Transcript

Good evening everyone. Welcome to this planning meeting. 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 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 applicant and their team ten. On item four, I have Aiden Councillor Smith, Jonathan Wilson, and Adam Cundell. On item five, I have Councillor Ascar, Maryam Steele, sorry, Marlon, sorry, new glasses. Danielle Pecola, Anthony Doron. On item six, I have none. On item seven, I have Sinead Elieff and Kathy. And on behalf of the applicant, Paul Nichols and Douglas Craig. Item one, apologies for absence. Chair, we have received apologies for absence from Councillor Sullivan, Littlewood and Cook. A request was made round for deputies. Councillor Joe Vander Broek is sitting as an appointed deputy. Item two, urgent business. There are no addendums. However, members, attention is drawn to the public submissions in regards to item five, 24 Lucknow Street, which were emailed to you in advance of the meeting. Item three, declarations of interest. No declarations. Item four, 123 Greenwich South Street, London SE10 8NX reference 241204MA. Sam. Good evening. Can everyone hear me? Yeah, lovely. This is item four. Members are requested to grant full planning permission for an application submitted under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for minor material amendment in connection with planning permission dated the 6th of October 2021 reference 211884MA, which is an amended application for a development where the original description was the construction of nine flats comprising of one studio, five one bed, two two bed and one three bed over a retail unit with ancillary basement in two slash three stories with parking to rear and vehicle access off Lindell Street to allow for the amendment to condition 17 hours of operations and deliveries. The application is being presented this evening after receiving a total of five objections, including one from Councillor Pat Satterberry and Councillor Aidan Smith. Councillor Aidan Smith called in the application into committee. Generally, the concerns raised with the objections to this application relate to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Let's see if that works. Give that a click, maybe. Lovely. So on the screen here, the application site is located at the north eastern corner of Greenwich South Street, the A2211 Road and Lindell Street, as shown in the site plan on the slide. Thank you. The site is located in a mixed use area with three storey terraced housing located to the north, two to three semi-detached dwellings to the west opposite the site, a fire station and associated training ground to the east and three storey terraces with ground for commercial elements to the south. The properties to the south form the Blackheath Hill local centre frontage and two storey terraced dwellings are located opposite the site on Lindell Street. The application site is located opposite a Grade 2 listed building at 92 Greenwich South Street and a group of locally listed buildings at 80 to 90 and 90 for Greenwich South Street. The site is also next to the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area to the north, west and south, whilst the West Greenwich Conservation Area is located at approximately 30 metres to the west. There are no relevant article four directions in place on the site. This is an existing aerial view. Formerly, the site contained a large area of hard stand parking with a single storey commercial building which was home to majestic wines. However, now a three storey mixed use development with retail space on the ground floor and residential above has now been completed. This is a street view of the site. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 with the lowest probability of flooding. Greenwich South Street has loading restrictions in place between 8am and 9.30am and 4.30pm and 6.30pm. The application is for a minor material amendment, otherwise known as a section 73 application. A section 73 allows for the amendment of planning conditions provided they would not fundamentally alter the operative part of the proposal. The amendment of the operating hours condition is therefore appropriate for consideration under section 73. In terms of the principle of development, paragraph 85 of the MPPF states that decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. This paragraph also sets out that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. Policy GG5 of the London Plan states that it is important to conserve and enhance London's global economic competitiveness and ensure that economic success is shared amongst all Londoners. Policy EA1 of the Council's Call Strategy states that the rural borough supports the expansion of existing businesses and increased employment opportunities. Policy TC7 of the Call Strategy states that the Council will support the enhancement of local centres and neighbourhood parades and encourage retail and services that are appropriately scaled to serve the needs of their local catchment. Whilst the development is not within a local centre, it does exist immediately next door and so the development's success would clearly have an impact on the success of the local centre next door. With this policy context, it is clear that the proposal would support employment opportunities for residents, investment into the borough and promote increased usage of the adjacent local centre. The development is therefore acceptable in principle. The previously approved situation at the site, including the following opening hours and delivery hours, hours of opening Monday to Saturday, 6am to 11pm, Sunday and public holidays, 7am to 10pm, and deliveries and services, Monday to Saturday, 7am to 10pm, and Sunday and public holidays, 8am to 9pm. The proposed amendment seeks to feature the following opening hours and delivery hours, hours of opening Monday to Sunday, 6am to 11pm, and deliveries and servicing, Monday to Saturday, 7am to 10pm. These changes only relate to the expansion of the hours of opening and delivery times on Sundays. These changes would result in the Sunday and public holiday hours for opening and for deliveries and servicing, matching up with those which have already been approved for the rest of the week. The submission sets out that this change allows us to allow consistency with the rest of the week and so as to ensure that fresh produce can be stocked before the main levels of custom come into the store in the morning. It allows non-ambient type products to be stocked before the store closes so that these items are ready for the following morning. Many of the commercial operators in the area are open up until 11pm in the evening on Sundays, including Tesco Express on Blackheath Road and Sainsbury's Local on Greenwich High Road. The submission set out that the anticipated two to three deliveries to the site per day each day would not be increased from the previously approved situation. The methods of deliveries and servicing would not be altered from the previously approved situation on the site. The approved arrangement on site is that deliveries that are made to the retail unit would be made along the existing single yellow line located along the frontage of Greenwich South Street. Whilst there would be a small level of increased noise pollution on Sundays and public holidays associated with these expanded hours, this would be comparable to the previously approved situation on site for the rest of the week and would not be such a substantial increase so as to warrant the refusal of the submission when considering how the proposal would be in line with the economic policies of the development plan. It is noted that we have received no objections from the Council's Transport Department or the Council's Environmental Health Team. Overall, the development is acceptable with respect to the requirements of the development plan and members are recommended to approve the proposed amendments. Thank you. Thanks, Sam. Any questions? Pat? Thank you, Chair. Could we have more clarity, please? And I would like more information about where the parking for the commercial... I'd like a little bit more information about the commercial unit and how that sits within the residential unit so we can see how it's going to affect those areas. And also there is parking as well, isn't there? Parking area, because that's presumably why a window at the back of the block is going to be cordoned. Sorry, blocked it. And also, I know it's my ignorance possibly, but could you tell me what is meant by a hit and miss fence, please? Yes, so with the aerial view here, so in terms of your question of where the retail is compared to the residential, the ground floor that has been approved, so essentially the project as a whole, with the ground floor, that is where we have the retail. So the anticipated entrance is where that white block is, where the door would be to go into the store, and the two stories above are where the residential are. In terms of parking for the project itself, so the commercial parking, there is a small gate to the side on Lindsell Street that leads into parking at the rear, so that will be where customers go, that's where they will park their cars and staff as well. It's not for deliveries and servicing, that kind of internal parking area at all. So the deliveries and servicing is all taking place on Greenwich South Street, be around here, basically. So the internal parking area is not related to deliveries and servicing in any way. Basically, you can't really see it from this aerial view, but there is some parking behind there, and that's related to staff parking. No, but it's not related to the hours of opening or the deliveries in any way. So this application would mainly focus on the delivery side and the hours of operation, so in terms of the deliveries where the vehicles will be parked to deliver the goods and such, it would be the same as proposed in the original application, which is on Greenwich South Street. If you click through, that is the space that has been approved previously in terms of the parking for the commercial vehicles for the deliveries, and in terms of our consultation with Transport, there has been no objection raised, seeing that what has already been approved as such has been deemed acceptable. Fencing is going to be replaced with a hit-and-miss fence. In my ignorance, what is that, please? What does it look like? If I'm not mistaken, I don't think there is a hit-and-miss. There's no physical work. So this application just relates to the change in the opening hours and the deliveries. I've read that they're going to change the fencing as well. I think you might be referring to the description of the previous application which this is amending, so the condition in that one would have been related to another part of the application as a whole. In terms of noise, it's my understanding that the properties above the commercial unit is unoccupied at the moment, so we don't know the impact on those residents that would be living above. Is that right? I could probably say, in terms of the residential above, with the whole scheme in itself, I would assume that any impacts that the retail would have on the ground floor would have been thought about in terms of the addition of the residential above. Essentially, this application is just making the slight tweak to what has been deemed acceptable. All of the noise impacts from the commercial unit were considered at the time of the original application which was determined at committee. It was approved at committee, as I understand. That's all been considered before. I suppose the only difference you're thinking about, really, is the noise that they would otherwise experience all the way throughout the week, so Monday through Saturday, that they can do those, they can deliver and open at those times already, Monday through Saturday. The only difference is on a Sunday where it's different, basically. I suppose that impact would be the same as it is on Monday through Saturday on a Sunday. Does that help you? Yes. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Sam and Luke, for the answers so far. There are two things in my head. One, there's the idea that this is a minor amendment, yet it's presented as being essential to the business. That seems like a slight contradiction in my head, if you can help me work through how something could be minor, but also seen as business critical. Secondly, looking at where the loading is, I know there's a lamppost, but there are no other obstructions there. There are a number of other examples. I can think of three in my ward, two near where I live, where regularly on busy roads, the trucks that load come onto the pavement and we see quite acute damage to the pavement. First of all, it doesn't respect the hierarchy of road users, which needs to put pedestrians first, but also it causes damage to the pavement. Are there any measures we're able to make sure are in place to stop that, because if we are amending the hours of delivery, I think the conditions around how delivery is done is pertinent as well. Your first question was, in terms of the wording of the minor material amendment, that's a colloquial wording for a Section 73 application. It's almost a red herring, if you like. Minor material amendment Section 73 applications can be absolutely massive in scope. For example, you could change the entire design of a house, completely look totally different, all under the scope of a minor material amendment. I think the word minor is a red herring, really. It is appropriate for this application type, which just seeks to amend a condition, basically. In terms of your question about damage to the pavement, I suppose if you were thinking about addicting a condition about how that works, what you're looking at is a reasonableness test. In my view, that would not pass a reasonableness test, because it's already been approved as the rest of the situation. Essentially, the argument you would be making is that the shop opening one hour earlier and one hour later and delivering at slightly different times on one day of the week would be so substantial so as to completely destroy the pavement, whereas before it was deemed acceptable and we didn't need to add those conditions about deliveries and servicing. I would suggest we probably should have done that initially. I'm not sure if two bollards would be considered an unreasonable imposition. I had another question, but it has gone. Sorry. It may come back to me. No, that's fine. I think just in terms of with respect to caution about adding conditions, obviously conditions themselves can be appealed and applicants can go for costs against us if we impose unreasonable conditions that don't pass the six tests and planning. I think in our view as a department, that would be quite unreasonable just for expanding those hours by one hour either side. Can I also ask, do we know roughly how long each unloading delivery takes? Have the applicants provided an estimate of how long that takes? No, but they're here, so you can probably ask them later. We will do. Thank you. Jo. I'm not very experienced in conditions on commercial properties like this, but it's not at all unusual in conditions while a property is being built that Sunday hours are shorter than the rest of the week on the basis that it's not unreasonable. I think at least one day of the week you can have another hour's sleep or everything stops a little bit earlier. It is the largest. The other commercial properties near there are very small and a lot of them aren't particularly open. They're not huge blocks for having deliveries coming and going. So I think this would be quite a major change for people, and I think if we had a reason when it was originally done for the hours to be shorter on a Sunday, I don't really understand. I hear what you're saying that it's going to be the same as Monday to Saturday, but that doesn't quite sit with me because it's not unusual to want another hour's sleep on a Sunday. So how usual is it to have different hours for weekends? I mean, obviously there's Sunday trading hours normally that apply for larger commercial units, so that applies to commercial units that are over 280 square metres. This is 211 square metres, so Sunday trading hours don't apply. You'll probably find that lots of those units along the local centre frontage, obviously it's a protected economic frontage, don't have any opening hour restrictions at all. I appreciate what you're saying. I suppose for us, obviously we've gone out to our environmental health team, we've raised no concerns with respect to noise and disturbance, and I suppose you're making the argument to the Inspector, if this were to ever be appealed, that something on one day is totally acceptable and is not acceptable the day after, I suppose. But I appreciate what you're saying in terms of it's typical for Sunday trading hours to be slightly more compressed, but it wouldn't apply, I would argue, for such a small unit where normal Sunday trading hours wouldn't apply. It wasn't really about trading hours, it was about deliveries and lorries, and to me that's the same as we have different hours when it's appropriate to be building something where you have shorter hours on a Sunday. It's not really about the trading, is my question. And it's a very, very residential area, extremely residential all round there. Look, sorry, Sam, during the presentation you mentioned that there were already loading restrictions in place. Have we got details of what they are, and are we basically looking to grant permission for them to ignore those restrictions? So there's a double yellow line restriction between 8am and 9.30 and 4.30 and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. So whilst talking to my colleagues, you mentioned that it's a small premises, but it's actually a very large business, which brings with it a whole lot of other stuff. So when we're talking about minimal journeys and what have you, we're not talking about a local trader, we're talking about a major chain which could be bringing more traffic. So my point being is it's not just about deliveries, it's about how many other transport journeys could start coming to the area at 6am on a Sunday morning. Obviously we have an intended operator here as an ASDA. The ASDA could close a year from now, and Mike's Toy Shop could open in its place. So the condition that you're adding relates to the premises itself, but does not relate to the business in any way. I appreciate your saying, well, we do have an anticipated business, but in five years' time it may well not be such a big chain. So that's not really a material consideration in terms of who is occupying the unit. So part of the presentation again was discussing having to deliver that time in the morning because of fresh goods. The distribution depot for the supplier is actually in Belvedere, and I don't think that the lorries will be coming to and from Covent Garden with cauliflowers, broccoli and whatever at 6am on a Sunday. Because I'm my colleague, Monday to Sunday during the week, we already know that the roads around there are busy from 6am because of people using them going to and from work. But it's just looking at some sort of respite on one day of the week. And I'm wondering, that extra hour, that one hour, makes a difference to the residents and probably minimal difference to the applicant. So I would say that from the information that's been provided to us by the applicant, in terms of the number of deliveries and the time of deliveries, it has been stated that they would stay the same as such, but I guess because the applicant is here, I guess they'll be able to talk more in terms of the logistics, in terms of routings and stuff, and where the deliveries will come from and such. I now wish to call on Councillor Smith. Thank you Chair. So as you've heard in the presentation, this store already has planning approval. My objection to it really is the two extra hours on the Sundays and public holidays, especially the delivery hours, as was highlighted by some of you in your questions. Deliveries are noisy and ward councillors already receive complaints about another store further along this road by Royal Hill, in terms of the deliveries. And we've looked at different ways, we've tried to work with the operator and there's no real way to mitigate it. The noise from deliveries is not at a level of being a statutory nuisance, hence environmental health not objecting to this application, because it would be the same here. But that does not mean that it doesn't wake residents up, keep them awake and disturb their sleep. This section of Greenwich South Street is far narrower than the area at the bottom of Royal Hill and the noise is likely to echo off the buildings and cause more noise and be worse. Refusing these extended hours will not make this unit unviable, as the applicant applied and received permission to operate at the existing hours. And it may adversely affect logistical operations or profit margins, but it doesn't mean to say that this store will not be viable. It's a new store, which already means that it delivers on the policies outlined in the presentation for the MPPF, the London Plan and our own core strategy without these extended hours. Residents will be disturbed by this development and will experience up to three deliveries a day, because it already has permission. It will be noisy, it will adversely affect their amenity. I would ask you to consider whether this extension of the delivery hours is more valuable than two hours of protected amenity for my residents on a Sunday and ask you to conclude that it is not. As officers have said, and the applicant will no doubt say, it's only two hours. It is only two hours, but that's two hours of respite against this noise. It's only two hours and will it really make a difference in planning terms if this application is refused? I would urge you to vote against this application and protect the amenity of my residents. Thanks, Councillor. Any questions for the Councillor? Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Jonathan Wilson. Hi, Jonathan. Two minutes. Two minutes? I thought you said I had four. It's got you down as a resident here, not as an amenity group. Okay. All right. I'll kick on. Firstly, good evening, Councillors, members of the Council. My name is Jonathan Wilson, the local resident within the Ashburnham Triangle, whose listed house is actually opposite the proposed Asda store. And I'm speaking in objection to the operation of the store, representing the views and objections of many of the residents adjacent to this property. The existing opening hours that were in the original application are already extremely onerous, and you've heard what they are. Changing to the proposed hours, in my view, is completely absurd. A number of the residents in close proximity to the proposed store have babies and young children. There are also elderly people in the area. Tesco's and Sainsbury's, which were cited in the proposal, which are kind of in the local vicinity, are not situated in heavy residential areas. This is slap bang in the middle of a residential area. I'm astounded that the approval has been put forward for delivery lorries on Greenwich Sound Street. That's going to cause absolute mayhem. Not just noise pollution and disruption, but disruption to traffic as well. Refrigeration units were being delivered to the Asda store this morning, and there was tailbacks all the way to the Blackheath traffic lights. It was absolute mayhem. So that's going to cause an issue as well as noise pollution and other forms of pollution. The fact that the store will be selling alcohol is going to be open to what I would consider to be environmental challenges as well, and unsocial behaviour happening very early in the morning and very late at night, on top of the delivery issues as well. Mike's toy shop would be a different matter altogether, and I think it's inappropriate to reference a different type of commercial operation. This is Asda, as we've talked about. There will be lorries delivering stuff, morning, noon and night, and they will deliver it in a manner that they see fit, rather than what the council has approved. So, as you can probably tell, I'm wholly unhappy about this, as are many of my local residents who have written to the council. And thank you, Councillor Smith and Councillor Pat Slattery, for raising their objections as well. I just think this is absurd, both the original opening hours and delivery hours, and the proposed changes to the opening and delivery hours as well. Thanks, Jonathan. Any questions? Pat? Thank you. Can I just ask you, we're told that there's an area at the back, down one of the side streets, where the delivery vehicles should go. But are you saying that they still deliver on the main road? Well, I'm not really aware of the parking area at the back in Linsell Street, but if delivery lorries were to go into there, that would make a major difference, both in terms of noise pollution and disruption to Greenwich South Street. But from what I've understood from the planning offices, deliveries will be happening on Greenwich South Street, which is a busy road with lots of traffic from 6am, six days a week. So delivery lorries pulling over directly opposite my house and causing a number of traffic disruptions, as well as making noises with delivery, is just absurd. And do people who use the facilities, I'm assuming that they will probably park on your streets as well? Probably, yes. And what is parking like? I mean, it's terrible to park. I mean, we have to pay for the privilege of parking, but we don't get designated parking. There are residential bays within the triangle, and then there are single yellow lines on South Street and a number of restricted areas. If they're desperate to buy some alcohol late at night or whatever, they'll just pull over wherever they want to on South Street. Thank you. Good evening, Mr Morrison. Can you just tell me what other businesses located around this unit and whether they create any sort of like noise or sort of like parking or delivery issues for you guys? Yeah, very close to the property, there's a hairdresser. That doesn't cause any disruption to anybody. It's just walking customers and it's open for reasonable hours. Beyond that, there's a few takeaway places that have asked for extended hours and they've been denied. There is a bit of disruption there, but not too much. I think one of the most pertinent things is there's a family run convenience store on the corner of Granite South Street and Black Heath Hill that's been there all the years I've been there, 30 years. And I'm really worried about, I mean, I know this is off topic, but I'm really worried about how their business is going to suffer. You talk about the council supporting enterprise. This is a local business that is going to massively suffer from it. Deviate in there, Jonathan, sorry. Sure. Any further questions for the speaker? No? Jonathan, thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Thanks for allowing me to speak. I now wish to call on Adam Cundale. Hi, Adam. Can you hear me okay? Up to ten minutes, yeah. Thank you very much. I don't envisage taking that long, but good evening, Chair, good evening, members, good evening, officers. So I'm Adam Cundale. I'm the Town Planning Manager at ASDA. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I think you'll probably be pleased to hear I'm not going to read some long, dry script, and I'm certainly not going to regurgitate any planning policies back at you. Your office has done a fantastic job in terms of summarizing all the key planning matters in their committee report, and I'm obviously, ASDA, very pleased with the recommendation and the summary that the proposed changes are not going to cause any significant harm to residential immunity or highway safety. So what do I think it's probably worth me talking to you about this evening? Well, maybe some context on why we're asking for the changes, and then some reassurance that this isn't the beginning of a slippery slope towards further amendments, and that's because, put simply, all we're trying to do is bring Sunday in line with the previously approved hours that this committee previously approved for Monday through to Saturday, and that would then, in turn, bring this store in line with what would be our preferred operating model, and it's our preferred operating model because that's what we know our customers would want to see, and that is the same operating hours, seven days a week, and the delivery hours, meaning that the products can come in and be on the shelves at the time that our customers want to get them, and perhaps at the end, I can stay here and you can ask me specific questions and I'll try and answer them as best I possibly can. But one point that I just want to sort of resonate is we wouldn't be asking for something that we thought we didn't have a chance of getting. I've been doing planning for supermarkets and convenience stores for over 15 years, and having the same hours on a Sunday to the rest of the week is commonplace amongst convenience stores like this, the national retailers. But I guess it's important that Asda do not want to start something that's going to cause complaints. Asda are quite new to the convenience world. Asda expresses, you might not have come across one. There aren't that many in London so far, but this will be the first Asda express within the Royal Gallery of Greenwich. I hope it isn't the last one, so I don't want problems and complaints and issues that have been raised by local residents to the store manager, perhaps. He doesn't want to be or she doesn't want to be dealing with them on a day-to-day basis or a weekly basis or even one complaint a year, they wouldn't want those. And I wouldn't like them at head office too, not because I don't have time to deal with them, but because it means we've done something wrong. And I also know from experience and the hard way that keeping our neighbours on board is a really important thing because our closest neighbours are quite often our best customers. And I just want to leave that point with you that we don't consider that this is going to be causing the issues that are being suggested. As the officers have set out, the delivery hours have been found acceptable on the other days. The noise of a delivery event is the same regardless of which day it is. And the background noise level on the Sunday morning isn't going to be too different to the background noise level on a Saturday morning. And deliveries is 7am and there's been slight reference to sort of two hours. I just want to make sure that people are aware we're not seeking to bring the deliveries forward by two hours. I think the two hours refers to one hour at the beginning of the day, one hour at the end of the day. We're not going to be delivering all day long. We just want that flexibility to be able to deliver when our vehicle can get there, when the store is open. We don't want to be delivering out of hours overnight. Some of the highways issues that the local resident mentioned are actually improved. Earlier the delivery vehicle can get there. So there's a variety of different arguments. We've rehearsed them a lot, obviously, a number of times. So I reference the sort of reputational point. And I just want to state we are on site at the moment. I apologize if there was any issues with deliveries this morning of our construction materials. We started at the end of September. That's the first time I've heard of a complaint to do with anything on site. I spoke to the construction site manager this morning and I haven't been aware of that. All going well. We hope to open on the 11th of November. The first Sunday that we'd be open will be the 17th of November. I do hope that we'll be able to open with our preferred hours. Thank you very much for your time. I am more than happy to answer as many questions as you want within my still time that I've got. Thank you. Thanks, Adam. Joe, Canon. In your original application, what hours of opening and delivery did you request for a Sunday? This was a developer scheme. It was originally envisaged to be a co-op. ASDA have not been on this site or sort of -- we didn't have an assignment for lease when this original application was submitted in 2021. So it was originally envisaged to be a co-op. I think even co-op applied for some adverts at some point in the past. So we've taken a lease on the unit. We're aware of the existing restrictions. My question here this evening is just can we increase the delivery hours and can we increase the trading hours? So it doesn't really matter what the original planning permission was in our eyes because it wasn't an ASDA application. Now, I hear that. I was just wondering if you had any insight as to why it was different and you've just said it's because it's a different company. Okay. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for coming tonight. I guess the point is you took the site on knowing what the operating hours were and is your business plans based on that or based on the hope for amended hours? We always try and get the best out of all of our sites. And by that, I'm not suggesting -- and I know it can be treated as such. We're not just trying to be greedy and get as much as we want. We wouldn't want to be getting any further than what we're asking for. We're only asking for that because these are the hours that are working very well at some of our other stores that we have opened recently in terms of ASDA expresses. So this is just the request. We're just asking whether we can do this because we know that this can provide our customers with a better service. While my mic is on, could I reply to your question about servicing and perhaps vehicles going up onto a curb, for example? The office is true. There's probably not a planning condition way to stop that. But if any reason anybody wanted to put up some bollards, that would be fine by us because I can assure you that we would have a health and safety -- it's called a delivery card. It's a risk assessment essentially. And there is no way that our vehicles will end up half on the curb, half on the road. And that's because we have a sort of raiseable platform at the back of our lorries. They're rigid lorries, by the way. They're not the big articulated lorries that you see delivering to perhaps some other stores. It's a sort of 10 or 12-meter rigid vehicle. It has a tail lift. And on the back of that, there's going to be cages that maybe have some relatively heavy products, whether it's sort of drinks or cans or something. And we really do not want that to be up at an angle. So the delivery -- if that occurs, then that delivery driver is probably going to get sacked. But that was one of your questions. I don't know if you asked anymore, but I can turn my mic off at this point. Yeah, other question that happened before was about how long does each delivery typically take? Yeah, so a delivery event. So when we say two to three deliveries a day, that's not two to three deliveries a day from our own depot. So I think -- I can't remember who -- maybe it was the chair that said it's going to come from Belvedere. Yes, correct. We have a chill distribution depot up in Piccadilly, Manaway and Erith. And that's the likely departure point for our own delivery. And that's the -- bringing all the ASDA-branded goods and milk and meats and fresh vegetables and all the fresh things that we would like to get onto the site. We just wanted to make sure that we were covering all bases by telling officers it could be two to three, because there may well be a bread delivery that comes from Hobis that's much shorter. That's like a much quicker stop. And then sometimes, you know, magazines in a van, even shorter. But our own main delivery, I can answer that one, up to about 40 minutes, perhaps. Because normally, if there's a loading restriction on a road, it says up to 45 minutes. So we try and make sure we're within that anyway. But that's, say, 20 minutes to get all the products off. But then we also bring all the sandwich back. We're not going to be an operation that leaves cages outside, you know, just collecting dust on the pavement. We want to get everything back onto the vehicle, and then it goes. So approximately 40 minutes would be a say. But there isn't a planning condition, so I don't want to sort of tie myself in knots.

Thank you. And I guess, I mean, could you just explain a little bit more about the difference that these two hours could make? Because, I mean, is it purely about consistency in planning and scheduling from your perspective? Or is there something more fundamental to that? Is there an ambition to try and do the deliveries at times where the roads are quieter? Or, you know, I'm just trying to get the logic for it other than just saying we like it to be consistent? So say if the rest of the week wasn't acceptable, we'd be moving that. So it's not just bringing it in line. The consistency point is probably more a planning principle point. Something that's been made found acceptable and tested and here it is. We're bringing -- we're just -- our application is just bringing it in line with something that's already acceptable. So that's probably where the consistency point has been sort of raised quite a few times by myself as a planner and the planning officers. But in terms of operation, the best way to get the right produce on the shops ready for customers to purchase what they want is to get it there perhaps at the beginning of the day or at the end of the day because it's on the shelves and no one's buying it overnight. So that's why the ends of the day are best for an operational point of view. And we can normally avoid -- so on the weekdays we're going to be able to avoid the loading restrictions during the sort of peak fresh hour bits in the morning and the afternoon. So it's just operationally the shop is also quieter. So there's less conflict on the shop floor in terms of cages going out and fresh produce going back onto the shelves. So just from a retail point of view, operationally it is much preferred to be at the beginning of the day and the end of the day. Okay. So the intention would probably be to try and do deliveries on a Sunday at 7 a.m. and, you know, take away items or bring other items around 9 p.m. So you're done by 10 p.m. Is that -- It would be -- apologies, we both have them all at the same time. It would be one or the other. So the flexibility that this condition would enable us to do is find what's best for this store. All stores trade slightly differently in terms of peak and when people are coming in and going out. I mean, I've been doing this for years and years and years. But there are still stores that have quirks. And maybe then actually we prefer to deliver this to the store at 12 o'clock in the middle of the day on a Sunday. But the reason to ask the question is to provide the business with flexibility. Because we don't want to be breaching conditions. We don't want to be suddenly somebody thinks it's a great idea. The store -- I've looked at all the maps of when people are buying things, let's get our delivery in at 7 o'clock in the morning on a Sunday. And actually we haven't got the paperwork there ready to do that. We want to be quite agile. We want to be flexible. But it wouldn't be at the beginning of the day and then at the end of the day. Unless, you know, a really, really busy store and a very busy interchange, perhaps that might happen. But I'm not envisaging that we will have a big delivery in the morning and then another one again in the evening. Pat. This is obviously a massive residential area. So my first question is the residents of the important people, you have to get on with the residents. What kind of consultation have you had with the residents who lived there before this was started? And my other question is, again, about the delivery vehicles. The safety aspect, I'm not quite sure about the amount of traffic on that road, the width of the road. And, you know, sort of how it's going to affect other travellers, road users, pedestrians, whilst the deliveries are taking place. And thirdly, just as a matter of observation, not a question, you talk about the fact that people, you think, welcome these long hours on a Sunday. I know these are express stores you're talking about. But I'm thinking about, okay, other stores, big stores, food stores, multi stores around where I live in Eltham. And people just accept that on a Sunday they open at 10 in the morning or 10.30 and they close between 4 and 4.30. And this has been like this for years. But that's just something that I've thrown into the mix. Okay, thank you. If I could just sort of start with your last point. Yes, so large stores, large supermarkets, as the officers already said, yes, we're used to trading with Sunday trading hours, open at 10 or 10.30 or 11, as you say, and then have a six-hour window. But this is a convenience store and it will be just like all the other hundreds of convenience stores across London in terms of opening longer hours because it can. But that provides the function that we know our customers would like to see. So if it's 7 o'clock in the morning on a Sunday and you realize you need some baby milk or you need an apple or whatever you need, you don't have to wait until 10.30 and go to Sainsbury's on Eltham High Street. You know, for example, you, you could go to your nearest convenience store that would be open. We're not talking big numbers. We're not talking people driving far to go to these convenience stores. It's called convenience retail for a reason. It would be predominantly, and we've done lots of research previously, predominantly just pedestrian football and traffic to these shops because people come from the local area to this shop. And if we weren't here, they'd be going to another convenience shop, say, to buy their pint of milk or their bread. And it's just small-scale sort of retail. I know in one of your comments previously you referred to it as huge. It genuinely isn't huge. It's just a Tesco Express, a Sainsbury's local-sized proposal. And just while my mic's on and just to reply to a question you asked at the beginning, that's not a customer car park at the rear because we don't expect our customers to be driving. I think we are allocated one staff car parking space by our landlord, but the rest is residential car parking spaces. There's a locked gate. We don't even envisage the need to use our staff car parking space because we encourage all our staff to travel to site via public transport or cycling. Because most of our employees for our local stores will come from the local area, and we've already started recruiting. And that's looking like it's going to bear out to be true. Can you reply to your very first question? Yeah, apologies. And I genuinely wasn't ignoring that one on purpose, but we didn't do any consultation with our local residents beforehand. This type of retail is a little bit sort of confidential to a degree to start with, so we had to put our sort of planning applications in. Our advert applications went in last December. And I -- yes, apologies if we could have done some further consultation with our neighbors regarding this application. Perhaps in hindsight we should have done. But just to reiterate the pure planning point that sort of the principle behind this that's driving it, we wouldn't have asked if we didn't think that this was going to be found acceptable. And it was found acceptable by Environmental Health and the borough highways. And all we were asking was to bring it in line. And I guess if we had asked local residents, we -- I might still have been here this evening anyway, still asking the question. Just to see if we could get these revised hours approved. Can I just ask, you're saying it's an express, ask the express. So have you got any idea, you must have if you've got other stores, what sort of footfall, you know? You anticipate in these smaller stores? So it's -- it ranges sort of between sort of -- that sort of 2,000 sort of transactions per day. But if it's open for between 7 in the morning and -- sorry, 6 in the morning until 11 p.m. at night, somebody can do the mass per hour. But it really is just sort of spread across the day. In terms of -- because if you imagine somebody just walking down the street at the moment completely legitimately at whatever time they want at nighttime. All we're doing is diverting that person if they want something into our shop and then they walk back out again. So it's hopefully not going to be, you know, that perceptible, the difference the store will make to that street. It's just we're giving people another option, another shop that they could go to rather than say a Tesco's or the nearest Sainsbury's. So Adam, we've heard from the residents tonight that are obviously not happy with the situation. We've heard from local counselors that are also not happy with the situation. And I think you've heard from some of my colleagues here that are not happy with the situation. How flexible are you around Sundays, especially the Sunday mornings? And especially as you have an option to do a delivery on a Saturday night for Sunday morning. If I'm staring down the face of a refusal by which I'm then appealing with, I guess, some grounds, then flexibility is probably more in terms of the opening hours on the Sunday. Because if you look at the World Health Organization, there's daytime and there's nighttime. And daytime is 7 till 11, and delivery hours have been found acceptable throughout the rest of the week, Monday through to Saturday at 6 o'clock -- sorry, 7 o'clock in the morning. And I think it would be -- I would ask the question where's the technical evidence that we are going to be causing a problem with deliveries. But in terms of opening, perhaps if that opening hour, that's between the 6 and the 7 window, which is still nighttime in the EHOI's, then that might be an acceptable sort of rewording of the condition. So that on Sundays we don't open the store until 7 a.m. Calum, you had a quick question? Yeah, because I was going to say, and from just checking, like every other supermarket in the area, apart from an ASDA in Lewisham, opens no earlier than 7. And so already you will be six days a week opening in an hour before anybody else. And most others on a Sunday don't open until 8 or 9 a.m., actually, if you look at other stores in the area. So I think there is a precedent that we have in the area about the hours that we find reasonable for Sunday operation, including for smaller stores such as this one here. And I think that is, as residents have outlined, because they like to have a little bit more respite before some of that noise and hustle and bustle comes on a Sunday. So can you understand where the concern is here and how this is perhaps not the best way to get off on the right foot, saying, as you said, you want to have your neighbours as some of your key stakeholders? Yes, clearly we want to get off on the right foot. And I guess some of this boils down to the perception that this is going to cause harm. And we're still strongly on the side of the officers who are suggesting that it isn't. So we're bordering into sort of conceding on points where there's no robust evidence that would suggest otherwise. And I just want to reiterate, we're only here to ask the question. Obviously, you are the decision makers. You can make the decision as to whether this is going to be acceptable or not. I'm just wondering where the evidence is to suggest that it isn't. In terms of the other opening hours, I would be surprised that even if you found, say, a Tesco's that only opens at nine, I'd be surprised if they have a condition that says that they can't open beforehand. I've done this particular job not just for ASDA but for other retailers. Adam, coming back to point, I think the concern that we have is specifically around a Sunday and especially around Sunday mornings. Times of opening, but more importantly, times of delivery. And as you pointed out, you've got opportunities to deliver Saturday for Sunday morning. So there's no reason why you shouldn't have milk in store ready for when you do open. And it wouldn't be an emergency van screeching up 7 o'clock in the morning to unload a crate of milk. So what I'm thinking is obviously 7 a.m., as my colleague has mentioned for the opening, because that is the norm for the area, probably for the borough for Sunday training at 7 a.m., but I'm also thinking that is it really essential to deliver before 7 a.m. on a Sunday morning? Could I just say that we're not asking to deliver before 7 a.m. on a Sunday morning? So my point being is would it be acceptable to deliver after 8 a.m., no deliveries before that, and business hours at 7 a.m.? I mean, I have to put this to my colleagues. What are your thoughts on this? And also the applicant would need to agree as well. I'm asking that, but I need to ask everybody. That's the original hours, though, anyway, Chair, isn't it? But only for the morning. So the hours would still be extended in the evening. Yeah, for Sunday morning only, it would be no deliveries before 8 a.m., and opening hours from 7 a.m. Well, again, as you say, listen, I think we go into other sort of avenues there, appeals and other business. What I'm looking at is a gesture of goodwill towards the residents, which basically hoping to become your clientele because you want people that are not driving. And if they're going to walk further than a mile, they've got other opportunities because there are Tesco metros and other people probably within mile and a half radius of this location. So what are your thoughts, Adam? So as I alluded to, I would be I'd be comfortable with the opening hours restriction going back to seven on a Sunday rather than six. I think we could we could we could certainly understand more an argument, a robust argument, perhaps, if you wanted to try and make one regarding that element in terms of deliveries. One, I go back and sit over there, I'll let you debate it, discuss and you can work out whether it's going to be sort of you can sort of back that up with anything. But I would I would really just stress that seven o'clock in the morning for deliveries doesn't mean our vehicle is going to turn up at one minute, one second past seven. We're just asking for the window to be extended so that perhaps our vehicle might turn up at 750. It could turn up at 755, but the way that we were at these delivery restrictions, it could drive around a block and then turn up at eight o'clock. So to be clear, basically, you would be happy if, for example, the chair presented you with altered conditions and so that the hours of opening for a Sunday would be as previously approved. But you would not want the hours of opening changed back to what was previously the deliveries change back to what was previously approved. Is that correct? Yes, because I think that we've got a we've got a we've got a position where we think that it's acceptable and we know that. That's fine. It's just so that we can consider that now, basically. Members, your thoughts? I believe I mean, I'm very upset that you haven't even didn't even think about consulting residents really. But anyway, so but going back to seven is better. Yes, but not seven to seven say stating that delivery can be made at 750. No, it's got to be definitely after eight, hasn't it? And Kellam? Well, I mean, I think we've been very politely threatened with appealing anything that we do that does not go in line with what has been suggested here. And I think we probably would have done would end up losing on appeal. And so, I mean, I think it's not going about things the best way to get off on the right foot with your residence, however polite and courteous you were. But I mean, it felt like a pretty much no get lost. And I think, unfortunately, the planning law ties our hands here. It's the deliveries that worry me more than the opening times. Yeah, exactly. It's that's going to be very, very noisy. And it's I don't think we've really taken on board how residential that area is. I know it quite well. I mean, it's not just the houses opposite where Mr Wilson lives, but there's houses behind up the hill. All sorts of people are living there. I'm very unhappy. I'd be very willing to do the compromise. But I don't understand. You know, there was a good reason at some point why the deliveries and servicing was starting later on a Sunday when this was first done. And I'm not convinced that that whatever that reason doesn't stand. And if I was living there, I'd really be happier if you could imagine the few that just that extra hour of not having everything crashing around you. No, I don't like it. Actually. So, Adam, coming back to the point again. We're looking at a 7 a.m. opening. We're not talking about the evenings. We're only talking about specifically Sunday morning. Are you are you telling us that you are not flexible? Well, you're OK with the 7 a.m. opening, but with the deliveries after 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning. I'm only talking about the Sunday morning here. Yes, please. Yes. Sorry, chair. I would like that question to be answered as to whether seven o'clock in the morning on Sundays is an acceptable time to deliver to the site. So I would like to get to the end of asking that question through the due planning process, please. My next question to the cabinet, sorry, to the committee is to vote on this item. So before I put it to the vote, I'm asking you, after you listen to the sentiment of the committee. If you would consider the 7 a.m. opening and an 8 a.m. delivery. And just just to stress, I'm not trying to be difficult. I am. I'm just trying to to to ask a legitimate question regarding delivery hours, which we know will work and work well for our customers. And we know work well without impacting residents. There are there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of convenience stores across the capital, across the nation that deliver with the same delivery hours, which have been found acceptable by your show here. And I'm not wanting to to just say yes to this. And then obviously, I still have the ability to come back at another point and and ask another application to get the right delivery. Why do deliveries want to. And as I said at the very beginning, I don't want this to be a start of a slippery slope of amendments. We really just want a resolution as to whether seven o'clock in the morning on a Sunday is acceptable for deliveries or not. So if I just push it back to eight o'clock, it's effectively the same delivery hours that we had before. The rest of the week. So the rest of the week, what we're talking about is a Sunday. We're not questioning the alterations that you're seeking for the rest of the week. I'm not seeking any alterations for the rest of each. I'm only seeking alterations for the Sunday. And it kind of defeats the object of submitting the planning application if I'm not going to be asking the council to make a decision on it. And apologies, I'm not trying to be blunt and and I'm just wanting you to debate whether you think that seven o'clock in the morning on a Sunday is going to be an acceptable time for a delivery. And if not, I will then review your reasons for refusal. And as the council suggested, yes, obviously, we have the ability to appeal. I'm not saying that nobody can predetermine any appeal either. So we would just ask that question, too, because as a business, we want to provide the best offer for our customers who can also be our local residents. And we will we will go through the processes to try and get that. And if the if you say no and the planning inspector said no, then we wouldn't. We're not going to breach these hours. We're just asking the question. Well, the issue is about the amenity of the local residents. That would be the rationale. And it's a rationale that I think is is very strong. I believe that's right. I wait to be informed. OK, Adam, thanks. Thank you. Members, marking for deliberation now. Any final thoughts? I have to agree with my colleague. It's the amenity of the local. It's an extremely residential area. And it's OK. The applicant saying that this works for everybody else, but are all other areas so strongly surrounded by properties where people live? And I cannot accept. I mean, yes, I accept the if they move the date, the opening until seven. But I'm very concerned about the deliveries and it is to do with the amenity of the local residents. And therefore, I will be objecting on those grounds. Thanks, Pat. Any further comments? No. OK, so all those in favor of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hands. All those against. Two, four and three against. And I think I think we're. So what we're what we're agreeing with, what the reason is that we believe the noise will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents from deliveries at a time where you would expect it to be quiet. I.e. early on a Sunday morning. And it is basically around the deliveries and the impact on an early Sunday morning that those deliveries could impact on the residential amenity space. Yes. OK. That's OK. Adam. Thank you, members. We now move on to item five, which is 24 Lucknow Street, Plumstead, London, S.E., 18 to S.N., reference 242093 F. Dominic. Welcome. Good evening, members of the committee. The proposal relates the change of views from an existing three bed single family dwelling house to a five bedroom six person HMO, including the construction of two single story rear extensions and all other associated external alterations. This application has come before members due to receiving 24 objections. The concerns raised by the objectors are set out within the officer's report. Officers recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions included in Appendix two of the officers committee report. Here is a site location plan, the site being highlighted by the red line. The property is a two story terrace dwelling on the northwestern side of Lucknow Street with a small front and larger rear garden. Here we have an aerial view of the site. It is not located within a conservation area and is not subject to any particular designations. The area is predominantly residential, with a mix of terrace houses and flats. Here are some photos from my site visit. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to access the rear garden, but you can see from the photos from the first floor towards the back of the property. The building shown adjoining is the dwelling at 26 Lucknow Street. For the ground floor, the existing dining and living room will be converted into two bedrooms with a kitchen at the rear. To facilitate this, two single story rear extensions will be constructed, which are highlighted by the grey hatched areas on the drawings. For the first floor, the building will retain three bedrooms, but there will be some internal layout alterations to provide for the change in room sizes and for the provision of en-suites. For a quality of accommodation, the bedroom sizes, kitchen facilities, bathrooms, floor to ceiling heights comply with our HMO standards. The rear garden will continue to be used by future occupants and all rooms will have sufficient access to an acceptable level of daylight, sunlight and outlook. Here we have the rear elevations of the dwelling, which clearly show the height of the two rear extensions. In terms of design and visual amenity, the proposed rear extensions are of a size and design that will be subordinate to the existing dwelling. Notably, they will be less than the 3.6 metre projection provided for rear extensions in our urban design guide. Here is the development as viewed from 22 Lucknow Street concerning impact on neighbouring amenity. The scale and positioning of the extensions will not cause an unacceptable loss of daylight, sunlight or outlook to adjacent properties. Here is the development as viewed from 26 Lucknow Street. The increase from what could be up to four people in the existing dwelling to six occupants in the HMO is not considered to result in a material difference in noise disturbance. On transport and highways, the development does not propose any parking on site and so will be reliant on on-street parking if required. It is noted that Council's Highways Officer did request a parking stress survey. Although the site has a low PTAIL rating of two, it is located within close proximity to frequent bus routes that lead to Woolwich and wider transport connections. Additionally, the site is not located within a controlled parking zone which would indicate that there is capacity for on-street parking should occupants require it. Cycle parking will also be provided in the rear garden of the property. For waste, three bins have been shown on the drawings in the front garden of the site. This is a shortfall of the required five and accordingly we have included a condition in Appendix 2 which requires the applicant to submit full details of refuge storage for five bins. Notably, Council's Waste Officer has not raised any objection to the proposal. In summary, the proposed development is in accordance with the relevant policies and our urban design guide and will bring back into use what is currently a vacant dwelling that is in need of renovation to provide much needed housing for the borough. Thank you. Take any questions? Thanks, Dominique. Questions? Pat? Thank you for your report. Can I just ask what size is the back garden, please, and what size will these extra sort of extensions, alterations, you know, how much space will they take up because there is already an extension there at the back of the house, isn't there? So there is a two-storey extension, per se, but it's an original feature of all the terrace dwellings, or predominantly all of the terrace dwellings on that row. So that's not a subsequent extension that has been added on to the property. If it was, then we would be looking at a 3.6-metre projection from the original facade of the rear dwelling, so that does not apply in this case. In terms of the area of the rear garden, I don't have a specific figure on me, although I do note in the report for outdoor, in the outdoor amenity space section, or it might have been the design, we did talk about how large the rear garden was in terms of dimensions. So at 10.9, we say it has acknowledged the proposed resulting reduction in the existing outdoor space that the application site currently benefits from. However, the area of the rear garden will be approximately 4.29 metres by 4.47 at the rear remaining. I think it's also important to add that in terms of the HMO standards, there isn't actually a specific standard in relation to external amenity space, so we don't necessarily look at that, but obviously we want residents to have access to an area of private external amenity space, which this proposal achieves. If it's okay if I ask another one, Chair. The bins, I'm right in thinking that this is a terrace property, isn't it? So, I mean, I don't know, is there a back entrance to this property? Are all the bins going to be kept at the front? Yes, we anticipate all the bins to be provided at the front garden. It's important to note that waste officers didn't raise any objection. We do believe there to be sufficient space for five bins. We did include the condition for them to submit full details, so should it turn out that they submit those details and not able to accommodate all five bins at the front of the site, there is communal access through the dwelling as a kind of last resort where they could pull a bin, possibly two, through the kitchen and through the hallway, but in the first instance, it would be five bins in the front garden. It leads me on to the last one, if that's all right, because you're talking about a cycle store and you're saying that there is not another access at the back, so how are people going to get their cycles into the cycle store? There is an access through the back, so there's a communal hallway, a communal kitchen, and then from the kitchen, there is a rear door into the garden, so that's where they would be able to pull their cycles through. I think what Pat was asking, Dominic, is that there is no, apart from going through the property, there's no other access to the garden. Yes, correct, as with quite a few tourist properties. And just is the width, I mean, I'm no cyclist, you know, how are they going to get the bikes through, is there going to be sufficient width in that hallway to get a bike cycle through to the back? So it's quite common that in these sort of properties, whether it be for an HMO or a conversion to self-contained dwelling houses, that there's not always space at the front to provide the cycle parking, but from a planning perspective, it's better that some cycle parking is provided than none. So it's quite common that in instances such as this, that it's acceptable for the cycle parking to be located at the back, and our transport officer generally recommends that this is acceptable and it's okay for them to bring it. Because obviously the bin, it's more of a priority for the bins to be at the front of the property than the cycle parking, unfortunately. Kellan. Yeah, I mean, it looks like I bring my bike through the house and it's, yeah, I don't think I've caused much damage. My question is just, from looking at aerial views, it looks like there are another couple of properties along that street which have had rear extensions as well. Is this similar in scale and mass to those? So I just never quite trust the numbers that Google gives you, so I don't want to say the numbers in case I'm wrong. Just trying to get a sense of the perspective of, yeah, so there's the one with the green which looks like it comes out a little bit further when you look at the directly overhead, and then also two further up. Are we talking something similar scale and mass to those? To be honest, I haven't done a direct comparison with those other extensions. However, the proposed extensions in this development, they are less than the 3.6 metres that the Urban Design Guide provides for. So they're of a smaller scale than what we provide for in our Urban Design Guide. Perfect. Thank you very much. You got another question, Pat? Yes. Can we go back to, because there are two, aren't there two extensions that one on the other side? One of them's an outrigger, which is part of the design of Victorian terrace houses. Right. And I think if you go back to that illustration, Dominic, with the houses. Yeah, we haven't got a larger illustration, have we? Sorry, to the aerial, you want? Yeah, where you're showing the houses with the outrigger, you had an aerial view of the street scene. So you see at the back, Pat, you've got... Yeah, it's all right, I'm going to look at, yeah. So just to explain the extensions in a bit more detail, there's two of them. Yes, please. One of them projects beyond the two-storey outrigger, which, as Dominic referenced, is an original. And then the other element infills the side return, again, with a similar depth. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any further questions, members? No? Thank you very much. Dominic, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Councillor Asgar. Councillor, you have up to five minutes. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for allowing me to speak this evening at short notice. Thank you for the presentation, Dominic. I'm here to speak in objection of the proposal in support of the residents of Lucknow Street. For those of you who don't know, Lucknow Street is, in my ward of Plumstead Common, it's very densely packed Victorian terrace houses, a narrow Victorian street with relatively narrow pavements. And like a lot of Plumstead, it is on a hill. This property overlooks, it's higher up than number 22, which is next door. I have several concerns that some of the material planning, about some of the material planning considerations on this application, the impact on neighbouring amenity. So I'll start with the extension. Now that this extension, the rear extension, not the side return extension, would be what would be considered permitted development if this were a house that wasn't an HMO. But because of the topography of Lucknow Street, this extension will overshadow the garden of number 22, which is lower down the hill from the southern aspect. So therefore, it will take away sunlight and warmth from that garden. So I would like to see an impact assessment done on the impact of that extension. I am concerned, and correct me if I'm wrong, Chair, but there is, on the site plan, there is the side return extension. But on the actual illustrations, there's no illustration of it, and it's on the plan, but on the elevations, I can't actually see it. It doesn't seem to be, it's not there. So I think there's insufficient detail on this side return extension. It says it's there, but on the plan which shows the kitchen, I can't see it unless it's in room two. Is that the, could you perhaps clarify that, Dominic, when I finish my representation? The other impact on the neighbouring amenity is, of course, parking. Now, the transport officers have specifically requested an impact assessment on the parking situation on Lucknow Street. And I note in your presentation, Dominic, it's not in an area with controlled parking, and so it's assumed that there isn't a parking pressure, but please let me assure you that there is. It's bumper to bumper in Lucknow Street and all the streets that are off Timbercroft Lane and Timbercroft Lane. It is a real problem. I know we're trying to encourage people to not have cars and to take public transport, but I would urge the committee to be pragmatic because the only people this is going to affect is the community of Lucknow Street, who will have extra parking stress on a daily basis, which can cause severe stress to residents. So I would urge for this parking impact survey to take place. The insufficient detail on the cycle parking, which is highlighted again by the highways officers, is concerning. But I'm sure that could be a special condition. My other concern about the impact on neighboring amenity is the location of en-suites located next to bedrooms and reception rooms in the neighboring property. There would have to be assurances of sufficient soundproofing. Again, I don't think this is something that should be approved until we have the full details of how the neighbors next door in bedrooms and reception rooms are going to be protected from the noise of showers and toilets in the next door room, which usually would adjoin another wet room, a bathroom or a kitchen. And by turning this into an HMO, it wouldn't. So several concerns here. I'm sure the residents will go in further on the daily experience of living in Lucknow Street. But again, we're here again, the loss of a family house, putting an HMO into the housing mix. I know there's nothing in our local plan at the moment to prevent this, but it's the cumulative effect which it's having on the residents. So I would urge the committee to reject this application at this stage because it doesn't have the insufficient detail. Unfortunately, I'm not assured by the planning officer's recommendations that the transport officer's request for parking stress isn't needed. Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? No? Councillor, thank you very much. Thank you. I now wish to call on Marlon Steele. Hi, Marlon. There's a red button right in the middle. Red light comes on. Hello. Two minutes. Thanks, Marlon. Thank you for hearing my representation. So if you could go back to picture three, you will see that there is a bike parking rental space on Lucknow Street. And the reason for that is the hallways are so narrow, you cannot get your bike in and out of the properties. It's about halfway down the street if you go through. So just so you know, I live on Lucknow Street. I live on number 16, this statement is a combination of mine and Mark Dean, who is the deputy manager of the local fire station in Plumstead. So in his experience, he has been going to lots of many HMO properties due to fires, due to people cooking in rooms, figures that he obtains from the service. Although only 5% of the population live in HMOs, HMO occupancy properties account for 35% of fatalities and 40% of injuries in terms of the work that the fire brigade do. In terms of the design of the property, it appears that there's a small spiral staircase in the centre of the property that goes up to the loft. It's a bit hard to see because the plans aren't complete, but it looks like a small staircase, that the spiral staircase is as small as possible to maximise the number of rooms in the property. But then this represents a high risk of exit from the property if you're up in that space and you're having to come down that small spiral staircase, or if you need to take heavy equipment or furniture in and out, or if you need to leave in an emergency. And then the proposed rear extension, which is being done to accommodate room two and the kitchen, will require the removing of low-bearing walls in order to accommodate the new staircase, so this reshapes the building in our view. It may only get three metres, but our view is that actually quite a proportion of the garden structure will be taken up by this new extension, which is not typical of the properties on Lucknow Street. Also these new structures will have to be supported by Steeles, requiring a party wall agreement from surrounding residents, who obviously bitterly oppose this development. In terms of the 30 square metres required for the upstairs conversion, 32 squared is available, meaning that what is required for the new bathroom is two metres squared, the rest of this needs to be found from the old landing and stairs. Marlon, well over you too. Thank you. Any questions? Calum, then Pat. Cheers, thank you very much, Marlon. You referred to some party wall issues, now you're seeing the report, that's not something we're able to consider from a planning perspective, but you should also be clear that things cannot go ahead if those party wall issues are not resolved. And so I just want to be clear that while there are things that may not be pertinent from a planning perspective and therefore we can't factor them into the way we make our decision, there are still other avenues that people can pursue, and so whoever it is that needs to address those party wall issues will be a key stakeholder there in determining what does or doesn't happen. So there's less of a question, or just I sort of wanted to explain why that's not something we'll be able to take into account. Pat. I'm going back to the cycles storage and as I say, you know, yes I'm not, well obviously I'm not a cyclist, but you said this does concern me because I can remember a few years ago this something similar came up with an HMO about the cycles and the size of the hallway, the width, and am I right in thinking that you said that you have one of these properties and that the hallway is very narrow? That's correct, it's very narrow, and over the years, so I've lived in Lucknow Street since 2002, I've done much damage to my hallway, so petition the council and finally got a cycle storage bin outside of my property so that I'm not constantly going through the hallway and damaging that. And it's pretty popular because all the storage is being used in that cycle storage unit by the residents on Lucknow Street for the very reason that I've just described. Also, I'm thinking, because it's such a narrow hallway. I mean, again, this probably I don't whether this we know we sort of that covers us as planners today, tonight, but do you think that that is safe, that the width of the hallway health and safety wise? So I do know the property because I know the residents who were living there beforehand so I know what the width of that hallway looks like and it's similar in size to my own. Also similar in size to the HMO next door to me. And there have been a number of incidences where people have been cooking in their rooms and then they've tried to exit to the property at the same time. And because of the narrowness of the hallway, they're not able to do that. So that because of the narrowness does represent a problem in terms of exiting the property if there's an emergency for people who are in different parts of the property. Any further questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Dominic, coming back to some of the points raised about the restricted space in the corridors, is that something that is covered under conditions or building control? Because if there is a park, if there is a cycle park in the garden and there are issues actually getting the average bike through the corridor. So this sort of issue comes across twofold from a health and safety point of view. I mean ultimately the layout of the property is currently in residential use at the moment and the HMO standards from a planning perspective don't look at the width of halls. There might be additional legislation that HMO licensing or building control might look at from a health and safety perspective, but the things that we can assess from a planning side of things is the size of the kitchen, the size of the bedrooms, the quality of outlook and daylight and sunlight which for the reasons set out in the report we think is acceptable. From a bike perspective, I mean again, if it was deemed that it wasn't suitable for cycle parking to be provided at the back I don't think we would find the application unacceptable. From our perspective it's better that cycle parking is provided than no cycle parking. But as the gentleman said earlier, it sounds like there's other facilities to use within Lucknow Street anyway, but I think from a cycle parking side of things we're happy that cycle parking in the rear garden is acceptable and the highways officers raise no objection to it. Hopefully that answers your question. In relation to the staircases, comments made about the internal staircases, they're all acceptable standards. When we've had a look at that, and I think it might just be a bit of a, the way the staircase works isn't particularly user friendly, so when we've just had a look at it, they are indeed changing the way the staircase works. And I think the way it would work is you come up here, you come, this is the ground floor, you would go up this staircase here, oh no, sorry I've gone, the delay on this is not helpful. You come in here, go up the staircase, you would then come up here, and then there's a change in level here. So I think there's possibly that the arrow is the wrong way round, which is just a minor error in the drawings, and you come up here, you come up here, and then you've got a change in level here. So I think from a, it might just be a very minor error on the drawings where the down arrow should be going the other way round. So basically it's got a double winder, it's got a double winder on it to get round and save space and cover the angle. Yeah, I think so, yeah. Okay, so members, when you've got a double winder, you've got a turn and a turn, which gives it a spiral, it gives it the image of being a spiral staircase. It's not actually a spiral staircase, it's where you've got a double winder that comes round, so you've got the same amount of treads, but you're saving space to get where you need to get from A to B. Okay, alright, thanks for that. I now wish to call on Danielle Pecola. Hi Danielle, two minutes, thank you. Good evening chair, thank you, good evening councillors and planning officers. My name is Danielle, my wife and I are primary school teachers and we've recently moved into number 22 Lucknow Street. My wife serves the local community in Greenwich and she has raised concerns about the impact of HMOs on the dwindling primary school places within the borough. And this is also one of our concerns with the planning of an HMO next door to us. We were shocked to find the application for an HMO given that no one reached out to us about these plans moving in and nobody has since done so and nothing was given to the former owner of the property and all the agents who were conducting the sale, so we had no idea this was happening. The raising serious concerns about our home and also about Greenwich's consultation rules and how we have not been consulted whatsoever. We have several key objections to this development, the two proposed single storey extensions as the councillor mentioned, thank you for that, will infringe on our privacy and on our amenities. It's protected by policy DHB of the community strategy, it's creating an unable sense of enclosure into our own garden and also blocking out light as the councillor mentioned. These extensions can also potentially allow, because they're higher than ours, can also potentially allow residents to look into our skylight and into our back kitchen and into our communal areas as well. Additionally, the communal drainage system, which I sent to Jean before to show you on the legal documents that I sent you, the property shares the same drainage line with the proposed HMO and runs through the party wall between number 20 and ourselves. We're on a Victorian drainage system and already having six additional residents all with their own facilities as well, so four additional sewage facilities in a system that's already prone to flooding. And land heave, as the documents I've shown have sent you, are also potentially creating a financial burden on ourselves and our family home and next door as well, number 20, if something were to go wrong, wet wipes, blockages, it would come up through our back garden and through the party wall of next door and ourselves as well. Finally, I just want to address that my wife is pregnant and due to give birth in January. Policy EA of the core strategy states that planning permission will not be granted where a development will have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers, especially where it would result in the emission of noise, grit, light, vibrations and other pollutants. The walls between the two properties are paper thin and you can hear somebody sneeze, Councillors. We do on the daily hear our numbers at number 20 sneeze and they hear us sneeze as well. The project would emit all of those pollutants and also exceed the noise pollution allowable for that development. And also I would ask the council to consider their safeguarding of my own baby. Just very quickly, the safeguarding of our own baby and 50 decibels being the level that a baby's ears can take. A year of maternity leave is what my wife is planning. Thank you. Sorry I went over. Thanks, Daniel. Any questions for the speaker? Pat. Thank you for that and congratulations. Can I just ask you, talking about the difference in height, how much difference do you think it will make because it's on a slope? So the slope additionally is going to, the shading of the extensions will go into our back garden. I'm not sure about the exact dimensions of that. I'm really sorry. However, I know that already during the evening there is shading within the garden from the existing back part of the property. So extending that out to stories is going to make that worse and increase our sense of enclosure on both of those sides because essentially at the moment on number 20 Lucknow Street, their back part of their property is here on the left hand side and then ours, theirs would be extended there. So we're then boxed in by those two already quite large properties. How many windows are going to be affected? So the way I've seen it, again I could be wrong, but the skylight would, our skylight where our roof is, you would be able to see through into our communal hallway if that makes sense. So where the stairs are leading up into our bedrooms and also where those windows are placed looking into our back bedrooms I believe. Thank you. Thank you. The application, sorry Daniel, the application says that there's two single storey extensions. So the two that build on what's already there, which is the single, the two storey there. Is that correct? No, they're both ground floor single storey extensions. There's no two storey extension proposed. On both sides though, so I'm not sure where the plan is. So there's an infill on the side, so where the outrigger comes out there'll be a single storey outrigger which probably won't be much higher than the boundary wall or the boundary fence. And then there's a single storey extension which is going to be put on the back end. There is nothing going above one storey. Okay. Just because on the plans it looked like, if you looked at the, I think it was the previous one, the elevation ones. If you go back, I'm not sure whether it was this one. So where those single storey extensions are going, there's one there and so that part of the building, is that retaining that second storey? I think what you're getting confused, looking at the outrigger, so if you look at the bottom of the proposed where the window with the double opener is, that's a single storey rear extension. You can see the flat roof line and then next to that is an infill which is set further back. Okay. So it's set further back. So the rear extension, if you go back to the illustration and show a plan, if you go back to the plan, so you can see, go back one, yeah. Go back, yeah, the one that's really basic. No, go back four, yeah. And again, and again, and again, go back one. Okay, so there. If you see the rectangle down the side, that is the infill and then over on the extension there, that is a single storey extension. So there are no overlooking, there are no additional heights which would be able to look over, up and over. And then I think my colleague highlighted the party wall agreement that would need to be in place. So we haven't been given any indication. That would be something that would have to follow because they are building on the boundary. Yeah. But again, there are things that we can look at if you're concerned about any window. I don't even think there are windows on the. No, there's no windows facing number 22. There is a window, I believe a window and a door from the extension to the outrigger that will face towards number 26. So go back one, right, so looking, hold on. I think it was easier, it was clearer on the other side. Yeah, no, there isn't a window on there. It looked like there was a window there. So there's options open to us about obscure glass or something else where something is overlooking, is that correct? I mean, typically when you've got, as you can see on the floor plans, you've got some windows on the side here. But typically at ground floor level, because you're looking towards sort of boundary treatment, that provides adequate screening in any case. The other thing I wanted to point out is that both extensions do actually fall within the limits of permitted development. The main reason why they fall within this application is the proposal as a whole requires planning permission, which is why we're required to consider it. But ultimately, as the property is a single family dwelling house at the moment, they could implement both additions without needing planning permission. Thanks, Jim. Any further questions for the speaker? No? Daniel, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Anthony Doran. Hi, Anthony. Hello. Good evening. As a resident, I'm speaking this evening in objection to the proposal at 24 Lucknow Street. As can be seen in the response during public consultation, this neighbourhood is characterised by its social cohesion represented mainly by families. The London Plan Policy D6 clarifies the layout should be fit for purpose with adequate sized rooms without differentiating between tenures. Space standards require that for a change of use, a five bedroom dwelling house should be no smaller than 110 square metres. This proposal is 15 square metres below this and a further 27 square metres short of the best practice standard as in the London Plan guidance. This puts into question the reasonable standard as required by London Plan Policy H9. A fridge in a bedroom is not a material planning consideration. However, there is no indication in the plans for a refrigerator in the kitchen. This is a requirement for the licensing and management of houses in multiple occupation and other houses regulations 2006. Therefore, it will struggle to meet the reasonable standards required by London Plan H9. High quality required by NPPF Paragraph 131 and Local Plan Policy H5. Furthermore, as indicated in the officer's report, two sets of cooking facilities are required for an HMO with a capacity of six persons. The plans failed to demonstrate how this would fit in the proposed kitchen. Not meeting this minimum requirement again questions how this application can demonstrate reasonable standards or high quality. Policy aside, I don't think it's hygienic to be carrying around uncooked food up and down stairs and how can this be considered a reasonable standard. Future residents aside, I wish luck to the person who has to carry a fridge freezer up a staircase that is a mere 65 centimetres wide and steeper than building regulations allow at 45 degrees. How is cycle parking accessed by a 10 metre corridor that is only 70 centimetres wide, either fit for purpose or well located? To quote the London Plan, the existing stock of small and medium sized family dwellings still have a vital and versatile role to play in meeting housing needs and should be protected. Moving the ground floor hallway wall, moving the staircase and removing the chimney breast are significant works. The substantial works question sustainable development is unlikely this home will ever be converted back into a family home for future generations. Subjectively, I'm shocked to be back here discussing a similar application. I pointed out where this application objectively lacks quality and cannot meet various requirements of the local plan, the London Plan and the MPPF. Why is the borough working towards minimum standards without thoroughly interrogating what quality housing is? I ask voting members to consider future residents and if this feels like quality housing or perhaps this can remain a family home. Thank you. Questions for the speaker? Any comments? No. Anthony, thank you very much. Unfortunately, members, we don't have the applicant or anyone representing the applicant here. So, we're not in a position to ask questions or raise points that have been raised by speakers. So, if you have comments or questions from the comments made, then we're going to have to basically direct them to officers. So, Jo, Pat, Callum. Right. I've got three points that I've written down that I think are planning considerations that I'm not clear on. If we are trying to put in cycle spaces and the cycles can't get to the spaces, then they don't count. They can't be cycle spaces. So, that's one point. The other is full assurance that that is an adequate kitchen space for six people and how it's going to be laid out to have two -- I understand it's got to have at least two sets of cooking areas, et cetera. And I take -- there's things I don't like. There's no other -- but that's not about what I like or don't like about the fact that there's nowhere to eat except by taking it back up to the room. That's separate. I think we've clarified the sense of enclosure that was worrying me. We have, haven't we, that it's not going to be like we thought it was going to. I suppose those were my two main issues. It does feel very, very tight. It really does. So, in responding to your questions, again, in terms of the cycle parking, our highways officer has raised no objection to the cycle parking being located in the rear garden. And I think from a -- even if there was no rear garden at all, for example, we would still be saying the proposal would be -- we wouldn't think it would be justifiable to refuse the application on the lack of cycle parking. So, from a planning perspective, it's beneficial that some cycle parking is provided, then none. In terms of the kitchens, whilst the way the HMO standards work is that they're based on a size. So, we don't necessarily need to see the indicative layout for the kitchen. That's what HMO licensing deal with. The HMO licensing standards, which we look at when we assess these planning applications, require a kitchen for this number of occupants. And the proposed kitchen meets those standards. So, then the way it works is that when HMO -- the HMO licensing team receives the HMO, they will interrogate the layout. And then that will be secured through the HMO license as opposed to the planning. And then in terms of the quality of the accommodation and the kitchens, ultimately we're required to assess the proposal against those standards. And for the reasons out in the officer's reports, the kitchen complies, each of the individual bedrooms comply. And the requirement for the bathroom provision also complies. We're kind of tied by what the HMO standards are, unfortunately. Okay, that was my third question, I realize now, is that our last resident spoke about the overall size of the building being adequate for -- So, unfortunately, the standards that gentlemen just raised were in relation to new self-contained residential dwellings that are not HMO standards. So, the standards contained within the London plan quoted don't actually apply to this application. That would be if you were providing a new five bedroom C3 residential dwelling. Because this is an HMO, we apply our local standards as opposed to the London plan. It's a different type of housing that that particular policy applies to. Okay, and I just want to go back to the bicycles again. Because I'm sure that people say, oh, it's perfectly good to have it in the back garden. But quite honestly, if it can't be reached, you know, it's not there. It doesn't count. I hear what you say, that it's not going to be material. I mean, really, our priority would be having the bins located in the front garden. Because if you had the cycle parking in the front garden, the bins are going to have to go elsewhere. And it's more important that the refuse and the recycling facilities are located at a sensible location that they can bring brought out onto the street for collection and things like that. Absolutely, but I don't see, that doesn't mean that a cycle store that is inaccessible exists. Because it doesn't. As I said, our highways officer has raised no objection to it. They're satisfied that it is acceptable for it to be located in the back garden. Theoretically, a cycle store in the back garden, absolutely, get it. But did that person actually see the width of this hallway? They would have reviewed the drawings when they considered it. Thank you. Pat. Right, going back again to the cycles, did you say that there is an area within this, the road, that has been put aside for cycle parking for any resident who lives there? Am I right in thinking that? I think what that was, Pat, Marlon, who is a resident in the area, commented that because of the restricted space in the corridors, there was a council storage facility, cycle storage facility on the streets. My comment is that local residents asked for the council to place a storage facility on the street because it was difficult to get cycles into properties. I don't know how many cycles that would accommodate. That's what I'm asking. I think knowing from what we've seen, I think they're from six to ten. Is that correct, Callum? They hold six to ten cycles. It depends on the size of them. Sorry, you said full. Residents have said that it is full, not that it can hold more than four, but it is full at present. My other question is, again, going back to the parking, we heard, and I know this area, and I know what the parking is like there, but I can't remember whether, is it controlled parking or not controlled parking? The size of the garden does worry me because if you have got six, actually, at the beginning, we're told, aren't we, that it's a five-bedroom small HMO with a maximum capacity of six persons. Is that because one of the bedrooms, I can't remember, is larger than it's to accommodate? One is double, yes. Yeah, so sort of going back to, yeah, you know, if you've got six people, where are they going to go? I mean, how much land is there going to be in the back garden that they can use? And how then there's going to be a certain amount of noise, you know, with neighbours. How, I don't know how that's going to work. There's no requirement for an outdoor space for HMOs, so they still retain their rear garden there. In terms of noise, I don't think the addition of two people beyond what could be accommodated in the existing dwelling would result in an unacceptable effects on noise for adjoining occupiers. Callum. Thank you, Chair. I mean, we need more, you know, I have no issue with HMOs in the borough at all. We need more of them. They fill a really important gap in our housing mix. The fact is, this is a really poorly designed one, but I think most of the issues that residents have highlighted are not issues that we can manage from a planning perspective, but they're issues for the HMO licensing team and also for on the party wall issue as well. So I think our hands are slightly tied by what the planning law is here and, you know, yes, technically one can get a bike through there, but you're going to end up bashing up the walls and so on. Yes, technically, you perhaps could have two sets of cookers in that kitchen, but it's not really in a function as a space. So, I mean, I think this is one of these things that is immensely frustrating when we're sat here, where you're presented with something that looks pretty inadequate, but it just about meets the technical specifications and we have to then trust that the HMO licensing will have a sensible approach on what is and is not reasonable here. Yeah, this is a tricky one, I think, Chair, particularly given the applicant's not here, because I think there are lots of things that one would want to try and tease out with the applicant as to their intention and on things like soundproofing on some of the shared walls, given the issues that residents have highlighted. I don't know if that's something that we can condition. Well, again, I'm not happy that the applicant is here to answer certain questions, and I think it's not fair on our officers that we are having to put more pressure on them to answer questions that really go beyond their sort of policy compliant remit. I am minded to put to members that we defer the item, and because obviously there are certain questions that we would like to have answered by the applicant themselves, and I just wonder if we're in a position to do that. Okay, so I'm going to put it to members, if you would prefer to defer so that we can get more detailed answers from the applicant themselves, would that be something that you would prefer? Yeah? Okay. So I'm going to put that to the vote, then. All those in favour of the suggestion of getting a more detailed response back from the applicant so that they can answer our questions. Okay. Okay. Item 5 is deferred. We now move on to item 643, the Slade, Plumstead, London, SE 18 2NB, reference 242649 HD. And I'll let people know that we do not have any speakers listed. Can I request the application from Plumstead Manner School to go first, just because it's getting late. I was just about to read. There's no speakers at all on this item. Okay. So there'll be a briefing, and it will go straight to the vote. Okay. So item 643, the Slade, Plumstead, London, SE 18 2NB, reference 242649 HD. And I will let it be known, there are no speakers on this item. So I take it that you have read most of the stuff. I'll get the officer to give an intro. If we have any questions, if none, I'll go straight to the vote. Dominic. Thank you. The proposal relates to the construction of a single-storey, rare extension to the existing dwelling on the site. The application is before members, due to the applicant being a councillor at Greenwich Council. There were no objections received in relation to the proposal. We recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 2. Here is the site, location is highlighted by the red boundary. The site is a two-storey, terraced, single-family dwelling on the south-eastern side of the Slade. It has an existing small, single-storey, rare extension and a large, rare garden, which is visible as shown in the aerial image. The site is located within Plumstead Common Conservation Area and is located within flood zone 1. There are no other notable designations. Here are some photos from my site visit where you can see the existing, rare extension that will be replaced and the adjoining properties on either side. The application sets permission for the single-storey, rare extension. This will involve demolishing the existing extension, replacing it with a new extension measuring 4.715 wide, 3.6 deep and three metres high overall, with a maximum height of 3.23 to the top of the roof light. This extension would feature a flat roof and bi-fold doors open to the rare garden. The proposed extension to its overall bulk, design and location is considered to be in keeping with the character of the host building and the surrounding area. The Council's Conservation Officer has concluded the proposal will preserve the character and appearance of the Plumstead Common Conservation Area, noting that it's not visible from public areas. Here are the site elevations as viewed from adjoining properties. Concerning impact on neighbouring amenity, the scale and positioning of the extensions will not cause an unacceptable loss of daylight, sunlight or outlook to adjacent properties. In conclusion, the proposed development respects the character and appearance of the host building and the local area without having any unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Thank you. Thanks Dominic. Any questions? I see none. Okay, I'm going to put it straight to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation? Item 6 is approved. Do we need to quickly stop for a loo break? Anyone need a drink before we kick off? We now move on to Item 7, Plumstead Manor School, Old Mill Road, London SE 18 1QF, reference 24025F. Brendan. Good evening. This item relates to Plumstead Manor School. The application is for the conversion of a school car park to a multi-use games arena. This application is here before committee by reason of receiving 13 objections by adjacent occupiers. Some of these can be found in the officer's report. The site surrounding red is currently used as a car park in association with Plumstead Manor School and comprises of hard standing with 37 car parking spaces. The site sits at the northern extreme of the wider school site which is contained in the blue line on screen. This is the area of the site where the car park is the subject of this application surrounding red. The wider school site sits at the south of the site and exists as a secondary school. Ancona Road is shown on the left-hand side of the screen. This area contains existing vehicular access to the site which is to be retained for emergency and maintenance access only. On the opposite side of Ancona Road sits a flat development with some garages to the front. Tuscan Road shown on the right contains two-story terrace built form on the opposite side of the road to the site which is the prevailing building type within the surrounding area. This slide shows a view to the north which contains a side boundary of the rear gardens of dwellings on both Ancona Road and Tuscan Road which is separated from the site by Badmoor Path, a pedestrian pathway linking the two roads. To the south of the site sits a modern teaching block shown on the right. This slide shows a selection of pictures of the site itself. The existing fencing gates seen in these pictures are to be retained as part of the proposal. This is the proposed site plan. The proposed mooger does not occupy the entire car parking site and would be 35 metres by 18 metres. A gap of 1.4 metres would be retained between the mooger and the existing northern boundary and 6.2 metres from the western boundary. To the east of the site the mooger would be 12.8 metres from the boundary with Tuscan Road. The intervening space would contain a seating area and two trees are proposed to be planted here. The mooger would contain a blue and green porous surface and would be marked out for various sports. Whilst the mooger would largely be used by the school there is an opportunity for this facility to be used by the wider community including local groups and other schools. A condition has been recommended requiring a community use agreement to be provided to the council in order to ensure that the mooger can be used to the benefit to the wider community. These are the proposed north and east elevations. As previously mentioned the existing boundary treatment is to be retained. However 4m in height wild mesh fence is proposed which would enclose the mooger itself. Given the setback from the street scene it is not considered that this would have any discernible impact on the character and appearance of the area. These are the proposed south and west elevations. Noting the height of the proposed fencing surrounding the mooger and the separation distances from this to both Ancona and Tuscan Roads this is considered to prevent excessive balls from leaving the facility and entering onto the road or hitting the houses along Tuscan Road. The setback of 24m from the frontages of the dwellings along Tuscan Road also ensures that there would be no loss of daylight, sunlight, outlook or increase in sense of enclosure impacts upon the occupiers of these dwellings. The site surrounded by the red line at the top of the screen sits 80m north of the Palumpsa Common Conservation Area highlighted in green. The buildings highlighted in red and blue are grade 2 listed and locally listed buildings which as you can see are some distance from the site. The area between contains modern teaching blocks. As such the proposal would have no impact upon the setting of these heritage assets. These images are taken from prior to 2012 before the area was occupied by a temporary school building which prior to that was, which after that came the car park. This shows the area in use as a school playground. The proposal would therefore be restoring the former use of the site back to a more formalised version of its previous use. The site would be 24m from the frontage of Tuscan Road and 10.4m from the rear guards of the immediate dwellings to the north. Noise concerns have been raised by several objectors. The application was accompanied by a noise assessment which demonstrates the proposal would not cause more than three decibels of noise change with the main source of noise being ball striking the fence. It is accepted that noise associated with the use of the Mooga would have some impact on the surrounding adjacent occupiers. In order to mitigate this a condition has been attached requiring details of an acoustic barrier attached to the fence in the surrounding Mooga which would limit the impact of the noise of balls hitting the fence. Given the outdoor nature of the facility is less easy to mitigate noise of people using the Mooga. In order to ensure that no harmful impacts occur for the adjacent occupiers a condition has been attached limiting the use of the site to between 9am and 5pm seven days a week. This would ensure the use of the Mooga would be within sociable hours only. Typically Moogas within the Bearer are open much later than this, however given the residential nature of the area these restrictive hours are considered necessary in this instance. It should be noted that no flood lights are proposed as part of this application. A condition has been attached requiring a noise management plan for the Mooga to be submitted to the local planning authority. This will contain details of how the site will be managed and include further noise mitigation measures. The proposal has been reviewed by the Council's noise officer who has confirmed they have no objections to the implementation of the recommended conditions. It is therefore considered that subject to sufficient details being submitted to discharge the aforementioned conditions the proposal would not be excessively harmful to living conditions of any of the adjacent occupiers by way of noise and disturbance. Another reason for objections is in relation to car parking. The proposal would result in the closure of the staff car park and the loss of 37 car parking spaces. It is therefore likely that any displaced car parking would need to be met by curbside availability. The surrounding streets are not within a controlled parking zone. The applicant has stated that the car park is no longer required given there has been a drop in full time staff at the school from 298 to 175 members of staff. Typically the occupancy of the car park is around 80% and as a result on average approximately 29 cars a day will need to find alternative car parking should the car park close. The applicant has provided the results of two car parking surveys which were undertaken between 9.30am and 2pm on different school days which identifies that there are an average 917 car parking spaces within 500 metres of the site. And as a result there is more than enough space to accommodate any displaced car parking within the wider area. The images on screen were taken this morning are of the immediately surrounding streets. The school car park was around 80% full and I found numerous on street car parking spaces within walking distance from the school that could be used by staff. The school have also submitted a staff travel plan that would encourage staff to take alternative modes of transport to work. This includes details of surrounding cycle routes, bus routes and introduction of car sharing schemes. A condition has been recommended for the decision notice requiring the details contained within the travel plan to be implemented in full. The council's highways officer has been consulted and has raised no objections to the methodology used for the latest car parking survey, the times the surveys were undertaken and the results of these surveys and has confirmed that they have no objection to the proposed development with regard to highways or parking impacts. Furthermore there is no reason as to why the school couldn't close the site for car parking and use it as a children's play area or be without the proposed Mooga and associated fencing. The Mooga would principally be used by the peoples of the school which currently has a deficit of 92% of open space. Many of the PE lessons are undertaken outside the school grounds on Plumside Common and the Mooga would allow for people to use this during class and break times. The proposal would significantly enhance the sporting facilities of the school which in turn would improve its educational offering. Furthermore use of the facility during weekends by local community groups is another clear public benefit of the scheme. The proposal is therefore considered a better use of the land than what occupies the site currently. Any harm to the surrounding area as a result of the proposal is therefore considered to be outweighed by the clear benefits to a school within the borough as well as to the wider community. It is reiterated that the council's noise officer is satisfied that the impact of the proposal on the adjacent occupiers is acceptable subject to the recommended conditions. The highways officer is also satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to any unacceptable impact on parking or highway safety. That is the end of the presentation. The application is considered acceptable for the outlined reasons. As before committee the recommendation of approval subject to conditions found in appendix 2 of the main report. Thanks Brendan. Questions for the officer. Callum, Pat. Thank you chair and thank you Brendan for the presentation. Could you just say a little bit more about, sorry I've got two questions. Let's just, could you say a little bit more about the nature of the acoustic fence, sorry the acoustic barrier that will, that is proposed to help manage some of the noise. Yeah that's. So we've, that was recommended within the noise assessment that if we were still concerned with noise that we could request an acoustic barrier. The environmental health officer concurred with that so we've added the condition that this should be added. So this would be 3 meters in height. It will be stuck onto the prepared weld mesh fencing which surrounds the Mooga and should have a density of 10 kilograms. That is said to limit the noise of balls striking the fence which was outlined in the noise report as probably the most loudest associated noise to the Mooga. I think the issue with noise is more if one of those fences is loose and a ball hits it and you then get that type noise and so it sounds like that will be helpful and also that will mess fence is solid and doesn't have other things affixed to the front of it so that seems pretty sensible. Can I just ask a little bit more about the rationale for limiting weekdays use of the Mooga to 5pm. It strikes me that that might actually mean we lose some potential community benefit benefit from this both in terms of after school activities that kids might be able to do and also in terms of the ability for the community to use the space as well given there is the conditioning of acoustic proofing around the Mooga. Is this a necessary condition as well. So this is something that the school actually wanted longer hours. But the environmental health officers suggested that given it's a residential setting. It should be nine to five only. That's not to say that they can't come back in and vary hours like we saw the first application. They could come back in in a couple of years time and say well we've managed the site like this. There's been no visa. These are some that if there's been any noise complaints we can then extend it further on later on but it just gives them an opportunity to expose the next couple of years just to see how they get on how it affects the neighbors and then they can come back later. Right you've answered my question there about ours. Can I just ask you how close to the two houses to residential properties is the boundary of the Mooga. So from Tuscan Road is 24 meters from the front out front of the houses. So what they've done is if you look at the screen they've shifted over to its to the western side simply because there are there's a row of houses here over here there's garages and there's a flatter development. So they've moved it over. The gap between here and here is 10.4 meters from here to the boundaries of number 22 Tuscan Road 10 meters. But if you look what's your principal concern with the proximity. Well there's acoustic fans going around. They could feasibly use this as if this was a player before 2012 as well. You can remember that. This only recently become in the last 12 years a car park. Small question but it keeps bugging me. Is there another play area for the school or is this is there anywhere. There'll be a question for you. I can't even think about this one properly unless I know it's the only. I know they've often use common for PE lessons. I think there is another play area. OK. All right. Thanks. There are any special conditions about the seating there because I think that's a really nice idea. Is that seating to watch things or is it seating where people can sort of chat. So imagine I'll be space where pupils can can hang around a break time each their lunch properties conditions to do with the details the plants and the trees. I did a condition for specifically for the seating but we've had the condition saying that they must be implemented the approved plans which would include some seating here. Any further questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Right. So I am a local resident objecting against the Mooga proposal and I work for the London Ambulance Service and work on social hours. The pollution from the school has on occasions interrupted my sleep. Having the Mooga will exacerbate the noise pollution and in turn affect my sleep which could have an impact on my work. I made a point about access to the nearby streets for refuse lorries and emergency services, which I think was sort of disregarded in the response as to where access for emergency services and deliveries would be for the school rather than the streets nearby. The London Ambulance Services introduced new ambulances, which has like an awful turning circle, which makes it difficult to manoeuvre and get around corners with heavily parked roads and where people park vehicles on corners, it impedes the ambulances get into patients without damaging vehicles. There are already leisure centres open to the public and green spaces for them to use. I don't feel there's a need for the Mooga. You recognise there will be an uplift in noise levels but only seem to be focused on bull striking offence. There will be more noise from screaming, shouting, cheering and whistles which have more than a slight impact on adjacent occupiers. I want to know how do the staff at the school feel about changing their travel plans to reduce the street parking and the applicant likes to point out that the site was a playground before in 2012 and it would not materially differ to that use but it will because the school have introduced boys since 2012 who are obviously more boisterous, making more boisterous noise as an activity. And there will be possibly more constant use open to the public. There was always been parking for the school within the grounds and obviously there's always, I don't feel that playground was used much before it was turned into a car park. Any questions for the speaker? Pat. Thank you very much for your presentation. You said there are other facilities for teenagers. Can you expand on that a little bit please? Well you just got like the local leisure centres like say down in Woolwich or in Plumstead. I know that you've got the open green spaces up on the Common, those sort of things for the public to use. There's a lot of changes but because they're saying it's being open to the public, so that includes adults as well, my point is that it's, yeah there's other areas that the public can use. Ashley. I work in a school. I work in a teenager school, like six farmers, so I just don't see any issue with, I mean, every school creates noise when there's kids in the building. Or in their breaks and lunch hour, you know, it's not going to be any different to, you know, you said shouting, cheering, that happens in break time, lunch time, after school it doesn't really matter. So I don't see what the, what would Mooga actually bring that's so different. I understand your point. It's close to my property. So the noise levels are going to be exacerbated. Okay, like I said, I do shift work. So already, when the school children are leaving, I can hear them making noises, or recently, if I've been sleeping during the day I can hear them already playing in the playground which is further up from my property. So I feel that the noise is only going to be exacerbated because we have that badge wall path next to us, any sort of noise down there is elevated. It just is, and I just think, I get what you're saying, but the Mooga is closer to my property. So I feel like it's going to, the noise levels are going to be raised. So can I ask then Sinead, what sort of impact, what noise impact do you have when you've got classrooms full of kids leaving the school to go to Plumstead Common or other facilities in the area? Because there must be quite a lot, because you've got five or six years there, all having to do physical education. Yeah, just leaving school or just in the playground, a lot of screaming, shouting, that sort of thing, when they're walking past our properties. But that's the price, you know, you pay if you live next door to a school. Yeah, I understand that, but there wasn't this before. Sorry, sorry, we're deviating. Planning. Any further questions relating to planning? No. Sinead, thank you very much. Thank you. And I wish to call Kathy. Hi, Kathy. Hello, thank you for having me. My first issue is the consultation. I received, I only discovered from walking my dog up past the school, saw the notice on the lamppost, I received no letter of consultation, nor did my three neighbours either. So I'd like to know how that was amiss, because I am just two doors up from school. So any impact is going to affect us probably more than people further down Ancona Road. So I'd like proof of where my letters went to. I am aware that within walking distance, we have five primary schools, they are all in controlled parking areas. And what has happened over the years is parking has come further and further up into Ancona Road, Gossage Road, all the roads around. So, to me, there's a huge amount of parking issues. I know the refuse workers have problems getting around. It's very, very busy with parents dropping kids off in the morning, picking them up in the afternoon. You've got deliveries, you've got carers going into the flats opposite us. So I can't see, you know, how we're going to accommodate maybe up to 29 more cars. And the last issue I have, I did read the first parking survey assessment. I didn't agree with that. I thought, you know, you came around at the wrong time, you should be there early in the morning, see the chaos. I have further looked at the one that is dated June 2024, but in fact, when I read it, it was done in the 26th and 28th of September, 2022. So I haven't had access to the one that was done recently. Thanks, Kathy. Any questions for the speaker? Pat. Thank you. Can I just ask you, how do you visualise this sort of facility when it's open at the weekend? How do you think that that will impact your life, your everyday life? I think there'll be more parking issues because I know when the school in previous times has allowed big crowds in for whatever ceremony or something, there's no parking around. You go out to your shop and when you come back, forget it, you've lost your space, you can be miles away from your house. It does impact with parking. And that is the worry. Then when we have, you know, we recently had an ambulance up the road, it wasn't for the school, you know, that was there for two hours. But if it's fully parked, that ambulance has nowhere to park. It has to block then the road. And that does happen. A recent ambulance, it parked in Gossage Road, but that was because Ancona Road was full. You know, the paramedics had to walk down Ancona Road to where they were asked to go to because there was no parking. So, you know, if the teachers have done, you know, they've looked at how they get to school, you know, how many of that 29 are going to be still needing parking spaces? Callum. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Cathy. Less of a question, more of a sort of suggestion for things you might consider given the issues you say there are with parking. I think I would encourage you to contact your local councillors and to explore having a CPZ in the area, which would really prevent people who do not live in the area from coming in and parking in the area. But then if you put permits around where we are, where are all the other people going to go? Where are the teachers going to go who need to park because there's no car park anymore? You know, that's what we have because... It is possible to get around a place without use of a car, you know? Well, I know. I'm not saying that. I'm saying parking is a major issue. Putting permits where up the top of Ancona Road is just going to make everything worse. Okay. Well, as I said, it was less of a question, more of a suggestion as to something that I think would go some way to ameliorating the issues that you highlight as existing and those that you are concerned about potentially being exacerbated in the future. Okay. Any further questions? No. So, Cathy, you already mentioned... I mean, the officer has mentioned how many parking spaces there are in the area. You've just highlighted the point that you've got a parking problem already. So, we're not looking or the applicant is not looking to increase any parking spaces, nor is the council. So, you can only get the amount of cars in that area that will fit into those parking bays. So, from your comments, the school is not going to increase any more parking problems that don't already exist, which is what you've just highlighted to us. You've already said there's a problem there already. So, as my colleague said, the council has very limited controls around parking and controlled parking is an eventuality because as the population of this borough grows, more people would be moving in. If those people have got cars, they'll be... So, we're well aware of the parking issues, not just around that specific area, but borough-wide. And it's not a money-making venture, as most people seem to think when CPZs are introduced. It is the only thing at our disposal for controlling the amount of cars that are coming into the borough. It's the only way to make sure residents can park in front of their own home. Any further questions for Cathy? No? Cathy, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Paul Nichols and Douglas Craig. All right, guys. Up to 10 minutes plus questions. Thank you, Chair, and good evening, all. The need for this facility has arisen from the fact that the school has just 8% of its required open space to serve the number of pupils that now stands at almost 1,500 across years 7 to 13. As the officer of report points out, some PE classes currently take place beyond the school grounds and on Plumstead Common, which, as I'm sure members will appreciate, is not desirable from a health and safety, nor child safeguarding perspective. The application site was once part of a larger playground, which was last a case in around 2011, and in the absence of any acoustic fencing. Essentially, the land will be returned to that playground use, but this time the facility will also be made available for use by the wider community, which should be seen as a significant benefit in the planning balance. Approving this application will help deliver a community facility, the principle of which is supported by policies S1 and S5 of the local plan, the London plan, and CH1 of your core strategy. I will expand more on the community use aspect shortly, but in short, beyond the school's use, there is a willingness to make the facility available to local clubs, community groups, and other schools, which we understand is also supported by this council's head of sport, leisure, and libraries. On the issue of character and appearance, I've already mentioned that the site was once part of a larger playground. As an existing car park, and given the intended retention of the Macadam surface, its appearance will not materially change, aside from a new four metre high world mesh fencing in a green colour to match the existing paladin fencing. As the report acknowledges, the fencing will be set in 1.4 metres from the northern boundary of the site, meaning that with Bajmoor path in place, the MUGA will be 11 metres away from the nearest residential properties. I think it's important to stress to members that the previous playground that existed actually adjoined the same dwellings that I'm referring to here. Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be some additional paraphernalia within the site to serve the proposed alternative use, such as goals, basketball hoops, and other sports equipment, it isn't considered that this will have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area. Equally, the site is more than 80 metres away from Plumstead Common Conservation Area to the south, with two intervening modern school buildings, meaning we consider that there will be no harm to heritage assets. In terms of the use of the land, it will remain part of the school. It's not proposed to be segregated, such that it becomes a new primary use in its own right, although there will be gates and fencing to prevent access into the wider school site from a security perspective and to allow for use of the MUGA outside of normal school hours. The applicants are aware of the need to ensure that there is no significant impact on the amenity of existing residential occupiers. I appreciate this query has been raised by Councillor Mulligan, but at this point it may be helpful if members can turn to the report's appendix and specifically the proposed condition 10. We are struggling a little with the logic to limit its use to 5pm any day. We consider this to be unreasonably restrictive, given the intention to make the facility available for use by the wider community, to the point it will be completely inaccessible Monday to Friday during turn times. To add to this, firstly, daylight extends beyond 5pm for seven months of the year. 5pm is far from what could reasonably be referred to as an unsociable hour. Indeed, it is the start of the peak afternoon hour when it comes to traffic movements. Secondly, it equally seems that parks and playgrounds in the borough remain open for use beyond 5pm. Greenwich Park, for example, remains open until 6pm between November and March, with staggered closing up until 9pm made to August. Finally, I'd also like to point out that the most recent MUGA to be granted planning permission by members at this very committee only in August had no such condition as part of the decision, despite the site of the former Kidbrook Park Primary School being surrounded by housing much like this site. We therefore consider that it would be reasonable to strike a balance between the school's initial wishes, which propose the latest closing of 8pm, and those of your environmental health officers by proposing an alteration to condition 10 that limits use of MUGA from 9am to 7pm. The alteration would enable the community to use the MUGA for up to an extra 10 hours per week during hours when demand from the community is likely to be higher. Any flexibility members can offer in this regard would be appreciated. I should add that the applicants are content with the limit for the weekend use to 5pm reflective of the community use agreement submitted with the application. I'm also going to ask members for some flexibility in regards to suggested condition 6 in the appendix 2. At the present time, the wording includes surrounding the MUGA, but we consider if the height and density of the acoustic fence is appropriate, then it may be the case that one on all four sides isn't necessary. In particular, we would question the necessity for an acoustic fence on the long side facing the school buildings to the south. Such fencing is very costly, and if one on the southern side serves no purpose, then the school should not be required to provide it. Instead, condition 6A could simply say use of the development shall not commence until full details of an additional acoustic barrier have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. For us, that leaves it open as to the number of sides of the MUGA that are required to have an acoustic fence, but any such submission will contain the evidence to obviously justify a proportionate amount of fencing. To conclude on this point, we accept that the conditions in principle are necessary to safeguard amenity, but we ask members to consider our suggested amendments to conditions 10 and 6A to ensure that they're not overly restrictive, such that they are capable of delivering the full benefits of the facility to the community as envisaged by the school, whilst also responding to the presence of adjoining housing that exists only on certain sides of the proposed MUGA. Regarding parking and highway safety, staffing at the school has reduced 41% since the car park was constructed in 2012. This has had a material effect on the demand for on-site car parking. I think we've already heard the use of the existing car park is typically 80%. Twenty-nine cars will be displaced during school days. To help justify that reduction, four parking surveys were carried out on two days at 9.30 a.m. to 2 p.m., revealing obviously the 917 spaces that were available within a 500-meter walking distance of the site. This supports the suggestion that few roads near to the site are extensively parked. Again, we acknowledge the nature of the objections from residents. Your Highways Officer is content with the methodology of the surveys, which was in full accordance with the adopted methodology as first published by Lambeth, and ultimately, your Highways Officer is content with the results, so we would therefore urge members to accept what our evidence shows, and that is that the displacement of 29 car parking spaces can be absorbed by on-street parking nearby. What we would like to pick up on, again to do with conditions, but I think this is probably a first for me as a planning consultant, but I'm actually going to ask members to add a condition or consider adding a condition. We actually set out in our travel plan that we were anticipating a condition to require the submission of details and the implementation of secure and weatherproof cycle storage, but that's not in the appendix 2. So just to clarify, we would be amenable to adding that condition once it goes for debate. So in conclusion, we consider that there is an opportunity for the school to put this part of the site to better use and for it to be used by the wider community. We have worked with the Council throughout the planning process. We started with a positive pre-application, and then throughout the determination period of this formal submission, promptly responding to issues raised by officers. We consider that even with our proposed amendments to conditions 6 and 10, this proposal is acceptable in planning policy terms, and we urge members to grant permission in accordance with the officer's recommendations, although should members wish to retain the conditions as they are currently worded. Of course, I need to clarify that that also would be acceptable to the school, but we would remain of the view that this is likely to result in unnecessary costs for the school and limits to the use of the facility by the wider community. Thank you for listening, and together with the head teacher of the school, we'll do our best to answer any questions that members have. Thanks, Paul. Pat Callum. Thank you for your presentation. I am sort of on children and young people. I have got grandchildren. I agree that we need all the facilities and exercise for children and our teenagers to give them something to do, but at the same time, I very much understand what the local people are saying about the parking. Can I just ask you, sorry, so you say that there are 29 cars that will be displaced, the teachers' cars, obviously, and they're going to have. Have you discussed with the staff sort of, you know, this issue and tried to work? I mean, I know this probably isn't practical, but I'm thinking car share or some way or trying to persuade. I know that teachers, I used to teach, and I know what it's like going on public transport with books and bags and everything. Have you sort of consulted with them to see if there is any other, if you can get around this problem, because there are going to be 29 cars displaced. And also, if this is going to be open longer, which I agree, than five o'clock, and at weekends, is it going to be controlled, you know, sort of because we all know that no matter how wonderful this idea is, there will be sometimes issues. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. If I forget any part of your question, please remind me. So, yes, we did consult with staff. We did that on two levels. Firstly, we ascertained their view as to whether they supported the conversion of the car park, because there were 37 staff users of the car park, because that's the maximum capacity of the spaces in it. And there was one person out of the 37 car parking spaces in there who uses it, who objected. I think the staff are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the school has such a deficit of space. You cannot imagine on a daily basis, as an educationalist who's worked in the Royal Borough of Greenwich for 30 years, we do not have enough space at lunch and break time. And our staff would support the loss of our car park, one of our car parks, because I'll come back to that in a second, in order to facilitate young people having more play space and to support a better PE curriculum. And we also consulted them about their modes of transport, which unfortunately did show that two-thirds of them are car users. I think that's the nature of house prices in London and that many of the staff live outside of the London Borough of Greenwich in Kent and will travel in from as far away as Maidstone and Gillingham to get in so they can afford a house. But that does mean we have to be attentive and mitigate against that usage. So we are proposing that we would operate a car sharing scheme. We are proposing that we would encourage staff to use cycling schemes such as the one that Greenwich Council runs and we advertise every single year. We have seen a change in the profile of staff at the schools, so as well as having a smaller staff, we have a younger staff. And younger staff tend to be more amenable to not using their own car and partly because they can't afford it, but also because they're just more used to using public transport. So we did consult, there was support, but we're very mindful of the fact we need to get our staff to change their habits. Second part about controlled use, absolutely. So the school is already heavily used by the community in a variety of different ways, whether it's youth schools, whether it's a gymnastics club, and the Greenwich Music Hub is based at Plumstead Manor on a Saturday. So it's already heavily used and we have our own premises team. We're not a school and will be building schools for the future that had a PFI arrangement to do with premises. We retained our own team, so they are our people, they're our team, they are proud of our school, and they would be the people who would be making sure that any use of the weekend would be monitored. There would be people on site, there would be people locking up, monitoring the use of the site throughout that time. We already have CCTV installed in that area, we would have to recognise that we may have to adjust and install further CCTV, and there is absolutely no proposal to install any additional lighting. So we're going with the current lighting as it is. I probably talked too long there, I apologise. Thank you very much. Callum. Thank you, Chair. I would incredibly please, you kind of answered one of my first questions in your presentation, which was around a condition on additional cycle storage. Just out of curiosity, what's the current level of secure cycle provision on site, and what would you feel would be a reasonable number in terms of that condition, because I think that's then pertinent for our deliberations around what we might condition there. You don't know. I know. So it's about 15, although I would not describe it as secure. It's at the front of the school on Old Mill Road, and we have had both staff and students have had their bikes stolen from that site on the front, because the fence is quite low. So where we would propose installing it is within the boundary there, which is much more secure, and we would need to look at area, but I would imagine if we did want to encourage usage of that facility by members of the public, we'd need to have sufficient cycling parking spaces to enable a team. So I'm not talking about 25 or 30, but we're talking in double digits, yeah. But where it would go on there, there are multiple options, and there could actually be more than one site. And within that boundary of the red that you can see there, that is a secure boundary. Brilliant. That's really welcome. And I guess just on that, it's also sort of making sure you've got a good cycle-to-work scheme that your staff can use, particularly given Plumstead is up a rather sharp hill. But that is obviously not a planning pertinent thing. I think that's all my questions, so thanks, Chair. Jo. Thank you. I want to ask you the question about what other provision is there for children. You're saying you've only got 8% of the recommended space around the school, which is frightening. And generally speaking, I think I'd rather see space around a school used for children than for cars. But what do you have, other than the area that we see here? Brendan, can you put it back a couple of slides? So that figure's been calculated based on Building Bulletin 103. So obviously that's a very recent Building Bulletin, and I believe the BASF schools in Greenwich were built under BB98, because I was at Thomas Tallis when it was built. The new one, not the old one, not that old. And, sorry. So if Brendan holds that there, where that arrow is there, you can see that is our largest communal space available at lunchtime. It's a courtyard area. It's where people who know the school well, that was the old sports hall. And there are upwards of 700 people congregating in there at the end of lunchtime. It is not acceptable. It is not conducive to a calm end to lunchtime. What you can also see to the sort of northeast of that there, that grey area there, that is an area of land that we do now own, and we were supported by the Royal Borough of Greenwich in purchasing that land. That is former Thames Water Land, or we call it the Water Board Field as such. Unfortunately, we have looked at bringing that land into use permanently and also for community use. It contains two reservoirs. The one on the west is the Victorian arched reservoir, and the one on the east is a Second World War reservoir. We have done an extensive assessment of what could go on there, and I'm afraid it's simply a matter of price for everyone. But that facility where Brendan's got the arrow can be used sometimes during summer, and it's heavily used. Lots of our students like to play and run around, and that is an area that's used. The area to the west there cannot be used because it's not safe to have people running around on the roof. There is a playground to the north. There's a sort of silvery shape there, just down to the south there. That's a covered canape that we installed when we became a mixed school, which I'll address in a second. That's covered because young people, when it's raining, aren't inherently inclined to go into the dry. So we built a covered area so they would have somewhere they naturally would be standing and could be dry. That's a sort of playground, but we also have tables and areas in there. There's no kick-about, run-about, expend energy space there. And that's where we do come back to the common, is where an awful lot of our PE and physical education goes on, which does limit our curriculum, but it's also a huge, as the head, health and safety issue. So those of you who know Plumstead Common well will know whatever is on the ground on Plumstead Common isn't necessarily one somebody running around on, including a tethered horse, which I've admired from my window from time to time. I would like to address the point that was made about us becoming a co-educational school because I think that's a very important point. We had been a girls' school for 105 years. I didn't become the first ever male head with the intention of introducing boys. We're a local authority school, as you will know, and we serve our local community. And the fact that we're going to be four girls' schools in the vicinity of Greenwich and one boys' school meant we consulted our community and became a mixed school in 2018, and we've phased in boys since then, and we're now fully co-educational. I don't think it is fair to say that girls don't like running around and aren't boisterous. I know as many boisterous girls as I do boys, and I would say that the space in that area that we're proposing to turn into a Mooga will be used by any gender that we have at any time. It is not relevant to refer to boys being more boisterous. Thank you. Can I just come back again to how you envisage the Mooga being used then, because I'm very aware that it's all being laid out as a, for games, but you're seeing it being used as a general playground, are you, as well? Yes, at break and lunch time. It will be supervised, and we will have to consider carefully how that is controlled, because we have 1,500 young people in our community, and it won't fit 1,500 children at one time, and they are of various sizes as well. So we will have to think carefully about how we use that, and believe you me, that will be, for the first, I would say, five years of its life, a very popular spot, because they just don't have anywhere at the moment. So we would very carefully control how it's used, and there would be staff supervising it, and we would probably have to consider, for example, a schedule of which year group used it on which day, because with 240 young people in each year group, at least, we will have to look at it. But that's a consideration. We haven't gone down until we would actually get approval. But we would not allow young people to be on there unsupervised, and we would not allow large numbers of young people to go on there so that it became a crush. Okay, and will this mean that there will need to be less use of taking the children over to the common? There will be less use, absolutely. There will still be use. And that is why, ultimately, I would like to see that area of land that we have earmarked brought into use. And that's not a winch. That's just a fact of reality. That land is owned by the council and ourselves, but it is not viable financially at the moment. But if we were to bring that into use, that would provide ample facility, but would also be a facility that would be available to the local community. You may know that Greenwich Rugby Club have a pitch on the front of Plumstead Common. They have one flood light that they, at this time of the year, are training to. We know them. We often meet them at Plumstead-McMary. They would love us to have a facility like this that they could use. And if we had a grassed facility, they would even love it even more. And they're just there on our doorstep. And I am, as I said earlier, very interested in the bit where the trees are and that at one end. Is that going to be somewhere where it's going to be conducive for people who perhaps don't want to run around, boys or girls, to sit and chat and that kind of thing? Because quite often school playgrounds can be quite soulless. So somewhere where you can congregate in that chatty sort of way would be nice. Unfortunately our playground is full of souls. You laid that up. But yes, absolutely. It was envisaged as a break. So making sure that the facility wasn't too close to residents and as a visual break. But also as an area where young people could congregate and sit. Table tennis is very popular, as is football. So the tabletop football. Young people love playing that. So there are kind of more sedentary pastimes at lunchtime and break time. So yes, absolutely. And an eating area. Any further questions? No? I've got a couple. So you are seeking possible longer hours for use. We heard from a key worker who is a local resident. I'm just wondering if you were to get the extended hours, it would mean that the school is able to generate revenue from higher fees. Is there a way of improving the boundaries? So you're looking at some form of noise limitation around the mugger. Is there any further additions that can be made to improve the acoustics for the surrounding area? Possibly funded by the extended hours. Because obviously with the extended hours, higher fees, that would have another impact on the residents. And I'm just finding a way of possible mitigation of the extended hours. Thank you, chair, for the question. I think in my experience in terms of mitigating noise impacts, I sort of once upon a time took a very uneducated view that some planting might be able to assist. But I was bluntly told by a noise consultant that that has no effect in terms of noise mitigation. And that the best way of mitigating noise is through a solid acoustic fence, which is obviously the subject of a condition. So in terms of whether we can do any more than that, obviously there are different densities of acoustic fencing that are available. There are different heights of acoustic fencing that are available. My concern, and I think it would be fair to say that in the planning balance, if you're going taller with acoustic fencing, it then starts to obviously from a character and appearance perspective not look great. But also there will come a time where it doesn't become as effective anyway if you're just sort of continuing to increase the height of it. So we've turned to our professional acoustic consultant who has recommended a density, been quite specific, which the case officer has embedded into the recommended condition, a height and a density of the fence. As I say, my only question with regards to that condition is obviously the effectiveness of actually having an acoustic fence on the southern side because you are facing a nonsensitive property because it is already part of the school. So I'm not really giving you the answer that you probably want in terms of what else can we do because I think the balance is there to be had by way of the recommended three metre high acoustic fence. I think what I'm asking, Paul, is the fact that you've got an acoustic fence, so within the sound industry, when it comes to soundproofing, buildings and other stuff, there are additional things like soundcloths. And you sometimes see when you go to a music event, they will put a cloth petition inside a building, which actually kills the sound from one half to another. What I'm sort of exploring, is there some sort of external material that could be added to the fencing as an addition? So like you say, you've got your structural fence, is there like a secondary netting or something that could be added on to the external part of the fence or even around the external boundary that would give you that double barrier? Because I've looked at the boundary, you've got the wall with the railing, I'm just looking at is there a cheap addition that could possibly be explored? Because I lived right opposite the Lucy school and the playground was right opposite our fence, almost less than the distance there. And the school hired out the playground and to be honest it didn't have that much impact. But we've had concerns raised, so I'm just thinking is there any possible thing? My other point I was going to raise is that you heard myself and my colleague raise the point about CPZs. If a CPZ was to be introduced in and around the school area, the opportunities for the school to apply for 29 permits would be extremely limited. So I'm just wondering if you have a parking plan B, just in case that was to happen in the next, I'm not going to say it is, but there may be a possibility in the next three to five years that that could occur and if so, what would plan B be for the staff? I'll do my best to answer your first question. In truth, as somebody that isn't an acoustic consultant, I don't know in terms of whether there is the availability of a fabric that could be added to the acoustic fence that could further add to its effectiveness ultimately. I think it's probably within your power to maybe look at the condition that deals with the acoustic fencing and perhaps alter the wording somewhat that could capture alternative or additional means that would be effective. And perhaps it's something that our acoustic consultant can then look at in terms of discharging the requirements of any such condition. But I'm not sure, would you be aware of anything in particular in terms of acoustic netting? No. So that's the best answer I've got for you I'm afraid, Chair. Thanks Paul. Sorry, there was just a second question. So I think that's about changing people's habits and I think this is an opportunity. I mean the school has 175 staff, 66% of them drive and so they're already parking, the majority of them on street parking, generally towards the south of the site on the old Mill Road area. So I think part of our travel plan is to change people's habits, to encourage them to use public transport, to car share, to cycle and to use alternative means because I fully acknowledge what you're saying. And I think, I remember when BASF happened one of the things that the car parks had was less car parking spaces than staff and that tried to force the issue of people changing their habits and it didn't really work. So I think what we've got to address here is if we're really going to get to the root of this and encourage people to use more sustainable, more environmentally friendly forms of transport, it's forcing the issue and this is an opportunity to do that. Joe. Thanks. I'm thinking about the two conditions that you've asked us to look at and they seem to be possibly in contradiction with each other because one would be about extending the hours and the other is about exactly what we're doing with the soundproofing. And it strikes me that to extend the hours would mean needing to be sure about adequate and possibly more soundproofing. I know nothing about either of those things but I think there are people who have been working on this. It seems to me that, as I say, the soundproofing is because of the noise, the noise will be worse if it goes on later. And I think that puts us in a slightly difficult position if we're considering both of the suggestions you've made on those conditions. I don't know if that's a question or a statement, really. Thank you, Councillor. Again, I'll do my best to answer the question. It is obviously a focus on the noise report that we have done which was calculated essentially in terms of the mitigation that's being offered up. It was based on the wishes that the MUGA would be operational up to 8 p.m. Monday to Friday and then 5 o'clock Saturdays and Sundays. It is the noise consultant's professional view that in terms of mitigating the noise impact across those hours, that is what we should be doing. So if the council is actually asking us to not use the MUGA beyond 5 p.m. any day of the week, then it's arguable that actually the acoustic fencing may not be needed to the extent that we're also securing as a separate condition. So perhaps there's a point really to be made that actually if you're limiting the hours, then there isn't a need to put in the acoustic fencing to the extent that we're proposing to secure via the alternative condition. And the only thing I'd add to that is that the question that we were really posing was was it necessary on all four sides? So we fully accept those acoustic barrier required on some of the sides, particularly those facing residential properties. But for example, the one facing the school, is it really necessary for us to have it that way? And the properties that are adjacent to the western end are garages. So we were just asking the question really. I think the problem we face here is if this is approved, it's a suck it and see situation, isn't it? We're not going to know really how good the acoustic fencing is until you're kicking balls around in the area. And then you're able to make an assessment. Is it adequate? Does it need improving? If it needs improving to get the extended hours, again, you're not going to know until it's actually functional. I think looking at the area, I think you're better off looking at doing the Mooga as a whole, because at least it's done. When it's done, it's done. If you do part of it and it's not adequate enough and you have to come back and do it again. And I think the long term objective here is to get the Mooga built and get it to the hours required, because then it creates more funding, which is more beneficial to the school, after school clubs and everything else. So I think from that point of view, I think doing the Mooga as a whole is essential, because it's part of a long term objective and I think it's more expensive to come backwards and forwards. So if you do it once, you've saved costings because contractors are there, the job is done. What I'm looking at, and as I mentioned earlier, is mitigation for the extended hours. But again, you're not going to know what mitigation is required until you're actually using the Mooga, because it might be sufficient. But you're not going to know that until you're standing there and you're listening to what's going on. Could I just come back very quickly on that point regarding the hours? I think our point really is 5pm really isn't, I mean we've heard today in the first item there were debates about whether or not a shop could open, obviously much later into the evening and obviously start off earlier in the day. I mean I would ask the committee to think about is 5pm the latest that a Mooga could open realistically, Monday to Friday. For me it seems that when you've got parks and playgrounds that are council owned that are open beyond those hours, I don't see that that would lead to a significant impact on amenity. We're asking for a halfway house between the 5pm, almost 5pm and the 8pm that the school originally requested. For me, typically young children, babies would tend to go to bed I think around 7pm, so hence why we're suggesting 7pm might be the right time to cease the use of the Mooga. The only thing I'll add really quickly is that the school day formally ends at 3pm, but from 3pm to 5pm is when we run our after school provision, so that's when young people are in clubs, in extra additional tuition and classes, so 5pm we would be intending to be using that as a school for after school activities. So football training already happens on the Common for example after 3 o'clock. So members, the question is, the recommendation for 5 o'clock is from officers, so our thoughts are, Karen? Well I'd like to propose that we amend Condition 10 to 7pm. I mean as I expressed earlier, I think by capping at 5pm we deny the opportunity for community benefit, and I think the sound proofing in place will help to mitigate the issues that residents have expressed, and we're perhaps slightly slipping into deliberation here, so I can wait until we formally get to that point. It flows into the other conditions as well. I agree. We could then ask the school to explore further mitigation as we said about what other materials may be available, and that could be covered by the extra revenue that's coming from the extra hours. So we understand kids need, it's a facility for the school to utilise for more reasons than one, but at the same time, without going into another consultation or speaking to the residents, we need to know that there is a safeguard for making further improvements to the sound proofing. I think that's where we're at. So I mean, overall this is I think a really welcome proposal, and it's kind of mad that we lost playground to car parking spaces, and I think when it comes to sound, one of the things that's really important to remember is cities are actually really quiet, it's cars that are blooming loud, just reflect back to what our cities were like during lockdown where there was much less car use, and it was really quiet. I think the primary concern that I have from a sound perspective is actually from the existing use of this as a car park, because cars when they're starting up, turning, creates quite a lot of noise. All we're talking about here is kids being kids, and this happens already on a site that has thousands of children. So I'm not as convinced about some of those concerns, and I really think if we want to deliver the community benefit here, I think there's a really strong case for these extended hours, particularly when we think about the fact that as a borough, we have an ambition to reduce car use, and we have issues with child and adult obesity, and so I think being able to have a space that can be used for physical activity, both for the kids and the wider community, is a no-brainer. Thank you, Chair. I think, yes, we should extend the hours to seven, and yes, as I said before, being a grandma, being a mum, being an ex-teacher, and governor of school, and on children and young people, yes, we need facilities for our young people, plenty of exercise, plenty of fresh air, although sometimes it's not very fresh, the air is pollution. I agree 100% with that, but I also agree that the parking, like it or not, the parking is an issue. If I can be, I mean, I'm okay with this, I'm happy with it, but I would very much, like Hope, I've listened to the headmaster, I'm very impressed with what you said about sort of speaking to the staff about the individual travel plans. Please, I would like that to continue, because I think it is really important, we've heard some of the residents tonight say, you know, that there was one particular incident where a paramedics had to actually get out of an ambulance and walk to some house where someone was ill because they couldn't get parked outside, and we don't know how long it's going to be before we get CPZs there, so there is an issue, I'm behind it 100%, but there is an issue with parking as well, and you know, as long as you say that I'm happy with what you're doing at the moment, that will continue dialogue with them to try and reduce that, because those spaces will make a difference, and we have to consider the residents as well. Thank you. Thanks Pat. Any further comments? Jo? I have a slight discomfort in agreeing to extend the hours, although I want to, for all the reasons everybody's said, against the wishes of the residents and against what we've already put down here. I find that uncomfortable in terms of the report we've got in front of us, I don't know whether there's anything... I think what we're not taking into consideration is there are no floodlights, so the Mooga will only be able to be used in daylight hours, so when we get to October onwards, right through to probably the end of February, March, the hours of use are going to be literally school hours, maybe less than that when you're coming out of school at 3.30, 4 o'clock is dusk, so I think we need to think about that, so the extended hours are only going to be for summer months, and a large proportion of those will be taken up with school holidays, so we're looking at a reasonably limited amount of time that those extended hours will actually be able to use, so that's going to be considered, and of course if you've got restricted use on the extended hours due to daylight, then the parking issue is also then restricted, because if you're not getting people turning up for after-school clubs or whatever, the parking is not as bad as we think, I mean we've already been told that there's parking issues around there, there's only a limited amount of cars that can park in those limited spaces, highways have not said that those parking spaces are dangerous, we've had no complaints from any service, ambulance, fire brigade, whatever, so no road issues have been brought to our attention from any of our departments or any external departments. I know the area very well, as you know, my understanding is Old Mill Road and Waverly Crescent, they're free parking, they're unrestricted parking, and it's a walking distance, literally a minute or two from school, so I don't understand this big issue with the increase of 29 cars, there ain't no issue with 29 cars, because teachers can easily find to park on the road of Old Mill Road and Waverly Crescent. I think the parking issue is raised by the residents, not by officers, so officers have no... And our member here has also highlighted several times that parking is an issue, it's not an issue... Because it was brought to our attention, as I've just highlighted, officers have said it's okay, there are sufficient parking spaces in the area to accommodate the cars... Absolutely, so it's not an issue, so that can come out of... And as I was highlighting, because the resident raised some safety issues, what I've highlighted is that we've had no reports of safety issues from any type of agency, whether it be a council agency or an external agency like the fire brigade police or ambulance. Well, I just want to make it clear that I support this proposal with the conditions of extending the opening hours for this proposal. Good. Pat, do you want to come back? Just to come back in my defence, I support it 100% as well, and I said that, I've made that quite clear all along. My only concern is that, yes, okay, part of your consultation, traffic plans with your staff, if you can persuade them then to try and park further away or whatever. But that's... I'm not talking about residential parking, I'm talking about the staff. Okay, right, thank you. So I'm all for it. So Pat, there is a travel plan... Yes, that's all I want to say. So there is condition, there is a travel plan condition. I'm talking about with school and the way that the headmaster is doing his best, and I'm really impressed with the fact that he has consulted with the staff, that they are talking about car sharing and alternative modes of public transport, and as well, you know, sort of he can persuade his staff to actually park further away. So yes, I mean, I'm 100% behind it. Okay. I think we've got to where we're getting to. We're okay with the extended hours, we've got concerns around traffic, but there is a traffic management plan and Section 8, there is a submitted green travel plan from March 24 that's going to be implemented by the school. And obviously, there's other things to consider, like a CPZ that may come to that area in the future, which will then mean that the school have got to look at other sort of things that they can bring in. So, I'm going to -- I'd also proposed additional condition around cycle parking, as the applicants had discussed as well, secure cycle storage. Okay. So we're going to add that condition then for the secured cycle storage. We are going -- Just to be clear, do we want to specify that it's on this site or on the wider school site? And I mean, I don't know if you have a view on that as well. My view would have to be on this site if we wanted to be accessible for people who are going to use that facility, both staff and students. So you'd need it near the facility. It would have to be within the red line as well on the site. So it would have to be within that red line boundary. I just thought it was important to be clear on that, Chair, as well. Just clarifying, we're not then doing the other condition that they wanted changed. I'm leaving that as it is, just clarifying. Just for clarity, can I reiterate the proposal is change condition 10 to a 7pm, secure cycle storage within the red line barrier, and would request that additional acoustic be investigated if proven to be necessary, and not be on the actual informative or anything else. I'd like to thank everyone for coming, and thank you for your patience. This meeting is now closed.

• Thank you. .