Two-bedroom dwelling at 25 Wellington Mews, Charlton, London SE7

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing warehouse and building a two-storey basement two-bedroom dwelling with parking, refuse, cycle storage and six streetlamps.

“That full planning permission be granted at Land within Wellington Mews & 25 Wellington Mews, Charlton, London, SE7 7TF for the below works: “Demolition of existing warehouse building at 25 Wellington Mews and construction of a new two storey + basement dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with pitched roof and two (2) box dormers, containing two bedrooms.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site included 25 Wellington Mews and adjoining land, accessed by a private road surrounded mainly by rear gardens, outbuildings, flats and some businesses.

“The proposal site contains an existing building accessed via Welling Mews which is a privately maintained access road, traditionally servicing the rear gardens of surrounding dwellings and is also the only point of access to the site. The site is primarily surrounded by rear gardens and outbuildings associated with the residential terraces and flats fronting Victoria Way and Elliscombe Road.”

“Adjoining the site to the north-west is a part one storey/part 2 storey building fronting and taking access from Wellington Mews. To the south of the site the residential flats fronting Victoria Way have their rear garden and car parking spaces.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier two-bedroom dwelling proposal was refused for design, accommodation quality and access, while other applications included pre-application discussions and withdrawn workshop schemes.

“App Number: 21/0614/F Decision: Refused Decision Date: 06/07/2021 Address: 25 Wellington Mews, Charlton, SE7 7TF Description: Demolition of existing building and construction of a new two bedroom residential dwelling (Use Class C3) arranged over basement, ground floor and roof levels with associated lightwells, refuse storage, cycle parking and external alterations (Re- consultation, revised description) Reasons for refusal: 1.”

“By reason of the extremely limited daylight/sunlight and outlook afforded to the lower ground floor, the poor outlook for the ground and 1st floor accommodation and the inadequate access, it is considered that the proposal would not afford an acceptable quality of accommodation to prospective residents and so would fail to be in accordance with Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021), Policies H5 and DH1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Forty-four objections and one supporting response were received, covering construction, access, drainage, lighting, wildlife, parking, design, amenity and commercial impacts.

“Overall, forty-five (45) responses were received. One (1) representation was in support and the remaining forty-four (44) were in objection to the proposed development. One of the objections included a petition submitted on behalf of four (4) submitters. Additional objections were received over and above this total, but these were duplicates and as such, have not been included within the total figure provided within this report.”

“ITEM NO: 6 PAGE NO: 20 Light pollution from proposed street lighting affecting residents' gardens and wildlife A condition would be imposed on the decision notice requiring full details of the proposed lighting to be submitted to the Council for approval, addressing these matters.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward councillor, residents, a residents association representative, workshop owners, the applicant and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members questioned whether residential use would conflict with established commercial activity, harm the Mews’s character, create access and lighting problems, and affect existing businesses.

“Members moved to deliberate the proposal with a Member stated that although they generally support mixed-use developments combining industrial and residential spaces, they believe adding a residential unit to this Mews would be a step backward. That it would cause ongoing disruption, placing pressure on existing businesses to contribute to road and lighting improvements.”

“16 A Member echoed the concerns expressed in respect of the impact of a residential dwelling in the midst of a historically commercial area and how it would negatively impact the amenity of the exiting business, users and residents. That, given the application site was also in the middle of an active car park, questioned the appropriateness of the location for a family dwelling.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted against granting consent, with six members against, none in favour and none abstaining.

“The Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with – 0 Members in favour 6 Members against 0 Members abstaining…”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused the dwelling because of poor outlook and access, unsympathetic design, conflict with businesses and lighting impacts on nearby residents.

“17 Wellington Mews and conflict between existing business and future residents. The location and impact of the proposed lighting columns to existing residents. The poor view from the ground floor due to its proximity to the adjoining car park…”

“That the grounds for refusal of the proposed development were by reason of – · the poor outlook afforded to the ground floor due to its proximity to the adjoining car park and inadequate access along Wellington Mews, it is considered that the proposal would not afford an acceptable quality of accommodation to prospective residents · its unsympathetic design would fail to positively respond to local distinctiveness and would cause harm to the character of the application site…”

Minutes