The Planning Committee A of Lewisham Council met to discuss a number of planning and licensing applications, including a proposal for the demolition of a garage and the construction of a house at 2a Gaynesford Road. Councillors also discussed retrospective permission for a terrace at Skehans Freehouse, and a new traveller site at Pool Court. The committee voted to approve the application for 2a Gaynesford Road, subject to conditions outlined by planning officers.

2a Gaynesford Road

The committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a two-bedroom house at 2a Gaynesford Road, SE23 2UQ. The committee voted to approve the application, subject to conditions outlined by planning officers.

Dean Gibson, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application, highlighting that the site is within the Perry Vale and Christmas Estate Conservation Area. He explained that previous applications for the site had been refused, but that the current proposal had been amended following pre-application discussions to address previous concerns. He noted that the current scheme is for a single-storey dwelling from street level, which is much more subservient, much more proportionate in scale than previous proposals.

Key considerations outlined in the Public Reports Pack included:

• The principle of development, with reference to the council's policy to promote new housing development on small sites.
• Design and conservation, with officers stating that the design and layout would not cause any significant harm to the character of the conservation area.
• Neighbour amenity, with the planning inspector for a previous application only finding harm on one issue, which the current application has addressed.
• Transport, with the scheme being car-free and providing storage for two cycles.
• Sustainability, with the proposal taking a fabric-first approach and proposing green roofs.
• Trees and ecology, with no significant trees being impacted and the development making provision for soft landscaping.

During the meeting, Councillor John Paschoud raised concerns about the size of the plot, stating that objectors claimed the measurements were incorrect and significantly smaller than stated in the application. He referred to a previous planning officer's concerns about the accuracy of the plot's boundaries and questioned what had been done to investigate this. Dean Gibson responded that the application outline was the same as shown on previous applications, and if there were concerns, they would have been addressed in the submission. He also noted that the previous application refusal was subject to an appeal, and the inspector raised no issue with the accuracy of the plot size.

Peter Swain from Prawn Architects, the agent for the application, addressed the committee, stating that the site dimensions were correct on the drawings.

Joanne Clements, a resident of 49B Church Rise, spoke on behalf of residents objecting to the proposal. She stated that previous applications had been refused for reasons including the effect on the character and appearance of the area, the effect on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, and the substandard level of accommodation for future occupants. She argued that the latest proposal did not overcome these grounds for refusal and that the proposed dwelling would cause severe harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. She also raised concerns about measurement errors in the site plans, stating that the plot was significantly smaller than claimed in the application.

Councillor Luke Warner asked Joanne Clements to elaborate on the measurement discrepancies. Joanne Clements explained that they had measured the plot and found it to be significantly smaller than the architect's drawings indicated.

Dean Gibson responded that the developer would need to develop the proposal in accordance with the approved plan, and if they found the dimensions to be different, they would need to submit a new application.

Councillor Stephen Penfold proposed deferring the application until a definitive answer on the plot size was obtained. This motion was seconded by Councillor Hau-Yu Tam, but the vote was tied, and Councillor Peter Bernards, Chair of the committee, used his deciding vote to reject the deferment.

Councillor John Paschoud raised concerns about the quality of the accommodation, noting that the living room/kitchen area was smaller than the recommended minimum size. Dean Gibson acknowledged the shortfall but stated that the standards were guidance only and that the layout of the living area was good.

Following further discussion, Councillor Peter Bernards proposed accepting the officer's recommendation with all the attached conditions. This was seconded by Councillor Luke Warner, and with Councillor Peter Bernards using his deciding vote, the motion was approved.

Other matters

• Skehans Freehouse: The committee considered a retrospective application for the construction of a terrace above the existing conservatory and construction of an elevated walkway at Skehans Freehouse, 1 Kitto Road, London, SE14. The committee voted to grant permission for the retrospective application, subject to conditions set out in the report, including a requirement that the Head of Planning review the wordings of Condition 5(a) of the report to reflect an extension of the acoustic screening and the submission of further details of that with new drawings.
• Pool Court: The committee considered an application for pitches on a Traveller's site in Pool Court, Fordmill Road, SE6. The committee voted to grant permission for the application, subject to conditions set out in the report, with two further conditions to address securing planting details of the proposed green living roof to the utility blocks and securing final details of the external facing materials of the static caravans and utility blocks.
• 145 Winlaton Road: The committee considered an application for the construction of a single-storey rear extension at 145 Winlaton Road, Bromley BR1. The committee voted to grant planning permission for the application, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.