Transcript

Good evening everyone and welcome to Planning Committee B. My name is Councillor Jack Lavery and I'm the chair of this committee. This is the first Planning Committee B of the town hall year so you're all very welcome. For any members or residents attending remotely, please do keep your microphone on mute. If you need to ask a question or alert our attention to anything, pop your electronic hand up as normal. I believe we do have one member attending remotely tonight, Councillor Tam, he'll just be observing. For members that are attending in person, as ever, please raise your hand if you would like to ask a question. Please do keep questions limited to one topic, I will come back to you a second time as long as time allows. We'll just go around the room and allow members of the committee an opportunity just to introduce themselves, especially as it's the first committee of the town hall year. Councillor Rathbone, do you want to start off? Thank you, Chair. When you say introduced, do you mean declare our attendance for legal record? Absolutely, you might want to say which ward you represent. OK, I represent Lee Green Ward, I am present and voting. Hi, I'm Councillor Stephen Penfold, I represent Brockley Ward, I'm present. Councillor John Muldoon, represent Rushy Green, and Rushy Green's proud to host the civic suite. Thank you very much. Councillor O'Lara does send her apologies this evening. I'll just give officers an opportunity to introduce themselves as well. Good evening, my name is Melanie Dawson, I'm the Council's Head of Legal Services and Deputy Monitoring Officer. Good evening everyone, my name is Aaron Lau, I'm the Team Leader for the South Area. Good evening, my name is Jeff Whitenson, Principal Planning Officer at Laotian. I'm Jasmine Kasim, I was the one who spoke to you guys earlier. Thank you everyone. OK, let's get started. The first item on our agenda tonight is the minutes, and we've got two sets of minutes to consider. Those of the AGM that we had on the 27th of March and then the 29th of February where we had our last full planning committee be. Are those minutes agreed? Thank you very much. Great, so just moving on, we've got declarations of interest. Do any members of the committee have any declarations of interest? Councillor Muldoon? In respect of item 3, I received a document emailed to me, not through the committee office on behalf of TANDA, I believe, or the applicants. Thank you for that. I've also received one or two documents, but nothing that wasn't shared with the whole committee. OK, so we'll move on to our main items of this evening. As you'll be aware, we've got two main items tonight. We've got 5-9 Creekside and then 135 Minard Road. So let me just run through how tonight's going to work. This will be the same for each agenda item. To begin with, an officer, the case officer, will give a presentation to the committee and we'll then have opportunities to ask them any questions we might have. We'll then have a presentation from the applicant or representative of the applicant who will have up to five minutes to address the committee. And again, there'll be an opportunity for members of the committee to ask them questions. We'll then hear from some resident objectors who have agreed to come and speak to us, who will have a collective five minutes to highlight anything they wish to tell us. And again, we'll have an opportunity as members of the committee to ask them questions. There's an opportunity for residents in favour to speak, should they wish. And then finally, on both items tonight, we have one ward councillor who would like to address the committee to understanding orders. And then as members of the committee, we will have a deliberation and discuss anything, ask any final questions of clarification we might have, and then we'll move to the vote and make a decision on whether or not we accept the officer's recommendations. Great. So let's get started. We're going to start with five to nine Creekside. Jeff, I think you're doing the presentation on this item whenever you're ready. Good evening, members. We're here tonight to discuss item three on the agenda in regard to a plan application at five to nine Creekside in Deptford. The proposals for the demolition of existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site for part five, part seven storey building with lower floors comprising employment floor space, use class EG and purpose built student accommodation. This will include 3,101 square metres of employment floor space at ground, lower ground and courtyard levels, which represents an uplift upon the existing floor space by 612 square metres. 231 purpose built student best spaces be provided, of which 35% would be provided as affordable 172 long and short stay cycle parking spaces between employment student uses to on street loading bays and to blue badge parking bays public realm improvements to the Creekside pavement and associated ecological provisions, including the construction of living roofs and soft landscaping measures. I have to take this opportunity to advise members of changes to the report since it was recently published. An addendum report has been recently published to provide minor updates to the main report with regard to an affordable workspace financial contribution of 130,556 pounds to the council by the developer to replace the original onsite 10% affordable workspace provision that was proposed. A community art fund contribution of 20,000 pounds by the developer that will be secured in the section one is this agreement, the inclusion of planning conditions 60 to require the submission of details of fire hydrants within the site and separate to the addendum. A correction to the winter readings in paragraphs 485 to 487 there was never identified in some of the readings which I'll talk you through. So if you go to the first item, the main report in paragraph 264 advised that the applicant would deliver a 10% provision of onsite affordable workspace that would be provided that's a minimum discounted rents of 20% below market rent levels within the local area. This would have called with London plan policy for and the draft local plan policy and would be secured in the section 106 agreement as confirmed in paragraph seven to five of the report. The council's economy jobs and partnerships team have been using with both the applicants and the existing occupiers art hub to ensure appropriate consideration is afforded to assist them in relocating elsewhere within the bar during construction works. The economy team have advised officers in their assessment of the plan application that the 10% provision of affordable workspace within the development may be insufficient to ensure viable occupancy for an affordable workspace provider, equating to potentially six small studio units. Additionally, the remainder of the apartment floor space would be subject to higher rental levels that would be likely to further discourage affordable workspace providers from occupying the development. Subsequent to recent discussions, it has been agreed that an in lieu payment of 130,556 pounds will instead be provided by the applicant, which will replace the provision of onsite affordable workspace, a second knowledge that the draft local plan policy EC for allows for flexibility in the approach towards affordable workspace, stating that in lieu contribution may be considered as an alternative to onsite provision, subject to suitable justification. And in lieu contribution would have greater benefits than onsite provision, with the payment providing an equivalent of 600 square meters affordable workspace, which is twice the floor space area of that being proposed within the current development. Section 106 will secure the sum for the council to use towards the delivery of affordable workspace within the designated cultural enterprise zones of New Cross and Deptford, which may include assisting with unit fit out costs. The economy team have advised that current capital work fit out costs for workspaces are approximately 21 to 25 pounds per square foot in the bar, which may be unaffordable for some operators, therefore the secured sum provides an important contribution in such cases. Moving on to the community art fund contribution. The proposals include a contribution to be secured in the one on six agreements, the fund will provide a sum of 20,000 pounds to be applied for and distributed prior to occupation of the employment floor space. The fund will seek to commission local artists to design public art for the scheme. This may include murals, gateway entrances, iron work, digital art, sections of construction holding etc. The applicant has advised that details of how to access the fund will be set out in a community art fund framework that would list the strategic priorities of the fund. The submitted social value strategy prepared by AMD identifies the following priorities. Recipients of the funding must have close ties to Lewisham. Creative projects must engage with local community. Projects must reflect the needs of Lewisham residents and art produced must be able to be displayed in Creekside. Subsequently, officers are satisfied with this proposal, which again will be secured in a section one on six agreement. The third point relates to the plan condition 60. It was referred to in paragraph 412 of the report, but didn't make it to the list of conditions. I don't know if you want me to read the actual wording out. I think Councillors have had access to and if finally, the matter that isn't addressed in the addendum that relates to the Wilshaw House within the Cosfils estate and their winter readings. So just set out a table of the issues. So the report stated that there were 148 windows that were tested. It's actually 150. It said in terms of negligible impacts, 89% of windows will be affected. It's actually 89 windows would be incurring a negligible impact. The correction now with 150 windows, it's 85. So there's a small difference between the two readings. In terms of minor and moderate, the report stated 45. It's actually 46 now. And in terms of substantial impacts, the report referred to 25 openings. It's actually less. It would be 19 openings that would be affected. So those are the changes from the published report. Moving on to the site location plan. The proposal site, actually in red, lies within Lower Creekside, measuring an area of 0.2 hectares. That's comprised of a two-storey light industrial building and associated yard area. A creative enterprise zone. The site's located within Deptford Creekside Conservation Area and within the Deptford Creek Greenwich Riverside Opportunity Area. The site also lies within Flood Risk Zone 3 and P-TOW 6A, meaning it has excellent accessibility to public transport. The site is bounded to its southern and eastern sides by Creekside, which leads up to Creek Road to the north and Deptford Church Street to the west. To the north of the site is the Crossfields Estate, comprised of residential blocks of flats, the nearest being the five-storey Wilshire House and associated grounds. To the east is the Art in Perpetuity Trust Building, or APT for short, which provides gallery and artist studio floor spaces and a fairtime development comprised of residential and employment units further to the east. The site forms part of the designated Lower Creekside local employment land, outlined in red, which can be seen here. The application site is currently in use for light industrial purposes by ArtHub, which provides space for artists and makers, and by Eurowinds, who operate storage and distribution. The main pedestrian and vehicular route is from the eastern side of the site. The adjacent Medina Works at 3 Creekside is currently in use as an artist studio and creative workspace. One Creekside, or Aston Heights as it's now known, was completed in 2023 and accommodates 56 residential units and 1,541 square metres of light industrial employment floor space in a four to eight storey building. On the opposite side of Creekside is a bird's nest public house and adjacent land that accommodates former shipping containers that are currently in commercial use. And the second APT building is located at the south-east corner. There's an aerial view of the site, just outline it there, including its yard area, and this was taken during construction works at Aston Heights. You can see Wilshire House within a cross-build estate in the background, and a coverage of trees between the two sites. There's another aerial view that shows the wider surrounding context, including the application site, Deptford Creek to the east, Deptford Broadway to the south, and Deptford Bridge DLR station. The application site lies within the Deptford Creekside Conservation Area. This slide shows the extent of the designated heritage asset in pink that extends northwards and ends before Creek Road. And some photographs showing west and northwards within Creekside. This picture is pre Aston Heights prior to it being constructed, but this image serves to show us a wider view of Creekside with the APT building to the east, and a view from the eastern side and the vehicular and pedestrian entry route. And another view looking into the site towards the Cash and Carry, and with ArtHub to the right side, you can see the existing two-storey element which will be replicated within the proposal using reclaimed facing brick. Here's the ATP building, the main building that lies directly to the east, three-storey building with a single-storey gallery element to the front, and a single-storey building further to the south, and both accommodate artists' workspaces. And here's a view of the ArtHub building that will be forming part of the application going forward, albeit rebuilt, and lying adjacent to the Crossfields Estate. This is another aerial view of Lower Creekside looking southwards with Crossfields Estate, and some images on either side which shows the existing relationship between 559 Creekside and Wilshire House, and the proposal which follows a similar footprint on that northern boundary, albeit there will be increased height. Before we move on to the proposals, again, I'll just bring some members' attention that the Council was deemed to have failed the housing delivery test over the last three years. Those that fall below 75% of their target are now subject to the MPPF's tilted balance, which should be engaged in such cases, and tilts the balance in favour of approving an application for residential development. Whilst the tilted balance is engaged, the decision-maker can, with appropriate reasoning, refuse planning permission where, one, the application of MPPF policies that protect areas or assets of importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or, two, any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. In this case, the presumption, therefore, is that permission should be granted unless either of the above points apply. Before we look at the actual proposals, I'll show you some images of previous pre-application plans, the first being a nine-storey mixed-use building that was presented to officers back in 2021. Not entirely clear, this image, but the building was of greater height and was subject to reductions over the course of subsequent pre-applications. You can see here the footprints, as you'll see shortly, is very similar in 2022, what's being currently proposed, and you can see some elevation options. This shows the proposed layout of the development, which would occupy a larger area than the existing buildings positioned around an external courtyard below the established ground level. The existing footprint of the two-storey elements will be maintained with the removal of the existing boundary wall, and the eastern boundary line would be sited five metres further back to allow for a new footpath and loading bay. In terms of elevations, some views of the eastern and northern elevations, including the rebuilt two-storey element adjacent to the Crossfields Estate that will accommodate a ground-floor café and Commonwealth Student Kitchen at first floor. There's a student entrance on the eastern side, and the elevation sweeps round the corner to align with the building lines of 1 and 3 Creekside in the background. The building would be part five, part seven storeys above the established ground level with two further storeys below ground. And here's a view of the site from Wilshire House within the Crossfields Estate. Here's number 3 Creekside next to the development, with a shared employment and student entrance, with a visual showing the potential appearance of what that entrance would look like with decorative gates and murals. Further along we have a ground-floor employment space, and then some student amenity space before we wrap around the building towards the eastern entrance, and of course we have student accommodation on the upper floors. And some CGI's looking east to the western elevation, with articulation to the western elevation, no windows provided to avoid any negating of development potential to number 3. The southern elevation towards Deptford Church Street from 1 Creekside, and the eastern elevation and Crossfields Estate. There's a section plan which shows the full extent of the proposed works, so the established ground level of Macursa, with steps leading down to the courtyard and employment unit, so there'd be two storeys that would lie wholly below ground level that wouldn't be visible from the public realm, with the student accommodation on the upper floors. Some floor plans are showing ground floor entrances to the east and to the southern sides, in the employment unit, cafe and student amenity space, lower ground floor level, more student amenity space and commercial units, and at courtyard level, two more commercial units and bike and bin stores. And just these visuals on either side give you an impression of what this elevation would look like with large expanses of glazing and spiral staircase. Just looking quickly at the upper floors, first floor example, mix of studio units in blue, en-suite in green, smaller units, and an accessible wheelchair unit, and also amenity space for students and kitchens. And typical upper floor, again, so it's a bit blurry, but student unit type units with kitchens and smaller en-suite rooms that would benefit from use of the communal kitchens, and then there's 23 wheelchair accessible units on all floors. Again, just give you an impression of the layout of the studio units, these are the larger units that's been proposed, and these would be afforded kitchen areas, and for the en-suite units which are smaller, they wouldn't be afforded any kitchens, they would have full access of the communal kitchen areas. And here's a layout of the accessible studio unit, so there's 23 within the development. And the student amenity space at roof level, which comprises a mix of soft and hard landscaping with seating areas, access to the roof would be restricted between the hours of 10pm and 7am, no music would be allowed, students would also benefit from internal amenity spaces on the lower floors. Again, proposed landscaping on the rooftops, you can see the roof terrace, green living roofs, this area would provide for a green roof system, and this area here a brown roof system, and you can see the central courtyard at lower ground floor level with some planting, and the planting of a single tree within the public realm. In terms of facing materials, there'd be a predominant use of facing brick, with a mix of dark and light tones to reflect the industrial nature of Creekside, with aluminium framed windows to be installed. There'd also be use of perforated louvres, and metal fins would serve to restrict overlooking to the Wilshaw House residents, all facing materials would be subject to a plan application for further assessment. And the final image, the scheme would deliver four parking bays, two blue badge bays, one loading bay to the south, and another loading bay to the east, the other bays shown would be delivered in the future Creekside streetscape improvements works. So main planning considerations includes principle of development, urban design and heritage impacts, economic benefits and employment, transport impacts, impacts upon living conditions of neighbors, and natural environments and biodiversity. The public benefits arising from the scheme, the scheme would deliver substantive public benefits and it's considered that these outweigh the identified harms, these being a contribution to the borough's annual housing target and London's annual housing targets. The provision of student accommodation meets a proven London-wide need, the provision of modern flexible employment units, local labor and business strategy and financial contributions, a substantial still contribution towards infrastructure, public realm improvements and biodiversity net gains. The officer of recommendations to grant planning permission, subject to appropriate planning conditions and signing of a section 106 agreement. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. So having read the report and heard that presentation, do members of the committee have any questions at this stage? Councillor Muldoon? A quick question, a bit technical. Thank you for the very comprehensive report. It's about the affordable workspaces. I fully appreciate why you get so more value for money. Was the idea to have a sort of affordable rent for the workspaces for a finite period of time, say 10 years or in perpetuity? It would have been in perpetuity, so 10% of the overall floor space would be afforded to affordable workspace at the discount of market rates. Any other questions? Councillor Penfold? I have several, shall I just go one at a time? So when we're talking about the student accommodation, affordable rent, what does that mean? I read out the official London plan wording for that. So the student accommodation would include 80 affordable bedspaces, as you know, 35%, which is policy compliant. It would accord with the definition set out in the London plan, but essentially what it means is that the units would be provided at a rental cost for the academic year equal to or below 55% of the maximum income that a new full-time student studying in London and living away from home could receive from the government's initiatives. Okay, thank you. So one thing, you talk about the student accommodation, you say there's a London-wide need for this, and I notice that the London mayor has said we need that. Have you identified if there's a Lewisham need? Because, I mean, obviously there's a need for accommodation, but is there a need for student accommodation particularly? My understanding is that, yes, student accommodation was part of core strategy policy. There is a requirement for student accommodation in the borough, it's something that we do support. But yeah, the London plan does set out that there's 3,500 bed space requirement per annum across London. There isn't a particular cap for boroughs, it's about each borough contributing to that annual target. Okay, in our report, paragraph 597, we say that there's no risk of groundwater flooding. In the ATP presentation, which I appreciate hasn't yet been made but we've had copies of it, they say there is an issue with groundwater, so clearly somebody's not right there. Could you comment on that? There's been extensive discussions between the applicants and the environment agency over a number of months, hence why there's been a delay in bringing this case to committee. Also with our floods officer, our council officer, so there's been extensive discussions between all parties over the course of eight or so months and we've recently reached a point where the environment agency have raised no objections, they're satisfied with the details that have been submitted and provided by the applicants. In regard to the groundwater matter, I understand that there is a concern by a neighbouring occupier following earlier discussions. That is something that could be captured in one of the planning conditions, condition 15 could capture that in terms of the submission of further details, so that can be addressed at a later date. I think it's something we need clarity on, doesn't it, because there's clearly a difference of opinion. I mean, I don't know who's right, but what ATP are saying is with excavation, it could cause problems with the groundwater. The other thing was how is the building going to be supplied with water, because Thames Water in there have written to us, haven't they, and they've said following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing water network infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal. Thames Water have contacted the developer in an attempt to agree a position on water networks, but have been unable to do so in the time available, and as such Thames Water requests that the following condition be added to any planning permission. No development shall be occupied until confirmations are provided that either all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional demand to serve the development have been completed, or a development and infrastructure phrasing plan has been agreed with Thames Water to allow the development to be occupied. Could you comment on that, please? Yeah, condition 42 requires a submission of details, water supply infrastructure, you're correct that Thames Water have raised some issues, and I think that's going to require discussions between those two parties prior to submitting details to discharge this condition. So I think that's something that has to happen at some stage, and those details will be submitted to the Council will obviously consult with Thames Water to ensure that they're satisfied. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Rathbone. Thank you chair. I'd like to get some clarity around provision of disabled units and disabled parking spaces. My understanding is that was 23 wheelchair accessible units. What number of these will be affordable Will it be the standard 35%, or will it be a different split compared to the overall housing mix of affordable and standard units. Either I may have to come back to you on that matter or maybe the applicant can just clarify that off the top of my head I don't know that but I'll come back to you on that. Okay, thank you. My second question to follow up on this. My understanding is that there's no provision of disabled parking spaces for the disabled units, and that going by obviously the opposite report, the London plan standard 18 requires designated wheelchair accessible dwellings to have designated class parking space for wheelchair users is that correct. So the London plan policy t 6.1 refers to car parking for student accommodation overall so it says, essentially, purpose built student accommodation should be car free, which the scheme. Of course, with in terms of blue badge bays. The policy is silent on that. It doesn't say that blue badge bays should be provided for student or wheelchair bound students within the development. So, in this case, one parking by has been shown, and that would be used by the student occupies but that would be shared with members of the public who also have a blue badge. So won't be exclusive for students. So two blue badge bays have been provided the other one would be for the employment units. The council will take a strange approach to parking provision DMP 29 requires wheelchair parking to be provided in accordance with best practice standards and London plan so that 18 requires designated wheelchair accessible dwellings to our designated disabled car parking space so you're saying that there's a separate standard for student accommodation, would that override London plan standard 18, or would provision of wheelchair accessible dwellings require the provision also have disabled parking. Again we standard 18 refers to dwellings, which you would interpret as see three dwellings, and not PBS a purpose built student accommodation and say that the policy is silent in terms of policy T six. But that's, that's my understanding that there isn't a policy in place to secure blue badge bays for student accommodation. There isn't a policy requiring it specifically within a student purpose built accommodation. But there's obviously something nothing prohibiting it either. And the guidance is that we should follow best practice. And hence why the applicant has proposed a provision of a school be a single parking bay that would be allocated to students. But as I said that would have to be shared with members of the public because it's on the public highway, which of course means but it wouldn't actually be allocated. You can't allocate a parking bay to a student if they don't have reserved and unrestricted access to it. So saying that it's allocated to a student isn't actually true. Yeah, you're correct, not specifically, but a student would have use of the bay, if they so wish to use it. Thank you for those questions and answers. So Jeff we all right to come back to you maybe later on the, on the outstanding matter was part of that for now we'll come back to you in a second. Any further questions from members of the committee before we hear from the applicant team. Great, so I think we have representatives for the applicant here this evening. If you want to just come up to the table there. I believe we've got a number of people that wishing to address the committee, but also some of the people just on standby if technical questions come up on a particular area that they may be able to support with. So the two people that are addressing the committee want to come in and grab a seat there that would be great. Those three people. Thank you. Good evening councilors and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Alex Springer founder of Fifth State, and I'm joined by our partner Shanae Joyce from CA ventures and our planning consultant Rachel power for Montague Evans. We are grateful to have worked closely with the local community and Lushan Council to develop our proposals. We then met with our occupy our hub studios to understand their needs. They explained the building was problematic in its current condition, and parts of the building were unusable. Our hub management completed an artist survey to establish studio requirements. We use this as a benchmark to design our spaces. We are appreciative of Deb and the art of teams continued support, we will continue working with them on their relocation strategy. Following this, we had multiple meetings with Trinity Laban, who explained that desperate need for new purpose built student accommodation. This shaped the mixed use proposals we present to you today. There are 3100 square meters of creative employment space. This is a 25% increase the existing area 231 student rooms with 35% of these available affordable rent, and a highly sustainable and efficient building with a, which is designed to bring them excellent value. From attending multiple cross fields estate resident meetings, we learned and actions valuable feedback, including lowering the height mitigating overlooking and noise and committing funding to tree planting through several meetings with Trinity, we understood her concerns in relation to loss of light and construction disturbance. We have demonstrated how reduction and setbacks to massing and preserve will preserve their immunity, and we will be creating a community liaison group to listen and communicate with all neighbors throughout construction phase. We appreciate this, the sensitivities of this site, and are working with construction team who has great experience in delivering developments in tight London locations, CA ventures have been developing, owning and operating student accommodations that were founded in 2004. Being a long term investor and operator, it is a core principle that we integrate into the local community, contributing positively to the provision of well designed inclusive and professionally managed housing students are accommodation is designed with residents well being in mind. We deliver places and spaces that go beyond the market standard with state of the art amenities to create a healthy sustainable and professionally managed living environment conducive for study. We currently operate 12 sites in the UK and Ireland totaling over 4000 beds, with a further three sites plan to launch in 2025, including translate road in new cross. Each have a dedicated student safety and well being management team, and a tried and tested move in move out strategy which will result in minimal impact for local residents. We are pleased to have partnered with Trinity and the band who have worked with us to design proposals which address their specific requirement for new and essential student accommodation. Although they are unable to attend tonight. We're delighted that they that they have submitted a letter of support copies of which we have here should you wish to read it. We hope to repay their support by developing and managing best in class accommodation that they are proud to occupy in 2026. We welcome the offices recommendation for approval, which is a result of over two years of positive pre application engagement with your planning design heritage and transport offices, and the design review panel. The scheme will deliver many significant benefits, including economic benefits, such as the creation of a 200 direct jobs as well as jobs during construction, a payment in lieu of 130,000 pounds towards the provision of affordable workspace and bringing in approximately 3 million pounds a year to the local area in terms of student expenditure. There are social benefits such as addressing the shortfall in student housing supply and contributing to the boroughs overall housing targets, a community art fund of 20,000 pounds to commission local artists to create public art, and a co working community cafe on the ground floor, working with circle collective, we will host exhibitions for local artists free of charge, and environmental benefits, such as achieving a biodiversity net gain of 100% 30 seconds left pavement widening and contributions towards Creekside improvement works, and a contribution towards additional tree planting. We hope this is a scheme you're able to support this evening. We are joined by members of our consultant team and happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much for that. Before I open it up to questions from committee, are you able to answer that question that Councillor Rathbone had about the the affordability mix of the, the amount of affordable units that make up the accessible units. Yeah, we believe in inclusivity and equality and it will be 35% of the wheelchair accessible units as affordable. Thank you for that. Any questions from members of the committee. Councillor Rathbone. Thank you, Chair, it's a relatively simple one. What happens if one of the wheelchair residents has a motorbility vehicle. Across our portfolio. There is a very very low percentage of his sudden 4.5% of our rooms, which are even wheelchair accessible units which are led to wheelchair users. If there is, and they have a car, then they will get use of that space. Could you just clarify that first this is what percentage of your wheelchair accessible units elect to wheelchair users is, is this a very low percentage across our portfolio 4000 beds, the actual wheelchair users actually take the wheelchair units. I'm not sure that answered your question and maybe my colleague could help. Well, it's, um, it's obviously led to an additional thought for me which is why are we counting visas wheelchair units for delivery purposes if they're not going to be rented to wheelchair, I obviously understand that 10% delivery doesn't have to match it, but I mean saying that they're going to have access to that parking space if for someone who needs it, if the wheelchair user was a motorbility vehicle which is not uncommon. You know the 700,000 people in the UK who have motorbility units. I know many individuals. When I was at university who was studying you have motorbility vehicles and when wheelchairs. I know how essential they are. I'm saying that they're going to have access to a car parking space which has been acknowledged to be in public realm and not reserved for, you know, residents who are in wheelchairs. I'm not sure how that meets the London plan so it's been explained, obviously by officers but there's a separate standard and it should follow guest practice but the report also says best practices to guarantee the delivery of wheelchairs I understand the question, I think the answer is fairly clear, I'm just not necessarily satisfied with the answer. Thank you for that. Any further questions. Councillor Baldoon. I'm going to ask about your student catchment. You've obviously got close links with Trinity 11. It's not an exclusive tie though is it, if they couldn't supply enough students you'd be able to offer rooms to people from the many other educational establishments in Lewisham, Southwark, Greenwich. Absolutely right. And there's a huge demand from the Greenwich University. I think it's 3.9 students per one purpose built student room so it totally outweighs the amount of purpose built student accommodation so what they're doing is they're living in family homes as HMOs, and they're taking away family homes, which should be different family homes. We have a very strong relationship with Trinity a band I can see there's a photo on the wall of their homes, which is literally 100 meters down our roads. And they, yeah, we, they would, we're agreeing terms with them that we think they're a perfect products are on the same road as us under 150 meters down the road so they've been a great supporter to us they've helped us design the scheme because they really need that accommodation for the 26 year. Councillor Penfold. Yeah. Thank you for your presentation. I'm reading the sunlight and daylight reports. The art studio and APT is going to be detrimentally affected, to some extent by by the your building. And I know there's been some discussion about fifth state compensating compensating APT with brighter gallery lighting. I wonder whether you would make some commitment to assist them with that, should this be agreed. It's a real hard one because we've, it's almost paying someone for us developing paying a neighbor, we don't usually pay neighbors offer if there's. I'm wondering if it's proven that there's more disturbance or lighting than what we're already showing in our reports which I would like to bring up my daylight sunlight specialist here who who's written the reports and done a huge amount of studying. And I think that could be a consideration later down but it's a hard one that one is a hard one. Councillor Penfold we do have they do have a daylight and sunlight and specialist here I don't know if you want to ask them a question on this matter. I think the reports fairly clear on there there is some effect on APT buildings, and a detrimental effect they lose some daylight and sunlight. It's an art gallery. It's fairly simple will fifth state, provide lighting to compensate for that, I don't I don't see what's so difficult about that. It's just a yes or no really. Can I just jump in from a, from a planning perspective, under planning policy there's no specific policy requirement that necessitates testing the daylight and sunlight impacts on commercial buildings non residential buildings. So I think it would be quite hard in planning policy terms to justify why that should be a section one or six contribution, because it doesn't seem reasonable or necessary to mitigate the proposals we've we've tested it because we wanted to work with APT to show them what the results would be to be open and honest about it but I think we would struggle in terms of providing a financial contribution just on legal grounds. So I understand it's not a planning matter, but it was just a point that I raised I think I'm entitled to ask the question. And I would thought, as a gesture of goodwill towards your neighbors, it might be something you consider, but that would apparently appear not to be the case. Any further questions. Thank you very much for your time, and do have a seat we might come back to you a little bit later. Thank you. Okay, so now we're going to hear from some objectors and resident objectors who have a collective five minutes to address the committee so if you'd like to come up and have a seat in the space where the applicant team were before. And as before, it'd be really helpful if you could just quickly introduce who you are and your relationship to the application, and I will give you notice when you've got 30 seconds left and do divide up the time as you want. Okay, and have you ready. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to speak at this planning meeting. My name is David blow I'm an artist to APT and my name is Sarah Washington on the. Um, yeah, as introduction after the last planning application we raised objections that the developer completely ignored us, despite us being marked as a stakeholder on one of their maps in the glossy brochure. And that was the last mention of us, the developers fail to sustain a meaningful relationship with our input to the trust. This is despite the express wishes of the planning department for them to do so. A PPT were totally excluded from the initial process. The first meeting, June the 20, June 2023. Five months after key stakeholder meetings took place. The last meeting was in January 2024, no communication and no response from questions raised. We had an initial meeting with them we raised lighting issues. They responded with that they didn't have to provide us with any details because we're a commercial property, we, we said, well, maybe if we were a commercial greenhouse we'd be given some consideration. And that the fact that artists totally rely on light and like quality is relevant. We also have a public gallery. That's free to access to all everyone really. They sent us a Google based light survey. Despite TerraTech having a London based office, they couldn't seem to make it to Deptford. So they've been correctly identified studios as having no windows. Those studios benefit from having roof lights. There's no assessment for our gallery whatsoever. The report fails to acknowledge the impact on APT's public gallery space. It doesn't even mention it despite our concerns directly highlighted during our meeting with the developers. They even took photographs inside the gallery while they were there. Our gallery is well regarded amongst visitors and exhibitors due to its fairly unique levels of natural daylight. This was also witnessed by the developer. They mentioned that the gallery has a solid roof and solid metal shutters. Clearly Google Earth satellite passed over when the gallery was closed. Behind the metal shutters is a large plate glass window. Flooding was an issue for us. We have considerable evidence that there is a known issue with groundwater. The groundwater levels on site are normal but twice a day the tide comes in and lifts the ground levels beyond our lower ground floor studios. This first started occurring in 2007-2008 and we've done an awful lot of testing on site and commissioned a report. The developer plans to remove two storeys by digging down and that's potential groundwater storage capacity. Also the initial plans for the building, I think they contain suds and rainwater capture, those have been left off of this site. So after conversations with the Environment Agency last week they confirmed with APT that developers must adhere to National Planning Policy Framework which states that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking into account the vulnerability of the users without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Their scheme doesn't do it, it puts a lot of pressure on us. We discussed with them the loss of income because during construction we don't have a gallery program which we book a year in advance. Next year will be our 30th anniversary and already the year is booked out. We have no agreement in place on how they can mitigate. Sorry, that's five minutes. Thank you very much for those contributions. Do stay there for a moment because we might have some questions for you. Just before I open it up to the rest of the committee, I know you said you talked to Fifth State about compensation for those new bright lights. Did you actually put a quote to them? Did you actually cost how much that would be? No, not at this stage. Sorry, can you hear me? I can't do it yet. Oh hang on, sorry, I think you need to press the button in the middle until the red light comes on. There we go. Wow, magic. So we did initially start a good relationship with Alex last year and had a really good and positive initial first meeting in June. We then had an onsite meeting in the gallery with Nathan Best and talked through a number of considerations that might help reduce the impact on some of the concerns that we had. I think Nathan then left the company, so I had the same conversation with Alex at the beginning of this year, which sounded positive, but we haven't had any further conversation about what that looks like. So we're not at the stage yet where budgets have even been talked about. It was just an initial thought process of this is what's happening with the building. Let's try and create good relations, therefore, is there anything that you can do to help reduce the impact? And that's where the conversation is currently left. Thank you. Before I go to members of the committee, do you want to come back on any of those comments raised by the resident objectors? Yes, I think we dealt with the groundwater issue in terms of planning conditions should resolve that matter. The roof lights to the single story gallery. So an assessment was made of the commercial building, following discussions at local meeting last year. So the applicants had undertaken a residential assessment of neighbouring dwellings, and then followed that up with an assessment of the two arts hub buildings and obviously it's come to light today that the, I don't know what you call them really, but let's call them roof lights, the plastic nature, weren't assessed as part of the wider assessment. I think maybe the Sunlight Daylight consultant here can maybe go into a bit more detail, but my understanding is that because of the location of the roof lights and the slant that they're not directly facing the development. They don't have to form part of the assessment. That's what my understanding of the situation is. So because it's receiving light directly from above, rather than being impacted by the development in place directly opposite. So that's my understanding. Like I said, maybe the Sunlight Daylight consultant can give us more information on that. But I think the BRII standards are quite clear that it sets out that consideration should be afforded to residential occupiers. It does suggest that employment commercial usage should also be considered, where there would be an impact. But I think we do have to acknowledge that BRII's guidance and there's no policy that requires an assessment of employment and commercial units. And is there no option of adding in an informative of any type to encourage the developer to engage with APC to perhaps come to some sort of agreement? So in terms of? Is there the possibility of perhaps adding in some kind of informative to encourage the developer to engage, to perhaps come up with some sort of compensatory agreement? I mean, perhaps that's something that we can consider, perhaps? I would say, obviously, by way of informative, it's no doubt that we can impose such an informative to have those discussions as to what comes out from it. That's very much an agreement between the developer and the adjacent landowner. We can't offer any sort of guarantees or end outcomes. I guess it's just continuing those initial discussions in which they've had and just continue those through. Not only that, but also the other concerns, such as the impacts during the construction, demolition, et cetera, and how it impacts on their ability to function as a business, as an art gallery. So I think it's just simple continuation of that dialogue and discussions during and before the actual construction. Can I ask you to have a think about the appropriate wording for that? Maybe we'll come back to that a bit later. Thank you. Any questions from the committee? Councillor Penfold? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, question to the objector. You say that the daylight and sunlight report is incorrect because it fails to identify that there's ground floor windows. Can you explain that for me a bit? I mean, the mental frontage of APT, there's four studios that have direct access to light through roof lights that haven't been assessed. The assessment says that they are studios without lights, but ask the artists and they'll say they're kind of reliant on that sunlight. Also by assessing the gallery as having a metal shutter, that doesn't make any sense to us because obviously when it's closed it's a metal shutter, when it's open it's a big plate glass window that covers the entire, the front of the gallery. So why that wasn't assessed? I mean, you can kind of say to someone using Google Earth, okay, so you made a mistake, but not when the developer was in the building and when they first met with us, they knew the situation. So it seems a bit crazy for them to not tell TerraTech, hang on a minute, you haven't even assessed the gallery. That's got a big plate glass window. When we were in there it was really sunny. It doesn't make any sense. Okay, thank you for that. So when you're talking about the roof lights, are they the slanted ones that Jeff was talking about, the officer was talking about? Are they slanted? That's right, so I've provided you all with an image because visually it's important to see and on the image of the gallery you can see the... Sorry, if you're not speaking would you just turn the microphone off? It just picks up the sound online, sorry. Carry on, sorry. On the picture of the gallery view you can see the sections of the roof that have a certain material that allow the light in. There are nine big sections in the gallery that allow that front space to be quite awash with natural daylight and it's the same material that's used in the studio at the front of the building. So each of the studios at the front of the building have the same material used on the roof that allows the natural light to come through. Could I ask for the light expert to comment on that please? Would the light expert just like to come in and address us on that issue? If I could just ask maybe if you would all move on one seat, I think now would be a good time to bring in your contributions. Thank you. Hello, my name is Nigel Mann, Tetra Tech. Yeah, let me maybe just explain a couple of things. So it's correct that the guidance does say that it can be used for commercial properties, but it only uses that in terms of methodology. The most important thing to consider here is that we've looked at the vertical windows on the what we call the southern building, so the one further south. That's the one that has a very slight effect as a result of the building of the development. However, if it was a residential property, it would meet the criteria. There is no criteria for commercial properties. If it was residential, it would meet the criteria for BE standard. And that's those windows that are facing vertically. We then after the visit, we then went on to assess all of the spaces within both of those buildings. And those that includes the recessed the original building, if that makes sense, which is where there could potentially be an effect. However, that is very, very negligible and again meets the criteria. What we've got here is that this building is south of the development. So there is no there's no shading because the sun is coming from from from the south. And the effect of the mass of the building is is this very, very small amount that's well below the criteria if it was a residential. Just with regard to the roof lights. So the way that if you were to assess it, which is what we've done out of respect to show that we're happy to look at this. You always look at a perpendicular plane because that's you're looking at one of the criteria is how much sky there is, how much sky you can see from the window. And because these flights are almost horizontal or they would all meet the criteria because they go straight up to the sky. And so the criteria is about how much sky can be seen. That's one of the first criteria is that we look at. So. So, yes, we we you know, the front area with the roof lights was assumed to be to not have windows. But even if we had assessed them, they would they would all pass automatically because of the direction that they're in. Just in terms of that front entrance, that's recessed. And so because of that recess, by the time the angle would come down from the sunlight, it would fall on the on the on the entrance step. Thank you very much. Thank you for that contribution. And just before you go, do any members just want to follow up on that at all? Thank you very much for your time. Cheers. And. Do members have any further questions for objectors? Obviously, we have more time later to deliberate if we if we want to ask any further questions. Thank you very much for your time. If you would have a seat. OK, so I believe we've got Councillor Rosie Parry in attendance who would just like to say a few words on on on this application. Councillor Parry, there's no set time limit for you, but please do bear in mind everyone else had that five minute time limit. Thank you. Don't worry, it will be a mercifully brief one for me tonight. I just want to speak about one really specific aspect of the application, which was so when the development was kind of first on the cards, the first people that reached out to us. And indeed, I think the only people that reached out to us is the ward councillors, the art hub who obviously currently occupy the site, which is where they let affordable art studios. They're absolutely a real community asset and something that we're really keen to protect and kind of whatever form that takes. So over the last sort of year and a half, two years almost now, I think we've done a lot of work as ward councillors and obviously a massive thanks to council officers who have also been very involved in working with both Fifth Estate and Art Hub and the council to sort of find a situation or a solution that's going to work to keep Art Hub in debt for long term while assuming that the development does go ahead. I think to be fair, Fifth Estate have engaged in that very well. And we've sort of explored a few different options depending on what funding might have been available to Art Hubs. There's been a bit of back and forth, but if they would get arts council funding, there was one project that looked quite promising then. And I think I certainly don't want to speak for Art Hub, but the solution that's kind of been arrived at wherein that they'll sort of forfeit the affordable space that they would have had on the new development for financial aid to make a meanwhile space at Mornington Work is a really workable solution. I think is one that everyone's kind of as happy as they can be with. So I do want to say that I think a lot of work has gone into sort of arriving at a workable situation to keep Art Hub and keep a really kind of vital community asset, both local to Deptford and sustainable for the sort of medium term. So that was just my only contribution from a ward councillor level tonight. Obviously, if anyone has any questions, I will try to answer them as best I can. Thank you, Councillor Parry. Anyone want to follow up on that? Thank you very much for that contribution. Okay, so we've heard from various people involved or affected by this proposed development. Do members of the committee have any further questions they want to ask of the case officer, of the applicant team, of residents that are going to be affected by this development? No. Do members of the committee have any proposals at all? Councillor Penfolds? I suppose it's a question on the proposal. I mean, there seems to be three issues. I can say there's the groundwater issue, which I think needs to be resolved by condition. I think that needs to be part of any decision. There's the issue of compensation to APT and I know you've spoken about that as well and it would be good if we could have a full of words on that. And I do wonder, I mean, Councillor Rathbone makes a good point about the disabled parking and whether there is any scope for there to be any further bays installed. I don't know whether that's possible. Thank you, Councillor Penfold. If we just maybe think about those things in turn. I think the issue around flood risk is really addressed already with a condition. Geoff, can I just come back to you again just to talk us through how you think that condition, if you think that condition, sorry, will address, Councillor Penfold's concern. Yes, Condition 15, surface water. I'll just read it out quickly. No development above ground level. Shall I commence on site? I'm just wondering if maybe we could put some direct wording in there in regard to groundwater. So it's included directly. If that would give you some surety, perhaps. Yeah, that seems to be possible, groundwater. Yeah, so if it's referred to specifically. Yeah, I mean, that wording seems to make sense. It's all interrelated anyway. No development above ground level. Shall I commence on site until a scheme for surface water management, including specifications of the surface treatments and sustainable urban drainage solutions has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. So it is included. Microphone, Councillor Penfold. From what I've read, I'm no expert on this, my understanding with groundwater is it's a problem when you dig down and you're doing foundations and basements. So it would need to address that, wouldn't it? Can we just add in that phrase, including groundwater flooding? We could do that. I can see if that gives you some surety that it will be captured. Hang on, hang on. Sorry, you can't come up and ask, actually, maybe I will come back to you at some point. Sorry about that. Jeff, carry on, sorry. Yeah, I was just saying if it gives you some surety, I don't know if Rachel's come across something there which would assist with that wording, but as far as I'm aware, it has been assessed by the environment agency. They haven't objected following long discussions and our floods officer is satisfied. So I imagine that's been considered, but it will be considered further as part of this planning condition. Great. Councillor Penfold, do you want to ask a question to the applicant team on this issue? Yeah, I just, I mean, I suppose we can deal with that, Rachel, on that point. I was just going to suggest there's also condition 33, Jeff, which also deals with surface water drainage, but it talks about drainage into the ground. So I was wondering whether a combination of both conditions or one of them say that it's fully covered in terms of groundwater. We could consider the two. Can you read out 33 to me? So that's titled surface water drainage in two parts and no drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground are permitted other than with the written consent of the local planning authority in consultation with the environment agency. We could add groundwater into that. OK, so I think the conclusion is we're just going to use make sure the words groundwater flooding are used within those two conditions. We all have to just do that. That's really clear. And the second thing I think that Councillor Penfold raised and is still kind of outstanding was just the concerns that resident objectors have raised about the impact of the current commercial activities. Aaron, did you come up with any potential wording you might want to run by us that would work in planning terms as best as possible? Obviously, this is obviously this is additional informative. I was thinking along the lines to the fact that the applicant strongly recommends to engage with APT to mitigate any potential impacts from the demolition construction of the consent scheme. Prior to this mission of details pertaining to any relevant condition attached to the decision notice. There are conditions that have been recommended by offices within the agenda pack, such as the demolition construction management plan, consider construction, consider a scheme. So before those specific details are to be submitted and finalized by officers at the council. I think it's quite important, given the concerns expressed by APT to hold and continue discussions with the applicant's team. So any details capture any sort of mitigation within those conditions? What do you think about that, Councillor Penfold? I think that's good as far as it goes. The only point was that, and this may be contentious, is that APT is saying that they will have to put in lighting for some studios because of a loss of light. And so whether you're just talking about demolition and construction, aren't you? Not ongoing loss of light. Could we add in there, Aaron, and to include the possibility of any compensation for in terms of improved lighting due to the loss of light of the development? Is that something we could include in that informative? I know perhaps what you're saying is it might not necessarily be, it's not necessarily going to be legally enforceable, but it would be good to have in there and I can't see how it would. It's only going to help, isn't it? That's something we can add as additional wording to the same informative. As you said, it's not guaranteed that will be the outcome in the form of a financial contribution between the two parties, but that is definitely one suggestion and a recommendation to be contained in the same informative. Please do add that, thank you. What was the third thing that you mentioned, Councillor Penfold? I can't read my writing, sorry. The disabled parking spaces, I don't know if this is possible at all. Just going to officers, I think my understanding is, from what you've said, that the proposal is policy compliant but might not be best practice. Is there anything that you can suggest as officers to improve outcomes on that situation, Geoff or Aaron? Parking in Creekside is already quite acute. I don't think there's an opportunity for an additional space to be provided. Obviously there's no off-street parking possible in this case. So there are difficulties in providing additional spaces above the one space that's been provided or proposed. I think that's something we're all going to have to agree is perhaps undesirable but not something we can do about it. Councillor Rathbone? Thanks, Chair. I've just been reading the relevant guidance in the London Plan on this and also comparing it to the previous 2016 London Plan guidance, which obviously is no longer relevant. And officers are right, the current 2021 Plan guidance is a lot weaker than what was in 2016. I think we probably could have grounds here based upon the way that it's written. So the key paragraph seems to be 10.6.10, which does obviously, it allows for car-free development not to include disabled parking as part of provision, but it does require it then has to be fully assessed and demonstrably consistent with the inclusive design principles. And I didn't find anything in the applicant's documents which suggested that they had justified it or given it proper consideration. It seemed to simply have just been not considered at all. My question really about officers would be how this would contrast with the tilted balance element. Is this an area of policy non-compliance? Yes, I think it probably is. And it's also one which I have over the last six years consistently run up against the fact that provision for the disabled is always an afterthought in residential development. But we have the tilted balance to consider. And my understanding is that that would probably outweigh the non-compliance and I'm seeing the legal officer nod her head. So is this a thing in different circumstances where I'd say we want to make a fight over this because the disabled shouldn't be forgotten about and treated as an afterthought? Yes. But do we under current circumstances have a sufficiently strong legal basis to do so when we've not met the 75% housing delivery and as such have different rules applying? Thank you for that. So we've we've made some tweaks to the conditions in terms of flood risk. We're adding in an informative to try and encourage the developer to ensure a good dialogue, including the possibility of some compensation for loss of light in terms of light equipment. I think probably as a committee, we're in agreement that whereas we don't we don't find the parking situation best practice or ideal, maybe James is suggesting he doesn't necessarily think it's policy compliant. But we think actually that there's nothing we can particularly do about that. Councillor Penfold. I just wondered on that point when the officer made the presentation, he made the point that it will be a general disabled parking bay so that anyone, whether they're a student or not, could use it. Could could the bay not be reserved for people from that building? That would that would that would be something because it's a highway. And that's a requirement that has to be shared between. Essentially, the applicants not actually providing any disabled parking. Lewisham council is providing some disabled parking. I think that we've got to remember the design of the building as is that there's no tweak that can be can be made. I think we've I think we need to draw a line under under that. I think we were clear. Okay. I think we've had quite a good discussion on this application now. Do members want to put forward any proposals? Councillor Muldoon. Thank you. I propose that we accept the officer recommendation subject the conditions. And is that's including the informative as well. And informative. And that's the edited condition. Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Penfold. Okay, we'll do we'll go to a vote now and we'll do it by a show of hands. So all those that are in favour of accepting officers recommendations with the tweaked condition and the added informative. If you would raise your hands. Okay, so that's unanimous. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone, for your time this evening. And do feel free if you were here for this item to leave. Just going to pause the meeting for a few minutes just for a quick comfort break if anybody needs it, needs it. But we'll be very quickly moving on to the next item. Next item on our agenda, which is 135 Minard Road. And so we're going to hear a presentation as before from a case officer to begin with whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good evening again, members. Item number four on the agenda relates to a plan application at 135 Minard Road located within Hither Green Ward in the south of the Boer. This is a retrospective plan application, which seeks only the retention of a single storey extension at the rear of the property. There have been neighbour objections relating to the use of the property as a small housing multiple occupation and associated disturbances. However, members are advised that the application of what before you tonight relates only to the single storey extension. So the application property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling that lies on the east side of Minard Road. Some overhead images which were taken prior to the construction of the rear extension property here. There's also an existing rear roof extension that isn't shown in this image. The property benefits from a front driveway that can accommodate at least one parked vehicle and there's a sizeable rear garden. There's once an original outhouse which has since been demolished and steps down from the former kitchen. Properties on either side have not been extended. This is a photograph of the flat roofed brick face extension that we are considering tonight. It measures the depth of three metres from the rear wall and the height of three point one seven five metres spanning the full width of the property. This was constructed in the summer of two thousand twenty three without the benefit of planning permission. The pre-existing internal layers of the property prior to the extension are shown here on the left with the building mentioned with the property formally accommodating three bedrooms on the first floor. The plans here show the three metre deep extension accommodating two rooms and two on suites with the property laid out as a small six roomed HMO including a room within the roof space and two communal kitchens. Members are advised that the property benefits from a HMO licence that was issued in July twenty twenty three prior to the introduction of the borough wide Article four direction in January twenty twenty four, which requires planning permission for all new HMO accommodation, including small HMOs of less than seven separate persons. Therefore, an assessment of the HMO accommodation is not necessary as the existing HMO predates the Article four and so does not require the benefit of planning permission. As advised earlier in this presentation, the current application proposal relates only to the retention of the single storey rear extension. Some pre-existing and existing front and rear elevations of the property, including the former outhouse, the existing single storey rear extension and the existing rear roof extension, which does not form part of this application. And pre-existing and existing side elevations of the former outhouse and the existing rear extension. So, the main issues relate to the design, the appearance and scale of the extension and whether it appears suitably subordinate to the host property and the resulting harm upon neighbour immunity. As advised, the HMO use does not form part of this assessment. The officer recommendation is to grant retrospective planning permission in this case, subject to appropriate conditions. Thank you.

• Thank you very much. Having read the report and listened to that presentation, do members of the committee have any questions at this stage? Councillor Penfolds?
• I mean, I suppose it's not a direct planning consideration. Do we know the extension? Is it, it seems to have two back doors. Is there two separate rooms there, do we know?
• Yeah, if I'll just share my screen again. So, there are two separate rooms there. I see that, so there's the two doors split into two. So, I'm looking at that plan, there seems to be existing, it just make existing rooms bigger, is that right? 'Cause the extension's a bit sticking out the top.
• Yeah, so as I say, this is the previous layout of the property, typical small kitchen, dining room, through lounge, without building. Yeah, so three, I'd say the out building's been demolished, and three metres, and across the back of the property. So yeah, it's provided these two rooms of 17 square metres, soon being used as bedrooms with en-suites.
• Thank you very much. Councillor Rathbone?
• Thank you, Chair. So, obviously with this extension, you've now got it so that the rear garden of the property, which previously was presumably communal, has now been limited to access to only two of the HMO units. Would that be policy compliant? So, as a six unit HMO, only two have access to outdoor amenity space. Are there any requirements for such in policy?
• To answer that particular question, I guess what we consider in front of members tonight is, it's not the residential quality of the HMO, as the case officer has confirmed or went through his presentation. This is very much about how members consider the retention of the existing single storey rear extension, in relation to the material planning considerations. Those two are design and appearance, and neighbour amenity. As part of the HMO requirements, obviously the applicant obviously obtained a HMO licence, in which certain rigorous HMO regulations would have to be here to, in order to obtain that particular licence last year.
• My apologies for any confusion. I wasn't referring to within the HMO licensing scheme, I was referring in relation to areas of planning policy. Obviously, there are standards in planning policy about access to amenity space. And I understand that we're only judging this section. My question was really about whether or not this extension, by removing outside amenity space from all but two of the HMO sublet units, has made other parts of the property possibly policy non-compliant.
• As I said, we are considering the application, in front of all, based on what I've just said in terms of material considerations. At the same time, had this been, say, a new application for a new HMO, yes, we would apply the residential quality, and those policies will revert back to the HMO standards, in which officers would adhere to those particular standards.
• Thank you. Do we have a representative, do we have the applicant or representative of the applicant here tonight? No, okay. Now we will hear from some resident objectors. I believe we have one individual online, James Turner, and we have somebody else here in person, if you want to grab a seat. My understanding is you've decided to divide the five minutes up in half, so two and a half minutes each, is that right? Brilliant. So if you'd both introduce yourself just before you start your two and a half minutes and your relationship to the application, that would be great. Whenever you're ready. Microphone, thank you.
• Is that okay? I'm Helen Mortimer, I live next door at 133 Minard Road, and with James, we're representing the 12 residents who have submitted objections.
• James, do you want to introduce yourself?
• I'll just introduce myself, hopefully my microphone's working. My name is James Turner, I live on Minard Road.
• Okay, may I start? To fully address this objection, it's impossible not to raise the dishonesty and evasion of local council rules and regulations by these developers. If due process had been followed, it is highly likely that this development would not have been completed before the article four directive became law. The speed of the development, the knowledge of how to avoid council rules show a developer that is highly experienced, and one who is well aware that the extension did not meet permitted development regulation. Additionally, the retrospective planning application is full of false and misleading information and had to be resubmitted, yet this has not triggered a re-consultation period. The ground floor extension has been deemed unlawful by your own planning department. It looms over neighboring gardens, compromising privacy and blocking light. Neighboring extensions avoid these issues by reducing their boundary wall height, and it must be embarrassing to councilors to see the report site supporting examples of extensions that are completely inaccurate. This property has been developed without thought to your constituents and solely for the financial gain of the developer, and to grant its permission ignores the reality of its impact and would be a moment of failure. The report states that there has been no antisocial impact, yet antisocial behavior has been demonstrated by developers from the outset, who sent a woman to pretend she'd bought the house to be a family home, who pretended to have appointed a party wall surveyor, and who broke fences and failed to prepare them as they had promised. Not to mention poor safety practices by builders, including my daughter narrowly being missed by falling debris. We have been repeatedly told that a party wall agreement is a civil matter, yet it is law and Lewisham Council's own website says it's necessary for an HMO license to be granted. Yet when queried, the council denied it was the case, so why does it remain on the website? Councilors, how in good conscience can you approve this application? To consider those that behave in this way as fit and proper to operate an HMO is equally astonishing. A license, I may add, which has not yet been granted, despite the committee report stating it was in July 23. So many Lewisham residents are facing these issues from developers and you have a responsibility to recognize this deliberately unlawful practice and reject this application. Thank you. James. Good evening Councilors. I'm an architect and resident on Minard Road living 10 houses along from both number 135 and 93 Minard Road, both HMOs that have misrepresented to the council and posed as a family dwelling. The Corbett Estate is an area of good quality family housing, and whilst more homes are needed, carving up properties into six more bedsits is not the solution. What is happening here and across the borough is simply unacceptable with developers motivated by money breaking the rules to get what they want and permitting this application just sends them the message, carry on, it's okay. The committee report is full of inaccuracies. Paragraph 12 states a HMO license was granted in July 2023. This is still not the case. No HMO license has been granted. I've just checked the website. The property has been used as a HMO, unlicensed, with an unlawful extension. Now consulted this application has 12 formal objections from surrounding households fed up with the upturn in HMOs. Paragraph 11 states that the enforcement is for an unauthorized HMO use and ground floor extension. Both points should be upheld. Paragraph 14 states the extension is the maximum height of three meters. The applicant's own drawings states measurement of 3.175, therefore uncompliant with policy. Paragraph 17 notes that plans have been submitted only after residents objected to the intentional misrepresentation of the application for a kitchen, dining, family room. Despite the applicant at the time only using the property as a HMO. New drawings submitted on the 23rd of January seek consent for a HMO using this unlawful extension, which is not in line with policy despite what the report states and should now be considered under Article 4. This scheme is clearly not of high quality design. The case officer incorrectly cites other examples of relevant examples of how it complies with policy. Number 129 has a conservatory so isn't relevant. Number 127 is not extended but infilled with no change in height and number 139 has extended but only serves to highlight what should have been submitted to conform with Lewisham's own SPG for extensions and alterations with a floor level low by one meter to minimize the otherwise overbearing nature. The extension at 135 does not step down as a result is overbearing and clearly not of high quality design, you only have to look at the picture before you right there, and is actually circa three and a half meters or more when viewed from the garden. We have pictures that we can circulate regarding this. This is the point and having policies and law in place if people are just allowed to break them. You have a choice here to listen and set a precedent by refusing this application and stopping HMOs like this being spread all over Lewisham. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's exactly five minutes. Brilliant. And can I just ask officers to come back on some of the points raised by by residents. There's three that stand out for me I mean the first of all I know we don't want to get too bogged down with the use, because that isn't really our consideration tonight, but we've got residents suggesting that there isn't a HMO license and the report it says that there was a HMO license granted in in July 2023. And we've also got the claim about the height being 3.175 meters and not three meters as stated in the report, if you could comment on that. And then also there was the claims about other nearby extensions 129 127 and 139, not necessarily being quite as described as they are in the report. I don't know Jeff I'm not sure if you can comment on those three things to answer your first question. The Council's website that does have a record of registered HMO license and properties. I can confirm whether it's up to date, but what I can confirm is given the local communities concerns with HMO in general, in particular parts of the barber. We do take, we do take consideration their concerns, seriously, as part of assessing this application, officers have discussed the case with the planning enforcement team. Because there is currently an enforcement case against the site. And as part of the assessment in terms of the actual use, which I explained is not part of consideration, the enforcement officer or the team leader does have access to the formal HMO license records, the same records in which the HMO team operates within those parameters in issuing license, they confirm to me by way of email earlier this year, dated in February, that the property does have a HMO license. So, if you approach the HMO team, they will be able to disclose that information and provide proof. So, therefore, planning enforcement have also been on site to confirm the HMO use has been an occurrence since last year, and before the deadline of when the article for small HMO direction took effect in January of this year. In terms of the, to answer your second question regarding the heights, the case officer has rightly pointed out the correct height as part of his presentation. I think what confused the case officer in terms of the actual measurement of three meters in height was of the way the plans were interpreted, taken from the step. It's now recognized that, obviously, it's the high height at 3.175 meters, taken from the natural ground level of the rear garden. And the other examples in which the case officers has referred to in the report, they were very much about the character of the terrace, confirming that people have extended and altered their home, and therefore, this particular proposal is very much in keeping, rather than being at odds within the character of that particular street. Thank you. Do members of the committee want to ask the residents any questions? Okay. Is there anything you wanted to add there, based on what the officer said? Thank you. Yes, I do. I have an email. I don't know if you got the pack. I know Counselling sent it round from Sean Longley, who heads up the licensing department on the 26th of February, stating that there is no license in place. The website was updated in May this year. It still says there's no license. Unfortunately, Sean didn't respond when I emailed him this week. And we also, in the same pack, have pictures of the other properties, just to show you how different the extensions are. And in some cases, there is no extension. Thank you. Just going to officers, if there wasn't an HMO license, would that affect decision-making here tonight? And if so, how? I wouldn't say so, because what's been applied for in the description on development is clearly for the single-story extension. If the use was in question, then obviously that's subject to a separate application, separate discussion. It may be the case that that separate application has to be brought back to committee to determine should officers be minded to approve it. It has been investigated by our planning enforcement team for the past nine to 12 months in terms of its actual use. I've spoken to their team leader. They are adamant that it's a legitimate and lawful use as a HMO use in terms of how the property is commonly used and was used back last summer. So that's all I can say. Okay. Do members of the committee want to ask any further questions on that? Councillor Penfold? Yeah, I'm just trying to get this clear. There seems to be some considerable doubt as to whether there is an HMO license, given that the objector is saying that she got an email on 26th of February saying there wasn't a license, and you said you got an email in February, I don't know if it was after that, but saying there was a license. Obviously there's some doubt. Going back to the point that Councillor Rathbone made, that this extension presumably means that there is a loss of amenity for some of the occupants of the property because they will no longer have access to the garden. How does that impact upon this decision, assuming that there's no HMO license? As I said, the applications before members is not for the actual use itself. Therefore, officers cannot be seen to assess the residential quality, and that includes the amenity, external private garden being provided for the existing and future occupiers of the HMO units. So therefore, if members are seen to refuse an application on those grounds, then the Council will find it difficult to defend that on appeal, and we will just open the Council to a potential cost claim from the Inspector. Councillor Rathbone? So in section 5.3 of the report, paragraph 38, it says the decision should ensure that new development is appropriate, and takes into account the likely effect, high standards, sorry, I'm going to put it in the wrong sentence. It says that MPPF paragraph 135 sets an expectation that new development will be designed to create places but amongst other things have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Would we be able to produce, so if we were to put forward an argument that a development which took away access to outdoor amenity space to four residents of a property did not lead to a high standard of amenity for the existing and future users of that premises. Would that be an argument which would be sound under planning law? Based on my professional judgement, I would say no. That particular paragraph, I know it says amenity. Amenity can be interpreted in many ways, but my understanding of that paragraph in terms of the amenity interpretation would be general neighbour amenity, such as loss of daylight, sunlight, outlook, oversharding as part of the consideration in which it's been set out in the report. So what you're saying is the way the law has been written by national government means that we can consider the amenity of neighbouring residents but not residents of property itself. Correct, in terms of how that particular paragraph has been written in the way of preserving amenity. So does it mean that if this property doesn't have an HMO licence and this application is granted, will they now have a problem getting an HMO licence because of the lack of amenity for four of the residents? Or conversely, if there is an HMO licence in place, are they now potentially in breach of that licence because of this extension? At the moment, as I said, my understanding is there is a licence following internal discussions over the use. Obviously, if there's any breach in terms of that licence, that's a matter for the HMO licence team to follow up and investigate. But this application is only being considered only for the physical works that have been unlawfully carried out. So therefore, members are considering whether to regularise it by approving it as such. Okay. Just reminding everyone where we are in the meeting, we have just heard from resident objectors. Do members of the committee want to ask them any further questions? I can see they're both keen to contribute but it's up to the committee whether or not they want to ask them any questions. Councillor Athbone? Thank you, Chair. I don't have any questions for resident objectors. I've been looking to get some feedback from officers upon the quality of design. Obviously, one of the requirements of the London Plan and the Lewisham Plan is quality of design and obviously looking at the images in the report and also the images which were circulated by residents in their objections. I'd say that my personal view is that that's essentially a carbuncle and I certainly wouldn't consider it to be of high quality of design. Would quality of design constitute a legal grounds for refusal in your professional opinion? I would say yes because it's a material consideration as part of the assessment by officers. So if members do think the current design is not in character and would be at odds and doesn't meet the high quality bar, then yes, members can refuse it on design grounds. Thank you. Councillor Penfold, is this a question for the resident objectors? Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'd just like to ask the resident objectors, given the discussion we've just had, is there anything they wish to add to that? Do you want to ask that question to James? Yes, it's James who I was trying to direct you to. James? There's two parts. I'll keep the first one short, which is I suggest that on the point that's just been made about high quality design, obviously I've stressed that point as a professional and I'd like to think most people in the room would not consider this to be high quality design. I have been through the alterations and extensions SPG, there are a number of paragraphs that we could go through, which I suggest this is not conformant with, but I'll hold that point and we can do that if necessary. The other point, just going back to the HMO license, which is my second point, is that whether there is a HMO license in place or not, the only reason that HMO license is in place is because an extension has been built unlawfully. So counselors are granting potentially a unlawful extension that was built without planning, that isn't policy compliant, and as a result managed to get a HMO license before the Article 4. There's only one reason why a developer would avoid trying to go for planning at the time, because it was a rush job to get the thing in and built to get this so-called license that they may or may not have. So I just think it's just worth focusing on that point. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to ask the objectors to have a seat because we do have Councillor Ingleby who is going to address the committee. And as I said before, if you could just bear in mind that everyone else had that five minute time limit. Thank you. Whenever you're ready. Thank you, Chair. I think it's clear from what you've heard that this is a – although we're not dealing with a lawful development application, we're actually dealing with something with a much tougher tool here, which is the planning permission unlawful piece of planning that's now being looked at again. So I'm going to make four brief points. First of all, I would reiterate that in my opinion also this has not been licensed as an HMO. If you look on the one we've checked recently in the last half hour, it's not on the council website nor is it on the register, despite what's been written in the report. And the issues that we're talking about really arise and potentially the confusion that's sort of coming out has arisen from the fact that this HMO cloak has been there in these discussions up to this point. Conversely to the point about the HMO not being licensed, the height of the extension, the 1.75, it is actually on the council's planning portal on MR135EXA P01 Rev B, which specifically shows the height measurement on the drawings to be 3.175. So therefore it is uncompliant with council policy as has been stated. So we can't be throwing around two different numbers and accepting it. And on the width of this, the full width extension that would have been required for this extension, that would have been debated properly as I mentioned in a fuller planning, if this had gone through the proper planning process at the time, would have triggered an application and this would have been looked at properly. Just to reiterate what James was referring to, and I'm quoting from our own SPG, 4.2.3 rear extension should generally not be more than three meters deep for terraced or semi-detached properties. Under no circumstances should the extension take up more than half the depth of the original garden. And then looking at the, as has been referenced, Helen Mortimer has said, it's the committee clerk sent round, I believe the committee has seen this, the application with her pack of, has a number of appendices and in her pack, which I understand the committee clerk has sent round, to appendix four, there are a number of photographs which reiterate the issue of the poor design quality. If you have it on your laptop, I'll wave it from here, it's the photo with a swing in the foreground and you can very clearly see that there's a huge, and we're mentioning that amenity would be grounds for, a neighbour's amenity is a grounds for refusing. It's very clear that there's huge, the overlooking into the garden, into the neighbouring garden is very clear from that picture to a neighbour. The architects has dealt with the point about the discrepancies in the report comparing 127129 on this issue, so there's another problem with the report, I think you can see where I'm going with this. So incorporating these facts and the poor design and the neighbourhood amenity, there are grounds to refuse on this and I would urge refusal, but can I just add, coming back to my opening point about looking at lawful development and looking at the specific application we're looking at tonight. There's been a history of change, drawings, assertions, things being done differently right through this process, as Helen Mortimer made clear. It's like a sort of merry-go-round, the confusion over this is not an ancient moat, and it's very clear that this creates an issue which is a wider, I believe, and I'd like to point out this is a wider, and a very important, wider material planning issue, because if this kind of thing happens, if this is passed tonight, it's sort of hinting that this way of putting up, of doing an HMO project will be copied again in a situation where in Catford South and Hither Green they're already at or over the 10% that the May 22 Marian Cabinet report says is overcrowding of the density of HMOs in an area. Now I think, members, you have an opportunity tonight, because this is a specific nuts and bolts retrospective planning application that shouldn't have been put up, you have an opportunity to put a case of planning precedence here to reject this, because that will send a very strong message that these kind of operations cannot be done in the way that has happened in this particular case, and therefore you should send that message. I do not believe that this would cause a problem at appeal, given the discrepancies we've seen in the report, and I think some of the, as has already been discussed in the previous discussion, there are ways of rejecting this that will survive an appeal, and I would strongly urge you to send a message and reject this application.
• Thank you, Councillor Ingleby. Does anyone want to ask Councillor Ingleby any questions, specifically about what he said there? Thanks, Mark, do you want to have a seat, and I'm sure now we'll have a good discussion about what we've heard there. Councillor Penfolds?
• Yeah, there's been an issue about the height of the extension, whether it's three metres or 3.17 or seven one. What turns on that in terms of planning law?
• Now that it's been established that it's the high height at 3.175 in which officers have acknowledged, which is the true height of the extension taken from the garden level, officers do realise and acknowledge that the SPD does state that if any extensions to the back end of any particular property should be contained within certain parameters, those are being three metres in depth, three metres in height, the reason being is because of the safeguard labouring amenity, but that then begs the question whether that additional height, i.e. 17.5 centimetres, would amount to significant harm to the adjoining properties. In my mind, it's quite difficult to defend that additional height on a pill, should it go to a pill, and for an inspector to carry out and make that independent judgement. At the same time, the inspector will also pick up on the design, although obviously members have expressed concerns, it does not have any public views. It can only be seen from private rear windows and gardens, and as such, that's something that the members have to bear in mind as part of their consideration regarding both amenity and design.
• Councillor Penfold.
• Does the tilted balance apply to this?
• No, it doesn't because it doesn't involve the creation of new housing.
• If we were to refuse this on design grounds, can you just talk us through what that would mean in terms of next steps, in terms of remedial work, demolition either?
• Ultimately, any decisions to refuse the application, the case will be reverted back to the enforcement team based on the member's final decision over its design, for example. Then the enforcement team will have to take the matter to remediate the situation, and they will be given several options. One is for complete demolition and restate it to its original condition, or for the applicant to consider alternative design to ensure that high quality is met. That could mean removing the brickwork and come up with an alternative design that really emphasizes that high quality, and that would be reflected maybe in terms of materiality, the architectural expression, and the treatment of the materiality, but that would be subject to a further application later down the line.
• Councillor Appel.
• Before you do that, James, does anyone want to just ask any final questions or clarification? Councillor Appel. (muffled speaking)
• Do we have a seconder for that?
• I'd like to amend that. I agree with the proposal. I'd like to add an amendment that it is also in breach of the SPD in terms of its height.
• Can I just go back to an officer in terms of the viability of that amendment based on what you mentioned earlier? So my understanding, are members in agreement to refuse it both not just on design but amenity harm in terms of the latter discussion regarding the breach?
• We've not got to that. We've not got there yet. I think we just want clarification on potential grounds for refusal in terms of the height, if we could include that.
• Yes, I mean, that's something that we can include in the reason for refusal, emphasizing the fact that it's in clear breach of the council's SPD, which will form the basis of the primary reason for refusal on design grounds.
• Councillor Appel, you put forward a recommendation. Do you want to revise it based on what Councillor Penfield said?
• I mean, I'm happy to do so if that's the view of the authority committee. My understanding of what was stated by guidance by officers was that the height issue would not be strong.
• My understanding, I'd be happy to do so if that was the will of members of the committee in favor of consensus. But my understanding is that that was a comparatively weak argument, as far as the SPD does say, three meters. The argument that 1.75 over that is not significant sufficient harm really for that. Whereas I think there's a very strong argument that the extension is of poor quality and certainly does not constitute exceptional design and absolutely is not sympathetic to neighboring properties or the wider corporate estate. If you look at the images we've got, there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to make sure that brickwork use is in keeping with that of the existing property or neighboring properties. The windows don't seem to be well placed. The stairs to get up into property, again, of poor quality. It just appears to have been done of cheap materials without any consideration of the local heritage value of the corporate estate and the corporate properties, and it's absolutely not in keeping with the area. I don't think the 1.75 issue is a comparatively strong argument, but obviously if yourself, Councillor Penfold and Councillor Muldoon think it is, I'd be happy to go with the majority. I agree with Councillor Rathbone. Councillor Penfold? I just think that there's a clear breach of the SPD. If we're minded to refuse this, we might as well put all grounds in, and I think that would be preferable. Melanie, do you want to come in as our legal advisor? This may be an opportunity for me to remind Councillors of the provisions in the constitution where they are minded to disagree with the advice of planning officers. They are able to do so when they give good and proper reason. As your legal advisor, if you're happy for me to give you some advice in the open forum, I would be saying to put all possible grounds for objection into your reasons. Where you decide to depart from planning officers' recommendations, you must define the reasons for doing so, and I think we are in a position where we are able to do so at this meeting without the requirement to defer to another meeting. If an appeal arises against your decision, officers will support you in preparing evidence for the appeal, but it will be for you as members of the planning committee to appear at any appeal hearing and give evidence of the reasons for your decision. Thank you. The advice has changed my mind. I'd be happy to support the two reasons for refusal that have been suggested by Councillor Rathbone and Councillor Penfold. So, James, are you happy to accept that amendment? Do we have a seconder? I am, Chair. Do we have a seconder? I'll second it. Councillor Penfold. So we have a proposal on the table which is to not accept the officers' recommendations and to refuse planning permission on the basis of poor design and height which is not policy compliant as has been discussed before. All those that are in agreement with that proposal, just raise your hands. So that's unanimous. OK, so planning permission has not been granted for that item tonight. Thank you very much for your time, everyone. It's been quite a late meeting, but with some good quality discussions. Thank you very much, everyone. Take care. Thank you, everyone. [BLANK_AUDIO]