Planning Committee B - Thursday, 16th July 2020 at 7:30pm - Lewisham Council Webcasting

Planning Committee B
Thursday, 16th July 2020 at 7:30pm 









An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

1 and welcome to tonight's meeting of Planning Committee be I'm concerned rushing or Gallaher the Chair and joined by members of the Committee who along with myself or determined nights applications at these are unusual circumstances so please bear with us if we experience any technical difficulties I am looking at 3 screens so please don't think I'm being Road by not looking at the comer are members of the Committee at can I please remind you to ensure your microphone is set to mute unless you're speaking to just background noise please keep your cameras on if you're able to
if you wish to speak at any point during the meeting please indicate this using the chart facility please do not use the rears hand unction the clock will noise call it your names and ask you to confirm your presence at the meeting please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance once you've confirmed your attendance please remember to switch off your microphone
or cut the Garda yet here hence the Annual present slick bins
Councillor Johnson Frankton present
Council had sent apologies Councillor Muldoon
as La shake
Councillor Smith present
carried thank you very much the Clerk will now introduce the officers who will be advising and assisting the Committee this evening
and the Thunder's
poorly young
fully young
Claudette Menai
present myself there as today
I think sorry can I just check was Councillor Mallory's supposed to be on the list named Premier
thank you very much sorry for that oversight of Surrey noted from late anyway so by 5 second through your and
thank you thank you for pointing out gym OK thank you so at before we move on to consider the planning applications there are a number of administrative matters that the Committee needs to attend to Hurst at the first item is the minutes of the last meeting are they agreed
the at conflagrations do you have something to
yes I've a correction tonight on items 3 the land on the corner of Duncan greed and certain Cornhill it says that the Committee notes the report on Members voted against application I abstained so may that be challenged crated yet thank you very much that should be fine to be practice and thank you agrees
otherwise members the écriture quite thank you
I remind Members to keep the microphones on yet
thank you
OK we now move on to declarations of interest at so can I ask each member to see it with a bay happening declarable interests in relation to any of the items on tonight's agenda together with the details of the interest
at conflict Agalarov no no interests Councillor Smith
no no interest
anwar nor interested
Evans lower interest concern among some Franken no interest constant modern
no interest countries show it low interest and consular Mallory no interest
great thank you very much and so we NI turns them in business of the agenda at there's a legal requirement for the Committee to remain quorate at all times and Chrysler's should remain present throughout the item being discussed in order to vote on the item
the Council's IT Officer will monitor the meeting and advise on any connectivity issues if the meeting becomes inquorate or if IT connectivity the meeting will be paused what the technical issues are resolved
officers will endeavour to resolve any such issues as quickly as possible and we ask you to please bear with us if this does happen
OK so please note that agenda item 4 at 34 Sydenham Hill has been withdrawn from this evening's agenda so there's my only 1 Planning application for consideration this evening which is 16 manor avenue
so the Committee will first here at presentation from the Planning Officer setting out the proposed development the relevant planning considerations on the recommendation the Committee made an ask the Planning Officer some questions next the applicant and their agent will be invited to speak in support of application it'll be given 5 minutes in total and I will use a timer with an alarmed indicate when the five minutes are up
any members of the public who have pre-registered to speak Lammy by to speak they to your given 5 minutes in total and I'll also use a timer within alarm indicating when the five minutes are up those who have invited to speak at may be asked questions by the Committee at the end of the speaking time and after hearing the ejector everything from the objectors with an here from confronted Farani who is at speaking at this meeting under Standing orders and then the Committee will discuss the application and moved to either grumpy application refused the application or defer the decision on the application if the decision is to refuse or defer at the Committee will give reasons so please can the preventing Officer for the first application on the agenda and I start the presentation thank you
chair of just being informed that the presenting officer has has lost connection perhaps we could
Bear with both from yesterday when it was to reconnect to the meeting yet of course that's fine
it was all going too well
shall we have a we have a another Officer on standby in case this kind of event happens so I'm going ask my colleague anger Saunders to to step in and start the presentation
thank you very much
can you ensure members are let me
the presentation ready
of this Isil is an application 16 latter Avenue
that's a part retrospective application for the reason of the roof ridge by 150 millimeters for attention HRA dormer and replacement of these listing felt roof lights with conservation style rooflights
the application site is located on the western side of Manor Avenue residential road in the Brook a conservation area
draftees four-storey mid-terrace Victorian Villa which forms part of a terrace of four properties planning permission was granted in September 20 15 for works to the roof comprising a glazed roof extension in the rear roof slope and installation of two rooflights in the front roof slope how the works were not carried out in accordance with the approved plans as the refresh has been raised by 150 millimeters the pit to the front roof slope has been altered and an additional reflect has been installed on the front roof slope
but this resulted in an enforcement investigation and ultimately the submission of this application paragraphs 6 to 15 of the committee report give a detailed account of the planning history and overview of the proposals and comparison with the approved scheme the following slides showed comparisons between the property priced works the works approved 20 15 and the works as built and the proposed development
this is an image of the property are outlined in red and on the right answer out of the pin showing the reflection as built
this is the first graph at the front of the property demonstrating the change in roof pitch the increase in the ridge height and the number size and type of rooflights on the front and the image on the right ear gives a good indication of the relationship between the height of this ridge and high to the ridge of the properties on the remainder of the terrace
this is a on the left and image of the pre-existing front elevation and on the right what was approved in 20 15 with two conservation style rooflights and this is an image of the pre-existing rear elevation and the approval the right hand side the approved Dorner from 20 15
this is a on the left an image of the pre-existing Roof Plan and again on the right hand side showing what was given planning permission in 20 15
this is a section through the roof at the top as pre-existing and below as approved in 20 15 members
they are asked to note the head-height within the property under the approved proposal is Mark there as
1 point 9 6 metres because that's not clear
this is a photo of the as-built route which has already seen and on the right hand side is the proposed front elevation which retains three front rooflights well and are in largely the same location but replaces them with conservation style rooflights
this is a an image of the as-built rear there is no change between the as built and the proposed at rear
I'm turning to the sections installations are between as built and proposed there is no difference between the two
are similarly there is no difference between the as built section and the proposed Section
the main planning considerations are the impact on of design and heritage
comparison with a similar situation and a 17 morality and the impact on adjoining properties
the starting with the first point the combination of the raised ridge and changed the pitch of the roof creates an obvious contrast with the adjoining properties and unbalances the roofscape resulting in material visual harm to the property and the terrace of which it forms part the broccoli Conservation Area character Appraisal identifies re flights as a damaging elements to the character due to the additional visual clutter on plain roof slopes the additional the addition of a third rooflight does not make a vital contribution to the tunnelling additions given the high-low of glazing in the rear dormer and the consented to rooflights as such the visually intrusive impact of the additional rooflight is not justified
officers consider that the harm caused by the alterations through would be exacerbated by the precedent established by this development and the potential of the piecemeal erosion of the roofscape that would arise with sinner alterations at other properties
it's been suggested that the development has improved the energy efficiency of the property however no evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim and other methods of improving energy efficiency of a building or possible that do not include in the altering of height writ pitch of the roof
turning briefly to comparison with number 17 the ivory yes
where on 5 November
14 of 22 I don't know whether it was meant to have gone on to other to more slides thank you Chair yes
SIIA fantasy that someone is number comparison the number 17 the so good immodesty a property under consideration the ceiling
it is all right as a property at number 17 manor avenue the roof ridge of number 17 has been raised by a similar amount to the application property however the angle of the pitch of the roof was not increased as a result of these works are now reflects the been stored on the front roof slope as demonstrated
that gives you a closer look at the front roof slope of number 17
turning to the final element which is the impact on adjoining properties it's not considered to have any Silicon impacts on neighbouring amenity therefore planning permission is recommended for refusal
for the reasons set out at paragraph 79 of the committee report
the Chair will forgive me there is a supplementary report or to correct an error in the officers report will give me a moment only to find it's I can read it and after start sharing my screen in order to do so yeah thank you
if I may charges read directly from him yeah so this sets out a response from the additional less rejection from the broccoli sati received on 12th July
this year are
the report
there are contained in connection with a last quite intact anger start that again I think I heard some something activity problems at the very beginning you just start again if we play local thank you but this engendered sets out our officers response to an additional letter of objection from the Brockley Society received on the 12th of July of this year of the publication of the Committee agenda on the seventh he addenda more so creates an error contained in the committee report
the additional letter was a further objection from the Brockley Society stating support for officers recommendation for refusal reiterating the existing positions and sizes for rooflights are not accurately reflected on the drawings at the inaccuracy of the drawings in relation to the rooflights was noted in the initial objection submitted by the society and is addressed in paragraphs 50 to 52 the Committee report as such the further objection from the Brucie started does not introduce any additional material considerations
turning into the correction are the two photographs of the wrong property the photographs in question to be inserted after paragraph 46 and a title 32 front roof slope of number 17 manor avenue however the photographs included within the report are of the application property nor the 16 men Romney there are are are as you would have just seen Chairman's from the presentation we have included photographs of the both properties correctly labelled in the presentation if you would like me to show those again I can request
thank you very much
OK so now we can go to Members for questions if anyone has any questions please indicate and the chat
OK I don't see any questions to the officers just
OK and consultants and Franklin
chair I just wanted to ask the officer what the differences between a conservation roof light window and the normal there lurks windows 13 put in
I'll take that town thank you
I the technical issue early on Alfie William C case of shelfie for the application a conservation rooflight is flush fitting so it it doesn't protrude above the roof slope the same degrees of relics or other type any Germany as a central glazing bar which is more traditional and appropriate that Victorian properties such as this one so can I just it doesn't swing right out then it's on at its lowest it doesn't protrude it it does open but when the Shah ease and as it doesn't see above the the plane of the roofslope this quite the same degree and care is that is that what is expected in an application from this and air of of house design is it was that was what was approved in 2 thousand 15 and wasn't installed this would correct that although the numbers now increased from the tone that was approved to free
OK thank you thank you thank you very much thanks Chair
are there any other questions
no great thank you very much Alfie I guess no sorry hand with my three screens
NI we can hear from the applicants and I understand that there to people speaking and chairing the time at so whenever you're ready at just a mute yourself and I'll start the timer
high one earner under the blow on the big try from Omagh Directorate Jack studio effects and on this canal and I Melcombe of the Faber and want to do to try to be a very short summary on on my my view and all them the powers and money from Omagh doing another a proud local resident they sought to combat the loss of the high footfall standard and the same time out obtain all the necessary Local authority permission building control and planning and it always sought to build the loft in accordance with those original plan 15 I've been through the report and I am and how I really welcome that that recognised throughout it says that the permission in into a larger than his is built them in according to those plans disses acid architects we we were responsible for Division 2 thousand 15 application and when we help to supervise the glazed dormer but we weren't involved in actual Fachell attic conversion and that was done by a record blocked company so we do feel we got quite subjective view on it because we want Surrey in Balkan in the closure of the last so in my opinion you're only really looking at two issues which the first issue being one additional rooflight and the second issue being the raising of them of the ridge height now additional roof light and at the time there was a recommendation from the planet of Sirte the time that they really did have an issue with a small rooflight and a rather cogent so the powers did it is very much in in good faith that that added in Italy rooflight 30 with an at times deviates from the plans the raising of the ridge height the very important issue and that that I believe is the key issue so we they they have lifted hundred 50 millimeters and that was upon advice from the Bill that role of there at the time they changed it technically from a cold roof construction saw warm roof construction and that improve the energy efficiency of that area which is a very large area the building by 40 percent and that's an important thing for you to to bear in mind in a in a building like that there aren't you are limited because it is a conflation are you can't insulate outside of the house so that you know to insulate the roof space is actually incredibly fish about doing it and it so in my opinion neither genuine to deviations are genuine oversight by the Pals and certainly not meant for any breach of planning and they I think you know for improving the energy efficiency of the home that level I think you know in what we call a climate change emergency the in really far far outweigh any my pin in relatively net negligible damage so I'm going to have overcome now who can tell you it from from helped view
now either
so we can you yeah I guess so one in 2 thousand 15 we sought pre-planning advice and planning permission from their should planning department at all stages we have asked Lewisham planning for its help and advice and acted upon it faithfully allusion panning off so in 2 thousand 15 was concerned with getting the dormer right and was not concerned with the front roofslope Lewisham had recently granted planning permission for many multiple rooflights in Brockley including one for three rooflights at number 64 in our street during the Bill the building inspector informed us that are building a privilege past certification and become legal we had to install more insulation he suggested a warm roof looking out of our window we could see many houses of this type of insulation 43 houses in Manor Avenue have added insulation or height to their roofs we did install the warm roof and were more desertification the loft needed no heating but ventilation was a problem following the advice of the Lewisham planning officer we installed another rooflight like our neighbours had done the House is 5 storeys high not for and the difference is hard to see there's only two rooflights actually in the living area the other ones in a toilet area so it did need that for for the air to circulate in 2 thousand 19 Lewisham Planning Department seem to have had a change of direction and we had a visit from a new to to Lewisham planning officer unlike our original collaborative experience in 2 thousand 15 we found the officer extremely difficult and unwilling to enter into dialogue the same officer has since had a complaint upheld against them for similar treatment of other residents and has been sent for RE training we felt forced by them to reapply for the panic Commission that we had already received the officer then we felt went on to try and shore up their flimsy case by complaining about all types of new things they hadn't mentioned before culminating in an attempt to declare the loft unlawful because a drawing of a joint was missing from original application in 2 thousand 15 if it was missing why wait five years to ask for it with only ever sought to make this House insulated ventilated and usable as an intergenerational dwelling we had 50 letters of support from our neighbours including from both sides of the House and no letters of complaint these are small changes as a result of the build and regulations which were barely visible from the street does Lewisham who recently declared a climate change emergency really want residents to remove insulation and install more heating for the sake of 15 centimeters on the top of a five storey building and I believe the picture that they showed was that I'd like to ask Alfie if that was a lorry was hired to come down the street with a camera on an arm and actually if you can only see it off the top of a large lorry with a Cameron is it really visible why why was that necessary
and also Alfie had visited the loft and agreed now and I'm afraid where where OK for us the time thank you sorry I have been battle no worries thank you very much as we have two questions so far from members the first is from principal gin and then convert Anwar
as some other to ask about the pre-app Thrussell pre-app because of awful for the retrospective the one before us tonight those no pre-app discussion is accurate
male Unita and yourself
yeah I I cannot get out on their there was no there was no free up for this particular application but there was a pre-App for the the preferred abrogated I can underpin added to the previous application was only in respect of the to light and subsequently we are told that officer said that no problem having a third was I put in writing directing now I believe that they have no no issue with with a dish they had they basically be after the time I can I can show it everyone over forward Alpert it they can effect Mel quote me if I'm wrong and coping it from my memory is I believe I have no problem with rooflights on the front frontline escape from Ealing note Note line there I know but
now you need if you need if you need to speak need and anew Year microphone to members that Surrey sorry and yes and yes that is what he said that he wasn't concerned with rooflights and he did put that in an e-mail it showed if nature of it before it showed his attitude by putting that in the e-mail
which I sent to you all I think before the meeting I Centre summer thousand blighted 0 so mother like a planning officer I I sent I sent it to everybody in the group I didn't know which planning officer was speaking nobody told me who was going to be speaking
OK thank you very much and I just like to remind everybody that we were comes a planning application we can make decisions based on material considerations and on an it's important for everyone to remember that and that the only basis on which we can as considers Nick a planning decision am I'd like to go to Councillor and then to Councillor Gibbons anchor Jake first question acted exactly the same which Constable do actually asked to do we have any proof that as you sir you added a third window following the advice of the office's but you said you have approve of it I mean our I will say you should know that that does not replace the Planning application process if there are e-mail is not a statutory record you can just produce and say that replaced the planning my second question is about insulation that's what you're more focuses and I understand if their houses more energy efficient is a less carbon footprint and whisper best for environment but
2 and the contribution window and the window you have already approved so is that if you do that insulation to you have to change this to this style of the windows which just done it that's my question
I would like to change the style or walk Donnie commute
are you going out and a good and I would like to change the and style of the windows to insert two conservation so that that's something I would like to do not my question is because you're you're you're sorry Chair understeer asking a supplementary question my question is because your main as standard stances that because you are doing insulation to make them more energy efficient 40 percent more energy efficient but you change the style of the window which is official of course are objecting along with adding another window so to add that insulation does that building like the over and selection people do the required that never change the style of the window corporation windows cannot be done in that insulation Daria them compilation window can be done in in that that fell a warm room
OK thank you now now now would very much like the journey through the window the current conservation foul and thank you OK thank you we'll move on to Councillor Gibbons and then Councillor Smith
yeah I would certainly favours conscious billing on Councillor and was coined I think the the issue is about the the view from the street scape and street scene and to me and I'll be interested get the views or the applicant and other members of the Committee that Attlee if these were conservation style windows that was set in the ridge line they are far lesson mortal fall is visible from the street lights actually there being a third window as compared to 2 is kind of less material because they do not protrude from the ridge line though that make sense so as almost just thinking out loud with that it wasn't sure I publish it on that post and that the question so apologies but I just wanted to jump in their sort thinking how good though no John Berger I cannot without them thank the another requesting this that day conservation rooflight would think a questionably help along I think it was from country to escape make it appear a lot Klemmer
and also that they will feel more much more respect within within the but they can be restricted that it open bar and they can be set within the roof so I don't think they'll have that to visual impact as they they currently do and yeah I think that the quite man in three in my theory it is it doesn't make a huge difference between 2 and added that the metrical they look you know they look quite decent and then and keeping all other properties along them from along the route
OK thank you my consciousness
committed to fund one of these questions is distinctly I suspect for Jake an ice that One First might need to try and work it out but he a casually MJ yeah
good you have said that the warm roof saves 40 percent compared to a cold roof to the original year design construction
this house will be about 220 Mill non cavity wall construction won't it correct that five floors so although this might be 40 percent saving over the original roof construction let's insignificant in the overall loves through the walls of the building
yeah but they wouldn't call him significant but I would say you know the best way to inflate your homework beta insulate walls it through in a kind of period property like that in a compilation aerial speak on insulate outside and when it got particularly nice very featured inside this very restricted on their back I believe though that the powers of Trident great a lot of the leak it will be through the window though windows are being a key issue there as well
so moving in practice to the hundreds and 50 Mills warm roof makes very very little difference the any efficiency in the home that's that I wouldn't play Owen for very little I would say I would say there are other element over the issue with the look at the overall building
there would be no thanks
not just to make them coming to you I've got a question for believe you want to comment on that yeah please do and can you give me the money to thing has gone off the can you any the again the where you've just kept it on a muted which is 5 OK lovely thank you I'm yet at the moment we don't need any heating in the loft at all and because the insulation is so good
and if we had to remove the insulation we will have to retrospectively install heating which will then pretty much goes straight out through the cold roof so just and we also have done every thing else we can do we have renovated all the windows through the House inserting brushes to try and help the insulation but the main problem is that at the moment we don't need any heating here and we will have to have heating which seems quite a captain Shurton sort of the second question is on the change of the roof slope
who's decision wasn't changed the slope it wasn't approved by
losing planning was it
the British soap
we haven't changed the roof slope of the roof slope the anything to change is the height of the ridge so if it's you know all the tiles were changed and we've insulate on the insider really understand that and that's something that's been thrown in by Lewisham at the last minute of all the way through since 2 thousand and 19 constantly new things of imported this hasn't been mentioned until now we like employs about sorry to interrupt now if it would be helpful I could good asked the planning officers to expand a little bit more about what that means if that would be helpful for people to hear exposed yet is that OK the angles or Cris R work their of picture yet thank you like the presentation up is it would that be helpful
self-initiated quite well yes thank you
if it were
every can you
yet we can see that I can't see it
I'm not 100 percent can you see it and I know I can just see blue 61 Avenue I can see up writing on blue yet yet that it's about yet that this was to be I am
surrey's stay slides that really show if you see is raised that picture if his raised above that of the both of the neighbouring properties
can I can you get me out and if you can hear me
yeah can I just add this I'm Alfie didn't mention in his report that the ridge has been removed off number 14 Manor Avenue you can see that the ridge of tiles are higher than the roof so that looks artificially low I think in this advice we were just getting off you to explain the thing about the pitch of the grateful to do that and will go back to consciousness question thank you it's not I'm not really speak about the the ridge in this instance is the slope that the slope is clearly a different pitch through the both the neighbouring properties so I see beside the parapet you can clearly see there on
I missed quite clear from the photos
she can see or a mouse's the curses hovering and there and is I think it's perceptible from this aerial view as well
so it isn't just if we see that the the pitch of the roof is raised above the ridge and the neighbouring property which affects the pitch
if the roof so isn't simply raising the ridge is altered the whole slope of the roof
which is perceptible
can I just check with members that they've understood what Alfie is trying to explain
the interest I cannot come just on that point does make a point to the them then the the thing on ending I'm sorry we need to think if
members have understood what else is trying to fix them in I think we need to go back to put Smith's question on Iraq continued that way and that's OK OK if we can lose the presentation I think the opener Surrey very much but yet
it is it is quite difficult to tell from that picture and presume that when the loft was converted in the roof was done
knew the the roof trusses or joists whatever this roof is constructed probably put in well
are there may have been some new what I don't really know about that because as far as I'm concerned we just replaced the tiles and a so I don't know what
I don't really understand this because no no it's it's it's that it is quite difficult I can see from Alfie's picture that the neighbours either side view have a slightly different heights
but the starting edge of the of the roof anyway that and which probably had not be those probably straight line once but but in a when these bills what shows really to me on that is actually the alignment to the dividing wall which take us away towards the top edge which would suggest that the roof pitch has been changed visually know that that could be just the way though the roof was tiled I don't know
but it is quite obvious looking at that picture I am only asking this question because I want to get my head round that the design
it does give them a much more significant impression a load of arise to the pitch height by by doing that in the night sky can see you know that the comparison to the House on the on the right wishes missing its ridge tiles is is probably an unfair comparison
you can only take the comparison to the one on the left which still has the ridge tiles on it
I was just to clarify those things in my mind having seen this stuff about the changes to the roof slope
it is distinct I think it's relatively small this distinction in this alignment with the dividing wall between the two buildings and it shows up or there than anywhere else equally not visible from from a camera on a crane I doubt anybody at roof that street level with notice it it is just trying to clarify things in my mind out but could I could I did go on that point if they can appoint Councillor
if I think it's really important though I note that the the eaves are consistent and at actually probably what you pay for the three the majority of the time the forward and they are consistent all throw so I think that that those down may be what what going on to the roof slope is that the the the installation been added but they maintain the eaves line which I think it actually no critical in this in the fact that because I think it's the thing you would all noticed the most
Councillor Battle thank you consonants and we NI we have question from cancer Openshaw and then a question for officers from concert Anwar
the thanks so I just want some clarity as well ha are you saying that the additional height has only been put onto the building solely to accomodate the it's the extra insulation and what was it impossible to include the insulation without adding additional height
and George Johnny grants that will allow him to thank for it to go to question and essentially I insulated goes on top of the roof joy in a warm room at that kind of the whole insulations rats you can do can-do a cold room which the thanks putting insulation between the joy that would have and that's what they call a country for that then has the bonuses as be ventilated as long issues cold route so there is no other way but to extend the says the raised ridge in order to make a warm room without taking the whole roof down
and reduce the most up to date in the hope that the entire route and I believe you know there was a sat there is that along the existing roof is retained in the construction of belief and
check not making a point before my yeah
passion for January could then could it be done by loving internal site and floor levels a tent I think an escape tweeted the original building restoring Han and adapting it was with a group that it things have moved on a lot since then and I would definitely highly recommended a warm room and the the floor structure was lowered to its maximum make it habitable and you would actually need to physically dropped the floor below in order to accommodate and that and as I mentioned you'd have to remove the whole whole roof essentially and lower it and probably the look the floor alone
and can I just ask that the floor below because of the design of the houses that the floor below the roof height is barely legal nowadays because it was I think probably you know not considered as important the top bedrooms they're actually very shallow roof height and if you drop them the roof you then make that floor illegal height Ceann Rockall for love nor I think we're going to go to Anwar has a question for officers and inconsistent has one more question
thank you to mark his ability to note about the applicant as mentioned a few times insulation and making more energy efficient which I appreciate Councillor Smith raised a very good point and give me a little benefit arm in also energy-efficiency business so he raised the point about solid wall insulation or external wall insulation we called it and that make a big impact if you really want to do the energy efficient house and as Jack said is very difficult to do that as an a planning issue I suppose the planning is very easy to get far external wall insulation if the area's Conservation Area then you can do from internal wall insulation the solid was supposed to be so what's that Planning officers just a little comic about it because I sport what Costa Smith said that solid wall insulation for me the big impact thank you so you asking about with a is a planning requirement see yet Jack said is is not easy to get the planning permission to do the solid wall insulation so I'm just as available so works internally wouldn't need permission so you could improve the energy efficiency for installation internally why this is come up for this application is when when assessing harm to the Conservation at area we asked to weigh that against the public benefit so this the aptness of made the case that this is this there's a public benefit in terms of improving the energy efficiency
I mean there was our theories that that hasn't been substantiated food the submission there was no information on the levels and so the 40 percent the spring quote now at we hasn't had any information
On that submitted with the application so did
it's difficult for us to verify that information is this out we've been presented with open thank you know air having said that they are modest benefit in terms of improvements to energy efficiency doesn't necessarily outweigh the harms the conservation area the CIL is two points they sit basket unbalance as easy unbalances the Thiem
the terrace in the shape of the terrace but the other point to make is that this the issue that this would set a precedent for the road and that incremental Rosen of the roofscape of the roads through similar developments that could happen we have a very damaging impacts on the roofscape so that's another element we needs to take into account in this decision thank you very much and we've got one more question from consciousness and anything we will move on to the next part of the of the agenda
contracts I think you from and unusual
so even as old hands forget about muting the might that there's kind of a point really which might help some of the Members who are relatively new to this that there is a complete conflict between energy efficiency and conservation area status you can't really do much about the outward insulation of the House without really damaging the conservation status or incorrect completely removing it
and to do it inside would mean removing the existing original features of the house which is one of the great things about these houses if they retain those internal features so there is a significant conflict there that can't be overcome using current insulation methods and that something that we come up against every time we deal with a conservation area application and you're gonna get plenty more of them over the next few years I suspect I wanted to ask
it possibly Jaco or maybe Mellor not sure which would know but you were talking about this warm roof does the warm roof extend over the entire roof slope
or is it just the extension on the back I believe it's over the whole how slope of the now not only the ridge I'm so the ridge insulation was put on the ridge and then they put a some wooden covering over it because you can't well lead onto insulation and then they well the lead if that makes sense so when you say the ridge
the central register there is no central ridge of the house has had the additional insulation well enough to walk way essentially cut a wide walk weight drivers' rosettes and Jake I'm not quite sure they're brought holding a bit more here OK so it's just that Bitterne immediately above the headline it's not the roof of the dormer I suppose you would call it was that done as part of the original build
yes installations in all the walls inside for the rest of the dormer Burke and because the steals are on The Ridge as I understand it enough the heat can go straight up through the metal and be transmitted outside and let have this kept with insulation roads referred to as a coal Bridget some which you might think is the Forth bridge over river but it's not to search for hip-swivelling nothing sterling for heat to escape yes I understand where us by so
I can see some of the point clearly if you've only got a 19 60 by tight in their putting onto an 50 Mill would make it impossible for anybody over five from 10 to stand up so I can see why it's on the outside but clarifies that thank you that's that's all just thank you very much currently Smith OK thank you very much at Mellingey we are NI going to move on to cut the out of Ronnie as I've been advised that there were no objectors at here to speak
can I just don't check for confirmation of that
that's correct Chair thank you very much thank you Mandjeck for commuting and OKC so consider Franny and you're welcome to speak I'll also be ticking a timer and an may have to politely
Philip politely ask you to wrap up if necessary and so please whatever you're ready
and Committee members for the opportunity to just to see me or acoustician of this application I believe this meeting has given a very full explanation in a sitting to you of the runner tortured circumstances of the case and I wish briefly to support this application my involvement with this case started after application was a feast I was contacted by the applicant and met with them on 3rd February this year the wealth through with me the experience with the Planning officers in relation to the aplenty application I was shocked to hear of your story as illustrated would respond as between them and loosen planning officers with the shared with me my immediate reaction with a contact an officer to have an immediate dialogue and this little admitting kindly agree with me I will fare developing Team Manager Mr. keeps on 7 February that was the outcome of that meeting was pitted obvious are regrettable that planning and enforcement officer have failed to enter into dialogue with the applicants and all requests by the applicants for meeting or dialogue with officers were ignored for example there was a specific and Clicquot to a particular officer in pastille agog
this was never responded to I'm grant limit those instances of such a happened over conducting the Panel regulations recommend that applicants but given the opportunity to enter into negotiation sadly it was not given to them and had that advised him he did maybe will not find ourselves here now as it as it USA were not happy an option at first application because the PROW so concerned about the conduct of this of this case I wrote at length to Emma tablet
my fellow Councillors who might deliver expressed similar concerns in relation to another 17 manner of opinion which has now been given Pallant planning permission anyway that is now history are consented night it the condition of the current it was drafted and up application and has already been said is because of this application
is is an integrated areas 1 raising of the ridge height by 50 centimeters in order for to get additional solution and to one additional roof light we got him one the minor Aitchison had of ridge of the roof was completely based on the advice of the building control officer the officers professional Pineau was that in order to meet current building regulations are one group mostly added this of course was implemented in could fit it would therefore be perverse to punish applicants for conducting themselves in accordance with the law of this land as an Authority we are committed to addressing the effect of climate change and aspire to to lose him being a carbon neutral environment and not do too distant future despite broke reciting observations I do not believe a cash for observer will notice any discernible offensive difference at number 16 as compared with a journey properties and in fact draw out mano attorney that attach a heritage of the borough of Brooklyn conservation area is not a talk the stopped or affected by the increase often centimetre which is less than six ages
the applicant's statement sent open a members listed at least four to three properties a man agree with varied ridge heights as a result of internet solution I can test whether this statement as I walk up and down the street was the Grundy as incident it is patently obvious that has now gone from Gouffran would add a terrace of the parties and not in another whole life of Manor Avenue regarding to the additional rooflight is also in my no deviation and this is the perception of illusion planning officer caul fat A-plus I saw the EMAs entered the applicant's architect by Mr. fit opus author take June 25th King and I quote I'm referred to create a concern with a front rooflights that is what he said houses with three rooflights I come feature with many of the properties in man agree this up the approval of planning of 30 15 included two rooflights and Todd one in in the refused planning application was of the list of you to concern to Mr. for topless as mentioned above the building was completed in 20 16 and so four years later that is thought of so one complaint that an enforcement order was contemplated on what are my now might not be vicious the statement to EU members I'm Chair by my fellow councillor to Penfold he distressed clearly convincingly that this digression and my now I to be a disproportional sanction if it were to result in refusal and therefore enforcement action the application was not at the applicant's right why not advice at the time of the complaint introduce empty and in fact
not until 20 19 they want made aware of the complaint
consultation was carried out in the usual way and this year jaded 50 responses all in favour picture responses all in favour in addition the Green party was also in favour and it so an he saw the development as in line with Lewisham Council's aspiration for Campbell 3 environment there was no objection from anybody it is regrettable that the only known supportive comments came from Brockley Society and amenity society we to local Councillors to local Brockley Councillors I in favour and strongly so podded guarantee of approval of the application of living the practical sufficient area for 45 years and I was an active member or the society Barrow to becoming a Councillor I know my not having anywhere half many partner phrase there and I'm familiar with Victorian skit in relation to the comments of the progress IT I will say that while I have great respect for their walk in maintaining local actual actors and stage of not always for their Foggia input consistent
currently under minute to ask you to wrap up OK acre OK OK good were
as motion as as mention I too am committed to maintaining local architecture heritage but was also takes into account current concentrations such as those listening to environmental matters and lastly in an article in the financial Times considered Brockley Society or support for a very modernistic development in the Conservation Area Chris Johnson cheer of Broca's society of repairing committee is quoted as saying Brocken sat is strong view is a conservation should not equate to provision giving before going and your happy history with officers I hope colleagues you we feel able to allow this application thank you for your indulgence
thank you very much Councillor and Franny and we have two questions for officers one from Gibbons and then one from Chris Amari
Jimmy compassion to the world
I think that the rail Knuth issue for me and I think it might be similar for some other councillors on the Committee ease the precedent that this sets arm and I want it might be something for the applicant to come back on and might be something for Jimmy to come back on but actually I want I have of course I will be honest by I want me or
officer to be clear with me about this what precedent they think after kind of allowing going into a recommendation of the set and I've heard several times fraternité that actually already on Manor having new there is a kind of so gentle or subtle seesaw effect if the can enter ridge line and of properties because other properties have done similar adjustments and putting insulation and serve roofs affecting the slope of the height of the ridge
Mike 100 be if this was if this was the first and this was the kind of purchase on the edge of the slippery slope they're not wish and go there but actually it seems unfair to penalise an applicant for something which is very similar to to we'll else's taken place on Manor have new and that can has said that they are willing to go back and make some alterations over the windows in a visit that lesson they have less obstructive view from the street
so there are those kind of the weight so I just want the officers come back and basically say what precedent that if it missive setts
bonus this make it very difficult for us to resist similar applications so raising the ridge Oulton of the front roof slope and also the installation of free rooflights so that would set a precedent
for the roads so other if other applications come forward and be very difficult for us to resist that an in the US was the harm from that is not all of the properties would do it said getting consistencies then in the ridge lines and roof slopes
I think the point to make about rooflights is that there is a Conservation Area character Appraisal for Brockley it does I didn't flurry flights as damaging element historically they weren't pierced with the insertion of rooflights overtime son has been allowed police this part of the book of Manor Avenue so far hasn't seen lots of them we did allow to in 2 thousand 15
and CME that seems adequate to allow light to that loft space particularly given that the RERF extension is also glazed I can't see any justification for allowing a third particularly I don't think there's light gained from it is particularly crucial to making their living conditions better
it was sorry to advance that your Christina of whatever another part of near might not mind my point put on on the windows seems it seems fairly arbitrary about what should I be won the to refinance allowed three refloat allowed I think actually the design and protrusion of the roofless night would have more weight that's just my hunches I can't lay person I found this distinction between two and three kind of fairly arbitrary well it's just my personal opinion or you table a precedent has already been set a precedent would be set by the raising of the ridge but it seems like that has already already happened at Preston has already been set pre let this come back on that and that we no permissions being granted on road for any raising of the rich a manor avenue so in planning terms this would set the Preston there is an impressive at the moment in terms of whether there's any this has been done by any of the properties of Thorne Cerny unaware of number 17
which was included in my presentation
if others have done I am certainly not aware of that that in terms of
I mean that
I can't really speculate on other property so I'm I knew as none the 17 and under 16 so there is a very quick point question from acquisition was relevant to setted relevance the point Alford's made sorry male but we can and can't come to you and so condition if you'd like to quickly as your question and then we will move on to control Mallory
thank you Chair sorry I was just this conversation between Councillor Gibbons and Alfie around the the roof lights on my understanding was the reason that there was a third one was it was for the bathrooms was a way of separate to the where the other two which lights were of so in terms of quality of of light it's very significant because it would be like to a different area of the extension but just wanted to get pacification whether I heard that quickly the first
I'll think
I mean you could position one if you we've allowed to see could position 1 2 that the bathroom one for that
the rest of the room that doesn't necessitate having free in my view
OK thank you very much anybody FO 2 sorry running
and I'm sorry we need to go to Councillor Mallory and as a Christian I'm sorry Councillor tables until as my will come to to respond to a question express my contrite Franny I'm I'm trying to go I'm trying I'm I'm trying to to go to concerts consider Mallory so if you can please be able to meet the microphone and an then confirmatory can come in Africa questions officers
flicker true
the question is if we go along with to consult with officers recommendation what happens
this deputation would be refused yes but what physically happens to they then have to deconstruct the work has been done they would then has this way they dusted insert dialogue without enforcement same are not best placed to answer that question I think Chris might be best lunch yet and Christian is just said that he can he can clarify that if he wants to come in Chris
thank you Chair yes the so instances such as they swear work has been carried out this unauthorised an and planning application is submitted retrospectively this is a partially retrospective application Fen if that's refused it's likely that an enforcement action would then be forthcoming or by the Council if the applicant did not then implement the approved scheme and there is one further complication which I'm not sure as being properly come out come out tonight our which is that there is a live planning appeal in the sit in the system our which we are awaiting outcome from are from a refusal earlier in the year from her on a very similar almost identical application to this one
so that application was refused planning permission if the Council now grants planning permission for an application which is very similar to one which it refused there is a risk of been found to be inconsistent and unreasonable when that appeal process pans out so that's something to make the Committee aware of
just in terms of the debate that I've been distinctive this evening and there's been a lot of talk of three rooflights and two rooflights I think are with respect it's perhaps slightly missing the point the the application needs to be considered as a whole so to break it down into aspects which are perhaps unacceptable is is is helpful to a degree but actually what one needs to do is look at the proposal as a whole what officers have done is assess the application taken the view that the combination of factors in this application including the raising of the ridge height
and the the three rooflights and the the issues with roof pitch in combination are considered to represent something which is unsympathetic and out of keeping and and basically harms the character and appearance of the conservation area does this set a precedent I would argue very much it words if the Committee granted planning permission tonight I would urge the committee to turn its attention to two key to key things and consideration in considering this application one is does it harm the character and appearance of the conservation area
a few needs to become a map a view needs to be made on that secondly if it if it does harm the character and appearance of the conservation area is it the case that the environmental benefits arising from this development as so significant that they outweigh that harm the character and appearance of the conservation area 0 that provide some clarification Chair yet that very helpful thank you very much cress am we NI quite a few minutes for as up and chat because we are primed on it sorry imagine need to come back on that we're soju and in fact although Chris has been extremely helpful is actually probably lengthened my comment so Samoa my first point is
I think the whole issue around the parallel case may have some bearing on how we considered me we previously hadn't or I'm traditionally pretty unhappy about people who go ahead and don't get planning permission on also but but contradicted current in contradiction to that I don't always sympathised with the need to sustain the character of a contract Conservation Society so having having listened to the discussion so far and appreciating that we can't kind of in some ways as Chris says it's difficult to divide up the windows issue versus The Ridge issue and I still find myself in twos different with two different opinions about those issues and in a way and kind of I'd suppose the history of this application is is such that you and certainly as a rational person outside of planning law I find the circumstances extremely mitigating in terms of the of the applicant having gone forward given the advice that offers are officers haven't contradicted that they received from another set of officers or at least one off other officer and so it's it's a fraught case so and I'm I'm minded with the help of others are particularly officers or any other members who are better at framing things and to to to suggest that that that we don't see and so we can do one of two things that I would like to support one is that we don't see that the company Conservation areas character is significantly changed by this particularly in view of evidence heard some even though Alfie did refer to the he couldn't see any others that does seem to be some evidence that other houses have gone ahead and and are buried the height of the roof but also given Chris's most recent contribution I you know if if we are minded to support the applicant may be we need to defer the application pending the outcome of the appeal in this other parallel case so I'm certainly not in favour of of of agreeing the officer's recommendations by looking for ways out of that thank you
thank you Councillor Mary we had a proposal by 10 minutes ago and setting minutes ago from Councillor S mess if he would like to oppose something OK well it was it was common which will lead to why I'm making this proposal
there are several things we've taught and I'm sorry Christofi dividing this up but I want to clear things await as they come so we've talked about roof pitch being a problems but there isn't any real evidence the roof pitch has changed
the pitch height has changed but I don't necessarily know the roof pitches and there may be some confusion between those two things but so no evidence that the pitch roof the pitch itself so the angle of the slope has changed
the the roof lights were the two or three is fundamentally irrelevant if they're not visible from the street but also it's worth noting that this the roof with the three lights in it is pretty much south-facing and the dormer window is pretty much north facing which means it doesn't get direct sunlight so the light implication of the third window is actually significantly more important than is probably suggested by its mere size the
the roofslope yourself
we are also being told that there's no other
buildings down this road with a an increased ridge height there are some buildings down here with constructions on what would be the rear slope of the roof which are visible above the pitch height so the pitch of the the pitch height of the roof may not have changed on those buildings the skyline house so from street level the perception is that the pictures gone up because it's very difficult to tell whether you're looking at a pitch or whether you're looking at a building behind the pitch so I think that that probably misses the point quite significantly I'm not
Over convinced of the advantage of the extra 150 million terms of overall energy efficiency the House be clearly hasn't energy efficiency impact on that particular room so we're in this situation of having this conflict as absurd before between conservation and energy efficiency and some of you will know from previous planning meetings I'm not overly fond of conservation areas for this very reason and one of these reasons 1 energy efficiency in the other
is the loss of family rather than loss of family housing because people tend to move away to big houses now clearly isn't the case here this is the best part of five storey building so I don't think that that significant but when it comes down to the impact on climate change and energy efficiency then I think that takes precedence over conservation area my proposal having said all that I am I like Jim are uncomfortable with retrospective planning applications though when their result of perhaps bad advice from our own Planning officers not not Leslie talking about one's present at this meeting this happened quite a long time ago then I feel that it would be wrong to punish that the residents for those failings and bad advice might proposal would Britain we grant consent
a proposal and T
officers regulations could I just had one thing to that sorry Bagslate and I'm permits the point erm that yet more proposal is that we grant consent I would a Shoom and are not will do or a wave of hand from the applicant that should we grant consent than the appeal would be withdrawn and that clears that objection about the way
Chris here so I've seen that that there Shirkoak young and has been at than at that one-second seconded by confirmatory things are quick comment from question before we go to vote
chapter yet
where the Committee needs to be clear on why it's granting a planning permission but so the could be to potential reasons for that it could be that the committee considers that the the proposals don't actually harm the character and appearance of the conservation area so if that's the view of the Committee that could be a reason for granting permission or it might be a more nuanced approach at the committee thinks that the there is less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the broccoli conservation area but they consider that that's outweighed by the environmental benefits arising from the design of the roof so slightly there's two different approaches that could be taken in the Committee needs to be clear it can't just approve something with without a clear reasons it would need to decide which of those approaches it it's taking
and yes of course Councillor Smith did you want to contribute to that or I will do I don't think the second one of those is really an option I don't think the energy efficiency is really that significant in this case are energy efficiency at the whole building clearly as I said before is of that particular room the I don't believe that this causes visible harm visit because for the most part it's not visible certainly from the street it might be visible from a double decker bus but they don't run down the line so it is unlikely that members of the public walking past this building would notice this and therefore doesn't detract from the conservation area I think that sometimes we get a little bit
overzealous about enforcement of these things as you can see that the photographs were taken from high altitude and you can see if you're looking at high altitude and I guess the people living in the house opposite might notice it but I don't think they've objected to it so I I can't I don't believe it causes visible harm to the conservation area and I think that's a good enough reason to go forward with it
and before I proceed to the vote and on kitesurf myth proposal and if you have had internet issues please confirm the Youth and present for the whole application and the Clerk will ask Committee members high wish to vote you should either set and favour and against or abstain the Clerk of the Committee will confirm the number of votes for and against so to recap this is for countless myths proposal which is against officer recommendations and to grant permission so can the clock 9 please take the vote
0sorry is there I think possibly legal Paula needs to come in Chair can I say something please Ave 0 sorry
Hang on contract doesn't Franklin I
all that you need to get so I was just going to say that Members all minded to grant planning permission they would lead to consider what and conditions they would want to attack to such gone over they would be prepared to delegate that power to attach appropriate conditions do says
Councillor Smith do you want to include this new proposal to delegates conditioned to officers if that was a passes
I want certain as to what extra conditions we would need on this given that it dealing with such a small change the only condition would be really the period of time it took to achieve it and I think that's part of the planning anyway Chris can probably advising that more Paula but I think the I can't see the need for any further conditions if if the current application is to change the windows to conservation windows than that covers that option that and the other is to approve something that already exist so it would be quite difficult to put a conditional improving something that already exists so I don't think we need any additional conditions on this
chair the yam there were there would normally be
a condition on implement time period for implementation that's correct and as this is a potential our enforcement case I would search I would suggest that there's a a requirement and so there's the normal implementation condition says that developments take place are within three years but what I would say in a case like this because what's been sorted is some degree of restoring the proposal took to how it was so implementing those conservation rate rooflights the Committee could put a time period on that say a year to to to implement that I can't think of any obvious conditions other than we'd with put standard conditions in a conservation area so even though plans are showing Conservation Grade rooflights we would normally condition that they have to be as well so am I would respectfully ask for some latitude that if if there are some things that officers think of that just standard conditions are we
we would ask for the ability to just put those on as we was on any other application but obviously it's a matter for the committee to decide at Hammersmith is that reasonable few in your
you'd be added by now I know the thing keeps turning itself on yeah yeah I mean that you know the officer advice his conditions of that respect than your some suitably fine and I think that a short time is is perfectly reasonable on this that it shouldn't take too long to do that
great thank you very much and OK so
again it before we proceed to the vote if he had internet issues please confirm in present the whole application the clock will ask Committee members how you wish to to vote so please and meet your microphone and say how you wish to vote at either stay in favour against their obscene and the Clerk will confirm the number of votes for and against three to thank in it is in favour of countless myths proposal which is to grant permission against officers' recommendations so can the clock not please tick the vote
Councillor Carter go against
Councillor Angela for
Councillor Gibbons against
Councillor Johnson frightened I'm supposed to abstain my Turner said
not happy and I thank you Councillor Malory for
Councillor Mauldin against
I can show a ghost so sheet
Councillor Smith
and had asked for votes against
4 votes for and one abstention
so what to eat what what is the process NI as professional as that signs
the the chair has a casting vote OK apologies I'm going to I'm against and I'm I'm gonna cast against revocation
sorry she can you confirm is that against the application or a bull Councillor S missed recommendation against Councillor Smith recommendation thank you
OK so I think I'm sorry does the Clerk need to reconfirm
put the casting vote what has happened or do we move on
as you've determined the costing right then we are able to be been OK thank you very much at so because the other application had to be withdrawn from the agenda that concludes this evening's business thank you everybody very much for checking with us on a technology am on your time this evening and I think we need to vote to leave a recommendation in light now
o sugar sorry
works apologies apart a pop pop pop apologies am OK well I will put a proposal to follow up yet a consequence a guess or I was going to move a motion to except Ofsted recommendation for to reject this application
when we just weren't mine
argument I've seen similar before of a chipped chip chipping away both conservation areas I draw I'm not sure if I'm a fan of them until from experience
there was an experience as a as a Councillor so far but I think this fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area I think it sets a precedent which likely will be followed and continue the Chipping way of the Conservation Area's character OK thank you very much Councillor given that's been seconded by Councillor Molden so I'll proceed to the vote again again if you didn't manage shoes peace confirmed and present Filipacchi ashen the clock will ask and Members how we wish to vote at should either stay in favour against drug scene and then the Clerk of the Committee will confirm the number of votes for and against so can the Clerk NI please tick vote
anwar against
Councillor Gibbons in favour
some Franken abstain
Councillor Mallory against
Councillor Maldives
to shake
and Councillor Smith
what does that mean you've disappeared yet against
but he that is firefights against
forwards for and one abstention
sorry sorry nothing again the me and I can survey aware he's nowhere is
full the fights in favour
4 votes against and 1 abstention
OK I with its cast of the Chair casting vote I'll move that in favour
I can thank you all very much for bearing with us this NI actually concludes this evening's business so thank you very much and yet thank you my Ramage and good night
we turn off the wagon