Agenda item

Description of application – Demolition of existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide new buildings ranging from five to nine storeys in height comprising 159 residential units (Use Class C3), 1,099 sq m commercial floorspace (Use Class B1a-c) residents gym (Use Class D2), together with associated car and cycle parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Kieron Wheeler (Agent).

Mr Wheeler reported the following:-

The proposals before the Committee represented an important opportunity to regenerate the site.  The developers had been in dialogue with both Council Officers and the GLA.  The site in question was physically separated from the business area and it was unlikely that the buildings would be occupied again.  A range of modern, conventional floor space was being proposed in the high quality, mixed use development which would incorporate 159 new homes.

In response to Member questions, Mr Wheeler confirmed that 5 car parking spaces on the north west of the development had been allocated for visitor parking.  The developers had undertaken a parking survey which had indicated that there was capacity for on-street parking and there would be a concierge on site to control use of the spaces.  The development was well located in good proximity to public transport and the town centre.  A design-led approach had been adopted and the developers felt that the impact on amenity space provision was minimal.  Although Network Rail had reported that it was standing room only from Lower Sydenham station there were frequent, quick trains to London Bridge.  Car parking had been a serious consideration and car club and travel scheme plans had been included within the proposals.  The Developers felt that car parking provision was comfortable and appropriate for the site. 

An update to the report was circulated.  This clarified that as a result of amendments to the scheme made by the applicant, the proposed level of commercial floorspace was 1099 sqm (GIA), resulting in a net loss of 3304 sqm (GIA).  This represented a 75% reduction in the quantum of commercial floorspace on site, when compared to the existing situation.

Late representations had been received along with comments from the Environment Agency and the Metropolitan Police Designing Out Crime Officer.  No objections were raised subject to recommended conditions in the event that planning permission was granted. 

Comments were also received from TfL, confirming in summary that the amount of car parking should be reduced to encourage sustainable travel, supported by the implementation of a CPZ. 

Further representations had been received from Network Rail, raising concerns regarding the impact on capacity at Lower Sydenham Station.

In opening the debate, Councillor Russell Mellor, Ward Councillor for Copers Cope, highlighted that this was the third development of large density in the ward.  This particular area was at saturation point for residential units and the existing industrial sites must now be considered for industrial purposes.  The infrastructure for the area was not adequate to meet the additional demands of the proposal.  Councillor Mellor moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report and the additional reason: that the infrastructure of the area was inadequate to meet the additional demands of the proposal.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop seconded the motion adding that Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALS) were an inadequate method for deciding planning policy.

Councillor Reddin, although supporting refusal, noted that there were some positives within the application: it was refreshing to see a 1:1 parking ratio and the landscaping around the river would be welcome.  However, these positives did not overcome the scale of the development and its proximity to Metropolitan Open Land.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

The following ground for refusal was added:

In the absence of information to demonstrate to the contrary, the proposed development would give rise to an unacceptable impact on local public transport infrastructure particularly the local rail network, contrary to Policy T9 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 6.3 of the London Plan.