The report pack that was prepared for this meeting contained planning applications for four sites in the borough. The applications covered a wide range of proposals, including a new roof extension at Robins Court, the demolition of garages to build two new homes at Belmont Hall Court, a new house on a garage site to the rear of 60 Breakspears Road, and a proposal to add two new storeys to a mixed use building at 23 Mercia Grove.

Robins Court, Chinbrook Road, Grove Park

The most significant application, that for Robins Court, attracted 60 objections from the public, prompting the need for a local meeting to be held. It was requested that the existing roof of the blocks of flats be removed and replaced with an additional storey, together with a new roof.

The development at Robins Court would provide 24 new flats, split between 4 x 2 bed 3 person flats, 12 x 2 bed 4 person flats, and 8 x 3 bed 4 person flats. 5 new parking spaces, 96 cycle spaces and an enlarged refuse area are also included in the proposal. All the flats would be accessed via extended external stairwells.

The applicant, Camden Court Management Ltd submitted a Financial Viability Assessment arguing that the scheme could not viably include any affordable housing. The assessment has been independently reviewed and is considered acceptable by the council.

The application was called in to the planning committee because of the public response. The objections are mostly focused on the impact on the living conditions of existing residents, with objectors arguing that the scheme represents an overdevelopment, that the extended external stairwells will cause loss of outlook, light and privacy, that there is insufficient bin storage, and that the scheme would have a negative impact on infrastructure.

The report pack includes a detailed assessment of the application by officers. The officers note that the vertical upward extension(s) proposal would provide 24 new dwellings, which would contribute positively to meeting both the Lewisham’s and London’s general housing targets. The officers agree with the applicant that affordable housing provision would not be viable. The officers ultimately recommend the application for approval, concluding that the proposed development would make a significant contribution to Lewisham’s housing needs, and officers attach great weight to this in planning terms.

A detailed set of conditions that are recommended to be imposed on the development are listed in the report pack. They cover topics such as energy and water efficiency, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, construction management, and tree protection.

Belmont Hall Court, Belmont Grove, Blackheath

The report pack requests that planning permission be granted to demolish six garages at Belmont Hall Court and replace them with two, two-bedroom semi-detached houses.

The application has attracted 35 objections, prompting the need for a local meeting. These objections largely concern parking impacts from the new dwellings and loss of garages, the impact on neighbouring properties, the location of the bin store and the impact on an informal allotment area, and emergency vehicle access.

The site is located within the Blackheath Conservation Area.

The applicant, Halliard Property Co. Ltd, argues that the new houses would be of a high-quality design that would make a positive contribution to the area. The houses would be built using red brick and feature stone coping at the roof, entrance canopy and cills.

The officers recommend that the application be approved. In the report pack, the officers argue that the site has convenient and safe access to the public highway for servicing and is located in a residential area. It is located a sufficient distance from the closest neighbouring properties to prevent any impact on outlook and light, and subject to a condition, would not reasonably impact privacy.

The officers also note that the proposal would see the loss of six garages. However, they argue that this is acceptable as the garages are a later addition to the site, are of no architectural or historic value, and are not currently used for car parking. The demolition of the garages, they conclude, would enhance the setting of the nearby buildings subject to the replacement development being of a high design-quality.

The officers recommend that a condition be imposed that would require the removal of future residents' rights to parking permits. They argue that this is necessary to prevent parking stress in the area.

60 Breakspears Road, Brockley

The report pack requests permission to demolish three garages to the rear of 60 Breakspears Road and construct a two storey house with a basement and a roof terrace.

The development would be located within the Brockley Conservation Area.

This is not the first time that an application has been made for this site. A very similar application was refused in 2018 for the following reasons:

(a) The proposed development would, by reason of its height, scale, bulk and visually prominent location on Cranfield Road, have a detrimental impact on the local streetscape and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Brockley Conservation Area...

(b) The proposed development by reason of its height, bulk, scale and detailed design would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining residential properties by reason of the overbearing visual impact of the proposed building and loss of outlook...

(c) The proposed development would fail to provide satisfactory outlook for future occupiers due to the use of obscured glazed screens fixed to the exterior of windows to habitable rooms at ground and first floor level and the limited access to natural light and outlook for the proposed basement accommodation...

The 2018 refusal was appealed, but the appeal was dismissed by the planning inspectorate. The inspector, N A Holdsworth MCD MRTPI, agreed with the council's assessment of the impact on the amenity of residents, but disagreed that the development would provide unsatisfactory living conditions for future residents.

The current proposal includes a number of changes that are designed to address the concerns that were raised by the inspector in 2019. The most significant change is the setting back of the first floor element from the boundary with the adjacent property, 62 Breakspears Road. The applicant, Mr Joshua Confino, argues that this would reduce the visual impact of the development and improve the outlook for residents of the adjacent property.

Officers recommend that the application be approved, subject to a number of conditions. These include conditions relating to the materials that will be used to construct the development, the design of the roof terrace, and the landscaping of the site.

The officers note that the proposed development represents a housing windfall site, making a valuable contribution to housing supply in line with the LP Policies H1 and H2 and Core Strategy SP1, which encourage residential intensification in accessible urban areas. They also note that the proposal has been designed to address the reasons for the refusal of the previous application, and that it would provide a high standard of living accommodation for future residents.

23 Mercia Grove, Lewisham

The final planning application included in the report pack requests permission to build two additional storeys on top of 23 Mercia Grove. The existing building is three storeys tall, and the proposal would see it increased to five storeys.

The development would provide 15 new self-contained flats. The proposal has attracted 11 objections.

This application has been made under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). This order grants certain types of development permitted development rights. This means that, providing the development complies with the requirements of the order, it can be carried out without the need for a full planning application.

The relevant section of the order in this case is Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AA. This class grants permitted development rights for the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the topmost storey on a detached building.

The order sets out a number of requirements that must be met for a development to be granted prior approval. These requirements cover a range of issues, including the transport and highways impacts of the development, the external appearance of the building, the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the new dwellinghouses, and the impact on the amenity of the existing building and neighbouring premises.

The council has previously refused applications for prior approval for similar schemes at this site on a number of occasions. In 2021, an application for prior approval was refused because the council considered that the proposed development, by reason of the design, form, materials and detailing of the proposed roof extension would represent a poor quality, non-contextual and visually obtrusive form of development that would cause visual harm to the character and appearance of the property and surrounding streetscene.

This time the applicant, Rapleys LLP, argues that the changes made to the design of the scheme address these previous concerns. The officers agree with the applicant's assessment, concluding that the proposed extension is considered to high-quality and therefore viewed within the emerging context would not be harmful to the setting of the Conservation Area.

The officers recommend that prior approval be granted, subject to a number of conditions. They argue that the proposed development would make a positive contribution to the area, and that it would comply with the requirements of the General Permitted Development Order.

It is important to note that these are just summaries of the documents that were available to the attendees of the meeting. The summaries do not tell us anything about what was actually discussed or decided during the meeting. For example, the committee may have decided to reject one or more of the applications, or to impose different conditions on the developments. We cannot know for sure without access to the minutes of the meeting.