The Planning Committee (Smaller Applications) was scheduled to review planning applications for three locations: Potters Fields Park, 10 Gallery Road, and land rear of 19-49 Bush Road. The committee was also scheduled consider the minutes from their meeting on 11 November 2025.

Land Rear 19-49 Bush Road

The committee was scheduled to consider an application for the demolition of existing buildings at land rear 19-49 Bush Road, and construction of 3 blocks of two, three, and part-four storeys. The new buildings would contain 320 sqm of commercial space (Use Class E(g)(i) / E(g)(iii)), and purpose-built student accommodation rooms (Use Class Sui Generis), with associated landscaping, a service bay and turning areas.

The report pack noted that the proposed development would provide good quality purpose-built student housing, and would benefit the local economy through student population expenditure. It also stated that other social benefits would include an affordable housing contribution of £ 3,710,000 and the provision of accessible routes and student rooms. Wider sustainability benefits were listed as including the re-use of suitable brownfield land as part of a local regeneration scheme, a payment in-lieu of affordable housing on site, the provision of good quality student housing, an overall reduction in flood risk to the wider community and the provision of multifunctional Sustainable Drainage Systems¹ that integrate with green infrastructure. The report pack also noted that the development would support strategic regeneration objectives for Southwark, particularly in areas of deprivation within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and would deliver wider sustainability benefits including:

• Reuse of brownfield land
• Provision of high-quality student housing
• The creation of 5 jobs for the student accommodation element
• Affordable housing contribution (£3.71 million in lieu)
• Commercial space would generate 28 jobs
• Significant Biodiversity Net Gain (145%) and Urban Greening Factor² (0.4)
• 79% on-site carbon reduction and BREEAM Excellent target
• Multifunctional Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) reducing runoff from 50.5 l/s to 2.5 l/s. The report pack stated that flood risk had been assessed, and that the site benefits from raised flood defences and the Thames Barrier. It also stated that Finished Floor Levels are set 300mm above the Maximum Likely Water Level for the 2100 breach scenario, and that the development is considered flood resistant and resilient, with safe access and egress, and a flood warning plan to be implemented.

The report pack noted that the proposal had evolved through pre-application engagement and addresses previous concerns regarding massing, amenity, and design, and that it is considered acceptable in terms of townscape, architectural quality, and impact on neighbouring properties.

The report pack stated that since submission, additional documents had been submitted and the scheme amended in the following ways:

• BNG Report Technical Response / BNG Review Engagement Summary Comments response
• February 2025: Design and Access Statement amended to include all studio types
• August 2025
  • Design and Access Statement
  • Revised set of planning drawings
  • Illustrative Landscape Masterplan
  • Ground Floor and Roof Hard / Soft landscape GAs
  • UGF Plan
  • UGF Report
  • Transport Technical Note (includes updated trip generation assessment)
• October 2025
  • Revised Refuse Collection Strategy drawing
  • Revised Short Stay Cycle drawing
  • Revised Design and Access Statement reflecting the above
• November 2025
  • Comparative separation distances drawing
  • Daylight and Sunlight: addendum

The report pack also included a summary of the objections that had been received, including concerns about land use, employment, design, quality of accommodation, ecology and biodiversity, transport and highways, the environment, daylight, sunlight and overshadowing, noise and disturbance, construction, security, potentially contaminated land, inequality and consultation.

The report pack stated that the Local Economy Team had advised that the size and class use wouldn't trigger any obligations from local economy, and that the Urban Forester had said that as per 24/EQ/0150: Scrub habitat has been cleared which included trees, and that this will need to be considered as part of the UGF or BNG from the 2020 baseline and to inform the landscaping design to mitigate loss.

The report pack stated that the Design and Conservation Team had initially recommended refusal due to massing, height, quality and functionality, but that they had later said that the proposed scheme does not seem to be overly dominant or harmful in townscape terms, that there is a setback on the upper floor which helps in terms of providing visual mitigation, and that overall, it is acceptable.

The report pack stated that the Environment Agency had no objections to this application subject to the inclusion of the provided conditions and informative to any planning permission granted.

The report pack stated that the Metropolitan Police felt that the development could achieve the security requirements of Secured by Design and recommend a Pre-Commencement condition (Secured by Design Measures) and a Pre-Occupation condition (Secured by Design Certification) to ensure end to end compliance with Secured by Design.

The report pack recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the applicant entering into an appropriate legal agreement.

The supplemental agenda included a photograph from an objector of accidents along Bush Road opposite the southern entrance to the site, and a photograph of a water tank required to ensure prompt recovery of loss of water, and also a copy of a letter from Southwark Council to residents of William Evans House advising them that they can use the Seven Islands Leisure Centre washing facilities when they experience a loss of water.

The supplemental agenda also included a response from Thames Water, who said that there are public sewers crossing or close to the development, and that if the applicant is planning significant work near the sewers, it’s important that they minimize the risk of damage. Thames Water also advised that with regard to SURFACE WATER drainage, if the developer follows the sequential approach to the disposal of surface water they would have no objection, and that they would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures will be undertaken to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer.

The supplemental agenda also included further comments from the Highways Team, who said that there is adequate visibility at the retained vehicle access, and that the stopping sight distance for a 20mph is 25m, and that if vehicles speed around the bend, some measures need to be introduced to lower speeds, and that a stage 2 road safety audit can be included in the S278 process.

The supplemental agenda also included further comments from the Transport Team, who said that the site is in a PTAL 5 area, meaning public transport accessibility is considered excellent, and that TfL is upgrading Surrey Quays station (less than 500m from the site) and will soon provide lifts to enable step-free access to the Windrush line, and that Canada Water station is also located 1.1km from the site and already offers step-free access to the Jubilee and Windrush lines, as well as several bus routes.

The supplemental agenda also stated that the Director of Planning and Growth had taken into account the additional information, and that the recommendation remains that planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions as amended in the addendum report and completion of a s106 agreement³.

Potters Fields Park

The committee was scheduled to consider an application for the temporary use of Potters Fields Park for events with the erection of associated temporary structures (cumulatively no more than 800 sq. metres) for no more than 80 days in any one calendar year, for a period of five years.

The report pack noted that the application site is an area of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) covering 0.741 hectares at Potters Fields Park, located on the north side of Tooley Street, comprised of green open spaces, trees, and public pathways, and managed by Potters Fields Park Management Trust (the Trust).

The report pack stated that the proposal includes four separate events areas as follows:

• Lawn 1 = 944 sq. metres, for up to 80 days
• Lawn 2 = 1642 sq. metres, for up to 80 days
• Lawn 3 = 2579 sq. metres, for up to 80 days
• Lawn 4 = 1960 sq. metres, for up to 31 days

The report pack noted that the specific restrictions on these temporary structures, as stated on the events plan submitted with the application, are:

• To be cumulatively no more than 800 sq. metres within 3 or more structures
• Marquees, food stalls, art installations and gazebos to be no more than 4 metres in height above ground level
• Stages and other performance structures to be no more than 7 metres in height above ground level
• No two storey structures with internal staircases to be erected
• Lawn 1-3 to be used for paid and non-paid events for a period not exceeding 75 days in any one calendar year
• Lawn 4 to be used for paid and non-paid events for a period not exceeding 31 days in any one calendar year.

The report pack stated that initial neighbour notification letters were sent to 745 neighbouring properties on 29 October 2025, that a site notice was placed on 28 August 2025 and a publication was placed in the Southwark News on 21 August 2025, and that three objections were received in response to the consultation. The objections raised the following material planning considerations:

• An increase to a change of use for up to 80 days a year is excessive
• The events would impact on neighbouring residents in terms of noise and anti-social behaviour
• The proposal would result in a loss of open space.

The report pack noted that the application was amended as a result and the description of development was changed from seeking a 12-year planning permission to a five-year planning permission, and that subsequently, re-consultation was carried out with letters sent to those who objected to the original consultation on 29 October 2025 and an updated site notice was placed on 29 October 2025, and that no comments were received following the re-consultation.

The report pack stated that since the previous applications were considered, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was updated in 2024, and that it now states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is a form of development that preserves its openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, and that this applies to material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds), and that it also identifies as appropriate development the provision of facilities, including buildings, required in connection with an existing or proposed outdoor recreational use, provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, as appropriate development, and that this means that a change of use can be considered appropriate development on MOL as long as it preserves the openness and does not conflict with the purpose of including land within it.

The report pack stated that the use of the park for events does not undermine its designation as MOL, and that the entirety of the park would never be closed at any one time, and it would always remain open to the public, and that the proposed events encourage greater use of the park by visitors, while the financial benefits generated help to maintain and improve its quality.

The report pack noted that the modern appearance of the proposed temporary structures could appear incongruous within the setting of nearby heritage assets, but that given their limited scale and temporary nature, the resulting harm to the setting of these assets is considered to be less than substantial in accordance with paragraph 212 of the NPPF.

The report pack stated that a time-limit condition has been recommended which ensures that the proposed temporary change of use shall not be for more than 80 days within any one calendar year for a period of five years, and that a condition has been recommended removing this permitted development right to ensure that a change of use shall not take place from more than 80 days.

The report pack stated that the previous permissions have been subject to compliance conditions for temporary events (including the set up and take down of any associated structures) to only take place between 07:00 and 23:00 on Mondays to Saturdays and between 07:00 and 22:00 on Sundays, and that there is no change to the proposed hours of use and this compliance condition has again been recommended.

The report pack noted that the applicant has submitted an Event Hire Guide (dated April 2025), which sets out how event organisers must plan and manage events both legally and practically to respect local residents and minimise potential disruption, and that in line with previous permissions on the site, it is recommended that this document be secured by condition, requiring that all events carried out under the planning permission are undertaken in accordance with its provisions.

The report pack stated that the playing of music on site is restricted to between 10:00 and 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 11:00 to 19:00 Sunday, and that this is the case within the previous permission and a bespoke condition has also been recommended securing these hours for clarity.

The report pack noted that the Event Hire Guide also outlines protections for nearby residents, including the prevention of lighting from being angled towards nearby residential and commercial occupiers, and compliance with the Institution of Lighting Professionals guidance on mitigating the impact of lighting, and that subject to this existing control, the proposal would not present a significant risk to nearby occupiers in this regard.

The report pack stated that the site is well connected in terms of access to public transport, with London Bridge station within a 5-minute walk, and numerous bus services operating along Tooley Street and in the wider area, and that no car parking is proposed for the events, and visitors are encouraged to arrive at events by public transport, or by walking and cycling.

The report pack noted that there are two London Plane trees on site with Tree Protection Orders, as well as various other trees that need to be protected, and that a condition has been recommended requiring an Event Specific Tree Protection Plan to be submitted prior to first use of the site to avoid damage.

The report pack stated that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was undertaken on site on 27 May 2025 to assess the potential ecological impacts of the proposed development, and that the modified grassland within the site was assessed to be in poor condition, and that the proposed increase of five additional event days per year may result in a minor increase in physical disturbance and bare ground cover within this habitat parcel, but that it would nonetheless remain classified as being in poor condition, and that all individual trees and shrubs would be retained in their current condition.

The report pack noted that Metropolitan Police had no comments, and that Transport for London had said that they have no strategic transport objections to the grant of consent, and suggested that if granted the permission is subject to a condition requiring a framework events and works management plan to ensure that public routes are kept open and safe and convenient and delivery and servicing vehicles use appropriate bays for loading and unloading and don't impact on the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists and on traffic including buses on adjacent highway, and that the potential to use electric vehicles and/or cargo bikes should be explored, and that consideration should also be given to whether additional cycle parking is required for events' visitors staff and deliveries/waste away over and above that existing permanently.

The report pack noted that the Urban Forester requested a condition for an Arboricultural Method Statement, and that the Design and Conservation Team said that the modern structures could appear incongruous with the nearby heritage assets, and that given the limited scale and temporary nature of the structures/ installations, officers are satisfied that harm to the setting of the nearby heritage assets would be less than substantial, but that in this case where the temporary structures could affect views of the Tower Bridge and Tower of London, which are assets of the highest significance, a greater weight should be given the heritage conservation in line with paragraph 212 of the NPPF 2024, and that while renewal of the temporary permission could be acceptable given the precedents, an objection is raised against the increase in the duration of the permission (from five to 12 years) and the number of days the space can be used per calendar year (from 75 to 80 days), and that caution should be exercised where the proposal affects assets of the highest significance, and that the current proposal would deny us opportunity to review the permission until 2037 in case of any changes in circumstances, and also that there is insufficient public benefit to justify the additional harm resulting from the increased event days.

The report pack stated that Transport Planning Policy had no objection, and required confirmation of width of routes that will be maintained to ensure that pedestrian permeability is maintained and details of cycle parking, and that Highways Development Management required an event management plan, and that adequate safe passage widths are to be allowed for along internal paths and along the review front, allowing for movement in both directions, and that loading and unloading should be carried out safely and securely.

The report pack recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

The supplemental agenda included a letter of support from Councillor Emily Hickson, Labour Councillor for London Bridge and West Bermondsey, who said that as ward councillors, they are supporting the applicant's request to extend the permitted number of event days on Potters Fields Park from 75 to 80, and that based on long experience of how the Trust manages this space, we do not believe this modest increase will have any material impact on local residents, and that the 80 days include all rigging and derigging, and that these are not additional activity days but simply the total number of days something is on site, and that in practice, only a fraction of those days involve events themselves, and these events are tightly managed within agreed hours, with no late-night working, and that the Trust has operated under these conditions for many years, and the record speaks for itself: almost no noise complaints, and no pattern of event-related nuisance, and that concerns have been raised by residents about noise, anti-social behaviour and loss of open space, and that we understand these anxieties, but they do not reflect the park's track record or the public benefit delivered, and that anti-social behaviour in the park overwhelmingly occurs late at night when no events are taking place, and it should not be conflated with well-managed daytime or early-evening community and cultural activity, and that the park remains open and accessible throughout events, with pedestrian routes maintained, and that structures are temporary and quickly removed, and that crucially, the income from these limited event days is what allows the Potters Fields Park Management Trust to maintain not just Potters Fields Park to Green Flag standard, but also to look after the much-loved gardens at St John's Churchyard, and that the Trust has consistently reinvested in greening, planting, biodiversity improvements and general upkeep that directly benefit residents and workers who rely on these spaces daily, and that these events are not exclusive or closed off to the community, and that many are public, many are cultural or educational, and the Trust has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to handle higher footfall responsibly, with strong on-site stewardship that protects the lawns, planting and surrounding environment, and that given the minimal impact and the clear, ongoing gains for our local environment and community spaces, we are confident that extending permission to 80 event days is reasonable, proportionate and in the public interest, and that it will help secure the long-term health, quality and accessibility of two important local green spaces.

The supplemental agenda stated that having taken into account the additional information, following consideration of the matters raised, the recommendation remains that planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions.

Gallery Road

The committee was scheduled to consider an application relating to 10 Gallery Road, for the demolition of the existing shed/storage structure, refurbishment of the existing clubhouse building, erection of a lean-to on the existing clubhouse building, erection of a single-storey side extension to the existing clubhouse building, alterations to site access/egress for accessibility purposes, provision of plant equipment and additional cycle storage, and associated works and landscaping inside the application site.

The report pack noted that the application site lies within metropolitan open land, and is within the Dulwich Village conservation area, and features 18 trees.

The report pack stated that the main material considerations in the planning assessment are land use, design, layout, heritage assets, neighbouring amenity, landscaping, trees, biodiversity net gain (BNG), ecology and noise, and that the proposed development is in general compliance with planning policy.

The report pack noted that the application site comprises an outdoor recreation and sport facility (use class F2(c)), and that there is a clubhouse building on-site that is considered ancillary to the primary use of the site, and that the proposal seeks permission for extensions to the club house building (along with demolition of an existing shed/storage structure and associated landscaping/access works), and that there is no material change in use of the land or buildings proposed, and that the application site lies on land designated as metropolitan open land (MOL) which is considered the green belt for planning land use purposes.

The report pack stated that the proposed development is not inappropriate development within the green belt, and that the proposed development potentially meets two of the exceptions for green belt development, and that adopted policy (both NPPF and Southwark Plan) require only one exception to be met for development to be considered not inappropriate.

The report pack noted that the proposed development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and that the extended building footprint is smaller than the size of the original building and the height is lower.

The report pack stated that the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 outlines the general duties placed upon the LPA, in exercise of planning functions, for listed buildings and conservation areas, and that the duty for listed buildings is covered in s.66(1) 'the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses', and that the duty for conservation areas is covered in s.72(1) 'special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area', and that the NPPF provides a mechanism for assessing levels of harm versus public benefit, and that London Plan and Southwark Plan policies echo the statutory requirements above.

The report pack noted that the site includes a clubhouse and 8 tennis courts and is part of the Dulwich Village Conservation Area, and that located at the corner where Lover's Walk meets Gallery Road, the existing clubhouse is single storey with a hipped roof, screened by mature vegetation, and constructed in 1986 with red bricks in a simple and utilitarian design, and that the property is not listed or locally listed nor does it form the setting of a listed building (statutory or locally).

The report pack stated that internal alterations will have no impact on the character and appearance of conservation area, and that the proposal includes replacements to the windows and doors on the east and west elevations, and that there will be minor enlargements to the windows and doors on the east elevation, and that overall, the enlargement is minor and will have minimal impact on the overall appearance of the building, and that the proposed modern design for the windows is appropriate, and a planning condition is recommended to secure detail designs.

The report pack noted that an extension to the south is proposed and will be used as a changing block, and that it will replace the standalone garage and forms a T-shaped layout with the existing clubhouse, and that demolition of the garage is acceptable as it makes little contribution to the character of the conservation area, and that the proposed extension is single storey with a pitched roof and 4 rooflights to the ridge as well as a section of fixed glazing, and that it is subservient to the main clubhouse in height and will unlikely affect the appearance of the conservation area especially given its discreet location behind mature vegetation, and that material samples for the new extension are to be secured via planning condition.

The report pack stated that other elements of the work include landscaping, the erection of a lean-to on the clubhouse building where new plant equipment and cycle storage will be housed, and that these works are minor in nature and will not impact the setting of the conservation area.

The report pack noted that the Design and Conservation Team raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions, and that the proposed development preserves the character and appearance of Dulwich Village CA.

The report pack stated that the proposed development is located a considerable distance from any neighbouring building, and that as such, there are no material privacy impacts anticipated, and that there are no material daylight and sunlight impacts anticipated, and that there are no material openness and outlook impacts anticipated, and that overall, the amenity of neighbouring occupiers will not be materially impacted.

The report pack noted that the submission proposes minor landscaping works, including resurfacing existing non-permeable hard standing with permeable resin bound gravel, and that further works are proposed to improve accessibility and path gradients across the site, and that habitat enhancement works are also proposed but these are discussed separately within the biodiversity net gain section and will be secured via condition.

The report pack stated that the applicant has provided an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) to support their application in regard to trees, and that the assessment has been prepared in accordance with the established best practice guidelines (i.e. BS5837), and that the assessment outlines there are 18No. trees on the application site: 1No. Category A, 4No. Category B, 10No. Category C, 3No. Category U, and that Category A trees are of high quality, B are of moderate quality, and C are of low quality, Category U trees are those with a serious defect or decline and are considered to be unviable, meaning they have a high risk of imminent loss and are not recommended for retention.

The report pack noted that the development proposes the removal of 5No. trees: 2No. Category C and 3No. Category U, and that the remainder of tree works are limited to crown lifts and general trimming as set out in the submitted assessment, and that all remaining trees will be protected during construction, in accordance with the submitted Arboriculture Method Statement (AMS) - which will be secured via planning condition.

The report pack stated that the Urban Forestry Team raised no objection to the proposed works, subject to planning condition, and that the loss of Category U and Category C trees is adequately mitigated via the proposed habitat plan.

The report pack noted that in England, BNG is mandatory under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and that developers must deliver a BNG of 10%, and that this means a development will result in more or better-quality natural habitat than there was before development, and that the applicant has provided the Statutory Biodiversity Metric to support their application, along with existing and proposed habitat outline plans.

The report pack stated that the existing on-site baseline is as follows: Area habitat units: 0.86, Hedgerow units: 0.36, Watercourse units: 0.00, and that the proposed on-site baseline is as follows: Area habitat units: 0.96, Hedgerow units: 0.40, Watercourse units: 0.00, and that the total net change (%) is as follows: Area habitat units: 10.47%, Hedgerow units: 11.29%, Watercourse units: 0.00%, and that the BNG is not considered to be 'significant' for the purposes of the legislation.

The report pack noted that the proposed development adheres to the BNG hierarchy by creating biodiversity on-site within the redline boundary, and that it is not anticipated that off-site or statutory credits will be required in this instance, and that the development will be subject to the biodiversity gain plan condition (BGP) to ensure the statutory requirement of a 10% biodiversity net gain is met.

The report pack stated that in addition to the statutory biodiversity net gain (BNG) outlined above, there are other considerations with respect to biodiversity, as set out in adopted policy, and that to support their application the applicant has provided a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), and that the report provides recommendations in respect of species and habitat protection, as well recommending the provision of bird and bat boxes, and that planning conditions shall be used to secure both.

The report pack noted that the proposal seeks to introduce plant equipment (an air source heat pump), and that the location of the plant equipment is a considerable distance (>100m) from the nearest noise sensitive receptor (the dwellings at College Gardens), and that the provision of additional clubhouse facilities (changing rooms, toilets, staff office/store and a medical room etc.) is unlikely to give rise to a material uplift in members/visitor numbers, and that as such, the proposal will result in no material impact on neighbouring amenity, and that noise creep due to plant equipment can also impact the local environment and soundscape, as such a condition is recommended to ensure the ASHP noise levels remain within appropriate levels.

The report pack stated that the application seeks permission for modest extension to the existing outdoor sport and recreation facility to provide additional facilities (changing rooms, toilets, staff office/store and a medical room etc.), and that the proposed development will not result in a material increase in trip generation to/from the site, and that the size of the extension does not trigger any policy requirements to provide any additional cycle parking, and that notwithstanding the applicant has proposed to introduce a small bike store, which is viewed positively and will help to encourage additional active travel to and from the site, and that the scale of development is modest, further mitigation for construction impact and logistics are not required, beyond the aforementioned conditions to protect trees, ecology and biodiversity.

The report pack noted that adopted policy requires all development be air quality neutral (AQN), and that development can be assumed to be AQN if it does not create additional car parking, and does not lead to an increase in localised car journeys, and does not include new combustion plants such as gas-fired boilers, and that as such, the proposal is considered to meet adopted policy requirements with respect to air quality and no further information or assessments have been requested.

The report pack stated that a Planning Fire Safety Strategy (PFSS) has been provided for this proposal, and that the statement covers matters required by planning policy, and that this is in no way a professional technical assessment of the fire risks presented by the development.

The report pack noted that development must minimise carbon emissions on site in accordance with the following energy hierarchy: 1. Be lean (energy efficient design and construction); then 2. Be clean (low carbon energy supply); then 3. Be green (on site renewable energy generation and storage), and that the building will be constructed to the latest iteration of building regulations and features an air source heat pump/mechanical ventilation heat recovery, both of which meet the 'be lean' first tier of the hierarchy.

The report pack stated that the site has had various structures in situ since approximately 1920s, records of past structures are limited, and some historic building materials have been found to be hazardous to health, and that adopted policy requires that contaminated land be sufficiently mitigated, and that as such, a condition is recommended to ensure any unexpected land contamination is sufficiently remediated.

The report pack noted that the application site lies within a critical drainage area, but the scale of the proposed development does not trigger any requirements for further flood risk information, and that notwithstanding, it is likely the proposed development will have negligible effect in relation to the critical drainage area, and that although the development introduces extensions, an existing area of non-permeable hard standing (which exceeds the footprint of the proposed extensions) will be replaced with permeable resin bound gravel.

The report pack stated that no letters of objection had been received, and that two letters of support had been received, and that the application was publicised in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 and the locally adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) 2025, and that neighbour letters were sent to properties (22No.) within a 150m radius of the application red line boundary, and that a site notice was displayed on Gallery Road fronting the site, and that a press notice was published in Southwark News.

The report pack noted that the Ecology Team (ECOLOG) had no objection, subject to conditions, and that development is BNG applicable, and that the Design and Conservation Team (DES) had no objection, subject to conditions, and that the Urban Forestry Team (URBA) had no objection, subject to conditions, and that the Transport Policy Team (TRA) had requested further information, and that the Highways Development Team (HDM) had requested further information, and that the Environmental Protection Team (EPT) had no comment received.

The report pack recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

The supplemental agenda included a letter of support from the Dulwich Society, who said that the Society's aims and objectives are to foster and safeguard the amenities of Dulwich, both in the interests of its residents and the wider community of which it is a part, and to increase awareness of the varied character that makes the area so special, and that we support this application to refurbish and upgrade the existing clubhouse and extension to update the facilities on offer.

The supplemental agenda stated that having taken into account the additional information, following consideration of the matters raised, the recommendation remains that planning permission should be granted, subject to conditions.

Other matters

The agenda also included a motion to exclude the press and public from the meeting if there were reports that revealed exempt information.