Committee PLANNING COMMITTEE (B)

Report Title LAND ADJACENT TO 47 DUNDALK ROAD SE4 2JJ

Ward Telegraph Hill

Contributors Kate Hayler

Class PART 1 Date: 21 JUNE 2012

Reg. Nos. DC/11/78536 Application dated 3.10.2011 [as revised on 6.6.2012] Applicant Mr S Davies on behalf of Mr R Dos Santos Proposal The construction of a single storey two bedroom

dwelling house adjacent to 47 Dundalk Road SE4. Applicant’s Plan Nos. DR(-0)00 RevB, DR(-0)01 RevB, DR(-0)02 RevB,

DR(-0)03 RevB, DR(-0)04 RevB, DR(-0)05 RevB, DR(-0)06 RevC, DR(-1)01 RevD, DR(-1)02 RevE, DR(-1)03 RevF, DR(-1)04 RevF, DR(-1)05 RevF, DR(-1)06 RevE, DR(-1) 07 RevE, DR(-1)08 RevE, DR(-1)13 RevD, DR (-1)14 RevF, DR(-1)15 RevF and DR(-2)01, Sunlight and Daylight Assessment (Received 2nd May 2012), Arboricultural Report.

Background Papers (1) Case File DE/70/47/TP

(2) Adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004) (3) Local Development Framework Documents (4) The London Plan

1.0 Property/Site Description

1.1 The subject site is a large area of garden to the side of 47 Dundalk Road measuring approx 0.016ha and situated on the south western end of Dundalk Road close to the junction with Avignon Road. The site is bound by 47 Dundalk Road and its garden to the northeast, the gardens of nos.52-58 Finland Road to the rear, and the garden of 49 Dundalk Road to the west and southeast. 47 Dundalk Road is a Victorian two-storey end of terrace property that has been converted into flats. 49 Dundalk Road is semi-detached Victorian two storey property that has also been divided into two flats. The property features a large northeast facing bay window which is 2.5m from the boundary fence.

1.2 It appears that 49 Dundalk Road originally occupied a larger plot, but a triangular shaped area to the rear of the site has been fenced off and now forms part of the garden to 62 Finland Road. The shape of the plot to 49 Dundalk Road is also unusual as it includes a triangle of land that appears to have formed the original frontage to the application site. The access to the site is therefore through an alley and a gate between 47 Dundalk Road and the 2m high brick boundary wall to the garden of 49 Dundalk Road. It is worth noting that this wall features a screen that has been erected above the brick wall that brings it up to approx 3m in height.

1.3 There is a change in level between the street and the site of approx. 50cm so that the site sits lower than the street.

1.4 The property does not fall within a conservation area.

2.0 Planning History

2.1 2008: An application was made for the construction of a 2 storey, three bedroom dwelling house on part of the garden land adjacent to 47 Dundalk Road SE4. Officers considered that substantial further information was required and the application was withdrawn.

2.2 2009: An application was refused for the construction of a 2 storey, three bedroom dwelling house on land adjacent to 47 Dundalk Road SE4. The reasons for refusal related to unsatisfactory access arrangements and the over dominant and obtrusive nature of the development which would result in with an overbearing impact on 49 Dundalk Road.

2.3 2010: An appeal against the refusal of planning permission was dismissed. It is worth noting that the Inspector did not uphold the first reason for refusal relating to access to the site, but found that the 2-storey proposal would result in a harmful deterioration in the living conditions at 49a Dundalk Road.

2.4 2011: The applicant sought pre-application advice from the Council. It was agreed that a single storey dwelling would go some way to addressing the Council's concerns regarding the relationship with adjoining properties and the overbearing presence of a building on this site. It was suggested that the height on the boundary to No 49 is kept to a minimum and /or set a greater distance from this boundary. It was also suggested that a living roof was incorporated into the scheme to improve drainage, biodiversity and also improve the outlook from first floor windows to the side of No49.

49a Dundalk Road

2.5 2012: There is a current application pending (Ref: 12/80051) for the construction of a single storey extension with living roof to the side of 49A Dundalk Road SE4, together with the increase of the height of the existing wall to the front.

3.0 Current Planning Applications

3.1 The Proposals

3.2 The initial application sought permission for a 3 bedroom single storey dwelling house. Following concerns raised by local residents and officers, the scheme was amended in April 2012 to a 2-bedroom single storey dwelling house measuring 70sqm. Following comments made at the Local Meeting held in May, further minor amendments have been made to the scheme (submitted 6th June 2012) which include clarification of the site boundary, amendments to the internal arrangement of the proposal to provide more storage space and amending the waste and cycle storage arrangements.

3.3 The proposed dwelling house comprises two double bedrooms measuring 12sqm and 12.6sqm respectively (one of the bedrooms has access to an en-suite bathroom and the second has access to a walk in wardrobe); an additional bathroom; and an open plan kitchen/living room/dining area measuring 27.5sqm. Amenity and outlook would be provided by a series of courtyard spaces and a patio and garden area to the rear measuring approx. 30sqm.

3.4 The height of the building would be 2.9m high when measured from the existing site level or 3.05m from the excavated site level (the proposal includes the slight excavation of the site to achieve a lower finished building height and reduce impact on neighbours).

3.5 In terms of materials, the proposal would be finished in London Stock brick painted white with grey render panels above window and door openings which will match the powder coated grey aluminium windows. The front door and associated panel above will be oak. The property will feature a green roof.

3.6 The proposed boundary treatment comprises a 2m timber fence and a lockable security gate incorporating a post box which would form a secure access to the site.

3.7 No off-street parking would be provided as part of the proposal. Following revisions to the scheme, a timber enclosure for refuse/recycling storage and cycle storage is proposed in the courtyard area adjacent to the entrance of the property. This incorporates a canopy to the front door.

3.8 Supporting Documents

3.9 A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application which provides details of how the design of the scheme has evolved and how the scheme addresses policy and access requirements.

3.10 The application is also supported by a Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-assessment which confirms that it is possible for the scheme to achieve Code Level 4.

3.11 The application is supported by a sunlight and daylight assessment which confirms that the proposal would have a negligible impact on daylight/sunlight to neighbouring windows and overshadowing to neighbouring amenity spaces.

4.0 Consultation

4.1 This section outlines the consultation carried out by the Council following the submission of the application and summarises the responses received. The Council’s consultation exceeded the minimum statutory requirements and those required by the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

4.2 Site notices were displayed and letters were sent to residents and business in the surrounding area and the relevant ward Councillors. Directly neighbouring residents and local Councillors were consulted on the 9th of November. A wider catchment of local residents were consulted on the 17th November 2011.

4.3 Following objections from local residents, the scheme was amended to a two bedroom property and the building line was pulled back from the bay window of the neighbouring property at 49 Dundalk Road. Amended application documents were submitted on the 5th April 2012 and the neighbouring occupants were re-consulted.

Written Responses received from Local Residents and Organisations

4.4 34 objections were received from local residents residing at 26 addresses predominantly in Dundalk, Finland and Avignon Roads regarding the initial proposal. The following issues were raised:

• Separation distance of less than 21m between rear windows and rear windows to Finland Road;

• Rear building line of proposal is forward of rear building line on the rest of the buildings on Finland Road;

• Loss of privacy and sense of enclosure;

• Lack of amenity space;

• Loss of light to adjoining windows;

• Design not in keeping with surrounding area;

• Proximity to neighbouring windows (noise);

• Lack of adequate living conditions within new property;

• Lack of security arising from entrance down alleyway;

• Lack of off street parking on an already busy road;

• Loss of biodiversity;

• Overlooking from green roof and through skylights;

• What guarantee is there that the property would not be sub divided into flats?;

• Additional burden to sewers;

• Loss of privacy to bay window at 47 Dundalk Road;

• Layout covers more of site than scheme dismissed at appeal;

• Would entirely block up view to bay window at 49 Dundalk Road;

• No disabled Access;

• Failure to meet the Mayor’s Draft Housing SPD

4.5 Following the revisions to the scheme, 25 further objections have been received from local residents at 9 addresses. The following issues have been raised:

• Overlooking, sense of enclosure and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties;

• Security risk due to location of entrance and burglars climbing onto flat roof and accessing neighbouring gardens;

• Rear wall of proposal is now closer to our property;

• Loss of outlook, privacy and light to number 49 Dundalk Road;

• Light assessment used technical jargon to gloss over loss of light to adjoining properties;

• New bungalow would still be out of keeping with other houses in the area;

• Large flat roof will be seen from windows along Avignon and Finland Road;

• Site coverage is excessive;

• Proposal does not comply with HSG 8 of the UDP;

• Side wall of house would now run for 10m along the length of our garden at a distance of 75cm;

• Noise nuisance from living areas when sitting out in gardens;

• Loss of biodiversity and green space;

• Overlooking from flat roof;

• View from adjoining property would be hideous concrete bunker;

• No off street parking would worsen parking situation;

• Building would take up majority of plot and would sit less than a meter from fences at both sides;

• Light report shows incorrect sun shadows (this has now been addressed);

• Two bedroom property would be cramped, dark and hemmed in and would have no outlook;

• If approved, scheme will set a precedent for similar proposals;

• Impact on trees;

• No assessment has been done on daylight conditions in proposed dwelling;

• Application drawings are inaccurate;

• Proposal fails to meet baseline standards in the Mayor’s Housing SPG including inadequate ceiling heights;

• Alleyway is too narrow to wheel bike down so proposal would not achieve Code for Sustainable Homes points for cycle parking;

• Rear garden is less than 9m deep;

• Gated developments are not acceptable according to the Residential Standards SPD;

• Loss of amenity space for existing residents;

• Loss of green lungs in densely populated locality; and

• Loss of biodiversity due to specification of the green roof.

Highways and Transportation 4.6 Unobjectionable

Thames Water

4.7 On the basis of information provided, Thames Water would advise that with regard to water infrastructure we would not have any objection to the above planning application.

Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Officer

4.8 The occupant at 49a Dundalk Road invited the local Crime Prevention Officer to comment on the scheme. He raised concerns about the proposals, stating that: “It will need to be confirmed if the gate leading from the street into the development is to be secure, there should be no need for persons to be given free access to the area. It is not clear what the postal arrangements are, whether there is a mail box outside or whether mail will be delivered direct to the dwelling.”

4.9 The applicant has confirmed that there will be a lockable gate and post box at the front of the property and that there will be no public access to the site for servicing. Following this information, the Crime Prevention Officer confirmed in an e-mail dated the 2nd May 2012, that “The provision of a lockable 1.8m gate with incorporated post box now secures the part of the boundary I had concerns with that initially opened up the area to intrusion and opportunities for burglary.”

Telegraph Hill Society

4.10 Objected to the design of the proposal on the basis that it bears no relationship to the surrounding properties and fails to complement the scale and character of existing developments or the form function and structure of the area. It therefore fails to comply with Policy URB3 of the UDP. It also fails to comply with Policy HSG 8 of the UDP in that it is not sensitively designed, does not respect the character of the area and would not be neighbourly. The proposal will result in loss of green space. A more appropriately designed development could overcome the these issues whilst potentially providing greater accommodation.

Cllr Millbank

4.11 Objected to the proposal on the basis that it would constitute overdevelopment within a back garden; the size of the proposed property would appear small for a 3 bedroom family house and lacking its own garden; and the proximity of the proposal to neighbouring properties and the impact on their outlook and privacy.

Cllr Bell

4.12 Objected to the scheme on the basis that it would represent a loss of amenity space for residents; will have a detrimental impact on their security and would eat up back gardens which contravenes Council policies. The proposal represents a loss of back garden space and detrimentally impacts on residents enjoyment of their gardens and their amenity space. This development provides greater insecurity for residents living around it as it will allow a single story building to be used to transgress secure gardens at the back. The proposal fails to comply with Policies URB 3 Urban Design, HSG4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development, HSG 7 Gardens, HSG 8 Backland and Infill Developments and the guidance set out in the Residential Development Standards SPD relating to the need for adequate amenity space, car parking, privacy, daylight and sunlight, and the avoidance of creating visually intrusive buildings form the basis of planning standards which are considered necessary to avoid adversely affecting the surrounding areas.

Gareth Bacon (Londonwide Assembly Member)

4.13 I have been contacted by a Lewisham resident living in the adjacent property who has expressed strong concerns relating to this application on the grounds that it would represent an over development of the site, and would have a severely detrimental impact upon her residential amenity by blocking out substantial amounts of light from habitable rooms in her property. This would be as a result of the planned development being situated a mere three and a half metres from her bay windows. I believe this would be in breach of Lewisham Council's planning policies as set out in the Council's Residential Development Standards Supplementary Planning Document, which states that a minimum of nine metres should be left between habitable room windows at the rear and walls of neighbouring properties and twenty one metres between facing walls.

4.14 I understand that views may have been expressed by some Lewisham planning officers that the Council would have no option but to approve this application for fear of being overturned on appeal. However, in addition to Lewisham's own planning policies referred to above, there are London wide and national planning policies that can be referred to that would support a refusal of planning permission on the grounds that, by building on existing garden space, this would constitute back-land development. The Mayor's London Plan includes a presumption against development on garden land (policy 3.5) and the government's Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) as amended in June 2010 specifically took gardens out of the Brownfield category with the intention of transforming the ability of local planning authorities to prevent unwanted development on gardens where local people object. Indeed, in launching the amended PPS3, the responsible Minister Greg Clark stated:

“For years the wishes of local people have been ignored as the character of neighbourhoods and gardens have been destroyed, robbing communities of vital green space.

"It is ridiculous that gardens have until now been classified in the same group as derelict factories and disused railway sidings, forcing councils and communities to sit by and watch their neighbourhoods get swallowed up in a concrete jungle.

"Today I am changing the classification of garden land so councils and communities no longer have their decisions constantly overruled, but have the power to work with industry to shape future development that is appropriate for their area." (The link to the DCLG website where this appears is: http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/16083341)

In addition to my role as a London Assembly I represent Longlands Ward on the London Borough of Bexley, and I successfully opposed a planning application for development on existing gardens, largely using the amended PPS3 as the planning grounds for refusal, a decision that led to an appeal by the applicant. This appeal was dismissed by the government's planning inspector, who stated in his summary:

"In my view, the development by introducing backland development here would result in precisely the damage to established townscapes and garden areas that the changes in PPS3 are intended to prevent."

Cllr Johnson (Ward Councillor for Brockley and Green Party Member of the London Assembly)

4.15 Objected to the proposal on the basis that a neighbouring occupier believes the development would result in a significant loss of direct light entering her windows and further impacts in terms of noise and loss of privacy. The proposal is contrary to the Council’s Residential Standards SPD (which states that a minimum of 9 metres should usually be left between habitable room windows at the rear and walls of neighbouring properties, and 21 metres between facing windows); Policy 3.5 of the London Plan; paragraphs 1.2.18-1.2.25 of the Mayor’s Draft Housing SPG and the national reclassification of back gardens in 2010 to help stop development on back gardens. Both the London Plan and NPPF have recognised the inappropriate development of residential gardens as a strategic issue and supported more detailed local policies to resist this. Granting this application would set a precedent for how close a building can be built to principle rear windows and overturn policies relating to decent distances between homes to ensure adequate light, privacy and protection from noise nuisance.

Joan Ruddock MP

4.16 Objected to the proposal on the basis of the loss of garden land in one of the most densely populated constituencies in the country where air quality is poor. Gardens are ‘green lungs’ and also have value for quality of life. It will set a serious precedent if development as close as this to its neighbours is allowed to go through. The addition of one unit is insignificant compared with the potential of other sites providing hundreds and cannot justify the very serious loss of amenity and value to the 8 neighbours affected.

Campaign to Protect Rural England

4.17 Object to the scheme on the basis of loss of green space and open land. The proposal is contrary to the Mayor’s Housing SPG on garden land development and would contravene Lewisham’s Residential Development Standards SPD which states a minimum of 9 meters should be left between habitable rooms, walls, windows of neighbouring properties and not a mere 3.5m as this proposal shows.

London Wildlife Trust

4.18 London Wildlife Trust has been alerted to the above application that, if permitted, would result in the loss of garden habitat.

London’s gardens are a valuable resource within the urban landscape. However, the research we published (in partnership with Greenspace Information for Greater London and Greater London Authority) in 2011 shows that between 1998-9 and 2007-08 approximately 3,000 ha of vegetated garden land had disappeared across London. This equates to about 2.5 times the size of Hyde Park per annum. In addition, over 500 gardens were lost to development per annum (from figures extrapolated for the years 2005-08). The figures suggest that if the rates of loss continue at these rates London will be largely devoid of garden vegetation within 60 years.

The results of the research serves to underpin the policy changes now adopted in The London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework that serve to protect gardens from inappropriate development. This planning application is contrary to The London Plan SPG on garden land development (London Housing SPG (paras.1.2.18-1.2.25), and does not in our view satisfactorily address the Council’s policies on Gardens (HSG 7) and Backland and In-fill Development (HSG8).

Whilst we recognise that the application has sought to minimise aspects of habitat loss, for example through the provision of a green roof, it is unlikely – due to the nature of the roof’s specification as implied – to mitigate for that loss.

Based on the above information the Trust believes there are enough grounds for Lewisham Council to refuse permission for the application as it stands.

5.0 Policy Context

Introduction

5.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) sets out that in considering and determining applications for planning permission the local planning authority must have regard to:

(a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, (b) any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application, and (c) any other material considerations.

5.2 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) makes it clear

that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.3 The development plan for Lewisham comprises the Core Strategy, Development

Plan Document (DPD) (adopted in June 2011), those saved policies in the adopted Lewisham UDP (July 2004) that have not been replaced by the Core Strategy and policies in the London Plan (July 2011). The National Planning Policy Framework does not change the legal status of the development plan.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

5.4 The NPPF was published on 27 March 2012 and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. It contains at paragraph 14 a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’. Annex 1 of the NPPF provides guidance on implementation of the NPPF. In summary this states that (paragraph 211), policies in the development plan should not be considered out of date just because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. At paragraphs 214 and 215 guidance is given on the weight to be given to policies in the development plan. In summary, this states, that for a period of 12 months from publication of the NPPF decision takers can give full weight to policies adopted since 2004 even if there is limited conflict with the NPPF. Following this period weight should be given to existing policies according to their consistency with the NPPF.

5.5 Officers have reviewed the Core Strategy and saved UDP policies for consistency with the NPPF and consider there is no issue of significant conflict. As such, full weight can be given to these policies in the decision making process in accordance with paragraphs 211, 214 and 215 of the NPPF.

London Plan (July 2011) 5.6 The London Plan policies relevant to this application are:

Policy 3.3 Increasing housing supply Policy 3.4 Optimising housing potential Policy 3.5 Quality and design of housing developments Policy 5.1 Climate change mitigation Policy 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions Policy 5.3 Sustainable design and construction Policy 5.9 Overheating and cooling Policy 5.10 Urban greening Policy 5.11 Green roofs and development site environs Policy 7.2 An inclusive environment Policy 7.3 Designing out crime Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature Policy 8.2 Planning obligations Policy 8.3 Community infrastructure levy

London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

5.7 The Mayor’s Draft Housing SPG (December 2012) is also relevant to this application.

Core Strategy

5.8 The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council at its meeting on 29 June 2011. The Core Strategy, together with the London Plan and the saved policies of the Unitary Development Plan, is the borough's statutory development plan. The following lists the relevant strategic objectives, spatial policies and cross cutting policies from the Lewisham Core Strategy as they relate to this application:

Spatial Policy 5 Areas of Sability and Managed Change Core Strategy Policy 1 Housing Provision, mix and affordability Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency Core Strategy Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport Core Strategy Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham

Unitary Development Plan (2004)

5.9 The saved policies of the UDP relevant to this application are:

URB 3 Urban Design URB 12 Landscape and Development URB 13 Trees HSG 4 Residential Amenity HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development HSG 7 Gardens HSG 8 Backland and In-fill Development

Residential Standards Supplementary Planning Document (Updated May 2012)

5.10 This document sets out guidance and standards relating to design, sustainable development, renewable energy, flood risk, sustainable drainage, dwelling mix, density, layout, neighbour amenity, the amenities of the future occupants of developments, safety and security, refuse, affordable housing, self containment, noise and room positioning, room and dwelling sizes, storage, recycling facilities and bin storage, noise insulation, parking, cycle parking and storage, gardens and amenity space, landscaping, play space, Lifetime Homes and accessibility, and materials.

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.1 The main issues to be considered in respect of this application are:

a) Principle of Development b) Design c) Standard of Residential Accommodation d) Highways and Traffic Issues e) Impact on Adjoining Properties f) Sustainability and Energy g) Ecology and Landscaping h) Other Matters

Principle of Development

6.2 Housing is a priority use for all London boroughs and the Core Strategy welcomes the provision of small scale infill development in the Areas of Stability and Managed Change provided that it is designed to complement the character of surrounding developments, the design and layout make suitable residential accommodation, and it provides for garden and amenity space. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states in Paragraph 49 that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

6.3 The NPPF sets out in paragraph 14 a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In terms of decision-making, the document states that where a development accords with a local plan, applications should be approved without delay. Where a plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. It is worth noting that the document states that where policies have been adopted since 2004 and there is minor conflict with the NPPF, Council’s can continue to give full weight to policies for a period of 1 year.

6.4 Paragraph 53 of the NPPF states that Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example, where development would cause harm to the local area.

6.5 The document also encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) and excludes gardens from the definition of previously developed land.

Unlike PPS 3, the document does not set out a specific target for a percentage of development that should take place on brownfield sites. It is worth noting that PPS3 and the Letter to Chief Planning Officers relating to new powers for local authorities to stop ‘garden- grabbing’ (dated 15 June 2010) have been replaced by the NPPF.

6.6 Policy 3.5 of the London Plan states that Boroughs may in their LDFs introduce a presumption against development on back gardens or other private residential gardens where this can be locally justified. The policy justification goes on to suggest that pressure for new housing can lead to back gardens being threatened by inappropriate development and their loss can cause significant local concern. The London Plan therefore supports development plan-led presumptions against development on back gardens where locally justified by a sound local evidence base.

6.7 Both the NPPF and the London Plan recognise that the development of back gardens can be contentious. The London Plan encourages individual boroughs to investigate whether a presumption against garden development would be appropriate on the basis of sound local evidence. That evidence is being gathered as part of the preparation of Lewisham’s Development Management DPD in accordance with the requirements of these documents.

6.8 Despite the representations that have been received on this matter, there is currently no local policy preventing the development of all garden land and no presumption against garden development in the borough. Policy HSG 8 of the UDP sets out criteria to assess whether infill and backland development (which includes the development of garden land) is appropriate in terms of causing harm to residential amenity or the character of an area.

6.9 Policy HSG 8 states that backland and in-fill development will be permitted provided the following criteria are met:

• sufficient garden depth and area should be retained by existing dwellings (see Policy HSG 7);

• the scheme must respect the character of the area, including the cumulative impact;

• the scheme must be particularly sensitively designed;

• there must be a proper means of access, suitable for the entry and egress of service vehicles which is convenient and safe both for drivers and pedestrians;

• on a road where additional on-street parking would not be permitted the development would not worsen any (on-street) parking problems;

• there should be no appreciable loss of privacy and amenity for adjoining houses and their back gardens;

• there should be no appreciable loss of wildlife habitat;

• where the site was originally, in part or in whole, the private garden of one or more houses, the density calculation of the proposed development will take into account the site area of the original house and the number of habitable rooms in it.

6.10 The area of land that forms the application site is to the side of number 47 Dundalk Road. Once a fence is erected between the site and the neighbouring property, this would leave a garden area of 59sqm for the use of the existing occupants of 47 Dundalk Road. Whilst this garden area is not 9m long, the garden would be the same size as the other properties in the terrace to the northeast along Dundalk Road. This amount of garden space is considered to be acceptable.

6.11 Matters of design and the character of the area are dealt with in the Design section below.

6.12 With regards to vehicular access, the site does not provide vehicular access as it is sufficiently close to Dundalk Road to be serviced from the street. This arrangement is considered to be acceptable for a single dwelling house.

6.13 In terms of pedestrian access, concerns have been raised about loss of privacy to the occupiers of 47 Dundalk Road as the access way would be narrow and would bring the occupants of the new dwelling and their visitors past the front bay window of this property. The Inspector’s decision on the 2009 appeal is considered to be a material consideration in the determination of this application. The Inspector found that there is an existing situation of overlooking on Dundalk Road which arises from pedestrians walking along the road and being able to see into the front bay windows. He therefore found that the proposed access arrangements, which are the same for the current application as for the 2009 scheme, were acceptable. There is an existing side access to the garden in this location, which is used by the occupants of both the flats at 47 Dundalk Road. The Inspector found that “in my view the proposed access would not materially add to this potential for overlooking and would therefore not justify dismissing this appeal.” On balance, the proposed access is considered to be acceptable.

6.14 With regards to parking, the proposal does not include any off street parking. However, there is no controlled parking zone along Dundalk Road and the site is considered to be well served by public transport. Dundalk Road is not considered to be a road where additional on street parking would not be allowed and the proposal is not considered to result in an unacceptable impact on local highways. This was supported by the Inspector who found regarding the 2009 appeal that the provision of no off street parking was acceptable: “although concerns have been expressed that there is no vehicular access to the dwelling and it would depend on road side parking, I share the view of the local planning authority that this would be an acceptable arrangement in this sustainable location.”

6.15 The impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers is also dealt with later in this report.

6.16 With regards to wildlife habitat, the site currently comprises a grassed garden area and therefore makes a limited contribution in terms of biodiversity. The scheme proposes planting and a green roof which include the planting of native species. Subject to suitable conditions, it is considered possible to mitigate any the loss of any existing habitat (see section below on Ecology and Landscaping).

6.17 The area of the site and the existing footprint of the property at 47 Dundalk Road is approximately 304sqm. In accordance with part (g) of Policy HSG 8, the combined density of the two sites is therefore 100 units per hectare or 300 hrha.

6.18 The surrounding area is considered to be urban in character in that it comprises predominantly dense development such as terraced houses and medium building footprints. The suitable density range for such an area with a PTAL level of 3 is set out in Table 3.2 of the London Plan as being 70-170 units per hectare or 200-450hrha. The density of the proposal is considered to be appropriate as it is in the middle of this range.

6.19 Provided that any issues surrounding the design of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers are found to be suitably addressed, it is considered that the principle of this development is acceptable.

Design

6.20 Policy URB 3 Urban Design of the UDP states that the Council will expect a high standard of design in new developments and will seek to ensure that development compliments the scale and character of existing development and its setting.

6.21 The proposed single storey dwelling is considered to be of a suitable scale in the context of the surrounding two storey dwellings. In terms of the character of the street, the proposed dwelling would not be overly visible in the streetscene as a result of the existing boundary wall to 49 Dundalk Road and the screening that has been erected on it. However, there is an existing gap between the end of the terrace at number 47 and the property at number 49 that is considered to contribute to the character of the streetscene. The single storey height of the proposal is considered to maintain this gap and preserve the character of the street.

6.22 Policy HSG 8 states that new development should respect the scale and alignment of the existing street including its building frontages. It has been suggested that the set back nature of the proposal fails to respect the alignment of the street, but given the single storey nature of the proposal and the fact that the dwelling has been designed to be subservient to the terrace rather than forming an extension to it that is set further forward to the street, the alignment of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

6.23 In terms of materials, the proposal will be finished in London Stocks and painted white. Amended drawings have been submitted showing the material as timber cladding, but this is a mistake that refers back to previous design options. The applicant has confirmed in writing that the proposed material will remain white painted stock brick and a condition is recommended requiring details of facing materials to be submitted and approved by the local authority. The use of white painted stock brick is considered to be a contemporary approach to a traditional material (London stock brick) that is considered to be hard wearing, high quality and appropriate in the context of the surrounding terraces which comprise mainly stock brick (although number 49 is pebble dashed). It is considered that the white finish will complement the white stucco detailing of the neighbouring properties and that despite being painted, the brick will provide a texture to the building that will create visual interest. The design proposes an oak front door and surrounding panel and it is considered that this will complement the proposed white brickwork, adding additional texture and colour. The proposal includes small areas of grey render above the windows to create interest. The proposed bin/bike store and entrance canopy will be finished in timber although it is not clear how this will relate to the front door and panel above.

The design relies on a crisp and contemporary aesthetic that is considered appropriate provided that a high quality finish is achieved. In order to secure this a condition is recommended requiring 1:20 details of all the windows, doors, cladding, roof capping, bin/bike store and entrance canopy to be submitted to and approved by the Council.

6.24 In terms of the layout of the development and access arrangements, the proposal has been carefully designed to respond to the constrained nature of the site. A series of courtyard spaces is proposed that set the building line back from the bay window at 49a and allows natural light into the property. A single pedestrian access is proposed which will be secured through a 1.8m security gate. Issues surrounding security are dealt with in more detail below.

6.25 Objections have been raised by local residents about the ‘gated’ nature of the development and this leading to a gated development that is not welcomed on urban design grounds. However, the Residential Standards SPD states that “gated access development does not refer to the normal practice of providing gates and boundaries to the grounds of blocks of flats and single dwelling house gardens.” This objection is therefore not considered to be relevant to this proposal. It is not unusual to have properties accessed through a gate and a door to the side in an urban area and this arrangement is considered to be acceptable.

6.26 The council’s design officer was informally consulted on the proposal and raised no objections.

6.27 The proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on visual amenity.

Standard of Residential Accommodation

6.28 Policy HSG 5 (Layout and Design of New Residential Development) of the UDP states that the Council expects all new residential development to be attractive and to meet the functional requirements of its future inhabitants.

6.29 The proposal would provide a two bedroom dwelling measuring 70sqm. Concerns have been raised about the accuracy of this measurement but it has been checked by officers on scale drawings and found to be correct. This complies with the requirements of Table 3.3 of the London Plan which sets out a minimum floor area for a 2 bedroom, 4 person unit of 70sqm. The proposed layout is well designed in terms of providing good sized bedrooms (one with en-suite bathroom and one with a walk in wardrobe) that comply with the Good Practice bedroom size standard of 12sqm set out on the Mayor’s SPG and an open plan living room/ kitchen/dining room that leads out onto an outdoor patio area and garden. In terms of furniture, both bedrooms are of a sufficient size and shape to provide for double beds and bedside tables and storage. The open plan living area provides sufficient space for a dining table (seating 4) and separate seating area and an area for home working. In terms of additional storage space, there is a separate utility area that would provide space for a washer/dryer separate from the kitchen and the scheme has been amended to include additional built in storage space. It is worth noting that the kitchen/living room/dining room measures 27.5sqm which complies the Good Practice guideline set out in the Mayor’s SPG for a 4 person property.

6.30 Policy HSG 5 of the UDP states that residential development should provide a satisfactory level of privacy, outlook and natural lighting with appropriate provision of private amenity space. The layout of the scheme has been designed so that there is no loss of privacy resulting from overlooking between facing habitable room windows. There is one window to the kitchen that directly faces the windows to the side return at the rear of 56 Finland Road, however, the ground floor windows will be screened by the boundary fence and the distance between the first floor windows is over 22m. It is therefore considered that a suitable level of privacy can be achieved for future occupants.

6.31 Concerns have been raised that it will be possible to gain views from 1st floor neighbouring properties through the roof lights into the bathroom and living areas resulting in a loss of privacy for future occupants. It seems unlikely that this will be possible given the distance from the existing windows and the proposed roof lights and the angles between them, however, if a situation of overlooking were to arise, it would be possible for future occupiers to use an adhesive film to amend these roof lights so that they are obscure glazed and address any loss of privacy.

6.32 Concerns have been raised by local residents about the outlook that will be achieved within the property. While the courtyard spaces that serve to provide light to the bedrooms are sometimes narrow and will result in windows that are between 2.5 and 5m from the boundary fence, the en-suite bedroom is served by two windows, and it is considered that a high quality landscaping scheme that includes both hard and soft landscaping could ensure that the outlook from these windows is of an adequate standard for a bedroom. A condition is therefore proposed requiring details of the landscaping scheme to be submitted. The open plan kitchen/living area will be served by large south-west, north-east and south –east facing windows and a roof light and whilst one of these windows is within 800m of the boundary fence, on balance and subject to appropriate landscaping which will be secured by condition, it is considered that a suitable level of outlook can be created.

6.33 Concerns have been raised by local residents about the level of daylighting that will be achieved within the property. All rooms are served by floor to ceiling height windows that look onto courtyard spaces which will maximise the amount of daylight that will be received. In addition, the bathroom and open plan living area will be served by roof lights which will provide additional daylight to these spaces. The applicant has confirmed that the glazing to all habitable rooms is not less than 20% of the room’s floor area in accordance with the requirements of the Good Practice Standard set out in the Mayor’s Housing SPG.

6.34 In a 2009 appeal decision (APP/C5690/A/2106077) regarding the erection of a single dwelling house at 87a Pascoe Road, SE13 5JE (LBL Ref: DC/08/69736), the Council refused the application on design grounds and the inadequacy of the living conditions in terms of lack of natural light to habitable rooms (based on the dwelling being single aspect and east facing) and limited garden space. The Inspector found that it would be reasonable to consider internal finishes of the proposal when assessing whether adequate light would be provided for the property. He found that despite the single aspect nature of the development, there would be adequate glazing to the main rooms and “with the building’s contemporary approach I would expect the interior design to complement the perception of openness and light which the layout and design would facilitate.”

It is therefore reasonable to consider the modern internal finishes of the proposal which will result in light being reflected within rooms to add to a light and airy internal environment.

6.35 In the appeal decision, the Inspector also found that future occupiers of a development would have an element of choice in accepting amenity space arrangements, and that whilst a part communal/part private garden area “may not be wanted by all prospective residents but that choice could be made before decision on occupation”. He therefore found that the living conditions created would be acceptable.

6.36 With regards to amenity space, it is worth noting that the existing gardens on Dundalk Road are 7.6m deep. Policy HSG 7 of the UDP states that the Council will seek in all new dwellings the provision of a readily accessible, secure, private and useable external space. The policy states that “family dwellings should be provided with their own private garden area. Normally, a minimum garden depth of 9 metres will be required.” The policy means that the need for a 9m garden is more of a priority for family dwellings. This approach was confirmed in a recent appeal decision (May 2012) for a single dwelling house at 123 Howson Road, SE4 2BB (LBL Ref: 11/78096). The Inspector interpreted this policy so that the 9m requirement was only relevant to family (3 + bedrooms) dwellings and it was found that as a 2 bedroom property the appeal scheme, “need not provide a garden large enough for a family.” (Appeal Decision APP/C5690/A/12/2170008). The acceptability of the proposed amenity space is therefore to be determined on a qualitative assessment of whether the space would be usable, accessible, secure and private.

6.37 The size and shape of the space is such that it would provide well for sitting out and other functions such as drying clothes. The orientation of the access from the dwelling makes it likely that the patio area to the north east of the site that is 5.4m long will form the main focus for activity. The proposed amenity space is therefore considered to be usable, accessible and secure and no more overlooked than any of the existing gardens in this location. It is therefore considered to be acceptable.

6.38 Concerns have been raised that the proposed floor to ceiling heights of the dwelling is 10cm below the baseline standard of 2.5m required by the Draft Mayor’s Housing SPG. Paragraph 2.3.38 of the SPG states that for developments in sensitive historic contexts, including infill developments within conservation areas, lower ceiling heights may be permitted by the local borough. Whilst the site is not located in a conservation area, the site is an infill site and it is considered important to keep the height of the dwelling to a minimum in order to minimise impact on neighbouring occupiers. It is considered that a ceiling height of 2.4 meters will provide an acceptable internal environment whilst reducing impact on neighbouring occupiers and will meet the requirements of the Building Regulations.

6.39 The Mayor’s Housing SPG is a draft strategic document and whilst a material consideration in the determination of this application it is not to be given significant weight in determining the application due to its draft status. The standards set out in the document are a useful tool in understanding the quality of a proposal but it is considered that the document is more appropriate in considering major developments (where multiple dwellings are proposed) rather than applications for single dwellings.

With regards to the baseline standards, paragraph 2.1.11 of the document states that “the extent to which proposed developments depart from this baseline should be taken into account in planning decisions. Those which depart significantly, either in terms of failure to meet with a number of baseline standards, or the extent of failure to meet particular baseline standards, are unlikely to be acceptable.”

6.40 Residents initially objected to the proposal on the basis that it failed 23 baseline standards. An assessment of the baseline standards quoted in representations confirms that three of the standards referred to are in fact Good Practice standards and some of the standards quoted are only relevant to developments with communal areas. Following the revisions to the scheme, the majority of these matters have now been addressed. The applicant has undertaken an assessment of the proposal against the baseline standards in the SPG. As suggested, the majority of these standards do not apply to an application for a single dwelling house and it is therefore difficult to assess the proposal on the basis of the number of standards it ‘fails’ to meet. The two quantitative standards that the proposal does fail to achieve relate to ceiling height and storage space and are addressed below.

6.41 Baseline Standard 4.7.1 requires 1.8sqm of storage space to be provided within the curtilege of private dwellings to a height of 2 metres. The proposal would provide 1.6sqm of storage space with a height of 2.4 metres. The volume of the built in storage space proposed therefore meets the requirements of the baseline standard and the departure from the requirement is not considered to be significant. This does not include the storage space provided by the external bike/bin store. The level of storage space provided is considered to be acceptable and to meet the needs of future occupants.

6.42 With regards the failure of the proposal to achieve a ceiling height of 2.5m, the proposed floor to ceiling height would be 2.4m. This is not considered to be a significant departure from the standard and the failure of the proposal to achieve the baseline standard by 10cm is not considered sufficient reason to refuse the application. A floor to ceiling height of 2.4m can achieve a satisfactory living condition and will meet Building Regulations and there are many examples of developments in the borough where a ceiling height of 2.4m (and less) has been approved.

6.43 Core Strategy Policy 1 (Housing provision, mix and affordability) requires all new residential development to be Lifetime Homes compliant. The applicant has confirmed that the development will be Lifetime Homes complaint and has altered the access to the property so that it is ramped to allow access for wheelchair users and includes a canopy to provide covered access.

6.44 Overall it is considered that the proposed development has been sensitively designed to respond to the constraints of the site and would provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

Highways and Traffic Issues

a) Access

6.45 The principle of the site providing only pedestrian access was established through the 2009 appeal decision. The Inspector found that “although concerns have been expressed that there would be no vehicular access to the dwelling and it would depend on road side parking I share the view of the local planning authority that this would be acceptable arrangement in this sustainable location”. It is not considered that the recent adoption of the Core Strategy and any changes to regional or national policy affect this finding.

6.46 Local residents have raised concerns about emergency access to the site, particularly in relation to fire tenders. Access for emergency vehicles is a Building Control issue and would be dealt with as part of the necessary building control application for the site. That said, the Council’s highways officer has been consulted and has confirmed that she has no objections to the scheme. In addition, the Council’s Building Control team have been informally consulted and they have confirmed that they do not have concerns about this element of the scheme.

b) Refuse

6.47 Initially, the application drawings showed the waste storage location to the side of the access gate. Residents raised concerns that the location of the store (outside of the security gate) was unacceptable as putting the rubbish out might result in the gate being left open and lead to opportunities for crime. In addition, as it was initially shown, the bin store was only big enough to contain one bin and a recycling box. The applicant has submitted revised drawings that show a combined bin and bike store in the courtyard adjacent the front door of the property (and within the curtilage of the dwelling). The bin store will be large enough for 2 wheelie bins, one for recyclable and one for non-recyclable waste. This arrangement is considered to be an improvement in terms of the level of waste storage that will be provided and will address the concerns raised.

c) Cycle Parking

6.48 Initially, the application drawings showed a bike store to the rear of the proposed property. Local residents raised concerns that the side alleyway was not wide enough to wheel a bike down. Residents have also raised concerns that locating the shed against the fence would raise a potential opportunity for crime by providing a route over the fence into neighbouring gardens. The applicant has agreed that it would be more practical to provide a bike store to the front of the property and this amendment has been made.

d) Car Parking

6.49 The application does not propose any off street parking. The application site has a PTAL of 3 and is within easy access of Brockley mainline and Overlground station and Nunhead station and a number of bus routes. It is also within easy walking distance of all the associated amenities of these centres. Table 6.2 of the London Plan sets out a maximum car parking standard for 1 and 2 bedroom units of less than one space per unit and states that all developments in areas of good public transport accessibility should aim for significantly less than 1 space per unit.

It is therefore considered that the provision of no off-street parking in a sustainable location is acceptable.

Impact on Adjoining Properties

6.50 Policy HSG 5 (Layout and Design of New Residential Development) of the UDP requires all new residential development to be neighbourly. The policy justification states that new development should not adversely affect the amenity enjoyed by existing residential properties by unacceptably reducing the level of natural light received or creating an unsightly outlook. In addition, the Council’s Residential Standards SPD states that applicants will need to demonstrate how privacy will be provided both for the neighbours and the occupiers of the proposed development.

Impact on properties in Finland Road:

6.51 The proposal has been designed to ensure that there will be no overlooking between habitable room windows. As set out above, there is one window in the kitchen to the proposed property that faces towards the window at the back of the side return of 56 Finland Road. However, this window is set back from directly facing windows by 22m which exceeds the suggested 21m minimum separation distance between directly facing habitable room windows on main rear elevations set out in the Residential Standards SPD.

6.52 The SPD states that the minimum distance between habitable rooms on the main rear elevation and the rear boundary, or flank wall of adjoining development, should normally be 9 metres or more although the SPD goes on to state that these guidelines will be interpreted flexibly depending on the context of the development. The main rear wall of the proposal will be 3.5m from the boundary fence. This elevation will have no windows in it and would not therefore result in any opportunities for overlooking. The wall would be approximately 12m from the rear wall of the properties on Finland Road and whilst this will be less than the 17m separation distance between the existing dwellings, the proposal is a single storey dwelling and is not considered to be overly visible above the boundary fence and existing trees.

6.53 Due to its orientation and height, the proposal would not result in any loss of daylight or sunlight to these properties or their gardens as has been confirmed by the overshadowing diagrams submitted as part of the Sunlight and Daylight Assessment. On balance, it is not considered that the proposal will result in an unacceptable loss of daylight or outlook for the properties along Finland Road.

6.54 Residents have expressed concerns about the noise that would arise from an additional residential property, particularly in terms of the living room being sited within 3.5m of existing garden areas and the garden area backing onto the gardens on Finland Road. However, the dwelling would be required to achieve the necessary sound insulation standards to meet Building Regulations and it is not considered that a more intensive but still residential use of the patio area where it backs onto neighbouring gardens will result in unacceptable noise nuisance to neighbouring properties over and above the existing situation.

Impact on 49a Dundalk Road:

6.55 Local residents have raised particular concern regarding the impact of the proposal on 49 Dundalk Road. This property has been converted into 2 flats; a one bedroom flat at ground floor level (49a) and a one bedroom flat at first floor level (49b).

Both properties have a bedroom to the side that is served by a bay window which is located approximately 2.9m from the boundary fence. The property at 49a has a garden space that is located to the side of the property.

6.56 As previously discussed, the 2009 Appeal Decision for this site is a material consideration in the determination of this application. With regards to number 49a, the Inspector found that “the arrangement of number 49 is unusual in that its main rooms have an outlook to the side rather than the rear… In each case the room using the bay window is a bedroom and it was evident to me on my visit that that the outlook from that window is important to the quality of the living conditions there.” Residents have suggested that this finding means that the guidelines contained in the Residential Standards SPD for rear elevations should be applied to this side elevation and that a separation distance of 9m should be maintained from this window. However, officers do not feel that this should necessarily be the case as the Inspector did not apply this guideline to the appeal scheme and the Residential Standards SPD is intended to be interpreted flexibly depending on the context of development. It is therefore considered necessary to note that the outlook from this window is important to the conditions within these properties and to assess whether the reduction of the proposal from a two storey dwelling to a single storey dwelling is sufficient to reduce the impact on this window to an acceptable level in terms of the sense of enclosure created.

6.57 The existing situation is such that there is overlooking between the kitchens at 47 Dundalk Road and these bay windows with a separation distance of approximately 12m. There is also overlooking between the garden of 47 Dundalk Road and this bay window.

6.58 There is an existing single storey shed on the application site that is set back from the bay window of number 49a by 6.7m. The design of the proposed dwelling has been amended so that there is a courtyard space directly in front of the bay window. The building line of the dwelling has therefore been set back so that the distance between the bay window and the flank wall is 6m to reduce the sense of enclosure created. The proposed bike and cycle store would be 5.10m from the window but would reach a height of 2.4m and would therefore not be overly visible over the boundary fence.

6.59 The appeal scheme proposed a two storey dwelling that would have featured a flank wall between 7m and 6.25m high that would be 3.6m from the bay window at number 49. The Inspector found that while this reduction in height to the rear of the site would help to reduce the overbearing effect on the bay window, the overbearing nature of the wall would have an unacceptable impact on the bay window at 49a. It is considered that reducing the height of this wall to 2.9m above the existing site level and setting it away from the bay window would have a significant impact on the overbearing effect of the wall to the extent that the development will no longer result in a harmful deterioration of living conditions at number 49a.

6.60 With regard to the impact of the proposal on the garden of number 49a, it is worth noting that there is a current planning application for a single storey extension at number 49a that would (if approved) significantly reduce the area of garden available to the occupants of this property. A green roof is also proposed to mitigate loss of biodiversity.

It is considered that the design of the proposed dwelling with the courtyard to the front would set the building line back from the boundary sufficiently to ensure that there was no unacceptable sense of enclosure to the remaining area of garden.

Impact on 49b Dundalk Road

6.61 The resident at number 49b (the first floor flat) has raised concerns about loss of privacy as a result of being able to see through the proposed roof lights and loss of outlook as a result of looking onto the green roof.

6.62 There is currently a situation of overlooking between the bay window and the kitchen windows at number 47. As stated, it seems unlikely that the occupant will be able to gain views through the roof lights, however it would be within the control of the overlooked party (any future occupants of the proposed dwelling) to address this situation without the need for planning conditions.

6.63 With regards to loss of outlook, it is considered that the proposed green roof will provide sufficient visual interest to mitigate any loss of outlook. The existing garden at number 47 is not particularly well maintained and as a result the existing outlook depends on its views of the sky and surrounding trees to provide quality. These elements will not be affected by the proposal. Residents have raised concerns that the green roof would not survive and that the view would therefore be of a dead green roof. Suitable conditions are therefore recommended to prevent this from happening (see section on living roof below).

Impact on 47 Dundalk Road

6.64 47 Dundalk Road has been converted into 2 flats, with one unit on each floor. The proposal would result in a new access gate to the side of 47 Dundalk Road. Occupants and visitors would have to pass close to the ground floor window of number 47 to reach the gate. There is an existing low boundary wall with planting that provides definition of the space belonging to number 47 and the access to the gate. The proposals include making good this wall and moving it so that it is in line with the edge of the existing house to create a defensible space in front of this window. Concerns have been raised that the location of the entrance would result in a loss of privacy to number 47. However, the Inspector found with regards to the 2009 appeal scheme that the proposed access to the new dwelling would not materially add to the potential for overlooking due to the fact that both occupants of number 47 currently use the side access and the fact that the privacy of residents is already compromised by pedestrians walking past this window. The arrangement for the access has not changed and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

6.65 A new 2m fence would be erected along the boundary to the sites to the rear of number 47. This could be erected under permitted development. There are 3 windows to the rear of the ground floor flat, a bedroom window facing southeast down the side return (which is situated higher than the level of the windows in the side return) and two facing southwest.

One of these windows is obscure glazed and serves a bathroom and one serves a kitchen. It is not considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on the outlook from the bedroom window. The kitchen window would be approximately 1.5m from the new boundary fence and 2.5m from the proposed dwelling.

Whilst it is considered that the proposal would result in an increased sense of enclosure to this window, this would partly be as a result of the new boundary fence. The proposal would also result in some loss of daylight and sunlight to this window, but the scale of the loss falls within the acceptable parameters set out in the BRE guidance (see section on Sunlight and Daylight below) and is not considered to be perceptible to occupants. It is considered that the relationship created between the two dwellings would not be significantly different from the relationship between the facing windows on the original two storey side returns on the terraces further down Dundalk Road although here the impact would be reduced due to the single storey nature of the proposal. It is therefore not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of natural light or an unacceptable sense of enclosure when experienced from this window.

Security

6.66 The Core Strategy and the London Plan both require new development to be designed to take account of security and to take into account the principles set out in Secured By Design. There is no policy requirement for the proposal to achieve Secured By Design accreditation and a development of this scale would not normally be referred to the local Crime Prevention Officer.

6.67 Concern has been raised by local residents about the impacts the proposal would have on security due to the arrangement of the access to the site. It has been suggested that the location of the front door to the side of the property creates an opportunity for crime in that it lacks natural surveillance and that the single storey nature of the proposal will allow intruders to climb onto the roof and gain access to neighbouring gardens. The occupant at 49a Dundalk Road invited the local Crime Prevention Officer to comment on the scheme. He raised concerns about the proposals, stating that: “It will need to be confirmed if the gate leading from the street into the development is to be secure, there should be no need for persons to be given free access to the area. It is not clear what the postal arrangements are, whether there is a mail box outside or whether mail will be delivered direct to the dwelling.”

6.68 The applicant has confirmed that there will be a lockable gate and post box at the front of the property and that there will be no public access to the site for servicing. The Crime Prevention Officer confirmed in an e-mail dated the 2nd May 2012, that “the provision of a lockable 1.8m gate with incorporated post box now secures the part of the boundary I had concerns with that initially opened up the area to intrusion and opportunities for burglary.” It is therefore considered that the provision of a security gate will be sufficient to secure the proposed dwelling. This gate will ensure that the curtilage of the property becomes private property and the Crime Prevention Officer has confirmed that it would not be appropriate for this private area to be subject to surveillance from neighbouring occupiers as the need for privacy for any future occupier needs to be balanced with the need for security.

6.69 The relocation of the bin store inside the curtilage of the building will address residents concerns that the gate will not be locked after the rubbish is put out. In addition, the relocation of the bike store will mean that there are no structures against the garden fence which could aid access to neighbouring gardens.

It is considered extremely unlikely that unauthorised access would be gained by persons climbing on the roof of the property and jumping over the fence rather than simply climbing over the fence.

6.70 There is an existing access to the site in the form of the gate which provides opportunity to access the site and the surrounding gardens. It is not considered that the construction of a dwelling in this location and the erection of a new gate would make the current situation any worse in terms of security. Indeed, the construction of a dwelling would mean that this area will be subject to natural surveillance by any future occupants which would serve to discourage unauthorised access.

Sunlight and Daylight

6.71 Concern was raised by local residents about the effects of the proposal on the sunlight and daylight that will be received in neighbouring properties and whether neighbouring amenity spaces would be overshadowed. The applicant agreed to submit a sunlight and daylight assessment so that any potential impact could be fully understood. An assessment was carried out by the architect using the methodology set out in the BRE document: Site Layout Panning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice (PJ Littlefair, 2011). Residents raised concerns about the contents of this document and the applicant agreed to have an independent consultant complete a revised assessment. The report concluded that there would be no meaningful impact on the surrounding properties in terms of loss of sunlight or daylight or overshadowing to amenity spaces due to the single storey nature of the proposed dwelling.

6.72 The BRE Guidance sets out an industry accepted methodology for understanding the impact of the development on sunlight and daylight. The document is not adopted policy and therefore should be interpreted flexibly in determining planning applications. That said, in dismissing the 2009 appeal, the Inspector found that the loss of sunlight to the window at 49a would be a material consideration of sufficient weight to dismiss the appeal. He found that “the new dwelling would only cause a harmful loss of sunlight to No 49a in the first part of the morning because of its position to the east. However the aspect of these windows means that it is only in the mornings that they receive direct sunlight so even this relatively small loss would be quite noticeable and would emphasise the overbearing presence of the wall.“

6.73 The angle of the line from the highest point of the proposed single storey dwelling to the middle of the bay window at 49a would be less than 25 degrees. This is a ‘rule of thumb’ test that can be carried out by officers with access to a section through the bay window. As set out in the BRE guidance, the development is therefore unlikely to have a substantial effect on diffuse skylight enjoyed by the existing building. Further analysis of this window is therefore not required, although to address concerns raised, the report has assessed the window and concludes that it will continue to receive the minimum recommended 27% VSC and the proposed level of daylight would be greater than 0.8 times the former.

The window will continue to be adequately day lit and the impact is likely to be unnoticeable by the residents. Given the scale of the proposed development and the rule of thumb calculation, Officers have no reason to query this finding.

6.74 The overshadowing diagrams submitted as part of the assessment confirm that the bay window at number 49a will continue to receive direct sunlight in the early mornings. It is therefore considered that the reduction in the height of the proposed dwelling is sufficient to address the Inspector’s concerns regarding the 2009 appeal scheme.

6.75 With regards to the amenity space to the side of number 49a, the overshadowing diagrams for the 21st March confirm that whilst there is potential for overshadowing in the early morning, the proposed development is short enough that the shadow does not reach the un-shaded area of the garden at this time. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the daylight or sunlight received by this property.

6.76 In terms of the surrounding properties, the report concludes that whilst there may be a reduction in daylight and sunlight as a consequence of the proposed development, under the guidance contained within the BRE Report, the impacts on levels of daylight and sunlight will be negligible as they will be imperceptible to neighbouring occupiers. Similarly, with regards to the assessment of overshadowing of gardens the report finds that no new impact will occur. It is therefore considered that residential amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight will be suitably protected due to the design of the proposal.

6.77 Residents have raised concerns that the findings of the sunlight and daylight assessment are not accurate. Additional detailed information has therefore been requested and a revised assessment was submitted in April 2012. Residents have requested further information, but it is considered that the level of information provided in the sunlight and daylight assessment is appropriate to the scale of the development. There have been some errors in the assessment that have been corrected by the applicant but this has lead to residents losing confidence in the findings of the report. However, the findings of the report have not altered, i.e. that there will be no perceptible impact on sunlight and daylight due to the single storey nature of the development. A preliminary rule of thumb assessment of the window at 49a confirms that this is the case and whilst there will be some impact to the kitchen window at number 47, this will not be perceptible to occupants and is not considered to be unacceptable in an urban location. Therefore whilst it might be appropriate to accord the Sunlight and Daylight Assessment less weight due to concerns surrounding the number of mistakes it has contained, it should be remembered that the BRE document is only guidance and the findings of the report should be interpreted flexibly. On balance, based on the rule of thumb calculation and the shadow diagrams contained in the assessment, it is considered that the proposal will have an acceptable impact on sunlight and daylight given the single storey nature of the proposal and the urban context of the site.

6.78 For the reasons stated the proposal is not considered to cause unacceptable harm to neighbouring properties in terms of amenity or security.

Sustainability and Energy

6.79 London Plan and Core Strategy Policies advocate the need for sustainable development. All new development should address climate change and reduce carbon emissions.

For major development proposals there are a number of London Plan requirements in respect of sustainable design and construction, de-decentralised and renewable energy. For minor development proposals such as the current application Policy 8 (Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency) of the Core Strategy (2011) requires all new housing development to achieve a minimum of Level 4 when assessed using the Code for Sustainable Homes criteria.

6.80 The applicant has submitted a Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment which confirms that it will be possible for the development to meet Code Level 4 in accordance with the requirements of the Core Strategy. Queries have been raised about the achievability of some of the points. If, at detailed design stage, these points cannot be achieved, other points can be secured in alternative assessment areas. A condition is recommended to ensure that the development achieves Code Level 4.

Living Roofs

6.81 The existing site is a garden area that features grass and a small area of hard standing. The existing grass is not considered to provide significant biodiversity value in terms of habitat. However, the applicant proposes a living roof which will include native wildflower species to mitigate the loss of any biodiversity on the site and provide an improved outlook for the occupants of the surrounding properties. The London Wildlife Trust have objected to the scheme on the basis that the proposed living roof is unlikely (on the basis of its specification) to mitigate for the loss of biodiversity. However, only indicative details of the green roof specification have been submitted and the actual specification of the green roof will be secured by condition.

6.82 Residents have raised concerns that the living roof will not establish and will die. A condition is recommended requiring the specification of a plug planted green roof to be submitted to the Council. This will be assessed by the Council’s Ecological Regeneration Manager to ensure that the type of roof specified is appropriate for its location. The condition will require confirmation that the green roof has been installed in accordance with the details submitted. The applicant has also agreed to require a guarantee of establishment for two years from any future green roof contractor as part of the tender process to ensure that the roof establishes successfully. Evidence of this will be required as part of any application to discharge the green roof condition.

6.83 Residents have raised concerns that the green roof will be used as an amenity space. It is recommended that the condition includes a restriction on the use of the roof space for siting out or as an amenity space.

6.84 The proposal is considered to represent a sustainable form of development in a suitable location.

Ecology and Landscaping

6.85 As discussed, a high quality landscaping scheme is considered necessary to ensure that a suitable level of outlook can be achieved. No details have been submitted with the application, but it is considered that this can be appropriately dealt with by condition. A condition is therefore recommended requiring details of both hard and soft landscaping to be submitted.

6.86 In terms of ecology, it is not considered that the existing habitat value of the site is high. Measures to mitigate any loss of biodiversity include the provision of a green roof and other planting. It is considered that the proposed green roof and landscaping will improve ecology and opportunities for biodiversity in this urban location.

6.87 Concerns have been raised about the effect of the development on the mature Lime tree on the boundary of the site. It is likely that the property would be constructed within the root protection zone of this tree. The Council’s Tree Officer has confirmed that mitigation measures are possible to secure the tree’s retention and the applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Assessment confirming what measures will be undertaken to protect the tree. The report notes that the level of encroachment of the development into the root protection zone is acceptable and that there would not be a need for root-spanning foundations. Notwithstanding this, a condition is recommended to protect this tree or to require its replacement. If it appears likely that this tree will need to be removed, the Council’s Tree Officer has confirmed that its loss can be mitigated through the specification of bee friendly wildflowers for the green roof, the installation of bird boxes and replacement tree planting along the boundary. The report sets out that the proposed patio area would need to be constructed without excavation, which would be desirable in any event to achieve the absorption of rainwater into the soil.

Other Matters

Accuracy of Drawings

6.88 Residents have raised concerns about the accuracy of the application drawings. The applicant has reissued all the application drawings based on new measurements obtained on site. It is difficult to assess the accuracy of the site boundary on the drawings as the boundary between the application site and the triangle of garden that is now in use by 62 Finland Road is not shown on the OS Map. The changes to the site boundary mean that the site is approximately 20cm narrower at one point than the originally submitted drawings as the boundary fence is in a different position. This will result in the alleyway along the edge of the property being 620mm at its narrowest point tapering to 830mm. With the new location of the bike store, the side alleyway would only be required for maintenance and whilst the pinch point is narrow, it is considered that it would be possible to access this space.

7.0 Local Finance Considerations

7.1 Under Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), a local finance consideration means:

(a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or

(b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

7.2 The weight to be attached to a local finance consideration remains a matter for

the decision maker.

7.3 The Mayor of London's CIL is therefore a material consideration. CIL is payable on this application and the applicant has completed the relevant form.

8.0 Conclusion

8.1 This application has been considered in the light of policies set out in the development plan and other material considerations including policies in the Core Strategy.

8.2 On balance, Officers consider that the proposal represents a sustainable form of development in accordance with the aims and objectives of adopted development plan policies. The proposal would provide a good standard of residential accommodation in a suitable location. It is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

9.0 Summary of Reasons for Grant of Planning Permission

9.1 The reasons for recommending a grant of planning permission are set out below, having regard to the policies and proposals in the London Plan (July 2011), the saved policies in the UDP (July 2004) and the Core Strategy (June 2011).

It is considered that the proposal is an acceptable form of development which will not result in unacceptable harm to visual or residential amenity. The proposal would provide a good standard of accommodation for future occupiers and represents a sustainable form of development. The proposal complies with Policies Policy 3.3 Increasing Housing Supply, 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential, 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments, 5.1 Climate Change Mitigation, 5.2 Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction, 5.9 Overheating and Cooling, 5.10 Urban Greening, 5.11 Green Roofs and Development Site Environs, 7.2 An Inclusive Environment, 7.3 Designing Out Crime, 7.4 Local Character, Biodiversity and Access to Nature and 8.3 Community infrastructure levy of the London Plan (July 2011) and Spatial Policy 5 Areas of Stability and Managed Change, Core Strategy Policy 1 Housing Provision, Mix and Affordability, Core Strategy Policy 7 Climate Change and Adapting to the Effects, Core Strategy Policy 8 Sustainable Design and Construction and Energy Efficiency, Core Strategy Policy 14 Sustainable Movement and Transport, Core Strategy Policy 15 High Quality Design for Lewisham of the Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 12 Landscape and Development, URB 13 Trees, HSG 4 Residential Amenity, HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development, HSG 7 Gardens and HSG 8 Backland and In-fill Development of the UDP (July 2004) and SPD: Residential Standards.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION GRANT PERMISSION subject to the following conditions:-

1. No development shall commence on site until details of all facing materials (including their colour and texture) to be used on the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless the local planning authority agrees in writing to any variation.

2. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the windows, doors and roof parapet shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority at a minimum scale of 1:20.

3. (i) The building hereby approved shall achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes Rating Level 4.

(ii) Prior to commencement of development a Design Stage certificate (prepared by a qualified assessor) shall be submitted to demonstrate compliance with (i)

(iii) Within three months of the building being brought into use, evidence shall be submitted to demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of this condition, which shall include a Post Construction Code for Sustainable Homes Certificate (prepared by a qualified assessor).

4. No deliveries in connection with construction works shall be taken at or despatched from the site and no work shall take place on the site other than between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and 8 am and 1 pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays.

5. The development hereby permitted shall include secure parking provision for cycle storage, in accordance with the details shown on drawing DR(-1)03 Rev B hereby approved. The cycle store shall be provided before the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied and retained permanently thereafter.

6. No development shall commence on site until drawings showing the use of any part of the site not occupied by buildings and the treatment thereof (including planting, paving, walls and fences) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and all works which form part of the scheme shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development, unless the local planning authority has given written consent to any variation. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority has given written approval to any variation.

7. No development shall commence on site until adequate steps have been taken in accordance with BS 5837:2005 Trees to safeguard all trees on the site against damage prior to or during building works, including the erection of fencing. These fences shall be erected to the extent of the crown spread of the trees, or where circumstances prevent this, to a minimum radius of 2 metres from the trunk of the tree and such protection shall be retained until the development has been completed.

No excavations, site works, trenches or channels shall be cut, or pipes or services laid in such a way as to cause damage to the root structure of the trees.

8. No development shall commence on site, including works of demolition or site clearance, until a full Arboricultural Implication Study (AIS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such study shall consider the exact relationship between the proposed development and any existing trees on the site, in line with the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction).

The AIS should include collection of all data on all trees on the site, with reference to the British Standard and assess all interfaces between the development and trees, their root zones and their crowns and branches, i.e.:-

• Protection of trees within total exclusion zones;

• The location and type of protective fencing;

• The location of the main sewerage and water services in relation to trees;

• The location of all other underground services, i.e. gas, electricity and telecommunications;

• The locations of roads, pathways, parking and other hard surfaces in relation to tree root zones;

• Provision of design and engineering solutions to the above, for example, thrust boring for service runs; the use of porous surfaces for roads etc. and the remedial work to maintain tree health such as irrigation and fertilisation systems; the use of geotextile membranes to control root spread;

• Suggested locations for the site compound, office, parking and site access;

• The replacement planting necessary to compensate for any necessary losses.

Drawings should also be submitted to show the location of any protective fencing, site compounds, means of access etc. and the study should contain a method statement for arboricultural works which would apply to the site. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved AIS.

9. No extensions or alterations to the building, whether or not permitted under Article 3 and Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or any subsequent re-enactment thereof, shall be carried out without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.

10. The development hereby permitted shall include the provision of a refuse storage chamber , in accordance with the details shown on drawing DR(-1)03 Rev B hereby approved. The chamber shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before any of the residential units hereby approved are occupied and retained permanently thereafter.

11. Details of the living roof which shall cover an area no less than 55 sqm shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any superstructure works commencing on site. A 1:20 scale plan [of the living roof] that includes contoured information depicting the extensive substrate build up and a cross section showing the living roof components shall be submitted for approval. The living roof shall be:

a. biodiversity based with extensive substrate base (depth shall vary between 80-150mm with peaks and troughs but shall average at least 100mm);

b. laid out in accordance with plan DR(-1)04 Rev E hereby approved; and will include details of how the roof has been designed to accommodate any plant, management arrangements, and any proposed photovoltaic panels and fixings.

c. plug planted with sedum species & seeded with an agreed wildflower mix of species within the first planting season following the practical completion of the building works.

The living roofs shall not be used as an amenity or sitting out space of any kind whatsoever and shall only be used in the case of essential maintenance or repair, or escape in case of emergency.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details so approved, shall be maintained as such thereafter and no change there from shall take place without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

d. Evidence that the roof has been installed in accordance with sub-points a) to c) above shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved.

Reasons

1. To ensure that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the external appearance of the building and to comply with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policy URB 3 Urban Design in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

2. To ensure that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the external appearance of the building and to comply with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policy URB 3 Urban Design in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

3. To ensure the development achieves the maximum possible in respect of energy and carbon emission reductions and to comply with Policies 5.1 Climate change mitigation, 5.2 Minimising carbon dioxide emissions, 5.3 Sustainable design and construction, 5.7 Renewable energy, 5.15 Water use and supplies, Waste self-sufficiency of the London Plan (July 2011) and Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects and Policy 8 Sustainable design and construction and energy efficiency of the Core Strategy (June 2011).

4. In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupants at unsociable periods and to comply with Policies ENV.PRO 9 Potentially Polluting Uses, ENV.PRO 11 Noise Generating Development and HSG 4 Residential Amenity in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

5. In order to ensure adequate provision for cycle parking and to comply with Policy 14 Sustainable movement and transport of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).

6. In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the details of the proposal and to comply with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 12 Landscape and Development and URB 13 Trees in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

7. To safeguard the health and safety of trees during building operations and the visual amenities of the area generally and to comply with Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 12 Landscape and Development and URB 13 Trees in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

8. To safeguard the health and safety of trees during building operations and the visual amenities of the area generally and to comply with Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policies URB 3 Urban Design, URB 12 Landscape and Development and URB 13 Trees in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

9. In order that, in view of the nature of the development hereby permitted, the local planning authority may have the opportunity of assessing the impact of any further development and to comply with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011).

10. In order that the local planning authority may be satisfied as to the appearance of the refuse chamber and to comply with Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Policy URB 3 Urban Design in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

11. To ensure the development provides the maximum possible provision towards creation of habitats and valuable areas for biodiversity in accordance with Policies 5.11 Green roofs and development sites environs and 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature of the London Plan (July 2011) and Policy 7 Climate change and adapting to the effects, Policy 10 Managing and reducing the risk of flooding and Policy 12 Open space and environmental assets of the Core Strategy (June 2011).

Informative:

1. With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary.

Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.

2. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

Appendix 1: Notes from Local Meeting:

On 23rd May 2012 a local meeting was held at Meadowgate School Hall, Revelon Road, SE4 regarding the following development:- The construction of a single storey two bedroom dwelling house adjacent to 47 Dundalk Road SE4 (this was the revised description of development).

Prior to the meeting, 29 letters of objection were received from local residents and Cllr Joan Millbank regarding the initial proposal. The following issues had been raised:

• Separation distance of less than 21m between rear windows and rear windows to Finland Road;

• Rear building line of proposal is forward of rear building line on the rest of the buildings on Finland Road;

• Loss of privacy and sense of enclosure;

• Lack of amenity space;

• Loss of light to adjoining windows;

• Design not in keeping with surrounding area;

• Proximity to neighbouring windows (noise);

• Lack of adequate living conditions within new property;

• Lack of security arising from entrance down alleyway;

• Lack of off street parking on an already busy road;

• Loss of biodiversity;

• Overlooking from green roof and through skylights;

• What guarantee is there that the property would not be sub divided into flats?;

• Additional burden to sewers;

• Loss of privacy to bay window at 47 Dundalk Road;

• Layout covers more of site than scheme dismissed at appeal;

• Would entirely block up view to bay window at 49 Dundalk Road;

• No disabled Access;

• Failure to meet the Draft Mayor’s Housing SPD

Following the revisions to the scheme but prior to the meeting a further 12 letters of objection had been received. The following issues had been raised:

• Overlooking, sense of enclosure and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties;

• Security risk due to location of entrance;

• Rear wall of proposal is now closer to our property;

• Loss of outlook, privacy and light to number 49 Dundalk Road;

• Light assessment used technical jargon to gloss over loss of light to adjoining properties;

• New bungalow would still be out of keeping with other houses in the area;

• Large flat roof will be seen from windows along Avignon and Finland Road;

• Site coverage is excessive;

• Proposal does not comply with HSG 8 of the UDP;

• Side wall of house would now run for 10m along the length of our garden at a distance of 75cm;

• Noise nuisance from living areas when sitting out in gardens;

• Loss of biodiversity and green space;

• Overlooking from flat roof;

• View from adjoining property would be hideous concrete bunker;

• No off street parking would worsen parking situation;

• Building would take up majority of plot and would sit less than a meter from fences at both sides;

• Light report shows incorrect sun shadows (this has now been addressed);

• Two bedroom property would be cramped, dark and hemmed in;

• If approved, scheme will set a precedent for similar proposals;

• Scheme does not comply with Residential Standards SPD;

• Would result in loss of valuable green space;

• Gardens have been removed from definition of brownfield land and the government is encouraging boroughs to consider whether a presumption against garden development is appropriate.

At the meeting the panel comprised of :

• Cllr Paul Bell – Chair - CPB

• Joost Van Well – JvW

• Stephen Davies – Architect for applicant – SD

• Kate Hayler – Case Officer KH

• 15 local residents signed the attendance sheet. (R)

Minutes of the Meeting

7.00pm CPB opens meeting. SD not available at the beginning of meeting.

• Objections were made about the local meeting process, that it was an informal process and that the applicant was given an opportunity to present the scheme.

CPB: Explained that the point of the meeting to ensure residents understand the scheme and to ensure that officers get a better understanding of the objections.

JvW: Explained that the meeting also allowed the objectors and applicant common ground and see if changes could be made to the scheme to which would address neighbours’ concerns.

• When will recommendation be made?

JvW: explained that the intention is for the application to go to committee on the 21st of June. The committee report would be made available 5 working days before hand.

• Residents requested that the consultation responses would be made available to committee members. Also requested sight of committee report so that a residents report can be prepared and submitted alongside report. Queried whether it would be possible to obtain a list of committee members.

CPB: offered to put resident’s report in committee member’s pigeon holes prior to committee meeting.

• Residents enquired whether it was possible to have a copy of report more than 5 days prior to committee meeting.

JvW: We cannot guarantee that this will be possible as committee reports need to be prepared in accordance with Council’s process. Will make report available as early as possible.

• Residents queried why Council’s Residential Standards SPG was not being followed and how a scheme that was 3.5m from the side bay window at number 49a could be considered when this was the principle rear window of the property.

KH: The document states that guidance should be applied flexibly. What the Inspectors report [of the appeal decision] states is that “the arrangement of number 49 is unusual as its main rooms have an outlook to the side rather than the rear… in each case the room using the bay window is a bedroom and it was evident to me on my visit that the outlook from this window is important to the quality of the living conditions there.”

• Residents raised concerns about loss of amenity due to noise from the development/loss of light and sense of enclosure. It was suggested that the proposal fails 18 of the baseline standards in the Mayor’s Draft SPG. The first standard that was mentioned was Standard 3.3.1 which states that “All main entrances to houses, ground floor flats and communal entrance lobbies should be visible from the public realm and clearly identified”. Residents objected to the location of the door to the side of the development.

KH: Explained that the applicant has confirmed that the entrance to the site will be via a 1.8m high lockable gate that incorporates a post box.

• Residents objected that this would make the scheme a gated development which is against the Residential Standards SPD.

JvW: Explained that ‘gated development’ implies a larger development with no public access over what would normally be communal areas.

• Residents made reference to letter from Crime Prevention Officer voicing concerns about the scheme. They raised concerns that the ‘alleyway’ would not be overlooked and that access could be gained by jumping on flat roof of the scheme and then across to the rear gardens.

KH: Explained that she had been in contact with the Crime Prevention Officer and that he had had confirmation of that he was satisfied with this arrangement.

• Residents requested a copy of e-mail. KH to circulate.

• Residents referred specifically to Paragraph 3.1 of the Secure By Design document and how the proposal responds to it.

CPB: Suggested that the Crime Prevention Officer should be asked to comment on development in relation to specific paragraph. KH to seek comments.

• Residents presented CGI of what the development would look like from neighbouring gardens and suggested that impact would be unacceptable.

CPB: Suggested that residents use the time that they have available in the committee meeting wisely to present images to Councillors.

• Residents queried how the flat roof could be prevented from being used as an amenity space.

JvW: Confirmed that it is normal practice to restrict a planning permission with a condition restricting use of the roof.

• Residents stated that property would be visible from properties up the street and noise from construction would cause disruption.

• Residents queried distance of rear wall from rear gardens along Finland Road. Suggested nuisance and noise would be terrible.

JvW: Explained that ensuring adequate noise insulation can be dealt with by condition.

• Residents suggested that noise from the garden could cause nuisance.

• Residents queried the internal daylighting that would be achieved inside the new development.

JvW: Explained that Officers make an on-balance recommendation about the quality of the accommodation that will be provided.

• Residents queried why their comments on the Daylight and Sunlight report submitted had not been taken on board in the final version of the Daylight/Sunlight Assessment and why no apology had been received that the initial sunlight and daylight assessment was wrong.

KH: Explained that there were no reasons to question the latest Daylight and Sunlight Report

• Concerns were raised about vehicular access to the site and how the emergency services would access the site if there was a fire.

• KH: Explained that access for emergency vehicles is dealt with through Building Control, however, KH to seek advice from Council’s Highways Team.

Residents referred to Paragraph 3.2 in the Secured by Design document which relates to loss of privacy and separation distances.

• KH: There is only one window in the rear elevation and this is separated from the opposite rear window on the Finland Street property by over 22m. There are no windows from the part of the rear wall that is closer to these properties and the separation distance here is 12 meters.

Residents quoted from the Residential Standards which state that garden should be 9m in depth. Proposed garden is 3.5m in depth which is not sufficient.

KH: The proposed dwelling is a 2 bedroom home and is therefore not classified as a family dwelling. The standard is particularly relevant to family dwellings.

SD arrived

Residents suggested that floor area was below 70sqm requirement of the London Plan for a 2 bedroom property.

SD: Confirmed that the area was 70sqm.

• Residents raised concerns that there would be a loss of privacy as they would be able to see through windows into property.

SD: Requested confirmation of which windows residents would be able to see through.

• Concerns were raised about the skylight into the changing area and the dining room. Concerns were also raised about overlooking between number 47 and the side patio doors to the development.

SD: This space is a circulation space. The standards are only concerned with views between habitable rooms.

• Concerns were raised that the side alleyway would not be wide enough to wheel a bicycle down.

SD: Confirmed that alleyway would be 800mm wide at narrowest point which would be sufficient to wheel bicycle down.

• Concerns were raised about the facilities for storing waste as only 1 bin was shown in the store.

SD: Suggested that there was sufficient space for 1 bin and recycling boxes. KH to obtain drawing confirming this.

• Concerns were raised that the drawings were not accurate in terms of where the boundary fence was shown and the width of the access to the site.

SD: The drawings are based on the survey I received from the client. I have also carried out my own measurements to confirm that the survey information is correct. The issue of demise is a legal issue and needs to be taken up with the landowner.

• Concerns were again raised about security.

SD: There is an existing access gate to the side of the property. If someone wanted to climb over the gate and access these rear gardens there would be nothing to stop them. Do not see how proposal which includes a higher gate to the site would make this more likely to happen.

• Residents queried how scheme has been designed sensitively with bedroom windows sited next to garden space. The Design and Access Statement makes reference to an award winning scheme that bears no relation to proposal.

SD: Feel we have come up with a design that responds to the constraints of the site and meets the necessary standards.

• Residents were concerned that the development would depreciate value of their property.

SD: I have worked on many similar schemes and in some cases they cause the value of a property to appreciate.

• Residents raised concerns about wheelchair access to the property.

SD: The scheme has been designed to comply with Lifetime Homes and has been altered so that there is ramped access to the scheme.

• Residents queried what the ceiling height for the proposal would be.

SD: 2.4m

• Residents stated that the baseline standards in the Mayor’s SPG require 2.5m

KH: The Mayor’s SPG is guidance and that while it is a material consideration in the determination of the scheme but it is of limited weight as the document is still draft.

• Residents suggested that the document is being used in the determination of other planning applications, why is there no consistency.

KH to investigate.

• Residents requested that it be minuted that for the duration of the meeting, officers have given no justification of why the application should be approved.

JvW: This is not the point of the meeting. There is a need for housing in the borough and officers need to take a view on what the impact of any applications for new dwellings will be.

• Residents suggested that there was a presumption against garden development in the London Plan and the NPPF.

KH: The London Plan and the NPPF encourage boroughs to consider whether it would be appropriate to have a presumption against garden development. This should be based on an assessment of sound local evidence. This evidence is currently being gathered as part of the Development Management DPD which is due to be adopted next year.

• Residents quoted parts of the Inspector’s decision notice which referred to loss of outlook, loss of light and harmful deterioration of living conditions.

KH: The appeal scheme was a 2 storey dwelling house. The current application is for a single storey dwelling house and officers have to consider what the impact of this will be.

• Residents raised concerns about the Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment. The amended document missed sections out regarding sound insulation. It was queried how the Council can accept that the scheme will meet Code Level 4 when it would not be possible to access the bike parking due to the narrowness of the alleyway and the waste management plan was not acceptable.

KH: The pre-assessment is an indicative document that is submitted to confirm that the scheme will be capable of meeting Code Level 4. This would be conditioned on any permission. The applicant would have to submit a document completed by a qualified assessor confirming how Code 4 will be attained. Once the development was complete a certificate would need to be obtained confirming that this had been achieved. If there are some points that the applicant cannot obtain, they will need to make it up in other areas as the condition requires them to meet Code Level 4.

• Residents raised queries about the loss of biodiversity on site.

SD: The site is currently covered in lawn which has a low biodiversity value. When the scheme is complete, there will be planting and a green roof which includes sedum matting.

• Residents raised concerns that there would not be sufficient depth for a full green roof and that the thin layer of sedum matting would be brown for most of the year.

SD: I don’t have details of green roof.

• Concerns were raised that the pre-assessment stated that a score of 0 would be achieved for sound insulation.

SD: This is something that is usually conditioned. The scheme will need to achieve Building Control approval in addition to any planning conditions.

• Residents were concerned that the scheme would result in loss of visual amenity to a number of properties along Dundalk Road and Finland Road. They challenged architect to say whether he would be happy with scheme in his back garden.

SD: Confirmed that the development would meet all relevant standards.

9:15 CPB adjourned meeting.