The meeting was scheduled to discuss two planning applications, a new application to build a co-living space, and a variation of conditions on an existing permission for a large office.

Land Adjacent to Warwick Court, Choumert Road (Rear Of 160-162 Rye Lane) London SE15 4SH

The meeting report pack included a new planning application to build a part two, part three and part four-storey co-living development on the site.

The proposed development would be for 11 rooms with shared facilities, a roof pavilion, a roof terrace, external walkways, balconies, and associated cycle and bin storage.

The site is currently overgrown, and is to the rear of 160-162 Rye Lane, accessed from Choumert Road.

The proposed development is within the Rye Lane Conservation Area. The report notes that the site is surrounded by buildings of between one and five storeys, and that:

The proposed pattern of development of installing a block at the rear end of the narrow and long Peckham plots is well established in the conservation area.

The report says that 34 objections and 17 letters of support had been received in response to a consultation that had taken place in 2017. A further consultation was undertaken in March 2024, in response to which 15 letters of objection, one neutral letter and 40 letters of support were received. A further consultation on an ecological survey was undertaken in August 2024 which received 6 objection letters and 65 support letters.

The report notes that:

Officers are not disputing that the majority of the support letters do not have a postcode (SE15) within close proximity to the application site. This is a material consideration when taking into account neighbour representations.

The site is located in Peckham Town Centre, which is designated as a Major Town Centre in the Southwark Plan. The report summarises the council's policy on co-living developments like the one proposed.

The Southwark Plan (2022) defines a co-living development to be similar to student halls of residence but not restricted to students. Typically, a collective living scheme will be a large block which provides a range of communal areas that fulfil different functions (such as libraries, kitchens, gyms, games rooms etc.) which are available to all residents. Residents typically rent a small en-suite bedroom. Unlike halls of residence, collective living is intended to be a primary residence.

The report goes on to say that:

The proposed development is not considered to be a large block as it comprises only 11 rooms.

The co-living rooms would share facilities, including kitchens, bathrooms, a laundry room, a TV lounge, and terraces.

A financial contribution of £492,000 towards the provision of affordable housing in the borough was included in the report pack.

An additional condition is recommended to be added to the report, to protect a wall at Greenland Quay.

A previous planning application for the site (ref: 15/AP/2995) was refused, and the subsequent appeal dismissed, in part because:

the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers with regards to light, outlook and privacy.

The report concludes that the proposal accords with the Southwark Plan.

224-226 Tower Bridge Road London SE1 2UP

The meeting report pack included an application to vary conditions 1, 16 and 19 of planning application 19/AP/1975 for the refurbishment of an existing office building.

The application was a Section 73 application, which means it sought permission to make minor material amendments to a previously approved planning application.

The application had been submitted by Fore Jersey X Limited.

The development is located within the Tower Bridge Conservation Area, immediately to the south of Tower Bridge.

The variation of condition proposed a reduction in the width of the roller shutter on the eastern elevation of the building to accommodate a louvred panel. This would require the removal of the disabled parking space and EV charging point that were included in the original planning permission.

The applicant had said that these changes had been:

necessitated by the requirements of the M&E strategy for the development, which has been developed during the detailed design stage. The transformer room for the building is in the basement, immediately below the service yard and there is no alternative option for the routing of the ducting and pipework from the transformer room for the purposes of ventilation and removal of heat emissions to the exterior, other than through the servicing bay directly above. This ducting is required to allow the M&E system to be safely operational and accordingly and due to the retrofit nature of the building, this represents the only viable option.

The report pack included 38 objections from local residents, with concerns raised about the removal of the disabled parking bay. One resident had commented that:

This application should be rejected as it is highly immoral and discriminatory to remove the only blue badge parking space available in the vicinity.

The report states that:

Transport Policy Officers do not object to the removal of a dedicated blue-badge car parking space within the site boundary.

It goes on to explain this position:

The site benefits from an excellent level of public transport accessibility, including step-free public transport, and is also very well located for pedestrian and cycle access. Given the high accessibility of the site by non-car modes, Transport Policy Officers do not object to the removal of a dedicated blue-badge car parking space within the site boundary.

The report pack says that two cargo bike spaces will be incorporated into the service bay.

The report concludes that the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan overall.