Planning Committee A - Thursday, 7th January 2021 at 7:30pm - Lewisham Council Webcasting

Planning Committee A
Thursday, 7th January 2021 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
2 Minutes
Share this agenda point
3 1 AND 1A MALPAS ROAD, LONDON, SE4 1BP & 110 LEWISHAM WAY, LONDON, SE14 6NY
4 60 ERLANGER ROAD, LONDON, SE14 5TG
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Everyone knows this wanting a funding Committee A by Davies Councillor James will shines Chair for tonight's meeting and would also like to introduce you to Councillor Davis who is the Vice Chair for this meeting and she will take over in case I have any technical issues throughout the meeting tonight tonight we're discussing two substantive items on the agenda but before we get there I need members to agree the set of minutes from the last meeting

2 Minutes

members are there any amendments those minutes before we get there
I see no hands raised
Councillor Hanley yeah thank you Chair is just that the NGO firm early on page two
what's on page 10 of the agenda as this what I fought up last saw him was about the actual 30 this property was going to have parking on site and I brought up the issue about Sam making sure that when they did they a pathway over the pavement it would it will make sure it wouldn't have any saw edges because of firm because of the motor scooters that people with mobility scooters or people use on the payment and as I read it it doesn't spree writes to me
this is a voice in relation to any works affecting the public highway
I wasn't worried about the public highway I was pulled up about the the pavement and without call that the public are aware and I is Papert but it was the the rich that you would have coming down from the property for the for the vehicles to come off into the road to be a drop down and AV this rich and if you got a motor scooter
and you try to go of course there and motor scooters in one knows if were who may not know but it's very heavy because the battery that the people have to get off and try to lift it and we accelerate so I just think the wording is wrong is the pavement unconcerned about not the public highway thank you I'm so why was suggested officers Kurds at perhaps be delegated to draft
a slight amendment to that with that that noted an but if we could agree the substantive body of the rest of the minutes and about Gribble to people

3 1 AND 1A MALPAS ROAD, LONDON, SE4 1BP & 110 LEWISHAM WAY, LONDON, SE14 6NY

experts very lost and so those it's are agreed at we're now moving on to item 3 of tonight's agenda which is one 1 A Malpas Road we have a a couple of people speaking in favour of a snake and some people against an on also expecting a member of Council Speaker under Standing orders as well I believe that we have
An officer presentation to begin with officers could I ask you to local presentation please
let me say that chair and I can see your full screen including your side slides and is not
it's not the expanded whilst pen Abernathy that's excellent last officers are just preparing itself to start on this agenda agenda items as anyone have any Declan's declarations of interest in any of the items being discussed this evening
could you please speak and let me know
no declarations of interest OK thank you very much OK so Alfie I believe you are going to lead us through tonight first substantive item yes thank you Chair my name's alpha Williams I'm a planning officer in the north teen I'm sur case of Sir fully superficial this is one and one e-mail press Road and 100 10 Lewisham Way
and the application is for the demolition of the ancillary storage buildings change of use and construction of a part single part two-storey building to provide two residential units at 1 Malpas Road and skill with the construction of an extension at second floor level to the rear of hundred 10 version way at the application site is located on a corner plot at the junction of Lewisham Way and Malpass Road the site features a three storey mixed use Victorian property at hundred 10 the Ashmeade and a single storey buildings something Malpass smoke
I'm 110 knows my is comprised of a second-hand furniture shop at ground floor level with two one bedroom flats located on the floors above 1 my name I'll persuade provide swords storage space for the furniture shop
and number 100 10 is constructed from London stock bricks and features a London various and to the rear of the building features a two storey outrigger them beyond that the decide and features a single storey extension
that front Malpas Road these are when rendered and painted white with earn large painted fascia sign the site adjoins will be Malpas Road to the southwest which is in use as a carpentry warehouse the second storey of the building is believed to have been constructed in 2 thousand 16 without the benefit of planning permission and that he subject to an enforcement investigation but there's not some part of this application
I is bound by the gardens of hundreds before 208 version Way to the west the site has a picked out of 6 8 and is located within 500 metres Dino cross district centre and turn it to the proposals the proposed development would see the demolition of the ancillary series storage buildings and replacement with a part one part two storey residential building
the ground floor retail unit would be retained as part of the scheme the building would feature facing yellow stock bricks with aluminium windows and a dual pitch had been Umaru first floor level at second a second floor extension is proposed to the rear of 100 10 the issue may the extension would be built on the footprint of the existing two-storey projection and would provide additional floor space for the existing one bedroom second floor slap the extension would feature materials to match the existing property
and just to run through the elevations and sections
and so that say a side elevation facing southwest they conceded two storey extension
My castaways on the side of the Malpass roads no build
and this is the view from the now face the opposite way side elevation
and as the rear elevation
and an inception
in section their shiny pitched reform
a new building would provide two dwellings comprising the one bedroom 2 person unit and a one bedroom one person unit both residential units with fee to external amenity space to the rear I'll call my curse over by for those
and at the front they'll be shadow area of front garden used for the storage of bins the roof space and at first floor level would be withstand facilitate sorry with provides additional accommodations for both dwellings and is facilitated by a provision as dormers in the summer roof slope
and that this diverse plan and that shiny extension there to the existing flat but a hundred 10 there she my
and the Irish plan of the as a hundred Seddon there as well
cited into the main planning considerations the proposed then the in terms the principle of development the proposed women with contribute to residential units which would consider to planning merits of the scheme the loss of the storage facilities to the rear of the shop is considered to be acceptable given that the shop proteins returns of storage space in code proximity to the site and will be no loss of operational Sephora space and it was a presidential quality the proposed development would provide acceptable living standards for future residents with modest transgressions against London Plan standards for fraud saying hire an external amenity space balance by an oversized gee I feel it 1 C and need improvements to the internal space standard within the seconds the existing second floor flat
a condition is recommended securing the completion of the second floor extension prior to the occupation of the residential accommodation
and turned into urban design the proposed development is assessed to be acceptable in design terms due to the subservient scowl and combination of historically appropriate and a high quality contemporary design features which assist in mediating the gap between the larger buildings on the issue my in the two storey terraces on Malpas Road a condition is recommended to ensure that the materials and detailing of the high quality
then considered essential mainstay of says considered them be accepted in terms of the impact on neighbouring properties
the design and siting of the first floor reform and prevent any harmful impacts to residential amenity Barwell's loss of in outlook or enclosure at they'd on sunlight assessment serves that the development would be compliant with the our guidelines for neighbouring windows and conditions are recommended so the bravery flat send flat roofs to prevent intrusive overlooking
and that the shows are less ships the gardens death on this side
and sensitive transport the parking survey and assessment and assessment
for Highways officers indicates that there is a high level of parking stress within the local area this is surprise that paragraphs 93 to 95 of the committee report
officers consider that the provision of cycle parking skiffle them on this scale of development and pyre Peto of the site would mean a proposal acceptable in parking terms conditions are recommended to secure cycle parking refuse storage and removals redundant for soda and finally the natural environment
a condition conditions recommended securing a Tree Protection Plan as trees adjacent to the site and the land can contamination reports a Nestlé planning permission is recommended for approval subject to conditions
thank you very much about our presentation Alfie Members this is your opportunity to ask Alfie any technical questions tonight
Councillor Davis I see your hand
and then Councillor Carter
thank you to my question is going to be key can you get us to them
dimensions of the building for the proposed building on the the rejected applications so we can see the difference in heights because it is we have the plans in the in the report I can quite how how different it was in terms of the height of them new newly proposed Southern I'll have haven't got that in the presentation thus in the committee report 8 talk about the the
the plans for the refused application yeah so as I sought million Miss ready I saw the plans in of the refused application but I can't quite tell the difference in height
in their service in terms of I wondered whether you actually have the dimensions
I don't hands are can cannot can I get those few combats you Les on in the the evening's OK
OK thank you will make a note of that and come back to that in once we have the objectors
can I move on to Councillor Carter please who was next than we have Councillor shoe Sauber another Farani but frankly Cher my queries related to the storage space for the retail unit I was a little bit confused on this gets the shot would retain storage space on the opposite side of Malpas Road so it does sound as if it's already got storage space on both sides of the road some very convenience had some across the road
and therefore it is going to be losing some it's not this this across the road spaces and replacement space
it's it's actually represents a loss of space and I just wondered again I'm asking the dimensions really I'm just wondering how much space is across the road in relation to the you know is it is it more than 50 percent of the current amount of space and
and is it all are the two spaces that that the storage space and the existing retail unit are they all in the same ownership or they you know so is this something that will that will last whoever the current occupier of the retail shop is because doesn't sound very convenient to me to have to cross the road depending on what type of retail
operation is really
is there a clear question healthy
is any more comments of that them I'd for
I don't have the dimensions of day the space serve sit outside the will of the way
that might be more difficult to find because I don't know the exact space I'm just wondering what made you say
he felt it was acceptable you know is it is it considerable sources yet this is more about the the existing EU sifter the it sounded very much the furniture shop of yes I'll stay different commercial heat uses will have different requirements in terms of storage so that the point being made is that it wouldn't necessarily affect the viability of the existing operation because they do ever access to other alternative means to store
furniture because this is a second-hand furniture shop and were another business come forward in this space it may have different requirements year Stuart and I would potentially have to Adel turn is means to the store goods depends what type of business elimination comes forward for out are would say this ceased of cities of extensions to the batter didn't form the original plot of the the shop unit this there that was very much how the the the original operate in space of the shop is being retained as part of this application
thank you thank you thank you thank you
I'm I would just like to just to pick up on that though because I just want to make sure may be a Angus can come in here I'm not sure that that's a planning consideration whether or not there is a big enough office storage space across the roads angst U Jul come and give us some some additional thought thank you Chair and and Habitat towards your point of course but that the point I wanted to make was just to clarify that new class E came in that September 20 20 and that means that whilst this is a shop bar in its current use it it's no longer in a Use class A1 so it could be used for any number of business or commercial uses which may require far less storage space so while historically we have considered storage space to be a relevant consideration we looking at whether or not at A 1 use would continue to be viable in the future that that is now somewhat different following the Government's changed the Use classes order but in autumn last year putting that to one side however in this particular case the officer is satisfied that there's storage space that are conveniently located elsewhere for this specific business but yes I think come I think it's probably fair to summarise now that TA that Chairs assessment is correct that
the degree to which we can consider this a material consideration as is limited compared to the pre September 2 20 because any business or commercial activity funded a classy could occur without further planning permission that's really useful thank you very much manufacturing us and OK if Councillor Carter got no additional comment I'm going to move on to Councillor pursue his thank you yes I prefer the reasons just outlined are not concerned about the commercial storage space but I think our for you mentioned minor transgressions of the standards for residential space so if if you can find on your presentation or something that shows us the layout of the residential floors
could you just elaborate on what those minor transgressions are and help and if you can give us a better indication of how minor they are that I could charge them yes sure I'm sorry the PC my cursor I can so the the courtyards provided fourth unit 1 C is four-square me is dear requirements 5 square metres and the other transgression is in terms of floor to ceiling height the City
the Unit 1 A and that and the plan specifies that it should be for sale in high of 2 point 5 metres for 75 percent of the floorspace
finish earlier own this only the ground floor with has floorspace at 2 point 5 metres for ceiling-high that equates to 65 percent of the overall Union Sciri this France version of 10 percent and 1 square me on the amenity space so it can't just follow the up then are you saying that the the ground floor would have a an adequate floor to ceiling height for
no size per person to walk around in I spoke and I I think though that all of the upper floor would have
Alice and other power high it sailing anything OutKast that's not really depicts the whole of that flaw but it's not really just 10 percent easy I even if it really isn't or isn't the whole sorry distressed to be clear day far show you in section our area East all of that is to point 3 metres in height I'm OK so it that that passes the government guidelines in terms of flood seemed high but the London Plan and has a more generous requirement of take went live makes us Shaw over that that makes it very clear thanks and I think that's acceptable carried thank you
good question has the shoot at moving onto Castle Sauber thank you Chair my question is about the enforcement but you mentioned our food
one enforcement is in process
but I I looked at the papers and there appeared to be to there's enforcement
double 0 3 6 1 and enforcement double 0 1 4 4
one is a shed and the other one is construction of the building the self contained residential unit and my question about those two enforcement is are the properties where he forces are are sort of active owned by the applicant now it then and the separate there in separate ownership and do not form part of this application so they can slightly confusingly they did form part of the previous application and but they no longer form part of this application those site so far my presentation back up
and I'll try to make this clear
Bear with me
so
they did for supplies the 1 bay
the
so it it that would form part of the previous application but not this application
so merger stuffed-shirt from
will indulge me when they were part of the previous application
was that a joint application by more than one property owner
it was yes OK out that that's not clear thank you very much
OK
I am now slightly differently
thank you Chair
the previous application was rejected at a Committee meeting of Full in November now the one were now considering well giving person as acceptable from officers part of deal and therefore what is working tonight I recommend it for approval my question is considered the consultation with Exeter and particular consultation with the transport to pay people pointed the fact about density of accommodation now what officer is what difference
is it a grant application in terms of the accommodation available there and one with was rejected in November
I'm
the
not quite clear which of patient you are referring to on the way of an application refused in my zone bar as
similarly
Higgins sorry
is it the one from 2 thousand 18 that will
where was rejected is as as readily the I yes yet remains one yet and I want to know it was what dipping after they accommodation for the new one could to be less as to be more of the same so so area at understand now apologies had yet that the previous the previous application with that was refused was that a larger scowl after development so and they were free units and they were the larger generally so there was a 2 bed and 3 bed within the the mix of those Solicitor
as a smaller scale of development than the previous application
that satisfy the Kanafani thank you yeah OK I'm are there any other questions
no as he now in the hands raised normally at this point we would go to the applicants or their representative to present her the reasons why they are bring forward their application and for us to ask them questions however we started in told the applicant her has faced a Berezin in the family I'm cannot join us evening and one the representatives who would have come in their stead is erred currently over covert however that doesn't preclude us from continuing this evening and as such we will move on now to objectors so I believe we have some objectors for tonight's the application before us tonight you I see any objectors in the room
Miss Rogers
yes high good afternoon good evening even figure that thing that admit what is now half have of the five minutes early could like to turn the camera on you may you don't need to before we get started just the rational mind Our stating who you are and your relationship to this site please
my name is Sophie Rogers and I am the freeholder of property at 1 0 8 Lewisham Way which is basically adjacent to 110 Lewisham way with my garden adjacent to one hour A and one Malpass Road
great thank you if I could just ask powerfully to shut down the presentation that be useful so Miss Rogers as I said earlier you have up to 5 minutes to outline planning reasons why your objecting to tonight's application thank you very much for coming along this evening we know that this is quite a strange her situation for and local residents' to find them and Members will be very kind to you in very gentleman route this so please a third before and will ask him possibly some questions at the end of your presentation if we want a bit more detail we tend not to make those technical but we will my come back with the and if we don't know that doesn't mean we are not interested in what you're stating and it just means that you fulfilled are needs for tonight knowing what your position is OK though whenever you're ready your time will begin
OK thank you Chair good evening firstly I want to say that I believe the changes to the plans published on the 18th December represent material changes to the design specifically with regards to the front wall now being set back by 47 so at centimeters to accommodate the bins in front of the units we were not notified as residents of these changes and there is a knock on impact of the footprint of the units critically this application includes a change of use and the development of residential units with the change of use being most pertinent as the land was not used for residential purposes previously and L shaped configuration of the plot does not lend itself well to redevelopment without significant concessions for the girls to light privacy and scale my main concerns are enclosure and outlook Mr. Williams report states in point 1 0 4 2 1 0 6 that the changes would not be visually overbearing on my property I dispute this entirely as a 2 point 9 5 metre wall at the boundary rising to 5 point 3 metres surrounding my 10 metre by four and a half metre garden on two sides would feel enclosed to a great height
I dispute the currently boundary wall height and the existing case copy drawings and Mr. Williams report which are 2 point 3 5 metres as measured from inside my garden the impact of a 5 point 3 metre wall and the two metres from the boundary of 3 amount per
or
choose the light and sunlight into adjoining properties and amenity areas the Sunlight and Daylight report commissioned by the applicant appears to be factually incorrect in its assumptions and was not completed in liaison with the potentially affected rate residence the creation of the garden for Unit 1 A would also bring an increase in noise and disturbance reduction in privacy and potential direct line of sight into the bedrooms and kitchens of the properties at 1 0 4 1 0 6 1 0 8 Irish and way in section 110 of the report there appears to be no mention of the two windows on the first floor which had looking onto Gardens toward shot Los Road it is not clear from the documents whether and how these would open the rear wall of the development where these windows located is a boundary wall and therefore any window which could open into my property footprint would add to noise nuisance of rubbish being disposed onto my property outlook from previous I believe that Mr. Williams report incorrectly mentioned that the units have double aspect at ground and first floor parking parking is dire at present the parking stress survey shown to be flawed by the Highways Agency and I've also identified that the areas surveyed is larger than 200 metres by foot from the site the parking issues in the immediate vicinity of the proposed developments and the junction of Lewisham Way and Malpass Road are greater than towards broccoli and the larger survey area will actually make the parking situation in the report look better data for up abruptly Road has been included which is outside the 200 metre distance are not highlighted on the map parking is compounded by issues caused by two or three of the business vehicles owned by the applicant that are kept in the location overnight with regards to cycle storage there is no mention of where these would be located and would potentially require a redesign of the properties if parking is a concern considered a concern and the applicant has agreed to provide cycle storage then the detail should be included in the application not as a precondition of occupation noise and disturbance no mention in the report of the patio next to my garden nor the garden at the bottom of 1 0 sex the proposed small patio area next to my kitchen windows would be akin to an acoustic chimney with dimensions are 1 metre by 3 metres surrounded by brick walls glass and a solid wooden fence amplified noise from usage or the open patio doors this plot is not currently residential so noise and disturbance would increase with occupation the design and size of the property and the materials are not in keeping with the surrounding buildings including the aluminium cladding I presume that the movement of the front wall would impact the internal space calculations and 7 point 2 point 1 detrimentally and there is no discussion of this in the addendum report sent a yesterday the current building is described as an important break in the townscape which would be lost by the building of a 2 storey building adjacent to the footpath drainage is a concern raised in my objection unaddressed of the outbuildings and a toilet shower currently drain into my garden soil illegally there's no drain permit Parisian their excuse me servicing and refuse bins to be located in the front garden due to the movement of the façade as previously discussed and access to the bin for unit once he is unclear as the revised front elevation does not show a gate at this unit safety during the construction phase there are concerns regarding access and security of the development site and burglar is no shimmer increasing and residents are concerned I have procedural concerns around the due process and consultation and the fact that the rejection of the previous application stated that future application should vary materially and this does not demolition works have commenced at the site prior to approve in consultation and attaching many conditions the development would be difficult to enforce a monitor finally Mr. Williams reports face
I have lost Miss Rogers
and a dubious standard of residential accommodation and I apologised as what you've hello neatly lost you in the last maybe 22nd offered windows so I was making squirrelling away notes and I think that you you're reading something I heard a Alkan's Hill
finally was finally yeah line of 31 man
I shall give you act I shall give you the remainder of your time to complete that cause you shall I go back to safety all procedural concerns I think it was the procedural concerns bit I think you so I think that was a sense started finally and if you wanted to go from there
OK I have procedural concerns around the due process and consultation and the fact that the rejection of the previous application stated that future application should bury materially this does not demolition works have commenced at the site prior to approval and consultation and attaching many conditions to the development would be difficult to enforce a monitor finally Mr. Wilson report states that the planning merit is limited by the small scale of the development and the size of the units which are now further reduced which will provide a modest contribution to local housing targets and a dubious standard of residential accommodation
thank you very much and that was a woeful together
presentation Members do you have questions for Odin's
now I'm so this what you had quite a lot of contents within your your thing and I'm hoping members will be able to help me out with some of the things I couldn't note everything down I got boundary heights daylight and sunlight
effectively Gardens to 1 m to 1 await Lewisham way windows to shot Los roads to they open or are they basements Upper Brockley Road including the parking survey bydd Kazakhstan's 200 metres cycle storage I'm a fact that's being dealt with by condition aluminium cladding and that being out of keeping him there was something around drains and soil soil pipes X entering into your property and that probably needs to go in the some sort of informative officers to make sure that Building control are aware that these to train appropriately and then some chew process are and whether or not it is very materially where any other key things that you want it to add nor Clough then noise yeah and as regards to the change of use and the final thing would be then this very late change to the footprint of the building by the moving back of this from wall finally 50 centimeters
OK Councillor Fran or your has just gone up would you like to ask this objector questioned
Councillor refraining freighter still muted
there were particular
you are going to become better together with the objectors was a statement and our big issue there of traffic particularly with refers today Cummins from highways so and that is surely where remained restless that doesn't make sense to you can't yes I'll love you to interrogate the officers made a bit more once we move back in the pink Park so if there are no other questions for Miss Rogers swatches thank you very much for your time this evening and your very detailed objection is really helpful to have that quality brought forward thank you very much and you may tell you microphone off and camera
you are more than welcome to stay in this meeting to watch the rest of the proceedings if you like or you can watch on the watch along on a home using our websites and the Irish and UK after UK so we now that gotcha no ours and whenever things go back to the case officer
I'm Members you are entitled to ask the case officer any further questions out you've heard than some opposing views Alfie there were some very dense information there for Miss Rogers do you want to maybe give us your initial view first about some of the things that was raised and then members may choose to ask additional questions
yet certainly this is to clarify the decision in the committee report is based on the revisions so it it wouldn't need to be updated to reflect the revisions because it was based on those vision so the set back of the at the front facade is not reduce the internal floorspace sit below the London Plan standards that the steam measurements in the report are correct the such a knee the parking survey and the the highways department requested the a revision to the parking survey to expand its scope because there's a controlled parking zone within 200 metres so it wasn't considered
the
they that they didn't want that to be included within the the parking Survey so the Highways Officer per produced a bespoke map that they had to provide a a survey at the survey data for so did the parking survey was completed in accordance with Wyre Highways officers requested in in terms of parking stress is acknowledged as high for so one night was 84 point 7 percent and the next night was 8 frequent 6 percent so this is towards the high end of what would be acceptable
we consider that the provision of cycle parking and the modest number and size of the units together with a higher pay tell mean that this this one was a winner an acceptable level of parking stress so their debt
the provision of a sustainable transport mode is considered to mitigate air any to help mitigate any parking stress impact a
at the moment and the comment about the windows facing the Shard those Road I wasn't quite sure which when those
Mr. Rogers was referring to so
be grateful if Mr. Rogers could point those out to me for what the presentation Becker assess OK Jens what jerseys to with us he had Sam break and after you in Mind putting up your presentation yes sure
I'm break the race plans are eight or so which ones was impecunious I fear of the first floor panned Alfie as probably better this was there's below the dawn
learners in the back bedrooms he asked to need the First floor Plan this this one yeah there's a windows at the back and looking across my garden and the other Gardens toward Shardlow okay and those those every flats there's a condition
so
C
and to secure details of the how open the ball
they would be they do need to open to provide cross ventilation however we we don't want them to be fully open a ball so as to allow intrusive overlooking so that would be agreed by condition they are the conditional so specifies that should be obscure glazed I'm
and I can refer today she bear with me often point to the the condition number
I know the condition in the report is just that and the floor plan from my perspective and was not clear that those were windows within the roof particularly because there is no
there's been no provision of a view of what this that side of the building would look like from the garden this thus the view there right I appreciate that draw in isn't that the floor plan is in the best drawing and dead and I do appear to be conventional windows but I do actually refer to the rooflights in the pitched roof
thank you for and lastly for come placard and noise and disturbance in proximity to windows and I'm app appreciate is a difference between the existing situation and what the proposed situation will be
I am however in mind and in my track any judgement and the provision of back gardens
am adjoining other residential gardens is fairly common within Lewisham and actually in this run a terraces so why there would potentially be a change are thank consider it to be acceptable in it but an acceptable and I think it would be in keeping with the typical arrangement as as in gardens to the rear of properties in close proximity to neighbouring gardens and windows thank you I'm just must bear on that on the topic of garden and an all too far to customer Farani followed by Council of the shoot
could you there was a common around the height and walls and the boundary heights being I think it was 2 point 9 metres yet the depth the garden to meet as is that standard practice for that level of height
because that would feel quite enclosed to me
that surrounded the higher on the boundary
to set a maximum height lowered the reference to 5 coin
to me is I believe is refers to the height of the top of the pitch so the Satterleigh pitched away from the wall Slad the maximum height wouldn't be directly on the boundaries set back due to the roof foam so that the high and the boundary is
is relatively high but is in keeping with the existing situation so listen existing building there
analysis a similar height to the proposed thank you nothing
moving on to Councillor refraining
for this year
I could back again to the consultation issues rethink you are asked to consider taking place now settle for what he said to them were consonance Local and representatives since work are contacted you got Highways got to have an eye so what or who sit on this report and every disposed and particularly for responses from the residents the ol objecting is NU response that actually
support the application because they depend who are affected I people living in that area
and therefore there is no I just want to know if you have any response from anybody and businesspeople or residents widely support of this application
and neither would no comments in support of the application and from local residents or the businesses in the local area and that in itself isn't a reason to refuse the application we after assess the applications whether it complies with the Development Plan and officers consider it bars and have recommended approval cited the the lacquers comments in support isn't necessarily an indication then application would be unacceptable
the Chair can I come back please let me down I want to know how seriously you actually taking it took the response from Highways because it said in their report that very serious concern arose as a whole so question raised by the ever had to say and this got it enter and as na consultees house your sleep suited the response let's forces
I'm that
science and the guards' highways they they raise concerns with the the impacts of parking capacity in yet but we're looking at it that it could be possible to mitigate that harm via the provision of a sustainable transport mode which in this case cycle parking which we've secured by condition prior to occupation
TEFL as thin object to the application they requested that waste they requested a construction logistics plan that I mean again we've we've recommended condition secure in that Sir
I don't think it's accurate to say that TSL and highways objected to the scheme
I hope that answers your question Councillor
the future thanks very much Councillor pursuit thank you Chair I am the appearing climbed to agree with the concerns Mr. Rogers has about overlooking from the north facing windows by I note what the felling of it so has just said about his intentions to condition the windows I can't I I've not seen and can't see the detail plans 11 I don't think I need to now but
I am looking at a proposed condition number 9 window specification which is the usual no windows shall be installed and Hill detail plans had been submitted approve I think that condition is his adequate to ensure but what are the Planning Officer City intended happens as long as a he has a clear notes of that and our intention if it's our intention and that of clearly recorded in the minutes I think healthy you said they would be obscure glazed and rippling would be limited to yet nothing sensible to basically so people leaning out of them are looking round the corner I think those that that is the at work thus correct so did the condition asked for details of glazing pipe which obscure glazed and the opening style so how far it opens and the reason is it doesn't help it doesn't say it doesn't say what they should be just as they iron those out later is yes and reassure the objector by a making that a bit more specific and clear via I k and the the reason I think is quite clear in his case he says to avoid direct overlooking of adjoining properties and consequent loss of privacy there so while come a day inadequate ventilation so hopefully that would give some comfort to objectors
OK
OK I twisted and Hardcastle Franny's that her legacy Hannah was that a new hand
the
the old hand there's an old hand
flow of the seasons
OK
members are there any more questions for Alfie
I am I would just like to know if there are though questions whether or not there is something that we could put into building control to ensure that the the the drainage situation from the bathroom I think
was brought forward golly objective maybe get looked at included as well I'm not sure if we put them forward had been that we I think potentially be useful I also am aware that we have the local Councillor Stephen Penfold and who wishes to speak on the Standing orders this evening could even Councillor Penfold you'll most welcome here at Planning Committee a nice to have you with us
and why here at the as you know Hazare as as a staged how two seasons hand as we're going with this evening have members of the Council do come along and speak on behalf of local Bellow community in their represents The Mansion there representing you are one of his evening you have an unlimited amount of time in which to talk to us and raise the concerns that you are or have however brevity is always the friend and favours those who are
we can then also once we've heard from you will come back to Councillor Davis and her existing question as well though that diva the floor is yours
thank you Chair I feel I will try and be as brief as possible I have essentially four points to make I mean I've considered it his application it's my fault that you have to deal with it because I referred to committee
and I do oppose it
my reasons are as follows
the first thing is Unit 1 say that there are two units being built here what is they're both 1 bed there
for one person one is for two proposals Unit onesie is for one person now Lewisham's policy on this under the Development Management Local Plan says that then 32 it has caught up by a single person dwellings will not be supported other than in exceptional circumstances full stop developers will be required having acceptance of I followed him be in highly accessible locations
Will that that is not an exceptional circumstance in itself fought that is saying is that single person by his can only be approved if there's an exceptional circumstance now no exceptional circumstances been given the fact that it's well designed Farrelly and it has good transport links which it does it's not exceptional circumstance that's a pre what cause it to be an appropriate if there is no full circumstance and at no point has anyone exporting exceptional circumstances for a one for one person dwelling to be built but I would imagine accept also confirms would be a specific need but that has not been unconfined a tool by anyone so that's my first point my second point is the size of unit 1 A to C to person
a one bedroom property again if you go to Thim 32 lotion plan as Thurston have the pool rooms recorded have a minimum floor height of 2 point 5 million of this dozen to 75 percent of it is under 2 point 5 it's 2 point 3 and
for bigots not meet this standard will not count towards meeting the internal floor areas standards sung words if you're lesson 2 point 5 metres the space of that EVs does not go for the floor size before size with told his 12 square metres which is more than required because they'll have employed 5
75 percent of it is too early
being 3 square metres office floorspace which falls within the policy so that's the second point third point concerns the outdoor space for Unit 1 say we're going back to the one person one bedroom property now luscious Housing Plan SPG says that there obey as a requirement for there to be 5 square metres outside space are now in the report you'll find this a paragraph 64 about this report
it says that the love and plan makes provision
the interest lack of outdoor amenity space in other words you can have all space indoors if you haven't got enough space outdoors that's what it's saying but it says in exceptional circumstances again what are the acceptable boy why can't let us have more space
there's no exceptional circumstances set out in the report as to why that building a property with less space than our policy says I should have OK so the final point only certain discussed it about them I received and Jimmy will devastate the and Sofia's properly Councillors received an e-mail from attack
o obstacle Karen Flynn on 23rd December signed the plan is to change the player payment configuration of lockable Street which is part closed by I was included in the parking survey they get because lots more Street runs down lots more gobbles and is a fly tipping hotspots of cold sack everyone goes down that dump their rubbish and goes away
cars parked out there and according to the parking survey that is faced for six call the idea
I that have double yellow lines
and one of the paperless meaning that it will not be accessible by cause so that 6 plus spaces lost are the parking survey so that means that there is little more pressure on the parking I know there is my ward you can live apart there it's nightmare so again there is a real issue with parking I just think that this is not a great about and be approved schemes which breach our policy it will encourage other people to submit suffered substandard schemes and it will not be providing a good quality accommodation for future residents so for all those reasons I should reject this scheme very much
thank you very much Councillor Penfold Alfie there were some of 40 points there some of which I know that we touched on before I think there were some questions around what he is exceptional and what if not which I think I'd want your answer that more details and there was questions around DM 32 and parking and the outside amenity space so single person dwelling Alfie we don't allow on why this time
and we do it out in an in exceptional circumstances where the design is exceptional in this case is an oversized Unit is the ground Florey's I think it's faces where me is those very close to the requirement for a single person within just including a ground floor space this as a separate bedroom on the upper floor so that is an exceptional level of them
internal amenity and before the dwelling and and we considered at the the design externally is is very high quality also so we feel it meets that requirement and secondly decision this is a highly accessible area it's very close to Newquest District Centre served by two to train stations also and within walking distance of exit and the alarm Station and dissipate our sick say this if we are to accept single person dwellings in the Borough this is the type of sustainable location we with looked look to and to have them really older is not quite in Districts and those very close it does benefit from the Lottery means his provided within that so him
My planning judgement is that this does meet that requirement and could give me as Council Penfold of nothing Capital Pan forward also mentioned the are planning policies require 2 point 5 metre per head room high and this is to point 3 0 9 Tatchell nap before and Julia and yes I did
I'm just to briefly go over that again and we are
accepts that the Unit 1 8 which is the 2 person unit doesn't meet that requirement it has 65 percent as the floor space
with a head-high I've taken 5 metres which is below the 75 percent requirement and however the the first floor is does meet the nationally described space standard of 2 point 3 metres 75 percent of the Union so you need to include the whole the unit as a whole not just the first for law and
area within that calculation
and as Councillor Penfold rightly points to some areas of floorspace don't count towards the Isil calculation he said below a certain higher beliefs 1 point
5 metres of the top of my head sold out those calculations have been factored into the calculation of the overall floorspace which is 60 square metres overall furtive 9 square metres of that as head height of 2 point 5 metres which are quite 65 percent so it is on the
but when when we take into account to the highest standards of the accommodation provided for unit 1 C and witches again which as I say is oversize plus the improvements the standard of accommodation provided to the existing second floor
An flat 110 and leisure my which will increase in size the end
On balance we consider the standard of accommodation to be acceptable and cold weather that the development plan
and then
I think there was something around
I don't know if Councillor Penfolds connection was a little for C other people but I think there was something around so parking nearby and whether or not
whether or not there was a tolerance within that for I think he said six vehicles could park in the space sizes yet the face it looks more street I think yeah
that that has been included within that the calculation of the parking stress within the area and was accepted by the Highways Officer who I'm sure are aware of any proposed changes so and aka can't come in on that
An revellers such changes are definitely coming forward
undisturbed deferred the assessment of the parking survey to the to the Highways Department and Aksu provided the calculations as I eat 4 point 7 percent and a 3 point 6 percent for the 2 night surveyed
in terms of the capacity
thank you and then finally I think it was the for me to score square metres by BAA versus the 5 square meter courtyard again nurses in the planning balance that except as a transgression below the London Plan requirement but again given the the other benefits in terms of the oversize Union and the improvements to the existing unit but on the second floor of hundreds headed emission way we consider that acceptable earned much Alfie because the Penfolds whether you had a supplementary at a question I just wanted to raise
he just two points right arising out what about he said first on my second point about the ceiling height when Alvy said over that that there is a minute
after which the space that account that's not what else policies fares our policy is very clear then 32 says habitable rooms and kitchens and bathrooms are required to have a minimum floor height of 2 point 5 metres
between a ceiling level space that does not meet this standard will not count towards meeting the internal floor areas standards so that's clear that means if anything is lesson 2 point 5 metres that spaces not go towards the floorspace therefore 75 percent and the
does not go towards floorspace
secondly I blant Highways draw up today the e-mail that about about Pollione got the e-mail and 23rd December the report says report before he says at paragraph 94
talking about that because it lacks will wrote actually Lopez
the maximum number of vehicles that should park on this street would be 6 on one side and rival the proposal is that no vehicles parking and that's that's what's happening fast was being proposed I accept that lot that not the position as we speak but that is going to be what's gonna be coming in
OK to quite ahead a sorry picture
this come back on that and had the figures mouthful of maybe Miss misunderstood the question Luck small gardens isn't take him into account was in our assessment so the the pocket was included in the parking survey but the Highways Department of discounted that they're within their calculation of the parking stress within the within their within air
assessment this way yeah so that that was discounted for the reasons outlined by Councillor Penfold Selattyn been included within our assessment of what the parking dresses so that the Highways Department does it take into account the the matters raised by a Council the Penfold
I have asked the tonight and then I guess what will will always looking for from year after using the Shorty that you've got your maths right when it came to ceiling heights plan position policy
yes I believe we have got those threats and as café that in accordance with do requirements
OK Members if any additional questions for Councillor Penfold based on his submission
I see hands raised Councillor Carter
yet on the other hand was raised before Council when you were asking your question Cher so my question was was relating back to Miss Rogers points because of something such as like to come back to that when when it's time to come back to that OK so Councillor Penfold thank you very much coming along this evening you're more than stay in the meeting but if I could ask you to turn your camera off without going back for one final rounds Councillor Davies has an outstanding question I believe officers of you managed come up with and I'll serve to about believers of differences in height between the refusal this one yes
of course approximate job he puts them at heart maximum pilot previously refused schemes 7 point 4 metres fully scheme it's 5 point 2 metres I will try and show you but the trying get the plan up for the refused scheme
it may not work and it hasn't mirth
I'm sure that again I'll give you one more go
you're brave man
and can you say that have had said that that was the refused scheme so a third third storey this there is much higher than the proposed also Des' there was a screen there directly adjacent 2 number 1 0 8 of as we can see that
but that was that was effectively a two-storey wall adjacent rather than had been set back by the pitch of the the roads so we consider it a significant improvement on the previously refused scheme is a significant material difference between this and last application assessed that our view yet ex-council card
I thank you Chair and yet I felt that we didn't perhaps or Ralphie didn't gaps come back enough on the question of the cycling's parking space because Miss Rogers raised the issue that it wasn't clear there would be space for the cycle parking space and that you know it's not clear at the moment were that's going to be so I just wondered if you could comment on that
he ensured that the intention is for unit once 1 8 so the two person you need they will be provided within the rear garden Thor that Yunior for Unit 1 C the proposal would be to provide some sort of store within the front garden space adjacent where the bins are and that that will be secured by and approved by us prior to the occupation as the dwelling
and you've already judged that sufficient space there we consider them as yet
any more questions members
no one looking around the room for a procedural motions
Councillor shoot
wrong sort of hand
I think I think I heard enough to be assured enough that we don't have filly reasons not to accept the Officer recommendations in front of reverse with issues were disgusted but as long as the issues was disgusted and noted so I'm doing that recommendation as detailed in the report chair thanks very much to ask for a seconder of that motion
Councillor Davis OK so Members will be going to a roll call vote and once we go through this rental budget are now our Clerk to carry out for us could you please say whether or not you're 30 in favour of the motion which is to accept the officer report as outlined in the documents and also can you make clear whether you heard or didn't hear the entirety of tonight's presentation he remained connected is that clear
could I ask Claudette to carry out a local councillor Farani had you vote
I vote against
Council funding can you confirm or you
I were able to hear the entire presentation tonight where I had every part of every single ward before you meet you and right through the presentations Spanky surf Councillor card had you vault I vote in favour and I did hear the whole presentation
Councillor Davies had you vote in favour and heard the whole of pleading
Councillor Hanley how you vote about for it and I heard everything
Councillor Morrison had avert I vote for it and I heard the whole presentation
Councillor pursue How'd you vote might be aware of the whole of a year discussion of this application and I vote for
Councillor Sauber had avert
I heard all the presentations I thought to all the contributions to excellent from all sides and I'm gonna vote against
Councillor Walsh how do you vote I heard all tonight's presentations I particularly want to highlight the excellent presentation from Miss Rogers I think you where exceptional as an objector our I'm afraid tonight I've been assured by officers that though the things that you have raised have been are going to be dealt with its own voting in favour of the motion
OK that's 6 in favour and 2 against the proposal and very much I a grab state that planning applications and agreed

4 60 ERLANGER ROAD, LONDON, SE14 5TG

OK we are now moving on to the next item on the agenda despair would be one whilst I bring up the appropriate paperwork we're moving on to 60 Erling a road and I believe Patty is going to be our proceeding of surface so Patti over to you if you like set out your your presentation
the Czech logistical either you can see the presentation yet that on the screen
thank you Chairman
Williams Patricia block and a senior planning officer and I'll be presenting this application on behalf the case officer look Mike briny the application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing double garage and construction of a new outbuilding this application is brought to the Committee for decision at the request of custom Mill banging cut across the sofa
the application site is located on the corner of a longer wrote and showing roads the site comprises a three storey end of terrace single family dwelling and a single storey double garage at the end of the garden
this is the view of the front and side elevation of the application site
this is the view of the existing carriage I whether my cursor is I'm as well as the rear elevation of the of the application Bill thing
these images are sharing the existing garage building to be demolished from various viewpoints but the took images are showing a strong US of the site of the rights on showing I Road and the other images are showing from various viewpoints Arden
the proposed outbuilding would be constructed in a range of materials the front side and rear elevation will be constructed in facing and facing with vertical timber cladding the side elevation facing shalwar route would be constructed using reclaimed above London brick and and coping detail will much to adjacent
the roof would be a natural slate roof tile and would have free rooflights
the proposed outbuilding will have a slightly larger footprint and existing marriage that the shall floor area would be an Bhille the game by pushing the building towards the rear of the site that Alderden were accommodated gym shower room and storage
third space for use of the outbuilding is considered to be ancillary to the main house and a condition will be added to ensure that the outbuilding is used as ancillary accommodation to the main house at the next images showing the proposed outbuilding outbuilding in relation to the frontage building
as outlined in the committee report the principle development is supported the proposal middle result in a form of development which would not detract or appeared on the wider carton appearance of the immediate locality and telecare feel conservation area given the scale mass height and position of the proposed development there will be no negative impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties the result would not result in harm on the local housing of her opposition or how he safety
in light of the above officers recommend that the proposed moment is approved by the Committee suggested conditions listed in officer report
thank you very much Members do you have any initial questions for or officer soon
sorry to jump in the Councillor and I've been asked just just to cover a very brief point by Angus if that's OK with you I'm relating to the referral to Committee by Councillor Sauer
On the question I think which we were considering it was weather has a sort can participate in the debate tonight was to reduce himself I'm and it seems to me that that he can take part in the debate the fact that he referred this to committee as putting the report I'm provide that he approaches it as you know with an open mind and here's all the representations I think in no way means yes to reduce himself so as I know this is probably say what you'll know but we just want to just to make this clear for any incorrect off
OK that's really useful to know Councillor Sauber you are fully entitled to take part in tonight's proceedings I know that I have done this before where I've referred to things by still pick out keep open mind I think it's fair and right that you should be able to do that as a local ward representative when you think there is a finer detail to be looked at and you are more than welcome to participate so
lenders do you have any questions floor Patricia
no
OK shall we move on to the applicant's then I believe that Sam Burrows is here to join us close no such as Stuart Archer with the agents are one sorry Stour Archer archery sex and and cerebral hitter hello with evening both welcome her so if you so just for the record would you mind stating who you are and your relationship to the site and so yet we aren't shall rule way of text and we worked on this project 60 and great stuff OK so you'll have that up to 5 minutes to present why you would like us to be approved the seasoning your time will begin when you start talking after the end of that process members made to site ask additional questions but then again might not so if they don't please don't feel that his any Sautman Diamond either way it early May of her fulfilled their or their needs in your presentation so your time will begin at when you start again
the simple we are the architects that have worked on this project the site include a dump carriage that isn't a state of disrepair the aim of the proposed outbuilding is to provide a gym and storage space for the residence of 60 along a road as well as improving the appearance of the rear of the garden through the removal of a rundown building
we have closely followed the Lewisham SPG about outbuildings as well as working with the conservation of certain sure that the proposals respect the conservation area the footprint and heights are similar to the existing and within the constraints set out in the SPG
the materials have been specified to ensure high quality and minimal impact and timber cladding is specifically mentioned in the SPG as a material that is appropriate for a garden setting regarding the material on the boundary this was originally claims this is originally reclaimed stock brick to match the Bricket adjacent the Conservation Officer asked for this to be changed to timber to reflect the Gareth stores that are currently present in light of an objection by the Telegraph Hill society we have revised this back to proclaim London stock brick with costing and lime mortar to match the existing brick wall adjacent in addition we have also changed the proposed seed and roof to slate to respond to another comment by the Telegraph Hill society
following discussions with the case officer we have also admitted the proposed gate in the boundary wall to make clear that there will be no direct access from the street and the use of this outbuilding is ancillary to 60 along a road in addition the planning conditions would restrict the use of the outbuilding to ancillary residential use
there has been an objection about the location of the site boundary to the neighbouring garden we know that the surveyors were not able to access this area as it is overgrown and we used the last point they surveyed and assumed a boundary parallel to the existing carriage regardless of this the bottom line is this objection is not relevant as the proposed outbuilding sits on the same line as the existing garage so there is no adverse impact on the site boundary or land to number 58 to conclude we have worked closely with the conservation of service and the Telegraph Hill Society to produce a design that maintains and conserves the character of the conservation area the Telegraph Hill Society have withdrawn their objections the Council supports this application and we have received six letters of support
the proposals are in accordance with the Lewisham as Fiji are of high architecture quality that improved existing site which are dilapidated garages and should therefore be considered acceptable thank you
thank you very much for that and also thank you very much for your engagement with local stakeholders as well and it's really good to see her practitioners that are willing to engage in this piece of work so Members do you have any questions for the applicant's record representatives tonight
no OK that thank you very much you may stand out you have you in my 10 your camera of get thanks thank you very much I'm now moving over to
Councillor Sobel's that flaw
you asked a question was that for the
applicant
I was aware of the confer the best opportunity like short comment to explain them what was referred to the Committee that might help clarify any debate that my fellow Chair of so just call me when you think it's the right time okay I'm off
I will do it after the objectors I think if that's OK
OK so I've got on my list of objectors Colin and Patricia Southwell Colin Patricia owing with us
good evening hello thank you very much for coming along this evening and as I said to the previous objectors we understand that this is a strange and and unusual process for most people in your engagement any is really welcome and in a few moments' time I'll ask you to use as be cropped five minutes and reasons why you are objecting to this application proud before us but if you wouldn't mind introducing yourself and your relationship to the application site that would be really useful first-name where the owners of number 58 earning a road which is the adjoining terraced property to another 60 OK thank you very much so you'll have up to five minutes to state the cases the reason why you think we should refuse
at the end of that five minutes members may ask you some additional questions for clarity on what you've presented for gay I bizarre when you begin firstly with low to clarify that this is not a boundary dispute but an objection that purposely misleading drawings have been submitted by the architects had deliberately misrepresent the true straight boundary line between 50 and 60 and the boundary at the rear of number 16 the boundary between 58 and 60 58 60 as well established as it has been in-situ for 50 years in a continuous straight line of concrete post we wouldn't sweat since it in his cell at the centre of the original party fence wall there are two large projects being proposed in the garden of number 60 and we have been dealing with the architects for over a year and over that year we have complained to the plan as about the inaccurate and misleading insurance being submitted with the owner's knowledge the Council validation requirement an MP P F is that the relationships to boundaries and the boundaries themselves should be accurately shoved in there not a rejection is based on the fact that older plain for Ince including number 0 1 5 attachments 6 with the notations confirming that no survey of the boundaries were carried out was deliberately inaccurately drawn so showed the boundary fence varying into our garden according to the scowl bowel by Sue for conveniently for the applicant exactly where the new structures to be built and reducing the width of our garden at that point our objection goes the applicant and architects every opportunity to accurately redraw the boundary lines showed that the entire boundary line is straight throughout and as young our garden shed situated adjacent to where the new build is performance but no chose not to take the opportunity if the true straight line of the boundary superimposed on the drawings the flank wall of the building and its footings will be in a garden we've also at such an alternative drawing of the boundary number 0 6 of attachment saying which was brought by the same architect 9 months ago and clearly shows the correct correctly the boundary line to be strong on existing ground floor drawer in attachment 6 the boundary at the rear of the it's the existing garage is also inaccurately drawn his land is owned by a third party who was not informed by the applicant or architect a planning application has been made and an ownership certificate had been signed we informed the planners that the applicant had been made aware that land at the rear of the existing garages does not belong to the applicant property the plan in exception 65 says that a planning authority should not entertain an application in these circumstances where any owner of land was not notified when an ownership certificate was signed at only owner of the land registered an objection the planners dismissed in that sense it's Lambridge 3 document stations attachments once 2 5 confirming ownership and shine at the mentions of the plot and by the third party which the applicant incensed to build on we first downloaded I want five drawing in the existing ground floor paying from the Paul Round 3 months ago and he showed no signs which read assumed site down very Cervera accessible possible to be verified prior to construction we now see that drawing was pulled from the pool by the planners following the cancellation of the previous committee meeting it has now been replaced by another version of drawing I want five or cease exactly the same in all aspects but the none stations have been removed we are concerned that the version of the drawing with notation 3 which clearly states that no survey was carried out as been removed from the list of drawings in the planet report paragraph 61 attachment 7 tonight it says that the planners were advised by the architect that a survey had been carried out but if the planet to take the time to read the now go the notation on the ground floor plans are they would have seen that actually now so I took place this is a large 36 square metre building for Achim in a rear garden in a conservation area in full foot sorer than the existing garages it states in the Plan this report and the planners submissions to the Committee that the new bill is on the footprint of the existing garages and only to square me as larger than the existing structure in fact using the scowl bar the new bill is 6 me that swept sit square metres larger and would not for instance in footprint with eight encroaching into our garden and the plot of land at the rear which is not an by the applicant C drawings number 0 1 5 for the existence ice and are they 0 A for the proposed size on the Aklavik stories their garden be Shug 6 point 1 metres boy throughout and CIL it reaches the position of the new-build when it suddenly become 6 point 5 metres wide because the fence is shown veering into our lands and this is not the case
thank you thank you very much for that as the south London's you have questions Southwell's
no I'm saying that night
then under this last year just the set when exit pretty now stood I think that's I can mistresses South bar artsy any I can't see any member wishing to ask you any additional questions
so thank you very much for your participation he wouldn't mind turning off your camera we will now go into the next phase of tonight's meeting which is where we speak to the officer about with her this evening her Councillor shoot your hand is up first
thank you
yes I I don't know to what extent this issue about boundaries is that that seems to be only else standing one here is a material planning consideration and by 8 would be enormously helpful we've said we've been
shown an addendum report which refers to a letter that seems to be right using the same matter but was received later than previous representations it would be an awfully helpful I think to be allowed to see the drawing that was referred so if it's possible for the planning officer to show us this this boundary and I would also like advice as from our our legal adviser on the extent to which this is a material consideration in the decision we're making tonight and I'm I'm going to give a Patti just a few minutes a few moments term so can up to the plans while she does that count the Sauber I know that you wanted to make a statement and so if you want serve turn say more you needed to say and then we'll go back through the planning officer and then Charlie whom is on legal adviser
that
another sheep ready to to search share the to drains looking ahead by the them open they show their existing Ellison floor Plan and proposed floor plan and you will be able to see the differences between the two I'll put them side by side and on my screen when I share it so far more goes parcels over first and then we'll come back to you say that
well I just wanted to say this is very uninteresting or but I just wanted to make clear that the the issues I felt merited and debated Committee disappeared once the original proposal was revised and they concern the the showman Road wall the the site access gate and the assurances it was for ancillary refused since then I think was the south but it was too southward of his to Southwell forgive me forget the name wrong has raised issues that that I think are really are important and do need to be addressed but though I wasn't aware of those when and I refer the myself and Cattermole back referred the original proposal it's I just three are stopped after breaking to hear see what petitions the showers OK thank you very much sorry after Bath interlude Patricia your starring moment with your jewel Jill diagrams next to each other yet let me just quickly said it up to
but one area
said
lots of gold stars varieties that are tonight
they the image on the left is that proposed and amirite requested from sorry his that cow cull I can see it so this might be a local issue
what can you see and scream Councillor Hanley the PV PV the middle end as or the bottom bit all of us at the bottom and is there any other Members that are having that problem has more I can do possibly is sarnies get Michael start tonight for IT skills is if I
that into the Chair Councillor Hanley if he looking of chat have just taken a screen shot of once Patricia is showing us the new see what's in the charts the should look here can't say yep yep excellent De Gago star for IT excellent a patrician sorry would you like to continue thank you Chair so like I said the image on the left is the proposed elbowing and you can see as she outline of the existing building dashing blue that's where my persons' right now says he can see that propre
below
it builds on in the same location as the existing footprint of the building it will be pushed like he I'm to the rear and then the building also extended to the front while we look at this image on the right he does a little bit of space allowing the cost to come in to the garages currently there that this is where the you know a floorspace is going to be accommodated figure of peace-building is welcome it's not going to be any closer to the neighbouring garden at number 50 8 therefore as as impasses that before I'm we don't see
how the applicant application and the applicant will be encroaching on to the garden of this neighbour and the put condition to those proposed will ensure that this outbuilding is built in accordance with the plan as shown on the left and which clearly shows that the building is not going to be any closer I will suggest that tidy have any further questions on how the side was measured may be there will be the cushion for the upper condense he's our Dexter explained was what they have done Butts and Akinde story that during the purse of the application we we have been given information would to confirm that the proposal building will be built entirely in land that ownership of the applicant
Trevor
are there was Councillor there was a question from Cassop shoot for our legal involvement by the Charlie Charlie no I haven't yet I mean to looking to the boundary dispute are out I think it is important to note as parties brought to his attention that the starting point on this application certainly is the view of officers supported by the evidence put before the misery there isn't boundary dispute in terms of this is all within Fifa decides the ownership of the applicants I'm so I think I think one approach you could take is to accept that I'm and and move on if however you are still concerned about the boundary dispute
I'm in my mind it's really an issue of landownership which I think is Councillor pass you alluded to his question isn't a material consideration few in determining this application and as I'm sure people are familiar with here planning permission can be granted for land which isn't in the ownership of the applicant I've so was as relevant in terms of the implementation if there are any issues of ownership that really a matter for the
the person who has the benefit of the pimp permission and any other landowner but but when you try to considering this application I'm I I think it is reasonable for you to put to one side any boundary disputes and when considering what is material I'm in its application
that's very clear thank you Charlie
councillors that legacy hand
to note here I was just one thing to respond the I'm I'm happy completely happy with the advice and guidance that we've had from those officers having seen the plan myself so I understood many with the object of the say I agree Capie Charles's advice and very much Councillor Hanley your next thank you Chair the objector was also mention about the height of the new build no that my impose obviously to be larger than was carried there at the moment and I wonder now what the offers some might say about you know the back that the size of it and now that's a comfort can get goes well with the plan or if there is a political problem thank you get to the height of the building and the boundary to the east gonna be 2 point 4 metres then the building will have an so every day's pitched away from from the neighbouring and property and their garden and any terms of the impact that will have it should be noted that this outbuildings gonna be my at the end of the garden whilst to their benefit from quite large margins I think the impact they will have or will be minimal and if any I'm especially in comparison to the fact that there is an existing building as sorry and we on the adding the around a metre on top of was ready that as we are satisfied that there's not going to be any negative impacts are vital force by this proposal
nothing for Bush any further questions for all planning or since evening
now we have no one are no guests for this from the rest of Council so members you're satisfied that you've got all the information and looking for a procedural motion at this point
if not I will do it
OK after listening carefully to all of tonight's presentation I would like I'm going to move that we accept the application as outlined in the report before us this evening do I see a seconder I do Councillor pursue I think that's your hand yes happy to second that Chair I've just let somebody else have a go up proposing it
OK so without going first cards for road CofE
the states are whether or not I can call or against them should her as outlined in the motion notice so except the officer hit him when you do that if you could just certify that you've had tonight's proceeding on this item her as well that would be useful he'll debt over to you
Councillor telephony had you vote is always first in strongly representation and fought for the motion
that's your card how do you vote I'd vote in favour of the motion and I handle the preceding saying
Councillor Davies happy that
and I will have the proceedings and I've asked for
Councillor Hanley how you vote
I saw the listen to the proceedings and I vote for it
Councillor Morrison had you vote and I vote I'm voting for and I heard all the proceedings
Councillor pursue had avert hurdle VAT and I voting for
Councillor saw the how do you vote about heard and saw all the preceding from a vote in favour
Councillor Welsh had you vote I confirm I saw of tonight's proceedings and voting in favour
the outcome is unanimous before the proposal excellent that planning permission granted as outlined in tonight's report that's the last item on tonight's agenda thank you very much to everyone who came along this evening officers Cox and members and if I could ask for the live stream to now the ended and