The committee APPROVED the revised render and louvres – the render having being toned down from the initial variation proposals.

Given the huge controversy the Northbrook application has caused locally, I was amazed to read that the Conservative Party propose to take school planning applications even further from public scrutiny and have them decided by the Bristol-based planning inspectorate.  We need more public scrutiny and democratic accountability for this huge school-building programme, not less!

• The application to vary the render shades and add louvres is going to planning committee B on Thursday 4th February.  Officers have recommended to the committee that the application is approved.  You can read the report here. The meeting is held in public at 7.30pm at the Civic Suite, Catford, so you’re welcome to attend if you wish.
• The application to alter the window to reflect the more appropriate design agreed with the community (see my 12th Jan post) has now been received.  The application and drawings can be viewed online, at the Planning Office at Laurence House, Catford, or at Manor House Library during normal library opening hours.   Deadline for comments is 9th February.  These can be emailed to planning {at} lewisham.gov(.)uk – please quote ref DC/10/73303, and feel free to copy me  in.

I’m pleased to say that following a meeting with residents and the Lee Manor Society held just before the Christmas break, the designers have come back with a revised window which addresses many of the concerns local people had – the image to the right illustrates how this will look (we’re waiting for a better visual from the designers).

The change to the window will have to go through the planning process in due course, and I was told at the meeting that residents will be consulted on the window this time. 

In the meantime, the planning department are consulting on some alterations to the render colour/louvres application.  This has now been changed again to tone down the yellows, oranges and reds.  You can see examples here.  Residents have until Friday to get their comments to planning {at} lewisham.gov(.)uk (quote DC/09/72596, and please feel free to copy me in).

For reference, the main page for the render/louvres application is here.   Incidently, the notes of the public meeting I chaired on 24th November are now online here.

The frustrating thing is that we could have got here a lot more quickly if the Council had chosen to consult locally in the first place…

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.

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.

The application didn’t even get to the stage where it’d be considered by a council planning committee – council officers refused it under their delegated powers.

A few points I’d make to those who are concerned about the application:

• Though the deadline for comments has passed, you can still submit comments and objections to the Council.  Email planning {at} lewisham.gov(.)uk quoting ref DC/09/72208. The sooner the better, though, as you ideally want them to reach the planning officer before she writes her report
• Secondly, it’s really important to make points with reference to the Council’s planning policies, as set out in the UDP - for now, the key planning document; and the London Plan.

From now, the planning officer will be writing her report, weighing up the cases made by residents and the developer and deciding whether to recommend that the Council planning committee approve or reject the plans.  The committee of councillors will make a decision taking into account the officer’s recommendation.

I’ve said I’m happy to speak on residents’ behalf at the planning committee, and they also get to nominate one person to speak on their behalf.  Residents who’ve submitted an objection will be written to about a week before the meeting so they can attend – and I’d encourage as many residents as possible to do so – this shows the strength of feeling.

In the meantime, I’ve submitted my objection and am happy to offer any help or advice I can to residents.

I’ve been talking to residents since we first became aware that an application was likely back in July.  The application’s now gone in and I met again with residents on the Close last weekend.  There’s a lot of concern about the affect the development will have on the Close – particularly difficulties it’ll cause with parking and access, and a feeling that the proposed development isn’t in character.  Looking at the plans, I’m also concerned about the quality of life for those who might end up living in the proposed development – which will be 2 and 3 bed flats – they aren’t going to have much in the way of open space, and  it’s quite out of the way for those without their own public transport.

I’ve now written to the Council to oppose the application.  I understand that as of Friday, some 24 objections had been received and that the Council is likely to hold a public meeting to discuss these before the application goes to a planning committee.  The application’s complicated by the fact that some of the land is in Greenwich – so that Council’s also consulting on the application – but as the majority of the land is in Lewisham, our Council is the lead authority.

Please do feel free to copy me into any comments you have on the application.  Comments need to reach planning {at} lewisham.gov(.)uk by Thursday 10th September, and please mention ref DC/09/72208.

The study – which you can download here – looks at Lee Green in some detail and suggests three potential schemes for regenerating the whole crossroad area.   It also makes the case more generally for housing in town centres.

I think the report’s interesting, and certainly in all the discussions I’ve had with the Leegate Centre’s owners, St Modwen, over the last 3 and a bit years, they’ve always stated that one of their aims in any redevelopment would be to introduce more housing.  It makes sense to them financially (or did!) and it’s also in-line with London and local planning policy which calls for more housing around transport hubs.  Not sure Lee Green’s quite a transport hub, but there are a fair number of buses..! 

The disappointing thing about this report is that it doesn’t seem to have involved any consultation with local people or their elected representatives.  The nearest thing that I can see is a meeting they’ve had with a planning policy manager at the Council.  The report acknoledges that “Local residents groups aspire to a better shopping, restaurant and cafe offer as well as public realm improvements,” which I presume is a reference to the Lee Manor Society’s design brief.

All in all, a bit of a missed opportunity.   The report’s starting point is to make the case for extra housing, but without asking the community if that’s what we want, the rest of its findings are a bit academic.  It’s a shame, because the money that the LDA have spent looking at Lee Green could have been used to help us develop a real community vision.

If you get the chance to have a read, I’d be interested in your views.