Planning Committee A - Wednesday, 4th November 2020 at 7:30pm - Lewisham Council Webcasting

Planning Committee A
Wednesday, 4th November 2020 at 7:30pm 









An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

thank you very much and I were good evening everyone along with this meeting of Planning Committee A my name's Councillor James Walsh I am the Chair for tonight's committee and I'm delighted that we have you tuning in to watch out this piece of live democracy happen I am going to first of all ask the Clerk of our Committee to introduce the people are here tonight for me offsetting and supporting us in the delivery of tonight's meeting
thank you Chair
OK I will first call the name then the job title and then their role at the meeting Chris Dell Service Group Manager presiding of Sir Samuel James Planning Officer Case Officer of item 3
children that Bernie planning officer the Case Officer Charles Merritt barrister from Frances Taylor building on behalf of London Borough of Lewisham Solicitor myself could it may not committee clerk committee officer Clarke
did this occur solution architect IT and digital services provide an IT support
Shamim lower Civic technical support for rival webcast technical services caring for her tea had of committees riding moderation thank you Chair
but we must not call debt there's a quick reminder to both members and our guest joining us this evening through the marks of teams Park for that your if you are an elected Member your camera should be on preferably at all times this is to show that you're engaged in the meeting there may however be some circumstances where that is impossible annual of advise the Chair in advance
Mike for you should be kept off unless you are speaking if you're a guest Our tonight and participating as a citizen as other an objector
or or a proposal of a planning application or one of the are cynic bodies then you are asked to keep on microphone and camera of until you are called to participate in the meeting quick reminder that tonight's meeting as a meeting held in public and not a public meeting it is a meeting of councillors to decide on a planning application that has been brought forward in a moment I will ask the Clerk to the Committee call debt to go through and cool out each councillor name in turn to say if they are present or if they have any apologies also at this point I would like them to declare whether or not they have an interest in any of the business on tonight's agenda OK Claudette overdue please
thank you Chair
Councillor differently

1 Declarations of Interests

Councillor unfamiliar Mike Ferguson switched on
sorry at present and no interest to declare thank you very much Councillor card
present bus only just about have lost the connection once and then so keep an eye only Chair
how can I just a quick reminder if you need if you lose connection you can't return the let me know as soon as possible fire the other chap method that we have an I report the meeting until your return OK though Councillor Cook the heavily Declaration of interests no interest to the Kernow
thank you Councillor Curley sends his apologies
Councillor Davis
I sent her apologies for this evening
Councillor Hanley here no declaration of interest
Councillor Holland
Councillor Morrison
Councillor shoe
yes I'm forever and I don't have any Kerbal interests in vital Leslie thing
Councillor Shabir but yes I mean attendance and have no interest to declare
thank you Councillor Walsh I am here and I have no interest to declare either thank you that concludes the roll call

2 Minutes

thank you very much Claudette for that and just a quick note on tonight's agenda there has been a variation tonight's agenda we will no longer be hearing tonight 60 Earl Langer road so if you were here for 60 along a road of of tune in for that I'm afraid that isn't going to be hurt tonight the apologies before the likeness of this it was only an issue came to light likes afternoon which I would like to thank the Telegraph Hill Society for bring to our attention and apologise to them the applicant and any other objectors for any anyone is turned up this evening expecting them so we have one substantive item but first of all we need to look at and agree the minutes of Planning Committee A held on the 27th of August imagined and seems a little while ago
can I ask members if they have any Jews with the minutes as presented
I am seeing a hand raised 1 moments that is Councillor patient Ruissen Hellisay and here at last
great to have you with us thank you Councillor Lawson can I just check out that Morrison that you've got no declarations of interest in tonight's meeting again
thank you very much
so when are currently on the minutes to any members have any changes they wish to make to the minutes
I see no hand raised for that


can I then as there's been no amendments to the minutes can I see that as agreed I see no objections that being agreed thank you very much it as an agreed pay for for tonight we're now moving onto the substantive item for this evening Hest the House are was Park Road SE 26 06 are Q I'm going to hand over to Sam to present the initial officer report her on this item Sam overdue
good evening Councillors
I'm assuming you can see the front page of my presentation we can't some OK so good evening Councillors and agenda item 3 this relates to the side of hesba house which is located on Wells Park Road and can be found from page 15 of the agenda and it proposes the demolition of the existing house because structure of a 5 storey building plus at basement level for parking containing seven 3 bedroom and three 2 bedroom dwellings 10 off-street parking spaces are proposed together with associated landscaping refuse and cycle storage facilities it's brought before the Committee tonight's there are 24 planning objections and the proposal is recommended for approval the key planning considerations for lenders tonight are noted here so the principle of development housing provision standard accommodation and the design and the impact on the appearance of the surrounding area the impact on living conditions of neighbours and the impact on highways
the site is located on the northern side of was part Road and is currently occupied by two storey single family dwelling house and its private amenity space as noted in the headline there so are as varied topography and slopes from street level and and towards the rear boundary as when it's from east to west following the topography of was bought Road and jeers to this the existing house and much of the site sits above street level the surrounding areas residential nature to mediate north of the site and West rights which closed switches are comprised of three storey terraced rotas accessed from the Sydenham Hill to the to the east of the 5 storey block of flats known as Grey Friars which is accessed from was part road further to the east are the 6 storey residential blocks of the Southern Health state
to the south are the residential properties of Longton Avenue have to provide some larger semi-detached and detached dwellings
however there is a recent flat development and Longton Avenue as well and send them whilst Park is on the opposite side
site of the Peter rating 3 which indicates it has below average access to public transport a satellite image of the site just for reference consider the park in the bottom right corner at the site and centre and surrounding development another aerial shot just to show the scale of the surrounding buildings
this view is taken out of approximately metres down down was approved for the site and see Longton Avenue on the left and the front boundary treatment for Grey Friars on the right and just about see Grey Friars through the trees
and here's a shortlist of the access to Grey Friars and as well as the existing sites of has a house
the the access to has per house is located on the on the right here you can see that the full property in clear view for a shot
it's noted that the building is not a particular architectural architectural or historical merit and this shot or shows kind of how the the lay of the site goes up as you as is her go into the site and then go east of the site as well
this view is just down was about road you can see Droitwich close on the left and on the right is the front boundary treatment to 1 5 1 was Park Road
so again just the key planning considerations for Members wish to talk about the design now is the proposed rendition of the front elevation proposed building is 5 storeys in height of a series of bays stepping back progressively that access to the underground parking is is located at street level horror above this is the landscaped front garden area and so will appear as a raised front garden
here you can see section through the size of the front boundary would be here the underground parking underneath the front forecourt area the building set back approximately 7 when eight metres from the pavement
I'm distinguishes kind of shows the height of the existing boundary treatments on of the property and this image shows the existing and Street elevation this is just really to show how the ground level of the actual sites will remain relatively as existing so the the height of the underground parking although as a ground level is a similar height to existing from boundary treatment and the site behind will will remain at similar height to the existing
the existing dwelling houses towards the south western corner of the site and it's an offset angle to the street
and the misses the proposed layout of the proposed building would have a larger footprint and would sit more centrally within the site its front elevation would run parallel with the and with the streets and space over company Erissey soft landscaped with wildflowers and small shrubs he meet the area to the rear of the building here is private amenity space for the ground to ground floor flats mentors side and the rear of the communal landscaped area as well
and the final details of the proposed soft landscaping are to be secured and by condition 2 shall ensure policy compliance with Policy down 25
it has also includes green roof to the main roof of the building and to the bicycle and refuse stores and was and solar panels on the roof
as noted that the submitted Ecology report concluded that impacts for the development from upon protected species had be mitigated for an ecologically led design process and a sensitive landscaping design riding enhancements that habitats on site and the ecology report recommends the following enhancements which are to be secured by conditions so burn bat boxes log piles or wildlife-friendly planting scheme and a lighting plan which is of low light spill and has done a corridors in place to to how pouts at any traversing bats
it is also noted that his condition of development for further bat surveys to be carried out prior to demolition of building to ensure no harm to roosting bats
the proposed front elevation he could see her again just to show the POS materials so the main material was off facing brickwork and with stone cladding for the for the ground and first floor bays and the top storey timber windows are proposed as well as bronze runs detailing to the to some of the ground floor balconies
I'm the first material palette is considered to be high quality and would have a positive impact on the appearance of the surrounding area over all the praise building is considered to be of high quality and site-specific and response which were Cray interested his site which is currently under optimised it's never an appropriate height and scale and would use high quality materials and so is considered acceptable by officers the design of the proposal and here's the side elevations just for reference and brickwork for the for the whole circulation apart from the top floors you've got obscure glazed windows to protect privacy of neighbours
and again the rear elevation just for reference very similar materials to the front elevation
so following some tree removals by the developer and which was drawn to the neighbours of 10th drawn to Council's attention by neighbours Surrey a group TPO was made on the site towards the end of last year as a precaution to ensure that planning permission would be required for any further tree works or Mabel's as noted in the officer's report as part this proposal old on-site trees are to be removed these these are all of either category C or you value meaning the life expectancy is no more than 20 40 years the removal of these trees is required to facilitate the development on site soak and considering the significant merits of the proposal and the limited amenity value of these trees their loss is considered acceptable and the trees in blue on this image are all of site and arall to be retained and and this this is to be secured with a tree protection plan and the preliminary light landscaping scheme includes planting of new trees including ash sycamore and wild cherry an exact location in numbers will be secured by condition but there's an immersive indicative planting plan on the right
again the main planning considerations just for Members to note when he talked about the principle of development and housing provision so the existing property is not of any architectural or historical merit and therefore its demolition is acceptable considering that 10 new homes would be provided there'll be no net loss of housing which is caught policy compliant and therefore the principle of intensified residential development the site is accepted it's noted that Policy D 6 of the draft London Plan states that for London to accommodate the growth identified within the plan
annual inclusive and responsible way every new development needs to make the most efficient use of land which means developing densities above those of the surrounding area on most sites increased residential density of the proposal compared to the surrounding development is considered acceptable and considering this and they would optimise the site was delivering 7 units of family housing and three 2 bedroom houses
this stage I'll just draw Members' attention to the addendum which was prepared to late
in response to a late representation which was received from the Sydenham Hill Ridge neighboured for him and amongst other things as this related to the post density I'm as as explaining from paragraph 83 of the rapport affordable housing cannot be viably as delivered on site
this is supported by an independently verified financial viability reports officers therefore recommended that section 1 6 obligations required imposed level of affordable housing is subject to too early and late stage review mechanisms and and this will basically re review the viability of the scheme at certain stages to to ensure to see whether it had viably provide affordable housing
this will be the exact terms of this and negotiate with the applicants by a council leader team this is a policy compliant with the Core Strategy and the relevant national guidance
in terms of the proposed standard of amenity each dwelling as would be provided with over and above the Mim level requirements in terms of the internal areas and am in terms of the size of the rooms each dwelling would also have private amenity space in the form of balconies or the Red Red Dot as well as the communal area
levels of outlook and internal natural lighting for residents is considered to be good and overall the proposed standard amenity is very high
7 good quality family homes as well as three good quality to that of those would be provided
as explained in the committee report from paragraph to 30 the Smit day light and sunlight impact assessment identified that 6 windows on the western elevation of Grey Friars add to a ground to first into at second floor level but fall below the BRE guidance as a result of the proposal it these windows are currently obstructed by the existing protecting wing of the property which is to the south of them as well an existing trees along the boundary
and that is considered that the harm to these dwellings and when balanced against the material planning benefits of the proposal would be acceptable and no other properties would be harmfully impacted in terms of the levels of daylight and sunlight
in terms of the sense of enclosure and outlook no
items will serve not about look or increased sensing closure building is that the proposed building is a sufficient distance and an obstacle from the from existing Grey Friars building and therefore that the impact would be acceptable in terms of privacy there balconies are proposed to the front elevation there's been a minimum of 21 metres from the rear gardens of one to five those Avenue the distance the closest windows of number ones who fired those at New Delhi's 31 metres
and and this will be at an oblique angle from the balconies as well the fistful Dhaka's set further back by 1 point 5 metres dear Policy 32 states that there should be a minimum separation distance of 21 metres between directly facing habitable room windows on rear elevations I'll tell that as this is a balcony to garden distance that the 21 metres is more than adequate to ensure no harmful loss of privacy to the garden there's no side elevation windows within Campbell once it five facing the property
in terms of next with or without the impact on highways so to bicycle stores of posed of total passive 24 bikes which is in line with the London Plan requirements refuse storage be located here less than 10 metres drag distance that the payment which means refuse workers will be able to take bins out and back into the store on election day
10 parking spaces are proposed to the so the underground
a parking area considering the low-paid are raising at the site and the proposed mix of units each space that sorry considering the low-paid are ring the site and the prettiness mix 10 parking spaces acceptable in this case it space would include electric vehicle parking electric vehicle charging points
they swept path details show that they're equals would be able to enter and leave that the space in Fort Gail about needing to reverse onto the highway always officers have have looked at the details of the post parking spaces and they raise no objections with regards highway safety of the subject to a site at section 2 7 8 Highways Agreement which will secure works to the highway adjacent to the site as includes improvement works at access points including tactile paving a reinstatement I'm prudent works to the footway adjacent to the site as one of the closure of the existing access waiting restrictions and was Park Road to manage a loading adjacent to the site during construction and as well as additional road signs and markings on the approach the access to reinforce the existing 20 mile road speed limit
and furthermore submission of a car parking management plan which was secure details of the of how that parking will be allocated and managed as well as how informal parking will be in force against final construction management plan and deliver in servicing plan will these killed by condition which will ensure no unacceptable impacts during construction or when future occupiers received liveries
the proposed residential development would have an acceptable impact on the surrounding transport network over all the pedestrian vehicular accesses would result in no material safety implications and the development would have no significant impact on the wider transport network in line with the relevant local and national policy
in summary the application has been considered in the light of the policies South in the development plan and other material considerations as set out in the committee report
the proposed development would achieve a number of urban design and spatial planning objectives as set out in the Core Strategy including Optimising housing potential of an underused residential sites providing a range of new homes including seven high quality family homes and free high quality to bed homes
it also comprises of an appropriately scaled and high quality building which takes into account existing context these are planning merits to which significant weight as attached some harm has been identified to the levels of light reaching 6 of the windows of in Grey Friars of the harm to these affected neighbouring dwellings would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme as when balanced against the substantial material planning benefits that have been identified the level of harm is clearly outweighed furthermore the trees that are to be removed of all been identified as poor quality being of category sale you and the removal is required to facilitate truculent
so subject to the final soft landscaping details the harm caused by the loss of trees would be substantially outweighed by the material planning benefits the phone final details of the proposed ecological Hartmann's had to be secured by condition including soft landscaping in consultation with the Council's Arboricultural ecology offices given the acceptability of the proposed use and the overall policy compliance taking the balance of the planning merits against the level of harm that has been identified the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the development plan as a whole is considered that with the recommended litigation conditions and obligations in place the scheme is consistent with national policy and officers therefore recommend approval of the skin
thank you thank you very much for that then and had thank you for that detailed report I see Councillor pursue would like to ask a question
thank you Chair thank you from
you you're showed us a a visualisation of the front elevation there you showed us what I think is a Google Street View generated visualisation of the
neighbouring property to the east height and him I think he showed a Sir an elevation fairly simplified elevation with other Bill showing the context of other buildings behind it I'm I I know that in this area on this site level moves and the kind of level relationship of this building to the other buildings these can be key to its impact here so that that's probably the best one I've seen in so far he's actually quite difficult to sell so where where one building finishes and and the next one starts in that I think I can see what you is the proposal and which of the contextual buildings behind it but is it any other way we can campus visualise this or do not the African has got any other drawings that let us get visualise this mostly in a I guess elevation view
and it's true that the relationship so the other but yeah but thus 0 that's probably that's probably much more useful yes that's that's quite good I because I think that's
and other other other similar elevation visualisations from other directions the Laquan it's just that one
there's no decisions taken from other directions unfortunately OK I am as far as you are aware the applicant doesn't have any any more informative no I'm aware of no
OK I admit I'm asking this
Mr. Harris love when altogether OK because I I do think we're the only problematic issue here is is going to be what the relationship impact is on the on occupants of the other buildings and it's it's difficult to get a feel for the from just that he from this side
OK thank you
I very much eyesore next hand was Councillor R Hadley and then were goes Cusiter Farani after that and Councillor Sawiris raised his hands and as the order Councillor Hadley
thank you Chair
it is a practical use of the carriage and when it comes to the carriage goes onto the pavement to come across him to drop their and I gather into the road
how is it had been considered about so disabled motor scooters up their own pavements because there's lots of problems Normandy that Sir with the drop down and people going over the payment of the with their mobility scooter they have to get off and try to lug the over the age to get it back up onto the normal payment for me one side the pavements crossing the clock down kind to the other side the pavement and the her emote immobility skuas is quite heavy lots people have difficulty there says and practical use as that been thought about in this development thank you Chair
but I believe that the tax are improving that's to be agreed as part of the section 2 7 8 agreement will take cancer and not be agreed sort of between Highways officers and the applicant
can we put an informative on that those Sam if possible just that thought for for mobility impaired scooter users we may be able to I'd I do believe that that will be a consideration for the installation of the tactile paving though and thought yes that that is something we could and as informative as well just to draw attention to that I say that thank you very much Councillor Hanley Councillor far equal
thank you my question is very simple and squarely to the question or already been put out by Councillor Hanley and as we listened to parking spaces you said you're 10 parking spaces which are adequate for the development but I would like to know if any of those 10 parking spaces will be designated as disabled parking area
but at least one of them is designate as a wheelchair parking space and and 1 one of the dwellings is also a wheel chair dwelling accessible thank you and you can I frowning Castle Sauber
thank you Chair at my question to offices is regarding paragraph 97 summary of affordable housing is to questions one is how sort of typical is it for development
like this one are not to be able to viably deliver affordable housing is a Sir exceptional case saw is the son or Carter a routine occurrence with developments of this of this nature and my second question Chair is
the light the early let stage viability reviews what some of sexual 1 06 payment are they likely to result in and if you can't give me a figure could you give me a proportion of the value of this development if if that's easier to kind of speculate on so I can
assess what the contribution of its development might be in a in those terms
thank you
so in terms of weather and it's normal for a scheme to run a deficit I I wouldn't say I wouldn't feel comfortable saying whether it is normal situation not just based on personal experience may be Chris can give an answer on that after and in terms of the percentage of the value and that the review mechanism would would get of the the site I think this
is really dependent on on the figures at the time that that's run so on whether the land value changes and whether the projected South Valley changes so I wouldn't feel comfortable kind of trying to scarce yes a figure on that and maybe a Christ as well but that's held on that when a bit more
community in place
then certainly in relation through what the figures would be a week we can't we can't put her a figure on that or even an estimation at this stage because we simply don't know it really does depend on how profitable the scheme is as to how much the Council is able to then claw back in terms of affordable housing and that that's that's an unknown at this stage in terms of is this normal for schemes like this to not deliver any affordable housing or again that's a tricky question to answer ever be seems difference I would say that generally speaking where where affordable housing is a policy requirements
no on second biggest schemes Fen we the Council normally secures affordable housing it's not always at the the maximum level but again that's why these clawback agreements are put in place to to make sure that the developer doesn't get away with not delivering in relation to the the affordable housing policy if there
profits are much higher than than they projects when they submit the planning application
from my shirt valley I just respond briefly guest boss up so I appreciate you you're unable to give many numbers I hope you appreciate that the the absence of these even an estimate by the quite hard for myself looking at this development to see air whether the bar is getting a good deal or not but I'm
because I simply haven't got I can't evaluate or an unknown
but I would like to make one point it seemed
the figures are knowable are sufficiently knowable for developers to say it is not viable
to provide a social housing component but they're not knowable sufficiently for the Council to have an idea of how much section 1 6 money will be getting instead
and I'll just leave that comment there on the table Chair thank you
Councillor so I think you do make a good point and I mean is there a minimum that we can expect dress from this because I my understanding was that we had a ratchet systems of if more more wasn't
forthcoming cause house prices went up and the value of the properties went up we could then get more is there a minimum value at all
what what would lead to the earlier late stage review mechanisms will it will be based on the I mean as things stand there will be no there will be no affordable housing and no footway housing contribution so I think in one sense and the committee Hester assumed that that the won't be any food were housing coming because the the viability assessment which has been independently reviewed by the Council's experts early we employed to review these matters comes out as as as showing that affordable housing cannot be viably delivered on that site so so that is the that is the current position however the review mechanisms will if if things work out better for the developer than
than currently projected in terms of their profitability of the scheme the review mechanisms will enable some of that addition additional profits be to be called back for the purpose of affordable housing but but that would be in a situation where things turn out not as current expects it and it's very difficult to mean that the the the situation will depend on the economic climate at the time for example when we living in quite uncertain times it we don't know when the when the scheme will be built out will it will be completed by so all these are unknowns but there are there are safeguards built into the agreements with the developer to ensure that the Council Ricketts what it can what is reasonable to to to claw back should should the profits exceed the currently projected levels
thank you Chris I am I have noted the Councillor Kath his next but I think Councillor Sheard are has a point on this I just check Caslick odd is if you'll issues directly relate this I'll take you next if not on account of sharing
this is directly related to the House of cards and has its real and but but you go to Councillor shoot first place of course I don't a happy happy to chair yes I mean I await your I appreciate the what walkers the Sauber easy is trying to get her as well and the dilemma we have in in my here judgment but I think it's it's worth pointing out that the that the objective of these review mechanisms that we we impose on Google offers are and because they are having I had nothing of the question Councillor saw this trying to ask officers to answer is to predict the economic future and as as Crystal point sale bits 0 our Planning officers are good for they're not complete magicians of godlike running the country when they well be run with it
sort batteries being run at the moment
so as a safety net protects us from our inability to predict the future and indeed the property developers inability to predict the future and the review mechanism he spoke to ensure that if the developer having assured us and sworn blind on his grandmother's five-all or whatever the Sir he is not going to make a profit sufficient to fund any social housing after this development which is what you want came to do if if he proves her underestimated his profitability and there's an economic upturn and he manages to in the end make more money I selling these are high value an effect at the moment or somehow save building costs on them and like more money then that ensures that the review and I think this has got a two stage review built into it her head an early and late one that ensures that then we can go back and say OK where's our share and might then mean that that money that contributes to a thought of all social housing somewhere else not on this site but we still get it and Agger Burley bombed sure Christs Priskin reassure us
the it doesn't work the other way so if if the developer makes less money than he expecting to it doesn't work the other way and he doesn't somehow get any kind of subsidy that that's the developer's risk and no risk to to us or or the public so it's Hecks there as an insurance because we can't fully that economic future and I feel would be assured by the fact that we're imposing this and we're doing it not once but twice and I hope that that helps to answer your questions below
thank you very much Councillor card your next and Councillor Hanley or your hands not for a second go
to reflect future I I knew John would make clear that sort of point much better than I was ever likely to because I was going to ask some questions about their but also I just wanted to check
it sort of the point of firm clarification really but in the list of objections towards the start of the report
it says that people have objected to the scheme isn't viable and it does not cover the paragraph 80 5 but I think the scheme is going to be viable it is gonna be Crawford
I just wanted to check her were officers after say about there
yesterday the viability assessment actually concludes that the scheme is running a deficit and then the other hat that was concluded as well by are independent and their like are independent consultancy verified that so yet tech yet technically the scheme is not function financially unviable because it's running a deficit occurred so so Chasa fairly new to planning councillor can I just ask the sort of question that was asked earlier by Councillor Sauber how often the we approved things which are appearing to show that they won't be built because there was going to make any money
or is that a very naive question behind for that you're padding consideration Burham I'll go to to fam
all of them
I mean yes it's not isn't a material consideration and it would be very hard to kind of see given figure and I think for me anyway and I don't like Chris as some a helluva indication
0sorry and I missed the question but I think it was about the the fact that now that the scheme was projected not to be profitable Issac corrects yeah I mean that's the that's not really something that's when it is taken into account it is a material consideration because it's that which is suggesting that affordable housing he's not deliverable but that's that's as far as it is in the tibial consideration it's it's and it's isn't that uncommon for the viability appraisal to throw that kind of result up and I go out where external consultants who will review that
now clearly the developers are likely to build it out in if there are of the view that it's it's not profitable but all we can go on is that the figures which at this stage indicates have had the situation to be to be unviable and that that is a material consideration in terms of affordable housing
soak OK thank you Chair I sat as taught me quite a bit for yeah I used to lend money to developers and you know I wouldn't be left in a many money on this proposal that so it confused me OK thank you know excellent cast a handy your EIA final physical hand that has gone up so if you'd like to make you want
will face share surely coming again blooters bringing while the people sign Khizar any evidence from the officers that when the safeguards of party I ye that to developments only forecast to make a certain amount of money so we can't ASW of social housing there is there any evidence where this has worked elsewhere and and we can show
evidence that this has happened before and independent monitors or whether they are that's that sits between a developer in the council says this that yes these these protests properties cannot now we can now go back and are asked for something from the developer thank you Chair that's about claw back I think I've met the past new does it Boggart Chris
for Matalan
the Leader can call it East peacemaking these reckless and certainly to work I've actually only been at Lewisham council two years are which is a relatively short period of time within the Planning Development process I'm so I can't I can't reel off specific examples but I know from experience across London and elsewhere they certainly they certainly do work that's of course not to say that in every situation that will be the will be clawed back it does depend entirely each case as to how profitable the scheme is
thanks very much
Councillor Cook has helpfully put into that market you may wish ask that question at Council for Councillor Bell I also believe from another role on Councillor I sit on Sustainable Development Select Committee has interrogate to this before and we have a hard quite sizeable increases from claw back which then goes into the pot to build a new homes with a committee members permission I do have some questions from Councillor Davis who doesn't only sit on this Committee and I would like to raise those questions with you if that is OK in her absence because I do think it's important that we get the voice of a local councillor in here wherever possible so
hopefully you can see the screen I've to shared Councillor Davies asked please could you address the points raised by SH are in it for local forum submission below for reference that the scriptures the character of the area is inconsistent with the characterise ation study and there is an apparent discrepancy with a previous recommendation in relation to Astra palace I think it would also be helpful to have a wider explanation of why the proposed density is considered to be appropriate given that there could be a debate of the site being classified as suburban urban and that the proposed density is at the upper limit from urban setting if planning permission is granted I would appreciate if the local Councillors and residents by the local means siting form could be involved sited on both construction management plan and parking management plan so officers would you like to
until a soft Act answering that question from Councillor Davis
yeah so this was
so in response to the Sydenham Hill originated for that's what we publish the at the addendum that I mentioned in the presentation to in response to so in terms of the characterised nation study this this wasn't mentioned in the officer's report it's not it's not an adopted Council policy document we the sorry I'm and basically so because it's not adopted as I was mentioned specifically in the report and will die as a useful document for kind of explaining the
apologies for their area
so in terms of the the density are defining the density so we said exhibits a mixture of urban and suburban characteristics in the report but and this is in relation to the definition given in the London Plan density matrix
which which gives a definition of urban and suburban so the the stereo has some of the characteristics of urban and some of the characteristics of Saba and and so that that's basically what we said in the report is not considered that this that this contradicts the findings a bird of the characterisation study
so so I think that's that's in response to that basically the development his is an appropriate density and it's not completely hinged on kind of the whether it falls into urban or suburban in terms of the London Plan density matrix it's more a broader look at kind of weather that the scale of the development is OK and and whether there is an acceptable impacts on neighbouring properties and etc. So it's density as more is appropriate density as defined more by our consideration of all the other material considerations
and in terms of the apparent discrepancy
with relation to Astra Palace I believe that's sited to Sydenham Hill which was which was a which is currently being appealed officers recommended it for refusal and all applications basically considered on their own individual merits based on the policies and the Site context and there's no
there's no need for officers to directly consider applications in the area that are not directly adjoin or impact the site the officer's report does outlined by the design of the current proposal and the density is acceptable in the context of the current site for Members' information the decided to Sydenham Hill is isn't considered Kearns comparable to the application as are considered comparable the current application site it's a highly prominent corner site upset Crystal Palace Park and the pros building on this side was going to be sited very close to the pavement
An order and very high it was considered that this would have harmful impact on the street scene in contrast this application site is an on a corner and the proposed building is set sufficiently back from the pavement in order that it would appear overbearing to the street
does not answer all the questions that does answer the Serbs started questions and there is a and if you could just go away and think about this and if planning permission is granted
check local Councillors and residents by the local means siting form could be involved sisal by the construction Management Plan a parking management plan
I'm so generally when we sort of when these kind of applications come in it's it's very technical information and we'll decide them kind of in consultation with Highways officers and it's not there's not normal practice to kind of console Councillors born areas on these details and even if we did there would be no guarantee that we could kind of consider residents' wishes in in the implementation of the of the parking management and construction management because this is you know it's it's technical details the kind of needs to be decided by the Highways Officer whether it's acceptable not OK and while I will suggest though is if an Councillor Davison othered members
from the local ward wish to write to you to highlight any concerns they may specifically had for you to be cognisant of them when you and officers are coming to those decisions I think that would be useful of course excellent thank you very much Members I'm keen for us to make progress are we allowed to am I allowed to move us forward
excellent so I'm I have here and applicants are Mr. John smart are I believe Mr. Smarty it
good evening can I can't hear you Mr. Mark I can hear you but I can't see you there is no requirement you to turn your Cameron are there we are excellent even gentleman I believe that I have you Mr. smart and Sri other potential now
some additional staff to help sorry my name's were unclear and so could I ask you first to introduce yourselves and your relationship to the planning application on the site in question yes flee chose not from conversely on your text my until Federer
he says Goodman who is also will vote Skinner's are opposite
great thank you very much and I wouldn't even your pre meeting with the Kop they thought it you had five minutes to present your application to us this evening and they're made Members may choose to ask you questions on that though your five minutes will start when you begin your presentation
o gooey chances I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present scheme seeing smoke stated 30 Sandford's being the nurse of the scheme itself I think a lot home as the only tax as like to clarify some of the keeper's those that we then put into the design the firstly being insisting side from the opportunity food development let's say that the site is very much an anomaly and concept six-day poorly constructed postal nice and fifties house it gives a little really back to the street makes no connection with the surrounding estate housing is not in a conservation area the house is been defined this having no character no heritage banner femme but more than that the house is what we situated it's quite Faf chords the street it doesn't it's not perpendicular and really presents an answer the utilisation of the site moreover that the site is being poorly managed monitors their self seeded so it doesn't have a can of landscape strategy
chances aside 750 square metres concepts really his key than either side and around the site you've got
as to the much larger urban master planning that was built in the 60 s with Housing states
3 size as far as to say that these buildings fill in the Sixties remodelled style flat roofs with façades utilitarian perhaps but a woman's end yes let us be quite high density so
intensive design approach we will concede the building as taking reference to some of the grander they chose Georgian housing on Sydnall if that reason we're fine interest the lecture this becoming a Villa in appearance and fundamentally residential quality to it domestic it looks and feels like housing as Sir though conventional form Josef getting our intention and positionally writing sign
we wanted to correct the record irregularities between this building that stands there which as I said or the situates him really made by a much-shared street-facing build it and then said the building in line with the building lines that run fully neighbours either side
we have pushed the total back some near 10 needs it wishes quite advancement only current situation and what that does and grace a welcome softly landscape fun garden giving greenery enrichment to the street in terms of the high we saw as Terrace in inhale that as an opportunity here for the building to mediate between varies ETRO wish and going fires and general steps that out in a terraced arrangement the setted Anaheim this surrounding buildings I am in terms of the façade a gay we wanted to bring a a enriched vernacular virtually facade easy robust natural materials you see that the principal material here is brick but it's not just their stead briquettes of very high in the fine and many feasts and brick which then users of line flush brush water much like our Victorian craft of very high quality bloke work
I was told speaking up our first rounding
contacts 1 minute 30
so the other point registered design standards then the scheme is fully compliant on all design France's exemplary standards growing at a line funds back and outlook and things that you're listening come about cover'd in to ensure that his whole working spaces in their very good amenity or excessive amenity standard so not only amenity the flats but can you tell me Municipal around site sustainability is also key wretched ecologies of green roofs extensive divers planting 12 the trees 5 trees coming at the 12th trees extensive wildlife or sand talked about with the conditions upon that I think the key thing really is that you was this game is load had has known impact on overload of day light
it has been very considerable detail Zoe in summary what the scheme or censored say a small scaled about that scheme which is very much critical to bring about London's housing demand set houses and resolve through large-scale lashes small skills if those schemes like this make a real contribution and very high quality since 2 no
to put it on consequent housing for nothing that so much I would like to just clarify clarify a few points about some of the comments made them consonance and they're now queue just to help that position about particular about me Overview crowbar if you would like me to extend my five minutes by punching so response or are members may come back to you with questions on that I think for property we should give your five minutes and then length so members you have the opportunity to ask any follow up questions you may like to the applicant they already Fetty Wap perhaps
does the Member wish to HOSC anything her I do churn having trouble putting a queue in the check my Padgett for nothing in the right games yet for me yet thank you up fact very much for your presentation and I rather like your design so you won't you won't be getting any relief on them
On the aesthetics but you are about to our hearts' points that are hours sought participating rising earlier so you're Croft works architects correct is anyone here from the addition group itself who were commissioned you
well we are in love with develop earlier in an attempt to ballot organisations so it is we are part of that Assembly is not solely asked us invested in but the nature of then organisation is that it is very much about being an architect's designed dripping organisation to make small infill schemes like this
the are fundamentally in high was he a Ponzi schemes so yeah
so thank you for clarifying that for my question I'd like to put it to you is the and Castle pursue my colleague largely right in saying
one cannot expect to protect the economic future are supposed particularly now with the pandemic could Brexit solid it's hard to do so but may be thing that the addition group has already invested a substantial amount of money
in this project so I suppose I ought has said predicting the economic future and whatever one makes an investment one to serve extent is is is doing that because otherwise we wouldn't make the investment so
due to think this is going to make money is going to be built
is the critical point and actually quite I'd like to stand alone on that it's just to perhaps we find some estates that have made around because it was in our use incorrect to say that the scheme is not financially viable that the owners of provided by when Councillor Morrison has lost connection and so I have to pause the meeting to enable her to get back in I will be with you in one moment and we can continue with that
Councillor Morrison E now back with us could you confirm
you may need and mute I and indeed cat brilliant at castles and I just confirm that you have heard all of Councillor Sauber's question if the have excellent so that's pretty that means you didn't miss out our they think I will go back to the applicant representatives to answer that question thank you to Les
legislation I'd like to make is
that's really difficult the viability because hammered home the scheme does actually show is about as profit would it doesn't what would it chose in terms of the deficit is that it doesn't reach a certain measure to then become affordable contribution and the blue the MAC the matches here are that it is a small Skipness tenuous buggy the fundamentals the crux of it actually an is that the review mechanism as it's the wrong is that a cash any wilful that could be gained him in the future so review mechanisms really young women as the test because it deals with the actual sales figures that will be achieved on the site so as it's may there if there's a uplift of those cells pickers than a point of being captured game
this is a bit of possession last two or three years and have been very successful in capturing any upward again Leeds I decided
in the standpoint that is not as if profess to be environment the expert that this has been put to an independent expert on viability and that will be measured
he gave not just at the end of the project was still at the start says bookended to ensure that any query is in captured laterally very much this vast tests of the reality whether there's a covert last gate is still around for 12 months or whatever economic contested the keeping he said it saying reality and does not projection
Councillor Sobel you want to follow up any more you Sats satisfied
apart from the officer of
that's what Members I see no other hands raised if you are satisfied and going to thank the applicants for coming along
and ask them to withdraw by turning off their Cameron might refer and we will move on to objectives I believe we have three objectors were this evening I would like to welcome mark dot Tom Poynton and Steven well outpolled Isaf announced any of those names wrong would you like to tell your cameras on gentlemen
Earnest pointed I can see you do we have Mr. Dodd with us the councillor hello are Counc on my screen but welcome and we have Steven well with the surname and Poppy pronouncing waffling
good evening Chairman excellent thank you very much for coming along this evening and participating in this her crucial bit of local democracy who do really appreciate the time that local residents come along and spend engaging in this we find it really wife while for us to hear from from you or I would quickly like you to her first of all introduce yourselves and your relationship to the site so could I go Mark Tom than Steven yet certainly so most mark dot I live at once he followed looked on Avenue which is the it's the property that was disgusted shown on St James's presentation the directly faces the proposed development and the other would be overlooked by the by development garden would be overlooked by the proposed development
thanks very much Tom my thumb pointed I led an alley sort of blockchain in Grey Friars which is as discussed earlier right next door to Hester house yeah I'll be overlooked by
thank you and Stephen Steven Boyle I live at 75 Sydenham ill opposite the building that looks that in the projection looks as if it's to work on top of hesba house but I'm here in my capacity as secretary of civil Henry related
why can hear a little bit feedback and at the moment so I'm just mindful of that Johnson hopefully the Cox told you in your pre-briefing for this meeting that you have five minutes collectively for your your statement this evening I'm hoping you have self organised about so I will start the clock when the first one of you begins I'll give you a woman notice at the as we get close to me today
Gate Burton thought some point favouring Grice so the ground floor of garages and entrances and four floors above the 4 plots each floor and I look the other way the tax is only source of direct sunlight will be blocked by the massing height and repositioning of the proposed development to explain it further
8 after 16 clutching grapefruit
have winter for the classically mine the other windows base lawfulness so it western based a window the only source of direct sunlight it or for the flats yes
the hall or us says sectors
has taken legal notices just that whilst got outlook would be affected distances outlined above go and still be at rear its outlook pasta building it's also noted that the existing large trees on the boundary which was currently still outlook of these windows and he Outwick on
impact on outlook is therefore considered to be acceptable as it would not result any significantly harmful increased sense of enclosure to occupants and grassroots that's the Angelakos Thurs to seek the site map presented by the planning officer existing has the house is set on a western ancient of the site as far back as possible Chrome for great guys
moreover the existing Casper House is not of sufficient height to block the sunlight coming into the office space and windows of great guys are however proposed development has been much higher survivors' explores a block the road
but a much more days and much closer to the shared border who my block our grey for Raploch lessen sunlight coming sewer apartments there for other so evenly outlet from the western windows baby sticky today alphabet by existing high evergreen which with a curling and I proposed about route includes a serious loss of amenity investments are of great fires those
neighbours of has perhaps we are in a position today to request the reduction of the lead they Langi on site
Mr. like-for-likes argument if the or development gives has wrestled sacrifice west-facing windows please this right like it forever so are now hand over to Mark thank you Tom I'd like to present my objections to proposed development I believe would have a significant negative impacts to the amenities of the neighbouring properties situated at the Wells Park Road and Longton Avenue namely that the Gardens will be overlooked by the development leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy I also believe the development have permanent negative impacts of the street scene as the pros buildings at odds with the character of this part of the road I believe this point is misrepresented within developers documents and planning report addressing the loss of amenity the developers proposing to replace a 2 storey building which can just be seen from the garden of 1 to 5 Longton Avenue and not from any of the Gardens for the down the road with a 6 storey building with balconies facing directly onto these gardens clearly given the increased angle of elevation the balconies on the new development would not only directly overlook the whole garden of 1 2 following an avenue leading to complete loss of privacy but would also have a look at least the next six or so so neighbouring gardens at section 2 10 of the Planning report mentions that the proposed building would be 21 metres from the closest garden Lund Avenue and would therefore have no significant impact on levels of enclosure felt I strongly dispute does fact I've received advice this metric normally used on the things that Mr. James mentioned this in the context of distance between dwellings and when examining sections of dwellings at similar elevations I don't believe it to be suitable for use when looking at the overlook from a six-storey building into private garden for a distance of only 21 metres at the developer would lead to a permanent loss of privacy to this garden to those its neighbours and therefore loss of amenity is residence which demand should be grounds for rejecting the proposal with reference to the street scene the character of this part of the road is green and tree lined and suburban not with no prevailing style as stated in the planning report at the plans present a picture of the proposed building fitting seamlessly into the existing street scene next the two large neighbouring buildings this is misleading Grey Friars is barely visible from the street thank you as was actually seen from the photos of MR James's presentation and is offset at an angle facing towards Sidney Wells Park Droitwich Close is obscured from the streets by tree cover of the proposed development faces square onto the street and would loom prominently looking out of place and submitted documentation in my opinion is misleading on this point
thank you
OK thank you very much gentleman the your and contribution that members of the Committee at to you have questions for the objectives
these I'm objectors don't think that this is and black or near quite often it is not the case
for Members not have questions for objectors what they will do that is the next day when we go back to officers probably raise some of the things that you've written raised with us here to get clarifications in answers so thank you 3 4 coming along this evening and contributing I don't see any Member questions for you as if you wouldn't mind turning off your cameras and you'll microphones that be appreciated
OK so we now going into the bit the Heikal ping-pong this is what we Bath back to officers and asked them any further questions Councillor pursue I see your hand is raised if light ask a question Members if you'd like to indicate either in the chat over the raised hand function if you have questions for officers
thank you thank you care about that you've anticipated of yet picking up I I time he impressed by the points made 55 Mr. point and and and list Dodd addressing this point and wait about the impact on blocking light from the western elevation of Grey Friars and looking at the site plan on the shooting that North is at the top for the funding Officer can reassure me but not just at the time
who can actually get it right here but that he read the first planning office right got told off about LA
so I mean it looks as if then the relationship
between the sun between the proposed development were chatting visualise on that site plan and the western elevation of Great Grey Friars and you showed us her think her a Street View visualisation of that he I can can you quantify
how much evening sunlight coming from the west would actually be obscured by the new building I can see its I the proposed building I can see the that that there is an effects for my my guess is that it's not not massive you have we have we quantify that in some way
yeah so the the daylight and sunlight assessments and it did identify a level of harm to 6 of the windows as as I mentioned and falling between the Armagh falling below the BRE guidance for the for the their see and for the Daylight distribution tests but the the affected windows are are already blocked by that projecting bay to the south of them so in these cases the be already criteria suggests that's that this is kind of considered in another calculation and then that that pies taken out when that was done
it still found that there was home to two of the windows but the other four windows where and the level of harm was kind of considered to be acceptable because it's it's kind of a measure as is kind of saying that you can't expect a window which has a projecting bay to the south of it to proceed e the recommended amount of light anyway
so yes I still basically we we have identified there is some level of harm but taking into account those additional tests it's only to two of the windows and and when balanced against the the significant planning merits of the scheme weight we considered that that that level of harm is considered acceptable
can I pass their son and we know what what is behind them than their windows is it's bathroom at which I would have less of a problem with or is it a living space
I don't have in front agree about the so the bereaved report it did conclude that I believe none of the no living spaces would receive a sick like a harmful loss of daylight so it was I think it must have been bedrooms or and kitchens
OK that's good tonight thank you cause of should you have any follow up won't more Shay if I could pick up the as I mentioned I listed Dodds point as well one of his trips that your point was about overlooking and loss of privacy to some of the rear gardens of those
think semi detached houses in Longton Avenue where there will be a a relationship from the side of those along the sideways on those car opens from the frontage aye aye I think he was disputing their the planning officer's assessment of that I think I'm going unfamiliar with the idea that this separation is rightly Infacta separation from high windows of course would be a larger distance in the straight line distance of Oshima's straight on distances be measured but could the planning officer or if necessary Ali advice just confirm to us what walkways the significance of a window overlooking a garden rather than overlooking say
a window into a habitable room of the neighbouring property because I think there's a difference there will need to be aware of that before considering the significance of this that Mr. Dowse point
I know that's that's a SAMM or for Charles II to the south
he asked what the so young the 21 distance is the 20 May distanced I mentioned yet that that is typically used for window to window that there is an kind of specific guidance on acceptable distances from about need to amend the area it's more for a judgement call on it for officers to make an
and the 21 metres in this distance it's is is across the street so you know it's it's considered to be a significant difference and that would earn it notes that the maybe additional overlooking but when assessed that level of additional overlooking to not be significantly harmful to the neighbouring dwellings based on the distance to the garden and answered the neighbour windows as well
please note that from within the actual dwellings there's a the overlooking wouldn't be
I wouldn't be as direct overlooking because the the actual balcony screening woods would block direct views from within the dwelling obviously when standing on the balconies the distance would be a minimum and Assyrian he a minimum of 21 metres so that the at that distance is acceptable in an attachment
OK I'm for those of you that prefer hold money 21 metres a 69 feet so 69 feet just had to go without herself and are do we have any more questions from members
I'm not seeing any more questions from members
if there are no further questions from members of the our is taking around two Curley particularly as a one item agenda in were at 9 pm I see Councillor pursue wishes to move a procedural matter are what Lord Lauper's not a procedural matter
yeah I've is assisting the highlight of the not reached a point where one of us and it might well be may as an talking now can move recommendation I'm and sufficiently reassured by the a quality of design I I think it is a good policies are not sufficiently reassured by the conditions imposed and by the what we heard from the Planning Officer about review of the profitability in terms of any yield of affordable housing for this development which is just over the threshold for us to require that so be happy to move the
officer's recommendation in the report to us and all parts of it if another member committees willing to second that course OK thank you very much for bats do we have another Member willing to second I saw creature custard frown he's moved and seconded that without move to a vote can I ask the Committee Clerk to carry out a formal role coal and often members on that face us and whether you are for or against the recommendations as like bought all if you are abstaining
thank you Chair
that a Farani how do you vote for full
Councillor card how do you vote for
Councillor Hanley how do you vote for
Councillor Morrison had you vote full
Councillor pursue how do you vote evoking for that's the Sauber how do you vote for
Councillor Welsh How do you vote more
the result is unanimous in favour of the proposal OK thank you very much I called out for carrying out that Members are you have agree that recommendation by officers of tonight that now concludes the formal business for the same thing thank you very much to and all the participants and officers and I declare this meeting closed please cuts the live thing