Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the local planning committee. Filming and recording is allowed but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. Only those public speakers whose requests have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speaker will be permitted to address the committee. 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 the time given to speakers. Councillors will have up to five minutes. Accepted representatives of residents, amenity groups and societies four, individuals two and the applicants and their team 10. I have down to speak on item four, Kelvin Ho. I just need to know you're here. On item five, Tanya Barnes. On item six, Adam Wilkinson and Stephen Willis. Item one, apologies for absence. We've got none tonight. Item two, urgent business. Item three, declarations of interest. Item four is the imperial chef, 240 Woolwich Road, Greenwich, London SE7, 7QU, reference 223509F, Neil.

Thank you, chair. Planning permission is sought for the construction of a two story two bedroom dwelling to the rear of number 240 Woolwich Road with associated works. Two letters of support have been received to the application as well as 12 letters of objection and these are set out at section six of the report in front of members. The application has also been called into committee by Councillor Williams. The application site is located there in red and is on the south side of Woolwich Road at the junction with Derpy Road. The application site is neither statutory or locally listed and it's not located within a conservation area. The application site has a PTAL rating of four and should planning permission be granted and the development would be secured as car free so obviously future residents wouldn't be able to apply for an on street car parking permit. We've got two aerial photographs of the site. Basically the surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature. You can see sort of comprised of two story terrace properties. You can also see from those photographs that dormer windows within the roof space of properties is relatively well established and that there are various size and style. On the opposite side of Woolwich Road is Ray McWay which is more industrial in nature and the proposed development relates to the rear portion of number 240 Woolwich Road and will involve demolition in part of some of the existing structures in the rear yard area and we'll see that further on in the presentation. So this photograph is basically just looking across Woolwich Road towards the application site which is currently in use as a hot food takeaway with ancillary accommodation above. To the left of the site is 242 Woolwich Road which consists of a cafe at ground floor level with a self contained flat above. As we'll see from later photographs the rear yard area at number 242 Woolwich Road is actually utilised as the private amenity space for the first floor flat. This photograph is just taking further up. Looking up Durpree Road with the application site on the left and the proposed development would be attached to the flank wall in number 1 Durpree Road which is the property just there and I appreciate from this angle it does look like there isn't much of a space but when you look at it in the reverse view you can see more clearly the sort of gap that is there and that the proposed dwelling as I say would be located in this location just here and would sit within the existing terrace which runs up Durpree Road to the right there. This is just a close up view. As a result of the proposed dwelling the existing drop curb you can see there would be removed and the pavement reinstalled and that's condition 9 in the report in front of you. At ground floor level part of the existing rear store areas which are located behind this white boundary wall would be demolished to facilitate the development. So you can see there the window at first floor level which is just situated here that window would be bricked up and it would then be re-provided on the flank elevation roughly around here. And then this photograph is basically just looking straight down Durpree Road and so you can see the application site on the right and number 238 Woolwich Road on the left hand side. And then finally as I stated at the start of the presentation the rear area of number 242 Woolwich Road is utilised as the amenity space for the first floor flat and these photographs show this area in relationship to its immediate surroundings which includes the application site which is directly behind the timber fence and you can see there. So that picture number 1 top left hand corner that's obviously showing that number 1 Durpree Road has a full depth infill single storey rear extension there with high level windows looking directly into the application site and you can see that rear extension again or side extension in the second and the third photograph. You can also see a single storey rear extension that relates to the cafe at number 242 Woolwich Road as well and you can obviously see from those photographs that the area is urban in nature and obviously that's the context in terms of the use of that amenity area. So this plan shows the existing ground floor of the application site and you can see the two storey areas so that's this area just here where my mouse is and then this area situated just here. Those are going to be reduced in size so as to allow the proposed development to take place. Number 240 Woolwich Road also has a basement area which provides further storage space as well and then this is the proposed ground floor plan so you can see from that the single storey element that was coming out here has been reduced in size and also this area of single storey has also been reduced in size so as to allow the development to take place and would be used to provide end garden space. Whilst there would be a reduction in the floor space both internally but obviously also in terms of the courtyard area of number 240 it's still considered that what would be left would be sufficient to enable the hot food shop to operate without any harm on its viability. At ground floor level of a proposed dwelling you'd have an open plan living space as well as as I said the creation of the side garden which would be 51 square metres in size and the ground floor would be triple aspect with windows on to the front side and rear elevation. The window on the rear elevation which would serve the kitchen is high level like the rear extension that you saw at number 1 Derpy Road and a condition is proposed to ensure that that window would be obscured, glazed and fixed shut. You can also see from that plan that the proposed principal and rear building line of the proposed dwelling would follow that of number 1 Derpy Road and obviously would then replicate the building lines as it goes up the terrace that it forms part of and obviously in that front garden area you've got space proposed there for two cycle space and also refuse bins as well. Just the existing first floor plan and then we've got the proposed first floor plan and this would provide a bedroom at the front, bathroom at the back with a landing area to the left. Again the proposed dwelling would follow the principal front and rear elevation of number 1 Derpy Road and the wider terrace and again from that floor plan the first floor would be triple aspect with both the window in the side and the rear elevation both being secured as obscured, glazed and fixed shut and again that would be controlled under condition 13. So what you can also see in terms of number 242 which is the first floor flat there, there were two windows in the rear elevation of that building, one situated here and one situated there. So in terms of this window here in the two-storey outrigger, due to the position of that window and relationship to the application site and the proposed development, it's considered that there would be no loss of outlook from that window and no sense of enclosure because the view would mainly be looking straight on which would be towards the flank wall of number 1 Derpy Road which carries on down here. In terms of the window here, yes, there would be some impact but it's considered that impact is not sufficient to warrant refusal on two bases, really, one, the separation distance which would be around 10.5 metres but obviously also in terms of, again, when you were standing in that window, your main line of sight is going to be straight on and even if you were sort of not looking directly straight on but to the side, you'd only really get a glimpse of the rear portion of the proposed building. This plan just really shows you the original proposed rear dormer window and its position in the roof slope. What was originally proposed was considered too big and also because of its angle set up, as you can see in the bottom right there, it wasn't a sort of straight facing dormer window so we went back to the applicant as part of the assessment of the application and the size and layout of the dormer window was changed so the width of the dormer is smaller but it's also now a more regular oblong dormer facing directly straight ahead and the scale and proportion of that dormer window is considered to replicate the majority of the style of dormer windows that are already in the area itself. In terms of the roof space accommodation, that would consist of a second single bedroom with an ensuite. You can also see in the top image just there, there's also a dormer window there for number 242 Woolwich Road. Again, because of its location and its relationship to the application site, whilst there may be some view of the development from the proposal, it's not considered that that view is going to be significant enough to warrant refusal in terms of loss of outlook and enclosure. Just in terms of the overall quality of the accommodation that's being proposed in the proposed dwelling, so it's a two bed, three person unit and as set out in section 11 of the report, the proposed dwelling would meet the standards and terms of both the London plan and the nationally described space standards and obviously with a 51 square metre would have sufficient private garden space. So in terms of the quality of living environment, it complies with policy. So what we've got here is the existing front elevation as seen from Derpy Road in the top slide and then the bottom right is the existing rear elevation, basically if you were looking towards Derpy Road. And then what we've got here, the top slide shows the proposed front elevation, so you can see in terms of the heights and scale and bulk and design of that dwelling, it sort of complements the existing appearance of number 1 Derpy Road and that's obviously replicated further up the terrace, so you've got a pitched roof, you've got a ground floor and bay window. The size and the rhythm of the windows match as well and obviously also there's a setback as well which is characteristic of the street scene. In terms of the rear elevation, this would sit on the boundary with number 242 Woolwich Road, but obviously due to the ground and first floor windows being obviously a glazed and high level windows, they would not result in any loss of privacy due to overlooking. In terms of the dormer window, because of the height of that and the proximity of the amenity space for 242, it's considered that any views from that window is going to be looking over the space rather than looking into and as such it's not considered that would have any significant impact. And then just finally in terms of daylight and sunlight, the application site is north facing, so when you consider that the sun travels in an east to west direction, any impact on the amenity space for 242 Woolwich Road is going to be very, very late on in the afternoon evening time because of the path of the sun and where it has to be for the sun to be looking directly into that space. These are just the proposed side elevations. Again in terms of the left hand slide, the first floor window is to be obscure glazed and then what we've got here is just two CGI images of the proposed development. Again in its context with the street scene, as I say, considered that in terms of its scale-built design and form, it complements the established character of the area. Officers consider that the proposed development is acceptable and members are asked to consider the recommendation chair. Thanks Neil. Questions for the officer? Pat, Asli. Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask you, I'm thinking about the occupants of the new build, are they going to be affected by any fumes from the existing premises, the takeaway and is there any way that we can find out, I'm finding it difficult to actually visualise what this is going to look like. Is there a larger diagram or anything that we can look at because it's not straightforward this building application and how much of that space that's already available is going to be taken up by this new build, is that sort of? So I mean in terms of visual, I mean I think in terms of what it's going to look like, I think the two CGI images there give you a clear indication of what the development would look like and how it would fit into the street scene. Internally we've just got the standard floor plans there, so ground floor level there. That's basically the largest I can get it on this slide, Councillor, but I mean basically what you've got is you've got an entrance hall coming in here which then obviously provides stairs case up to the first floor level, you have a door situated there which then leads to an open plan, kitchen/diner with a living area situated just there and then when we go to the first floor level there, stairs come up, you've got the landing area there with a door into a communal bathroom and then you've got a door situated here which comes into the main bedroom itself. And then at first floor level, all you've really got, and I appreciate this one isn't particularly, but you've got basically the staircase coming up again, you've got an en-suite bathroom situated there and then you've got a single bedroom situated here and as I say, in terms of the London plan, in terms of internal space standards and the nationally described space standards, that requires a floor area of 70 square metres and the proposed dwelling would have an internal floor area of 78 square metres. So it's significantly over, it's obviously also got a very, very generous garden space of 51 square metres. Fumes from the take away? Well I mean, you know, on the basis that it's not uncommon to have residential accommodation either above or behind hot food takeaways, restaurants etcetera, you know, I don't think that there is any reason why the proposed development would have any impact or suffer any harm as a result of those existing uses. I mean obviously we know that there is a first floor flat at 242 which is above a cafe and they are satisfied living there without any complaints etcetera. Aisley. Thanks Neil for the presentation, is the, did I, I don't know if I've missed it or not but does the roof slightly below the level of the original roof, you know, of the building? No, the height of the building hasn't changed as a result of the amended plans. So the height basically follows the, that's the best one, so the height of the building there is, you know, following the established height of properties along Durpree Road. Right, okay, right and another thing is, can you just share with us the objections of whether it's Councillor William or the community itself? So in terms of the objection, because of the age of the application when Councillor William called the application in, it was before the current new rules were in place where a member had to set out the reason why they were calling in, so I don't necessarily have that directly to hand. But as I say, you know, the objections from residents in Main are set out at 6.5 of the proposal and, you know, there's a mix of there in terms of setting an unacceptable precedent, creation of a poor living environment for the prospective occupiers, as I say, you know, it complies with the internal space standards, issues about residential amenity on adjoining occupiers, concern regarding loss of car parking space, well, as I say, the development's going to be car-free and there'll be a condition so that residents couldn't apply for a car parking permit. Impact on current residents' wellbeing and mental health, you know, whilst that's appreciating, it's not a material consideration to the application and there's also concerns raised initially when the application came in in terms of discrepancy because it showed that the land at groundfall level at 242 Woolwich Road, it was originally saying that it was basically a service yard for the cafe, but obviously the residents who live at the first floor flat at 242 clearly said, well, actually, no, that's our amenity space, so obviously the plans have been amended and the application has been assessed on that basis. Any further questions for the officer? Neil, in your illustration, obviously you've been on the site, the drop curb or the entrance that's going to be removed, is that a cobbled entrance into the site? Yeah, I would say it's cobbled. I mean, I wouldn't say it's cobbled as in sort of, you know, 1810, 1820s, but it's obviously cobbled sets of some form. Okay. And the reason I'm asking is obviously if the pavement's going to be reinstated, that'll be done by the council, is that correct? That's correct, yes. Yeah. I want to walk about around Greenwich not so long ago, I noticed that some of the cobbled areas around have been patched up with incorrect material and look quite horrible, and I'm just wondering if we spoke to highways, notified them that this is going to be reinstated, they might be able to salvage some of the cobbles so that we're not making horrible patch-up jobs elsewhere in the borough. The highways were certainly consulted on the application and they did raise about the drop curb having to be abandoned, but they didn't say anything, you know, as part of this consultation about wanting to obviously... Maybe I'll talk to them, you know, but yeah, just don't want to get it. No further questions. We've got no public speakers. Do members have any questions for the applicant? Do you wish to hear from the applicant? Okay. Okay. I now wish to call on Kelvin Ho. There's a red button in the middle, Kelvin, if you push that. And then... Hi, good evening. I'm the agent representing my client who is the owner of No. 240 Woolwich Road. The site compresses a takeaway with ancillary staff rooms on upper floors and is assessed by a ground floor through a front and side entrance. The owner wishes to erect a new dwelling house to the rear of the property, which he believes is a better use of the abandoned land of about 90 square meter. It can make a small contribution to the high demand of local housing. We believe the scheme has been developed for years addressing all concern and comments from the local authority and general public. We started with a pre-application advice request to Royal Greenwich Council in 2021. With respect to the comments made by the planning team and case officers, the dwelling house is designed to set back from the main building of Woolwich Road to avoid overlooking issue and blocking daylights. The character of the new dwelling house has been designed to match the existing character of Dupe Road. The owner has lived in the areas for over 20 years and it is his instruction to maintain the highest quality of design as possible, which includes using traditional brick features to match the local character. You can probably see on the CGI that there's some special feature that we highlight to use as corner features. We believe the planning permissions should be granted and we are happy to answer any questions anyone may have. Thanks Calvin. Any questions for the Speaker? I see none. Calvin, thank you very much. Thank you. Members, I'm going to open this for deliberation. Any comments from members? No? Okay. All those in favor of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. Thank you. Item 4 is approved. Thank you, Calvin. We now move on to item 5, 50 Sidcup Road, London SE12-8BW, reference 241303F. Courtney. Thanks. So this application is at 50 Sidcup Road for a change of use from a single dwelling house use class C3 to a seven bedroom, seven person large HMO, sui generis, incorporating a loft conversion with a hip to gable roof extension, rear box dormer roof extension, front and roof lights, construction of a single story rear extension cycle, refuse storage and associated alterations. This application comes before members due to receiving a call in from Councillor Taggart-Ryan, as well as receiving two objections, and these are highlighted in the report as well as the addendum report that was circulated earlier today. So the slide on screen shows the red outlined area, which is the application site, which is on the western side of Sidcup Road and located south of Elphinham Road and to the north of the South Circular Road, not within a conservation area, however, within the Lea neighbourhood area, therefore subject to the Lea neighbourhood plan. The application site at current is a two story semi-detached dwelling house with a small single story outrigger extension and outbuilding within the rear garden. So that's the site with the small outrigger as well as the outbuildings at the end of the site. Street line is generally consistent with regards to design and properties have undergone minor extensions such as those proposed in this application. Majority, if not all, properties along this section of Sidcup Road have an off-street parking for between two to three cars, mostly with paved or hard surfacing present. Sidcup Road is a red-root road controlled by the Transport for London, hence the cars off the road. Previous planning history on the site that's relevant to this application is 21/28/CP. This was a certificate for lawfulness accepted for a hip to gable loft conversion and rear dormer. This does create a fallback position for the property which will be discussed in a little bit. So in regards to the principle of development, we regard that the Royal Greenwich policy framework aims to deliver high quality development as well as the London plan sets out that there's a role that HMOs have in meeting local and strategic needs for housing as well as policy H2 of the court strategy promotes a mix of housing types and sizes varying according to location of the development and surrounding area. It's important to note that within the core strategy there is no policy or statement that protects the loss of a family sized accommodation in relation to the conversion to a HMO occupation. As such, the loss of the existing accommodation for the conversion to an HMO is considered acceptable. HMOs have been identified as providing suitable residential accommodation while there's no applicable policies which relate to the over concentration of HMOs in any one specific area. As such, in this context the proposal is considered acceptable in principle to this site subject to the higher detail. So in regards to design, the front elevation, the rear elevation is shown on screen with a hipped roof form as well as a small pitched roof rear extension that's seen in the rear elevation. In terms of the proposal itself, it seeks to extend that to a gable roof end with two front roof lights as well as the rear box dormer and a single storey rear extension that produces further width to the rear. In regards to the Royal Borough of Greenwich's urban design SPD, the preferred development for residential extensions does not consider a hipped to gable roof extension nor a rear box dormer acceptable. However, in the applicant's submissions made, they draw attention to the fact that the site has a previous certificate of lawfulness on the site, the applicant has also made clear that the hipped to gable roof extension and the rear dormer would be reasonably undertaken through those limits which were outlined in that previous certificate of lawfulness, therefore creating a fallback position. Given the instance of this certificate of lawfulness existing and the fallback position as well as legal cases and decisions which are relevant to the site, it is considered that the fallback position for the proposed loft conversion does exist in this case as such has to be considered for the nature of a fallback position. At ground floor level, it seeks for a rear single storey extension as mentioned, this would protrude to the same depth as the existing, which I'll get a floor plan up for you, which is three metres, extending further out to the right. With a setback from the side boundary of 0.9 metres, it ends up being a width of 5.1 metres. In consideration of this, with a height of three metres, aside from the lantern roof flight which protrudes up by 400mm, so ending up being 3.4 metres, it's considered that this is an acceptable in terms of the small scale as well as the depth height. It is noted that within the applicant submissions that they do state that this would also fall under PD rights. Aside from the roof lantern that does exceed the three metre limit of permitted developments it would, however with this small incursion and within the realms of a full planning application this is considered acceptable. So, yes, the side extension there just showing the protrusion of both the box stormer and the single storey rear extension. As such, just to wrap that up, it's considered acceptable in terms of design of the extension and the works to the property. In regards to the HMO's living standards, as we can see on screen, there are two bedrooms to the ground floor each with an ensuite, one being 11.75 square metres, one being 10.69 square metres, with a kitchen/living and dining area at 18.4. Bedroom sizes for the account of the entire application has been considered under Table 1 of the Royal Greenwich HMO standards, where a kitchen is in a separate room. It is noted that on the submitted plans that the kitchen area is designed in terms of having a dining and living area. Given that this is a single open plan area and it's not clear where the kitchen begins and the living area starts in it, it has been taken to accord that we have assessed it against it being a kitchen solely with the higher standards on bedrooms. So it's a higher size standard that's put on the bedrooms with the lack of there being a living area, therefore in that we'll continue on. So on the first floor we have Bedroom 3, which is at the front of 11 square metres with an ensuite and then Bedroom 4 and 5 to the rear of 10.93 and 9.96, sharing this bathroom to the top here. And then in the loft proposed is Bedroom 6 to the front with 11.65 square metres and Bedroom 7 to the back, which is 10.43, this one with an immediate connecting ensuite and the other with an ensuite. In regards to space standards of each bedroom, if you can see the table on screen, each of them do meet the minimum standard in Table 1, which is 9 square metres. It is noted with Bedroom 6 that 8.03 square metres of this is at the 2.1 floor to ceiling height. This floor to ceiling height affects the entire property rather than an individual bedroom with a total of 11.65, so each of them are considered to comply with the space standards. To note, these on suites and off suite bathroom opportunities are considered acceptable against standards. With Bedrooms 4 and 5 being a shared bathroom, these are acceptable against the number of persons to each shared bathroom, which is up to four for a singular bathroom. In terms of the kitchen, I'll just shuffle back. In terms of the kitchen, it's considered that we've taken as a whole to 18.24, which is compliant with the standards and exceeds the minimum area for seven persons, which is 11.5. The proposed HMO would benefit from an existing outdoor rear garden with an external amenity area of approximately 125 square metres after the enlargement, and the property would also be dual aspect with good access to daylight and sunlight. In consideration to neighbouring amenity, it's considered that the proposed works would not result in a detriment of amenity to the neighbouring properties, these being number 5852 on the right and 48 on the left. It being noted that the rear extension seeks to be set back from the shared boundary with number 42 by 900mm, and then on the other side it will maintain the existing character of it being set off from the boundary by 1.3 metres, therefore with it being a single-storey extension to three metres in height with a maximum 3.4, albeit the roof light, this is considered acceptable in terms of not impacting to a reasonable loss of daylight or sunlight to habitable rooms or windows. In regards to noise and disturbance, while the site is occupied, the proposed use will remain to be residential, which is considered appropriate for this location. It is also considered that proposed change of use and the development will only really result in a slight increase of occupants from the existing lawful level of a family dwelling house, this being from about four to five to an additional two of seven, and that would include a condition that restricts it to being seven with single occupancy rooms. While it's accepted that there would be some level of disturbance in the terms of construction is not out of the common scope of residential extensions, therefore does not justify for a condition on a construction management plan perspective. In regards to transport, the proposed use of the existing driveway to the front of the property, as well as the existing outbuilding to the rear, which is shown at the top left of the property, or the rear left of the property, for seven cycle storages. The site benefits from off-street parking, which has been indicated in the design access statement to have capacity for at least three cars. Officers do consider that when you put into the perspective of the refuse and the waste storage going in the front setback as well, that this may be restricted to two, albeit that there's not an intention to alter the existing arrangements on the site in this way. The proposed element would have a minimal increase of occupants beyond the existing lawful C3 use, and considering that the existing number of off-street parking opportunities on the site, where it is in a red route where you can't stop on the street, is considered acceptable and there would not be a significant detrimental traffic impact or other impacts to the road network, it is acknowledged that within the Addendum 2, Transport for London has provided comments which indicated the recommendation for the development to be car-free in accordance with Table 10.3 of the London Plan, as well as requiring the removal of the crossover to prevent off-street parking. While it is accepted that the provision of parking would exceed what is required in the London Plan, the existing situation on site has to be considered in this aspect, therefore officers consider TFL's requirements for the removal of the existing driveway and crossover unnecessary in the scope of development in the conversion of a single dwelling house to a house of multiple occupation. In regards to cycle storage, the existing rear outbuilding is proposed to be utilised, as I mentioned. It's considered that this is acceptable in terms of number of cycles. TFL did comment on this, seeking for additional information on how that would be fitted in. Officers do agree with this, and there's a recommendation on a condition to be provided to prove that this fits, or if it does not fit in the current outbuilding, that an alternative arrangement of some form of external storage that is meeting the design standards is provided. Further, while the site does have a poor P-TOW rating of two, there are still a number of public transport options within walking distance, this including bus routes, on Eltham Road to the north and the South Circular Road to the south, and Kibrook and Leigh stations being a further walk to about 15, 20 minutes. As such, it's considered that this is appropriate in terms of access and transport perspectives. In regards to waste, there are six bins that are indicated on the site at the top. Internal waste services has provided comments that this is acceptable, albeit with a 2-2-2 situation of cycle waste and food waste disposal, as such, in the conditions. Overall, it's considered that this proposal and change of use presents an acceptable living standard for House of Multiple Application, acceptable by way of extensions and design and amenity factors, as such, members would advise to consider it. Thanks. Thanks, Courtney. Any questions for the officer? Callum. Thank you, Chair, and apologies for being late and for missing the first item. A couple of questions. I'll just do them at once rather than dragging it out. So, two that I think will be dead simple. The roof extension, is that of similar scale and mass to those of nearby properties? It looks like a number of got ones like that. And similarly, the rear extension, it doesn't go past the line of the existing one, does it? And then it's perfect? Yeah. So, the loft conversion would meet PD rights, therefore would be almost identical to those that are existing in the neighboring properties. And yes, the single-story rear extension or the single-story protrusion at the moment is three meters and it's continuing on to the extension. Perfect. I thought so. I just wanted to be 100 percent sure. Thank you. And then, so the condition you mentioned about the bike storage, is that condition -- is that condition four or sorry, I'm just -- because I was really positive to -- yeah, it is, it is, it is, it is. About details of the -- sorry. Yeah, four. In quickly scanning through, I missed the word cycle in it and just saw transport. Yeah, I'm really glad we've got that because it looks just like a small shed at the back and I think you would really struggle to fit seven bikes in that and also a secure bike storage normally is like a Sheffield stand which would have two. So provision of seven seems slightly odd given you would normally get two bikes onto a single rack. So I'm really, really glad we've got that one in there. And then just the last question, on the kitchen living room, so you said we're assessing it just as a kitchen, so a non-habitable room, therefore there's a higher standard for the others, notwithstanding that, would it meet the kind of usual light requirements of a habitable room or not, just out of curiosity here? Could you just explain that a little bit better, Councillor? Sorry. Sorry, so four habitable rooms have to have a certain amount of light, don't they? So would it meet the standards we would normally have for a habitable room? Yes, if you go back to the floor. Sorry for expressing that awkwardly before. So you can see there that in the bottom left hand corner there is patio doors and there's a window next to it. I thought so, I just wanted to be super, super clear, sorry, I'd rather ask a silly question than do something silly, so that's really helpful. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, actually Callum has asked one of the questions I was going to ask. Again, it's for clarification. I'm going back to the fact that for seven people we have to have two sets of facilities and we can't see from that where they're all going to fit in, but it says that it's got to be 11.5 metres squared. Now you're saying that but you're not sure the proposed kitchen is connected to the proposed living area and this is going to be 18.24 square metres. Is that the joint, is that 24 square, 18, 24, is that the joint kitchen and living room or did you say before that we are not certain yet how large the living area is going to be? So the kitchen, dining and living area is a single spot to the rear of the property, which is measured to 18.24 metres. As we don't have a definite, sometimes in HMOs they're two separate rooms, therefore it's easy to distinguish which one's which. In this situation, as it's more of an open plan consideration, there is no singular definition of a line, I guess, of a wall where it starts and where it ends, therefore we take it on it solely being a kitchen and not producing an additional living space. So we take it to the square metreage requirement for a kitchen, but we put it on a higher stress of the bedroom sizes being larger to meet that shortfall of an additional living space like a living room, if that makes sense. So to put it another way, or a different way, different stands for different types of HMOs. So if you've got an HMO which has just got a kitchen and no shared living space and the bedrooms have to be a certain size and the kitchen has to be a certain size, our HMO standard says if you've then got an HMO which has got a kitchen, a bedroom, but its own separate self-contained living space, there are then different standards for those rooms. Because this is an open plan kitchen living area, we just calculate it as a kitchen area for the purposes of our HMO standards. Am I right in thinking then that further down the line that this will be sort of, you know, the placing of the cookers and the various appliances to make sure that there is sufficient ventilation and lighting within the kitchen, will that be decided at some later date? That would be a matter for the HMO licensing team, but you can see from that plan there that at this moment in time, although it's not the full details, there are certainly two cooking hobs shown there in the top left hand corner of the kitchen area. My other question is again, going back to parking, so am I right in thinking that you are going to sort of condition that there will just be two parking spaces at the front? Because as you said, if you've got all the various refuse bins as well, that there's not going to be room for three parking spaces, is there? And because this is a red road, you know, there's no way anybody can stop at the front, and is there going to be sufficient parking down the side streets? Because there are seven HMOs here. I mean, from this requirement, if you take it from a singular perspective, it's supposed to be car free. So anything additional is an additional car space that was with the single dwelling that wasn't considered appropriate to leave in this instance and make them remove the driveway. From a perspective of car spaces, there are appropriate and exceeding minimum standards of cycle storage, as well as a considerable access to public transport. So it's considered that that mitigates the requirement of car parking. And I would say I don't think you can put a condition on there, because conditions regarding car parking only really work where you're in a controlled parking zone, because you've got a separate mechanism along with the condition to actually control someone parking there. And, you know, clearly, you know, we don't have any conditions or any controls for the car parking, as at this moment in time, it's a single family dwelling house, or, you know, the other properties. Any further questions? Neil, sorry, Courtney, can we go back to the roof plan, please? Have we got any side elevations here? Because I'm trying to -- what I'm looking at, I'm looking at bedroom six and the limited head height of 2.1 metres. If we look at -- here we go. So I'll start on the floor plan, and then we can go from there. So these lines here are measuring head height, per se, and then it drops down into the eaves of the roof storage, and directly the same way. So this is sort of a line, and it comes out this way. So from my perspective, let me get a -- I've got a section drawing somewhere, which is from the wrong side, which doesn't really help the situation. So at least the head height, it's meeting the 2.1 standard for 8.3 square metres of it, and then the -- or, yeah, 8.03 square metres of it with the remainder 3 square metres, having that slow tilt down into the eaves. That would only provide more -- that would only provide more space or head height for the bedroom that's actually located in the dormer window, so that the bedroom, which is on the other side or in the front portion of the space, wouldn't necessarily benefit from a larger dormer, per se. So in terms of an HMO, our guidance says it has to be 2.1 that it's looking at, but that's not on a room-by-room basis, it's across development as a whole, basically. Hi, Tanya. There's a little button in the middle, red light comes on. Thank you. Pat. No, to be honest with you, Courtney covered it with regards to the parking side, so, no, I think we've covered it all, so thank you. Basically going to the kitchen again, seven people, you know, in a kitchen that size, and going back to, do we know how much of this space is going to be actually living room space, and we don't, and I wondered if you had any more than that. I would prefer it to be as the open plan, because I know if, you know, the guys are cooking the food, then they've got the seating area as well separate. I would prefer it to be open plan, however, I would look at what regulations and what would make them more comfy, but I would look at a little kitchenette potentially in the room, just the microwave. So yeah, it's well above the regulation, but I have to go with the regulations on that. I won't get it agreed otherwise, so it would be. Because you will have to have two cookers, two fridges, two of everything there. And sort of as well, going to obviously a kitchen that size with all the smells and the fumes and in the summer what it's like, what about, you know, are you confident that the ventilation. It has to be, it wouldn't be agreed for HMO regulations without that, and I do my properties to a certain high standard where, you know, with all due respect it's still my property and I want it to be well looked after in certain calibre of clients, you know, so it would need to meet all the standards, so yeah, it would need to be ventilated of course. And what about the garden area? The garden area. Have you got any tips for gardening? There's such as seven people. I would do it as a very similar to the neighbour to the left, so patio, a bit of the green at the bottom, but just for it just open and relaxed gardening space to be honest. That's what, I'm not a gardener, so don't ask me about trees and grass and things, but it would be patioed and it would be low maintenance, but I do get a gardener in to help. Thank you. Any further questions? Tanya, thank you very much. Members deliberation, any comments? You're itching Pat, come on, get it out. I'm really torn on this one because I feel that seven is a very large number to put in what was, what is a semi-detached house, concerns about the kitchen and about the cooking facilities and about the bedrooms and the bedroom at the top and the height and everybody having sufficient light. I know we desperately need HMOs, but also this is a very nice semi-detached house and we also need families, you know, sort of to come into these houses with desperate, we know as a planning committee that we're always desperate for three bedroom properties and properties that will sort of house families, two or three bedrooms. So yeah, I'm quite torn at the moment. Deep breath, take your time, I'll see if anyone's got, Sam. Thank you, Chair. HMOs get a lot of opposition. So when I hear the opposition, I feel compelled to make this argument once again. So when I was a single man, fresh out of education, on a moderate starting salary in a city where I didn't know all that many people, HMOs were a lifeline. I lived in an HMO for something like four, five, six years. It gave me the housing that I needed. So where HMOs meet those required standards, they should be approved. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Sam. Any further comments? I just want to support what Sam just said, I work in a school or in a college where, you know, high percentage of our newly qualified teachers are actually in HMOs because they can't afford it. Otherwise, they'll be leaving the teaching profession or leaving London altogether. So I do support the HMOs providing it meets the standards. Thank you. Any further comments? I see none. Okay. We're now going to put this to the vote. All those in favor of the officer's recommendation. Item five is approved. You want to go? Okay. Cool. Yeah. I'll wait, because I'm just about to introduce the next thing. Anyone else want to take a break before we go into item six? Yes, no. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We now move on to item six, which is 126 Allwood Crescent, Eltham, London SE 12 9 AH, reference 24 14 51 F. Courtney. Thanks, Chair. Yeah. So, as mentioned, this is at 126 Allwood Crescent for retrospective application for the installation of a rear outbuilding/garden room/anxillary to number 126. This application's come to members due to receiving a call-in from Councillor Taggart-Ryan, as well as receiving one objection, detailed responses to those who are in section six of the report, albeit I will talk through them. The site is shown in the red line on the screen. This is the ground floor flat of what is a semi-detached building, per se, on the southern side of Allwood Crescent. It's not within a conservation area, nor subject to any particular designation. So in terms of allocation of land, both the blue to the front of the driveway in the grassland, as well as the little section to the rear, is associated with the ground floor flat. To the right of that is associated with the upper floor flat. In relation to previous planning history on the site that's relevant to this application, in reference 23/1289/HD, which was a retrospective planning application for the same, as well as the permeable hard surface to the front and rear of the gardens. This was refused by reason of the drawings of the development being inaccurate and not representative of the proposal. Due to this, officers were unable to determine whether the proposed development was in accordance with the development plan. So to summarise, the merits and the scope of the application was not assessed due to the plans and the submissions that were taken with that application not meeting standards and not being able to clarify on particular aspects. In regards to a principle of development, it's acknowledged that extensions and auxiliary outbuildings to an existing dwelling can facilitate additional and enhanced living spaces and improve the living conditions for occupants. It's also noted that on screen the red circles, if the mouse wanted to show up, but they don't, hopefully you've got your glasses on, the red circles show existing outbuildings to surrounding neighbours, therefore it's not an abnormal addition or uncharacteristic to the area, and therefore it's acceptable in principle. So the proposal seats for an outbuilding to the rear, as mentioned, to the bottom of the rear end of the garden, 6.6 metres from the rear wall of the application dwelling. The outbuilding would have a maximum width of 3.18 metres and a maximum depth of 4.43 metres, with an overall footprint of 12.35 metres, discovering 27% of the total curtilage and retain 33.41 square metres of the existing rear garden space. The proposed outbuilding would have a height of 2.8 metres, this including a 150mm concrete step or foundation on the outbuilding, with a slightly soaped roof from front to rear. The proposed outbuilding, which you can see in the photo there as it being retrospective it's already in place, would exceed the height of the boundary fencing by approximately a metre. It's noted that the rear garden area is already paved. The paving in the rear garden is not considered to constitute development in this instance, given its limited height and alteration to the ground level, and it would be considered de minimis and would not require planning, permission or duet. In relation to the design and due to the design, the site and the scale and the position of the outbuilding to the rear or to the bottom of the rear garden, the proposed outbuilding is not considered to constitute a dominant or overbearing addition and would receive a secondary and subordinate appearance in relation to the host property. Furthermore, the footprint of the outbuilding would be set back approximately appropriately from site boundaries and would take up only 12.35 square metres as mentioned and would not reduce the garden area to an unacceptable level of living standards for outdoor amenity nor dominate the garden. Further, given the scale of the raised platform which is shown on plans, to the outbuilding with a resultant height of 2.8, it's not considered that this is an overutilisation of a platform or increasing an overall stepped nature to an unreasonable degree that would result in an unacceptable harm to character of the site or the wider surrounding area. Again, a floor plan, if you will, so its maximum width being 3.1 and its minimum width being 2.367 at the rear and its depth being the same or almost the same of 4.43. Due to its location to the rear of a site, it wouldn't be visible from any public vantage points as such would have no adverse impact to the character or appearance of outward crescent street scene due to this siding. It's also noted that as already mentioned, there's numerous examples of outbuildings in the area including the 128 and the 122 outward crescent which are on the screen there. The facing materials, while they do not match to the existing materials of the host dwelling are considered simple and in line with other outbuilding and zillow structures and do not detract from the host property, therefore are considered acceptable in this regard. In consideration of neighbouring amenity, taking into account the 6.6 metre setback from the rear wall of this block, it's considered that no windows of the dwellings themselves would be impacted in terms of an overshadowing or any further loss of sunlight or daylight. In consideration of rear garden spaces, it's considered that albeit it is one metre taller than the existing boundary heights, it's not to a degree and which is unacceptable and given the location of it to the rear of the garden, it's considerably set back that it would not impact an overall or a considerable amount of any garden which is noted. In particular to number 128, which is the one to the left here, which is the upper level of the application building with the rear garden adjoining to the property located northeast of the property, it's acknowledged that they also do include an outbuilding to a similar location, so being a little bit closer to the application building itself. Therefore, given its positioning as well as the height and width of the existing rear garden of number 128 and the remaining open area further closer to the building, it's considered that this development would not result in an unable sense of enclosure whilst the extension would result in additional windows per se to the outbuilding that would face to the flats. It's not considered that this would be an impact on privacy to an unacceptable degree given the pre-existing level of incidental viewing from a garden space. As such, the privacy impact is considered acceptable. Overall officers consider that this proposed development would not cause an unacceptable harm to the visual amenity of the site or surrounding area or amenity to neighbouring residential occupiers. As such, it's considered to comply with the relevant planning policies. Therefore, members are asked to consider the recommendation as per the officer's committee report. Thanks, Courtney. Any questions for the officer? I see none. Right. We have the applicant and their agent here. Do we have any questions for the applicant or their agent? Would we like to hear from the applicant or their agent? Okay. No questions. I'm now going to put this open to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hands. Item 6 is approved. Thanks everyone for coming. That brings this evening's meeting to an end. [BLANK_AUDIO]