Minutes for Woolwich & Thamesmead Area Planning Committee meeting, Jul 30 2009, 6.30PM official page

Members to elect a vice-chair for the municipal year.

Resolved –

That Councillor Clive Mardner is appointed Vice-Chair of the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning and Environment Committee for the municipal year.

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alex Grant, Don Austen, Peter King, Clive Mardner, Jackie Smith, Elizabeth Truss and Paul Tyler.

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.

Members to declare any personal and prejudicial interests in items on the agenda.  Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

Resolved –

That the list of Councillors’ membership (as Council appointed representatives) on outside bodies, joint committees and School Governing Bodies is noted.

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2009.

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided.  Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes.

Resolved –

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 27 May 2009 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey building with associated landscaping and car parking.

Link to Planning Documents

Resolved –

That planning permission for the erection of a two-story building comprising 2 one-bed flats and 1 two-bed dwelling with associated landscaping and car parking is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the appended report.

The Assistant Area Planning Manager gave an illustrated presentation of the report.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Assistant Area Planning Manager replied:

·              The application was a revised application that had been submitted following an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Whilst the appeal had been dismissed as the proposed roof was out of character with the surrounding area, although the ground that the development resulted in the loss of open space had been rejected by the Inspector.

·              The application had been revised to include a portion of enclosed land as an amenity space, and the design of the roof had been amended to a gable-end design.

·              The amenity space would be maintained by residents. Whilst the land would be enclosed, the elevation of the site would retain the visual characteristics of the space.

·              It was expected that the development would resolve the issues associated with fly-tipping on what was currently open land.

Resolved Unanimously –

That planning permission for the erection of a two-story building comprising 2 one-bed flats and 1 two-bed dwelling with associated landscaping and car parking is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the appended report.

Planning permission is sought for the re-siting of Block 5 to be located 9 metres away from Harold Gibbons Court. Block 5 forms part of a redevelopment proposal for 37 flats and 23 houses.

Link to Planning Documents

Resolved –

That planning permission for the re-siting of Block 5 to be located 9 metres away from Harold Gibbons Court is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the report.

Councillor Harpinder Singh arrived during the discussion of this item, and as such, did not take part in the debate or the vote.

The Assistant Area Planning Manager gave an illustrated presentation of the report. Members were informed that the secondary windows that faced Harold Gibbons Court would be obscure glazed and fixed shut. Whilst this application concerned the building being resited nine metres from Harold Gibbons Court, the applicant was currently appealing regarding the building’s current position eight metres from Harold Gibbons Court.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Assistant Area Planning Manager replied:

·              All of the units within Block 5 would be designated as affordable housing.

·              Car parking spaces would be provided on a basis of one space per unit.

·              The amenity space/play area would be required by condition. The space would be enclosed.

·              Block 5 would be accessible for people with disabilities.

·              The ongoing appeal concerned the positioning of the building eight metres from Harold Gibbons Court; the application currently under consideration was for the resiting of the building nine metres from Harold Gibbons Court.

The Committee was addressed by four members of the public, whose issues included:

·              There had not been sufficient consideration of the impact of the resiting on residents living in Cavalier Terrace, which would be closer to the building as a result.

·              It had not been made clear that a building was to be constructed on the site when residents of the Cavalier Terrace had purchased their properties in 2007.

·              A gap of nine metres between Harold Gibbons Court and Block 5 was still too close, and would lead to a loss of light, privacy and the creation of a sense of enclosure.

·              The loss of open and play space would have a significant impact on children in the area, with health and societal implications resulting from the loss of amenity.

·              The amenity/play space would not be enclosed, but integrated into the area, and should include a variety of play spaces.

·              The movement of Block 5 would have a material impact, both on the residents of Cavalier Terrace and on the future residents of Block 5 due to the proximity of the two. The information provided by the developers was incorrect, particularly regarding the degree of overlook and the resultant loss of privacy.

·              The development had resulted in a reduction in the number and availability of parking spaces to the residents of Harold Gibbons Court.

·              The full development had had the result of reducing the supply of social housing within the Borough.

In response to a question from the Committee, one of the members of the public suggested that a compromise could be reached by reducing the size of Block 5.

The Committee was addressed by the applicant and agent for the application, whose comments included:

·              Block 5 would consist entirely of affordable properties.

·              The plans for the site indicated the area of amenity space/play area which was for communal use by all residents, including those of Harold Gibbons Court. Local residents would be consulted on the use of this space to ensure that it was utilised in a way that met their needs as users.

·              The space would be enclosed by railings to give the community a sense of “ownership” over it. It would be maintained by a team of caretakers employed by the applicant, who would ensure it was kept in good condition.

·              The residents of Cavalier Terrace had been consulted on the application, as the applicant and agent had assisted in providing addresses for the consultation.

·              The oblique angle between Block 5 and Cavalier Terrace would assist in limiting overlook, and the secondary windows on that side of the building would also be obscure glazed and non-opening, further reducing overlook.

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant and agent gave the following responses:

·              Whilst the existing Block 5 would need to be demolished in order to resite it, a smaller building would lead to a reduction in the number of units available, reducing the amount of affordable housing available.

·              The plan from which the owners of the properties on Cavalier Terrace purchased their properties would have shown Block 5, as it was part of the same development as the Cavalier Terrace properties.

·              Whilst the appeal regarding the initial application was still outstanding, no firm decision had been made by the applicants whether to, if granted, use the footprint set out in the original application, or to use the footprint set out in the application currently under consideration, if granted.

·              On previous developments, community events aimed at children had been held to determine what they wanted the shared space to be used for. It was proposed to hold a similar event for Block 5.

·              It had been agreed with officers that the secondary windows overlooking Harold Gibbons Court would be fixed shut and obscure glazed, in response to concerns raised by residents. The primary windows on the site overlooked the amenity space. With the exception of a ground-floor bedroom window, the windows facing on to Harold Gibbons Court were secondary windows.

·              Whilst parking facilities were affected by the master plan for the development, parking was not affected by the application currently under consideration by the committee.

The Chair clarified that the issue under consideration within the application was the location of the footprint of the building, rather than the wider suitability of the development. He also requested that the applicant discuss with residents the issues raised by the speakers at the meeting.

Resolved Unanimously –

That planning permission for the re-siting of Block 5 to be located 9 metres away from Harold Gibbons Court is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the report.

Planning Permission is sought for the retention of the four x 3 storey town houses fronting onto Bramphoe Lane. This is a partial re-submission of previously approved scheme for the redevelopment of East Mascalls to provide 34 flats and 4 houses (Ref: 06/2437/F) dated 2^nd March 2007.

Link to Planning Documents

Resolved –

That planning permission for the retention of the four x 3 story town houses fronting onto Bramhope Lane is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the report and subject to the following imposed at the meeting:

That that condition concerning the hard and soft landscaping of the site be strengthened to ensure that Block 1 was appropriately screened from neighbouring properties.

The Assistant Area Planning Manager gave an illustrated presentation of the report. Members were informed that the planning permission that had been originally granted had been for a taller building that was further away from Mascalls Road. Objections had been received regarding the suitability of the roofing material and the proximity of the building to the properties in Mascalls Road.

The Committee was addressed by a member of the public, whose issues included:

·              The nature of the design of the roof resulted in significant glare into the gardens and properties on Mascalls Road, which made it difficult to use these during the day.

·              The lack of compliance with the previously granted planning permission had been reported to Planning Enforcement in 2008, but no action had been taken.

·              It was felt that the relocation of the building was not to facilitate disabled access, but to enable the provision of off-road parking, which would add to the value of the property. Disabled access to the building could have been provided by alternative means, which would be less intrusive for Mascalls Road residents.

·              The upper floors of the building directly overlooked the Mascalls Road properties in such a way that the privacy of residents, both when using their gardens and the rooms facing the building.

·              The building should be demolished and rebuilt in line with the planning permission that had been previously granted for the building. Should the Committee grant the planning application under consideration, it was requested that the residents be consulted on measures to reduce glare and improve privacy, in order to ensure that residents’ needs were met.

The Committee was addressed by the applicant and agent for the application, whose comments included:

·              When the applicant had been informed that that the building had not been constructed in line with the previously granted planning permission, a retrospective planning application had been initiated by the applicant.

·              There was no provision for parking on the site, and no drop curb had been installed on the site. The modification of the location of the building had been due to a change in disability access requirements.

·              The applicant was happy to accept conditions concerning glare from the roof and to ensure the privacy of Mascalls Road residents.

·              Representatives of the applicant and agent had visited the site and met with residents to discuss their concerns. This had led to the development of a plan for an enhanced boundary to increase privacy, with a fence suggested as a remedy.

·              The roofing material selected was in use throughout the development, with this site being the only one where the issue with glare had arisen. The applicant and agent were working with the manufacturer to identify a process that would resolve this problem. The applicant was happy to accept a condition requiring resolution of the problems with glare.

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant and agent gave the following responses:

·              Whilst it was disappointing that the building had not been constructed according to the original planning permission, the retrospective planning application had been initiated by the applicant on being informed of it occurring, rather than as a result of the threat of enforcement action.

·              The fence suggested would consist of trellis, which would provide privacy, whilst still enabling light to pass through it.

·              The agent felt that the building did not overlook the Mascalls Road properties due to the lower ground level, but was willing to broaden discussions regarding residents’ privacy.

·              Whilst the applicant and agent were keen to resolve the problem with glare, it was difficult to resolve without damaging the roof.

·              Whilst it was difficult to determine exactly what constituted a mature plant, the use of plants to add to the amount of privacy provided.

In response to requests for clarification from the Committee, the Assistant Area Planning officer explained that she did not know whether the building had been built on the footprint of the previous building on the site, but that appeals had been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate, which had less distance between overlooking residents than was the case in the current application. The ground level of the building was 3.5 metres below that of the properties located on Mascalls Road. The condition proposed concerning the roof glare specified the submission of possible solutions within 28 days of the granting of planning permission.

Members of the committee made the following comments regarding the application:

·              It was believed that the building that had previously occupied the site had been of a similar height to the building, and had included balconies.

·              The Chair requested that conditions relating to the landscaping of the site be amended to strengthen the amount of screening afforded to Mascalls Road residents, particularly regarding the use of mature plants. The Chair also urged officers to consult with residents where possible to ensure that appropriate measures were taken to protect their privacy.

Resolved Unanimously –

That planning permission for the retention of the four x 3 story town houses fronting onto Bramhope Lane is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the report and subject to the following imposed at the meeting:

That that condition concerning the hard and soft landscaping of the site be strengthened to ensure that Block 1 was appropriately screened from neighbouring properties.

No members of the public addressed the meeting during the Open Session.

Planning permission is sought for demolition of existing car repair work shop, associated buildings and office area for construction of a three-storey building to provide an office accommodation (Use Class A2) on the ground floor and 4 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom units on the upper floors with car parking and refuse store (Resubmission).

Link to Planning Documents

Resolved –

That planning permission for the demolition of the existing car repair workshop, associated buildings and office area and the construction of a three-story building to provide office accommodation (use Class A2) on the ground floor and 4 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom units on the upper floors with car parking and refuse store is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the report.

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated presentation of the report. The application was a resubmission of an application which had been refused due to being unsuitable for residential use, which had been resolved in the current application. It was highlighted to members that the development would be accessible to disabled people and would include roof-mounted solar panels.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Officer replied:

·              There would be eight car parking spaces for residents, which would be located to the rear of the development. Bicycle storage facilities would also be included.

·              The development would have a total height of 8.2 metres, which would be approximately 0.6 metres higher than the adjoining building. The building currently occupying the site was 4.2 metres tall.

·              The property did not include a side window looking across the access road to the rear of the property. As such, there was not an impact on the privacy on the flat above this property.

The Committee was addressed by the agent for the application, who explained that the application was primarily intended to expand the business space available within the property, with the addition of flats above the property to maximise use of the space available.

Resolved Unanimously –

That planning permission for the demolition of the existing car repair workshop, associated buildings and office area and the construction of a three-story building to provide office accommodation (use Class A2) on the ground floor and 4 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom units on the upper floors with car parking and refuse store is granted, subject to the conditions listed in section 6 of the report.

Planning permission is sought for demolition of the existing building and erection of a part three/four storey building to provide nine flats, 3 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed and 4 x 4 bed flats with associated parking and landscaping.

Link to Planning Documents

Resolved –

That planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a part three/four storey building to provide nine flats; 3 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed and 4 x 4 bed flats with associated parking and landscaping is granted, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions listed in section 6 of the report.

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated presentation of the report. The application was a resubmission of an application which had been refused due to the loss of The Valley Public House, which had subsequently closed. A section 106 agreement was sought regarding the provision of a car club.

The committee was addressed by the agent for the application, who explained that there would be five car parking spaces for residents within the development, with an on-road parking space for use by the car club, subject to section 106 agreement.

Resolved Unanimously –

That planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a part three/four storey building to provide nine flats; 3 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed and 4 x 4 bed flats with associated parking and landscaping is granted, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions listed in section 6 of the report.

Planning permission is sought for the insertion of a mezzanine to provide 669m² of floor space.

Link to Planning Documents

Resolved –

That planning permission for the insertion of a mezzanine to provide 669m² of floor space is granted, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and to the condition listed in section 6 of the report.

The Assistant Area Planning Manager gave an illustrated presentation of the report. Members were informed that no external alterations to the building were proposed. The application was subject to a section 106 agreement for a financial contribution for training and employment, which was required due to the amount of floor space provided by the application.

Resolved Unanimously –

That planning permission for the insertion of a mezzanine to provide 669m² of floor space is granted, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and to the condition listed in section 6 of the report.

To note the recent appeals decisions and the new appeals received by the Planning Inspectorate.

Resolved –

1.           That the recent appeals decisions are noted.

2.           That the new appeals received by the Planning Inspectorate are noted.