The Planning Committee B met to discuss four planning applications, concerning Mercia Grove, Woodyates Road, Broseley Grove, and Sandhurst Road. Councillors voted to approve all four applications, after hearing from planning officers, local residents and applicants.

23 Mercia Grove

Councillors voted to approve an application to build two additional storeys at 23 Mercia Grove, to create 15 self-contained flats. The application had previously been approved at committee, but had to be reconsidered due to an error in the consultation process.

Residents spoke against the application, raising concerns about refuse management, traffic, height and the impact on the conservation area¹. One resident said:

Refuse trucks are blocked, yes, this is an existing traffic management issue, but to suggest that you can now magically bring them into our road to process this increased volume of refuse in our road is otherworldly.

The planning officer responded that existing refuse issues were a matter of building management, and not a material consideration. They added that a waste management plan would be required to deal with bins for the new development, and a legal agreement would prevent new residents from obtaining parking permits.

Councillor Aliya Shaikh, ward councillor for Lewisham Central, spoke in objection to the application, saying that it would cause visual harm to the conservation area. She also raised concerns about daylight, sunlight, waste disposal, and access for emergency vehicles.

Councillors added an informative advising that consideration be given to the collection point being on Albion Way.

Lee Meeting Hall, Woodyates Road

Councillors voted to approve an application for the continued use of Lee Meeting Hall, Woodyates Road, as a place of worship, along with the construction of single-storey extensions, reconfiguration of the parking layout, provision of an air source heat pump, and new cycle parking.

Representatives of the applicant, The Church in London, said that the extensions would allow them to better deliver religious messages and instructions for different age groups, and make more efficient use of the space for parking and bicycle storage.

Local residents objected to the application, raising concerns about noise. One resident, Ali Uysal, said that since The Church in London had purchased the land, every single weekend there had been noise, screams, and shouting.

The planning officer said that there were conditions restricting the hours of opening, and that no amplified musical sound would be allowed. A noise management plan would also be submitted prior to first occupation.

Land Rear of 55 Broseley Grove

Councillors voted to approve an application for minor material amendments to an already approved scheme for land to the rear of 55 Broseley Grove. The original scheme, approved in 2023, was for five three-bed units. The proposed changes include reconfiguration of the layouts, fenestration amendments, replacement of hung tiles with brickwork, realignment of the boundary wall, and a change of the housing mix to one three-bed unit and four four-bed units.

A resident, John Getgood, objected to the application, saying that the current situation was appalling, and the proposed extensions would do significant harm to the outlook of residents in Woodbastwick Road. He added that the developer's drawings had assumed that the level in Woodbastwick Road was the same as the level in Broseley Grove, when in fact there was a three-metre jump.

The planning officer responded that the material considerations for the scheme could only be the difference between what had been approved, and the impact that the proposed changes would have.

Land to the Rear of 179 Sandhurst Road

Councillors voted to approve an application for the erection of two two-storey two-bed semi-detached houses on land to the rear of 179 Sandhurst Road and 174 Glenfarg Road. The development would be car-free, and would include refuge storage and cycle storage.

A representative of the Archibald Corbett Society spoke in support of the application, saying that what was there at the moment was pretty awful, and the applicants had really tried to make it fit in.

Councillor Fashu asked about the relationship of the back wall of the house to the gardens of 177 and 172, and how the number of trees would be grown to mature trees in that space. The planning officer responded that the proposal differed from the previous refusal in that it had setbacks on the rear elevation, and the trees would be planted in planters.

Councillors added a condition around tree protection, and opaque glazing for anything that overlooks the garden.