High rise ED (April 2015 M&S planning application)

[KalamityKel]

cl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Erm, lets not kid ourselves that it will all be

> sorted at the planning committee meeting.

>

> They didn't sort it last time. In fact, they

> mainly acknowledged how badly it had been dealt

> with by the council...... But then decided to

> approve it anyway. I remember quite clearly one of

> the counsellors who voted in favour turning round

> once it was a done deal, looking me in the eye and

> offering me an sympathetic shrug as if to say 'I'm

> sorry, there's just nothing I could do'. Which

> clearly was not the case. She could have voted

> against.

>

> James are you able to do anything in advance to

> encourage them to grow some balls this time round

> rather than just rolling over again?

Sadly I recall a similar response from a different councillor too.

I'd like to think someone somewhere would step up and ensure everything was done properly but I seriously doubt it :-\

[robbin]

Just because you don't agree with the outcome doesn't mean the committee did not deal with it properly. They each had a 'free' vote I presume?

[KalamityKel]

robbin it has nothing to do with my view on the outcome (which I don't believe I have expressed anywhere on this thread either for or against) - it was admitted in the meeting that none of it (previous application) was handled properly forcing the application through.

With this in mind what hope is there that it will be handled any better this time round?

There are already signs - residents failing to be notified, as a simple example - that it's just a repeat of before.

[healey]

Don't what all the fuss is about. There's already a large plant structure on the roof.

[MarkT]

I have just submitted an objection as follows:

Southwark?s Residential Design Standards SPD states:

?where there is an extant planning permission and a fresh planning permission is submitted for a revised scheme taking the total units above 10 units, the residential design standards for major applications will be applied. The council will seek to ensure that proposals deliberately designed to circumvent the threshold of 10 units will not be accepted.

In this case, permission has already been given for change of use of the existing office space to 8 flats. The 8 reconfigured office units included in this new proposal bear a remarkable resemblance in layout to the 8 flats so recently approved, and Councillors might consider it a deliberate attempt to circumvent the threshold of 10 units, in which case they must reject the application.

Lordship Lane is in the Suburban Zone, so any development of 10 units or more must include 35% affordable housing and 30% of family sized flats of 3 or more bedrooms. This application meets neither criteria and so must be rejected.

The London Plan Policy 3.2 limits heights in the Suburban Zone to 3 storeys. This proposal for a fourth storey must therefore be rejected.

The SPD allows flexibility in calculating the density of mixed use developments where the majority of the floor space is non-residential. In this case, the combined residential use, proposed plus already approved, exceeds the proposed retail area, so the formula must be applied. The proposed density is about twice the 350 hr/ha permitted in the Suburban Zone. It must therefore be rejected.

MarkT

[James Barber]

Good objection MarkT. Hopefully others will also rasie these reasons to object and others.