Transcript

Good evening everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Board. Filming and recording is allowed, but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. Only those speakers who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speaker will be permitted to address this meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters, and you should not repeat comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to make any further comments unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Councillors will get up to five minutes. Accepted representatives and residents and amenity groups, four minutes. Individuals, two. Applicants and their team, ten. I have listed to speak Kim Humphreys, Bill Humphreys, Susie Bassett, Timothy Faust, Barbara Dryden, Dr Vincent Smith, Councillor Matt Hartley, Councillor Roger Testa, Councillor Kathy Dowse. On behalf of the applicant, I have Peter Turner and Jonathan Paley. On item six, I have Chris Maltby and Deji Oliani. Item one. Apologies for absence. I do apologise, Chair. We've had apologies from Councillor Maisie Richards-Cottle. Item two. Urgent business. Planning officer addendums have been received in respect to both items five and six. These were published this morning and have been circulated round to public and applicant. Item five. Three public submissions were received including photographs which were all emailed to members in advance of the meeting. Item four. Minutes of the last meeting. 23rd of January 2024, 21st of May 2024. All those members present, are those minutes correct? Any comments? No. Thank you. Any declarations of interest? Item five. Bridge House, 11 Crossmead, Eltham, London SE9, 3AA, reference 231950F. May I apologise to the committee. We've just had a slight technical hitch. The IT was working. The office has just gone down to have a word with the policy if we can rectify this. Could you bear with us a moment? Okay. Thank you. My apologies to the public for that. Okay Matthew. Take a deep breath. Thank you chair. Sorry about that. Let me go back to begin the presentation and hope no one else presses any buttons in other rooms of the building. Right. So, this application as described on the screen is for the demolition. Matthew, can you move your mic forward because I think when we move further. Yeah, I'm asking him to move the mic so that the sound projects further back. My apologies. Hopefully that's better. The application seeks permission to demolish the existing dwelling on site and replace it with a building containing 32 flats in a building that will be part five storey, part three storey with a lower ground floor level as well. There are no garden areas, there's no parking on site, but there will be cycle parking and refuse stores. By way of context, the site is located at the southern end of the borough. Very close to the Mottingham station. In fact there's Mottingham station shown clearly there. It's on the corner of Crossmead the site and Court Road. So immediately to the west of Court Road is Mottingham railway station. I'll highlight it here. So here's our site and there's Mottingham railway station here, station approach, Court Road and Crossmead. So Eltham is north and Mottingham is to the south. And this is VA20 Sidcup Road. So this is the existing layout of what's there now, the detached house with a garage to the side in a triangular plot that faces towards the corner of Court Road and Crossmead. There's some images of the site's context. So the arrows indicate where the views are of. So point one is 188 I believe, Court Road is the building top left hand corner, sort of diagonally opposite to the site. View two is looking north along Court Road from the corner of Crossmead looking northwards. View three is a three story brick building directly to the south of the application site on Crossmead and the corner of Court Road. And lastly, view four looking south from that junction towards the A20. This is the site, what is immediate environments within Crossmead, so the site itself in the top left hand corner, the house as it exists. View two is looking from the pathway in front of the site towards the immediate enjoining neighbour number 13. View three is looking east along Crossmead and view four is the reverse view looking west from Crossmead towards Court Road with 188 Court Road building framed centrally. That's the plans of the existing house as it currently stands. The application has received 135 objection letters, comments. When that was looked at, it turned out there are 95 individual people responding within that 135 and those come from 79 households within the area. So the conclusion drawn is that some people, some households have responded more than once. So this is the site, I'll start with the ground floor and work our way to the lower ground in a moment because this provides the access. So with my mouse I shall outline, this is the taller, the bigger bit of the building, this is the five story section and this is an attached three story section when viewed from the front. And so access to the flats within the bigger building is through here from the ground floor past the refuse store cycle rooms and then we have flats on the ground floor on the front, these two bade sections and at the rear there are two flats. This sort of layout is replicated, you'll see up through the other floors as well and on the smaller section of the building, self-contained access to these units here so these provide access to the ground floor which are duplex units with the lower ground floor units there and also access to the other floors. And cycle storage is again inside and some outside as well for visitors and here are the bid stores for these units here. So the lower ground floor has two flats within the larger element, access via the central core and they have gardens here and here, their own private space and this communal access provides access onto the communal garden for the other flat users. So these two units at lower ground and ground floor have direct access to their own gardens as well. So first floor level, I must say we'll see this pattern repeating, we have three flats in the front section and two flats at the back and again on the side here these are first floor level two, first floor flats and working our way up, sorry I'm going the wrong way, I beg your pardon. Second floor, let's say it's repeated and the third floor, that's the roof of the smaller unit and again the same three units at the front, two units to the rear and the fourth floor is the same. In terms of housing mix, the elevation details show that it's a flat roof for both sections of the building, red brick, two tones, a darker tone for the ground floor separated by a stone banding and then a lighter colour brick for the upper floors. Metal detailing, railings, windows will be a burgundy colour and these stone banding would differentiate each floor of the building and this is the view from the south, the front view, the front elevation. This is just to put a couple of dimensions on the drawings to help members and they are referred to in the report as well. The taller building from the image on the front, approximately 14.7 metres high, ground to top and on the lower section over here, approximately 8.8 metres, I say there are more figures and details in the main report. From the rear, the garden, what I would say is the elevation looks very flat there, the actual main taller bit is a wedge shape so the rear comes to a point. It's not a true view of what one would see looking at the rear but it gives an indication of the size and view if you're looking from the rear garden or from the railway for example. This is the view directly from the property to the east side so if you're looking from number 13, Crossmead for example, so you have this wall situated parallel to the flank wall number 13 and then the larger building flank wall set further back from that. This is the sort of west elevation from Court Road, again the drawing flattens the actual shape, it is this curved shape but you lose some of that. If you look with the plan you can see the curved shape there and this is the sort of the return wall that goes back towards the railway line. So to give an indication of scale to its neighbouring properties we have Crossmead at the top and shows the line, the building there stepping up to the taller element and across Court Road to 188 Court Road. Below is the north-south street scene starting with our site, 188 Court Road and then the building we saw in photographs, three storeys with a pitch roof and this building here from a pub which obviously fronts or goes on to the A20. Next are a couple of views, artist impressions from different angles, this one's from Crossmead looking back towards Court Road and so here we see the building on the right hand side beyond the houses there and this is 188 Court Road that exists now. This is looking north along Court Road from as if you are next to the former pub looking from the A20 up the road and so this is what you would see there, the building and this is the existing building you would see in the foreground. The next two slides show distances and relations with neighbouring properties so this just shows a 21 metre gap between the buildings and the neighbours across the way. These are drawings I've annotated myself with measurements taken from these submitted drawings to show the relation to the nearest neighbouring property so we have a gap of just over 3 metres wall to wall there. From this balcony at the front there we have a distance over 16 metres and it just gives an indication of how it would sit there with that neighbour. Again there's some other measurements I've taken there on the side just to help illustrate heights. I'm sorry so here's one to show you some measurements taken on the side view of the building and again most of the measurements are in the report. Finally we have the energy certificate which shows the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions created by the development using the Be Lean, Be Seen, Be Green approaches there. It does achieve considerably more than 35% in the policy and any shortfall there at the bottom is the sum that will be secured as a carbon offset payment through a 106 agreement. That's the presentation Chairman, thank you. Thanks Matthew. Questions for the officer? Olu, David, Pat, Danny. Thank you Chair and thank you Matthew. I would like to see again if you can show me and the panel the size of this building compared with the corresponding buildings in the surrounding and Chair I will leave it at that if I have the time I may ask for another one. Thank you Chair. David. Thanks I have three questions. So firstly I saw a reference to urban greening factor of 0.56 I can't see a reference to the new status requirement for biodiversity next gain of at least 10% and maybe I've just overlooked that in reading the report but perhaps you could advise me what the biodiversity net gain will be. Secondly, I wondered about you talked about carbon reduction, it's a reduction on what given the embedded carbon that's lost by demolition and is the embedded carbon lost in demolition is that taken account and the carbon reduction have we arrived at that figure. Thirdly I think and most importantly Chair, I'd like the officer to explain about this independent financial review which apparently says that they can't afford any affordable housing and therefore they can just make a contribution to about 0.6% of an affordable house somewhere else. 0.6 whereas they should be 11 or 12 it should be at least 35% as we know under H3 policy. So I'd like to know was this an independent financial review that we have properly assessed and are we confident and can we see a copy of it? Okay taking those in turn with regard to BNG because of the time this application was submitted it wasn't required to meet the 10% it came in later. So the scheme came in at time and the rule an arbitrary line of data was after this came in. I think it was April this year the rule came in the application was submitted last year. So having said that there are it does contain bio ecological and biodiversity matters and it's not simply ignoring the issue. I mean they have a green roof for example proposed there are additional planting or replacement planting going in as well. But the 10% the requirement does not apply to this particular scheme. That's the first point. The carbon reduction in the London Plan Policy has a hierarchy it goes through and you start with the building regs part hell. And then there are different stages of how you calculate that and this has gone through those stages if you like. Again we've had our own people assess that on our behalf and the scheme more than complies with the 35% reduction set in the policy. I can't tell you exactly all the every technical detail how that works I don't have expertise. But our own people have looked at that and a certain that each stage of the process so starting from the baseline and then going through the different stages of carbon reduction of building it well. Well insulated and things like that and then applying green technologies well beyond what the policy requires. In terms of the viability the report was submitted with the application and that is a public document. The council went out to its own consultants to seek to provide us with advice as to how robust that viability assessment is. And they have concluded that the scheme in planning terms does not have the viability to provide any affordable housing on site. We've obviously questioned that as we do with our own consultants and they've come back and just reconfirmed yes that is the case. And even looking at different parameters if you know what could if things could change and it all comes back to the same answer that this scheme cannot provide in planning terms viability terms. Any affordable housing on site which is why there is a proposed payment in lieu the amount again has gone gone back to our assessors and to see that is a reasonable amount and they conclude yes it is. So we have we have questioned this this information with our own assessors and the conclusions come back to say these are the answers. Can I answer your questions David? Not really but I'll allow someone else to ask. Sorry chair, answer to my own question. I was the first person to ask a question. You asked the question, you asked it. I asked that if you can show me the site construction compared with the other buildings in the area and he hasn't done that. Apologies it came up and then the screen went blank so just bear with me. I think we're looking for the street scene along cross made. Yep that's near the end. That's the one there I think. Yeah I've got it in front of me. So we are looking at the far right to my right is the existing building. Am I right? And this is to my left here is the proposed construction. Is that correct? Okay yeah this is the proposed building as you see in Crossmead. These are the neighbouring semi-detached houses in Crossmead. So this is number 11 this side here and they go works its way along the road. Yes this is site number 11 is the existing house number 13 there and these are all the other existing houses that extend along eastwards in Crossmead. Thank you. Thank you Chair. I have got quite a few questions but if I could just ask one or two now. Can I just ask you we're talking five or six storeys here. I'd just like clarification of the far side that faces the tarn how many storeys high is that going to be. And if you are looking from the tarn sitting at the tarn having looking at the water and enjoying the calmness and the trees and the ducks and everything. Are you going to be able to see this building please. That's part of it and the second question is regarding the footprint of the building how much extra land is going to be used for this development. Because that land is actually green it's it's lawns it's vegetation lush vegetation it's a beautiful area. So that sort of yeah there are a lot of questions coming out of this you know are any trees going to be removed. And how much as I say extra footprint from that original house is going to be used up and what is that is that going to be sort of are they going to use the garden are they going to use the trees and not only trees going to be removed. And I would like to know if that's all right chair the actual distance between them the 18 is it 13 and the this number 11 the new the actual distance. Thank you very much. Okay in terms of what you would see from the time yes you would see it there's no denying that you will see the building you can see the existing house from the time now you can see 188 Court Road now. I know some trees have been felled within the time recently. So you would definitely see the building. I can't say how much you would see most of it would be my guess. In your line of sight and you'll see the existing buildings in Crossmead as well. So you would see it next to those the back of the buildings in Crossmead. In terms of footprint I don't have a number don't have a calculation but when we look at the this is the proposed sort of coverage if you like yes there's more coverage of the existing plots than the existing building. So I don't have a number but there are still some areas the garden left there'll be there will be some trees removed to make way for the development. But as my report says as well there are trees to be planted as well. The trees within the site are not protected. I made that point now. So it will cover more of the site. I can't say a given percentage but I think if you were to compare that and let's work our way back to bear with me. That's the existing situation so I think you can draw your own conclusions as to how much more roughly would be covered by proposed buildings than the existing one. But it's certainly more distance. Yes there was a slide near the end it's three point something metres wall to walls I've measured it. Here we go I've taken two points of reference on that side wall and both are three point something metres between my eyesight three point two three point three something like that small to wall. Thanks policy H4 of the London plan states that affordable housing must only be provided off site or as a cash in the contribution in exceptional circumstances. So could someone explain what the exact exceptional circumstances are that define this site has been not been able to provide that because I consider that to be a question outside of viability. The second thing I wondered was obviously we see in the report that there's an increased offer that's been made of two hundred and thirty two and two hundred thirty two thousand five hundred pounds by the developer. What is the formula that is used to arrive at that number or is it just a straightforward negotiation to extract as much as possible. Okay so dealing with the first point first yes the policy does say that but is also accepted in planning in development management that where viability comes into question as it has on this occasion and there have been others within the borough as well before this. Where we have tested it and we tested quite robustly with our own consultants and it comes back and it says this site cannot yield affordable housing on site because the numbers don't work in that way. That is taken as being that's the situation and the exceptional circumstance if you like because otherwise if it could yield then there would be units proposed as part of the of the of the scheme. We have seen a growing trend over the last few years with rising costs of construction materials and other costs for various reasons and it's not surprising that these schemes are saying that they're not viable. It's what it is I'm afraid but yeah that's the exceptional circumstances that there is it's been shown through the viability to not be viable if I can just add to that point as well and policy H. H5 of the London plan has to be read in conjunction with H4 which does basically allow viability to be tested as part of an application and does accept that yes the threshold is 35% but if you can't meet 35% you must robustly demonstrate that through viability. And if that is found that the scheme can provide zero then that technically meets the policy and as my colleague pointed out we are unfortunately seeing quite a few of these smaller schemes come forward with them that are struggling viability wise. Increase in build costs, housing prices not raising in the same degree to meet that viability challenge so if you read both policies together you will see that there is it does technically meet the planning policy to allow a 0% affordable housing scheme if it is demonstrated. The exceptional circumstances is slightly different as well in that delivery on site is if it were viable is challenging again on these smaller sites because you have to have a registered provider who will take the affordable units. We have seen schemes where we have approved it on site and later the developer comes back to renegotiate that because they cannot find a registered provider to take the units. They are saying 50 units or less is not viable for them to manage those properties so that tends to be where the exceptional circumstances comes in that these smaller sites cannot be taken forward in such small numbers by a registered provider.

Thank you, chair. I'm looking at 16.2 which talks about the site being carefree but I think that's car free except for one disabled car parking space. I can't see where they would get access from your diagram there. And also I can see that TFL have recommended that residents won't be allowed to apply for car parking permits or that they recommended it but it's not currently part of the plan. That has to be added on, I assume. There will be one disabled parking bay in the road. There's no provision with it, not on site in the road. So that will be marked out on the public highway. And it will be for use by a blue badge holder. But TFL have said that people would not be eligible for a parking permit. Although I would believe if you are putting in one blue badge bay that if there is a disabled person within the site, they would be able to use that bay with their blue badge. Matthew, just to reiterate that point, the blue badge space is not site specific. It is open to the general public. I would believe that's the case. Yes, I believe that's the case, yeah. Thanks. Thank you, chair. I am going to reiterate what Councillor Forbes asked earlier around the fact that none of the unit to be affordable. It's extremely concerning for me, and I just need to note this and let it be on record, but there is a gentrification of development coming up where local residents are not able to afford the properties that we are, that we are line developers to put up in the borough. It's extremely concerning. None is going for social housing. None is affordable. I just want that to be on record. That's the first one. Second thing is just noting what the MP is concerned that he noted, and that's one. The size of the development is out of place, and it's also going to be set in a precedent in the local area. And the concerns about car parking, which I think the question that Councillor Bell asked will be very much linked to that, is the fact that it's a no-packing development. Of course we know that a lot of people will have cars, and that automatically means that they're going to be speeding over into private spaces of other existing car owners. When we come to deliberation, we'll go back on all these points. Have you got any specific questions for Matt regarding the presentation? The affordability, that's one. Is that within this or when we go to deliberation? What we're doing at the moment, we're questioning the officer in relation to his presentation. Then we'll go through everything else, and then we'll do a general catch-up with everybody right at the end, and we'll take everything else in. No, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to come back. Is it possible for you to let us know where we have that type of size of a building compared with the existing building that we have approved? Whether in the local vicinity or the borough or outside the borough? Thank you, Chair. Well, I can't think of an example off the top of my head. I've worked here for a year. I'm not familiar with everything around the borough. However, the point here is we have to assess this in the context of the existing site and not necessarily think about how does it compare with something, say, in Woolwich or in Charlton or another part of the borough. So we must be mindful that we are looking at this in the context of the locality. So another example several miles away may not be relevant. So whilst I can't think of an example to give you, I don't believe it's particularly helpful to do that anyway, because the system is such that it's about how does this impact the site, the wider site, the locality here. I think, Chair, what I'm trying to get at is whether this is going to serve as a precedent within that area. Can I -- thank you. I think it's worth considering not just Crossmead as the context as well, because across the road, on Court Road, you've got a bigger building for four stories, and a block of flats, again, immediately opposite on the opposite side of the road, which is three stories. So it depends where you draw your context from, I guess. Yeah, on the slide there. And this committee have recently approved Greenwich Bill's application at Middle Park Avenue, which is just the other side of the railway line for -- off the top of my head, it was either four or five stories. So there is maybe a changing context around there, I would say. And this, I don't feel, would be substantially out of character for the area. David. Thank you, Chair. I was going to come back to what's called in the report an independent financial review, but the office called a -- is a proper viability assessment. I cannot see the -- the planning portal is down at the moment. I'm online, but the planning portal is down, therefore I can't access it, there's no hyperlink. And this is a really important document that we interrogate this and our independent assessment. So I'm not really in a position to take a view on the financial viability or the independent assessment of that financial viability, and I just wondered if you could help me on that. And secondly, and I will ask this of the applicant as well, the -- apparently they cannot find a registered provider, but I wondered what steps have been taken to do that. There are -- there seems to be a council block next door, have they talked to Greenwich Build? Because if we serve as a council block next door, presumably servicing 11 or 12 flats within this development wouldn't be much extra for the same caretaker and so forth. So I'm interested in what -- how -- how thoroughly, how rigorously have we pressed the applicant on that issue? Okay, on the first point, the applicant's viability review is part of the application document, so that is available to view online. It's down, the planning portal is down. If the planning portal was working, then you would see it, the point I'm making is that it's there. In terms of our own consultant's response, that is not in the public domain, it's in the background document we would use to help write our reports and how we draw our conclusions and discuss the scheme. But yes, if the system was live, you would certainly see the applicant's figures, facts and figures about that. In terms of how rigorously have we questioned that, I think I made the point briefly before that we have gone back to our consultant more than one occasion to ask questions, could this be the case, how about this, what if that? And I've had, you know, back and forth discussions, e-mails with the applicant's agent on the subject. So we have pushed back on this issue of viability to, you know, we myself and indeed with our consultant to see what is the true and accurate position here. And we've got to a point where our own consultants have come back several times and say this is where we're at. There's no change to the viability of the scheme, it's still not viable in planning terms to provide affordable housing on site. So I think that helps illustrate, I think, what we have done. We haven't just accepted things at face value. If I may, Chair, my second question, the first question was that we need to see that statement this evening, really, in order to be able to make a fair assessment on that report. But my second point was actually around the assertion in the report that they wouldn't find an RP anyway. And how much, I will ask the applicant, obviously, this question, but how much have we pressed them on this and have we put them in touch with Greenwich Fields and so forth? Given there's a council block next door. I think that would be a question for the applicant to answer themselves directly about their efforts of contacting RPs. But with the position that has been tested about not being viable, the numbers don't add up, they don't work. I haven't done that myself, I would say. But I wouldn't need to because our own experts are saying it's not viable, that's the end of it. And they're experts in their field. At some point I have to accept that they know what they're doing. Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask first, apparently there are sewers within sort of 15 metres of the site. We've got the tarn and the COVID number. I just wondered if Thames Water were happy with the situation the way it is. And I think they're talking about foundations having to be piled. And the other question I have is, well, first of all, the buildings across the road, I don't know if I'm right or not, but I know they're quite high across the road going down to the station, but they actually are on a gradient. So they don't appear as high because of the downward gradient. And what about, we haven't mentioned anything about loss of light. We're talking about a six-storey building which is right at the corner of Crossmead. And Crossmead is, for the first part of it, a long, straight road of two-storey properties. How is this building, if it passes, going to sort of -- how is it coping with -- there has to be some loss of light somewhere. Okay. Regarding Thames Water, they are a consortee. So we consulted them. They've not objected to the scheme. Our own flood team within the council has looked at the details. And there is a strategy for drainage within the site which they are happy with, as are Thames Water. However, our own flood team has recommended that a condition be used to have a fully detailed scheme of drainage submitted to the council should permission be granted. So in terms of the two leading authorities on this subject, there is no overriding objection to the principles or in the strategies that are proposed as part of the application. Piling, well, that probably will need to happen because of the height of the building and type of ground. And there's conditions about that in the papers. Loss of light is an important issue, of course, absolutely. An assessment has been made by the applicant on daylight/sunlight availability to the neighbours. I think it's no surprise that the potential neighbour who could be affected the most is number 13. You know, immediately to the east. The assessment made draws the conclusion that as a property as a whole, we will have an acceptable level of daylight/sunlight available to it. I've been to the site several times. I've assessed the daylight/sunlight issues myself. There are windows in the flank wall of number 13 which will be affected. However, these are secondary windows to other rooms with windows in the front and rear elevation of that building. And those windows are not affected by the proposal when you apply the building research establishment's sunlight and daylight assessment methodologies. And so because the front and rear facing windows are not adversely affected, and they are the primary windows to those rooms in planning terms, then whilst there's some loss of light to those side windows, the buildings as a whole would seem to have an acceptable level of daylight/sunlight available to it. And that's the nearest affected neighbour, number 13. It also looks at further fields, number 15, and also 188 Court Road. And again, there are acceptable levels of light for those other neighbouring properties. So when you look at all the buildings, all the dwellings around, there will be an acceptable level of light available to them. Can I ask what is regarded as an acceptable level of lighting, please? Or should I ask the applicant, Chair? You can ask both, Pat. Well, in the case of, say, the BRE test, so we're looking at the front and rear windows of number 13, the neighbouring property. I'll just try and bring up a plan, if I can. Bear with me. That one there. So on the right-hand side is number 13. Say the windows in the flank wall would be affected, adversely. But because you've got windows in the front elevation and the rear which meet the test, and there's a formula within the BRE assessment for daylight that says if a window would receive very crudely 27% of available daylight, that is an acceptable datum level of light. Not sunlight, daylight. And in this case, the front and rear windows would receive those levels of light. So that is an acceptable situation, notwithstanding the side-facing windows would suffer a loss of light. I'm wondering about overshadowing not just the buildings themselves in the gardens, you know, how far along Crossmead, because those houses are in a straight line, almost, and as I say, they have to be. No, it's a fair question. Now, I think the best thing to do is show on an iOS sort of plan with a degree of north, which will help illustrate. Which is right at the beginning, I believe. Let's use that one. I mean, Court Road on the left faces north, okay? Sorry, I haven't got a drawing that illustrates the proposal with north and the neighbouring property. But when you look at it, so if you turn that slightly to north, so the image has disappeared somehow. The bottom line is that the assessment has been done because of the orientation of the proposed building, which is north and west of 13. It won't cause an unacceptable overshadowing, even late in the afternoon. So, hopefully I'll come back. It's because of the orientation of where the site is relative to the neighbour, so it's slightly north and to the west. And the distance the larger building is from the higher building is enough of a distance away to not cause unacceptable overshadowing. In the sunlight and daylight assessment, say to the garden area, it's almost a negligible impact when you apply the BRE test for sunlight on the garden, for example, of 13. And that's the immediate neighbour, so as you go further away, the impact is even less. So, it turns out overshadowing is a perfectly acceptable relationship. Dave. I almost forgot my question. I don't know if this is the right time to ask it, but I'm sure you'll stop me if it's the wrong time. If this is found to be acceptable to the committee, then it makes a reasonable contribution to our housing target. And we know we're going to be under pressure as the months and years roll by. I mean, how are we doing with our housing target for the year? I mean, this is obviously a long way short of actually trying to fill that gap, but it does make a reasonable contribution. I just wondered how we're doing generally. Thanks. I can take that one. It's a very good point that you raise as well, because we are measured on what's called a five-year land supply of housing. So, we have to be able to demonstrate that we are achieving, we will meet our housing targets for the next five years. We are falling significantly short of that. We currently are able to demonstrate a 2.46-year land supply. So, approximately half of what we are currently, yeah, half of the target basically is being delivered. So, I appreciate certainly a lot of the comments that have been made today about the affordable housing. And it is really unfortunate. It's something that we really do push for as officers. But we do have to weigh in the balance. The standard private housing as well is a benefit to the borough in terms of the private housing targets, which we do need to try and meet as well. Just on that, because I'm just looking at the London plan and our 28,000 target. I mean, isn't it the case that we have given, we would be on target if the approvals have been built out. But developers of land banks around 25,000 homes that have approvals in the borough. So, actually the problem is not with us as a planning board not giving relevant approvals or delaying approvals. The problem is with developers not building out and often selling on and sitting on it until they can get a better price. Is that a yes? Yes. Okay. I'm going to keep that here because we are drifting away from the application. So, back on point, we are dealing with the application in front of us, not drifting into policy and other things. So, any further questions for the officer? No. Matthew, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Kim Humphreys. Hi, Kim. You want to pull the microphone forward and in the middle at the bottom, you've done it already, there you go. Yes. Two minutes. Right. Good evening. My name is Kim Humphreys. Can you hear? Yes. My name is Kim Humphreys. I've been a resident of Crossmead for over 45 years. I'm a member of Friends of Fairy Hill Park and the town. I have already submitted letters of my objection along with numerous photographs of the intended site at 11 Crossmead. My objection today is the worry and the health and safety aspect that has not been considered and the disruption this new building will cause to all local residents and school children. The site entrance to Bridge House, when these massive HGV vehicles are collecting waste and delivering cement and building materials, is going to overhang the site gates by three to four metres, blocking the pavement reference Craftworks drawing P511 copy attached. This is likely to occur as much as 10 times a day during construction for at least one hour per load. Crossmead is a busy pedestrian path to the railway station and bus stops, along with many children going to school, also many schools using Fairy Hill Park, in particular St Olaf's and Wyborne School in New Eltham, who walk through the park to do nature watch at the town. Also, you have many students who arrive from other boroughs, from Mottinham Station, Mottinham Railway Station, to use the sports facilities of Greenwich Council Better Gym. We also have a disabled gentleman who is wheelchair bound and this would cause him much worry and anxiety, possibly leaving him no choice but to remain house bound. Bridge House is the start of Crossmead Green Chain Walk and a designated cycle path used by many. Once construction starts, Crossmead will rapidly become a building site with cement lorries in a holding area waiting to be called. I assume the entrance to Fairy Hill Park will be the area for the lorries. The whole area will become a danger zone, particularly to the very young children and school children using Fairy Hill Park in the town. Will a team of banksmen monitor this area? You've gone over your two minutes now. Do you want to wind up and then I'll come on to Bill? We've been told we had four minutes. Can I carry on because I'm nearly finished? Will a team of banksmen monitor this area and the hazardous manoeuvres required at the site entrance, where there would be a very dangerous safety issue for many that will be passing whilst the lorries will be reversing into the site entrance? And a very concerning point I would like to make. Will Crossmead ever be closed off to pedestrians and vehicles, particularly when the crane will be offloading the prefabricated sites? And also, have you visited Crossmead and the tarn and Fairy Hill Park? Because Mr Broome, the planning officer, we met at 13 Crossmead. Kim, you've gone way over three minutes now. We get the gist about the traffic management, construction, plan and everything else. We're told it's four minutes, sorry. Well, you've got two each. So Bill's going to come on for two and everyone else who's speaking is going to get two. It's not four minutes between the lot of you. We were told four. We were told four minutes. We're going to finish each for residents. So, Bill? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bill Humphreys. I also have lived in Crossmead for 45 years and I'm friends with the tarn and also Fairy Hill Park. Whilst I understand the concept of making a profit, I can't understand the idea of building 32 unaffordable homes adding to the existing unaffordable homes in the Greenwich area. The council will receive, I'm told, 250,000, which is great, enough to build 100 speed-up bumps, but at what cost? Totally inappropriate housing overlooking the tarn and ruining along with it a pleasant residential area forever. It is nothing short of delinquent behaviour on behalf of the council if they allow this to go ahead. With the ever-increasing costs of building materials and manpower, does Greenwich Council have a contingency plan if the developer goes skint before the project is complete? I thank you very much for your time. Thanks, Bill. Any questions for the speakers? Pat? David? Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask you, you know how Crossmead is just one, you can't go in from Court Road. How wide do you think that single lane is? Do you think that is going to be wide enough to take the site lorries? It's 4.5 metres wide where that site entrance is. It narrows all the way down to allow for the cycle lane. Because I'm thinking that will they be able to reverse the lorries there or they can go out the other way? Where the site entrance is, from that curve there to the curve on the other side of the road is 4.5 metres wide. And as you rightfully say, a large lorry reversing into there, well to me, I'm trying to find a lorry but it sounds impossible. Because I'm thinking if, yes, they're coming down that way then it can't get through, is it going to have to reverse somehow and go? Absolutely. Thank you. David? Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your addressing us. Just wanted to reassure you that I have visited the town a number of times. I've cycled down Crossmead and done the Green Chain Walk as well, so I am fairly familiar with the area. But my question is, normally if there's a construction, there has to be a construction plan that has to be approved. And I will ask the applicant this, if there were genuine concerns, which obviously there are, about the impact of the actual construction period on your amenity and traffic and so forth and pedestrian safety, would you be open to having some sort of liaison with the developer and contractors so that try and minimise the impact and liaise with local residents, so you know if these eight lorries a day await deliveries a day, whatever it is that's in the report, you would know what's happening? I don't think you're going to make much difference. You're talking about a residential road with parking bays. Most of the parking bays in Crossmead are taken by people that have got more than one car. So when these lorries start arriving, we don't actually know where the cement lorries are going to go because they have to be behind each other because they're obviously turning, so we're wondering where they're going to go. And if both bays are taken, both sides of the road, there's going to be very little room and you're talking about a park at the end where school children are and where we have children in our road that have just learnt to cross the road to the park where they're in Crossmead, just a little tiny road and they've got the confidence to do this and suddenly this is going to happen and it's going to be that they're not going to be able to do anything. I don't really know what's going to happen. It's going to be a very worrying situation for all residents, mums and dads and children. And the poor disabled man who lives in Crossmead, who is wheelchair bound, who comes along Crossmead, I don't really know what's going to happen. I mean, are they going to close the road off when the crane arrives? So vehicles can't go down because we like to go out that way past Bridge House to either go right into Eltham or left to Mottingham Village. We don't want to have to go onto the A20 and then go up to the lights and do a U-turn back on ourself to get to Mottingham Village or Eltham High Street. Any further questions for the speakers? No? Kim, Bill, thank you very much. Before you go, sorry Bill, those photographs, when were they taken? Those ones were probably about a month ago. Yeah, I wonder if they... This one here, that was probably about two months ago. Yeah, no, I'm more interested in the date, because I went to the site visit, it was three, four weeks ago, Matt, wasn't it? And I don't recall there being a hoarding around the site. Right, okay. Okay, so members, I just want members to understand that those are your illustrations, they're not photographs, because I'm thinking that wasn't like that when I went to the site. Okay, okay, okay, thanks. I now wish to call on Susie Bassett. Thank you very much everyone. Thanks Bill. Susie, you have up to two minutes, you've got a little button in there, the little red light will come on, that's it. Thank you Chair, I thought I had four, so I apologise now. Good evening everyone, my name is Susie Bassett, I'm a resident of Crossmead and a volunteer at the Tarn. I'd like to bring the committee's attention to the Tarn and the real risk approving this project will have on it. The risk is environmental and is twofold, pollution on the one hand and flood risk on the other. I quote from Wikipedia, Royal Bar of Greenwich worked with Thames Water and the Environment Agency in 2009 and again in 2014 when the wildlife in the Tarn had been affected by pollution, toxins and algae in the lake causing many of the birds to contract botulism, many of which died. Road runoff is the key source of this water pollution. Roads regularly used by heavy goods vehicles are the worst affected. This proposal requires a large number of HGVs daily and large amounts of other pollutants to be brought onto site, aggregates, sand, cement. The surface water drain immediately outside Bridge House is where all these pollutants will go. Add to this wheel washing on site which planning have welcomed in their recommendation which I find astonishing and a recipe for disaster has just been written. This detritus will get washed into the Tarn within hours. The Sudsmart Plus report claims that due to the requirement to cross a railway line and its use as a bird sanctuary, discharge to this feature, the lake, is not considered feasible. Yet the water sewers outside Bridge House already discharged directly into the Tarn lake. I refer to photos one and two which I supplied. I must query therefore the accuracy of some of the claims of the latest Suds report. Is the Royal Bar of Greenwich going to let this high level of pollution into the Tarn lake happen again? I hope not. As I said earlier, the second issue that needs addressing is the flood risk. The BIA report confirms that the proposed development involves an increase in impermeable surfaces at the site and therefore less surface water will infiltrate into ground. The proposal involves pouring 4,982 cubic meters of concrete onto this tiny site, the massing of which is well beyond the London Plan guidelines. This means increased road runoff into the Tarn and increased local flood risk. The Tarn has a one in 30, a high chance of flooding from surface water. The Tarn lake floods annually. The houses at the Fairyhill Park end of Crossmead have flooded gardens annually. I refer you to photo three. In some cases, this has even necessitated replacement concrete foundations and wall underpinning. Some might claim there is no flood risk, but that is desperately misleading and erroneous. Should this proposal be approved, the flood risk to the Tarn lake and neighbouring properties will increase exponentially due to the high density and massing of the proposed site. The third issue arising from this proposal is the very real impact this will have on the visual amenity enjoyed from the Tarn. I will simply refer you to the two photos I've supplied, images number four and five, and let you draw your own conclusions. I ask you to imagine the devastation this project will cause to the Tarn if it's greenlit. Our wildlife flora and fauna will all be devastatingly impacted both during and after the build. The cost to Royal Bar of Greenwich to remedy this damage will be very high. Given this, why has an independent Tarn-specific environmental impact assessment not yet been carried out? Thank you very much for your time. I'm sorry I went over. Thanks, Susie. Questions for the speaker? David. Thank you very much, Susie. We did hear from the officer when he was questioned earlier by one of the Councillors that the new building would be quite visible from the Tarn. I just wondered, I know there are some species that are affected by light and so forth, and I wondered what species in particular are you worried about in terms of the impact of light from the buildings? The main worry, really, during the building phase is going to be the amount of pollutants into the Tarn, so it will be the wildfowl initially, so the geese, the ducks. There's also the issue of bats because they get very disturbed by changes in the environment and so on and so forth. I mean, sorry to press this, Chair, but obviously there have been other buildings gone up as we've seen nearby, so there has been disturbance previously, maybe not quite as close. But I'm thinking more of what the impact would be once the building is occupied and the development is completed. If we give approval, would there be any impact on the wildlife, the fauna and the biodiversity within the Tarn? Well, it's another 112 people in a very small road, so that's more delivery vans, more shopping being delivered, furniture being delivered, people having cars. People will have cars. There will be extra cars in Crossmead, and all of this washes down into the Tarn. This is all road run-off, so road run-off from tyres, people doing changes, all manner of things end up in the Tarn, and so this is a worry, yes. Any further questions? Just an observation, because I can remember, was it 2019? It was absolutely, it was horrific. I agree. The Tarn, the destruction of the wildlife. It's such a gem in our wonderful borough, and you know, please, thank you. Thanks, Susie. Now we should call on Timothy Fels. I don't know if I pronounced that right, Tim. I don't know if I pronounced it right. Tim, two minutes. My name's Tim Fels. I'm a resident of Crossmead, a retired HEV driver with 50 years experience and I strongly oppose this application. The access to Crossmead from Sidcut Road is very sharp at a 70 degree angle, so you're coming back on yourself, making it a difficult turn even for a car. So anything larger than a small van would need to utilise both lanes of the A20 and full width of Crossmead to make the turn safely. Plus there's limited visibility for drivers exiting Crossmead, which is going to be a recipe for disaster. When lorries arrive in Crossmead, where are they going to queue? As an experienced driver in this industry, it converts to the fact that vehicles will start arriving from 6 to 7am in the morning to pick up the local traffic problems. This will also affect local roads, which are going to be used as rat runs. With banks not starting until 8 o'clock, how will this be managed and how will residents get out of their homes, especially when lorries choose to park across their drives as the road is generally full of parked cars? I did add a photograph of the road. This was taken at 9.30 in the morning during the weekday earlier this month, and this is contrary to the survey that was taken at 2 o'clock in the morning. Despite the application saying that lorries will take place on small vehicles, by the pure nature of construction design, most of these vehicles are going to be at least 10 metres long. And when prefabricated sections are delivered, they will be on 60ft articulated lorries. Again, where are these going to muster and then unload as there will be too large to enter the site? Access to the site is very limited, will be limited, and plans shown in small vehicles. But where the heavy lorries are 30ft and above are concerned, due to the physical capabilities of the steering lock, it will not be possible for these vehicles to enter without using both pavements, that on the opposite side as well. And this is against TfL's own guidelines. If approved, where will the site contract as park, and post construction where will the occupants park, despite the Greenwich Council saying they're not going to issue parking permits, and Craftworks' dystopian idea that everyone will be riding pushbikes, the road is always full of parked cars, and these all belong to people who don't actually live in Crossmead, but mainly in Court Road in the flats that are currently there. Mr Broome, in his report, appears to agree with a lot of our concerns, including lack of schools, doctors and hospitals being able to cope with the vast increase in the population in the borough. But despite this, he recommends this for approval. Why can't this be? Thanks very much. Thanks, Tim. Pat. Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask, if you are an experienced lorry driver, Tim, can I just ask you, I asked the question before about the width of that road where you go out of Crossmead onto Court Road, and the residents said it was 4.5 metres wide. Is that, in your experience, wide enough for a site vehicle? It's wide enough for site vehicles to drive down the road, but there's not enough room to reverse onto the site if you've got anything larger than a van. So if you've got a big lorry, most of this stuff is going to be on big 30-foot lorries, six-wheeled lorries, and they don't have a physical capability of turning in the angles that are laid out in the plans. So what I mean is they'll have to come in, yes, from the A20, so they will get down then, and of course it's one way, so they will have to go through that narrow entrance to get onto the main road, and it's that bit that I'm saying, is it wide enough, 4.5 metres, for them to get through there when they've emptied the load water? Yes, it's just about wide enough. It's just wide enough for a lorry, and that's about it. If anybody parks a car on a pavement, then you can't get through there at all. It's very tight down there. Any further questions for the speaker? No? Tim, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Barbara Dryden. Barbara, two minutes. Right, I'm Barbara Dryden. I live at number 13, directly next door to this monstrosity. I live there with my husband. We share a common boundary, which is a wooden fence, that's all, just a wooden fence. Regarding Mr Broome's report, point 15.5 states that 13 and 15 crossmead have been set for sunlight, and that development complies with the guidelines. However, in 15.7, he states that side-facing walls of 13 crossmead would be affected by the development. He states that these windows will not be adversely affected. He's wrong, completely wrong. Can I point out that the reason we put extra windows in the side elevation of our property was because our rooms were dark and needed more light. 15.8 states the windows facing northwest of my property have not been assessed for sunlight availability. 15.9 states the development will not cause unacceptable overshadowing to the rear-facing garden. I submitted some photos that shows you what my left-hand boundary is west-facing. I'll be completely and utterly blocked out. There will be 22 flats overlooking my garden. I have no privacy, and surely I need privacy at some point in my life. The development will result in a significant loss of light to my property, severely impacting on my quality of life and my neighbours. Additionally, the site will become an unsightly mass, further distracting from the neighborhood appeal. 15.10 states the concerning issues of overbearing impact, this is a subjective matter apparently that has no technical means of being assessed. According to 15.10, pure old-fashioned common sense tells you that this building of this scale, magnitude, mass is going to be overbearing. You don't need a computer to tell you that, just look at it. It's a six-storey, four to six-storey building overlooking my garden. If that ain't overbearing, please, someone here, tell me what is. It states that the building will not be overbearing when I'm looking from my back garden, as long as I look straight ahead down the length of the garden. However, if I look to the left, I'm going to be overlooked, but apparently that ain't overbearing. It also states that the principal front and rear gardens of the development will not be unacceptably affect the impact, considered to be severe. People have not stood in my ass and had a look. They've not seen what I actually see. In other words, as long as I just look straight ahead, the building must be there. He also states, consequently, that development is not considered to cause such an overbearing impact upon the closest resident. I disagree. It is overbearing, and I will be looking at a mass, a complete five-storey mass of concrete. The report states that the above-ground balconies to the rear part of the building would flank my rear garden. It states that, and the use of private screens would be necessary to secure my privacy. I'm damn founded that this report states that, that I won't be overlooked, but put up screens. Great. Surely this reiterates the fact that I'm overlooked and will have no privacy, and neither would the tenants of the flats. It also states that whilst there is a potential for overlooking parts of the garden and neighbouring property, e.g. 13 Crossmead, the lower part of the proposed building stands in between and will prevent views to the nearer part of the neighbouring rear garden. In other words, the people at the bottom will be able to look in, but the people at the top will have screens, so they can't. I say this is unacceptable. 22 flats overlooking my garden. I'll never have any privacy. I'll never be able to walk outside without people watching me. I'm feeling that my mental health is going through the roof. I feel like I'm going to have a nervous breakdown over this. Barbara, you've gone over your two minutes. Are there any other points, apart from the privacy, that you want to bring up? Other points, yeah. We've got the gist of that. You've got the gist that I'm going to be overlooked by a bearing overbearing. Do you want to move down to some of the other points that you want to get across? Right, okay. I'm also worried about the railway bridge. That's going to be compromised with all the digging. There's piling work going to go on. The pilings going to undermine my foundations. Waterlogging my garden, causing significant damage. The vibration of the piling will cause damage to my properties. Me windows are never ever closed again. The dust from the piling is going to be in my garden, in my house. There's going to be increased rainwater drainage patterns, potentially leading to localised flooding, and my garden will be a quagmire. I've never had any dialogue whatsoever with British Council or the developers and surely there should be a party wall. I can't find it here because I've been asked to go on. A party wall agreement, I think they call it. A party wall agreement would, if this was to move forward, that would be between you and the applicant and that would be a civil agreement that you'd have to put in place before any development could move forward. Right, okay. But that's a sidebar. Right, okay. But there's never been a bit of dialogue about this with me at all, right? Going to have to call it a day there, Barbara. No, hang on one minute, please. You've gone on to four now. Right, okay. Listen, please. If you've got anything crucial, get it across now. Just listen to me. Just listen to me, please. There is a wooden fence between our gardens and that wooden fence was encroached onto our land when the predecessor who owned the land before, obviously who owned the house before us, put up this wooden fence which encroached upon our land by foot. Will I dispute there? I can't find where I'm going now. I'm disputing the fence. Hold on, hold on. Coming back to that point, your boundary issue is a civil issue. Right. If you've got your title plan, which has got your boundary outline, that is between you and the owner of the land later on. If you've got the documentation, then again, when you're discussing your party wall agreement, it's something that can be taken up to two parties. But your boundary issue is independent of this planning process. Oh, right, okay. So I'm going to call down... Hang on, can I just ask, when I was piling... Barbara, Barbara, Barbara, Barbara, Barbara, you've had over four minutes now. Okay, but they've had four years to do this. It doesn't matter. I'm going to stop you there. Any questions for the speaker? David. Thanks, Barbara. I understand your, obviously, passion and feeling. Policy HC of the Greenwich local plan on back land and infield development, I think this is back land and infield development, says in 2 that there can only be granted if there is no unreasonable loss of privacy from overlooking adjacent houses and/or their back gardens. C, policy THB, which I haven't got in front of me, but I will look at that. But would you say, in light of that policy, that there is unreasonable... I mean, are you sure these 22 flats look into your back garden? I'm positive. I did send up photos. I don't know whether you've got them. If you look, there are 22 flats. If you've got those, I presume you have, because I did send them to an email. If you look to my west boundary at the moment, it's completely clear. You look at the other picture, there are 22 flats overlooking my garden. Now, if that ain't overbearing, if that ain't loss of privacy, tell me what is, because I don't know. You tell me. If that ain't loss of privacy, what is it? Any further questions? Yes, thank you, Barbara, and this is very passionate, the way that you're speaking tonight. Can I just ask you which windows are going to be affected? We were told in the presentation that they were not main room windows, but from your point of view, which windows are affected? My bedroom windows and a bathroom window. And bedrooms, yes. How many bedrooms? How many bedrooms? There's only one affected bedroom and one affected bathroom. But the windows were put in. Oh, no, Becky, pardon. I'm lying. Also, downstairs in my living room, my front living room, we put a window in there. I forgot all about that for the minute. We put a window down there because we had lack of light. That is the reason those windows to the side of my building, my property, are there. No other reason whatsoever. That's why they're there. Pardon? Barbara, thank you very much. I'm now going to call on Dr. Tim, Dr. Vincent Smith. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillors. I promise to be brief. I know it's been a long session. So I'm a resident of Crossmead. I live at number 49, which is actually towards the other end, really, of Crossmead. Professionally, I'm head of digital science at the Natural History Museum as well. So I really want to speak to you in the context of my biodiversity concerns about this development, which I think are quite significant. So I think as we've already discussed, the development lies adjacent to Elton Palace Conservation Area, which includes the Tarn Bird Sanctuary. That's a grade two listed site of borough importance for nature conservation. The railway cutting as well is also designated of nature conservation interest. And these are, of course, not just green spaces. They are a sanctuary for countless species of flora and fauna, a couple of which are classified as rare or in one case endangered. And this is a vital ecosystem that supports biodiversity. It contributes to our green air, provides natural escape for visitors and residents and users of these spaces. So this six story development is going to really have a very overbearing impact on this delicate biodiversity balance that exists, particularly in the tarn. And I think as many of the residents can testify, and frankly rather contrary to some of the reports that were made available in the proposed development, there are many publicly available data sets that attest to the value of the biodiversity in this area. There are about 90 species recorded over the past 10 years in this space, including four species of bat, 16 species of bird, 20 species of interest. I can personally attest to many of these species because they're present literally in my back garden, including grass snakes, slow worms, bats and various amphibians, including newts, toads and frogs. As I say, all of which are in my own garden. So I rather am concerned about the classification of the in the report, which says the bridge house is of little ecological value. The construction itself is going to have quite a devastating impact to biodiversity, the noise, the pollution, the human activity. The bat and the bird life, further to I think one of the questions earlier, I think is what's going to be most acutely affected by this development. And of course, the increased noise and long term encroachment by all the additional residents. So that long term impact really can't be overlooked. There's going to be an increase in the impermeable surfaces. This, not to mention the concerns about flood risk, particularly with respect to runoff, which is going into the tarn already with significant concerns about water quality in the tarn. So one of the other concerns I have is this really sets quite a dangerous precedent. So contrary to the report's description, Crossmead is really a very suburban tree-lined street. The majority of the proposed development lies on Crossmead. Many of the comparisons in the report make reference to Court Road, which, yes, it is adjacent to, but it's Crossmead that we're really talking about. It's a place where many families connect with nature, as we've heard, where there are schoolchildren, including my own, who use this space and find solace in that beauty. The only response by the developers to the engagement with the community has been through a single Zoom call where there was almost no opportunity to ask any questions. And lastly, I think the point I'd like to make is we as residents, we're not opposed to responsible development of Bridge House, but that should not be at the cost to the local environment where many people connect with nature. So certainly I, and I think many residents, urge you to reject this proposal. Thank you for your attention. Thanks, Vincent. Thank you, Doctor. Can I just ask you, when did you last see bats in the area? Oh, this year. This year. I mean, they're flying now because they are actually requiring, they're needing to feed their young. So, I mean, the bats fly about this type of night, actually, you'll see them, and certainly in my garden. I don't know when I can come back with this, but I was just wondering if a bat survey had been done, carried out. Is that all right, Chair, to ask if a bat survey has been carried out? Can I ask that now? Oh, you can, yeah. Has a bat survey been carried out? Yes, as part of a wider ecological assessment of the site, yes. The result of it, please. Well, the result was, as someone has already quoted, that the actual impacts on the ecology of the site is quite minimal. I can't recall the exact details of the findings of that report at hand, but in terms of the ecological impacts, they are satisfactory, yes. I think just to, because I've got the report in front of me, the trees within the site were surveyed and there was no evidence of bat roosts. The bats are mainly in the tarn, so they're in the ice well, they're under the bridge footings, those are where the bats live, and of course, they're flying around, particularly of an evening, trying to catch insects. Actually, one of my concerns is with a six-story wall that they are in danger of potentially hitting, this is going to have a significant impact on the bats and also flying birds as well. Any further questions? David. Thank you very much for your evidence. I mean, I live in a house which is next to a four-story block of flats with 48 flats and the park on the other side, an awful lot of biodiversity, but it doesn't seem to be affected by this well-established block of flats, and I just wonder when the construction is over and so forth, the block of flats is settled, what impact might there be on the biodiversity, because I don't see it where I live. I think first and foremost, you're losing a considerable amount of space. As you can see from the bridge house plans, there's basically nearly 5,000 tons of concrete now in a space where biodiversity would have existed, so you obviously have that immediate loss. You've also got the impact of all of those residents who are now going to be creating additional disturbance to wildlife, particularly in the tarn area. And then thirdly, you have the concerns about runoff, because largely this is now going to be an impermeable surface, and that's going to impact and create pollution in the tarn. Any further questions? No. Doctor, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Councillor Kathy Dowse. Ladies first, mate. Sorry. You caught me unaware of her at last. You'll be pleased to know I'm only going to be about a minute or two here. So thank you, Chair, for giving me the opportunity to oppose the planning application. Speaking after all these people have spoken so passionately and articulately, I don't think there's really an awful lot I can say, but to sum up my thoughts, this is a really big development on what was one single house. It will have a detrimental effect on the residents across Meade, particularly the privacy of those living close by, and it will increase the traffic and parking on the road. It's also going to change the character of the area. The tarn, which you should definitely visit if you haven't already, is absolutely beautiful, and it will undoubtedly be affected by this. You've already heard that you will be able to see the majority of the development from the tarn. There's also, of course, the possibility of what it will do to the local wildlife and will definitely be all the worse for it. So that's all I had. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Dowse. Any questions? Any questions for the speaker? Thank you, Councillor. Do you think it's going to serve as a precedent in that facility? Sorry, I didn't catch… Do you think that it's going to serve, if the planning permission is approved, do you think it's going to serve as a precedent within that facility? Yeah, of course. I mean, this is one house. This is a massive development. We're fitting onto what is quite a small site. Of course we need to build more accommodation. And I think if this was a different development on a possibly smaller nature… I mean, I know we've heard that there are other three-storey developments there, and there are. But because of the way the road's laid out, this will definitely be more visible from everywhere around that area. So I think if this had been a different proposal, I might not be here today. It's just the fact that so much is trying to be packed into an area that was one house size. Thank you. Any further questions? No? Cappy, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Councillor Matt Hartley. Thank you, Chair, and certainly endorse everything you've just heard. I'm grateful for the opportunity to reiterate my objection to this application in my capacity as a ward councillor for Mottingham, Coldarborough and New Eltham ward. As you've heard, this is the second iteration of the proposal for this site. It's significantly larger than the previous iteration. It's described technically as part five and part three-storey, but it's really six and four because of the basement. And I'll come back to Aspect later. In my view, and as you've heard in the overwhelming view of local residents, the adverse impacts of this scheme significantly outweigh its benefits. And I want to focus on three reasons for this. Firstly, overdevelopment of the site. Secondly, the impact on the tarn. And third, the impact on parking, which we haven't heard a great deal about so far this evening. So firstly, I think this is a clear example of overdevelopment. The application makes it plain that this proposal has been predicated on the idea that this area of Mottingham is in some way urban. But anybody who has visited Crossmead and the surrounding roads know, can see with their own eyes, that this is a suburban area. So the fundamental principle is flawed. This is, as we've heard, home to both the tarn and Fairy Hill Park. Crossmead is a quiet residential street. It's used as a pedestrian route to get between Mottingham and New Eltham through Fairy Hill Park. And I note in the planning officer's report at 14.12, the report concedes that due to its form and scale, the development would be out of character in the street scene at the western end of Crossmead. And in my view, these 32 units will actually dominate the corner of Crossmead and Court Road to an even greater degree than the previous application. The overall effect on Court Road will be imposing blocks on both sides instead of this sort of open effect that the junction and the buildings there currently creates. So I agree with colleagues that it will irrevocably change the character of the area to an extent that I believe outweighs its benefits. Secondly, Chair, I'm extremely concerned about the impact on the tarn. The tarn is a real gem. It's a hidden treasure. And several residents in their objections, as well as those involved with the Friends of the Tarn group, have raised with us as councillors the impact on residents' enjoyment of the tarn and visitors' enjoyment of the tarn, but also the impact on biodiversity, which Vince has comprehensively covered. And in particular, I am not at all convinced that the planting of these screening trees at the rear of the site will be enough to counteract overshadowing. Overshadowing seems certain. The tarn entrance is very steep, as you all know, down, so this development is going to tower over the town. It's not just going to be visible. It's going to tower over this beautiful green space. And thirdly, just quickly on parking, I know that there's a condition that if the development goes ahead, residents and occupants of the building wouldn't be able to get parking permits. But residents we've spoken to are concerned there's still going to be a significant impact because of the limited hours of operation of the CPZ. And in fact, already people move their cars in and out of the zone on Crossmead, so I wouldn't take it as gospel that that condition is going to resolve the parking issues. I just want to briefly touch on the immediate impact on 13 Crossmead, which I think is really important. I think that impact is completely unacceptable, both in terms of the loss of light in the windows that we've heard about, the fact those balconies will overlook the rear garden resulting in, in my view, a completely unreasonable loss of privacy, and also the overbearing nature of the development on the garden and the house. So the report says at 15.10 the impact won't be overbearing, and I just completely disagree. I think overbearing, in fact, is the perfect word to describe this development, both on 13 Crossmead and on the area as a whole. And just a quick note, if I may, Chair, on community engagement, as Vince touched on. As I pointed out in both of my written submissions, I'm afraid to say that the statement of community involvement in the application bears no resemblance to what I or residents have experienced when it comes to the pre-application consultation carried out by the applicant. It was a tick box exercise. The webinars have been held at next to no notice. Ward councillors weren't invited to attend. Residents who did attend had their views minimised or ignored. Emails from both residents and from us as ward councillors have gone un-responded to and ignored. And I really do think that the council needs to set much higher expectations of applicants on these community engagement exercises. So I'd just be grateful if the planning department took that more general point away. But on the substance of the application, for the reasons I've outlined there, overdevelopment of the site, the very detrimental impact on the tarn, parking, the impact on 13 Crossmead and others, I'd urge you to reject the application. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Matt. Any questions for the speaker? Sandra? I just wanted to ask, on the parking and the restricted hours of the CPZ, were it to be passed? Would you be pressing for an extension of those hours or would that have unintended consequences? Well, I think the fundamental point is that the fact that people wouldn't be able to get parking permits, really whatever the configuration of the CPZ, as you know, it's a CPZ around the station to prevent commuter parking. Whatever the hours of operation, that condition alone is not going to guarantee there isn't additional parking stress. The parking stress survey was carried out as well overnight, which kind of limits, I think, its utility and effectiveness in assessing the parking situation. Because as I've mentioned, residents on Crossmead see people with their own eyes moving their car in and out of the zone. So I'm not sure it's a question of the hours of operation. I think fundamentally, I just wouldn't want anybody to think that that condition is going to magic that problem away. And I know that the Member of Parliament for Ultimate Chiselist has made the same point, and he and I don't agree on very much very often. So there you go. Maybe that tells you something. Thanks, Matt. Lade, then Pat. Thanks, Councillor Matt. I've heard the word overbearing a lot. Six floors is quite a lot. If there was going to be a review, not to have up to six floors, to have three floors, is this something you think, because you've mentioned community engagement, there's a need to connect with community and see how can we review, adapt, tweak this to something that will settle into the community. Is this something you think you may consider? Are you asking if I'd support a development that's smaller and fewer stories? So the last time I was at Planning Board was to argue in favour of the Greenwich Builds blocks up the road. A different situation nearby, but that should tell you I'm not against, certainly not against development. I do need housing. A smaller development on that site that blends more into Crossmead, and I completely agree with Vince. There's a lot of focus on Court Road in the report. It's Crossmead, which is the suburban character that is particularly at risk. A smaller development, speaking for myself, that blends into Crossmead, that doesn't have the overbearing, overdeveloped nature, and would have much less of an impact on the tarn, critically, than I could imagine, depending on the details, me supporting it. The key thing is that this is overdevelopment. It's too high. The impact on the tarn, in particular, is very detrimental. So this isn't an objection to the principle of the site being developed from me. It is an objection to the particulars of this application. Does that answer your question? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Matt. Going back to the parking, which is often one of the things that I do go back to, how do you think, obviously, there are going to be delivery vehicles, takeaways with all these 32 flats? I don't know. Where do you think they -- is there anywhere where they could actually park? Well, there's the roadside, but as somebody is -- one of the Crossmead residents has mentioned, the roads -- as Tim mentioned, the road narrows because of the cycle lane. So there isn't a lot of space there for kind of ad hoc parking, if that's what you mean. If they wanted to park on Court Road itself, you know what some of the bikes are like. Do you think that could cause a safety hazard as well? Yeah, I mean, I do. I think the principle of the development is kind of the biggest problem. And I think the construction impacts, you know, many people have kind of raised those concerns. And I know that lots of residents are very concerned about the construction. You know, as you mentioned earlier, Councilor Greenwell, it is a one-way road, you can only access it from the A20. And that does mean that during the construction period, the impacts are going to be felt right along Crossmead, not just on the site. You know, it's going to have quite a lot of disturbance in a wider area. And that junction, the Court Road A20 junction, is an extremely difficult junction that causes tailbacks right up the A20 and up Court Road. So I do think that there will be a significant level of disruption during the construction period, yeah. I'll ask another question. And just hypothetically, if, you know, sort of obviously you're saying you would agree with the smaller development, that house is a beautiful house the way it is, isn't it? I mean, that could be extended in some way, couldn't it? You know. I mean, I don't hold a candle for Bridge House. You know, it's a house. I think we do need housing. The principle for me is that this development is far too much of an overdevelopment, far too bulky in scale for changing the character of the street scene. You know, I'm not here to argue in favor of Bridge House. It's a house. You know, it is a fairly big site. I think if, you know, it's a similar answer to the previous question. If there was a more sensitive development brought forward depending on the details, of course, like all of us, you would have to assess it on its benefits. You know, I wouldn't be, you know, objecting on principle. So I don't think it's so much about Bridge House. I think it's about making sure that the impacts of any site that is developed, any development that does come forward for the site are controlled. Any further questions? Matt, thank you very much. And I wish to call on Councillor Roger Tester. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, panel, for listening. I would like to strongly object to this application, although the residents who have come in and spoken already and my ward council colleagues have already covered most of the issues I was going to raise. Can I just reiterate that this application is, in my view, a significant overdevelopment of the existing plot, which currently contains a single, albeit large, family home, while the application seeks to replace with 32 fairly large dwellings on a small plot of lands. Contrary to reports, the size and scale of this development does not suit the space available, and the overbearing nature of the finished building will significantly change the look and feel of this quiet residential road. There will be a significant amount of overshadowing and loss of privacy to the nearest existing properties and their gardens, particularly to No. 13 Crossmead, where the report admits that there will be some loss of light to some of the windows at the back of the property. The demolition and construction phases will cause significant disruption to residents in Crossmead and in Court Road, indeed in Court Road, for a full two years, which is just completely unacceptable to the local residents. The concerns of Crossmead residents regarding the impact of additional cars being parked in the area have not been satisfactorily addressed. The northern face of the finished building will be clearly visible from the entrance to and inside the tarn, which will spoil the look and tranquility of this beautiful nature reserve. And also, possibly, I believe there are some issues with run-off from the roads, potentially polluting the lake. I would just like to ask a question, if I may. This is in relation to item 15.2, so I'll just summarise that. The applicant has admitted a daylight/sunlight assessment. What checks have been made or can be made on the viability and scope of that assessment? I believe we've discussed the viability issues already. They have been independently reviewed by... Sorry, I think it's the daylight and sunlight, wasn't it? Sorry, the word 'viability', sorry. If we're back on to that old chestnut again. I'm sorry, my misunderstanding. In terms of daylight and daylight, it must be clear that the report from the applicant does indeed conclude that the side-facing windows would be impacted. Just for clarification, indeed the resident very helpfully clarifies some of those windows for us tonight. One of them is the bathroom window, WC. Those are not habitable rooms, they do not count in terms of light assessment. They are ignored by the planning system. So we're looking at habitable rooms, living rooms, bedrooms, studies, kitchen, dining rooms. What the report shows is that the principal windows of those rooms in number 13 are in the rear and front elevations. Those windows are not adversely affected when applying the BRE guidance, the relevant assessment. The side windows are, but they are secondary. So we have to discount that anyway. The principal windows to the habitable rooms within number 13 are not adversely affected. Even though the side-facing windows are affected, that's just how the guidance is applied. So I completely appreciate the owner's concerns and worries. But when we apply the regulations, the guidance as we do, I have to agree with the assessment, the daylight/sunlight assessment put before us. So that's where we are. Thank you. So just to clarify, the assessment itself has been checked and clarified by yourselves and you deem that to be okay? Yes. I spent the last 25 years looking at daylight and sunlight. In my previous role, I was the one who people came to to look at the BRE guidance because I applied it. So I like to think I do know a thing or two about how they apply the BRE guidance. And looking at the methodology, it's all compliant. And the logic and the assessment, the results are what they are. So as soon as you have principal windows to habitable rooms which are not adversely affected because of the orientation, because they're using that drawing there, they're in the north and south elevation, the front and rear elevation, the buildings to the side, it just won't. The mathematics of how you apply the guidance doesn't show that those front and rear windows are not adversely affected. Yeah, point of order. I don't think it's got the right to question the officers. I think we have to do that. Yeah. So I'm going to come in because I want to follow on on that. I want to raise a point because the BRE formula is a textbook formula, whereas the resident has basically stated that they added the windows because of light issues within the property. Am I correct in understanding that? Right. So the windows have been installed to the property as an addition. They're not part of the original house. They've been added additionally because you've got light issues in the property. Right. So my question is that without actually entering the property to see why the windows were installed and what benefits the windows have on the internal living environment, a BRE textbook thing doesn't really make an assessment of what advantage those windows have had to the owners of that property. Right. So my point is we're looking at a textbook thing, but we don't understand what extra light the windows have provided to the occupier of the property. You know, it's a formula, you know, like the viability formula. We're scratching our heads on the viability. But, you know, it's a formula that officers are guided by. OK. Any further questions for the for the speaker? No. Roger, you finished? OK. Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Peter Tanner and Jonathan Paley. These are these is the applicant. Well, it's the planning agent and architect. Peter Tanner is the planning agent. Jonathan Paley is the architect. I take it, Peter, you're the one with the tie. There you go. Good evening, chairman and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of our planning application at Brighouse. You've already introduced us, so I'll skip that bit. The applicant and design team have worked closely with your officers over the past few years, including a previous application that was withdrawn and subsequent pre application discussions ahead of the submission of this application. This is ensured we're here tonight with a scheme recommended for approval. I'd like to thank officers for the presentation tonight. And whilst I will not seek to repeat matters again, I would like to draw out a couple of key points. We need to deliver housing in this country at a national and local level, as you will have seen in the recent weeks following the general election. The government are seeking to kickstart the economy and boost economic growth, putting housing house building at the forefront of this. The proposal will provide 32 much needed new homes in a sustainable location close to public transport. The site sits at the corner of Cross Mead and Court Road, and we see this as a perfect transition between the two character areas, an opportunity to increase the housing density on this site whilst respecting the character, local character and amenity of neighbors. We appreciate that there has been local objection to the proposals, and you can see the balancing exercise that officers have undertaken to consider these objections. Throughout the design development and evolution of the scheme, we have sought to respect the amenity of neighboring properties. We understand that any construction work can temporarily be disruptive, but we are confident that the planning conditions proposed will mitigate construction impacts upon residents. I just wanted to pick up a point regarding biodiversity net gain that was raised earlier, noting that the scheme was submitted effectively before the biodiversity net gain requirements became law. I would point members to conditions 16 and 17 of the proposed conditions that relate to biodiversity measures. And if it was seen appropriate, then the applicant would be happy to have those conditions amended to include the requirement for the 10% net gain if needed. The proposed development optimizes the full potential of this currently underutilized site, represents a high quality scheme that will be delivered as soon as practically possible. As considered in the officer's report, some harm has been identified, but this is outweighed by the provision of new homes that will contribute to delivery of housing in the borough. We hope you support our application this evening, and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thanks Peter. There we go. I'll start this end. Olu, David, Pat, Danny. Thank you, Chair. I've got at least a minimum of three questions, and I will go straight. One, why did you increase your contribution from 100,000 to 200 and something thousand? What is that? You said that we need much needed homes, but they are not affordable, are they? And again, what is the level of your consultation with the residents and the ward Councillor, because some of these objections could have been, you know, amicably resolved. But because of very little, I think that's what they said, that is on Zoom for a few minutes, they haven't got enough time to, you know, engage with you properly. So can you, you know, give us more details on that? Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm going to address the first question, the financial contribution, not really my expertise. But what I understand is that we have a MPPF requirement to provide 10%, the equivalent of 10% affordable through a financial contribution. And that is calculated through onsite between a compliant 10% scheme and a full market scheme. That difference equates to a contribution sum, and we weren't meeting that target. So the applicant asked us to optimise the scheme to find a way to make more value to meet that minimum contribution sum, which is the 232,500. In terms of the second point, and I think your point was the much needed new homes, but in relation to the effect of the sort of pricing level and the affordability of it. As Jonathan mentioned, obviously, they're not affordable homes in the traditional sense, but they are pitched or potentially will be pitched at a market value that would be affordable to first time buyers. And that is in relation to house prices in the local area. In terms of the consultation undertaken and the previous comments, as the ward councillor mentioned, there was for this application, there was a webinar undertaken that went through and described the proposed application and the changes that have been made from the previous application. Unfortunately, we did have a public engagement consultant. I can't confirm whether or not the ward councillors were invited to that, so apologies if they weren't. But effectively, that consultation exercise was there to update residents. There was more consultation undertaken within the previous application that was subsequently withdrawn. I understand that was undertaken online as a sort of post lockdown COVID situation. I accept that with any schemes like this, there can always be more consultation, but yeah, that's where we're at. To add to that, we had three webinars in total. And each time before them, an independent company did drop leaflets to the local area, 450 addresses, I understand. So I think there has been attempts to reach neighbours. And I also believe there was a transcript for the webinar provided to neighbours. There was a - after the first consultation, the schemes obviously revised, following comments from planners. And the old applications were drawn and a new one submitted. And we have tried to take on comments where we can, where there are material considerations that we can edit the application. How many people attended the webinars? Record that the first one was attended by 21, and the last one we had was attended by nine. Okay. David. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for coming along and putting forward the scheme. So firstly, we heard a lot from objectors about the potential impact on the TAN. And there seemed to be two aspects of this. One, just to quote from paragraph 185A of the National Planning Policy Framework, which you're familiar. And obviously, the need there to demonstrate that the components of locally cultural networks are safeguarded. I wonder if you could unpack for us your - what biodiversity ecology plan and assessment that you have done. We heard from the officer that there were no bats on the site. But obviously, there are bats in the vicinity. What in particular would be the impact of the lights overlooking the railway line and the TAN, once - if it's completed, on bats in the nighttime and in the evening when they're about. And we also heard a lot from some objectors about runoff, water runoff. And maybe you could just explain, given the loss of grassland and soft landscaping from the current site, how you would manage runoff on this rainwater and so forth on the site. Where would it go? And then pursuant to my previous points to the officer, I promised I would ask you about to try and unpack the viability plan, which we don't have access to at the moment because the system's down. How did you arrive at the figure or your assessors arrive at the figure that you couldn't afford any affordable housing? Just £236,000, about 0.6, 0.7 of an affordable house. And secondly, which registered providers have you approached and talked to as part of this process? And have you talked to Greenwich Builds in terms of taking over 11 or 12? And have you applied to the GLA for any funding for the affordable element which is available? So I'll start with the viability first. I'll try and answer your questions. In terms of how we've arrived at the number, I think it's worth considering the planning history as well on the site, in the fact that the previous application, which was for nearly half of the amount of dwellings proposed, and effectively that was considered unacceptable from the council on the basis of a lack of affordable housing provision completely. So that was effectively our starting point. So we needed to find effectively additional value in the scheme to be able to effectively provide that affordable housing. So that is why the second scheme came back at a larger amount, a larger quantum of development which has enabled that payment in lieu to be made. If I may just intercede, Chair, so it's got us 32 units and you've gone up from 16 to 32, so another 16 units to be retailed at 400,000 or 500,000, whatever, to give 200,000 pounds back to the council to afford 0.7 affordable homes, is that right? I don't quite see how that works. Sorry, so it started at 18 to 32 and the last assessment came in at a land value of minus 2 million. So it was starting from a pretty poor place. So it had to make up the 2 million plus it had to find surplus to generate both seal contributions section 106 and affordable housing. And that's in the context as well as mentioned tonight in terms of increased build cost, which is significantly affecting the viability on this type of smaller scheme and as many are in the borough. In terms of the, as far as I'm aware, we haven't approached any RPs for this. As the officer states in his report, it's generally accepted that schemes of less than 50 or 60 units is something that the RPs would not be interested in taking on. In this instance, we haven't made any sort of contact with them and I'm not aware of any approaches to the GLA in relation to funding. In terms of the ecological impacts, obviously we've discussed that a lot tonight. I think in terms of the water runoff, the loss of grassland, increased footprint, et cetera. Again, unfortunately, I'm not a sort of a drainage expert, but we have submitted a report as part of the application and as part of the planning design with a SUDs strategy to ensure that any water runoff is suitably encountered for. And that, as the officer stated earlier, is also controlled by the relevant conditions. Thames Water and the lead local flood authority have both been consulted on the application and raised no objections subject to conditions. So from our perspective, we feel that we've put forward a, you know, a detailed scheme for the stage that we're at planning. And those further sort of design details would be worked up subsequent to any planning permission being granted as would with any development. And obviously those details would need to be agreed in the condition before any work started. In terms of the sort of ecological impacts, again, unfortunately, we don't have our ecologist with us here today, but we have submitted a report as part of the planning application. I think certainly hearing the comments tonight, we don't disagree that the proposed development would be visible from the time. But as the officer confirmed, the existing house and some of the existing sort of larger buildings on Court Road are already visible. And we feel that the additional impact of our proposed development would not be so significantly above what is what is effectively visible at the moment and therefore further impact on the time. Just to add on the views of the building from the tarn, our agricultural report gave the trees at the edge of the site as being roughly 12 metres tall. And as the officer said earlier, the ground to roof level is around 14 and a half. And trees on the other side of that of the railway, I believe, are bigger than the two ash trees on the site. So I think we are maybe overstating the impact potentially of the view from the tarn. I was a bit shocked there. Right. So I'm going to go back to the tarn. I'm going to ask you a question. Have you ever visited the tarn? I personally haven't, no. So how are you in a position to say that there are some houses in Court Road that can be seen from the tarn and that, I mean, if you haven't visited the tarn, how do you know what impact a six storey building is going to have on the tarn? People go in there and they sit and the tarn, the friends of the tarn, you can go and have tea and cakes in summer and sit and look at the water and look at that beautiful view. So, OK, you haven't visited the tarn. How many trees then do you anticipate that you will be losing around this development because at the moment there is a lot of vegetation and how, what age of trees are you intending to put back into the site to make up for the loss of the original ones? I wasn't trying to cause offence by the impact of the tarn. I was just stating that the report I have says the trees are 12 metres and the building is 14 and a half. So I thought those were quite similar. But we are planting, there's proposals to plant nine new trees at the rear of the site. How old will the trees be because we know how long it takes for trees to mature? Just to pick up on your point about the tarn, you know, whilst we might not have physically been in there, we obviously can't give that view and opinion in comparison to people that have been in there. But we are able to assess or consider the impacts in terms of separation distances when viewed, whether it be on a plan or when viewed virtually on a screen. I appreciate that's not the same as being on the site itself, but there are other ways and means in which we can consider the impacts. Sorry Pat, I'm just coming in off the back of that. So neither one of you have been to the tarn, have either one of you done a site visit, actually physically been on site? Yeah, I've been on site, I've walked the area, just haven't physically been into the tarn. Jonathan? I'm overseeing this project, so I haven't actually been to the site. Okay, I've got you listed as the architect, that's all. So the project architect is currently on our leave when this was scheduled, so I've worked on the project, I know the project well, but I haven't actually been to the site. So you haven't been to the site, okay, thanks. Sorry Pat. I wanted to be honest with the board. Okay, thanks. Can I also ask you, the site entrance is going to have to be on the A20. Again, do you know the A20 well and the entrance from Crossmead, from the A20? The A20 is a manically busy road. How do you propose coping with the site traffic, which is going to have to come in from this massively busy road? And down quite a narrow road that is a proper, almost a 90 degree turn. I don't personally live in the area, I don't know the road myself. All I can say on the construction impacts, and obviously we've heard a lot about that tonight, we would work with the council to develop a construction management plan that's all secured by way of condition. That's in terms of construction logistics, deliveries to the site, hours of operation, dust mitigation, you know, all of those sort of impacts that the construction will cause are all secured by condition. And if we were to get planning permission, that would be sort of the next stage of design work to be able to understand from a logistical point of view how the development would be built. Obviously, we've had some initial discussions in terms of how we could do that, but again, that's a level of detail that we wouldn't necessarily come on to until, you know, potentially planning permission is granted and you're dealing with sort of detailed condition work. And the third question, if I can, can I ask a third? All right. Thanks. Can I ask two questions? So the first is, why was this not designed as a mixed tenure scheme? And I appreciate the point about viability, but I think you've had tonight a number of people say that they could see the principle of development on the site being supported. But ultimately, I guess one of the reasons that this scheme isn't considered to be viable is the way in which it has been designed. Would you accept that and be able to offer a view on that? And then the second one, I just need to pick you up on your comment about affordable housing. So I think you said that this would be determined as affordable because it would be offered at a level appropriate to first time buyers. But just to be clear that the London plan stipulates that low cost rented homes, intermediate homes, and London living rent are all the approved forms of affordable housing. So under the London plan terms, this couldn't be considered to be affordable housing and is just a scheme for sale on the open market. Yeah, correct on the second point. Apologies. What I said was it's not, you know, in terms of the planning policy definitions, it's not a scheme that meets those tests in terms of affordable housing. What we were saying is simply, you know, in the future, future sales values would be pitched at a level that we would consider to be suitable for the local area and potentially for first time buyers. But not affordable. Well, hopefully affordable to some. In terms of the proposals not being a mixed tenure scheme, I think effectively the same point that's been answered previously. I think the provision of onsite affordable here would again render the scheme unviable and undeliverable. And again, I'll go back to the previous application on the site for a smaller development on the site with a smaller overall quantum of units which was proposed at 18 units and again solely for sale. And ultimately that was considered unacceptable because there was no contribution or no onsite provision of affordable. So there's that as a starting point. We had to make some changes and those changes have effectively involved the sort of the increase overall quantum and overall sort of height and massing of the proposal in order to create a total sales value that does make the scheme viable to be able to provide affordable housing contribution. That answer your question, Danny? Dave? Oh, sorry. My colleague earlier made reference to the possibility that this site might just be land banked. I'm wondering what your client, presumably not the owner of the site, your planning consultant, I don't know whether the developer does have a plan, a genuine plan to try and build this or is it just thinking about land banking or achieving a hike in the value of the land? Yeah, of course. I mean, I think it's fair to say I don't know exactly when the site was purchased by the developer, but obviously we've had over three years now in planning. And I think it's fair to say that if planning permission were granted, we've obviously got a lot of work, detailed work to do as part of any conditions before any development could commence on site. But as far as I'm aware, they would be looking to commence as soon as possible. There's no, effectively there's no sense in land banking at this stage. There needs to be, you know, spades in the ground and homes sold basically. Sandra? Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask you about the wheelchair accessible units. I think there's three of them. I think they're family size accommodation as well. The report talks about associated parking, but actually when you come down to it, it's just one blue badge space and it's on the street. I'm quite interested in the thinking around, you know, a family operating in a flat with one person at least in a wheelchair and being able to get around. In terms of the question, is it simply how that would work in the development? Well, actually the blue badge parking, we've got one space allocated on street, which gives me a minimum 3% on site with the options, the ability to yield 7% through other allocated spaces that have been, that's in the parking study and the traffic, submitted traffic report. On the case of actually the design of the wheelchair layout, it meets the M4 3A requirements. So we've shown turning circles, extra larger bathrooms, one meter spaces around beds and all the approach route is level access and all the openings wide enough for wheelchair users. So it's very much filling the approved document and guidance on that part. And there's a detailed drawing submitted, which is conditioned as well. And I think just to add it is a London plan policy requirement that we do provide wheelchair accessible homes. So that's why they're part of the proposed development at that level. But not necessarily be sold to a disabled person, is that what you're saying? They're not ring fence to them. I mean, I don't know how it works in other developments. I don't think there's a specific sales condition on that. But obviously from where we are at the moment in terms of the planning process, there's a policy requirement to provide them and that's why they're part of the development. I think I've come back on that point as well. So the question was you've got three adapted dwellings within this complex but no onsite parking provision. Only one blue badge space which is provided by the council on the highway because obviously you don't have any ownership of the highway. So basically the council were going to put one blue badge space in and I think the question from my colleague there was how are families meant to function? Especially with someone with disability. Thank you, Chair. Is it possible or do you have an idea of what the proposed costs of the units will be? So the one bed, the two bed, the three bed or the four bed. No, you don't have any four bed. The one, two, three bed. Do you have an idea? That's the first question. Second question is just to kind of correct what I think Jonathan said earlier. There are tall buildings on Court Road. This is, you know, thank God for Google. All we just need to do is to Google. I just Googled Court Road now. There's no tall building there. That's six floors. Though you've not been able to physically visit the site, that's okay. That's all right. A lot of things can be done online. I mean you could do the street map. I've just done everything now. There's no building on Court Road that is off of that level at all. The third one is about the environmental impact study. I know we're talking a lot about TON and the PAC and all of that. But the impact study that was done, was that presented when you had the webinar with the residents? Did you present that to them when you had? Okay. I'll come back on those in reverse order. I mean, I think it's fair to say that for any kind of consultation, it's very rare that you would, you know, provide detailed planning reports as part of that. That was, you know, we provided them as part of the planning application submission. They're public documents as part of the statutory consultation and residents, consultees, et cetera, can obviously review at that stage. I mean, in terms of Court Road and the sort of tall buildings, I think I would just refer back to the street scene image that was shown earlier. And I think that was just, you know, a key part of this site has been that transition between, as described, the semi-urban Crossmead and the more urban Court Road. And I think, you know, with the street scene image, you can see that we are comparable to both. And we have tried to utilize this corner site, which is a transition between those two sort of character areas, in terms of building heights, so that we're not significantly exceeding, you know, either side. And we've tried to ensure that the overall design will actually, you know, improve and, yeah, improve the character and appearance of that corner plot. Do you have any information on the cost? On Crossmead, on that street, those buildings are all two floors with a large pitched roof, which would normally be equivalent to three stories. The townhouse element that we designed was the same, but also three stories. So we're calling it three-four, that's because the site slopes down on its rear, so there's a lower ground to the back. So that elevation there shows the building as three stories. It's roughly half a meter between the ridge height of that, of 13 Crossmead and this townhouse element of the scheme. The building, the larger block side of it, is close to the height of 188 Court Road opposite. Now, 188 Court Road is a four-story building, which goes down to five near Mottingham. This is a five, which goes down to six on the back. That ground floor of that building is a commercial property with floors around seven meters tall. So that, I think, in heights, what I was trying to say is we're not significantly taller as two stories taller than that building. I was only trying to make that point. And then-- Individual costs. Oh, individual costs. I'm sorry, I haven't got the numbers off the top of my head. I'm not vibrating. I think the one beds were around 350. I can't remember the other two sides. Thank you, Chair. 1A. I didn't say 1A. Right. You talk about the fact that you say, you know, it's not going to be that this six-story building is not going to sort of be out of place. But do you not agree that if you were standing down Crossmead and you're looking down towards Court Road, which at the moment you've got an open effect. Yes, you've got some flats at one side, but if you have six-story flats at the other side, is that not going to give an enclosed corridor effect? And my other question is, why did you think about consulting with Number 13 and asking them if you could perhaps have a look inside their property? And my third very quick question is that TfL have said in response to you that there is, you know, you can't park-- I'm talking about delivery vehicles. Bike deliveries, delivery vehicles, you know, ambulances, fire engines, whatever. There is no way that you can park, because you've got the permit parking, and yes, when those permits aren't there, you can't guarantee that there are going to be any spaces. You've got double yellow lines on Court Road, and you've got red lines on Court Road. So what provision have you made? And you've also got the one lane going down, access to go out, and then there's a built-up area. So what provision have you made for these delivery vehicles, ambulances, food lorries, et cetera, et cetera? Thank you. Those are my three. So on the vehicles question, obviously, you know, I assume it's an existing situation in the fact that whether it's ambulances or delivery vehicles, et cetera, use Crossmead and potentially Court Road, I don't know, to service existing properties. And those delivery vehicles will be in situ for a short period of time and then move off. We haven't physically got any space within the site to be able to provide any kind of delivery or servicing bays, as you've seen on the site plans. So whilst it would be an increase in residents in the local area, that would be something that would effectively be subsumed within the local road network as is. There's no additional on-site provision for that. I think the first question was this point looking west up Crossmead. I don't think there's any debate that you'll see the development. There is a transition between traditional two-story semi-detached properties with a larger flat roof, five-story building behind that. But I think if that's taken in the context with those other buildings in Court Road, then actually it is in keeping with that sort of character when you're looking that way west. Is that your final question? No, I asked about whether or not you -- why didn't you speak to the people who were nearest at number 13 and possibly ask if you could go inside the house to see what effect this property, the building would have on their home? On the question of consulting with them, I believe they were invited to the webinar. We invited neighbours to the webinar and presented the schemes as Pete's. Let's not get into discussion. Can you ask Pat to answer Councillor Greenwell's question? If not, then -- In every application, we don't typically have a daylight and sunlight report at the time of consultation because we're still designing the scheme. The daylight and sunlight test that came back showed that there was VSC impacts to those windows, but the rooms only lost 1% of their daylight distribution. So as per the officers, we follow the technical advice from the BRE and there wasn't a material reason for us to change the design because the rooms in the reports, they are not materially impacted. Thank you. Any comments? Danny? David? Pat? Sandra? I'm going to be brief as much as I can. As far as I'm concerned, looking at this application, I think it's out of character. That's one of my concerns. The level of consultation with the residents and the world councillors could have been much, much better, whereby it is possible for them to come amicable to maybe reduce certain things or, you know, come to that. That is poor, the level of consultation. As the gentleman said, the applicants, we need more homes, but my concern is there's a zero affordable flat on that site. Although I do appreciate that you are giving 232,500 for an offsite, but to me it does not solve the problem that we are facing in the borough. So, Chair, based on those concerns, I would not be supporting this application. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to call Sandra because she hasn't had enough time to speak and always come in at the back end. Thank you, Chair. That's wonderful. For me, it's a flawed development. I feel that the size of the flats are at a minimum level, the vast majority exactly as the London plan suggests. There's a mismatch between the accessible units and the associated parking, a blue badge parking space on the street can be used by anyone with a blue badge, not necessarily by people within the site. And although there are existing blocks on the other corners, this is much bigger, and despite being much bigger, not getting the contribution towards affordable housing. Danny. Thanks. So, whilst all this has been going on, we've got one in 23 children living in London who are going to bed in temporary accommodation tonight. So, of course, that's absolutely, to be clear, a fact that we take very seriously in terms of trying to deliver housing and housing solutions that is going to sort out that horrific situation. Now, having heard the best part of this for nearly three hours, unfortunately, I haven't heard a single thing that says that this application would do anything to address that. And that is a fundamental consideration, I think, that we face as a strategic plan and authority. And it's absolutely right, I think, as the applicant said, that housing does need to be delivered and does need to be delivered to drive economic growth. But we don't need to deliver any old housing at any old cost, which is actually not going to solve the problems that we face. Principally, that we don't have enough affordable housing and certainly not enough social housing. And I think it's extremely regrettable that this application does not include any of that. Obviously, as the officer said, I do think we should remember that this is an area of changing context, I think, were the officer's words. And actually, there are other schemes which have been approved in this area and will continue to be, not least because it's so close to a train station in a capital city that mean we will be in a denser situation than the one house that's potentially on that site. So I think that is absolutely accepted, but what I do not accept is that however many units we've now got to in terms of the overdevelopment of this site to deliver that makes this a viable proposition. So from an overdevelopment point of view, I'll be voting against. And also, although I do absolutely take on board what the officer said, I still have red H4 and red H5 again. And I don't think this is a compliance scheme of our affordable housing policies. And therefore, on that basis, I'd also be voting against. Thanks, Danny. Dave Simon. I think, in a sense, this discussion this evening is quite illustrative of the problems that are occurring up and down the country. It's extremely challenging to get any housing built because there aren't many fields just sitting there and nobody wants. And people are happy to put 200 or 300 units on it. I think probably everybody in this room actually sympathizes with the need to build more houses. But not this one, not here, next door, down the road. It never seems to be the one that's next to them. And I can understand that. But it is extremely difficult. The planning regime we have in this country makes it extremely difficult for developers to develop. My colleague earlier, David, made a comment about these things being consented and then land banked. I think there's more to land banking than just sitting on it. I think half the time it's almost impossible to develop it because of labor shortages, building costs, list trust, budget. For all sorts of reasons, it's extremely difficult for any developer to make a site work. So I don't think we should be too skeptical about the analyses which the colleagues have done on our behalf earlier when they've looked at viability and they've considered whether a scheme can take affordable housing or not or some form of affordable housing. But having said that, you know, and I'm quite passionate that we do build more houses, and I looked at this scheme today. I went down and looked at it and I did think it was a very intelligent scheme. I think they've maxed out the possibilities on the site. And I think the officers' appraisal of the application has been incredibly thorough and professional and done everything that we've asked them to do. I don't think it's, you know, I don't think it's appropriate for us to go off and second guess these negotiations and these discussions and say, oh, maybe we should see these reports. I think we have to trust that our officers are professional people and have considered this matter thoroughly. I think it was suggested that this has been four years in discussion. But then I'd like to say on the other hand, having said all that, how challenging the situation is, how difficult the situation is, no matter how good the scheme is and the advice that we've been given, the colleague, the officer Matthew actually points out, you know, that this is a balance. And the balance, you know, the balance is all the consequences that have to be borne, in particular by the immediate neighbour, other people in the road and the general environment. And I can't help thinking, you know, that the balance, you know, I accept the advice is made in the spirit of trying to come to a difficult decision like Solomon's baby, trying to come to it, you know, trying to come to it. I can't help thinking that, you know, one unit, one unit for 32 is not a good balance. I don't think it's necessarily sufficient. I think it's over development. I think it's much more -- the consequences are too great. I think we really ought to see, ought to be rejecting this scheme this evening. Thanks, Dave. David. I rushed the point at the end. Sorry, Dave. Thank you, Chair. I think we are advised. We've got to look at the tilted balance on applications. And obviously we have the presumption in favour of sustainable development. And we have to give more weight to the need for new housing. But with the need for new housing, very clear in the London Plan also becomes the requirement for affordable housing as Councillor Thorpe articulately explained. So I think there are good aspects of this scheme, Chair. I think the car-free development, I think it is a site close to Nottingham Station with a high P-Tower rating. I think there are elements of it which fit in with some of the streetscape on Court Road. Although not the streetscape on Crossmeters we've heard. And it meets the urban greening factor and so forth. So I think there are some positive elements. But I very much agree it is an overdevelopment. The scale, the massing. And I think the height even are highly questionable. And not in keeping, I don't think, with the DHLUC, whatever it's called, DHLUC design guidance. Which is referred to the National Planning Policy Framework. I think in particular, Chair, it doesn't conform with Policy HC of the local plan about unreasonable loss of privacy. And also the consequent policy of DHB. Which only permits an application where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development does not cause unacceptable loss of privacy as a result of unneighbourly intrusion and so forth. And I think the prospect of having all these people looking over your garden. I had a recent development in my ward recently where privacy screens had to be put in and so forth. So they couldn't see someone's garden and the planning inspector upheld that. So I feel quite strongly about that loss of amenity. I feel strongly that this is an overdevelopment. And I also feel there is a possibility of a breach of DH18 in terms of it has to enhance the nature and be consistent with the conservation area. So DHB1, I mean. I'm less clear in terms of its impact on biodiversity. I think I'd need to read the full action plan. But certainly it does have an impact on the neighbouring conservation area which the tarn is in. And the setting should respect. It should respect that setting which I don't think it actually does. So I do think it's appropriate site for significant development. But it should include affordable. And this is too much. Thank you. Thank you, David. Yeah. We're looking at the time. Everybody else has had their opportunity. I'm looking at everyone else, myself included. I know. I'll say what I want to say. But it won't be quite as long. Right. Okay. In a nutshell, number 13, you've said it all. Overdevelopment. To lose all your privacy. Number 13, other people in Crossmead will lose their amenity. It's not only people in Crossmead that will lose their amenity. It's people who use the tarn further, wider in Eltham. People who use the tarn will lose their amenity. And the impact it will have on the tarn in loss of view, loss of peaceful tranquility. And the effect that the building will have on wildlife. Also, you know, the fact that I'm worried about the concerns of the A20. Very, very busy road. The dangers there, even with traffic management schemes. And the trees. It's just an absolute overdevelopment. And the corridor effect that I think will be as a result, you will get, if you look down, overmead. So, really, yes, number 13 has said it all. I will not be voting for this application. Thank you. Was that sufficient? I'm extremely concerned that there was no robust community engagement. I heard that there were several webinars, but I'm hearing from residents that they did not properly engage with residents. And they were not allowed to speak. I hear number 13 saying here that she was muted. It's really important that when we are developing, there's a co-production with local residents. And the fact that this didn't take place is quite concerning for me. Secondly, the environmental impact on the turn board sanctuary for me is quite key. One of the key things that I want to maintain and remain in Royal Borough of Greenwich is to make sure that where we have our open spaces, they're preserved. A lot of other boroughs are allowing developments to take over such – I consider them a sanctuary. They should be kept like that. The impact, in my own opinion, on the sanctuary is massive. And the fact that we didn't get enough good response or good answers to the questions that were asked. And lastly, for me, is the fact that these buildings and these units would not be affordable. I'm extremely, totally against the gentrification of our communities. It's the fact that our children are not going to be able to afford the one bed, two bed, three bed spaces there. It shouldn't be. The fact that opportunities for the applicants to have explored how this could be mitigated. You know, the mayor's fund, just like Councillor Thorpe mentioned, and also approaching RPs. From what Jonathan said earlier, no RP had been approached at all. Yes, we know that RPs may not want to take any units less than 50, but at least ask them first. That had not been done. On that basis, I would not be supporting this application. Thank you very much, Lade. Claire, any comment? No? Well, I think everything's been covered by colleagues, and I'm looking at time, so I will not add any further comment. Instead, I am now going to put this item to the vote. And the first question I'm going to ask is all those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. All those against the application, please raise your hand. The item is refused, and I need to go over the grounds for refusal. Overdevelopment, impact on the privacy and amenity space of number 13. I think you've got some of the things that I've got down there. Beth, do you want to read those out? Yes, I've got three proposed reasons for refusal, which I'll just quickly go through. Hopefully it addresses everything that everyone's raised. So the first one is the proposed development by reason of its overall scale, bulk, mass and height would fail to respect the prevailing character of development within Crossmead and the verdant character of the tarn. That harm, when considered together with the lack of affordable housing, would not outweigh the benefits of providing 31 additional dwellings. And I won't read out all the policies because I think we've covered those. The development by reason of its height, mass and proximity to neighbouring properties would result in an unreasonable loss of privacy and sense of overbearing, which would be significantly detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring occupants. And the final one, the development by reason of its scale and massing in proximity to the tarn would fail to protect this as an important green space contrary to G6D and G1 of the London Plan, which seeks to protect London's green open spaces and ensure development proposals manage impacts on biodiversity. Hopefully that covers everything. So, members, I'm told that we now need to revote, but accepting those points of refusal. So all those in favour accepting those terms for the refusal, please raise your hand. Okay. Thank you all for coming. Thank you all for your patience. Sorry this took so long. The item is refused for the grounds that we've just stated. Thank you all very much for coming. And now -- oh, sorry. Looking at the time committee, does anyone want to take a quick loo break? We've been at it for three and a half hours now. Five minutes only because we've only got a short item left on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We now move on to item six, development site at the former Kidbrook Park Primary School, Hargood Road, London, SE91TD, reference 241164F. I take it most members -- or all members, sorry, have read the application. Officer is going to give us a quick overrun, a couple of minutes, and then we'll go to questions. Thank you, Chair. The application is for what is stated on the screen. It's the provision of a new special educational needs school on this site. It will serve 128 pupils. There will be 90 full-time equivalent staff. The site is this area near Kidbrook. Kidbrook Interchange on the A2 is here, so it's just north of there. The site was a former Kidbrook Park school, but has since been demolished. There's the site. There's some photos, housing surrounding the site, so in a residential area. And there's the photos showing top left side. It is now bottom left as it was when the previous school was there. So it's a vacant site in a residential area that was formerly a school. And there's been no objections to the application whatsoever from local residents. This is a brief overview of the site. It would be a series of three buildings. There have been -- those two images have been aligned more or less together. So on the left-hand side, the site plan, Hargood Road is at the top of the slide, going across. Access top left-hand corner, coming in. Building on site, Access Road in. 57 car parking spaces and bays for dropping off minibuses, taxis, coaches for students who will come to school in that fashion. The rest of the site is laid out, play areas, green spaces around the periphery. Brief overview of the plans. Each block building is two floors, lower and upper floor, containing what you expect classrooms. This is the admin block facing the road. The other two blocks are classrooms, sports area in block two with the Mooga on the top. And then block three, more classrooms, DT, music areas, et cetera. So externally, all buildings are two stories, mainly brick construction. So this building fronting the road would be two-tone brick, a lighter predominant material with a darker one on the crown, gray windows door detailing. This is the middle bit with the Mooga. Sadly, I don't have a color image, but the top element is fencing around, railing around the Mooga. The rear building, building three. Looking back, it has dark cladding along the top half or the top two-thirds. It's not visible from outside the site. Looking sideways section three, so left-hand side building is building one, nearest the road. The land falls away now. There'll be a cut and feel to create two plateaus with the majority of the building on the lower plateau. So the two darker areas are the two buildings. The lighter gray areas are linking corridors. And that's the view of it, the converse view, side view. And the middle building there is, say, the Mooga on top. A couple of site sections for you to show how it works, cutting through the site. Harlewood Road, bottom image, left-hand side. Let me come back to some distances. So it's very well set away from neighboring dwellings, well over 20 meters building to dwelling distances between back gardens to help create those spaces. So there we are. As I said, 57 car parking spaces will be created within it to serve the teaching staff, support staff and visiting professionals. And that's that. Matt, thank you very much. Questions for the officer? David? Yeah. I mean, obviously we do absolutely need the SCN provision in the borough. We hear that all the time from our constituents as well as being very clear policy. But I am concerned about the level of car parking. Very few schools these days have any car parking. And the idea that, you know, 100-odd, 90 FTEs are going to need 51 parking spaces, it says in this report. Really, that's for another day and age. We're in a climate emergency. And how is this going to contribute to us reducing the boroughs meeting our 45% reduction target in vehicular traffic? And what cycle parking will there be? Have we looked at, you know, in the terms of the travel plan, it's a quick walk to Shooters Hill Road or to the buses going down Kibera Park Road. Have we looked at the alternatives and so forth that are available? I can see obviously this parking needs to be for the drop-offs and for the, you know, the children. But I don't see about the park, other than a few, parking for staff. And it doesn't seem to be interrogated and we have no comments from TFL, which I find very surprising. So I wonder how this fits in with the London Plan policies on parking and what cycling provision there is as well, which is quite high, should be quite high according to the London Plan. Okay. All fair points. First and foremost, the policy on car parking in London Plan has no specific standards. Standard is the word I'm looking for for educational establishments, unlike residential or commercial. So it says in the text of the London Plan policy that you have to assess each on its own basis. That doesn't give you any further guidance how you work that out. In this case, maybe looking at other models, other schools of a similar nature. Bear in mind, special education in these schools are different from mainstream schools in how, first of all, children are delivered to and from school, first point. And so they will be bussed in by – I can see that. It's the 51 spaces for staff. In terms of staff, you have to track staff from wider geographical areas, PTAS 1A1B. Yes, there are bus routes, so refer to the main report. There is a travel plan, so the school is looking to encourage as many staff to do certain things like car sharing, take the green transports, have showering facilities. There are cycle provisions for 14 cycles, which doesn't sound like a lot, but it's there. And they will encourage staff to travel by the means. The problem is with the nature of the school, staff have to arrive at a certain time very strictly, well before children arrive. So they're there to help the children decamp. And so with other examples, which we asked at the pre-application stage, the applicant to do research, what do other similar schools do in terms of how do you calculate your provision? And so they've looked at three or four other examples in London, and there's one example in Bromley I can think of, and other examples not far away as well. And they do have a higher parking rate than you would expect maybe or would want, but that's what's needed. Also they're looking at those other examples where there's lower parking provided on site, and they've resulted in greater parking on road. So you don't want to have enough parking to meet the need whilst encouraging people to travel by the means and also at the same time not overspill and upset residents in the local area. So the amount that's been chosen has been arrived at by analysing other sites and looking at different means. And with 90 full-time equivalent staff, you know, 57, you know, is not quite half, but that's the minimum that the school believes it needs to make the school run efficiently. Thanks, Matt. Sandra? I live a stone's throw from Willowdean, which is a much bigger special needs school. I've just counted how many car parking spaces in the '20s, I think it is. And they have staff parked up and down the roads all day long, lots of visiting people, people who come in with equipment, so I would stand by their assessment, I would say. Thanks, Sandra. Any further questions for the officer? Good. I see none. I do have the members from the applicant's team. Do we have any questions for the applicant? I would just like to ask some, Chair. Sorry, thank you for coming. I'm absolutely in favour. It's brilliant. I'm very glad it's happening at last. But on this transport thing, I am very worried about the impact on the narrow roads there and the lack of cycling spaces. Charlton Park Academy, which I live close to Charlton Park Academy, it only has about 20 parking spaces. It's a much larger school, special school. And you see people on the buses all the time, the staff on the buses all the time. I just don't see why we need this balance and maybe you could address that issue about why so many parking spaces, when everyone is meant to be going to work by sustainable means, unless you have to carry big equipment and so forth, and so few cycling spaces, when it's a good area to cycle around. Danny, you had your hand up? Well, only to say with the greatest of respects to my colleague, Councillor Gardner, clearly the residents aren't too bothered because we've got zero objections, which is absolutely bloody unbelievable considering the history we've had with Harvey Road and other things. So I do think that on balance, as Councillor Bower said, and you know, I've represented the old Tutor's Hill for a long time, where Willowdean has had frankly not enough spaces to do the things that they need to do, which is why we've been explaining, and you know, we do have a climate emergency, we've also got a send emergency, we're sending our kids outside of the borough at a cost of millions. This is a brilliant proposal and we should just vote for it. Just for the, yeah, I'm sure we welcome it, I'd just like to know, is it fully funded and when's it likely to happen? So, the question was, do we have any questions for the applicant or do I go straight to the vote? [inaudible] Sorry? [inaudible] Oh, you've answered. Teji, would you and Chris like to come to the table? [inaudible] Yes. [inaudible] I've got the microphone because it's being recorded, Dave, otherwise it doesn't go on to the system. Two questions there, one about the parking and one about delivery, how quick. So, I can take both questions, I mean, so just in terms of the parking, there's several reasons why the quantum of parking is proposed. One of them is because the staff come from a much further distance, specialist staff are in shorter supply and so the catchment of those staff come from a wider area. The P-TAL, as Matt mentioned, is very low. The parking on the streets is poor, it's much more preferable to have it on street and to cause less disruption to the local residents. As you mentioned, the roads are narrow and so on-street parking isn't really a viable option. So, taking all those considerations into account, it was considered that it would be better to have a greater quantum of parking on site, hence the 57 spaces. In terms of when the development will start, I mean, we're really pleased that the officers have managed to get this application to committee so soon and worked so proactively with us. I mean, we're ready to go, we're ready to start on site as soon as possible. The officers have ensured there's no pre-commencement conditions, so as soon as we've got permission, we're ready to make a start on site. Excellent. Right, I see no further hands. Gentlemen, thank you very much. All those, I'm going to put this to the vote now, all those in favour of the officer's recommendation? Item is approved. Thank you all for coming. Sorry it took so long. Thanks for staying. [BLANK_AUDIO]