Just a quick reminder that the next Local Assembly meeting is on January 19th from 7.30pm at Northbrook School (at the former Ennersdale School site on Leahurst Road).  Flyers should be hitting doormats across the ward this week.

On the agenda will be the usual assembly priorities:

• Manor Park – with an update on the propsed work on the Manor Park building and bridge (more details on Paul’s blog)
• Leegate – we’ll be launching our residents’ survey on how local people would like to see Leegate change in the short and longer term
• Youth provision – an update from the youth service on how they’re propsing to spend the £20,000 we’ve provided for youth work in Lee Green
• Parking – a member of staff from highways will be on hand to tell us how the Mayor’s responded to our statement of community views on parking

Should be a good evening – and it’s our last assembly until May/June, so do brave the cold if you can!

The way the design for the stained glass window for the new Northbrook School building has been approved by the Council ‘behind closed doors’ has caused a lot of controversy and ill-feeling locally.  As I wrote last week, I believe there’s a need for a written policy so that residents can understand how such decisions are made (even if they don’t agree with the decision itself!) and so that it’s clear when ‘details’ become big deals and need to be consulted on.

I promised to raise this at Council and did so last Wednesday.   My question, and the Deputy Mayor’s disappointing response is below:

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

25 NOVEMBER 2009

Question by Councillor Robson of the Deputy Mayor

Question

A recent decision made by planning officers to agree a ‘detail’ of a planning permission without further consulting residents has caused some controversy in Lee Green Ward. Having asked officers for a copy of the procedure followed in this case, I was surprised to be told that there is no written procedure for officers to follow in deciding whether such details conform to the original permission. Can Members be assured that a written policy is put in place to ensure that residents can understand the processes followed in such cases?

Reply

The question is referring to what is known as “Approval of Details” applications. These are submitted by applicants in order to discharge their obligations by way of conditions imposed on planning permissions. Such requirements normally arise in instances where fuller illustrative details or technical specifications are needed. In granting the original planning permission the principle of the development has already been confirmed, but the submission and approval of appropriate details serves to ensure that the development will be implemented to a satisfactory standard.

It is not normal practice amongst local planning authorities to notify or consult third parties on Approval of Detail applications for the simple reason that the formal consultation exercise will already have been undertaken for the original application. Indeed, Lewisham Council’s Statement of Community Involvement makes no reference to such applications.

The decision to impose particular conditions on a planning permission may sometimes be as a consequence of the stated concerns of local occupiers, and it is also important that these applications – which amount to approximately 12% of the yearly total – are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, so as not to hinder or delay developments of acceptable form. Accordingly, officers, who enjoy delegated authority by way of the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, are entrusted to use discretionary judgement to this end. There have been occasions when the committee determining the application may consider that the details of a particular issue are of such significance that they need to be referred back to them for decision. If the committee do not take this approach it is normal practice for officers to discharge the conditions under their delegated powers.

In the interests of consistency the original case officer will invariably deal with the process of discharging the terms and conditions of a planning permission. The formal approval process also requires the agreement and signature of a senior officer. With such safeguards in place I do not believe that producing a policy or guidance note as to how such submissions should be best dealt with would serve any useful purpose.

 In my supplementary question, I pressed the Deputy Mayor further, pointing out that residents have a right to understand what’s going on, and that the council also owes it to planning officers to have a policy in place that they can refer to rather than leaving them defending decisions without the benefit of a written policy to guide them.  The Deputy Mayor reiterated her belief that producing a policy or guidance note isn’t a good use of officer time. 

My own view, for what it’s worth, is that officer time spent serving residents is time well spent, and the Northbrook case shows that residents aren’t being best served by the current lack of policy.

Lee Green residents will no doubt remember that last year, the planning application for the new Northbrook School building on the corner of Wantage and Taunton Roads caused some controversy.  The plans were eventually approved by the Council’s strategic planning committee back in October last year.

Ther planning department have now received an application to vary the planning permission that was granted.  The applicant team want to alter the windows to integrate some louvres and also to change the colour of the render used around the windows.  The original plans included render in various shades of green and yellow.  As you can see from the pictures, the new plans replace the green and yellow with shades of yellow, orange and red.

However, what’s caused a lot of concern locally are the changes to the stained glass windows to the front of the school.  As I understand it, the render’s being changed to fit with the new-look stained glass, which features a large cross in the same shades.

The changes to the window design have already been granted permission by council planning officers under delegated powers (that is, behind closed doors, without consulting the local residents or councillors).  Apparently the original permission included a provision for this ‘detail’ to be agreed by officers.   The changes to the colour of the render, and the integration of  the louvres can’t be agreed in this way, and need public consultation.

It seems absurd that the window is considered a detail, but the render needs consulting on.  It’s true that it’s common practice for details to be agreed by officers without going through the whole planning process - but the changes to the window are much larger than the usual ‘detail’ changes (which tend to be detailed matters like submitting a sample of the bricks to be used). 

I’ve asked officers to give me a copy of the council policy or procedure they follow when deciding whether a change is a ‘detail’ or not. I’m told there isn’t a written policy and that it’s normal practice to agree details without consulting on them.  It seems to me that even if residents don’t agree with the decision made, they should be entitled to understand how such decisions are made.  When does a ‘detail’ cease to be a detail and become a big deal?

The fairest way to deal with this would be to fully consult on the windows and the render as a package, so that residents can have their say – for or against.  I was against the original plans as I believe they were too intrusive, and I think the new plans are even more intrusive – though it’s difficult to separate the render from the window.  The right shades of render might actually be an improvement on the lime green we had before.

A public meeting has been arranged for Tuesday 24th November and will be held at the present Northbrook site on Leahurst Road (the old Ennersdale site) from 7.30pm.  I’ll be chairing the meeting.  Though the windows aren’t part of the application, I can’t see how we can avoid dicussing them, and I can only hope the applicant team will  take the discussion into account when deciding whether or not to proceed with their plans.

In the meantime, I’ve tabled a question to the Deputy Mayor (who’s in charge of planning) at the next Full Council, outlining my surprise that there’s no written policy in place to deal with the ‘details’ of applications, and asking her to ensure that such a written policy is put in place so that residents can understand the processes followed in such cases.

You’re probably aware that the old Ennersdale Primary School building on Leahurst Road is currently being used by Northbrook School as a temporary building while their site on Taunton Road is re-built. Ennersdale, was of course closed by the Labour Council back in 2002.

The Council has now been approached by English Heritage, who have told them that they are processing an application to make the school a listed building.

Once Northbrook move back to Taunton Road, the Council’s plan is to move the Brent Knoll School to the Leahurst Road site, though as Brent Knoll is a special school, the building will require internal adaptations. If the building were to be listed, this wouldn’t be impossible, but it might impose some constraints.

The Council has until May 30th to let English Heritage have their views – in the meantime, I’d be interested in yours!

You may notice there’s been a rash of listings locally – in addition to the listing of pre-fab bungalows in Whitefoot Ward, Lewisham Bridge School has been listed too.   I understand the school listings are because English Heritage have been doing aLondon-widestudy of London School Board buildings. They’re also considering listing Holbeach Primary school in Catford.

Just back from the town hall.   After two and a half hours of discussion, the Northbrook plans were approved by the Strategic Planning Committee, with only one councillor voting against.

As I promised to do at the public meeting back in June, I used my right to speak at the committee to represent the views of local residents.   Representatives from the Lee Manor Society, NAG and the Manor House Gardens Users Group also spoke.

I’m sure I and others will write more about this in the days to come – but I’m knackered, so that’s all for now!

I chaired Lee Green’s second local assembly meeting last night at Lochaber Hall.   There was another great turn-out – I reckon over 100 people attended once again.

The issues on the agenda (drawn up by the coordinating group) were:

• The Leegate Centre
• Traffic issues – 20MPH zone, humps and parking
• The locality fund
• Northbrook school

I’ve already posted today to say that Northbrook should be going to planning on October 2nd.   Unfortunately, the Town Hall have ruled that senior Council officers won’t attend the assemblies, so last night we had to make do with written reports rather than speaking to the experts face-to-face.   That does, though, mean I can post the reports on Leegate and traffic here so that people who weren’t at the assembly can still read them and see what they think.  So I’ll do just that!

Once again, thanks to the Assembly team – particularly Ade and Paul, for making it happen.