Transcript

Good evening and welcome to this planning committee A. My name is Councilor Peter Barnards and I'm the chair of this committee today. This is a hybrid meeting with councilors attending in person. And there's officers attending in person and also remotely. The meeting is aired publicly. A recording will be available on the council website. I have received apologies for absence from Councilor Bohn. Is there any other absence? No, no apologies, no? Right, before we continue, I will have to let people know that I will be giving, how I'm going to run these meetings, I will be giving objectors five minutes and applicant five minutes to, obviously, give us your objections and present your application. Five minutes in total. If you have two objectors, you share the five minutes between yourselves, right? Right, I would also like to introduce members who are here who are gonna be determining this application, four applications, and starting my right, start with the members on the far, far right. Yes, please.

• University challenge, isn't it? I'm Councilor Liam Curran.
• Good evening, I'm Councilor Luke Warner.
• Hello, I'm Councilor Hilary Moore.
• Councilor John Pashew.
• Hello, I'm Councilor Ms. Johnston Franklin.
• And we also have officers who are assisting us on this application and start with my immediate left.
• My name is Melanie Dawson, head of legal services and deputy monitoring officer.
• I'm David Robinson. I am the major and strategic projects manager within the planning service and I'll be the presiding officer tonight.
• I'm Lucy Bennett. I'm a senior planning officer on the planning services team.
• Thank you very much. Thank you very much all. Any declaration of interests? No? We got minutes for the last meeting and the minutes of the meeting on the 15th of November, 2023, and minutes of the council AGM on the 29th of March need to be agreed. Does the committee agree the minutes are an accurate record? Great. Okay, thank you very much. I'll now ask officers to present the first item, which is number 68, Ravisburg Park, present. Officer, please start. Thank you.
• Good evening. This application is before the committee as it has received a total of 14 individual objections. The application is for the construction of five two-story, three-bedroom, six-person dwelling houses together with cycle parking, refuse storage, and associated landscaping on land to the east side of 68 Ravensbourne Park Crescent. The application site relates to a 920 meter squared triangular-shaped grassed area located at the corner of Ravensbourne Park and Ravensbourne Park Crescent. A pedestrian pathway providing access to the back garden of 68 Ravensbourne Park Crescent is located on the northwestern portion of the site. To the south of the site is a pedestrian footpath connecting Ravensbourne Park Crescent and Chilthorn Close. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with a range of housing typologies. To the west and south of the site are two to three-story properties within the Chilthorn Close estate. To the north and east of the site are two-story terraced properties that front Ravensbourne Park Crescent and Ravensbourne Park. This is the street view looking south from Ravensbourne Park. The proposal introduced five new family-sized dwellings. The height of unit one to four are two stories, while unit five on the northern end is part one, part two stories to be equal or lower than the height of buildings in the surrounding area. The depths of the dwellings have been staggered to break up the building bulk both on the front and rear boundaries. The scheme incorporates large front gardens, living rooms and communal open space on the northern corner to enhance a sense of green visual amenity, improve sustainable urban drainage and support green infrastructure connectivity within the immediate area. This is an illustration of development from the southeast. And this is an illustration of the proposed development from the northeast. In deciding whether to approve the application, officers have considered the following matters. Principle of development. Officers are satisfied that sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the amenity land is redundant or is oversupplied in the area based on the submitted CCTV survey of the site and analysis of local open space provisions within one kilometer of the site. New housing on the site would assist in meeting the borough's housing targets. Officers have taken into account the housing delivery test and the tilted presumption in favor of granting permission. Housing. The proposal will provide a suitable level of residential amenity for future occupiers. The dwellings are family size, which is recognized as a needed housing typology in the borough. Urban design and impact on heritage assets. The proposed development is considered to be high quality, to be considered a high quality proposal that is successful in context and would not detract from the historic setting of the nearby grade two listed building. Impact on adjoining properties. The proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighboring occupiers in terms of loss of outlook, privacy or daylight and sunlight, or noise and disturbance. Conditions for obscure glazed windows and privacy screening have been secured by condition to protect neighbors from overlooking and privacy impacts. Transport. The proposal would not result in significant harm to the local highway network or pedestrian or highway safety. Highways officers have raised no objection to the proposal. Details of cycling and refuse facilities will be secured by condition, as will the final construction management and logistics plan. Sustainable development. The proposed development is considered acceptable with regard to sustainable drainage and carbon and emission mitigation measures. Soft and hard landscaping and living roof details have been secured by condition. Natural environment. The proposed development would deliver a net gain in the provision of soft landscaping, trees and living roofs compared to the current situation. The proposed development is considered acceptable with regard to ecology and biodiversity and air and light pollution. And lastly, public health, wellbeing and safety. The proposal has been designed to comply with the principles of secured by design, including key elements such as natural surveillance, secure access, good sight lines and lighting. Thank you.
• Thank you very much for that presentation. Members, do you have any questions, officer?
• Yes, thank you, thank you, Chair. Could I just ask under paragraph one, two, one, what further articulation actually means? Proposed materials could benefit from further articulation but are generally considered high quality. So generally is, I just wanted to know what you mean by further articulation. Thank you.
• Yes, so generally we support the detailing and choice of high quality materials. Further articulation will be explored as the conditions are discharged, which we will secure high quality materially.
• Sorry, just to add to that, further articulation could take place in terms of detailing through brick work, header courses, hit and miss brick work. And you'll see the condition is recommended at, I think it's condition three, that's quite, that's the materials condition and that's at the bottom of the report, it's quite a detailed set of requirements that applicant has to submit to the council. We'll at that point then consult with our urban design team and make sure that we're happy with the articulation at that point when approving the details of materials and articulation as has been put in the report.
• So in the application, what you're saying is it needs more detail?
• I think what we're saying is it's acceptable but--
• Yeah, okay. - We can secure higher quality, more detail through the condition.
• Okay, okay, thank you.
• Thank you, Councillor Pacheco.
• Thank you, Chair. I'm looking at paragraph 27 of the report and I'm trying to work out, I should probably know but I don't, which is the grade two listed building that's within 30 meters of the site and can you just explain why consultation with Historic England isn't required because of the development type? Or confirm that it isn't.
• Yes, so the grade two listed building is located at 60 and 62 Ravensbourne Park, so approximately 30 meters from the application site and consultation with Historic England is not required for this type of development given that we aren't doing works to that particular listed building.
• Sorry, in short, it doesn't meet the threshold for consulting Historic England. We could've consulted them but they would've responded to say it doesn't meet the threshold.
• Thank you. Any other question? Councillor Liz Franklin.
• Sorry, can I just ask under paragraph 142, it says the side access to number 68's rear garden would be paved and secured with a lockable gate. I mean, I actually did a visit this afternoon and took some pictures of everything 'cause I was quite interested 'cause I live quite close to there and I was a bit concerned about number 68, to be honest, in terms of the impact that this development's going to have on them. And I was wondering, who's responsible for the maintenance of the paved and secured lockable gate and the lighting? Who's actually would be responsible for that?
• That would fall in the applicant's land, within their red line, as far as I'm aware, so it would fall to the applicant to maintain that, so the developer.
• That's not clear in any of the conditions. Would that have to go into one of the conditions or not? Out of interest, I don't know. I just was asking 'cause I was just concerned that that, you know, obviously, this is about making properties secure and it has to be maintained to be secure.
• I suppose it would be maintained. The details of it would come through the hard and soft landscaping conditions, but in terms of the maintenance, I don't think it's necessary for us to put it on the condition requiring because it would ultimately be a private matter between the landowner on the application site and the number 68.
• Thank you. I wanted to just ask, paragraph 178, you referred to dwelling five, potentially obstructing the outlook of one of the properties that's already present. Just wondering if you could just show us, once again, on the presentation, which of those it was, just to have a visual sense of that.
• Yep, so it's dwelling five, which is located on the northern portion of the development.
• So on this, is it the right most?
• It is the right most, yes.
• And then if we could just see the pictures as well.
• Yep, these are illustrative, obviously.
• Sure, but it's on the, still the right-hand side.
• This is the one on the right, yeah. This is the best, yeah.
• And just following on from that, your sense was that the, from reading through, I think 179 refers to the fact that there are potential obstructions from the garages adjacent to this if there was a development there, but you don't think that's a significant issue. Would you mind telling us just a little bit about the kind of the setting of, with regards to the landscape and so on? Are you saying that dwellings one to four wouldn't obstruct any of the properties that are already there and the view from those properties whatsoever?
• No, so if I just flick back to this site plan, it's probably best to see it, in that behind the dwellings one to four are existing garages, each on their own allotment. We did ask the applicant to consider the future development of this site, and it was considered that at the scale of two stories, the proposal wouldn't impede any future development application on these sites. We have, there are rear windows and the rear elevation, and we have secured obscure glazing, so it is our perspective that there would be no impact on neighboring amenity.
• Thank you. Yes, yeah.
• Thank you very much, Chair. Just a couple of points. One is following on from Councillor Johnston-Franklin's question, is it accurate that we can't impose a condition that the gate should be of a certain standard and well-maintained, the lockable gate that Councillor Johnston-Franklin referred to? Is it within our power to do so?
• I think we could expand the hard landscape and condition if given that I'll look at that, but you could expand that to be explicit about the details of the gate. I don't think it needs to be that explicit because we require those details anyway when they come to discharging the condition, but if members were so minded, we could make it clear that you want to see details or we, as a council, as a planning service, should see details of the gate when we come to discharging the condition. Do you have the hard landscape and condition number?
• It's for the seven, seven.
• Number seven, sorry, Councillor Kern.
• Okay, I mean, so I'll leave it to Councillor Johnston-Franklin if she wishes to pursue that, but I would just, in my experience, I would say that some of these things can be forgotten once the development's done, and you could end up with a very poor sort of result, so I'll just make that point.
• Thank you, can I, could I follow through on that? Sorry, Chair, because I did a visit, a site visit this afternoon to have a look, and I was concerned about, to ensure that there is security 'cause there is a gap. I heard a walk all the way around, and it's a very interesting site. It's a lovely residential area, but it's very important that we make sure that there is some safety, particularly for residents who live at 68. So I do have a concern about it.
• So just thinking towards what would resolve that concern, then would, and then looking again now at condition seven that I've got in front of me, perhaps it's, because this is a compliance condition, perhaps it's better than that we have a standalone condition just requiring the details of the gate and the entrance and how that will appear, and those details were required prior to commencement of that part of the development. So you'd like to see details off the gate? I say we, as in the planning services, see details of the gate and that alleyway.
• I think so, I think it's really important 'cause it's about safety. It's about safety of the residents at 68, and it's about safety generally on this site. So yes, I would, I think it would be important to have. Thank you. - Okay.
• Thank you.
• Yes, Councillor Carter.
• That was just one point, Chair. Just a follow-up on that. That's useful, thank you to the officers for that point as well. Just, I can see what, I think I can see what the law is saying. I just need clarification for the purpose. Is this about the actual loss of amenity space or the non-loss of amenity space, depending on your interpretation of it?
• I would just challenge the, I mean, the law, as you've written it out here, may well be enough. I would just challenge the idea of a CCTV survey over seven days. This is paragraph 62, indicating the site was used by four people. I mean, it's, I just wouldn't want us to sort of use stuff like that. In October, the weather is as bad as it is in May at the moment. So I wouldn't expect people to be running around there. It doesn't look to me like an amenity space where you can run around 'cause it was on a slope. But I'd just like to make that point. So what is, in terms of the mitigation, is that actually the case, that there can be an over-provision of green space? I find that an odd thing in rules and planning law, but is that a thing that can be too much green space?
• I guess there is standards that the policy sets. In this particular circumstance, we need to remember that the space is not a designated public open space. It's a privately-owned amenity area. So the policy still states that we need to assess whether the amenity area is redundant or whether there is an oversupply of open space in the area. And that has been assessed, and it's been determined that there is. So therefore, the loss of this particular amenity space is acceptable.
• Okay, I mean, yeah. So the principle is, obviously, just because it's privately owned, it doesn't mean we can't have any influence on it. And that's what planning's all about, isn't it? But I was just interested in that particular point about, perhaps it's the phraseology, but an over-provision of green space doesn't seem, it just means to say that there is sufficient, perhaps, in the local area. I'm not trying to be clever, I'm just trying to store it up for when we have future issues that might be a bit more, you know, even more complicated, perhaps. Thank you.
• Thank you. Sorry, just before I bring you in, David, what Liam was saying, obviously, I would like to get a clarification there that if the CCTV, that monitoring had produced a different result what would have been the impact on this particular application? And also, the CCTV duration that they were recording, when was it, because you don't compare the wintertime, maybe the space is usable during the summertime, and you record in the winter, and you, you know, it's not, obviously, I know it's a private thing, land, but I would like to know what would have been the outcome, if it were different.
• Yeah, I can come back on those two points, maybe yourself, Chair, and Councillor Curran. And I think I agree, probably, the wording of the SPD statement doesn't help for an oversupply because, obviously, we want to always encourage green space and make sure there's enough green space and open space and public space available for all it. And I think the survey's perhaps a bit of a red herring in that the policy doesn't require a CCTV, specifically, but what the applicant has done in trying to demonstrate how the space is used is provide a CCTV survey. Is October the best time of the year? Probably not, but they've provided that as part of the evidence that they have submitted alongside their application, supporting how the, supporting, yeah, justifying the principle of development on the site. I think what we, as planning officers, are satisfied with is that the amenity space, while it offers some amenity value, you know, it's undeniable, it does, in terms of, you know, just being open space, and some people may use it. Obviously, it's not ideal for, you know, you wouldn't picnic there with young kids 'cause it's open to the road, and it's not ideal for dog walking, for example, because it's open as well, but it does have some amenity values. But what we need to do is assess the level of amenity value that space has, and, you know, we've done that through our local plan, and we've identified public open spaces, you know, elsewhere in the borough. This space hasn't been identified as such, and so I think in looking at the amenity value of the site, I think officers are content that the principle of development on the site is acceptable because of, well, the low amenity value, and also because of the, well, the large supply of open space in the area as well. You know, you've lady well filled the stone, throw away in Blythal as well in the other directions, not to name, and there's a long list of other open spaces within one kilometer of the site as well. So I think, added to that, the fact, it hasn't been designated as public open space. It is private space as well, and I suppose if a developer wanted to plan to have a devil's advocate here, they could fence it off and just close off all public access to it because, well, it's private space, but, sorry, that's a very long-winded way of describing, you know, how we've got to where we are and how we're comfortable with the principle of development of these five new family homes on this piece of land, which has some amenity space, but in our view is limited.
• Yes, Councillor Connor.
• Thank you. It's still on the same point, and thank you for that, that's really helpful. I would just, there's two things about the report. One is, I like the way it's laid out slightly different before the references at the beginning, saying what issues are on what pages, so I found it much easier to read, and so thank you for that, it's an improvement, and that's really good. And I just wanted to sort of draw out a bit more about green space, its value. I really think, obviously, the law is as explained to us by officers. I do think in a few years' time, you know, every green space will be highly valued because of the, without sounding like a new age hippie, which I'm not, but that, you know, the life that it sustains is gonna, we're all gonna need it in, you know, all around our urban environment. I was in Parliament Square today, and it's full of lavender, and there was full of bees buzzing about right in the heart of London, so I'm just trying to make the point that we, when we're considering evidence of green spaces, we need to sort of maintain a high level of scrutiny over it, I think, and I would say that the CCTV, I understand why the owner did it, and it might have been the only time available to them or whatever, but I just think we need to have a very high standard of, to judge an amenity space rather than just seven days of CCTV in October, but I take your point that it's not crucial in this issue anyway, thank you.
• Thank you very much, Councilor Wong.
• Thank you, Chair. One other question on a slightly different issue is just to do with parking. There's a section, obviously, about parking here that refers to the fact that it's a car-free development, there's cycle parking implemented into the design, and this is also situated in a controlled parking zone, but the transport statement, as it says in paragraph 169, says that up to four cars may be owned by future residents on the site. There is a reference within that same paragraph of attempting to work unilaterally to understate that residents don't obtain parking permits. Would you mind just detailing a bit more about that, so I can imagine residents probably are concerned that there'll be a massing of cars there four times by five. That's quite a lot on some of the smaller roads nearby.
• Yeah, so car-free development, as you stated, the illegal agreement will be secured to ensure that future occupiers are restricted from obtaining parking permits, so therefore there will be no added stress to the local transport network. So to confirm people moving in to these properties would not be eligible, they'd sign away their eligibility for that, thank you.
• Correct.
• Thank you very much. Any other question to the officers? No? We have the applicant here. Please come forward. Please. And you have five minutes, please, to present you.
• Good evening, Chair, and good evening, governors. I'm Emma White, and I'm the applicant, and my company is Ravensbourne Property Development Limited. We started an extensive engagement with the officers in September of last year, and after seven months, three detailed meetings and several iterations of our scheme, we submitted our application. Prior to that, we also conducted a full consultation with local residents, corresponded with a number of neighbors who contacted us directly, and I knocked on the door of 68 Ravensbourne Park Crescent to speak with the owners and to present our scheme in advance of our consultation letters being distributed. And just in relation to that, I understand it's an issue for councilors, I'd be very happy to be conditioned to submit specific details on what I think is an enormous betterment. Their gate is very insecure at the moment, but we are respecting their access. We took all the comments we received on board, and our scheme has significantly evolved, including the building line being moved back to increase the area of the front gardens, a unit being removed, the overall height being reduced, detailing being worked up, landscaping across the site being significantly developed, a pocket park being introduced at the northern end of the site, and so on. This has resulted in a contemporary, sustainable, sensibly-designed scheme which we're presenting this evening. We've got unequivocal support from your officers and the council's internal and external consultees, and whilst the officer's report is a ringing endorsement of our proposal, I thought it might be useful to summarize some key points. The loss of this amenity area will be more than compensated for by the enhanced appearance of the site once complete. It is not often used and offers little visual amenity to the local area, no shelter, no benches, no trees, no play equipment, no interesting features. The site is of little interest compared to the plentiful parks in the near vicinity, and your officers have concluded that the site is fit for development and that amenity land is abundant in the area. In fact, there are 14 parks of various kinds and open space in the area which can be used by residents. Our scheme is car-free, which is entirely suitable for a p-tell five site, and we covenant in the unilateral undertaking not to allow our buyers to apply for a parking permit. Only people who do not want to use their own car will buy these homes. The impact on the highway will therefore be negligible, and existing resident spaces will not be usurped or put under additional pressure. We've worked hard on the design to ensure that our scheme works well in its setting. Contrasting color and hit and miss bricks, light precast concrete detailing, timber and glassy elements will all work together to ensure an interesting finish complemented by sensitive hard and soft landscaping, all secured by condition. Our scheme performs exceptionally well against the exacting standards in the development plan and small sites SPD. Each house is generously proportioned, significantly exceeds the minimum space standards, has three times the minimum storage, and between six and 10 times the amount of required amenity space. There is no suggestion of overdevelopment on the site. We wanted to ensure that not only will these units be wonderful family homes to live in, but that their impact on existing neighbors will be minimized. Obscure windows will prevent overlooking from the rear. A generously set back building line will prevent overlooking to the front. And extensive planting in front gardens will ensure privacy for the new residents, but also prevent overlooking to houses around the site. The site largely comprises poor quality grassland, and is of low ecological value, with no protected species or habitats being identified. Our proposal will introduce extensive landscaping. In fact, it will cover 55% of the site. Native plant species, bat and bird boxes, hedgehog highways, 21 new trees, and a wildlife conservation area at the north end of the site. Our proposal will significantly enhance the biodiversity on the site. We have respected the access way used by 68 Ravensbourne Park Crescent, although it's not enshrined in anybody's title, to their rear gate, which is in poor condition. In fact, we will add PIR lighting, paving, and a FOB operated gate, which will be much better than the existing arrangement in which the Met Police team fully endorse. We've worked hard on a sustainable design, which will be secured by condition, incorporating PV panels, air source heat pumps, dual aspect units to encourage natural ventilation, and internal blinds to protect against overheating. In summary, I'm poised to implement a consent later this year, if granted this evening. That would mean that by the end of 2025, five more family homes will be added to the council's target housing delivery numbers. As has just been presented tonight, Lewisham is currently in deficit as regards that target, and as a result, the planning balance is tilted towards the grant of consent, unless a scheme's adverse impact significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits. No such adverse impacts have been identified, and as such, there is manifestly no reason to withhold consent, and I urge councillors to grant permission this evening in accordance with their officers' unreserved recommendation and to allow this scheme to proceed and to contribute much needed family units to the Lewisham housing numbers. Many thanks, councillors.
• Thank you very much, and thank you for keeping it on time. Any questions to the applicant? Any questions? No? Thank you very much for coming. Thank you, councillors.
• Do we have objectors here? Please come forward. You have five minutes between yourselves. It's five minutes, you know, just to be fair.
• I'll put the timer on, then.
• Please introduce yourself, and then, you know.
• The light's not coming on.
• Yeah, yeah, it's on.
• It's on, okay.
• Yeah, thank you.
• I'll start then.
• No, let me start. I'll do one point. I've got two points. I'll do one point. My second point is public wellbeing and safety. There is concern in Chelthorne Close that the design creates a potential crime security hazard at its southern end. The flank walls of the end house would adjoin the main pedestrian route into Chelthorne Close and would create a long, closed, narrow alley between them, between them and the house and the fence of number eight, Chelthorne Close. This path is only one point six meters wide, but it's 20 meters long, so it would be a long, dark space at night. No extra lighting for this is proposed. Concern has been expressed to me by several residents of the Close that they would have to avoid this area at night. Thus, the design seems contrary to the policy in paragraph 262 and to the conclusion in 269. That the consultation with the police in paragraph 268 seems only to apply to the northern end, the property and property five there and property five. There is no mention of the narrow alley problem at the southern end. Paragraph 262 says specifically that fan should create safe spaces and this seems in contradiction of that. All right, I've had my arm. I'll let my colleague do his.
• Good evening. My name's David Pearson. I'm the chairperson for the Ravensbourne Park and Chelthorne Close Community Association. We're a collection of the households there. There's at least 50 members. We formed when the original parcel of land got sold by the original owners when they went into liquidation. We tried to buy ourselves to keep the amenity space. So unfortunately, I think the free parcels of land and a couple of small ones sold for about 250,000 pounds. They were subsequently then sold off, parceled off, sold off. As I think, sorry, I can't see everybody's names, but as you said, it's a lovely area. One of the reasons it's a lovely area are because there are these smaller parcels of the land. And as Councillor Curran pointed out, that we do have a genuine concern that these parcels of land are all being built on. This isn't the only planning application for these small parcels of land. There's another one for the middle plot that to ourselves also seems excessive. You know, there is a real concern that these amenity spaces do have real value. It's not being used at the minute because it's not being maintained. I know you said obviously it could be fenced, which would be our worst fear, but one of the pleas I'd have to the developers if they can maintain it, the other owners of the two other large parcels of land are maintaining them. But I would just ask you to take that into account. There is a loss of amenity. The original design was based on that land space being there, so it wasn't overcrowded. Just a few points quickly, 'cause I know we're short on time. To the best of my knowledge, the applicant didn't post the site notice. I've been told this evening that might not be the case, but none of the people that I know ever saw the notice go up. In terms of the actual application, you know, it has been used in it as amenity area apart from during the Second World War. You also mentioned about the heritage, and the heritage site that clearly is stated that it's not 30 meters in the application. So if that doesn't need to be checked by Historic England, then it needs to be changed in the application. But you know, members do have real concerns. I know it's been mentioned that well, the gate isn't very secure at the back. That property's had access to that back land and that amenity space for a number of years. So there is real genuine concerns about the security of that property, and for the new properties that potentially might be built. The other one is, and again, might not be a property concern, but in terms of the garages and what impact it will have in the stabilization of those garages. Doug, I think you've got one minute. Well, I would just, sorry, just the one thing I would like to say is we have supported, so we're not like a group of NIMBYs, we have supported the plot of land on number 42 Ravensbourne Park, the one house to be built, which is an eco-friendly house, and the actual developers are gonna improve the amenity of the remaining parts of land, something we had actually asked the council permission for to do. So like I say, it's not that we're against all developments, but something that keeps the amenity, and I fear that's just completely missing from this overdevelopment. Sorry, Doug. My other point was on parking. I consider that not enough consideration has been given to park the parking stress on the surrounding area. The site is in a CPZ and on a busy road and a bus route. The parking survey presented was done before the CPZ was created. The survey map that they did shows that the majority of the supposed 83 spaces available on that date are in now what is now the CPZ, or adjoining CPZ, and thus will not be available to residents of this development. The site is on the northern edge of the CPZ. Thus, cars from this development would be likely to be parked in the unregulated streets to the north of it, which are congested. These streets are always congested and so is the main road, which is the number 284 bus route. Buses find it difficult to get by there. The three-year membership of a car club-- Sorry. Off into a residence is a fiddly-- A run-up of time, sorry. Run-up of time. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. No, no, no, members may have some questions to you. I say I've never been involved. Right. Councilor Johnson-Franklin. Thank you, can I go back to the bit you talked about, about the alleyway? Is that the alleyway that's got the yellow-- The yellow-- Well, it leads to that. Yeah, yeah, the step, yeah, okay, 'cause I took a picture when I went around, so I just wanted to check. And that's the bit you're saying, you're talking about, that it's quite long, isn't it? It goes all the way up, doesn't it? Yeah, yeah, okay, then. Sorry, we might have people online who can, may not hear you with the microphone on, please. Yeah, I'm talking about, oh, it's on. I'm talking about what will be created when this development is built. It would be the sidewall of the southernmost property. So it'll create, the pathway is 1.6 meters wide, which is quite narrow. And once this development is built, there'll be a 20-meter-long alleyway. No extra lighting is proposed for this by the developer or anyone else. So it'd be a long, dark alleyway, very good for crime, you know, and people would be frightened to go down at night. Okay. And as I say, the funny thing is, the consultation with the Metropolitan Police was solely to do with number 68, his rear gate. We've got no gate on the alleyway. Well, we're not, we don't want a gate on the alleyway, but I mean, this is put in as a great, important point, and this other point is totally ignored. Thank you very much. Do you have a follow-up question on that? I'm just saying, is there a way that we could, you know, that can be looked at in terms of safety? I think we could look at a light. Put the microphone up. Sorry, Chair. We could look at a lighting condition for that area. My only fear is, and just looking at the plans that we have on the screen at the moment, is if you put lighting on the side or the flank of the southernmost building, it's gonna be shining directly into number nine's front windows. Actually, the buildings proposed to the south only really encloses that pathway by an extra, you know, two, 2.5 meters max over and above what the enclosure is already, albeit it's two stories. So it's already enclosed. The enclosure between number nine and the proposed dwelling, if you can get what I'm saying, will only be increased by around 2.5 meters. If you put lighting on the side of the proposed, the flank of that building, you could then have amenity issues of number nine. Would be my only fear of imposing that condition.
• But it is one of the main routes. It is the main route from the back down to the main, sorry, down to the main road. You know, I know that, and I just--
• No, I agree, I agree.
• Sorry, sorry. You know, can everybody come through the chair, please? There's one person speak at a time, thank you.
• I think if members were concerned about that area in particular, what we could condition as a sensitive lighting strategy, you know, how that looks would need to be investigated by officers and the development team as well. It may be low-level lighting, it may be something less intrusive, but certainly you wouldn't want to put, you know, street lighting outside the front of number nine, 'cause that in turn, you know, you're creating another issue by solving the lighting issue. So I think if we, you could consider a sensitive lighting scheme for that to be designed by the applicant, submitted to the local plan and authority for us to approve that before that part of the development commences, would be most--
• I certainly would be in agreement with that.
• Yes, sir.
• If I can just say, in the couple of spaces that, on a bigger, in the round on this estate at the minute, the couple of places where there are those narrow, like this alleyway now that will be created number 68, and this long and narrow main entrance that has had problems historically during the estate, and in the other areas in the estate that are similar to those, they have caused issues. The one like number 68 actually is near to the property I own, stolen goods, fencing has been done there, et cetera. So, you know, there is a genuine concern from residents for both points of view that it could create issues.
• I'm sorry, I can't take a question from the floor at the moment. Yes, Councillor Carroll.
• That path, so is it, presumably it's public right-of-way between Ravensbourne Park and Chilthorn Close. Is it, that's the bit we're talking about, isn't it?
• Yeah. - Yes, correct.
• It's a public right-of-way, it's not owned by the--
• No, it's public. - The applicant, or, right, okay, so that's useful to know. So I would just say that it's not owned by the applicant. I would like to, I think, endorse where Councillor Johnston-Franklin's going on lighting and what the officers are suggesting as well, because obviously there's 20,000 different methods of lighting to, you can illuminate it without burning the retina of your neighbours to a crisp. You know, it's quite possible to do that.
• Thank you. I've got the applicant want to shed some lights on this thing. Yeah, please come over and use this microphone here, please.
• Yeah, I just wanted to, thank you, Chair. No pun intended. I just wanted to say that, from our point of view, one of the things that we've tried to encapsulate in our application is a lighting strategy that is, by definition, very low level, so that the scheme doesn't come into the local area and do just what you've described there and burn anybody's retina. We just, the whole idea of our scheme is that we have a very, kind of amorphous, fluid green space at the front. We're not having delineated gardens. Everything flows from one to the other, as you can hopefully see from the images. The lighting that we've proposed so far, and it is conditioned, is all very low level, and that's the whole idea of what we're trying to do. I've got no objection as the developer. It's something we have considered before, putting forward, having a condition imposed on us to come forward with, specifically come forward, with a low level lighting scheme that addresses this issue, and we can, as you say, Councillor, there are so many different ways to achieve lighting that works for everybody, and we could put something on a low level on that flank wall, potentially PIR operated. I don't want to presume what it would look like at the moment. That's why it would need to be conditioned, but I'd be very happy to explore that, if that helps.
• Thank you very much. Thank you. I think, do you want to ask any further questions now? Because you already have your time, so thank you.
• Thank you very much. Any other question to the objectors? No, no, sorry. You haven't been asked a question. I'm asking the members first. Sorry.
• Is there anything else you'd like to add?
• Okay, well, there you go.
• Yes, just a matter of procedure. I was asked by the committee secretary to submit my, what I was going to say this afternoon, by midday this afternoon. Do you get to see what I've submitted? Do you all have this? Why is that, then? Why is that, Mr. Chairman? Well, what's the point of...
• Well, I've been told that it was certainly too late for it to be distributed to members.
• Well, it could have been requested earlier, then, couldn't it?
• That's right. I've been told that the documents were late. It could not have been distributed to members. And that is what it is. It was late.
• Well, the time required was midday, and I submitted mine about 10 o'clock.
• Right. Can I have... - Sorry, can I come in there?
• So, the statement that you sent in today, we asked for backup statements from objectors in case there is some sort of emergency and you can't make it into the meeting. However, documents that are submitted aren't required to be sent to members, 'cause all objections are included in their report, in the officer report.
• So, they will see this eventually, won't they?
• No, it wouldn't be distributed, 'cause that was a part of your speech that you just presented.
• Thank you. Any other question? Or do you have anything else to say? Right. Right, thank you very much. Thank you for coming. You can take the seats. Yes, Councillor Pashu.
• Thank you, Chair. I'm assuming we're moving on to committee discussion now. The point that's just been discussed, though, about external lighting, and we've been reassured by the applicant that their design is keeping it at a low level. I'm just looking through the conditions to see where that is, and I... Could the planning officer draw my attention to where it's conditioned, or if it's conditioned, or suggest if we might need to add a condition to ensure it is what we've just been reassured?
• So the condition we have at the moment in relation to lighting is around wildlife-sensitive lighting, condition 16A. So for that reason, I would suggest we need an additional condition that focuses on the more discrete matter of lighting to the south of the site, specifically the alleyway.
• 16 is ecological enhancements.
• Yes, so it's in relation to wildlife-sensitive lighting. So if you... But what's the point, the last bullet point? Yeah, so it's part of that. So that's the reason why we conditioned lighting, because we're concerned from an ecological point of view. We wanted to maintain it as low lighting, and as the applicant said, the scheme has been designed to do such. So I think if members were concerned about the lighting, specifically to the area to the south of the site, that should be a standalone condition, in our view.
• I'm sorry, you're suggesting there should be, there could be an additional standard condition?
• I don't think it would be appropriate to expand on condition 16 to secure the lighting to the south. So I think if members were concerned about that area, and of the development in particular, the best route forward would be to recommend an additional condition for lighting, specifically focusing on that area, to be submitted to the local plan on authority. Prior to commencement of that part of the development, for approval, once approved, the development would need to be retained in accordance with the approved details.
• Okay, well, in the light of the discussion we just had on, I'm suggesting that. I know it's a standard condition, so we can leave it to you to draft it.
• Okay.
• All right, thank you. And then, is there anything else to discuss on? (muffled speaking)
• Chair, with that amendment, if colleagues are happy to agree, then I'm happy to move the recommendations as amended like that.
• Second.
• Second, Chair, with that amendment.
• It's just subject to the three issues we've mentioned. Just wanted to be very clear. It's three specific conditions we discussed.
• I think if I've understood members correctly this evening, then what they are doing is recommending that planning permission is granted, subject to two additional conditions. The wording of which to be agreed by the director of planning. And those would be relating to the lighting that we've just discussed, and also the condition around the gate and the security on number nine, I think it was.
• 68. - Number 68.
• Well, we have a motion already in the flow, and they need to vote on it. So, for all those who are in favor of granting this permission, please say no hand. Say no hand. Right, it's unanimous. So, I obviously don't think there's any abstention or against, so it's unanimous. Thank you, that is permission granted. Now, we move to the next item. And those people who are going out, please go out quietly, because we still have got another application to look into. Thank you. The next application we have is number 1A in Maria Road. Maria Road. And can the officer please present the application? Thank you.
• The application is before the committee, as the application was called in by Councillor Pachart. The application is for the construction of a first floor rear extension at 1A Marla Road. The application site relates to a two-story detached single-family dwelling house located on the southern side of Marla Road. The site is the only property that fronts this stretch of Marla Road and is surrounded on all sides by rear gardens of properties fronting Carhome Road and Blythe Vale. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character with semi-detached and terraced properties. This is an existing image of the property from the rear. The property has a long and complex planning history. Planning permission was granted in 2019 for the construction of a two-story detached dwelling house. A first floor extension was constructed on top of the consented single-story rear projection of the building, which did not benefit from planning permission. In January 2022, a retrospective application for the construction of an additional story on top of the single-story rear projection on the property was refused due to its scale, design, siding and materiality being considered a visually awkward and incongruous addition to the property. Another retrospective application for the construction of a first floor extension to the rear of the property was refused in June 2023 on similar grounds to the 2022 refusal. Following this refusal, an enforcement notice was issued and the unlawful first floor extension was subsequently removed. The existing plans show there is no existing first floor extension currently above the ground floor projection. The proposal seeks planning permission to construct a first floor extension to the rear elevation of the host property. The extension will have a width of 4.4 meters and a depth of 4.6 meters. The extension is a dual-pitched roof, which is set down slightly from the ridge of the existing roof. It is a ridge height of 6.2 meters and an eep height of five meters on the left side and 3.3 meters on the right side. It has two roof lights on the western rear roof slope and will have a window on the rear elevation and left side elevation. In deciding whether to approve the application, officers have considered the following matters. Urban design. Proposed development would address the harm identified within the previous applications. The proposal is of an acceptable design, scale, form, and building fabric and is subservient to the host building in meeting the design intent of the policy framework. Impact on neighboring amenity. The proposal will not impact on neighboring amenity. The proposal will be set above the existing ground floor projection and will be set back 17 to 20 meters from surrounding dwelling houses. The newly proposed left side elevation window is acceptable as it would be obscurely glazed and only openable above 1.7 meters. The right side roof lights will also be obscure glazed.
• Thank you very much. Any questions, the officer? Anyone else have a question?
• Thank you, and first of all, apologies to colleagues. It's entirely my fault that you're spending time deciding this rather than delegating the decision to an officer. But my motivation for exercising, calling on it was basically based on the rather long and complex and unfortunate planning history of the site that you just heard about and therefore a series of case work issues raised with myself and fellow ward councillors of the Perry Vale in which ward it's in. So I'm happy about the officer's reassurances and I think most of those concerns were about the residential amenity of neighbors and significantly overlooking from the extension. And you can see from the site map that it's obviously a site which has been formed out of the rear gardens of previous properties that were larger. So it was difficult to fit a house on it in the first place and even more difficult to try and extend that house. So I'm happy seeing the report here that the conditions for requiring obscure glazing will remove that potential for overlooking. So I'd just like your assurance that it differs so significantly from the illegal previous attempts of extending the building that you are happy that the amenity of neighbors won't be impacted.
• Yeah, as you mentioned, so we will be securing those side windows to be obscure glazed and non-openable above 1.7 meters. The applicant did come in for pre-application advice and as a result of that and following our advice, the height of the first floor rear extension was lowered to sit below the roof ridge of the host property. And therefore, we consider it to be subservient.
• Okay, thanks. And I mean, I obviously know you have the capacity to monitor those conditions that we complied with when it's constructed, so thank you.
• Thank you. Any other question to Professor?
• Thank you. Do we have the applicant here? Yeah, could you come forward, please? Introduce yourself and you have five minutes to present the-- - Cool.
• Hi, Councillors, so my name is Shupeng Lee. I am the applicant. So basically, I'm here really to supply the history around this house. So I purchased this house around June of 2014. I was around June of 2022 and at that point in time, unfortunately, the seller kind of concealed the information that the extension has not got the full planning permission. So after I purchased it, I ended up dealing with the inspector, I believe, 'cause the seller made an appeal. So the inspector told me there has been something going on in the planning, so I ended up taking all the burden of making sure that I tried to save the extension, of course. That's my first attempt, failed, then the enforcement notice that definitely need to be complied by that. But given that I just had a newborn, I really do want a nursery to be built on the first floor to have a bit more living space. So currently, I am still in the legal process fighting with the seller at that point. So it's a bit unfortunate situation, but it is a lovely area, it is a lovely house, and I really would like to have an additional space for my newborn baby. Thank you very much.
• Thank you. Any questions to the applicant? No? Thank you very much for coming.
• Thank you very much.
• As I said, there's no one else in the room, so I assume there's no objectors. Any discussion on this? Members?
• Chair, I think it's reassuring that I'm gonna let Councillor Moore move the recommendation, if that's what she was just about to do. I think it's reassuring that the site is not under the same ownership as the ownership in which the illegal extensions are built. And I feel quite sympathetic to the applicant that he's obviously been conned by the seller and, well, I won't prejudice any legal proceedings, but I don't say any more about that. He has my sympathy.
• That's a fair assessment, obviously. It's nothing, it was not his fault. Just beginning with that's where the history of the refusals are alarming. I understand why you had to call it. Well, Councillor Moore.
• Yeah, actually, as a former lawyer, I'm hoping that there was sufficient legal checking of the one before they bought it. That's one of the first things you would do is to check whether an extension actually had plenty of permission, but far be it from me. It's been a while since I've been involved in that sector. But my main reason for putting my hand up was to actually propose that we accept this application subject to the conditions, particularly relating to the glazed windows, which I think are a big improvement on the original application. I'm just that my colleagues second and agree there.
• Thank you, a proposal. Who is the seconder?
• Our second chair, thank you.
• Councillor Johnson-Franklin second that. All those in favour? Thank you is unanimous. Thank you very much for the applications granted. Yes, Councillor.
• Chair, I'd just like to say on the report it says, is this report easy to understand? And give us feedback so we can improve. So I'm gonna not bother clicking on the link and just making it now to just reinforce what I said earlier. And that's quite a small thing, but it does make reading the report a lot easier. So on page 20, the matrix, where it has what people are objecting about, and then next to it is what page and where it refers to. These are, we don't have a lot of time and it does make life a lot easier. So thank you for doing that. - I agree. It's not a planning consideration, but it's very helpful in planning. Thank you very much. Now I've closed the meeting. Thank you very much all for coming. Thank you.