The Planning Committee B of Lewisham Council met on Thursday 29 February 2024 to discuss three planning applications. The committee resolved to grant planning permission for two of these applications: Unit 1, Ashby Mews, London SE4 1TB, and Garages at Land on Western Side of Millbank Way, London SE12. The third application, for 135 Minard Road, London SE6 1NN, was deferred.

Unit 1, Ashby Mews, London SE4 1TB

The committee granted planning permission for the partial demolition of the front of the existing light industrial building at Unit 1, Ashby Mews, and its alteration and extension to provide four two-storey live/work units. The proposal also includes private amenity space, cycle parking, and refuse collection facilities. Key considerations for the committee included the principle of development, housing provision, urban design, transport impact, sustainable development, and the natural environment. Concerns were raised about ensuring the units would genuinely be used as live/work spaces rather than solely residential, with officers confirming that enforceable conditions would be in place to safeguard employment use. The applicant's presentation highlighted the scheme's high-quality design, its positive impact on the mews conservation area, and the clear differentiation between living and workspaces. A supporter of the application spoke about the successful transformation of similar areas into vibrant communities for creators and artists. An objector raised concerns about misleading representations, the enforceability of the live/work use, potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, and the accuracy of the application's information. Councillor Penfold spoke under standing orders, expressing scepticism about the applicant's true intentions for the live/work units given the site's planning history and concerns about the character of the mews being further diluted. He also raised issues regarding flood risk and bin storage enforceability. The planning officer reiterated that enforceability was secured by conditions.

Garages at Land on Western Side of Millbank Way, London SE12

Planning permission was granted for the demolition of existing garages and the construction of nine dwellinghouses on land to the western side of Millbank Way. The development will include associated car and cycle parking, refuse and recycling stores, amenity space, and landscaping. The committee discussed concerns about the bin storage space being tight and potentially difficult for residents with accessibility issues, with officers confirming that highways officers had raised no concerns. The maintenance of the green roof was also clarified, with the officer stating it was conditioned to be maintained by the developer. The applicant highlighted that the scheme provided less density than a previous approved flat development, focusing instead on family homes, and that the design was in keeping with neighbouring buildings. The scheme had received support from the Lee Manor Society and had no objections from highways, environmental protection, urban design, or tree officers. An objector raised concerns about the consultation process, visual impact, parking pressure, and the need for further consultation. Officers responded that while pre-application consultation was not mandatory, engagement had occurred. Members requested a condition to ensure the maintenance of the play area.

135 Minard Road, London SE6 1NN

This application for a retrospective single-storey rear extension at 135 Minard Road was deferred. The property is currently in use as a small HMO (Use Class C4), a use implemented prior to the introduction of an Article 4 Direction. Planning permission was sought only for the single-storey rear extension, which replaced an original outrigger. The extension measures 3m in depth and has a maximum height of 3m with a flat roof. The key planning considerations were urban design and the impact on neighbouring amenity. Objections were received regarding the construction without neighbour consultation, noise, traffic, anti-social behaviour, misleading plans, and the extension's height and impact on privacy. Supporters commented that the proposal was acceptable, in keeping with the house design, and that the extension's depth was less than 3m. Officers concluded that the extension's scale and design were respectful and subservient to the host building and in keeping with the prevailing pattern of rear developments in the terrace. They also found no unacceptable harmful impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring properties. The decision to defer was made to allow for further consideration of the issues raised.