The Planning Committee B of Lewisham Council met to discuss a Section 73 application¹ for minor material amendments to a previously approved planning permission for Hesper House, London, SE26 6RQ. Councillors unanimously voted to grant permission for the application with attached conditions. The proposed amendments include increasing the number of flats from 15 to 17, changes to the housing mix, an increase in the building footprint, external design changes, reconfiguration of the lower ground floor, and relocation of communal amenity and play space.

Hesper House Planning Application

The committee considered an application for minor material amendments in connection with planning permission DC/21/120262, which was granted on 23 February 2023, for Hesper House, Wells Park Road, SE26 6RQ. The application, DC/25/140357, sought to vary the wording of several conditions related to the approved plans.

The key proposed changes were:

• Increasing the number of flats from 15 to 17.
• Changing the unit configuration to 10 x 3-bedroom 5-person units, 5 x 3-bedroom 4-person units, and 2 x 2-bedroom 4-person units.
• Increasing the building footprint by 300mm.
• Reconfiguring the building access and internal layout.
• Amending the elevations and roof design.
• Relocating communal outdoor amenity space and play space to the roof.

Arguments for the application

Pete Tanner, a planning consultant from Stantec, spoke in support of the application, highlighting that the amendments were minor and within the same building envelope. He stated that the proposals would refine and enhance the external design and internal layout, ensuring the proposals are deliverable and enabling the applicant to get started on site and deliver much-needed homes in the borough. He added that the proposals make efficient use of an underutilised brownfield site², aligning with local and government policy requirements.

John Smart from Craftwork Architects addressed concerns about financial viability, stating that while a 15% profit margin is typically expected, the real-time profit is more like 7% due to increased build costs since the COVID-19 pandemic. He argued that delivering some units at a lesser profit is better than the site sitting dormant. He also stated that there would be no change to privacy from what was previously approved, and that the urban greening factor³ on the site is far in excess of the GLA's requirement.

Objections

Jan Morrison, speaking for the Sydenham Hill Ridge Neighbourhood Forum, raised concerns about the increase in building footprint, loss of outdoor amenity space and play space, potential surface water drainage issues, increased population density, and traffic safety. She stated that the net effect would be to urbanise the area of special local character. She also expressed concern about the financial viability of the project, given that the site is already in receivership⁴.

Councillor Suzannah Clarke asked about the surface water drainage issues, to which Jan Morrison responded that the steep slope behind the property will have water coming down, and that there are natural springs all around.

Officer response

Planning officers stated that the principle of residential development on the site had already been established, and that the proposed changes were minor in nature. They also noted that the council is currently not meeting its housing delivery test, and therefore the provision of new housing should be supported.

In response to concerns about surface water, an officer clarified that these issues would be addressed.

Councillor John Muldoon asked how the housing delivery test engages with the decision-making, and an officer responded that the scheme is deemed that we should be approving new schemes.

Decision

Councillor James Rathbone proposed granting permission with all attached conditions, which was seconded by Councillor John Muldoon. The committee voted unanimously in favour of accepting officers' recommendations and granting permission.

Other Matters Discussed

The meeting also covered apologies for absence and declarations of interest, but these were procedural matters and did not involve substantive discussion.