Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Eddie Hanson, Adam Harrison and Sue Vincent.

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Liam Martin-Lane.

Members will be asked to declare any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on this agenda.

There were none.

Webcasting of the Meeting

The Chair to announce the following: “In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record and film public meetings, I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for twelve months after the meeting. After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available on DVD upon request.

If you are seated in the Chamber it is likely that the Council’s cameras will capture your image and you are deemed to be consenting to being filmed and to the use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes. If you are addressing the Committee your contribution will be recorded and broadcast unless you have already indicated that you do not wish this to happen.

If you wish to avoid appearing on the Council’s webcast you should move to one of the galleries.”

Any Other Announcements

Webcasting

The Chair announced that the meeting was being broadcast live to the internet and would be capable of repeated viewing and copies of the recording could be made available to those that requested them.  Those seated in the Chamber were deemed to be consenting to being filmed.  Anyone wishing to avoid appearing on the webcast should move to one of the galleries.

(i)       Written Communications

The Committee will be asked to receive written submissions in respect of items on the agenda, if any.

(ii)      Deputations

The Committee will be asked to receive requests for deputations in respect of items on the agenda, if any.

RESOLVED –

THAT the written submissions and deputation requests contained in the supplementary agenda be accepted.

There was no such business.

To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2024.

Consideration was given to the Minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED –

THAT the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2025 be agreed and signed as an accurate record of the meeting.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities.

Application no: 2024/0728/P      Officer: Darren Zuk

Proposal: Development of the land adjacent to 46 Maresfield Gardens including the erection of a five-storey (plus lower ground floor) building to provide new residential accommodation (Class C3), associated basement excavation, hard and soft landscaping works, boundary treatment works, and other associated works. Substantial demolition and redevelopment of 39a Fitzjohn's Avenue for the provision of residential accommodation (Class C3) including erection of three-storey rear extension, part one-/part two-storey roof extension, associated basement excavation, hard and soft landscaping works, front boundary treatment works, and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement

Consideration was also given to the information provided in the Supplementary Agenda, the written submissions and deputation requests referred to in Agenda Item 5 above. Consideration was also given to the information included in the Tabled Paper.

The Committee considered a model of the proposed development. The Head of Development Management reported that while viewing the model, the following points were noted: 

• The location of Fitzjohn’s Avenue, Nutley Terrace, and Maresfield Gardens.
• No. 46 Maresfield Gardens and the adjacent land, where the proposed garden building would be located, were both identified.
• No 39 was identified and members were reminded that it was outside the application site.
• Officers noted that a non-material amendment application had been submitted to adjust the landscaping for an approved permission on that site, to integrate it with the proposals under consideration for the neighbouring sites.
• Officers highlighted No. 39a was the building proposed to have extensions to the roof, side, basement and rear.
• It was noted that this was previously going to be a single dwelling under an earlier permission but would now be separated into four units by this scheme.
• Officers noted that the affordable housing units were off-site.
• It was confirmed that the sites were all owned by the same developer.
• Members raised questions regarding viability and the impact of splitting the sites on the ability to deliver affordable housing. Officers advised these should be raised during the later discussion. 

Councillor Judy Dixey addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor.

Members expressed disappointment about the lack of an affordable housing provision on site. Planning Officers provided the following information, in response to questions about affordable housing:

• Affordable housing could not be provided on-site due to viability constraints.
• Whilst the council’s policy required affordable housing, it was only where it was viable to do so. As providing affordable housing on this site was deemed unviable, there was no policy requirement for it in Council or central government policy.
• Despite this, however, the developer had committed to taking a risk and providing some affordable housing off-site by converting 4 existing private homes on another site they owned to affordable housing and for them to be transferred to a registered provider who already managed affordable homes on that site.
• If only a late-stage review was relied upon, there was no guarantee of affordable units, securing four units upfront provided certainty that some affordable housing would be provided.
• Under the late-stage review, if additional funds were generated, the Council would only get 60% of any surplus and it would likely be a payment in lieu to the Council’s affordable housing fund, rather than the provision of affordable units.
• The off-site units would be London Living Rent, which was identified as the most accessible tenure option for lower-income residents.
• The official policy requirement for affordable housing on this scheme was 0%, because of the viability position, yet the developer was offering 8%, exceeding expectations.

The Council’s Viability Consultant provided the following information in response to questions on the viability of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7(1)

Application no: 2024/1274/P      Officer: Brendan Versluys

Proposal: Erection of rear extension to lower ground floor; erection of outbuilding in the rear garden.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional planning permission

Application no: 2024/2098/L       Officer: Brendan Versluys

Proposal: Erection of rear extension to lower ground floor; internal alterations at lower ground floor.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional listed building consent

Consideration was also given to the information provided in the Supplementary Agenda, the written submissions and deputation requests referred to in Agenda Item 5 above.

Councillor Linda Chung addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor.

Officers responded to questions, as follows:

·       Paragraph 10.14 of the report, which indicated a reduction in garden space of 57.3 square metres, included the loss from both the garden room and the rear extension.

·       Measurements were based on gross external area rather than gross internal area, making the usable floor space within the garden room appear larger.

·       The overall height of the boundary treatment included a brick wall of 1.96 metres with additional trellis bringing the total height to approximately 3.8 metres.

·       The proposed outbuilding would be 2.9 metres high, which was below the trellis line.

·       Officers confirmed that the outbuilding would be positioned behind 79 South End Road, which was roughly eight metres from 12A Keats Grove.

·       As some of the trellis was in poor condition, it would be replaced with new trellis.

·       Whilst views of the neighbouring properties bathroom window at 12A Keats Grove from the outbuilding may be possible, this was not considered a habitable space and therefore there were no overlooking concerns.

·       Furthermore, the outbuilding’s windows and doors were oriented towards the applicant’s own garden, rather than neighbouring properties and the window at an elevated height. Therefore, the report had concluded that the outbuilding would not cause significant overlooking or privacy issues.

·       The 0.6 metre gap along the boundary would be retained, which would provide space for some greenery, however as there was an existing boundary wall at the end it could not provide a green corridor.

The applicant clarified that the application site was number 73 and that the proposed outbuilding would be located to the rear of No. 79. The boundary treatment was a brick wall of 1.96 meters with a timber boarded fence of 1.21 meters atop. The proposed outbuilding would be 2.9 metres high, which was below the trellis line.

On being put to the vote, with four in favour of the officer recommendation, one against, and two abstentions, it was

RESOLVED –

    i)        THAT Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions and Section 106 obligations as set out in the agenda; and

   ii)       THAT listed building consent be granted subject to conditions as set out in the agenda.

ACTION BY:   Director of Economy, Regeneration & Investment

                         Borough Solicitor

Application no: 2024/3865/P      Officer: Sam FitzPatrick

Proposal: Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) of planning permission 2020/5277/P dated 03/05/2023 (for ‘Demolition of car port and erection three storey building consisting of 1 x 3 Bed dwelling house.’), namely to alter front garden area including relocation of air source heat pump and access ramp and changes to boundary.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant conditional planning permission subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement

Consideration was also given to information contained within the tabled paper.

The Planning Officer presented the application, clarifying that the application required consideration by the Committee because the applicant was a Council officer. 

On being put to the vote, unanimously in favour of the officer recommendation, it was

RESOLVED –

THAT Planning Permission be granted subject to conditions and Section 106 obligations as set out in the agenda.

ACTION BY: Director of Economy, Regeneration & Investment

                               Borough Solicitor

There was none.