Thank you again for all your love and support. I have just had this very dark email from their planning team PLEASE READ THIS!! Their arguments fracture the truth. So please pray - stand with us - we really do now NEED A MIRACLE - any thoughts on how we can win this ? PLEASE GET IN CONTACT asap...
here is a copy of the email I received today:
'I have been asked to respond to your enquiry of 14 January to the Deputy Mayor, Brenda Dacres, relaying the concerns which were sent to the Deputy Mayor via Lord Kennedy.
The residents raise a number of concerns about a planning application at Land to the rear of 14-48 Geoffrey Road, SE4. The application in question is for “Demolition of existing structures on the site rear of 14 - 48 Geoffrey Road, SE4 and construction of a development comprising of 8no residential two-story dwellings (Class C3), with associated landscaping and ecological enhancements, refuse and recycling storage and cycle storage and subject to a Legal Agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)” (our ref: DC/23/131277).
Background
The application was received in April 2023 and presented at Planning Committee B on 14 December 2023, with a recommendation to approve subject to conditions and a legal agreement. Members resolved to grant permission as per officers’ recommendation. Planning permission has not yet been issued as work on the legal agreement is ongoing.
Points of concern
THE RESIDENTS raise a number of points of concern. For clarity, I have summarised their points and provided a response alongside. Throughout I have referred to the officer’s report to Committee. I have attached the report for ease of reference. Other related documents can be found here: DC/23/131277 | Demolition of existing structures on the site rear of 14 - 48 Geoffrey Road, SE4 and construction of a development comprising of 8no residential two-story dwellings (Class C3), with associated landscaping and ecological enhancements, refuse and recycling storage and cycle storage and subject to a Legal Agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). | LAND TO THE REAR OF 14-48 GEOFFREY ROAD, LONDON, SE4 (lewisham.gov.uk)
Number of Councillors at the Committee meeting
THE RESIDENTS ARE concerned that the Committee comprised only four members, of whom two voted in favour and two abstained. The number of Councillors present exceeded the minimum required for the meeting to be quorate while the vote was a simple majority. The meeting met the terms of the Council’s constitution.
Time to prepare for the Committee
THE RESIDENTS are concerned that insufficient time was afforded to local residents prior to the committee meeting. Invitations were sent on 6 December, satisfying the statutory time period of five clear days before the meeting, on 14 December, required by the Local Government Act 1972.
Presence of two other developments on Geoffrey Road
THE RESIDENTS stated there are already two “other major developments within 50 yards of each other in Geoffrey road, creating even more of a bottle neck, noise, dangerous pollution levels and danger to people and pets crossing the road.”
We assume THE RESIDENTS means the development at 1-1A Brockley Cross and 159A Upper Brockley Road. Neither of these cases is a major development (as defined by the Development Management Procedure Order 2015, as amended) and both have been assessed on their merits including consideration of potential impacts on air quality and highway safety in accordance with the planning policies in place at the time of their decision.
159A Upper Brockley Road (our ref: DC/17/10182): permission granted in March 2019, following Members' resolving to grant planning permission at Committee in July 2018, for "Demolition of existing buildings at 159a Upper Brockley Road, SE4 and the construction of a three storey plus basement building comprising 2 two bedroom, self-contained maisonettes, 2 two bedroom, self-contained flats, 2 one bedroom self-contained flats and one studio flat, together with the provision of bicycle and refuse/recycling storage at the rear accessed from Geoffrey Road subject to a deed of agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 signed 25 March 2019."
1 & 1A Brockley Cross (our ref: DC/23/130045): permission granted in June 2023, following Members' resolving to grant planning permission at Committee in March 2023, for "Demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a part two/part four storey plus basement to provide 7 self-contained flats, together with 12 cycle storage, refuse storage and associated landscaping at 1-1a Brockley Cross SE4 and subject to a Legal Agreement pursuant to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) dated 28 June 2023."
Impact on ecology
THE RESIDENTS claim many “rare birds, bats, insects, badgers, hedgehogs and other creatures including reptiles have been found to live in this part of the embankment.”
The land in question is alongside, but not part of, a Green Corridor and the Brockley to St Johns Railside Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, which follows the railway land. In recognition of this, the application was supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Survey (“PEAR”). The PEAR is available for Ms Carter to view on the Council’s website and its findings are summarised in sub-section 6.7.1 of the officer’s report to Committee. At para 375 of the officer’s report, it is set out that the PEAR found no habitats of high ecological value on the site.
Removal of trees
The officer’s report addresses the question of removal of trees, in sub-section 6.7.3. Seven trees are to be removed. While this is unfortunate, the Council is required to consider both harms and merits of schemes. The officer’s report sets out that to offset the harm from the loss of seven trees, planting of 24 replacement trees would be required. The harm of the loss of established trees is also offset by the planning merit of providing eight new homes. The Council does not have powers to prevent Network Rail from felling trees on railway land, alongside this site, where this is necessary for operational purposes.
Rare biodiversity
THE RESIDENTS state “this rare piece of biodiversity must be protected or it will be lost forever. We have the PEA report and the ecological report lists the importance of this once untouched piece of land.”
This statement mis-characterises the land: as mentioned above, the site itself is not protected in planning terms. The Council has considered the potential impact of the development of the site on both the biodiversity of the existing site (as discussed above, the application was supported by a PEAR which established the existing situation) and of the adjoining land. Suitable mitigation measures are to be imposed to strike an appropriate balance between protecting wildlife and enabling the provision of eight much-needed new homes. The site is previously developed land, with several structures on site along with some areas of hardstanding. It appears the last known use was as garages and before that, stables and allotments.
Parking controls
THE RESIDENTS note that “parking controls will be needed to mitigate the negative impacts of this development, likely to be needed on adjoining streets due to displacement. People can’t afford it and will either lose access to parking or will have less money to spend in local businesses.”
This is addressed in sub-section 6.4.6 of the officer’s report. As part of Lewisham's approach to supporting active travel and in recognition of existing parking stress within the area, it is agreed that future occupants will not be eligible for parking permits. It is not accurate to represent this as losing access since future occupants of these homes would not have previously had a parking permit for the local area.
No need for the scheme
THE RESIDENTS assert the scheme is not needed, saying: “The scheme is not part of Lewisham’s development plan and housing targets already met or planned to be met by other means…”
Lewisham is failing to meet its housing targets and housing delivery had fallen to 51% of the required target. Meanwhile, the London Plan has given Lewisham a target of 379 homes per year over a ten-year period to be supplied on unallocated small sites such as this. In recognition of the challenges small sites can present, particularly where they entail intensification within established residential areas, Lewisham has adopted a Small Sites SPD which gives greater certainty while helping to unlock suitable sites for development. Appropriate development such as this, providing much-needed homes, is an essential contributor to Lewisham's housing needs.
Reliance on conditions to overcome impacts
THE RESIDENTS are concerned about reliance on conditions which may not be monitored.
The matters referred to are common to many similar schemes. In the event development is not carried out in accordance with the approved details, that can be raised with our planning enforcement team.
Noise impacts from the railway
THE RESIDENTS are concerned the impact of braking trains has not been considered in the noise assessment process.
The application was supported by a noise impact assessment carried out by a suitably qualified noise consultant. The matter is addressed in sub-section 6.2.9 of the officer’s report. The potential impact for noise and vibration from the railway has been considered by Council officers, including specialist Environmental Health officers, and addressed in the report.
Speed of decision and lack of transparency
THE RESIDENTS allege “This decision process has been extremely rushed and lacks transparency at all levels”.
The application was received in April 2023. Local residents were consulted from the end of April for a minimum period of 21 days, however we accepted responses up until the date of Committee in mid-December. The statutory timescale for determining this application expired in June 2023. It cannot be argued that the decision process was rushed. The decision to resolve to grant planning permission was made by Members at a meeting to which the public were invited. As is standard, all objectors were invited to attend and all flagged to the presence of the officer's report prior to the meeting. It therefore also cannot be argued that the decision lacks transparency.
Pansela Turcea
Senior Planning Technician on behalf of
Angus Saunders
North Area Team Leader
Development Management
Place
Lewisham Council