Agenda item

 

Recording of Members’ votes

Council Procedure Rule 1.9 (4) allows a Member to record her/his vote in respect of any Motions and amendments. 

Such requests are detailed in the following Minutes.  Should a Member’s vote be recorded in respect to an amendment, a copy of the amendment may be found in the Minute File and is available for public inspection.

 

The Community Council considered the items set out on the agenda, a copy of which has been incorporated in the Minute File.  Each of the following paragraphs relates to the item bearing the same number on the agenda.

 

 

6.   DEVELOPMENT CONTROL  (see pages 5– 47)

 

RESOLVED:

1.  That the determination of planning applications, or formal observations and comments, the instigation of enforcement action and the receipt of the reports on the agenda be considered.

 

2.  That the decisions made on the planning applications be subject to the conditions and/or made for the reasons set out in the attached reports unless otherwise stated.

 

3.  That where reasons for the decision or condition are not included in the report relating to an individual item, that they be clearly specified.

 

The Chair decided to vary the order of the agenda items.

Item 6/4 – Recommendation: Grant – 325 Lordship Lane, London SE22 8JH  (See pages 39 – 47)

 

Proposal:  Extensions at basement and ground floor level, rear dormer window

     extension; front rooflight and conversion to form 4 self contained flats.

 

The planning officer introduced the report, circulated plans of the scheme and responded to Members’ questions. 

 

Members were advised that this was the fourth submission for this site, following 3 previous refusals and an appeal.  Officers considered that the application had now overcome the previous reasons for refusal and was recommended for approval.

 

Members expressed concern about the lack of parking in regard to the proposal and the potential to provide a car club space.  Officers advised that there were no policies which could be used to insist that a car club space be provided, further that transport officers did not support this view. 

 

Cllr Eckersley asked about the rear extension and its depth compared with the adjoining property.  Officers advised that the extension was a relatively minor increase.

 

No objectors were present at the meeting. 

 

 

The applicant was present to respond to questions from Members.

 

Cllr Thomas raised concerns about the access to the amenity space to the rear and whether this was useable, accessible space. 

 

Officers advised that the garden was accessed by a side gate where the cycle storage area would be located and that the amount of amenity space was acceptable. 

 

Further concern was expressed by Cllr Thomas about the installation of a gate beyond the cycle storage area which would restrict all but the garden flat from accessing the garden. 

 

Officers advised that this could be implemented without the benefit of planning permission and an additional condition could be added requiring the amenity space to be retained for the benefit of all residents.

 

Members further debated on this item.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted subject to an additional   condition regarding the use of the rear garden.

 

  Additional condition;

 

The communal garden to the rear of the site shall be retained as a communal amenity space for the benefit of the occupiers of all of the units for the duration of the use.

 

  Reason

To ensure that all of the residents have access to outdoor amenity space in accordance with Policies 3.2 Protection of amenity and 4.2 Quality of residential accommodation of the Southwark Plan 2007 and Supplementary Planning Document - Residential Design Standards (2008).

 

 

Item 6/3 – Recommendation: grant – Dulwich Hamlet School, Dulwich Village, London SE21 7AL  (See pages  32 – 38) 

 

Proposal:  Revision of approved scheme 08-AP-3090. Increasing the   pitch of the approved ground floor skylight, to improve self   cleaning potential of the glass.  Alteration of an existing   opening on the east elevation of the kitchen block to create a     window into the kitchen office.

 

The planning officer introduced the report, circulated plans of the scheme and responded to Members’ questions. 

 

A local resident was present to observe proceedings.

 

There were no objectors present at the meeting.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted.

 

 

Item 6/2 – Recommendation: grant – 16 – 18 Upland Road, London SE22 9EE  (See pages  22 – 31) 

 

 Proposal:  Change of use of building from Financial and Professional (Use Class   A2) to 6no. self-contained flats (Use Class C3), creation of lightwells   at front and rear, erection of single-storey rear extension and first floor   rear extension, alteration of shop front to windows at ground floor level     and erection of boundary wall to front.

 

The planning officer introduced the report, circulated plans of the scheme and responded to Members’ questions.

 

Representations were heard from the objectors citing the reasons for objecting as overdevelopment of the site, noise problems, concern for refuse collection, which at 10 -12 was always overflowing, and impact of the first floor extension.

 

Members further debated on this item.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

 

  1.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the loss of an active ground floor use would not result in harm

to the vitality and viability of the local shops in the area which provide a valuable amenity to local residents.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 1.10 part ii of the Southwark Plan 2007.

 

2.  The proposal, by reason of the location of the bin, recycling and cycle storage immediately behind the front boundary wall, together with the detailed design of the front elevation in

 particular the single ground floor window to no. 16 Upland Road, would fail to respond positively to its surroundings.  The inappropriate design  of the front elevation and the cluster of storage in front of the building would represent an incongruous feature within the street detrimental to the visual amenity of adjoining properties and other people in the local area. 

 

As such the proposal is contrary to Policy 3.2 Protection of

Amenity, 3.7 Waste Reduction, 3.12 Quality in Design and 3.13 Urban Design of The Southwark Plan 2007.

 

3.  The proposed accommodation represents a cramped and over converted development offering a poor standard of accommodation for future residents by reason of the undersized studio   unit the limited depth of the front light well with the cluster of structures in front resulting in a poor level of light and ventilation to the basement dwellings, the lack of private outdoor space and the high density arising from the number of proposed habitable rooms within the building., adversely affecting the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and of future occupiers of the building by virtue of noise transmission The proposal  is therefore contrary to Policies 3.2  Protection of Amenity, 3.11 Efficient Use of Land, 3.12 Quality in Design, 4.1 Density and 4.2  Quality of Residential Accommodation of  The Southwark Plan 2007 and the Residential Design Guidance in the Supplementary Planning Document 2008.

 

 

Item 6/1 – Recommendation: grant – 52 Lordship Lane, London SE22 8HJ  (See pages  11 – 19) 

 

Proposal:  Variation of  condition 7 of planning permission reference: 07-  AP 2843 to extend opening hours of wine bar from 10:00-23:00   on Monday – Thursday, 11:00-00:00 on Friday and  Saturday   and 11:00-22:30 on Sunday to: 10:00-00:30 on Monday –

  Thursday, 10:00-02:00 on Friday and Saturday and 12:00-  00:30 on Sunday and public holidays.

 

The planning officer introduced the report, circulated plans of the scheme and responded to Members’ questions.

 

Officers advised that no objections had been received from Environmental Protection. 

 

Neither the applicant nor any objectors were present at the meeting.

 

Members expressed concern about the problems arising from a number of late night uses currently operating along Lordship Lane.

 

Members were also concerned that existing conditions associated with this premises had already been breached.  Members noted that the permission for the use was granted only last year and with an acknowledgement that the use would be immediately behind residential properties the conditions on the hours of operation and land to the rear were aimed at limiting the impacts of the proposed use on these properties.  It was noted that where planning permission had been granted for similar uses in the area conditions existed to control the hours of operation.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the planning application to extend the hours be   refused for the following reason:

 

The proposed extension of hours along this section of Lordship Lane would result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties by reason of the occupants entering and leaving the premises at hours when the area would normally be quieter.  The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy 3.2 Protection of Amenity of the Southwark Plan 2007.