camera and the microphone button
Mr. Hickford on going to give you
one more minute on this
it needs to be accepted
1 officers thank you very much for your additional guidance in the chance window here are it's the HYC pretty seems that you need to re accept the team's invites are apparently you are only in the chat
bring up here as an observer
officers time is running thin
OK Members it's now coming up for 20 minutes past the hour the
we just reassure you guess Councillor Sauber a mistake for just to let you know and we read your e-mail to me earlier today we highlighted your concern particularly around flooding
I was very important to the record we're sorry that you can't participate in something went wrong in a fine of seconds before you weren't due to take part that really and fortune are opportunity we have given some time now to try and reconnect you and that we must make headway on site of I'm afraid
members were now going to ask officers questions about going back to ping pong
if I could ask if anyone has a question of the officers and I think I have one about the flooding actually was obviously Simpson photos they seem to be from different eras back off the mound route was earlier which are forward to officers of EAL all seem to be less than a thousand years apart or is there is this a flood event is it and as Councillor P achieved said large amounts of starving surface water is there a drainage issue and there what can you elucidate a bit more as to as to what this might be able to concern now we could possibly quiet out I think you'll create I think it must be a surface literal localisation and given it and then address on one which is again characterises third released it found of flooding it yeah I'd set much like the old localised issue
OK as that okay I'm I'm not sure if that means the it's still a flooding issue or standing water in the trees not clear in quick enough is is its own separate thing or might be a technical question and we might want to think about but are not be one officers to look into that before they Jenny session of delegated authority is given to them tonight and divert more questions for the officer
is this
yes of course a concern of roaming thank you and see Shim The Hateful cannot be with us luck none of you Arrêt that e-mail just before they can start it and then not only that the best Ketford it's very awful it was accompanied by pictures of it or studies and he said had living up please for the four years I've used he must always talking about so as is shared actor is unable he had to say his can cause I don't know I don't know what he getting them working at EMI and old active officer acne emphasise all assisted more on the issue of flooding because officer C
the planning of the one way that the as chance of one entity forecasts for years something whereas the I'm objector is adequate frequent as a big fertility to a classifications
yes something that I think that's an interesting point for us to pick up a module members' attention to the fact that I do think these flooding events just looking at the the types of vehicles that were in the photos sent round to us were from possibly the 60 s onwards and there is anything I can't see any evidence of there being a modern shot within side there apart from the most modern thing which would have been a the wish of we even though when they introduced I will allow it to fill out and your quiz knowledge later but
Joshua is anything you want to add about flooding other then to say the in the yeah that 1 thousand year probability doesn't mean that there would be one event every thousand years boats most of the other severity and how frequently what Todd then what type of the been would be likely to occur yes and if Members were minded to approve the recommendation tonight during the weekend do with either getting Highways to look into this a bit further you concern to bring huggable Thames Water all who would be a presence
future Lillo
I'm Alan Turner
Mr. Hakeford I'm so so sorry on the quite sure what I did Phil I did something wrong including a debate has been occurring I could see some text coming up I could actually hear what you were saying I guess you have been debating the issues that I raised I don't know
after what we did was we waited for an even better than we actually got back further into the debate and the officers read out your anatomy late today where you will very clearly some of your point around flooding his things you do technique of minutes by the time remaining I would say at so if he would like to make a very expedited version either demand to accept as long as committee happy thicker your very kind to and and thank you very much for that and I will
very briefly
go through those points I did pick up just as I was joining the meeting someone I may have been YouTube saying those photographs were from the 60 s and they were actually from the eighties I think people round here from the 90 sorry people round here how very old cause but certainly they were from the mid-nineties there were some more recent photographs I think submitted by a neighbour from the Los recent floods in 2 thousand 14 and certainly since I've lived here I'm aware of about 6 flooding events principally due to this underground stream that runs broadly along the line of Marler Road from west to east that tends to overflow and there's there's a man hole in the street just a incoherent Road there the water comes up through that the flooding is very very localised but quite intense I would say depth of about 400 millimeters just over a foot deep the principal concern is that the
proposed development has two houses each with a semi basement room that's me by some that have that hasn't been mentioned at all the ceiling as far as I'm a whereby by officers on the applicant semi basement room 1 point soon I metres below ground level for reference that's about high of an average 8 year old child in this country
the flooding occurs and as I say I think it occurs regularly and frequently every 4 5 years my concern is that those two houses will be funded to that fight at least that height probably to to higher there will be further impacts downstream but I think the principal concern is that these properties are not fit for purpose there is Chair there is policy document that tackles this issue London Plan Chapter 5 Policy 5 point 12 is relevant
says here on the I the development will remain safe and operational under flood conditions so Chair I listened to some earlier debates where you need to have a policy reasons to object to a proposal that written down there I can absolutely assure you I have it here in my hand second issue cherries Isabel moving on from flooding
is about the visual appearance of the properties and are very briefly make this point in my character coming yeah I'm I'm grateful and grateful flat roofs of been mentioned I don't think any da I won't dwell on that but every other house in the area including the new builds have got to pitch roof not flat roofs front elevation onto Carholme Road is completely out of character with the other properties in the terrace I live on one of the other corner houses which I think was referred to by the applicant as A-Rod bad example of them of architecture I don't think that that they are and the other point and opens my final point Chair and I am grateful if you take issue with the overlooking of the property at number 47 Cophall note there there are eight new windows and again this policy advice and I haven't actually got it on my screen now your infill policy suggests that sets the Council's own policy as I understand suggests that new builds should not adversely overlook adjacent properties are and our contention is that that's only does I'm very grateful you're time Chair thank you very much with separate don't go anywhere just yet because members are may come back and ask you
some questions machiavellian questions mistake
no Mr. Hickman thank you very much had for your forbearance was me did back and got me back in that's good to have your input into this planning policy thank you OK I'm very this point to go to the Planning Service fruit manager that was for Dáil he thought them information on us
chair I was I was only going to respond to the last put question that you you asked the planning officer and it was about whether we could take up the issue of the flash flooding the appropriate authorities that's something and obviously that's a commitment we could we could make as offices sorry to take out with our Highways colleagues I and alert them to this issue of flash flooding on on the issue of flooding is I understand the concerns what we do have to operate within the framework of the the planning policies that we've got and it's not within a high risk flood risks own you know it doesn't have that designation any anywhere even places outside of high risk flood zones can be susceptible to surface water flooding the flash flooding that that can happen just about anywhere that that is a risk that exists as I say in in general everywhere I I don't believe that the policy framework this in places sufficient to resist this this development for these reasons OK thank you very much very clear thanks cress
members journey more questions for officers
no okay Members it's a harpist Tenovus newer more to move to a breeding these recommendations
I'll leave to agree the recommendations thank you Councillor Davis
anyone wish to second
I will second
so therefore we now in a vote so all those in favour of recommendations plus the that the piece of work officers will do with colleagues across the Council around the fash farting all those in favor of those recommendations of sorry of going into normal normal beating mode
could I ask her role coalface from the Clerk of the Committee
Councillor Walsh are in favour of the recommendations councillor at tyranny
I guess
Councillor Davis
costed she may have to resign if he can what can quicken sorry apology full
can the Calais
Surrey here against
come to say
Councillor still there
that means that item has been agreed subject to that amendment of officers going talking to Highways to work out what that flash flooding is thank you very much to officers and attendees to that item we go on to the final item for tonight which for those of you that are falling on the agenda is item number 6 which is 36 overrode London SE 13 Patricia you have got the closing after tonight as on planning officer


thank you if you would like to very briefly
one moment I can see a vacant seat among for councillors
although it is looking off-screen I thought I could get away from over councils over and you're no longer is sharp so are are so Patricia if he wouldn't mind leading history respond location night
thank you say is physalis item on the published committee in that the proposed development is to remove condition 5 which is code for sustainable homes rating Level 4 attached to planning permission reference the see slash 14 slash 0 8 7 7 9 3 for the demolition of the existing workshop building and construction of 9 3 storey four bedroom houses and call Shelter providing 12 parking spaces cycle and bin storage
the application is in front of Committee for decision as permission is recommended to be granted and modern three objections have been received
the application site is located on the south side of Old Road and the erection areas moderate on the Site location Plan
the planning permission was granted in 2 thousand 14 and has been partially implemented the focus on the slide shows the extent of completed work
so the application is seeking I'm to carry out original planning permission from 2 thousand 14 without complying with condition 5 Code of Sustainable homes rating for should Members be minded term remove towards and the privy discounting I permission deficit will be an issue of new planning permissions object to older than the original planning conditions with the exception of condition 5 The Code of Sustainable homes was a two to four assessing the environmental performance of new Bill pardons
in 2 thousand and 13 in response to housing standard review the government confirmed that it intended to wind down the could signal Boeheim said many of its requirements being consolidated international framework centred on the Building Regulations in written ministerial statement on 25th March 2 thousand 15 the secretary of State for Community and Local government confirm that from 2 27 of March 2 thousand 15 or changes to could be founded in 8 comma changes moving the local authorities in England could no longer require Code Level 3 4 5 or 6 as by of conditions imposed on planning can a permissions
as mentioned before matches formerly controlled by the card having absorbed into new national technical standards including early ambitions and National technical space space standards officers are clear that there's no longer a policy basis for requiring compliance of the coat is therefore recommended that the application is approved with existing conditions being re-imposed and I'll are also like to note that there has been an addendum and issued a inner gusts application as the applicant in tying I'm that the there has submitted out focus aeration has discharge a number of planning conditions sorry I'm the conditions listed not after fought some of them will have to be amended in the quotas of the addendum I
in front of members thank you Chair
Namaste your questions of the whole route Patricia
fast pass you
yet I wonder if the situation could be put into plain English force because it seemed that there's this quite quite a lot of constraints on the decision that we can make here in that we can't actually put any constraints on it as I understand it but I would just like it put simply in plain English what our position is he in place
the government has done
say what has happened and the Code of Sustainable homes was a tool that the applicant had to comply with to show that they have taken the very things into account and hours quite time-consuming as they needed to replace someone who wore the all the checks and that they also had to comply with building regulations and carry out all those cheques separately so when the government reviewed the system they found that that this small rural needs for the code to be in place as other legislation such as building controls and national space standards could ensure that the same level as the code required could be dealt with or their let a bit of applications legislations that the applicant has to come a comply with him in order to get the building past so what they have done they said this is not something that planning is to be involved and all believe it to you or the pods and such as Building control to deal with their thing so it doesn't mean that new built new homes that have been built since 2 thousand 15 I'm are of lesser quality than the ones before it just means that the mechanism is slightly different to control its I'm so that the applications that have this condition attached to it and the government said that in her be traces they can remove the condition of the could comply with it but it is quite difficult given that there will need to find over Craig assessor to carry out the things
so hopefully that explains it and a different way
thank you Chair thank you OK you find that everyone is up bar yeah bring any other questions the officer now moving swiftly on then the applicant early afternoon him and of there is no applicants this one as there is no applicant here tonight because it's a technical question
we are now going to
the objector is Mr. Stone with us
good evening
while I welcome you've come along and staying as they have to speak on this item
I don't allow you up to 5 minutes in a moment to a at why your concerns
at wickets Planning application request but festival would you mind introducing yourself and your relationship said the application site and charity room and us on items Andrew stern I am one of the versus in easily Road whose house backs onto this new development OK thank you very much Sir you have up to five gets to you set your case your time begins when used Art crawl future and so the council is consulting a city our officers explained over the developers or request to change the planning condition relating to sustainability for this housing scheme at the moment has to my comments today to urge you to consider the Council's sustainability principles are before deciding whether or not to approve this proposal and I sought to give you briefly and outlined about relationship with this scheme at there are 10 houses in ACB road that back directly onto the development at we didn't get to different itself that the word issues that impacted on this and restore Deckard back 2 thousand 14 particularly relating to loss of light and privacy at the ricin reassurances when coming permission was granted and however the reassurances of privacy won't I do and while it may not sound like a small detail the rear windows in for the new houses don't have the smoke glass that covered by a condition that 18 of the Planning approval and this anomaly normally leave some of my neighbours directly overlooked internet Beckham's from the victims of the new houses at we believe that this is a result of the pre planning consultation only having been set to five of the 10 affected home needs to give Road and therefore the privacy issues of Angulo's 5 homes seem to have been addressed and it was also the failure to specify that Windows wouldn't be fully opening or something that we had understood from the architect would have been the intention now these issues Collier been resolved through ongoing discussions with the developer in the architect after planning approval was given how an hour however it became impossible once construction came to a halt midway through the skinny so no work took place over two years and it transpired eventually that the developer had gone into administration now follow that period while we watch the heart Bill Kawase's deteriorate month by month we had no way from the council or developer or the administrator if at the only way we could find out what was going on was if we saw somebody on the site with a clipboard and we next him to ask them what they were doing and last year and you developer acquired the site we still have no direct communication from them and I know they're not at their meeting tonight which some does show the greatest respect for a room that their neighbours tonight of a fickle nation up to members either and so we had an incomplete early consultation or change a developer that became indication during or since the ownership was changed so that lady impossible to iron out some of the details that affect us or to follow one further through on some of the commitments given by their regular architect particularly in relation to the construction of the windows so why is not a specific subject to this planning application we would like Members to check on this and to assure us that the extra LAs will indeed be a permanent feature and not something that can never be replaced by the developer or by future residents and also lightning to trust attain whether there's any willingness on the developers part even at this late stage to replace the clear glass in those four properties that so habit now this all their Sunday events and to the current application because it left as highly mistrustful of their raw process so where we learned that the LA wished to remove conditions related sustainability we saw it as potentially aimed at cutting costs and reducing the environmental standards the scheme and now we've had a bit more about that from the the planning officer I'm knows that it's more of a process question but nevertheless we fully support the Council's policies aimed at tackling the climate emergency and we want to see the council take a strong line in imposing opposing any moves by developer that might in effect create wriggle room for the sustainability measures which were after all a planning condition for the site before they acquired it now I do understand that this issue over the timing of planning approval in that they're planning condition requiring the development to meet those particular Sustainable homes rating in something that could be imposed currently and however we still believe that the Council should not be allowing leeway to a developer to use this as the basis for possibly watering down the sustainability standards of these new houses
and now the officers seem to try to ensure and Caspere have assured but new technical standard for the second requirement in relation to what conservation equity and so on and and that's clearly welcome and it may be that Members feel satisfied and that there had been no material
no material loss but if that's the case then why of the developers even taken the trouble to apply for the planning condition to be lifted so we urged Members to give serious consideration to reject his application should you feel have ever that it's something that you want to allow I would ask members only to do so as the Council and the community can be fully assured by officers and the developers that levels of sustainability will not be diminished as a result sofa could to summarise our requests and I was Arabist Sir at the time of death
OK well it's just to reject it and to finally to get the developer pleased to have
I came in this and we have heard from the objector tonight we've had a fair presentation back does anyone have questions us can see Councillor pursue has a question for Mr. stern no no again share that's a previous question I have sorry Councillor of shoe anyone got your questions for Mr. stern
I do have a question for Mr. Stone so Mr. steadily raised the issue of sustainability in your objection tonight her officers have raised have told us that the the protections that were in that family sure condition have been moved over into other Building Regulations frameworks and the problem now is that the people the assessors that would only come do it quite hard to come by because it's not a thing that happens anymore
is there any sustainability issues that you believe all covered by the moon advice and what do you think we are are now on a specific technical and questions are points to raise it was a concern that developer that had and never spoken to this and suddenly what it to change something that seemed like
but it was clearly and adherence to the to your sustainable or Seán and crime high McShane policies and if you have that if you feel reassured that and that that there is no material us and we are OK with that my understanding was that Councillor Mallory's also speaking on this is that correct Councillor Mallory all will come to separately thicker
yes any more questions for Councillor at first Mr. Stone
no Mr. sturdy rostered down thank you very much for coming along this evening you're more than welcome to watch the rest of proceedings a side of teams but Plaisir cameras off and My federal OK so we now move to Councillor Mannering or hopefully he received my text message telling in the local and all as the Mallory when us yeah
Jim thank you very much for your time this evening I saw it you checked him super early and I promise that I try to be expedient for this meeting and is now with a relate counsellor Mallory
you have an unlimited amount of time to make your points this evening as a number of Council are
if you would like to start your time begins
thank you Chair
you should know me well enough not to give me an invitation to had an unlimited amount and I will not pray I will try not to keep you because I appreciate it too late at night and were still getting used to a new to the new system an interest to declare which is that I live on easily be Road on the other side and that these are all my neighbours that I had the development itself does not impact on my living but on the other hand I clearly as a local Councillor have their best interests at heart I think it's worth saying that
one of the
I have a real concern that the developer hasn't even bothered to turn up I think that's indicative of and reflective of the lack of communication that they have demonstrated throughout this process and while it may not be a planning consideration I hope pic at least alerts members to difficulties in the difficulties that local people have had in dealing with them or so worth saying that because this is a relatively small development where there was no no no requirements to have any social housing in it that it may feel are pretty small beer and coming at the end of the of an evening of a planning committee not worth the effort having said that I think it's it's worth reminding and I thought the objector or put the case relatively well that when when the initial application was made there was a requirement 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 to commit to her that the the Council's overall sustainable development policies now may well be that the government is trying to streamline these but what what has seems to have you know what's but slipped through and I found it really difficult in dealing in communicating with officers in getting my head around the the the terminology is that because the because of the change in regulations there there there seemed to be less requirement to oversee what was going on so the development was allowed to resume without any apparent or oversight of it as if it was going to get planning permission regardless and so we now find ourselves several years down the road of having a complete almost completed development they even carried on work during during lockdown in order to to achieve enter an almost completed development over which there's been relatively little oversight and and must have this before coronavirus so one recognises the the restraints on officers and their inability perhaps to oversee thing since then what's also clear from the the communication as it's been relayed to you is there was relatively little attempt by other the initial development or developer or indeed this developer to ensure that some of the issues in around for the sea and oversight of the of the of the windows were adhered to so I would say so what I would suggest is a couple of things one is that I think you should seriously look at wet at rejecting this this application on the grounds that why on earth were they allowed to continue work on it when they hadn't yet achieved a revised planning permission but to in the even if you do approve the applications that you look to to amend the conditions so that the issues around around privacy of a and and and and oversight from the neighbouring windows is revisited so as to ensure that some so that to ensure that the privacy that that was part of the initial planning application isn't here to thank you Chair and happy to take questions I promise Councillor Mallory they were happy questions for Jim
Dark Arches that I customary no outgoings can ask a question of the officers about what protections I've transport until I'm Bank EU regulations OK Councillor Mallory your stood down thank you sir Patricia if I could ask for you to rejoin us and IFAs aggressively say 1 APP L sat on questions of the founding of should before I go
no OK so my quick question is if I might I want to go cap Davis
thank you Chair so my question to officers my underfunding is that the we have quite limited scope and terms of what we're looking at here and that the code the basic acquired was repealed and so we don't really have scope to carnival the quiet and still comply with paid but I want to understand for reassurance
that the what was covered by the code has been transferred to current regulations and that that is there isn't anything that isn't being covered basically that we're that we're missing out from what was previously covered in the code
yes if a major show one that government decided to abolish the needs to to have a code what they may sure they've done is they've changed Building Regulations to have the same standards across I'm all the areas that the code was covering so the building that has been completed I no different to the ones that will have done a don't before with the need to comply with the Code what it just means that they need was absorbing other planning legislation to remove an an additional burden to have to comply with planning conditions are because as as you know every development needs to be sign of by building on could to control so it they they've sat looking at it rather than the planners so yes I can assure you that an sustainability has not been impacted or changed as a result of this change
Claire councillors sober
who did the planning officer
just repeat the line about there not being any assessors available to check whether these standards have been adhered to
because then the issue of trust which has been raised by you know the resident and and Councillor Mallory than seems to you know come into play and the second question is
this previously condition can be attached his privacy condition
or is it is not possible at say to ask the first question is not but there are no assesses they just harder to come by because I there's no need for them so a lot of those shops happened lost or not at all firms do it but it's not impossible to find out but going back to circling back Building control is looking at the thing so it's not like no one is making sure that the requirements are not there that there are standards that need to be met in order for the building regulations to be signed off so there is an element Osman checking and ensuring that the building complies
moving on to the issue of the privacy so the application from a 2 thousand 14 had a condition attached which are required only a number of units to have obscured glass fitted the applicant has as she comply with that condition and all the unit that officers have identified as being at Moat but Bristol causing overlooking to neighbours have been fitted with obscure glass so it's something that has been looked add an I don't think it will be appropriate to impose a further condition especially given the type of application 0 we're dealing with here but I can assure you at the time of grant of the last one it was something that was fought about and looked at I'll by officers at the time
thank you Chair
are there any more questions for officers at this point
you can't before with you any for me movement is anything else that people want to say do or out
no OK I'll pass the shoe just in the nick time
now known to to say that this seems to be expressed by cancer Mallory a sort of loss of trust about the fact that all sorts of conditions are being complied with about these Sir at these building so if we vote in favour of recommendations here can and we also suggests that a sharp eye because upon the conditions which are still in place so that the that the local residents feel reassured that we're not saying that this person has got for around because there is this loss of trust and if they are indeed attracts worthy at developer they won't mind that shopper IB in cast because of course they'll be complying with everything but it would reassure local residents if we asked the a sharp IB building control or planning because upon what they doing I think that's a good point Castle of sheer are will bring in the Planning Service put manager now to answer for
thank you Chair yes what we can certainly do is I can ask the Planning Enforcement seem to carry out a review of the site to check that it is in compliance with the various conditions that have been imposed on the on the planning permission so are lost for that review to be carried out and if Members wanted to they could also adds an informative just to state that they
that the just to reinforce that they require all can outstanding conditions and to be to be complied with
then we come here and in the light of that can I move recommendations than share yes you can we find MOVA they're going to second it
second it seconded by Councillor Davis
so we are moving the recommendation as at 1 in report by officers we have at moving we have seconded so we now need to ask the to carry out a wrong call vote
the Bush
you'll need to check I am in favour of the recommendations as outlined Catford Ronnie for
Councillor Davis for
Councillor Kelly
Councillor facility
Councillor Silver for
OK I believe that was carried unanimously thank you all for that that members of the public you may stand down
this is the last formal meeting of Planning Committee before other new municipal year starts for us as I ATM was a are delayed by the coronavirus pandemic I would like it to be officially noted on the record my thanks and hopefully the whole Our Committees thanks to Councillor Amirali and Councillor Copley who have stood down from this committee this year for their servants to both this committee and the bar of Lewisham I also like to thank all the officers that have supported apps over the last municipal year for all their hard work and working so 11 o'clock at night and on that note everyone thank you all very much up for your time at this evening for coming along and participating and if I could ask the technicians to cut the line