Transcript

Good evening everyone. Welcome to this late start of the planning meeting. Filming and recording is allowed but must not disturb proceedings. Fash photography is not permitted. Only those public speakers who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speakers will be permitted to address the 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 further comments unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Councillors may have up to five minutes. Accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups up to four. Individuals two and the applicants and their team ten. I have listed to speak on item five. Rachel Laurent. No, no I don't need you yet Rachel, not yet. I'm just making sure you're here. David Cracknell. Folake Olutem. And on behalf of the applicant Peter Brown. On item six I have Kim Brazil. Item seven, Councillor, sorry. On item six I have Joel Stern on behalf of the applicant. On item seven Councillor Nick Williams. And on item eight I have Mona Ibrahim and Bob Macquillan. Okay. Item one, apologies for absence. I've received apologies for absence from Councillors Cook, Littlewood and Sullivan. Item two, urgent business. The addendum in regards to item five, 118 Woodhill has been circulated to all members and published in advance. And I'd also like to correct a typographic error on the front of the agenda that refers to it as 118C. It should just be 118. Item three, declarations of interest. Item four, minutes of the last meeting dated 16th of July, 2024. Take those as read. Any comments? No. Item five, 118 Woodhill Road, Woolwich, London SE 18, 5JL, reference 232362L, and reference 232361F. Before we go into this item, when I went online and clicked the link, these two references came up as the co-op car park in Footscray Road. On the agenda it says link to documents, and then these two reference numbers come up with the co-op on Footscray Road. Apologies to that, Chair. It could have just been a never. It's not me going mad then. We'll stick to the address, 118 Woodhill, Woolwich, London SE 18, 5JL. Louise. My apologies for that error and that hyperlink. Thank you, Chair. As the application cites 118 Woodhill, you're considering this evening application for planning permission and application for listed building consent for the conversion extension of the existing rear outbuild building to provide a new self-contained part one, part two storey single storey dwelling house with associated cycle parking, refuse storage and outdoor amenity space. The existing outbuilding is kurta-listed by virtue of it being cited within the rear garden of the grade two listed building. The application has become before members due to receiving more than 12 objections in relation to the proposed development. We also received one supporting comment as well. Some of you may remember, but this application was previously considered at Woolwich and Thamesmead area planning committee back in July where it was deferred for a site visit and for further clarification on the ownership of the site and if necessary the correct completion of certificate B and notice served on anyone who had an interest in the application site. Site visit was taken last week on Thursday 19 September and in regard to the ownership certificate following the previous committee, the application was made invalid until the applicant completed the correct ownership certificate and the required notice was served. The application -- the applicant has now provided that evidence that all of the relevant parties who have an interest in the land, either leasehold or freehold, have had notice served and we have received the correct ownership certificate which is now ownership certificate B. We've cross checked that with land registry records and we are satisfied that anyone who has an interest in the site has had the required notice served on them. So from our perspective, that side of things which was considered a concern previously has now been dealt with. As members will be aware, an addendum has been circulated this afternoon which includes an additional comment from Len Duval. These comments raised in this objection are addressed within the addendum that you would have received earlier today. It should also be noted there's a slight typo in the number of objections received since the most recent set of consultation. It should be 13 objections from eight adjoining owner occupiers rather than eight objections from 13 owner occupiers. Officers are recommending that planning permission and listed building consent should be granted subject to the conditions included in Appendix A of the officer's report. Now moving on to the presentation. This is the site outlined in red. It is to the rear out building at the rear of 118 Woodhill which is located where the red dot is on the image in front of you. The red outline roughly shows the outline of the site. This is a view looking east towards the rear elevation of 118 Woodhill. This is the view looking west. This shows a site location plan submitted as part of the application. As set out within the officer's report, 118 Hill is a Grade 2 listed building and the application site also forms part of the Woolwich Common Conservation Area. Here's some photographs taken from the site. Image number 1 which is on the left-hand side looks north along Marion Grove. Image 2 shows the existing garden and rear of 1118 Woodhill which has been subdivided into three flats and image 3 shown on the far right shows the existing out building which is the subject of this application. Here we've got a few more pictures. We've got the front of the building in the top left. Another wider shot of the existing out building but I think that one was taken probably last year. Then you've got some images on the right-hand side which illustrate the existing rear dwelling house which is currently at the back of the adjoining property which is titled 1128 Woodhill which is that white rendered building you can see in the images on the right-hand side. This plan shows the proposed block plan. The dotted red line shows the outline of the existing stable building and the yellow area shows the extended footprint of the building which is thought to be posed as part of this application. It's acknowledged that the existing garden of 118 Woodhill would be reduced but a total of 123.5 square metres would remain for the existing residence which is considered acceptable and sufficient to allow for the continued use of the rear garden for the existing residents who reside within 118 Woodhill. This plan shows the proposed arrangement of the new flat located as part of the proposal. To the front of the dwelling would be a refuse store. The garden would sit to the rear. I think this now should work and you've got a cycle store here. I'll go into the detail on the floor plans in a bit more detail in a minute. The drawing, this drawing shows the proposed west elevation which would be the front elevation of the building. So this is the proposal here and you can see one more night Woodhill behind it. The building would be finished in materials which are considered acceptable to our conservation officer. Timber windows are also proposed. We've consulted our conservation officer as part of this proposal who is happy with it in terms of its impact on the existing grade 50 listed building and the wider conservation area. In assessing that they have recommended some specific conditions which can be read within the appendix which are to ensure the proposal has an acceptable impact from a heritage perspective. This drawing shows the proposed south elevation. This drawing shows the proposed north elevation. Sorry it's a bit faster than I was expecting it to be. These plans show the layout. On the left hand side you can see the ground floor. So as you can see there's going to be a ground floor bathroom, sort of an open pan living kitchen room/diner and obviously you've got access to the side path and the rear garden. And then on the upper floors there'll be a double bedroom which would have a size of 12.9 square metres. We're happy that the quality of accommodation proposed is acceptable. The proposal meets the minimum internal space standards. The floor to ceiling heights are considered acceptable with the view that the proposed dwelling would not be unacceptably overlooked from any adjoining properties. Moving on to residential amenity. The proposed development would sit directly at the rear of 1118 Woodhill. There's a distance of 9.9 metres between the rear wall of the proposed extension and the edge of the boundary of the proposed development. And then there's a distance of 24.8 metres between the rear wall of the proposed dwelling and the rear wall of 118 Woodhill. These distances are considered to be sufficient to ensure the proposal is acceptable in terms of amenity from a daylight, sunlight and outlook perspective as well as a privacy aspect. There are no, so 112A which is the white building that I mentioned earlier is located here. That building doesn't have any side flank windows, so despite being located adjacent to it, it would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of 112A Woodhill. All other properties along Woodhill would have an indirect relationship with the proposed development and we're satisfied that the impact on all other residential occupiers is acceptable. Moving on to sort of a landscaping perspective. Two trees are proposed to be removed as part of the application. We've consulted our tree officer and she's happy with those removal. They don't have a high visual amenity value and two new trees are proposed as part of the application, which is welcomed. And we've obviously got a bit of soft and hard landscaping as well, which is welcomed. Overall members are recommended to support the applications. The development provide a residential unit which supports the borough's housing provision. The impact on the host grade two listed building is considered acceptable as well as the wider conservation area. We consider the quality of accommodation proposed as part of the development to be of a good standard and for the reasons set up before the impact on residential amenity is also considered to be acceptable. It's therefore recommended that planning commissioner listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Thank you, chair. >> Thanks, Louise. Any questions for the officer? Pat. >> Thank you, chair. And thank you very much for that very concise and clear report. First of all, can I just ask you what about the refuse collection for the property? Because Marion Grove is quite narrow, isn't it?

So we have consulted our refuse team as part of the assessment of the application. And they are satisfied with the proposal. I presume they must have an existing situation in terms of how 112A Woodhill is serviced from a waste and refuse perspective. So they've raised no objections and we've put a condition on requiring additional details of the refuse and recycling facilities for the development. >> And unfortunately I wasn't able to go on the site visit. So could you just tell me what is on the other side of Marion Grove? It seems to be that that is the narrowest part when you're looking at the maps where this building is going to be. What is it looking on to? What are the buildings opposite? And how close is this property going to be to the building across the road or the buildings nearby? >> Sorry, the presentation is a little bit slower changing slides. So this is probably the best image to illustrate it. Marion Grove runs along this point of the site. So they're basically just going to have -- it's quite an open thoroughfare. As I said, there's already residential properties along here, but I think they've just got side flank walls here of the existing residential properties to the -- along here is what they would be facing. So it's just residential accommodation. These would be their side flank walls here. So you can see them in -- sorry, it's not very fast. Yeah, that's probably a clearer image. So these are the residential properties here and this is obviously where the new dwelling would be located. Bedroom, windows are the only things facing the new building. So there's all those along there. It's just side flank walls. All right. The last question again, which is -- I'm still being quite confused. I know this has been explained to us. But this was originally a house with a garden and this building has now -- could you tell me how much -- how large the garden is or what -- at the moment and how much of that garden will be taken up by the property, please? So I was just checking and I mentioned was correct. So this is a rough estimate. The size of the site at the moment is 269 square metres and then the remaining amount would be about 123. So it is seeing about a reduction in half of it, but obviously a larger portion of it is currently covered by the existing outbuilding. So there's still going to be 123 square metres for all three flats, which is considered to be more than enough for -- in terms of amenity perspective for external amenity space. Thank you very much. >> No worries. No worries. On that point, wouldn't the remaining section of the garden belong to the remaining two flats? Because obviously if the applicant is exercising his rights on certain plots of the land, then the remainder would be obviously shared between the other two. He couldn't do this with his share and then expect to get a 30% share of the remainder -- remaining, sorry. >> So in terms of how the ownership of the remaining garden is divvied up, that in terms of who owns what, that would be a private matter. But from a planning perspective, the remaining garden would be available for all three flats. >> Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much for the report. Just two quick questions. So you can see on the plans that the outline of the new building goes well past the line of existing building on Marion Grove. Actually that -- yeah, that's the perfect one. So 112A, this new building comes out about twice as far back as that, approximately, would you? So it's not in line -- it goes beyond the existing line of buildings, yeah? >> Unless I'm misinterpreting something, I would say -- >> Only the cream section is going to be developed. If you think the principal building line of 112 is here, and then the rear wall, it's pretty much in line with the rear wall. >> So the red line is then to be the full area of land that would be -- >> So that includes the garden area as well. So the building itself is just the sort of yellowy green hatched out area. Sorry, I hadn't properly seen that on that slide, so I got a little confused. So thank you very much for clearing that up. And apologies if this is a silly question as well, but can you just say a little bit more about the process in terms of the agreement of others who have a share of the freehold here, and -- because, you know, they have been notified in accordance with how things should be, but were things to complete, is the agreement of all who have a share of the freehold required here? >> So the best way to probably explain how ownership -- so largely, land ownership doesn't really come into how we assess planning applications. The only reason why it does is because an applicant, when they submit an application, they need to make sure they complete the correct certificate. Now, if they own the entirety of the land to which the application relates to, they complete certificate A. If they don't, similarly as in this particular instance where there's multiple owners who have various -- they need to serve notice on them and then complete the correct certificate, which in this instance would be B. Other than that, it isn't really a relevant planning consideration. So when we considered this back in January, at the time, we thought the applicant owned the entirety of the site. It was then concluded that they didn't. At that point, we made the application invalid and put the onus on the applicant to further investigate it. They came back with us with evidence on who did have an interest in the land. They provided evidence that they had been served and then they provided us with an amended certificate B. So from a planning perspective, outside of making sure that certificate is correctly completed in the notice served, it's not a material planning consideration. So even if you grant planning consent for something, there might be various other agreements between civil parties that need to be agreed upon before they can actually implement any consent that may or may not be given. Perfect. So this is a question as much for some people who will -- some of the potential objectors here, which is that in terms of that ownership issue, that is a matter that needs to be determined between the applicant and the others who have a share of the freehold. Exactly that. >> And notwithstanding whether we were to grant permission or not, so if we were to grant permission and the others who had a share of the freehold did not then agree, while there would be consent, they wouldn't be able to proceed with construction. >> Exactly that. Perfect. So I just -- I think that's probably just a really useful thing for us to just be super clear on, particularly for some people who may be preempting some comments I can imagine are coming and that come through in some of the objections that have been lodged. Any more questions for the officer? No. Louise, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Rachel Laurent. >> Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to object to this application. First of all -- oh, is it not -- am I still -- is that better? Yes. Right. Sorry. I didn't realise it needed to be quite that close. First of all, you asked the question with regard to the ownership of the garden and how much garden would be allocated to all the relevant parties. This is actually something that we've prepared based on the land registry documents. Each of the houses are given a proportion of the garden. And ironically, Mr. Coulthard's is the portion -- that is nearest to the house. So therefore, it is entirely unaffected by the development. And in actual fact, you can see this is his portion, this is the portion that's developed. That will then be the portion that will be shared between the two properties if this development goes ahead. Can I just pass that over to you to give you an idea? And the second -- sorry. Yes. Yes. I mean, there are -- I'm not sure if we've -- yeah. When we're talking to members about proportions, it would be good if the numbered illustration was here because the land registry documents reference certain plots. Not yet, David. You're coming up next. I'll pass that round. But it would have been better to have the numbered because the numbered tallies with the land registry and the land registry documents are quite clear on who has the rights to what plot. Absolutely. Yes. We have actually got that drawing if you would like to look at it. If you could put it on the screen, please, please. Yeah. That's -- yeah. So basically -- do I get extra time? Yeah. So basically the part that we're looking at that will be left is effectively part six on that actual document. Sorry. Yeah. I mean, we -- sorry. Yeah. Effectively, if you look at that, we are looking at sort of part six is the bit that is available to everybody else. Ironically, part four, which you can see is the part that's furthest away from the development, is the part that belongs to Mr. Coulthard. So his actual land is totally unaffected by the dividing up of the garden. That is his portion. And don't forget, he is actually putting fences up around the portion of the garden that he wants to use to develop part number two. I think everybody has agreed and has noted that Mr. Coulthard does not own parts of the land that he wants to develop, that other people have rights to do that. Now whilst it's absolutely correct that you can get planning permission for land that you don't own, my research and experience suggests that that is basically for property developers who are looking to purchase land so that they can then decide whether it's worth buying. They will know it's worth buying. And the landowner gets an uplift so everybody wins. Or we're talking about leaseholders who want to develop their flats. And de facto if you're a leaseholder you're not a landowner, so therefore you need to get the permission of the freeholder before you can develop your flat. It's not for instances where you want to extend your land into your neighbour's garden and develop your plot. That doesn't seem to be covered. I've never, all my research has not come across an instance where you can do that. And I think you can all see why. Because de facto allowing people to make land grabs. One of the things they want to do here for example, apart from fencing things off, is they want to cut down a tree. Now that's obviously a charter for people who don't like the tree in their neighbour's garden to go off and apply for planning commission and say can I cut down the tree. You're also saying that there are other ways that actually just having planning consent does not allow you to go out and develop land. That's absolutely correct. Because obviously you'll be trespassing, there's possibility of criminal damage. But what you're doing in those instances is you're putting the onus on the landowners to enforce their rights. You're putting them to cost. Even if you get - Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. Unfortunately, that's the law of the land. So we deal with certain things, but land agreements and civil issues are unfortunately civil issues. Yes, absolutely. But the thing is there is no land disagreement until you grant this planning consent. If this planning consent doesn't exist, there is no - I mean, you are leading us into that. Rachel, the dispute arises when the residents are served notice by the applicant. And they've been served notice. So it's almost like they've - he's pulled the trigger. He's pushed the start button. And yeah, I mean, our hands are tied as to what we can and can't do. But the owners, the freeholders, probably not the tenants, the freeholders have now been put on alert that this application is coming forward and there is the potential for a dispute. Yes, and I think as you will hear, both landowners who unfortunately can't be here tonight, one of them is seriously ill, the other one unfortunately is working in the Midlands, both of them do not want this development to go ahead and they are not giving their consent to it. So I mean, take that where you will, but that is the long and short of it. And unfortunately, because he has not sought any sort of consultation with anybody, this will come to a head. This will be a nasty and bloody battle. That is beyond this committee. Yeah. Any further questions for the speaker? No. Just out of curiosity, are you a resident in the building? I am a resident. I own 120 Woodhill. So my property actually is a semi-detached property to the one that he is going to develop in a very major way, and that is obviously a great concern. I will be honest, we have had run-ins with him in the past and it hasn't gone well, and I do not have much. So yes, I am concerned about this. Thanks Rachel. Thank you. I now wish to call on David Cracknell. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank you for deferring this in the first place in January, and fellow Councillors for taking an interest in this. I am not going to repeat the arguments. To me, this is fairly simple. We know what the law is. You are absolutely right. This is an exceptional circumstance. I will point to you on that diagram. If you add it up in terms of proportion, he is effectively taking about 85% of that garden now, right? The exceptional circumstances are this guy's behaviour, he has lied to you. He has lied to you in January with a false declaration. He lied to you, I believe, in the consultations or site visits saying that he owned all the land, which he doesn't. He has admitted that in these documents that officers accept he doesn't own the land he is building on. Exceptional circumstances are in 2011, I will tell some Councillors who were not perhaps at the last meeting, he tried to do this on the sly. In fact, we have got an email proof that it was him. I believe he is now saying it was somebody else or a previous owner who did that. No, it names him. In fact, Fred Nandra, who is still the Chief Building Officer at Greenwich, in an email, which my wife has, he says that I spoke to this guy, and I said, What are you doing? And he said, I am making a flat. And then he changed his story to a granny flat, and then he said he would come around and discuss it later, and he didn't turn up. We are going to hear in a minute from one of the freeholders. A statement is going to be read out, but I have also got a statement here from the other freeholder who can't be here who confirms that he objects to this fundamentally. His land is being stolen. It is just not fair. And I am just asking you, because of the extreme circumstances, the national newspaper interest in this story is immense, as we have seen. I had people on my doorstep just thinking this was a planning dispute, the Daily Mail, The Sun and everything, because this is about an Englishman's castle is his home, right? I mean, you can say legally the law is that the planning says, Oh, yes, okay, you can do this. The law wasn't intended to allow this situation. Come on. So, please, could you make a simple condition, and if this is in good faith, and this guy genuinely wants to develop the old coach house and share it with his neighbours, even though he has never told us and tried to get this through, then why should he object to there being a condition on the face of this permission that just says, If you are going to build, you have to get the written consent of the two other freeholders. Any questions for the speaker? I have got the title deeds. I have got all the information about who has been allocated what plots, and I think it is quite clear. You know your way around the law because we have seen the emails. As mentioned earlier, land ownership and disputes over boundaries are civil issues. Unfortunately, we can see that. I can see that, but there is no scope for committee members to condition that because it is a civil process separate from the planning process. Why can't you put a condition? Who says under the law, Are you sure you can't put a condition on the planning commission? It is a sensible, common sense thing. We have explored all avenues. We adjourned the meeting last time because the lack of clarity around land ownership. That was the reason for the deferral. Officers have been asking for details of land ownership, and we have a signed document and notices that have gone out, which is the legal obligation of the applicant. The residents have been made aware this time of what it is he is proposing. The drawings are quite clear that he is going to encroach on Block 7 and Block 2. It says on the deed who has got access. You know he needs consent from the owners, not the tenants. He needs consent from the owners to continue. He will go ahead with this. He needs an agreement in place. Who will enforce that? We will have to spend money to do this. People have jobs. They haven't got time. We haven't got money to get injunctions. Why didn't you prosecute him for giving a false declaration when we provided evidence it was deliberate, because less than a year before, he re-signed the new lease which confirmed all this. He must have known. He got his architect to sign it. The architect admitted in January he was misled. Any further questions? You are elected Councillors. You can do what you like. We are governed by rules and regulations. If we were to do what we like we would have the town full of people telling us we are running amok doing whatever we want. We know this is an exceptional circumstance. I think the thing that is important to understand as well is if we seek to impose conditions that are not legal, then the council can be taken for costs by this person. In effect, what you are asking us to do could be putting money in his pocket. If it is a clear legal argument, I suspect if I consulted a barrister or something, I think it would be less clear the law. I am sure there will be some precedent where common sense prevails. Any further questions for the speaker? David, thank you very much. I now wish to call on. I hope I got that right. He has an M on the end. Very sorry. I am just going to read what Ailish, who is my landlord anyway, a freeholder of the property. A statement to Planning Committee on behalf of Ailish, freeholder of 118 Woodhill. I have been the owner of the top flat at 118 Woodhill since 1986. I now rent the flat. The current tenant is attending tonight on my behalf. I would have liked to have been at this committee today, but due to illness, I have asked that this statement be read out on my behalf. I confirm that all three freeholders legally own the whole house and the gardens. The original lease dated 1974 and reconfirmed by the current applicants and all of us in 2020 devised the gardens proportionally and exclusive rights to put specified areas between us three freeholders just like the house. Having examined the plans of the applicant and owner of 118C, Mr. Koutar Vega, I also confirm that the proposed development encroaches on parts of the garden and my parking space, areas that have long been designated as belonging to my property by leasehold. It is in short a stealthy land grab which you will be permitting with this proposal. I have dealt with Mr. Vega on several occasions. Repeatedly, I have requested he contribute to joint repairs of the house and gardens as he is required to do by the joint lease, yet I have always found him evasive, unresponsive and noncommittal. He never contacted me or my representatives about this planning application until his false declaration of ownership was exposed by this committee in January. If he genuinely wants to improve and develop the shared outbuilding and our shared gardens for all our benefit, why did he not consult with us long ago, honestly and openly? After all, he spent several years plotting this application in pre-consultation with council officers. Why did he try to get this through with a false declaration of ownership hoping we would not notice? We are all freeholders of the stable block he plans to part demolish. Some years ago, I sought to preserve this historic stable double doors of the brick outbuilding at the end of our shared garden. I was horrified when I discovered that in 2007, without consulting me or any neighbours, Kultar sought to convert the stable block into a granny flat without notice of my consent. He ruined the double door entrance and left ugly modern red bricks. Proof of this is contained in an email I have seen from Fred Nundra, the council's chief building officer. This is the type of behaviour I have come to accept from Kultar and why ultimately, if this committee grants him planning permission, I fully expect him to use it as an excuse to go ahead regardless of our knowledge or our consent. We as fellow freeholders therefore ask if the committee is inclined to grant planning consent over land that we legally own and our mortgage company has charges over, then you add a condition that any building work cannot take place without written consent from the other freeholders of 118 Woodhill. This will give us the reassurance and documents to uphold and prove our rights. Kultar can never legally build this house on our land without our permission, so why, if he is acting in such good faith, would he mind if we make his planning permission conditional on the other freeholders' consent in writing, to give reassurance to all parties and demonstrate that Kultar is acting in good faith? Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? >> The parking, just clarity on where the parking space -- >> I live there, so I can probably show you on there. One of the pictures on the PowerPoint does show the parking space. It's one of the photos, it's not a diagram. It's set up in a bit of a tune. >> And just also to mention as well on your presentation where you referenced the rear building, yes, it's rear, but in terms of flat 118A, that is considered the front entrance of that flat, so the only way to enter that flat is through the rear, there's no front entrance. Any comments on that document? >> I attended the site visit, and I'm talking to all three speakers now because I'm generalising. I attended the site visit, and the place looked pretty shabby. The building looked in pretty poor condition. The guttering was hanging off the roof, windows had been put in that wouldn't be part of the listed building, and the garden doesn't look like it's being used by anybody, and up near the building in question, it looked like a fly tip. It wasn't a tree. I'm looking at mattresses and old furniture, and all sorts of -- come to the -- >> Yes, so I have lived in 118A since 2017, and I've lived there throughout. Yes, 118A, the top flat, I've lived there since 2017. So I've lived there, he's never had consistent tenants, there's probably been four to five different people that have lived there, and every time they move out, they dump their stuff at the back of the flat, and I've cleared it on two occasions, I've used my own money to clear it where he's left it in the garden and just left it there, and I've contacted -- tried to get in contact with him and previous tenants to remove it. If they haven't, I have to use my own money to clear it. With regards to your comment relating to the garden being unused, that's not necessarily true. I do use the garden, and every time I use it in summer, I use my own money to clear it. He's never once offered to help clear the garden, the maintenance of it, nothing. It's all done by us. That gives a bit more clarity. Thanks. I now wish to call on Peter Swain. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the applicant. My name is Peter Swain from Parent Architects. We're the agents for the application. The officer's report goes into sufficient detail about the proposed development and confirms it is acceptable in planning terms and recommends that planning permission and listed building consent be granted. I don't intend to go into any further detail or repeat any of that information, but I'm here if you wanted to ask me any questions. How old is the existing coach house? Please. Do we know? Sorry? Eight. Thank you. Peter, you've heard the speakers. You've probably heard the last application as well. We deferred this item for clarity, and we're probably no clearer now than we were at the last application. I'm looking at the title deed, and it is clear that you've obviously got to come into some agreements with the other two owners, and I'm just wondering why in what we had in the last four months, we haven't really moved forward. You've filled out another form, but there's still a dispute over joint-owned land. I do sympathise with the speakers here because I've got the title deed, which clearly says who's got access to what plot, and your client doesn't have access to plot seven, which forms a large part of his application or plot two. I'm just wondering when are you or when would you look to be getting into some sort of constructive dialogue with the other three owners? That would be something that I would deal with. I have recommended to my client that he speak with the other owners and get their agreement, and I was hoping that that would be in place before we came back to this committee. Obviously that is not the case, but here we are at committee for a resolution on the application that sits before you. It's disappointing that your client isn't here, because at the site visit he actually reassured me that he was the owner, which is not the truth. Callum. Thank you. I appreciate you're in a tricky position here, because your job is to design a building. That's your job. You're not an agent for the applicant here either, but you would presumably be engaged throughout the process of this build, correct? My appointment at the moment is just to get to a decision on this application. Whether or not I'm involved going forward with construction will be a separate appointment. If you were instructed by your client to proceed and you were not confident that the legal agreement was in place, would you proceed or would you say no, that's me done? We could proceed with the design, but I certainly wouldn't want to be involved with anything on site that was building something illegally on someone else's land. No, that's correct. Thank you. It's worthwhile just getting that clear that you would. There's obviously other layers of design that take place before going on to site. That could always be done without legal agreements being in place, but to go beyond that I wouldn't want to be involved in that, no. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm just frustrated because I'm finding myself lost for words, which is surprising. And I'm also, we're governed by legislation which makes life extremely difficult for us in this situation because we see the morality behind what's being presented by the residents and I think we all sympathise with this situation, but at the same time we're almost hamstrung as to what we can and can't do. I appreciate the frustration people have, but I think it's not appropriate level for that to be raised is at a national level because we are hamstrung by national legislation and the challenge that we've had is we've not heard any objections here that are, can I just finish before please, that are in terms of planning law. The complication, Rachel, the complication you've got is the fact that all the owners own the freehold and all the owners have a leasehold agreement amongst themselves. So what you've got, as a landowner or a property owner, you will have a buildings insurance which will cover your percentage of the property and land and most people within that, let me finish, would have some sort of legal cover. What I would suggest is checking your insurance policies because legal advice is covered in most household policies and you may find some legal assistance as a joint group to take up these matters and I'm looking at a number of issues because the land registry clearly indicates who has access to what plots. There is a long plot down the side which is not allocated to any specific number, but I would deem it is a right of way from Woodhill to Marion Grove because there is a gate at the far end which is not being used but it would give you access from one road to another. That on the land title is not designated as any individual's land so it is owned jointly. So you need to stake your claim as to your proportion or what can be done. Now there's two applicants, there's two people here that own 60 per cent or 66 per cent of that building. So I suggest that you two maybe get together and talk to the applicant because you have the majority share of the land and property. David, do you get what I'm saying? So my point is though, we are governed by legislation, it's not a Greenwich Council policy, it's a government policy. Sir Peter, do you have authority to commit to such a statement? I don't think so, no. I'm just the agent for the application, I'm not the owner. We've agreed all the pre-commencement and other conditions that have been put forward to us. If someone was to put something forward to me in writing I would look to try and get that agreed by the applicant but that's what I would need to do. I couldn't have said that tonight. I've even looked into that as well. So I mean we can't get any commitments from Mr Swain here because he can't with confidence whatever on behalf of Mr Singh who's clearly shown that he's not up for engaging. So I mean Peter, are you the architect that's worked on this and you didn't raise questions like about building on something that wasn't owned? Yes, we did raise that question right at the outset and we were told that he did own all of the land. That's why we signed Certificate A when we put the initial application in. That wasn't the case which was obviously revealed and we then got further confirmation and copies of all of the land registry documents from the applicant at which stage we notified all the other owners correctly, served Certificate B as we were meant to as has already been discussed tonight. I have seen this plan, I am aware of who owns what but as you know as you've quite rightly stated at this meeting it is not uncommon for people to get planning permission to build on other people's land and the matter of resolving that is a civil matter between the relevant owners. So the fact that Mr Varga owns plot four of the garden there and does not own plots two and seven that can be dealt with as a civil matter between the owners, I mean that land plot number four could be transferred back to one of the other flats, all sorts of agreements could be reached. Microphone, microphone. I can't really say why that hasn't occurred but that's not to say that it can't occur. So when did you send the notices to the other owners? I believe that was on the 20th of March. The correct ones? The correct ones, yes. But we didn't have the meeting until after that didn't we? It was in January, I am getting confused with the July date that was on that paper. So the correct notice was served in March and did you receive any responses? I didn't receive any responses directly but that's not uncommon, I don't very rarely receive any responses from other owners on any planning applications. Unfortunately you are not one of the owners, I understand that but my point is I am more interested in the responses from the land owners after receiving the notice considering we deferred the item to give everyone more chance to sort out land ownership and disputes. We are now another five months down the road and we haven't moved on at all. We did hear from one of the freeholders where the statement that was read on her behalf which made clear that that sharer freeholder does not wish to seek an agreement on this. But they haven't written to this gentleman which is what I was asking. When the written notices went out did anyone give a written response? Yes, and the answer was no wasn't it? Just I know it used to be and I am just throwing something in, the concern that there is Japanese knotweed in the location which could spread and we are told by the officers this is not material planning consideration but a material planning consideration, Japanese knotweed I know. Yes, that's not relevant, I don't think there is any in the garden. I didn't see any Japanese knotweed but it would be, there would be an environmental health issue where specific action would have to be taken and then have to take off I think it's two foot of soil and it has to get burnt and everything but that's not relevant to this. Sorry, Peter thank you very much, I'm not sure why you were sent here. Sorry chair, when anyone is speaking we are not picking it up on the webcast. So can you please ask chair for consent to speak and if he agrees he will call you up to the desk. Members, I'm going to open this for deliberation, yeah we are very limited. Thanks chair, I mean it's mind blowing what the applicant has done here in terms of lying, dissembling, misleading throughout and engaging an architect under false pretenses as well in terms of the ownership of the land, there's clearly been no attempt to constructively engage with the others who have a share of freehold and people who are currently resident there nor neighbours on this, however the problem that we've got is that I've yet to hear any material from a planning perspective objections to this and you know that's stuff that is very clearly defined in law and that is what binds us and so I really, I completely appreciate the frustrations and also I get that there is a complete absence of trust with the applicant but we have yet to be given reasons that we can stand up in planning law to reject the planning application. As it relates to the construction going ahead, it's been very clear that that can only be done following civil agreement with the other people who have a share of the freehold. Now as the applicant, as the agent for the applicant stated, maybe that could be done by looking for an exchange of plots and so on, financial compensation for then gaining full ownership of plot three and so on, I think it's been made very clear from the statement that we heard earlier and from what has been expressed as to the views of the other freeholder that such agreement will not be forthcoming and therefore they cannot legally construct anything whether there is consent given or not and the risk is that if we were to reject this on the basis of we think the applicant has behaved poorly, which they clearly have, that's not something that stands up in planning law and as I intimated that before, we would potentially effectively be putting money in his pocket for him to then continue and proceed with this anyway to end up exactly where we are again, which is that nothing can proceed then without the agreement of the freeholders and I think the, as has been made quite clear here, close attention will be paid to what happens on this plot because I think were they to attempt to illegally construct that without agreement, I think they have quite clearly been put on notice about that now. Thanks, Callum. Any other comments? Pat? Ashley? Around the conditions on the build, what have we got in relation to materials and in keeping with the listings? So this has all been discussed with our Conservation Officer. If you look at Condition 3 within Appendix 2, we've got details of materials to be secured prior to the commencement of the development. From a slightly separate issue it's also worth noting we've got a construction method statement as well. And then we've also got details of windows and doors I believe. So if you look at Condition 12, detailed drawings, scale of 1 to 20, 1 to 10 or 1 to 1, showing details of, yeah, balustrading and we've got windows and doors at a scale of 1 to 10 or 1 to 5, including the reveal depth. And that's all been recommended by our Conservation Officer. Because there was something within the application about red brick. And the only red brick that I could see on site was the incorrect red bricks that were used to patch up whatever demolition had been started. So the application form says it's going to be a buff brick, is what the application form says in terms of the materials. But we've got a condition on there anyway, so they're going to have to give us details of that, which will be considered by both officers and also the Conservation Officer will be consulted as part of that as well. I mean, the brickwork was stock. I mean, Alex and I were talking. They're old Victorian stock. So if it's going to complement the host building, then we want strict conditioning on materials to not deviate from what should be done. And I'm just wondering whether restoration of the nasty things that have been put in, the concrete lintels and red sort of engineering bricks. I mean, that's another thing that really upsets me, is that the applicant lied again on site when they told me that they'd only had the property for four years and the red brickwork was not their responsibility. So again, we're in a similar position to you, where we've been misled. But at the same time, legislation, our hands are tied. So we're in deliberation now. But when I sum up after, I'll come back to you. So obviously, they'll have to have builder control approval for their build plan and so on. As part of that, will they need to specify that they have the consent for any land owners upon whose land they would have to be on for the construction or for access, because it would strike me as well that that is -- I'm trying to make sure that we're clear about the points that can be highlighted should the applicant seek to build this without having gained the consent of the other shares of freeholders, which is clearly the concern that I think people have here. I think the comment I made earlier, I think the -- I mean, we've got to be careful where we're traveling now with what we're talking about. But I think I mentioned quite clearly that it may be possible for the other land owners to consult their insurance with legal advice, and having a two-thirds majority -- two to one majority on the land ownership, they would seek to get legal advice via that avenue, because that may be the cost-effective way. You may want to talk to your local councilors who are not -- who may be able to offer support and some other advice outside of this chamber. Apart from that, as I say, in an open meeting, we've got to be careful what we say. We've got conditions attached to the build, and the build can't start without an agreement between the owners. I must emphasize -- I must emphasize that. Don't shake your head, Rachel, because it is true. My point is, this has been going on now since January. Check the insurance. I've only got to check in the policy. That's probably the quickest way, okay? I apologize on behalf of all of us that we really can't do more than what we're doing. Well, I think -- Rachel, I think what is highlighted is highlighted a very big loophole in the planning system, and it may be something that members here will take up with MPs and other party officials when we're looking at planning reviews, okay? So members, coming back to point, an extremely difficult situation where I don't think we've got any real wiggle room. So all those in favor of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. All those against. Abstentions -- not extensions, sorry. Peter, the item's approved, but you must get on the case of your client, because I will be talking to colleagues in and around the area of this property to make sure they are morally supporting the residents, because I don't appreciate being lied to, and I've been lied to by the applicant to my face, so I'm not happy with that. And I think, you know, again, I've got to choose my words, but I think it's been very sly with this application. Anyway, the item's approved, subject to agreement with the residents moving forward. Thank you for coming. We now move on to item 6, 64 Holburn Road, Kidbrooke, London, SE3-8HP, reference 240776F. Thank you, Chet. Planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey rear version and change of use from a residential dwelling house use class C4 to a six-person housing multiple occupation, which is use class C4. In total, we received 17 objections to the application, and they're set out at section 6 of the report. Also, the objections that have been raised have been addressed throughout the report itself. I also believe that members have been given sight of a petition that has been received today which has raised various matters in objection to the application, but those matters are in the same vein as those which are already outlined in the report in front of members. So the application site is outlined in red, as you can see there, and is on the south side of Holburn Road. The application property is a two-storey terraced dwelling house. This is an aerial view of the site. So to the rear of the site, you have the former Kidbrooke Park Primary School, which is currently vacant, but consent has been granted on there for a new SCN school. The wider surrounding area is residential in nature and consists of two-storey terraced properties. You can actually see from this image that a number of the properties have already converted their front garden space to provide off-street car parking spaces, and whilst there is on-street car parking that you can see there, that parking is undesignated and there was no control over who can park there and where. What you can also see from the photograph is where the application site is, is that the property is actually vacant and you can actually see that the rear garden there is heavily overgrown and we'll come on to that later in the presentation. So this is a photograph of Holburn Street with the application site located on the left-hand side of the road and behind the mature tree. You can see there, you can obviously again see the properties with the existing off-street car parking as well as the undesignated on-street parking on the right-hand side. And then this photograph is looking directly across the application and towards the application site. Property is currently vacant and is in a run-down state. You can see there that one of the windows is boarded up, so the window there, and when I went there to do the site visit, the front door was broken and wouldn't close and you can also see the access way that is shared with number 62 on the right-hand side there and obviously the refuse bins you can see situated there belong to the occupier of number 62. So normally at this stage I'll be showing you photographs from the rear of the property, from the garden, but as you can see from that image because of the state of the garden that wasn't possible. So what I had done in breaking all health and safety rules is I leant outside of a first floor window and this photograph is looking right towards the rear garden of number 62. So you can see that there's no rear extension at that property and then I turned to the right and you can see in the foreground there part of the garden area of the application site and the fence you can see there is the fourth fence boundary of number 66 and again that property also doesn't have any rear extensions. So this slide shows you the existing ground floor layout with the property. So you've got there a living room, a kitchen and a dining room and then what we've got here is the proposed ground floor plan. So we've got a single story rear extension which is the part which is situated here. So that's 3.6 metres in depth and extends across the full width of the property so it's approximately 6 metres in width and the ground floor layout of the property is being reconfigured so you're going to have three bedrooms. So bedroom here at the front and then two at the back and then you've got a communal kitchen area there. Each of the bedrooms would have a en suite bathroom and you can also see a new proposed side door is being located there but that work by itself does not require planning permission. What you've got there is the existing first floor plan so you've got three bedrooms and a communal bathroom and then we've got the proposed first floor plan so there's no external alterations being done at first floor level but we've just got internal alterations again to provide for the three bedrooms again each with an en suite bathroom. As set out in section 11 of the report the proposed HMM would provide an acceptable level of accommodation with all the bedrooms meeting the required space standards. As I say all the bathrooms have an en suite and the communal kitchen at ground floor level would also meet the required standards. Also all the rooms would have access to the rear garden area which would be I think about 111 square metres after the extension is built which is of a quantity which is of an acceptable standard. What we've got here are the existing and rear elevation drawings and then on this slide you have the proposed front and rear elevation and on the right hand side there you can see you've got the rear elevation of the proposed single storey rear extension. It would have a height of three metres and it would sit approximately 0.78 metres below the window sills of the windows at first floor level and also it would be set off the shared boundary with number 62 by around 0.78 metres. This is just the side elevation which again shows you the extent of the rear extension and you can also see there in the flank wall the proposed side door leading from the communal garden area and it also shows you the extent of the garden area that would still be there left for residents to utilise as a result of the development. This image is just a 3D of the property. You can see there the location of where the proposed refuse bins would be located in the front garden and also three cycle storage areas in the rear both the bin store and the cycle store would be secured by condition and again you can also see the extent of the rear extension. Overall the height scale and bulk of the rear extension is considered acceptable in design terms and would not constitute a dominant or overbearing addition either to the host property or in terms of the wider character and appearance of the area. Turning to the issue of residential amenity so we've got on the left hand side that area of photograph again and it's basically from there you can see the location of the nearest windows of the two adjoining properties in relationship to the application site and then on the right hand side there you've got the proposed ground floor plan with the 45 degree line drawn from where those windows are to give you an approximation in terms of the impact of the development on the proposal as can be seen from that and obviously also taking on board the position and orientation of the sun. It's not considered that the proposed development would have any impact or adverse impact I should say in terms of residential amenity in terms of daylight, sunlight, loss of outlook or enclosure and as there's no windows proposed in the flank elevations there would be no loss of privacy due to overlooking. It's accepted that there will be some level of disturbance during the implementation of the proposed works but that's the case for most developments and it will only be for a limited period of time and in view of the nature of the works that are proposed it's not considered that any disturbance would either be a justifiable level to warrant the refusal of planning commission or the imposition of a condition to control when construction works took place. Also in terms of noise and disturbance once the development is occupied the proposed property would still be used for residential which is a wholly appropriate use for this location. It's also considered that the proposed development would have the potential of only sort of slightly increasing the occupancy level of the existing family dwelling house which could presently occupy between 4 to 5 people. So obviously having 6 people in there it's not a significant increase and again a condition is proposed to obviously ensure that the occupancy level is maintained at 6 people. Just finally in terms of transport issues it's accepted that the site has a low PTA rating of 1A. It's also accepted that on street car parking along Holborn Road is at a premium although a significant number of properties as you've seen from the photographs have already converted their front gardens to provide off street car parking and obviously those spaces provide for up to 2 vehicles. The on street car parking that is available is non-designated i.e. we're not in a controlled parking zone and therefore there's no control over who does and who doesn't park there. Whilst the site does have a poor PTA rating it's still considered that the site is accessible by public transport and this slide is basically just showing you that within walking distance of the site. The site's not only walkable to Kidbrook Station but there's also 3 daytime bus routes there which as you can see travel between Woolishtown Centre and Blackheath in terms of the 368 which goes via Trafalgar Road and Greenwichtown Centre, 178 which goes between Woolishtown Centre to Lewisham Stater by Kidbrook Station, the 89 bus route which goes between Lewisham Station and Slade Green Station and that goes via Blackheath. Those bus routes operate from around 5 o'clock in the morning up until just around midnight and they all provide a fairly regular service throughout the day and then he's obviously got the night bus there which obviously covers outside of those normal times slightly infrequent service but obviously it is still sort of constant there across the night. Overall, officers consider the proposed development to be acceptable and comply with policy and members are asked to consider the recommendation, Chair. Thanks, Neil. Questions? Thank you, Chair and thank you, Neil. Three quick questions. So in the report, figure two seems to show that there's an extension, one, two, three, about four properties along. Just as a sense of proportion from the plans, it looks like the one that's being proposed is maybe 50% larger than that one. Does that sound about -- have I kind of guesstimated that about right? >> It's difficult to say from that aerial photograph but what I would say in terms of what's proposed here at 3.6 metres, that is the standard recommended distance set out both in the core strategy and in our urban design guide. Height wise at 3 metres is what you could normally do is permit a development, et cetera. It's a wholly appropriate size. >> And it looks actually when you see that further out one, there might even be one on the other side of the road as well. I'm just trying to check. It's not out of keeping. Perfect. Second question is so the communal kitchen, am I right in thinking that it has no direct natural light given it will be obscured through the passage? I just want to check, are we confident that from the light report that we're satisfied it will be acceptable? A back one, I think. Yes. So, yes, the communal kitchen there only will have access from the side door. From a planning perspective a kitchen is not classed as a habitable room so it's less of an issue for us in terms of daylight and sunlight but obviously outside of a planning process they'll also need a licence agreement from our HMO team and that could be something that they would look at and consider separately. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. Sorry, last question and it's actually good you've got this one here. Do we know what the approximate width of that passage is and then of the proposed door? I kind of asked this specifically given the cycle storages to be in the rear garden and if access is such that a cycle could not actually get through then it's rather a paper tiger. So I haven't to be honest taken that measurement which is the whole width, width, width of the passageway, but the width from there to there is 0.78 of a metre. So 0.8 basically. So that's going to be wide enough to get a bicycle. I mean even if you had some very big panniers on you'd just put them on out the front. Thank you. Sorry, one last question as well. With the cycle store, are we able to specify the type of sort of stand that is used in that specifically are we able to request or instruct that it be a Sheffield stand as opposed to a low loop stand, i.e. one in which somebody can lock the frame of a bike rather than just a wheel? Sorry, this is giving away that I came by bike and so my thought is making sure you can actually use a usable stand. I mean obviously at this moment in time it's condition five in the report and it reads within three months of the date of this consent the cycle storage details shown and drawing hereby approved shall be implemented the cycle storage provision shall be retained for lifetime development. So if members want they can obviously ask for further information to provide it. Clearly what we would look for in any cycle store in this place is that it's of a standard so that it's secure but obviously also dry as well because as you will know getting up going for cycle you don't want a wet bike. >> Perfect. That addresses my questions there. Thank you. >> Thank you. Some of my questions have already been asked. Has a parking survey been carried out yet and if so what time of day was it carried out? That's my first one. And then the second one again going back to the kitchen and possibly this would become under licensing. You're saying that there isn't a window and that's not necessary because this is not considered a kitchen as a habitable room. But I'm thinking if there are going to be six people in that, six HMOs, is this going to be part of their living area as well as the kitchen or do they have a separate living area? I'm just a bit concerned about the fact that there's no natural light in the kitchen and that that alleyway is very narrow and yeah. >> Can I come in on the back of that before you answer Neil? On the kitchen where's the flu or the extraction? Six people in an enclosed kitchen, no window, there must be some sort of mechanical extraction. Where is that proposed? Or where is it coming out? >> So if I take the car parking issue first, a survey hasn't been done and the reason why we haven't required a survey is as I said at the start, whilst there is off street, on street parking there, it's uncontrolled on street car parking so we've got no idea who does and who doesn't park there. And also we've got no control over it. So a survey in that regard isn't actually going to really provide any useful information as such because that survey could show there's 80%, 90% sort of occupancy, but from that what are you going to do? Because we can't place a condition on this consent to say that future residents can't park there because there's no physical control over that, just as there's no physical control for any of the other residents to stop them parking on street or parking as many cars as they want on street. So that's why we didn't go down the line of a car parking survey. In terms of the kitchen window, yes, a kitchen is not seen generally to be a habitable room. Habitable rooms are mainly bedrooms and living rooms. There is no separate living area for residents and the reason for that is under the HMO policies, if there is just a kitchen area, as in this instance, the bedrooms have to be of a certain size, so that's nine square metres and that's what all those rooms are meeting. So in that regard, the quality of the accommodation in terms of the kitchen size and the size of the bedrooms meets our HMO standards. In terms of a flue, this is a domestic kitchen. We wouldn't expect a dwelling house to have to have an extract flue installed. So again, that's not really a material factor in terms of determining the application. Just to check again, there's a door from the kitchen, isn't there? Yes. I mean, I suppose that could, well, it could be half glass, it's just the fact that it's going to be so dark in there. Well, as I say, generally, in terms of when you're looking at a residential dwelling, you look at, in terms of assessing in the habitable rooms, and I'd say the habitable rooms are predominantly living rooms and bedrooms, basically. kitchen door. So is that to be used as an entrance and exit? So I think it will be used as an exit to some extent, because obviously from that floor layout, only the two people whose bedrooms would be in the rear extension would then have direct access to the garden space. So for the other four people who are occupied the other four bedrooms, they will go through the kitchen door, through the gate at the bottom of their passageway and gain access to the garden that way. So it becomes the back door basically, doesn't it? Yes. About the ventilation in the kitchen, and also the fact that the fire alarms are going to get triggered quite a lot if someone's cooking in there and there's no way of getting anything out of that kitchen, but I'll take that up in a minute. Any further questions for the officer? No? Neil, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Kim Brazil. Brazil, sorry, sorry. Just push them in. A little red light comes on, Kim. That's it. Thank you. Lovely. Thank you. Okay. First of all, thank you for seeing me. There was a bit of confusion because I didn't know anything about this meeting until earlier today. Well, I say earlier today, early hours. I've been up since four o'clock this morning trying to put these together, so I apologise that I haven't got the legal know-how. Take a deep breath and just go with the flow. But I do have a big mouth. I went around when this was first proposed and spoke to all of our neighbours, and not one of them is in favour of this at all. The road itself, yes, a lot of them do have driveways, but a lot of them don't have driveways, me included. We've had a school over the back previously, and that's been knocked down and there's a new one being built, so there will be problems again with parking. At one point, the council were actually going to give the residents parking permits so that we did have our parking. I live directly opposite and to one side, and it is a problem down there. It's a one-way street, it's a narrow road. There's no off-road parking at that particular property. There's no proposal to put a driveway in the front either to ease the parking, which they could do, but there's no proposals to do so. And in a development that's going to cost, on there it says £2 million, you would think that they would try to ease the parking for the residents. The £2 million was in the proposals that we got. I think that's a general thing in terms of liability on the application form, so I think that value, I think that's a general thing on the application form which talks about liability, and I think through the planning portal it gives you fixed amounts you've got to say, so I don't think it's... It's building costs up to £2 million. Well, that's a bit misleading to us, you know. We're not lawyers or anything. It's something which is on the application form and via the planning portal, so yeah, that's fine. Okay. As I say, there will be increased traffic problems with the building works going on. Where are they going to park the lorries? How are they going to get heavy machinery into the back area? Because you do only have that small alleyway. That alleyway is shared by a 94-year-old man who lives next door. When you say that's a wide enough alleyway, you can't get two people down there who could pass each other easily. You would have to go sideways and squeeze past each other. You can just about get a wheelie bin down those alleyways so that it's not easy access. The noise pollution to the residents as well, and when you talk about, you know, you're only increasing the people that are living in there by one, maybe two people, that's if it's a family, and a family lives entirely different to six single people. Where are the fire exits going to be if there's only that one door at the side and the front door? What about the fire exits for the two bedrooms at the back? You've said about the flu in the kitchen. Usually that comes out on the back wall. Where are the emissions going to go? All of this needs to be considered before you can start doing planning permission. And as I say, there's six people going to live in there. That's going to increase the traffic people-wise as well, because those six people, they're going to have people come in and visit them, visiting them. They may also want people to stay with them. So it's not only going to be six people there, if you've got younger people, they're going to have partners, well not partners, but they're going to have girlfriends, boyfriends who may want to stay. And it's all increased. And what you have to remember is around there as well, is that most of those houses are occupied by people over 60. So a lot of them are getting on, they are getting disabled, they need to be able to park their cars closer to their houses so that they can get about. My next door neighbour, she's got a rail that goes up, it's a grab rail. She's very, very unsteady on her feet. Even now, sometimes she can't go to the car because we can't park outside now. And her husband has to park right up the road. He has to walk along, get the car, drive all the way round the block because it's a one-way street, to come back then to pick her up, just to stop outside where she can get to them. And as I say, that's only one resident, you've not considered the demographic around there. We've only got two young families from the corner all the way up to round the bend, there's two families. All the rest of us are either, our children are grown up and left home. We've got grandchildren, such as myself, my grandchildren are, my youngest is 17. So they're not there living with us. And we all look out for each other and we all make sure each other are all right. If you put a house of multiple occupation in there, that is going to totally destroy the way of life for a lot of these older residents, especially the man that lives right next door and will share that alleyway. He has told me he is terrified of who's going to be living in there and having to share that alleyway. And his back garden, the gateway to go into his back garden is right next to that one. He's not going to know who's living in there. We all look out for him. We all look out for each other. And we all know that with a house of multiple occupation, there's a lot of coming and going. They don't stay there permanently. And I am all for giving people a second chance. I do not, I am not one of these people that says, if someone goes in prison for doing something, they should never be given another chance. No, if you pay your price and you change your ways, then you do get given a chance. And if you know, and that that is how I look at it. But there is going to be a lot of people that will feel very unsafe. Thanks, Kim. That's well over the two minutes. Any questions, Pat, Callum? Thank you. But you know, sort of you did speak very well. So I didn't look nervous at all. Can I just ask you, the gentleman who lives next door, he hasn't got a door in the side, has he, of his property. So when you get to the bottom of that alleyway, so he's got two back gates across like that, and there's the back gate, that side would be his and the back gate that side would be number 64. And that door is going to be just before the two back gates. Right. So the door is going to be just before the two back gates. Does he use his well garden at the moment for his back entrance? Yes, yeah, he does get out there. So he's right, so he's got a front door and the back door is through the back gate. No, no, he's got a back door into his garden as well. But his bins, if he wants to get anything down into the side, I mean, he has started keeping his bins at the front now, because he's so elderly, he can't get them from the back anymore. But that's where he used to keep them. And also, if he needs to get anything down and into the garden that he can't get through the house, that's the way he goes. But they're wooden gates. And as I say, they go like that. Yeah, very near that that where that back door will be. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for coming along tonight and engaging. Really appreciated. I think a lot of the queries you raised are not planning matters, they're building control. And, you know, as we pointed out earlier, there's a property four down, which has a rear extension, but doesn't have any side access. It's not unusual for construction on something like this to come through the house because the first thing they would do would be to build out the back. So I think first of all, it's not something that we can consider as a planning committee on those building control matters, and the noise and so on of construction. That's something that is in a building control plan, which has to be signed off by the council. And so, you know, while we cannot consider that or condition any of that, we do condition that there is a building agreed building control plan. So those there is a chance where those things can be taken into account. On parking, I think as was explained by officers, absent there being a CPZ in place, there are no conditions that we can put on parking. Yeah, I would very gladly condition that this be a car free development and say nobody who lives here is able to have a parking permit. But absent parking permits existing in place, that's not a condition that we can put in. And down the line, given you've talked about pressures around parking. You know, a CPZ is probably something that, you know, I'm sure if it were to be introduced, there'd be a lot of opposition at the time. But it would guarantee people the ability to park in front of their own property. And it would stop people from neighboring streets using yours. But again, that's not something we're able to consider as a planning committee. And second, some of the comments you made about HMO, I think HMO is not a halfway house. This is more, you know, people who can have an individual room. So you're more likely to see kind of lots of young professionals early in their career, seeking to have somewhere to live. And we have to provide a housing mix like that. We are committed as well through the London Plan to having communities to having mixed communities. And so we need to have diverse communities. And the truth is, I have no idea or say over who lives next door to me now. And we, you know, HMOs fill a really important gap, actually in our housing mix, and take pressure off other bits of the housing market. And so I would just say, don't, you know, people should not be fearful of the idea of having a potentially a range of early career professionals living next to them, maybe a student or two. You know, when I was at university, I lived in HMO, and used to help out in the with looking after the back garden of the elderly neighbor that we had, you know, it, there can be a real mix of experiences. And, you know, I know of, I have residents who have issues with, you know, families that on paper would look like an ideal neighbor to have, but can cause absolute hell for people. So I would just say, it's to withhold judgment on that until you, you know, until we actually know who lives in the area. And most people want to be part of their community, and most people want to be neighborly. And again, that's also not a material matter for us at the planning board. That is something that when they seek an HMO license, we have to make sure that all of the relevant safeguards were in place around that as well. So again, this is not to dismiss some of the points that have been made. I just want to be clear, quite a lot of the points that have been made are not ones that we're able to address here as a planning board. And I really would just urge when it comes to HMOs, to have an open mind about your neighbors. I'm speaking on behalf of all of these people. I mean, I've got 40 signatures, and I'm having to speak on behalf of all of them. Myself, the two points that I wanted to make, one was about the, you know, perception of HMOs. It's not what it seems. And I think he made that absolutely very well. I think what you'll find, Kim, as my colleagues have touched on, if the school is being rebuilt, you'll probably find that that would be attractive to young teachers that can't afford to live. I mean, our schools are suffering because we can't get enough teachers to come back into London because the rents are so high. So having a facility like that might encourage, you know, it might help with the education. Also, HMOs, en-suite HMOs, are not cheap. You know, this may be an intermediate product, but having en-suites and the sort of facilities that are going to be incorporated into this development will mean that, you know, you will be getting professional people in there just by the nature of the rent. And you may get someone who's retired, who's looking to downsize, looking for something affordable, especially as you said with the community spirit in the area. So the nature of the community will put any sort of, well, will put a block on anyone that tries to step into the area and spoil the serene mood. It's not all serene. We have got one problem one. Yeah. So any further questions for Kim? No. Kim, thank you very much. You did a great job. Worth staying up for. Thank you very much. Also, I can't believe you hold his grandson

1. Oh, yeah. I've also got one at 21. I'm one of the ones that's over 60. I'm getting a bit doddery myself. Thank you, Jean, for sorting that out today. And I wish to call on Joel Stern. Joel, not here. Okay. No developer there. I'll open straight for deliberation then, members. Any comments? As I share your question about the kitchen, which is in part why I raised it and where extract any extraction might be. I mean, I would assume it could probably be run above the door and around the back. But at what point would that, sorry, Neil, you did touch on where that would need to be considered. Well, I mean, you know, I would say that most, if a domestic kitchen had a floor or a vent system, I mean, most of them are fairly small in any case. If you imagine the size of ones that you have in your bathroom, which are used to, you know, ensure that, you know, there's not too much, smoke's the wrong word, moisture from when you're in the bath or shower, you can see how big they are. And generally that type of thing is classed as something that doesn't actually require planning permission because of its limited size. I think my concern, Neil, is the fact that you're gonna have six individuals that are gonna be cooking and living in their rooms. There is no catering, there is no dining facility provided within the development, which means, you know, there's an awful lot of toing and froing from the kitchen. Most kitchens that I see do have windows or, you know, they have a kitchen sink by the window. This doesn't have any windows and it must have some sort of ventilation in there for the cooking of six people. Otherwise the cooking smells are gonna go all over the house. But what's more worrying is if there are any mishaps or someone leaves something overcooking, the wired fire alarm system, which is a requirement for HMOs, is gonna be going off quite frequently. And it's a shame the applicant's not here because obviously we can't ask those type of questions. So where are we with conditions around fire? I mean, obviously there are standard fire regulations that have to be provided with the HMOs, but I'm just concerned about the lack of ventilation within the kitchen, which could end up being a real pain if alarm bells are going off or smoke detectors are going off because there's nothing to take any fumes out of a kitchen. I mean, I think as you touched on their chair, it's a licensing matter for the HMO team. We deal with a variety of planning applications for houses of all different types and different sizes. But there's no planning policy there which says that a kitchen of a certain size or which provides facilities for a certain number of people has to have a flu. So whilst I appreciate the point that you're making, it's not something that's covered under planning, but I think you're right that it would be a matter for the HMO licensing team when they're considering whether to grant that license or not. There's no way of asking for any specific detail? Well, no, because again, if we go back to the big debate we had in the first item there about the land ownership, it's a matter of is it a planning-related matter and also what is the planning policy that you've got there to back up for that sort of specific request. And there's no policy there which says a kitchen of a certain size or will have a certain number of occupants has to have an extra flu. And we can't insist on trickle vents on the door or anything like that. No form of fresh air going into the kitchen. As I say, putting that door in does not require planning permission. We're deliberating there, but yeah. Can I just, right, is it all right for me to speak? I'm very concerned about three things, basically the kitchen without a window and people will congregate there sometimes. So, yes, it's a kitchen, but also it's a living room. I have also got an 18-year-old grandson who's just gone to university and having seen the picture of the kitchen that they've got there and all the windows, I can't imagine a kitchen with people congregating without windows. Yes, the ventilation part of it, the fresh air, but as well for their wellbeing. I just can't visualise it. It's not good to have artificial lighting all the time. I'm also concerned about the quality of life on the gentleman who lives next door. Yes, we don't know who is going to go into these, this particular, what the occupancy is going to be, but nevertheless, this gentleman next door, this 94-year-old is going to be constantly worried. And also, yes, and I'm one of those elderly population, you've got an elderly population living round there and there is a concern. We haven't got any control parking zones there and I can quite understand where you're coming from with the parking and it being a one-way and having the need to park for disabled people. So I don't think I will be voting for this application. Thank you. Thanks, Pat. Any comment? No. I'm going to come back again. So what do we know about the applicant? What do we know about their capabilities of managing HMOs? Have we got anything about that? Because, again, you know, what I'm looking at, I'm looking at individual rooms. We don't know anything about the applicant or how well they manage other HMOs. Where are the residents that smoke meant to go? You know, again, are they smoking in their rooms? Again, it comes back down to ventilation and management. We've got no one, like I say, we've got no one here to ask or question. And I know previously when it's come to HMOs, you know, we have had people here talking about management plans. You know, we haven't got anyone here that's going to promise to give a phone number to the residents should there be any issues. Is there any light you can throw on that? Not at all. And to be honest, Chair, I don't consider that to be, you know, a material planning consideration. Again, it goes back to part of the debate that we were having, you know, at the start in terms of, you know, the first application, you know, in terms of the land ownership. And as Councillor Brian Mulligan says, you know, the house next door to you could be bought by someone. You've got no control over who buys it. You've got no control over how they live, et cetera. And that's the same in terms of a house in multiple occupation. Yeah, well, I suppose we'll speak to our friends in enforcement where they do the HMO licensing and see what they can and can't do around the management and monitoring of the occupancy. Okay. We're going to go to the Councillor. Well, just very briefly, I mean, I think we've got property that has basically been left derelict and is clearly deteriorating. And that can have an impact on neighboring properties as well. There's a plan here that will put it into kind of productive use. And I think a lot of the issues that have been raised are ones that, you know, we have to have trust and faith in our HMO licensing team to make sure that those relevant safeguards are in place. So, I mean, I can't see any planning reason that there's an issue with this proposal. That's no judgment upon people who have lived there. I simply mean that, yeah. I mean, I would say that from Google Images I can see that up until around two years ago it was in a fairly sort of good condition. And from that point it's declined. Obviously it's vacant now because obviously the applicants have bought it and there's no one living there, which obviously has had a further impact. Yeah, exactly. It was in no way to denigrate the previous occupants. It's merely a comment on the state that it's got to now and the fact that it is out of our housing stock when we're in the midst of a national and local housing crisis. Yeah. Ashley, do you want to make a comment? To know if our HMO officers in the council, how much complaints do they actually receive on the new HMOs that we have no idea what? That's a question maybe we can raise in a different forum. I know it's not for consideration tonight, but it's worth us looking into. It might be worth speaking to Rachel and maybe worth having a general meet and get some feedback. Anyway, coming back to the application I'm going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation. All those against. No abstentions. Kim, the item is approved, but we do have an HMO licensing team that do go and examine properties before they're given licenses and they are inspected regularly. It's a shame the applicant's not here because normally we insist that the applicant provides a number to the local residents group so that you've got a first point of call. What we will do, we will speak to officers. Jean has got your contact details and we will try and find out a bit more about the applicant and we'll make sure that you get a number so that you and the residents groups have got somebody to speak to. Failing that, you can always come back and speak to the Councillors and to the HMO team. Okay? But thanks for coming. Thank you. Yeah, and more than welcome to get in touch with officers and speak to them, any details that they want. Members, quarter nine, do you need a loo break or anything? Yeah? Okay, quick. Let's do that and then we'll steam straight into the last two of the evening. I can see Councillor Williams there, feet itching, ready to get on that bus. Okay. Five minutes. We now move on to Item 7, which is 34 Fairthorne Road, London SE7, 7RL, reference 232545 HD. Thank you, Chair. Retrospective consent is sought for a single storey rear extension. As a result of the consultation that's been carried out, we received three objections and one comment. And again, they are set out at Section 6 of the report and are being addressed throughout the report. The application has been called in to committee by Councillor Gardner. The application site is located on the west side of Fairthorne Road, directly opposite the junction with Gurdon Road. The application property is a two storey terraced dwelling house with a pedestrian pathway running down its northern boundary. This provides pedestrian route over the Blackwall Tunnel approach and over the Angosteen Railway line. This aerial photograph of the site, the wider area is characterized by two storey terraced dwelling houses of a similar design and appearance to the application property. Hopefully you can just about see from that, I'm going to put my glasses on, yes, image. There are similar extensions to the current proposal that are found at number 6 and 10 and number 32 and number 36. 32 is the property on the opposite side of the alleyway there. So this photograph is taken from the steps leading down from the Angosteen Railway crossing and looking back towards the application site, which is the property on the right-hand side. As the application site is retrospective, you can just about see there the existing structure that's there. So just situated there you can see the extension as currently built. These next three photographs are from the pedestrian passageway. The first two are, again, with the application site on the right-hand side and it's looking down the alleyway as if you're walking towards Fairthorne Road. The image on the right is the reverse, so if you were coming from Fairthorne Road and you were in the archway of the passageway with the application site on the left-hand side there, what you can see from that image is the flank wall of the similar extension that has been built at number 32 Fairthorne Road and that's an application that dates from 2017 and was approved in 2018. You can also see the height of the fence and it's reflective of the height of the extension on the other side as well. So what we've got here on the left-hand side are the original floor plans of the property at grounded first floor level and then on the right-hand side you've got the proposed grounding first floor plans and you can see that the extension in question is situated just here, so it's in effect infilling that small area of the L-shaped footprint at ground floor level, in effect squaring it off and the extension would have a width of 2.28 metres and a depth of 5.28 metres. This is the rear elevation of the extension as it currently is on site, so it shows that it's got a slight monopitched roof and you can see there that it's actually set slightly off from the timber fence which runs down the left-hand side there. And this is just the as sort of existing side elevation as seen from the pedestrian pathway, so again you can see the timber fence on top of the existing garden wall there. What we've got here is what is proposed, so since the application was submitted, amended plans have been submitted, so from that you can see that the roof of the proposed extension is now flat to a height of 2.8 metres and that means that there's between the top of the flat roof and the bottom windowsill at first floor level, so that's the window here, there's a distance of 2.1 metres and what you can also see is that the treatment on the boundary is now no longer proposed to be a timber fence but instead would be brick and we would obviously look to ensure that that material matched both the wall and the existing dwelling house. The proposal is a fairly standard form of extending a property of this type and as I said at the start of the presentation there are similar examples at number 6, 10, 32 and 34 Fairthorne Road. The proposed extension due to its limited height scale and bulk and design would read as a secondary and subservient addition and would not have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the host property or the wider street scene. It would also not compromise the rear garden area which would still retain around 55 square metres which is around 60% of the original garden size. Also due to the limited scale of the proposed development it would not have any adverse impact on the pedestrian safety in terms of using the passageway or have any residential amenity impact on adjoining occupiers. The only property that would be, you know, worst case scenario that could be affected would be the occupiers at number 32 but obviously they have got an extension there and obviously where the proposal is it is then also separated by the alleyway as well. So overall officers consider the proposed development to be in accordance with current planning policy and members are asked to consider the recommendation chair. Thanks Neil. Any questions for the officer? So just to be clear Neil, is the proposed extension, does it extend beyond the line of the extension of the property on the other side of the alleyway? No it doesn't. So it's exactly in line? Yes, yes. And is it similar height? It is similar height so you can sort of see there from that image that the height of it is just around where the archway starts to curve and when you look at the proposed elevation drawing just there you can see where the archway is and where the height is so it's, you know, it's roughly the same. We're talking about centimetre differences basically. And can I just on some of the timeline of this because I'm just a little confused about it and just want to try and get a bit clear about this because there's been some construction going on there for quite some time. Now presumably some of that is about the consented bit for the roof extension and then the works they've begun without consent here. At what stage is that at this exact moment in time because apologies that I probably would have last been down there earlier on in the summer. I took those photographs probably around a month ago, okay. Obviously the work in relationship to the rear extension has ceased but what we do have if permission was granted, rather than the standard three years to implement, we've given a specific time scale for the works to be completed in accordance with the revised proposed plans basically. So basically they did begin to construct this bit that they did not have consent for at the same time as the upper extension for which they did have consent, isn't it? I couldn't 100 per cent say. Works on that bit are stopped. They're not doing anything now. As far as I say, you know... I know this is an enforcement matter, isn't it? When I went on site to take these photographs, admittedly it was relatively early in the morning, there was nobody doing any building works there and it seemed that, you know, the extension as they built had been like that for some time from what I could see. Any questions from anyone else? Nope? Nope. Thank you very much. Call on Councillor Williams. [inaudible] OK, if you want to share that. [inaudible] Neil? [inaudible] OK. Councillor Williams, you have up to five minutes. Thank you, Chair. Here on behalf of Councillor Gardner, really, and some residents, I'll try to be brief. Councillor Gardner has given me some talking points but I will not mimic his style in speaking. Forgive me. So for some background, for a number of years I lived on Gurdon Road, very near to the site here, and that thoroughfare is used widely by commuters going to Westin Park Station, so it's a very well-used route going on there. The owner of this particular property has a bit of a history, which I think you alluded to, Councillor O'Brien Mulligan. The development at the back of the garden is particularly large and didn't receive anything, you know, permission for that, which one suddenly doesn't need. And I think the loft was also of a similar situation. At one point there was a HMO application potentially being brought forward that never materialised, reinforcement said there would be one, and it doesn't form part of this application now, so it's unclear whether this would eventually be a HMO, flat or a single house, but as the original property is less than 130 metres squared floor area and part of a terrace, it would be a breach of policy HB on conversions to turn it into flats. It's worth, I'll come onto the path a bit, what I would say, again, reinforcing that, is the rear of the property, as you've seen from both photos, is very visible to the public when it comes by. So on that particular point, I would say that apparently policy DH subsection A of our core strategy is also clear that flat roofs will not be accepted on side or rear extensions where they are visible from the public highway. So that footpath I would argue to an extent could be construed potentially as public highway and be visible to people, which further supports that it should really add to the overall quality of the area. Now, if you look at the other outbuildings, you can't really see them in the photos, but the finish on the rear building is of a render type, not of London stock brick, but the garden outbuilding they built is just a concrete render, which is still seeking approval. So I question the applicant's commitment to abiding by these things. Further, the increasing of the wall on that side, the fence is essentially a temporary structure and it's set back on the wall. This will close in that alleyway more as you walk down it. There is one street light at the end of the alleyway, as we know down there, for a very well used crossing, so there are safety concerns. So I don't know whose responsibility it would be to resolve the lighting issue as a result of this wall going up, and it may seem unfair that 32 has got it done first, but I must say to a very good standard, and I question the ability of the applicant to perform the other one to the standard, given the history of the site. So, really, further, in the consultation, we looked and CCRA, for some reason, were consulted on this. No response, but CCRA really have no locus in this area or any impact, so I'm not... So, basically, many, many years ago, when the CCR became involved in planning applications, they stipulated with us, they wanted to be notified of any application in the SE7 postcode, and that's why we've consulted them. Okay. That may need updating, because I don't think that's a relevant consultee, to be honest with you, and there are other potential groups that could be consulted there, but we can talk about that. But I think in summing up, because I won't take the four or five minutes, I would say that it's trying to make what is currently an unacceptable situation gone a long time unacceptable, and I would ask that the site be taken in whole. I'm disappointed to see that rear elevation doesn't include how it looks today, so you guys, without seeing it, haven't got the idea of the scale of the development that's happened there, particularly with the garden outbuilding and the other works that have occurred on site. So, to look at this one in isolation, I think, would be a mistake, because, yes, normally, it would be a simple side return, albeit with a flat roof, and one that I believe, just to finish, compromises the distance from the first floor window. I might be correct on that, that it kind of overlaps it. It should be. Bear with me. Yeah. So, it does not meet paragraph I-91 of the design guide in that the roof line is not at least 300 millimetres below the first floor window sill, is the other point that was made to me by Councillor Gardner when he looked over this. So, yeah, I would just ask that you look at the site in the whole, rather than this individual element, and some of those specific design guide points, and the appearance from a very well-used fire affair of an area that is very nicely maintained, looks good, and has a high footfall from traffic to and from the station, and that crossing at the Einstein branch. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Williams. Any questions for the speaker? Pat. Do you think that a site visit would be advisable? Would you like to propose that? As a site visit, yes. Any seconder for the site visit? Yeah, I second that as well, because I think the drawings there, which only show this specific bit, I think it's harder for us to get a sense of the cumulative effect here of approved and then potentially other unapproved developments on the site. So I think... Just on that point, the roof extensions are permitted development, so you can only consider what's before you tonight, which is the impact of the single-storey rear extension, not the impact of the roof extensions, because they are PD, and I believe that the outbuilding is being looked into as to whether that's permitted development or requires consent. But what I would say is obviously, just to follow up on that, within the report, because obviously in the report it sets out that rear extensions or extension property shouldn't compromise the garden space. So when the report addresses that and it gives that figure, I think it's of 60 square metres less, that's taking on board not just the space taken up by the extension, but obviously cumulatively with the outbuilding at the bottom of the garden, and obviously the SPD that we've got talks about that no less than 50% of the garden space should be remaining as a result of any extension. So as the report says, there would still be 60% there. So on that basis, cumulatively... And that figure does include... The outbuilding. ...this other outbuilding. Yes, yes. So with the outbuilding and the extension... There would still be 60% of the original garden space left. And if I could just pick up just one other point regarding the flat roofs. I appreciate what obviously the core strategy says, but obviously part of what we have to consider is the fact that the property next to it has a flat roof extension. So you've got to look at that and obviously... And there's a slight contradiction here in terms of what our urban design SPD says. The urban design SPD actually supports extensions having flat roofs because it suggests that it keeps the overall scale and bulk of the extension down so that it is less visible. So in this instance, because we've got what's next door and what the SPD says, we considered that a flat roof was acceptable in this instance. And just when we talk about in the distance to the first floor window, the first floor window, because of the peculiarities of the way the property is designed... That is the first floor window. So the distance from the top of the extension to that which is the first floor window is more than the 300mm. So the other one is actually considered is a ground floor. Yeah. I mean, to some extent, I would guesstimate that that window originally, before that rear extension was built, that window was coming down somewhere here. I would estimate. Yes. No. And I appreciate there's that window there. But I think because of how far that window there and that flank elevation is set back with the extension, you're never going to see that. So really, whether the extension would be up to that window sill or slightly below, I don't think it would have any material impact in terms of design and appearance. I would fully understand it and get it if the extension was coming somewhere up here because that would be wholly inappropriate in terms of the proximity of that window. And then it would also suggest, because of the narrowness of the gap, that the overall scale and bulk of the extension was too much, basically. And just to be clear, there's no issue in terms of the public right-of-way land of the passageway. Is there any considerations about sense of enclosure in there as well or not because this is public land rather than a residence? Yeah. I mean, I think it is a well-used route. I mean, I remember when I was involved in the public inquiry for what is now known as 40 Victoria A, the first part of the site which is this part. And obviously, one of the points they made about their petile rate in proximity to the station was the fact that you could walk down this alleyway. And I was partly making the argument at the time, well, who's going to want to walk safely across the Angosteen railway line? So I think it is well-used. And I don't think that mirroring what's on the other side is really going to have that much impact in terms of enclosure or feeling less safe, particularly as it is only for a very, very short period of it. If it was potentially for the whole of the alleyway, then I think that would be slightly more of an issue. I think there's been some comments around finishing materials and the quality of the workmanship that's in place at number 34. Is there a way of adding some sort of finishing conditions so that it could mirror the standard of the work that's been done at number 32? Because number 32 has taken in the local brickwork, the yellow stock. And I think that it might be more acceptable. And maybe if we had conditions where if it was to mirror number 32, it was done to a same standard, and I think if that was possibly proposed, it might be more acceptable to local Councillors, and it may avoid us having to go and do a site. Because if we were to condition any sort of proposal, obviously there's a precedent set already in the area for single-storey extensions and loft conversions. I think what we're worried about here is something being allowed that was of poor quality. So there's two conditions there. There's one which is condition one, which is saying that if this is approved, the approved plans, i.e. the change, so it's brick wall, flat roof, that has to be completed within a year from the date of which consent is granted. So we're not left in a situation where the works drag on and on and on and on, so they've got a fixed deadline to achieve that. We've got the standard condition three at this moment in time, which says that the materials to be used shall match those of the existing buildings. Now, if members want, they can look to change that to say, well, before you do that, we want to see samples so that we can ensure that what you're putting in place is of an appropriate standard, basically. It's not something that we would normally do for a residential extension, but I obviously appreciate the situation here. Because I think the concern around that is existing building, I guess one could say, well, there's something there already, and it's just with the shale stuff. So it's about being really clear about what we mean by the existing building, which is, I guess, the original. So we could change and say that prior to the works approved, you've got to submit details of the brick to ensure that that brick is appropriate, not only to the dwelling house, but obviously to the boundary rule as well. I mean, obviously, from the photograph that you've got there, clearly, the wall on the left-hand side is in a cleaner state than the wall on the right-hand side. But I would guesstimate that they were probably both your sort of traditional London stock brick at one stage. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah. So, I mean, we can certainly get something there if members were sort of minded of that. Councillor Williams. Thank you, Chair. I think as long as the brick type was evaluated, that would be fine. What's missing from these photos, and again, I have one, is of the garden building built, as I say, it's just covered in a concrete render. So I'd be keen that the applicant wouldn't say that's an existing building and I'm going to match that. So I think on that, I think the reason brick's cleaner is obviously because it's newly constructed and they've got stocks in on the left to do that as part of the work there. So, I mean, we could word it to refer to the main dwelling house. Yeah. Because it could be-- [INAUDIBLE] Yeah. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah. Yeah. Because, obviously, if that outbuilding is permitted development, then we've actually got no control over what the actual materials are. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah. Sorry, even if the finish faces the public road, they can put whatever they like on there. So whilst if you were doing a extension to a dwelling house, there's part in the general permit development that says that the materials must match the existing dwelling house. But I am right, Alex, that in terms of an outbuilding, that specific requirement is not there, basically. So theoretically, you could build that outbuilding from egg boxes if you wanted to. Okay. It's probably-- because I think, yeah, it's probably-- it's a separate application, but that building is sizable. So I'm not sure what size a permitted outbuilding is allowed. Could it be any size they like? There are certain requirements, but I think, you know, in terms of the height of it, but I think it can take up to 50% of the garden space. Wow. Yeah. Okay. So I mean, Chair, I'd like to propose that we add the condition as we were discussing about-- so rather than it just being of the existing building to be the-- sorry, you phrased it better than I'm going to even be able to try to-- As I say, you've got two options. You've got two options. You can either say the materials to be used externally [INAUDIBLE] shall match those of the existing dwelling house wall, or you could physically say, well, before you actually do it, we want you to submit samples of what that's going to be so that we can approve it. We want both. Realistically, we want it to-- So you want samples, basically. We want the yellow stock finish, but at the same time, we want to see it. Okay. So basically samples, and then we approve that, and then it's built locally. Yeah. Fine. But making clear the criteria by which we would be seeking approval is that it matches the yellow stock. And so if we can articulate that in addition to we must have samples. So subject to those conditions, we're okay not to bother doing-- not to do the site visit, because we'll end up coming back asking for what we've just asked for. Okay. Cool. Councillor Williams, you okay with that? Good. Okay. Good. Councillor Williams, thank you very much. Members, open this up for deliberation. I think we've just agreed on what we're going to ask for. So I'm going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the Council-- the officer's recommendation with those conditions emphasised around finishing materials and the brick matching the house. All those in favour? Okay. Item 7 is approved. I'm now going to move on to Item 8, where we have no speakers, but we do have the applicant here. I'm going to ask the officer for an abbreviated presentation, and then we'll go straight into Q&As with the officer and with the agent. Yeah? Okay. So we now move on to Item 8, the Vista Building, 30 Calderwood Street, Woolwich, London SE18, 6JF, reference 223032F. Alex? Thanks, Chair. So, yeah, the Vista Building, they're proposing the construction of a nine-storey extension to the northwest building, and that will provide seven flats. It's received 38 objections. The objections are addressed in Section 6 of the report. I'd just like to make a note. There's a change to the-- need a change to the report. In 7.1, RBGCIL charging schedule is stated to be 2015. It's actually 2024. This is the aerial of the site, so site in red. You can just about see it in the middle of the screen. It's in Woolwich Town Centre. The Woolwich Conservation Area is located to the north along the railway. This is the application site in red to the northwest of Vista Building. You see the railway and Calder Street car park. That's an aerial of it, and the red shows roughly where the proposal will be. These are site photos. They're taken from around the site. If members want to know whereabouts that is, I'm more than happy to go through that. In 2019, an appeal was allowed on the application site for the erection of a nine-storey building to provide seven units and commercial on the ground floor. It is very similar to what I'm about to show you. The details of this are in the officer's report. This is the ground floor. As I said, a nine-storey building, but a ground floor will be commercial. On the upper floors, it's residential. The first floor will be a one-bed, two-person unit from the second floor to the sixth floor. They will be two-bed, four-person units, all of the same layout. Then on the seventh and eighth floor, that's a two-bed, four-person unit as well, but just split over the two. They are considered to comply with all relevant quality standards in terms of living environment, and they will provide balconies. Elevations. This is the northwest elevation. The existing is on the left. Proposed is on the right. So it sits against a 11-storey building known as the Vista building. This is the northwest elevation in relationship to the wider Vista building, and also you can see that's the walkway which goes above the Sainsbury's. Thank you. This is the northeast elevation facing the railway. This is the elevation that faces Coldworks Street car park and Sainsbury's, and this is its appearance against what was approved back in 2019 at appeal. However, you can see that the appeal was very brightly colored. The inspector considered that the application was acceptable and allowed the appeal, so that was subject to a condition that the applicant submit details of materials that were more in keeping. So it didn't like the bright colors, but said that something should be more appropriate. The applicant submitted submission of details to discharge that condition back in 2020, and that was approved in November 2020, which allowed, as can be seen on the screen, brick, zinc cladding on the top, and aluminum windows, and that is very similar to what is proposed. So the proposal currently in front of you remains materially the same as that approved under the submission of details and the appeal. It is considered that it's providing a high-quality scheme. There is no impact upon residents, and everything's been addressed in the officer's report, and officers are recommending approval, and I'll put that forward to members for a decision. Thanks, Alex. We've got the officer, and we've got the applicant, the agent here. Do we have any questions? Callum? Just one, sorry, two quick questions related to actually some of the application history. There's been a couple of applications approved for non-combustible cladding to be added to the building. Can I just check, have all of those works been complete yet? That may be something to ask the agent, but I believe that walking to work every day, the scaffolding that was up on the building was relating to that, and that's now down. So I believe the works have been completed. That would be my subject, if you're able to help. I can confirm that's the case. Perfect. And also, just to confirm, so from the application appealed, the approval there, we're down one bedroom from that one. Is that right or no? That's correct. In terms of the bedrooms, when you look at the layout, the first floor could eventually be used as a two bedroom, but what the applicant has identified is one of the bedrooms notes as a study. It would be big enough if it was a two bedroom and the living environment wouldn't be affected, but here on the first floor, that's noted as a study, but it is big enough for a single bedroom. So I don't think it would be a two bed four person, but the living environment is big enough for a two bed three. Okay, perfect. And also, just to confirm, as it states in the report and from passing by, it looked like that's the case as well. The windows on the existing exterior that would be covered by this new development, they're all for just internal communal areas rather than any habitable space. Yes, they are corridors. So when you have a look at the first floor, you can see that's the corridor. One thing that's noted in the report, all access to these properties are not from a new core, they are from the existing core. So they'll come up through the entrance from Coldwood Street and then enter the building that way. Perfect. I thought I'd just mention, because it is one of the reasons why it was delayed, the HSE did raise an objection on fire safety, but the applicant has submitted revised information. The HSE no longer have an objection and any issues that they have identified can be dealt with at a different stage. So building control stage. And they have identified that those issues should not affect the planning stage. Thank you. You pre-empted what I was going to ask there as well. I guess the only other thing is just are we, and maybe Bob can speak to this as well, given there will be a loss of some external light in there, is there any additional artificial lighting that will be put in those staircase access areas to ensure that there's good visibility at all times? We can certainly address that. I would say that I was involved in the planning appeal as well as being the planning consultant for this follow-up application, as it were. And that wasn't an issue, as I recall it, that the inspector raised at the time, and that particular issue hasn't changed. But as the officer just said, bearing in mind that the flats will share the same access way, it will be in everyone's interest to have that access way lit appropriately. So I'm quite happy to take that on board on behalf of the applicants. As the agent just said, it isn't something that was raised as a reason for refusal or raised by the inspector. And the windows are for corridors rather than the living environment for each individual flat. So it's not something that we would push for, but obviously the agent has just said that they could take that up and have a look at it. Can we stick it in the condition then? If it's going to improve the building and improve things for the residents, if the applicant's happy, can we make sure that it's done rather than just, yeah, okay, we'll talk about it. The problem is some of that sits outside the red line, so they would have to be within the red line of the boundary as well. So it sits outside of it. They weren't conditions that were imposed previously. So from my point of view, it may be considered not appropriate to impose a condition that wasn't. Is it something you'd be happy to take on board? I'd be happy to take it on board, but I would echo what the officer just said. I would be reluctant to go so far as to accept a condition, because A, strictly speaking, it's outside the application site. And B, it wasn't the condition required previously, so obviously it'll have to be a discussion with the applicants. But having said that, because the applicants control the rest of the building, it's in their interest to address the same issue. So that's why I'm confident to give the assurance. But I would be reluctant, and I think it would be ultra-virus to require a condition. Yeah, we're not going near the condition. That's why I say we'd take it away from there, as long as we've got a commitment, yeah. Okay, fine. Pat? As this is an uplift on an existing building, are any of these properties going to be under the affordable umbrella? No, not in terms of affordability, because it's not something that we can request. This is under the limit of affordable policy. It's an uplift on an existing project, on a development. It's a new site and a new application, so it is separate. It doesn't look separate. It looks like they're sharing, you know, it's an extension on an existing building. You can only apply the policy to the proposal in front of you, which is the seven flats, and the affordable housing policy kicks in at ten. Any further questions? No? Okay. I'm going to put this straight, well, any deliberation? I don't think so. I'm going to put this straight to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. Item eight is approved. Bob, thanks for coming. Thank you very much. Tonight's meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone, for their patience, and enjoy the rest of your evening. [ Silence ]