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 who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speakers will be permitted to address the meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters, and you should not repeat comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to make further comments unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Councillors will have up to five minutes, accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups up to four, individuals two, the applicants and their team ten. On item five, I have listed Joel Stern. Item six, I have Raheel Khan. She's coming now, yeah? Item seven, I have Councillor Greenwell, Edward Grigsby. Leslie Eales, Eales, sorry, and Heather Vickers. Yeah, okay. Item one, apologies for absence. We've received apologies for absence from Councillor Sullivan, Councillor Cook and Councillor O'Byrne Mulligan. Councillor David Gardner and Joe Van Broek are sitting in attendance as members appointed as deputies. Item two, urgent business. There are no urgent items of business. Notice how other members' attention is drawn to a series of photographs which were circulated to you this afternoon in respect of the pre-meeting site visit that was undertaken at 182 to 184 Avery Hill Road. Item three, declarations of interest. Item four, minutes of the last meetings, 24th of September, 1st of October. Item four, minutes of October, 22nd of October. Can I advise in respect of the minute of the 22nd of October, two amendments are required. One is to show Councillor Vanderbroek was in attendance and the other is to remove Councillor Baker as it was an error and he was not in attendance. Amendment has been made on the paper copy for the chair and will be made on the electronic version if the minutes are agreed. Item five, 24 Loughnough Street, Plumstead, London, SE18, 2SN, reference 242093F. Now, I've just called for the speaker, for the applicant or the applicant's agent. They're not present. The deferral was for the applicant or their agent to attend so we could ask questions. I can advise that the applicant's agent did contact me to inform me that they would be attending and I sent them an email acknowledgement with the time of the meeting and location. At the meeting when we discussed it before and decided we had to defer because the applicant, no agent or anybody was here to answer questions, we had some quite key questions around, there were two of them, the two main ones that I remember were about whether the cycle parking in the back garden was viable when there was real discussion that bicycles couldn't get through that corridor and even more key was the fact that it was not a large kitchen and there had to be enough... That might be them. That might be them. Okay. That. What's that? That is it? Okay. I'll rewind. The applicant's agent is now in attendance, so before the applicant's agent is called, I would like to ask the officer, Dominic, if you could just give us a recap on the application before I invite the agent to speak. Thanks, Dominic. Good evening, committee members. Just a quick summary of the application. The proposal relates to the chains of use from an existing three-bed, single-family dwelling house to a five-bedroom, six-person HMO. As part of the application, it is proposed to construct two single-storey rear extensions. The ground floor of the building is to be converted into two bedrooms with a kitchen at the rear. On the first floor of the building, the three bedrooms will be the same, but there will be some internal layout alterations to provide for the change in room sizes and also for the provision of en-suites. We have the existing and proposed rear elevations. North-east elevations. South-west. Cycle storage is proposed to be provided in the rear garden and waste is to be stored in the front garden of the property. No off-street parking is proposed. The development is in accordance with the relevant policies and guidance and will be subject to the HMO licensing process. Thank you. Members, I'm now going to call the agent up. You can question the agent, and if you need to refer back to the officer for any other illustrations, you can do so during that process. I now wish to call Joel Stern. So, Joel, I've got you down as representing the agent. Yep. Okay. First of all, I apologise. Just, I came from over an hour drive, and you know, you can't do Blackwell Tunnel sometimes. You get stuck. The last committee meeting was on the Jewish holidays of Stubborn Eccles. I don't know if you're aware of it. That's why I couldn't calm down, but I believe there was questions that you needed answers. That's why I'm here. Pat. Thank you, Chair. One of the questions that I was very concerned about, sorry, one of the aspects is that, and I know it's already been mentioned tonight, that you were going to provide cycle parking in the back. Well, and this is a terraced property, and there was no entrance from the back. So, I was wondering, we spoke to other people who were here, and they said that in their houses that were similar, the actual width of the hallway was such that a bicycle could not be taken through there safely. I'm trying to think, was it 70 centimetres wide, which also, you know, sort of thinking about the safety aspects of this HMO, which, you know, it's going to be six people, isn't it, and no actual eating area. You know, you're going to have people sort of with food and what have you, and drinks going to the various rooms because there will be nowhere else to, for them to eat. So, this in lots of ways, I just wanted confirmation of what size, width that hallway was, for both the safety aspect and the fact that you are proposing that to be used for cycles. Correct. Thank you. So, it's around between 90 centimetres and a metre the width of the hallway, and my house, where I live as well, is not wider, much wider than this, and my kids keep on coming in and out of their bikes. So, we live in London, where all the houses are narrow, and they don't seem to have problems. We do, I do see other HMOs, where it works very well. So, they find a way how to come and go without actually harming anyone. And regarding the eating, that's why we've got, most of them would cook in the kitchen, but they would like to eat in their own room. So, all the rooms have a table and chair, as well, they've got a small refrigerator, where they can keep their food, not have to mix it and bring it. Sorry, but I was also referring to the fact that, you know, you may get a situation where one or two of them are in the hall trying to get to their rooms with plates of food and hot drink, and it's the actual hall itself that is still only 90 centimetres wide. I don't think it, in a normal HMO, it doesn't work like a traffic, like we have to have a tower control, controlling the traffic. So, it's human beings, someone comes out from the kitchen, just asks, excuse me, can I go past? I've got hot food. It's quite, they tend to live a bit together and talk to each other. They also don't tend to cook together at the same time, so everyone gets, tries to cook at a different time. So, it works well because they work together as a team. Can I come back here? Sorry. Said that your family, children, they get through with their cycles, all right, but are they not smaller cycles? We're talking about adults here with, you know, full-sized bicycles. I'm trying to think of a... I look young. I look young. I've got three adult children. Yes. I'm just thinking of 90 centimetres and the width doesn't seem very wide at all. Again, they don't go out at the same time. They don't come back at the same time. It keeps on fluctuating, so someone comes in and it's actually quite a straight path down. It's not like wiggling until the kitchen where they can easily... Someone comes in, someone goes out. It's not like loads of people pushing through. I'll come back. Thank you, Jim. Sorry. Any further questions? Jo? Thanks. Yeah, I was particularly concerned about the kitchen. I understand that for every five people, there has to be a complete sort of set of things that you can cook with cookers, fridge, sink, all the spaces. This is a very... This doesn't look like a very big kitchen to me. We're talking about six people, so we need two sets of cooking facilities in what is... Strikes me as being a really small room. I can't see any measurements on here, but it doesn't look particularly big. How would that be possible? The room is 11 square metres, so 11 square metres is not such a small room. It's fairly... It's fairly spacious. Could you say a... Sorry, could you give that size again? 11 square metres. 11 square metres. Could you just give me dimensions? Sorry, my brain works better in dimensions than square metres. It would be like a four by three, four metres by three metres wide, so it looks small on our drawings, but in actual life, it's not so small. How much floor space? When you take away utilities and the kitchen units, how much usable floor space is there in that kitchen for six people? A kitchen normally is 600, so if you've got 600 by 3 metres, it'll give you 1.8, another 4 metres, so you'll be allowed with seven square metres left or six square metres left, because each unit is only 600 wide. at a linear by maximum 10 metres. There's not even a linear of 10 metres here of kitchen space. So, my colleague was saying, because of the amount of people, you're looking at providing dual facilities. Correct. Okay. So, you're going to have two cookers or two ovens, and looking at that, three, four, four, two, three, eleven. You're looking at about, you're looking at about eight metres of floor space, correct? Correct. Okay. Then you've got door openings, which will take about another one square metre on each door, and then something that hasn't been mentioned yet is the only access into the garden for the bike, the cycles, is through the kitchen. Correct. First of all, the doors would be, the one door that takes away space would be the door as you come into the kitchen. So, there, I'm just looking at my tracks as well, so while I'm talking, so if I look down, it's just, I'm just, so that door opens up, so it doesn't take away square metres from the kitchen, because it opens outwards. Again, they don't tend to cook at the same time. Some of them, some of them are students, so they come home earlier, some of them are nurses, come home later. They tend to find a middle ground how to work. They work well, and that's why there's the HMO licensing department if there is any issues that take it seriously. So, the health and safety department are actually very rigorous on HMOs. They're very on top of it. Sir. Thank you. I just want to further challenge you on that, because this is a HMO with six people in it. So, you might be right in saying they do it in the kitchen at the time, but if you had three, four, five, all of a sudden it becomes very, very busy, doesn't it? It does, but I don't know if you've visited already the HMOs, and I've been visiting them quite often. I mean, the last ten years I've been visiting. You don't come in and you don't find five people cooking at the same time. You'll never find, and there's only one room that, two rooms that you can have two people in. One room, we've got two people in that, that normally we are a couple to be cooking together. Then the next person comes and then a third person comes and it just doesn't work that all of them would be six people. And even if six people would be there, it would still comply with HMO regulations, but in real terms it never happens. So I get the theory of it. Do you have proof that's how it works? I know that's difficult, but I've lived in HMOs, four-person HMOs, and quite often there'll be two people cooking. And in a small kitchen like that, if there were three people cooking, that seems very squeezed in. Eleven square meters, again, it looks small on paper, but if we'll put some tape on the floor here and make a box of eleven square meters, it's not small at all. Most houses without triggers have smaller kitchens, have six square meter kitchens. I don't know if you know all the houses that without triggers, they're only six square meter kitchens or seven square meter kitchens. So it looks small on paper, but in real life it's not so small. And the housing department, they actually penalize landlords. I mean, they're not penalized. They actually govern landlords and make sure they are doing it right and they have put this minimum standards. It's not done by planning or anything. It's actually about the health and safety that they decided what kitchen size should be for how many people. I think the gist of our concerns are around design issues. So if I'm coming into this property with my dirty bike after riding home, I've then got to come into that narrow corridor. I've got to put my bike down because the door of the kitchen opens outwards. So I've now got to put the bike down to open the door so that then I can move forward with the bike. I've then got to go through the kitchen, which, you know, everything is hypothetical about how many people are going to be using the kitchen at any one time. If you've got a team of nurses, there could be two or three people in there. So two or three people, one person coming back from a bike, taking the bike through, you know, so you've got to look at every scenario. And I think what we're concerned about is it could be quite chaotic if you want to look at one end of, you know, you want to present one end of the situation to us, but we want to look at all situations. And what we're looking at is a very confined space which is going to have an awful lot going on, cooking and a right-of-way into the garden and then coming out of the garden, someone's going, you know, it's an awful lot to do to go through a kitchen. Normally people keep the kitchen as quite sterile, clean, not a right-of-way in and out of the garden for biking facilities. Jo? Yeah, and I just, I still can't get my head around that kitchen. The way we've got it there is that there are appliances or kitchen stuff on two walls. You couldn't put it on anymore because there's nowhere where it could be. Now, each of those walls is, you said, the whole kitchen which includes that area there is three by four. So those walls are maximum three, probably less than three metres and in that three metres you have to get, to get two sets of cooking stuff, a sink, a fridge, a cooker and space to work on. I simply cannot see it. Not getting that, so each of those have got to have that. And I, you know, I like cooking. Everybody likes cooking. Everybody needs to cook. I don't understand how that can work. I really don't. shall I respond? Yeah, if you want to, yep, go on. Yeah, what I can't understand is as well that within this kitchen there's going to be absolutely no room if people decide that they want to eat in the kitchen rather than take it up to their room and they want to be sociable and get to know other residents there. where are they going to sit because there's absolutely nowhere where they can have sit together and have a social chat or it's as if everybody has to go back to their rooms and, you know, they're going to be sort of not imprisoned in their rooms but kind of because there's no space. There's no space in the hall, there's no space in the kitchen, so they're going to have to go to the rooms to eat and that's not conducive to a good sort of environment for them. And the other thing I would like to ask is what about the ventilation in the kitchen as well? Can we just look at that, please? I don't know whether the officers can... Sorry, Chair, is it all right if I just answer that part? Because in terms of ventilation that's not a planning consideration so we don't have details on ventilation for the kitchen. That would be separate. Any further questions? Go on, Pat. Yeah, can I just ask about the garden size as well? How much is that going to be reduced by? So I'll respond one by one. People tend by doing so many HMOs that we have already designed, people tend to like to have their rooms bigger rather than communal areas bigger because some people come home from work, let's take a nurse, had the 12-hour shift, right? They want rather to have another two square meters in their room rather than two square meters in the communal kitchen. So, and we do have a cooking preparing area on the right side where there's nothing on there, actually just a counter on the right side of the kitchen so there'll be only counter space where you can use either to sit and eat there as like a bar or you can use it to prepare food so on the right side of the kitchen. Regarding the ventilation, I know it's not a planning issue but there is ventilation because if you see there is actually a large window of over a meter, almost a meter and a half on the back and then you've got on the side another window and then you've got a glass door so it's quite a lot of ventilation even though it's not a planning issue but there's loads of ventilation. Actually in this house it works very well where there's loads of ventilation running past. The third question, guarding the garden, I don't know how much it reduces but there will still be around 25 square meters of garden space so it's quite nice to have, this is enough to sit there, have a barbecue, have a chat, have a beer. Can I just ask another one? Did you say that you lived in the same road or not? No, I live in Harry. Because another sort of question that I know you can't answer this that came up is the fact that and looking at photographs it's a very, very busy road and yeah, there's absolutely nowhere to park and some of the residents would probably have cars, wouldn't they? Do you think? I mean, what would happen if someone came along and had a car? People that tend to live in HMO normally don't tend to have a car. It's expensive enough to live in London. you can't afford a car. Even people in the world who can't afford a car nowadays with all the taxes and the MOT and the car cost and the parking cost and the ticketing cost so they don't tend to have actually cars and HMOs. I really see that people should own and I don't think this would be an issue. Any further questions? Any questions for the officer before? Sorry, Chair. There's a couple of things I wouldn't mind addressing if that's possible. Yes, Alex. So just in terms of members' questions, I appreciate the applicants answered some of those but just in terms of consideration against the council standards and also policy, just in regards to the cycle parking, the applicants shown on the drawings which you can be seen on the left-hand side, they are providing six spaces so one for one. There is only a requirement in the London plan for a HMO of this size in the relevant tables in the London plan for two spaces so that's the requirement for this HMO, the applicants providing six so it's one for one. That's why it takes up a little bit more space in the garden so they do only have to provide two. In terms of access through the house, this is not dissimilar to many of the HMOs that come forward to us and have either been done through delegated with officers or through this committee in terms of access through the house and through the kitchen. In terms of a HMO of this size, we have an article for so planning permission is required. Otherwise, a HMO of this size is meant to try to act very similar to a family dwelling, six people are using it so a family dwelling, if you had a kitchen like this, you would be pushing your bike through because at the front it's very restricted as you can see. if you wanted cycle parking out the front, you've also got to contain in that front five bins or three to five bins so there's just not a possibility to do that so to be able to do that and have cycle parking, it has to be to the rear so whilst I appreciate the corridor there and going past two rooms, that is the best possible area to have cycle parking because to provide it out the front you would then have an objection from our waste services because you cannot provide bins to the rear, they have to be to the front so cycle parking in terms of that is acceptable. In terms of the kitchen size, the requirements under the HMO licensing is for 10.5 square metres and the applicants put 11 on there and we've measured it 10.4. Either way, it complies with that and that's what planning officers have to look at is whether it hits the minimum standards and if it hits those minimum standards then it complies. Unfortunately, we cannot consider how it's used, how many people use it at the same time. It's whether it complies with the minimum standards and whether it therefore has an area to provide two cooking facilities. That's looked at from planning. It'll also be looked at from HMO licensing point of view so the applicant, if he got consent, would have to go and get a licence. They would look at it and ensure that all the relevant cooking facilities are there for prospective occupiers. So in terms of that, the size, we can only consider in terms of 10.5. Doors opening and shutting over that space, we can't consider. So we just consider the space itself. Just in terms of the garden area, unfortunately, there's no minimum standard or requirement for access to amenity space for a HMO. So in this respect, the HMO provides access out of the back and as the applicant said, 25 square metres and that could be reduced if it was only two parking spaces for cycle. But in this instance, he's providing prospective occupiers with the access for each of those occupiers to have a cycle space. So in that respect, we are restricted by the guidance and the minimum standards rather than how people use the HMO. So coming back on those points then, Alex, I mean, we're not just looking at a standard kitchen. What we're looking at is the main access point to and from the cycle storage and the cycles are the main means of transport for, or supposed meant to be, the main means of transport for the occupants. And to be honest, if I was cooking in that kitchen and someone wanted to come through with their bike and it's all wet or whatever, I would probably not be too happy, to put it politely. and knowing that you've got six adults there that can come and go at the same time, there could be all sorts of chaos there. say from a policy and guidance point of view and what we're guided by in terms of planning, that's not something we can consider in terms of the comings and goings and how that would work. Obviously, the applicant would have to consider that when going forward with a management plan for the occupants. Thanks, Alex. Any further comments, Joe? Just want to clarify then, you're saying that the guidelines tell us that 10.5 square metres is adequate for two sets of complete kitchen equipment. So, in terms of the standards for this amount of people, it's 10.5 square metres and within that they have to provide two sets of cooking facilities. Obviously, how and where that is but 10 square metres. Obviously, it's not an awkward shape. It's a rectangular shape so it's got quite a bit of width and depth to it. It's not like your long galley kitchens that you see in some terrace houses. So, this is considered to meet those minimum requirements. They don't show two cooking facilities but they will have to show that at a HMO licensing stage. But 10.5 in this instance is considered sufficient for six occupants. Obviously, as the occupancy goes up, the kitchen facility and the minimum requirement goes up. One thing I didn't mention earlier, there was mention about where would they see it. If they were to provide an additional, say, living space, a living room, that means that the applicant can actually reduce the size of the bedrooms because if they have a kitchen and a separate living room, then the bedrooms can reduce because there's somewhere else for them to go and sit. The reason why the bedrooms are slightly larger in this instance is to be able to provide them with that space to go away with whatever they've cooked. I appreciate that doesn't create a social atmosphere because there's nowhere for them to sit. But again, unfortunately, that's not a planning consideration. What about movement within the HMO? I mean, again, I'm looking at the space. I'm looking at the two rooms on the ground floor. People from both floors using that kitchen up and down the stairs and people coming in through the front door with bikes going into the kitchen. It's an awful lot of disturbance for rooms two and one. What type of insulation or soundproofing is there extra precaution taken on those two rooms? Of course, not only those two rooms, all the rooms get proper insulation. So proper soundproofing that you shouldn't hear from one room to the other room so give everyone their own privacy. And regarding walking through the kitchen, again, most houses in London where I live, you have to walk through in the kitchen with your bike. There's no other means of going into the garden without going through the kitchen. It's a fact what we have to live with. actually a comment. Is it all right? Well, yeah, you've just said that most houses in London, that it's a fact of life, that you have to walk through the hall of the kitchen with the bike. But most houses in London, a lot of them, I'm not saying, will be families. here you have got different people, you know, six adults. So you can't sort of equate that to a family that's going to be entirely different to a complete family unit who will be living there. You can't, it's not like for like at all. Sorry, that was just... Everything seems to be at the very, very tightest on this. Of course, the whole thing would be a lot easier if it was for five people instead of six. I could see that working much better. whether that five was stopping all single rooms or whether that five was taking one of the bedrooms as being a living room. It just feels that everything's pushed to the utter limit to get the maximum number of people in. And I certainly wouldn't want to be one of them if I was, if I needed, if I needed to live in an HMO. Yeah. I am surprised you know, every single bit of sort of minimum standards seems to be just met and it really doesn't feel ideal at all. Thanks, Joe. So no further questions for the speaker? No? Joe, thank you very much. Can I open this up for deliberation now? Any comments from anybody? Pat? Well, this is a classic case, isn't it, of a, I know we need any HMOs, but you know, this is a classic case as well of a three-bedroom house, is it? A family house that is going to be changed and it's going to be uncomfortable as far as I can see it for six people. I agree with my colleague that if it was for five, it would be a whole different scenario. But I just can't, again, it's pushing, it's squeezing everything out of this house, in my opinion, that can be squeezed out to make it for six people. and I just think for the sake of safety, for the sake of the sanity of the people who live there and for sort of social integration, mental health, you're going to have six people who are going to be almost confined to their rooms because there's not going to be any movement for them or opportunities for them to mix and sit and socialise and safety as well. You know, like you say, with the bikes, I just don't see it. A great big bike moving into a kitchen with food, it's health and safety. Thank you. So, I'm not happy with this. Jo, Jo, sorry. I mean, it's hard, isn't it? Because if this does meet the minimum standards, then I don't know. I mean, are we able to make recommendations to licensing? I don't know. That's a real question. I think when the licensing renewal comes up again, you can, as councillors, you can make recommendations to that, but also we're bringing forward a new version of the local plan which will have to address the issues of HMOs and you can, there is involvement for members in how we come up with new policies and how we shape those and what members think about that. So there will be opportunities but they're all in the future. But on this particular property, it hasn't gone through licensing yet, has it? Not yet, as far as I understand. No, I'm not aware the applicant obviously can confirm because sometimes they're kind of done at the same time. But in terms of this, as far as we're concerned from planning, it meets all the guidelines and guidance there and policies in regards to minimum standards, cycle parking, refuge, and in terms of living environment, it would be considered to provide an appropriate HMO. Can we, I mean, can we ask the applicant if it could be reduced to five people, accommodate five, and possibly have a living area? Thank you. Do you want to come back up? The reason why we try to put more people because the housing needs are not being met and we're just trying, and if you start doing it, you start cutting rooms and people, it stops being viable. If it stops being viable, people stop building it. People stop building it, people don't have where to live. By four rooms, HMO, it does not pay to convert the house to give everyone their own living space. It's just even, but five rooms is actually the borderline where it starts making sense because to convert such a house is not cheap and to do it the old-fashioned way, people don't like it. So take a nurse coming home from after a 12-hour shift or a student after being the whole day in university and then having to share the bathroom and the toilets and the kitchen just doesn't work. But if you give them their own ensuite and their own living space, they feel like they have some kind of separate space, and by cutting it down to four rooms, it stops being viable. The request was five, not four. Yeah, but if we have to give a living room, it means that we have to cut down a room. We see a number of applications for HMOs and they vary from three, five, six to seven. So, you know, viability is down to what you choose to spend. But, again, not relevant to planning. So, whilst you're in the chair, I'd like to ask what experience does the applicant have in actually running HMOs? Quite a lot of experience. They run quite a few, quite a bit of HMOs, and they've got a very good management system, meaning 24 hours contact with maintenance companies, meaning every issue gets answered within hours, rather within days, cleaning every second or third day. It is properly looked after, all HMOs. How many do they have in the area? I'm not sure. I'm not the applicant, I'm the planning consultant, but I've done quite a lot of them. Because my next question was, is there a number in case of antisocial behaviour or any other emergency issue that the residents would want to bring to the attention? So there is, first of all, there's the council. Any antisocial behaviour where it has to be referred to the council, there's a number, there's quite, there's all the properties and each borough gets their own information. I think we as a committee are aware of what's available, but by the time a resident has contacted the council and then the council have then got to contact the agency, what I'm asking is if, with a professional organisation that runs a number of HMOs, is there an emergency number for people living in close proximity to this proposal? Yes, of course. So they've got a team in each place, they've got a team ready to go. Every HMO needs maintenance, so yes, they've got an emergency 24 hours number and it's actually one of the requirements of HMO licensing to have a 24 hour emergency number. Thanks. Okay, we'll get back to the deliberation. This has gone on quite a bit. Joel, thank you very much. Any further comments from anybody? Okay, none. I'm going to put this to the vote then. All those in... Sorry, Chair, can I, just for the point of anyone in the room, can I advise that Councillor Greenwell, Councillor Joe Van Dam and Councillor Gary Dillon, Chair, can vote on this item only? I don't believe Councillor Gardner was in attendance last time. My deepest apologies and Councillor Mohamed. Sorry. I feel that we've got our hands tied behind our back here. You know, we're not happy with this. We're not happy with this. You know, we can clearly see what it is, but we are governed by policy. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hands. Those against? Abstentions? Abstentions? Abstentions? I think what we shall do obviously has gone through, but I think what we can do is make sure that the HMO licensing team take note of the comments that we've made, and when they do do their inspections, they can double-check the safety of adult cycles coming in and out and form and function. Okay, thank you very much. We now move on to item six, which is 113 Gregory Crescent Eltham SE9 5RU, reference 232710F. Sam. Thank you, Chair. I'll just wait for the presentation. Thank you very much. Good evening. This is item six. Members are requested to grant full plan permission for the following proposal, which is the erection of two-story dwelling house C3 use, so that's one two-bed property with the rear roof dormer, creation of two new crossovers from Gregory Crescent to create two hard-standing parking spaces and associated waste and cycle storage. This application is being presented this evening after receiving a total of 13 objections. Generally, the concerns raised within the objections to this application relate to concerns regarding the development's design impact on the character of the site and the surrounding area and concerns regarding the development's impact on neighbouring amenity. The submissions do feature a visual error with an inaccurate proposed block plan. However, this drawing is not essential for the assessment of the proposed development. Therefore, in the case of approval, this drawing would not be included within the decision notice and condition two would be modified to reflect its omission. The application site is located on the northern side of Gregory Crescent at number 113 with the proposed dwelling house being located to the east of the existing dwelling house at number 113. This is a satellite view of the application site. As mentioned, the site is located on the northern side of Gregory Crescent with a pedestrian path that circumnavigates a patch of greenery surrounding a cul-de-sac located to the immediate east of the site. Number 113 itself bounds number 111 to the west and 115 to the north. So this is an aerial view of the application site. The surrounding area is primarily residential in nature and consists of mainly two-story properties with moderate similarities in their design and appearance with characteristic gaps between groups of terrorist properties. The site is located within flood zone 1 which means it has a low probability of flooding from rivers and the sea. It has a PTAL rating of 1B on a scale of 0 to 6B and is not located within a controlled parking zone. The subject site is not located within a conservation area, does not contain nor is located within close proximity to locally or statutory listed buildings and there are no relevant article 4 directions applicable to the site. This is a street view of the site and its surroundings in the existing state. And the next slides are just images of the site and the surrounding area. And with this photo, 113 is to the far left of this photo. In terms of principle of the development, it is vital that the rural borough's unique housing needs are met while still contributing to the overall London housing numbers. The NPPF supports the delivery of sufficient homes to meet current housing needs. Policy GG2 of the London plan seems to make the best use of land whilst GG4 recognises the need for more homes and the provision of more choice for Londoners in a way that meets their needs. Policies H1 and H2 of the London plan support the construction of new homes, stating that the boroughs should proactively support well-designed new homes on small sites to accommodate the required numbers of new properties. Policy HC of the council's core strategy states that due to the pressure for land for new housing in rural Greenwich, infill and backland sites are increasingly considered for housing development. Within this policy context, it is clear that the proposal results in the increase of housing stock and makes the optimal use of infill and backland sites and therefore is acceptable in principle. The proposed building would feature a hip roof and a rear dormer projecting from the rear roof slope. The building would measure 5.6 metres in width, 9.2 metres in depth and 5.8 metres in height at the eaves and have an 8.8 metre maximum height. The dwelling house would feature a flat roof to rear extension element with rear sliding doors that would project 1.95 metres beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling house, have a width of 5.6 metres and a height of 2.95 metres. It would also feature a small rear dormer on the rear elevation which would have a width of 1.9 metres, maximum depth of 2.4 metres and a height of 2.0 metres. Yes. The proposal would be constructed using materials that would match that of the existing property and other properties along the terraced row. The Royal Greenwich urban design supplementary planning guidance, principle C.1.3, states that infield development should be strongly linked to the character of the place and should support the overall cohesion of the townscape. The dwelling house would be similar in appearance as those surrounding it and the general form of the dwelling house in terms of its terraced appearance, materiality and form. It would be characteristic to the form of the other buildings and the surroundings. The doors, front porch and windows on the proposed dwelling house would also be of a similar scale to those in other nearby houses. The proposal features a full width of the rear extension element which would extend to 1.95 metres beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling. This would be seen as a secondary element to the main dwelling house and significantly below the 3.6 metre recommended maximum projection seen for regular residential extensions within the borough as set out by the urban design guide SPD. The proposal does include the addition of a small rear facing dormer as mentioned before which would appropriately align with the first floor rear facing window and be a secondary addition. In accordance with the SPD recommendations the dormer proposed is well proportioned with the roof and overall the development is considered to be well designed and is acceptable in this regard. This is the ground floor plan. The ground floor would have a lounge area, kitchen and dining area and a small toilet. This is the first floor plan. First floor would be home to the two bedrooms and a bathroom. And this is the loft and roof plans. The top floor within the loft would have an office space. This room is not considered to be a habitable room in this assessment despite its size. This is because the floor to ceiling height of the loft floor would be very low and so this space could not accommodate a bedroom. This is demonstrated in the section drawing here which shows the unsuitability of the loft to host a bedroom. And these next two images show a CGI of the existing site and a proposed site. And as you can see from this table the proposal would comply with the internal space requirements of the national space standards and London plan policy D6. The proposed two bedroom dwelling house would benefit from a private amenity space that measures around 61 square meters which meets the minimum garden area of 15 square meters as suggested by paragraph 4.1.31 of the court strategy. and as well in excess of London plan requirements. The rear garden space would be formed from splitting the existing rear garden space of number 113 and as a result of the works 113 would remain with approximately 52.8 square meters of rear garden space which remains accessible and is similar to the size of other gardens in the area. In terms of neighbouring amenity the site is with well labelled with a black arrow and the ones with the two yellow arrows are 115 and 113. Yeah. Number 113 is located to the west of the proposed dwelling house and is part of the same proposed terrace block. Sorry. In addition to the re-extension element, in addition, the addition of the re-extension element would not result in any unacceptable impact to this property noting the orientation of the two properties relative to the road and noting the extremely limited depth of the proposed extension. It is noted that two windows are impacted by the works that both serve non-habitable rooms which are to be blocked up by the addition of the dwelling. Given these openings are non-habitable and serve a bathroom and a landing, the overall amenity enjoyed by number 113 would not be unacceptably harmed should the proposal go ahead. This is demonstrated with the existing floor plans of 113 showing to the left the ground floor where there's a window leading into the toilet and on the right the first floor window leading into a staircase. Number 115 is located to the north of the proposed dwelling house and features a single story side extension. There would not be any unacceptable impact in terms of access to daylight sunlight, increased sense of enclosure or lost privacy and overlooking. This is due to the substantial separation distance of the new dwelling from this property so that's around nearly 13 meters to the nearest side window and also due to the fact there is only one window on the side elevation of this property and the side window is not habitable. Within the assessment of this proposal there are a number of other considerations that have been assessed by officers in regard to transport. The application site has a P-TAL of 1B which indicates that the site has relatively poor level of access to public transport. The provision of a single off street parking space is on balance considered to be acceptable in this instance given the existing parking spaces on site and giving the low level of public transport accessibility. A bike store is proposed in the private rear garden to provide two long stay cycle parking spaces. This is an acceptable provision. And in regards to waste and servicing bin storage units would be provided at the front of the properties and details of these are sought out via condition attached to the decision notice. Overall the development is acceptable with respect to the requirements of the development plan and members are recommended to approve this application. Thank you. Thanks Sam. Questions for the officer? Pat, Joe, David. Thank you chair. Can I just ask you what is going to number 113? I mean this is like a sort of going to be like a terrace house isn't it? So what will happen to the occupants of 113 when if this is passed? Because it's going to cause an awful lot of disruption to their lives. I mean I don't know how will that be how will it be dealt with the building process? So in terms of 113, 113 would stay as it is as such. From what we know at the time of application, the ownership certificate that was provided by the applicant was told us basically that they owned the land at the time of application. So in terms of the assessment and in terms of a planning perspective, that is what we would have done the assessment on. The owners of 113 own this land, did you say? So at the time of, so when the application came in for, well, for what has been proposed, the applicant basically provides a certificate saying that do they own the land, do they own the land of 113 and do they own the land of what's being, what is being built on as such. So when the application came in, they basically said they own the land that is being developed on. So we have taken that into consideration when we've done the assessment. So yeah, that's essentially how we've also in terms of construction, we have a condition about a construction management plan that's going in. Yes, obviously there will be some blocking up of those windows, but I think we showed in the plan those windows that are going to be blocked up on the side, they serve a bathroom and a landing, basically. So in terms of the amenity enjoyed by those occupants, that's acceptable. So Pat, if you recall, we've had similar issues before. So the land originally would have been part of 113. At some time, unless 113 is the applicant, at some time they would have sold off that proportion of land or they'd develop it themselves, if the developer, should this be approved, wants to build, then a party wall agreement would have to be agreed with 113 before anything could move forward. That's if they're separate, that's if they're different landowners. It's just, I don't know whether we can go back to a photograph of the frontage, but it just almost seems to be, to me, like an extension to 113. It doesn't look like a separate, I mean, a house at all. Is it? So, yeah, so basically it's designed to essentially continue the terrace and round off the terrace in the same way that 113 does at the moment. That's the way it's been designed. We've got the applicant's agent here, so we can ask them questions. Thank you. Thank you. Joe. Two questions, thanks. One is, I think we said that for 113, by using that wall, that one of the windows is a toilet. Now, that surely, although we're looking at 115, do we have any responsibility at all to ensure proper ventilation of a toilet that used to get ventilated by a window? That's one question. That's not just a party wall thing. It's quite a specific thing that it would make a, it sounds quite detrimental to that house. And the other question is, I just need to get my head around these parking, the parking space or spaces. At the moment, there is one for 113, is that right? And we're now looking at one new one for 115, but we're talking about two somewhere. I'm very, I'm a little bit confused. I'd quite like that to be clarified. Thank you. Yeah, so Sam will answer about the parking. No, there's no responsibility in terms of adequate ventilation of the bathroom. Lots of flats that we approve across the borough don't have windows to bathrooms. That's quite common. Do you want to answer the question about parking? Yeah, so in terms of parking, so looking at the street view of the Sayat as it is, essentially when we look at what's there already, well, we can say that there's enough space for two, well, two cars within the site. So one, one further in and then one closer to the gate as such. So what's being proposed now is essentially these two parking spaces, what is happening is there's one that's being kept for 113, that the existing house itself, and then there's space being made for the new dwelling house itself. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Sam. So I was going to ask firstly about the distance between 113 and 115, which is 11.9 metres according to the report. Normally we ask for 18 metres, but it says in mitigation that the window in 115 is a non-habitable room. So I just wish you, if you could explain that more. And on the parking, I can now see, I was very concerned that this was a clear, fragrant breach of the London plan, which is for 0.75, and therefore our core strategy as well, which relies on the London plan. But I can see now that it's just one per house, not two for this house, which probably is acceptable. But are we confident they will meet Environment Agency guidance, which is it should be permeable, it should be, there should be a soak away section, and there should be, should take up more than 60% of the front garden. So I'll answer, in terms of the distance, so in terms of your, the concern rate in terms of distance and the non-habitable room, so it would be, yeah, 10.6 metres from the, well, where the ground floor rear extension would go from, and then 12.4, well, 12.54 metres as seen on the image from where the rear elevation of, say, where the first floor would be from, which I guess in this case would be where there'd be more concern in terms of overlooking and in terms of a loss of privacy. In the slide, I think if you go all the way to the end of the presentation, so during the assessment of this application, one to look at and see what, what, what, yeah, yeah, that and the one before. That and the one before. Yeah. So this is an image from the street view of the window, and if you go back, this is a, this is a drawing from a planning application at the site, 115, and this is a drawing of the existing first floor that was put in, and as you can see there, there's the stairs heading up, and then that window there is feeding those stairs there. There is a bedroom there, but the window does, does not face towards, uh, the dwelling house, so that's how we've been able to, to gather that is, that is a non-habitable window. Just on, just on, before you get to the parking bit as well, um, that 18 metre requirement that you're quoting from the Mayor's Housing SPG relates to a recommended distance between habitable rooms, so habitable to habitable, basically. So obviously this is habitable looking out onto a non-habitable room, so that wouldn't apply in this instance. Um, and then it's about the paving. Yeah, so in terms of paving, I guess, um, in the case, in the case there were concerns of, you know, whether the paving is permeable or non-permeable, I guess in terms of, uh, a condition, a condition can be, um, oh yeah, we have, yeah, we have a materials, um, condition that is put in, within the decision notice, so then we, we could get further information in terms of, yeah, makes, making sure that the, the driveway is permeable. And the, uh, percentage of the front garden and the soak away? Um, I mean, it probably wouldn't hit the 60%, particularly for one number 113, i.e. the existing property, um, but to be honest, it would be quite difficult to add a condition essentially saying that, because otherwise they could never keep their parking space, they'd essentially be losing a parking space, and also they could put hard standing over their property without applying permission anyway under class F of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the permitted development order, um, so they can actually hard standing over their property itself right now in terms of the 60% limit. In terms of your concern about a soak away, um, I think that probably is reasonable, so you could probably condition that if you think that's necessary. I think it is in our policy, actually. I think you're probably right, it's, it's probably on, it's certainly in the urban design guidance SPD to have a soak away, yes, yep. Any further questions? Sam? So I can see that there's been lots of previous applications which have been refused, some have been approved. What are sort of the two or three key differences between this one and what was refused beforehand? Why is this application better? Uh, do you mean in terms of the ones on the site of 113? So in the report it mentions one, well, the, there's one that was refused on 113 and then there's others in the surrounding area, so I think some of them were 115 as well. But there was one previous one at this site, and that was a HMO before, uh, and that was converting the existing 113 into a HMO with a, with a side extension that was kind of protruding at the front. Yeah, it's quite substantially different, but, yeah. Any further questions? Um, Sam, um, am I right in thinking that if this should, um, be granted tonight, that we could put a restriction on further usage of this property? So if this was to be granted, we could restrict the fact, we could restrict this from being converted into a HMO in future. Am I right? You can't condition that because they would need separate planning, but they would need separate planning permission for that anyway. So that would be considered on its own merits under current policy. But they couldn't, you know, build it out as a house and then convert it. They would need planning permission to do that conversion, basically. And they couldn't build it as a HMO, for example, because that's not what we're granting. We're granting a new house, a new family dwelling house. We can't put a caveat on this. No. In the same way that you can't grant a consent for a house and then say you can never build anything on this ever again in future or do anything ever different. You can't really do that. Thanks. Sorry, Chair. Due to the Article 4 on the whole borough, any HMO requires planning permission. Cool. I now wish to call on Raheel Khan, please. Hi, Raheel. You have up to 10 minutes. Thank you, Chair. My name is Raheel Khan and I am the planning agent for this application. The proposal tonight is for the construction of a two-bedroom end-terrace dwelling in a sustainable location close to local amenities, schools and parks. The existing site contains a three-bedroom single dwelling with an overall site size which is surplus to requirements. This proposal seeks to make an efficient use of brownfield land by infilling an area currently used as a driveway and establishing a dwelling which will make a small but valuable contribution to housing supply in the borough. The proposed dwelling has been designed to appear as a continuation of the existing terrace in terms of height, scale and proportions and would maintain appropriate setbacks from boundaries, ensuring that the open character of the area and established pattern of development is not compromised. The proposed dwelling is generously sized, exceeding minimum space standards and offers a high standard of accommodation for occupants. All habitable rooms would benefit from windows and daylight access and an office is proposed to cater for people that work from home and need office space. A large garden over 50 square metres in size would be retained for occupants of the existing dwelling on the site, ensuring that the existing standard of accommodation is not reduced. I mean, just going to the question that was raised, the applicant is the owner of 113, so the existing site, and I believe there's a pre-commencement condition for a construction management plan, so we would look to put in noise mitigation and controls for dust and that sort of thing during construction activity. In terms of neighbour amenity, 115 Gregory Crescent to the north would be the most impacted by the proposal, but only has one small side-facing window, as was discussed, which serves a hallway, and given the siting and orientation of the dwelling, no other properties would be impacted. As you were previously discussing, a number of objections have raised concerns about a previous HMO application on the site, but that application was made by the previous owner. It is the intention for this dwelling to be used as a single dwelling. So overall, the proposal has been carefully designed to fit into its context and would deliver a high-quality dwelling. I believe there was another question about the blocking up of the side window, just noting that that only serves a toilet. There is a separate shower room, which would continue to have a window with natural ventilation as well. So yes, I'm happy to answer any other questions. David. Good evening. Thank you. Just to pursue my point about the parking, and you'll be familiar with the Environment Agency guidance, and obviously you got in under the wire in terms of biodiversity net gain requirement, but what is the biodiversity net gain, do you think, of this application, and what steps will you take to ensure that the front looks reasonably green and attractive, and that there is a very clear soak away and so forth for any hard standing there? Yeah. I mean, I don't know if you want to pull the plans up, but the side of the dwelling is currently just paved hard standing, and I think we've shown in our plans that we'd be putting in landscaping next to the parking space. There would be hedging along the boundary, so it would definitely be an improvement to the existing situation, and yeah, I mean, obviously happy to consider soakaways or any other mitigation that you think is necessary. Any further questions? Raheel, what's the relationship between the applicant and the adjacent property? Sorry, which property? The... Is it 113? 113. Yeah. That is... The whole site is owned by the applicant, so, yeah. So, Jo, you mentioned about the window being blocked. What? Yeah. Same owners. Yeah. Okay. That addresses it. Yeah. Any further questions? No? Raheel, thank you very much. Yeah. You got off lightly. Yeah. Members, open this up. David? Well, thank you, Chair. I mean, I do think it's a very tight site, and therefore quite a narrow house on 5.6 metres. But nevertheless, from the architectural drawings and from what we've been advised by the officer and the applicant, I think it does appear to be a slight improvement on the overall environment and the amenity. I was concerned initially when I read the report about the over-parking, but I've been reassured that that won't be the case. And with the additional conditions that we discussed in terms of the front hard-standing treatment being permeable and having a soak away and the assurances we'd be given on landscaping and as shown in the plans that we've seen, then I'm happy to support the officer recommendations. Thank you, David. Any other comments? No? Okay. I'm now going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. Unanimous, Chair. Thank you very much. Item 6 is approved. We now move on to Item 7. Land to the rear of 182 and 184 Avery Hill Road, S-C-S-C-9-2-E-Y, Reference 241100F. Alex. Thank you, Chair. So, Item 7, land rear of 182 and 184 Avery Hill Road. Planning permission is sought for the construction of three dwellings with pedestrian and cycle access only. Landscaping and refuse are to the rear of the sites I've mentioned. The application has received 11 objections, which includes a petition with 47 signatures. Whilst this falls below the required 12 objections required to come before committee, it has also received call-in requests from Councillor Greenwell and former ward councillor, councillor, back on. All objections are addressed within Section 6 of the officer's report. I just want to make a correction or additional comment in terms of the report. Within the consultation table at 6.4 on page 15, in response to a concern regarding where additional cars would park, it is addressed by stating three parking space would be required, which is considered sufficient. I appreciate this is slightly confusing, but what it was meant to be is that, as you've read through the report, the application came in with three car parking spaces on site. That has been removed, and that what is considered now can be accommodated in the surrounding streets and is addressed elsewhere in the report and considered to be acceptable by a highways expert, and I can go on to that in a bit of detail shortly. So the application site, location plan in front of you in red and is accessed between 184 and 186 Avery Hill Road. To the north of the properties are Overmead properties here, located to the east, are properties in Holland Gardens, which is formerly known as the Gaelic Athletic Sports Ground, and then the gardens to the south are gardens to the properties in Avery Hill Road. The site is not designated or protected and is not adjacent to any heritage assets. Aerial of the site, so this is facing north, and the site can be seen. It is an area, unused, vegetated land. However, it does appear from an aerial in 2006, which is noted in the report at figure three. They've originally been part of the gardens to the rear of 182 and 184, but by 2008 and since then, the land has been sectioned off. It's going to also be seen from this aerial, and this aerial is now facing an easterly direction, so you've got Holland Gardens at the top. It is residential in character with largely semi-detached dwellings in the surrounding area. Properties along Avery Hill Road and Overmead are largely traditional in character, whilst properties in Holland Gardens, formerly the Gaelic Athletic grounds, are more modern in design. The site has a public transport accessibility rating of 2. The site visit took place with members last Friday that were able to attend, and here are photos of the site. Now, these two photos, the top one shows the site's entrance, as seen from Avery Hill Road, with the properties on either side, and that is located here, and then the bottom one is looking back down what will be the proposed pedestrian access back towards Avery Hill Road, located here. Then looking around the site, we've got a couple of photos. The land is very flat in terms of its relationship with the surrounding properties. To the top is the northern boundary and properties in Overmead. The bottom is a view east, and that's towards the properties in Holland Gardens. And moving a bit further round and down to the south of the site and the western boundaries and properties in Avery Hill Road. So, moving to the proposal. The current application proposes three new dwellings located within the site, as seen on the site plan in front of you. That's the proposed site plan. Top left is just how it looks existing. There is to be a semi-detached property located on the northern part, here, and a detached property below. Each have a private garden to the east between the buildings themselves and Holland Garden. Access will be provided from Avery Hill Road, shown here, between 184 and 186. This would be for pedestrians only. When it was first proposed and submitted by the applicant, parking spaces for three cars were sought. They were roughly in this location, here. It's identified in the report that it was considered, firstly, it was excessive and above the London PAM requirements for three spaces when it should be 0.5 car parking spaces per dwelling. So, they should only be providing one and a half. And secondly, there were concerns from a highway expert that access for cars given issues of site visibility, because at the entrance to the site, you've got two bays very close by, and also the narrow access. You wouldn't get two cars down that lane either side. So, with quite a long access way, there is concern for pedestrian and highway safety. So, they were removed, and it is recommended the existing vehicle crossover is abandoned and that space removed. And it is also sought to condition that in Appendix 2, as we've seen by members, and also to provide a... a bullards at the front to ensure that vehicles cannot get on the site. And that will also be sought by condition to ensure that it is only emergency vehicles that can gain access to the site. Our highways experts considered that the parking surveys that are undertaken in the surrounding area is found that the parking spaces were not extensively occupied, and there was enough space and capacity. Given the limited times of operation of the CPZ, and the CPZ only operates on Avery Hill Road, just outside the site, from 9.30 to 11 a.m. Monday to Friday, this indicates that any additional demand generated outside the restricted hours could be accommodated on street. So, in terms of relationship with surrounding properties, and apologies that some of the labelling on this is not as clear, so I will go through it, the back-to-back distances from the rear elevation of the proposed properties, and those in Holland Gardens, are between 18.2 metres here to 19.6 on the southern. The distances with the properties on Avery Hill Road, which is to the west, is approximately 33.4 metres, and from the side of the semi-detached property on the north to properties in Overmeade, that's 19.75 metres. These distances are considered sufficient and would not lead to adverse overlooking, sense of enclosure, or loss of privacy, as set out in the officers' report, to either existing residents or perspective. In addition, due to the sufficient distances, there would be no impact on sunlight and daylight. Areas of trees shown in green are to be retained, so that's here and here, so the back of the Avery Hill properties and Holland Gardens, and you can see there's further trees and soft landscaping to be proposed on the rest of the site, and that's sought to be secured by condition 11 and 13 in Appendix 2. In terms of plans of each property, in front of you are the ground floor plans, each unit with the detached property being on the left. Each unit has a similar layout with the reception room, kitchen, and WC shower being on the ground floor. At first floor, you have two bedrooms and a bathroom, and at the second floor, in the roof space, there would be a bedroom and study. Whilst it is noted as a study, due to the size, it has been considered to be sufficient size to be used eventually as a bedroom. Therefore, it's been assessed as such, and it's considered to be meeting the relevant standards. At roof level, you can see the rear dormer on each property, located at the bottom of each of those, and you'll see that in elevation shortly. And as set out in section 12 of the report, an appropriate living environment has been provided for each unit with oversight units for such four-bedroom units. In terms of elevations, this is the front elevation each of the house, with an indicative CGI at the top, and that's the view as you would walk up the entrance between the properties on Avery Hill Road. It's considered that the design and appearance is in keeping with the area. The scale of the dwellings proposed is similar to the proportions of the surrounding properties. The amount of development will not appear cramped within the plot, and will respectfully relate to the spatial character of the surrounding properties. The design is traditional in character, as you can see, reflecting that of the surrounding properties. For the consideration and reason set out in the report, it is considered that the current proposal has overcome previous historic refusals on the site, which had been dismissed at appeal. It is considered that this is now appropriate, but also those are historic, and the character of the area has now started to change since the redevelopment of the Gaelic Athletic site, now known as Holland Garden. As well as that, in terms of the change of character, since the 2012 last refusal, you have had changes in policy with the MPPF London plan, the urban design guide SPD for the council, and also the council's core strategy in 2014. These are the side elevations. So at the top, that is the elevation that faces towards properties in Overmead. The first floor and second floor windows serve a bathroom and staircase. Condition 17 and appendix 72 seeks to ensure these are obscure glazed and fixed shut. The bottom image is that of the elevation that would face those gardens and properties in Avery Hill. Those windows are secondary windows to first floor bedrooms, again secured by seeking to get them obscure glazed and fixed shut. And then the rear elevation of each of the properties with the CGI at the bottom, and that is the elevations that would face properties in Holland Gardens, more particularly number 51, 49, and 47. The houses constructed seek white render, brick, and clay tiles on the roof. When the application was initially submitted, the design of the dormers were not supported by officers. They were a lot larger and different in design. They had now been revised to be more in accordance with the guidance set out in the council's urban design guide. The final slide is an aerial with a CGI of how the proposal seeks to sit within the site and its relationship with similar properties in the surrounding roads. It's set out in the conclusion in the report. In this instance, any areas of non-compliance are easily and can be demonstrated that the public benefits of the scheme far outweigh the issues, especially when having consideration to the tilted balance and the council's housing land supply of only 2.46 years. The character and appearance of the site and dwellings proposed are considered to be acceptable. The living environment for existing residents is protected and prospective occupiers are provided with a high-quality living environment. Whilst parking is not provided on site, it is considered that surrounding roads will be able to accommodate this and therefore officers are recommending approval and members are requested to consider this. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Alex. Questions? Astley. Thanks, Alex, for your presentation. Whilst I welcome new homes, especially family homes, large family homes being built in our borough, parking would be if it's a family home and this is not an average London home. These are quite actually large properties for a family, so it's quite decent size. But if they're... Who's to say that those families don't have a need in terms of to drive? So, you know, parking would be an issue for those families, I'd say so. So, is there no... I know you said there's going to be pollards put up for emergency use only, but can't the residents have access to those... So they can have the... You know, put down the pollards and drive through and, you know, that type of provision for those homes. And my second question is you said that the trees... You know, the trees will be maintained, the current ones that's on site, and so we're not losing trees and you're actually creating more. Is that right? Okay. Yeah, so in terms of the trees, there are trees to be retained and trees to be also added. There is a landscaping strategy plan to ensure those details come forward and that will include details of the trees and where they would be as well as further soft landscaping. That would also be in the communal areas which is to the front and the private gardens at the back as well. In terms of parking, as I mentioned, London plan standards for this site actually only requires it to provide 1.5 spaces. so in terms of the three dwellings, we would only be looking at if there was enough space and movability to ensure that pedestrian and highway safety is protected, there would only be a need for this site to provide 1.5 spaces which means that not all of those families would be provided with a parking space in this area and that's to ensure sustainable transport. So in terms of the family dwellings, I do appreciate that. Our highways officer though, the most, at most look at this was pedestrian and highway safety to have provided access in and out of this site with a visibility display between 1.82 and 1.86 there was cause for concern and I believe there has been some accidents on that road before. There's also buses that go up and down there so there was concern with vehicles coming in and out of the entrance because you can't get one past the other without one waiting and then when you get to this section here, coming out of this junction was concern. There are parking spaces within the area and it was considered there was capacity and there was an overnight and daytime survey of that. Can I ask you how far is the closest parking on street parking to them would be? So you have this space here to the right hand side with driveway for this property and then there's another parking space here so the visibility of cars going up and down the road was cause of concern particularly if you were one vehicle going in and one vehicle coming out. Yeah, I mean just to say firstly that I fully support the whole principle of car free development and having car parking well away from the homes actually ensures that people get some walking and active travel and are more likely to get the bus and there's on bus routes and so forth but we'll come to that later but my main concern and I went on the site visit and I could see there was space for this development but it was just the because it just got under the wire on biodiversity net gain and obviously there's a loss of some green space but are we my concern was perhaps lack of substantial trees and particularly with Holland Gardens I can see there are some new trees planned on the border with Obermead to provide some sort of privacy for people in Holland Gardens to maybe I could see there were two existing trees I think they're pretty scant from what I remember but to put some more trees on that boundary with Holland Gardens whether that was possible to add and I'll ask the applicant as well to add to the landscaping plan with more trees will help provide some privacy from overlooking and so forth and a clearer barrier so in terms of the trees so obviously from the photos you have these trees here behind Avery Hill obviously they're not on leaf at the moment but those are the ones that the applicant confirmed that are sought to be retained this tree here not noted on the plans but I don't think that's within the site that's within another property so that cannot be removed you have a couple more around the site and these trees here which screen slightly the properties in Holland Garden which they were back onto would be retained and then moving round obviously in Avery Hill the gardens that they're back onto from kind of a southern elevation they are retained and then the additional trees appreciate they're more indicative in terms of the site plan because details will come forward at a later date they are spread across condition 13 sorry 11 is the landscaping strategy and it does require details of additional trees at the moment it doesn't say what species or what size that is something you could ask the applicant but when details come forward we do provide those to our tree officer to comment on to ensure that they are of an appropriate size and the condition does ensure that if they were to die or be removed within five years they have to be replaced appreciate the BNG requirement unfortunately this did come before in terms of percentages of the site area so the site area is 131 347 square meters of which 808 square meters 60% of the site will still remain as soft landscaping built is 15 and hard is 25% Jo can I ask what the width is of that access space between houses whatever it was 184 and 182 was it whatever yes between 184 and 186 and apologies if I did say earlier on 182 and 184 but the distances from here the back the widest point is 6.8 and the narrowest which is 4.98 but it's I think not just the narrowness it's also the angle if you were a vehicle coming in here and you would either turn in over the traffic to come in or as you come down you're on this side of the road turning in you're unlikely to see any vehicle or service vehicle that wants to exit there and that could cause backup on Avery Hill Road and potential safety issue have we at the moment got any particular construction conditions that take into account this restricted access and the fact that it's a very constrained site closely surrounded by a lot of residential property because I think there are different construction conditions that are needed in that kind of site I don't know if we're looking at that yet whether that's something we might come to later with sites like this this size that we have granted consent for similar size sites and construction has happened without any impact upon residents however that said we do always ensure that a condition is recommended and imposed and within appendix two it is condition four there is a requirement for the applicant prior to developing the site to submit a construction method statement and that talks about details relating to access routes noise vibration levels noise screening and monitoring and monitoring Alex Ashley pointed out or asked earlier on about any provision for some one of the families or any of the families having special needs or disabilities and access to the properties so in regards to the planning requirements for this size of development say for example wheelchair housing that isn't something that we can require that's over a certain size development but they are required to meet accessible and adaptable units in the future that would be done under building regs in regards to parking as I said it would have only been one and a half spaces and it's not specified whether that space would be for disability space however as I say there is parking available on the street but these houses aren't wheelchair units there's not a requirement for a space for a person with a disability and do we know have we got any are we aware of any blue badge spaces on Avery Hill Road no chair I'm not aware of any near to the site okay thanks any any questions from members Alex thank you very much now wish to call on councillor Greenwell hold hold my voice last out put the microphone closer back sorry about this yeah right there have been numerous applications for proposed residential properties on this plot over the years and they've all been refused one that stands out and I know the rules have changed was for two detached bungalows and this when it was refused by planning subsequently went to appeal where it was refused at appeal on the grounds that it would constitute an inharmonious and unsympathetic development in an area characterised by family houses fronting roads in deep plots quote it will set an unacceptable precedent for similar proposals on residential gardens bearing that in mind in 2008 as we have heard the original gardens of 184 and 182 Avery Hill Road were sectioned off resulting in the loss of garden space to these two properties to now build two semis and one detached property on these former gardens is simply over development the location of the proposed three bills will create which we don't seem to have had many questions asked about this a huge amount of overlooking and loss of privacy to existing properties in Overmead Avery Hill and Holland Gardens or as it's now known often Waterford Place Number 10 Overmead and neighbours who have smaller gardens will lose all their privacy with side windows overlooking their properties from the new bills I don't know whether if it goes ahead there could be some form of glazed windows but they're going to look straight into the property especially the one number 10 Overmead I and residents have concerned also regarding loss of light which again hasn't seemed to be mentioned the report states that there will be a close relationship with 47 to 51 Holland Gardens I do not know what that actually means I do know that there are dormer windows in these properties and I'm assuming it is realized that it is going to have an effect on numbers 47 to 51 but I've never heard the term close relationship used before this revised application does not provide parking spaces which we've heard however it has to be taken into consideration that the three properties with loft spaces will almost certainly mean cars and visitors and with all due respect I have to say as a ward councillor and somebody who knows this area very well there is no room for parking on the road Avery Hill itself has got large driveways so you can't park there the few spaces that are available controlled parking you've got buses lorries traffic flowing down and you know sort of well they don't keep to 30 miles an hour down that road and actually over mead which is the nearest unrestricted parking road just more or less around the corner there's no parking space there I don't know when people have looked but it suffers already from the university parking being an issue so there is no way that any cars that they will have cars because there are a number of rooms that three properties can accommodate parking on the rain roads I strongly support the residents who live in the area bordering the site as it will have a huge impact on their lives and their amenity this is over development on a former garden site and I would also like to mention that originally there were 20 something trees on this site and the person who either rented the site or owned the site at the time removed all of them and what actually happens is when the undergrowth is cut back that area becomes flooded because there's nowhere for the water to be soaked up and if it becomes flooded now what will it be like when you've got three properties this has to be taken into effect and I know that Waterford's Holland Gardens has always had an issue ever since it was built with flooding so that has to be taken into consideration as well thank you and sorry about if I wasn't very clear it's my throat thanks Pat David thanks very much Pat yeah I mean we did visit the site but obviously you've got great familiarity over a long time but is it not the case I mean looking at my Google Earth photographs that there are two or three on peak on street parking spaces which are vacant on this photograph outside 182 Avery Hill Road and there's a further two or three parking spaces outside 184 or 186 and there's a further two parking spaces just further down around about 190 so there's a significant number very close by parking spaces and then there are also parking spaces I can see plenty of spare parking spaces in Overmead as well which you said there weren't well I don't know what time I mean it might be sheer luck but I know living there that I have tried parking in Overmead before and it's impossible when the university is there and it is not a very big road and it's on a bend and also the spaces that are on Avery Hill Road again there would have to be it's parking control control parking and it depends what time of day you're there and I direct to think if anybody tried to park first thing in the morning rush hour coming down Avery Hill Road because you can't park any you've got traffic tailed back all the way from the traffic lights in New Elson right the way back past Waterford place or Harland Gardens it is a very very very busy road and you park there well you know it's dangerous and it depends what time of day and as I say again they would have to have control well they'd have to have control permits sorry yep you have just on the other point you raised about the overlooking if people were that passionate about it and we've seen the data it's all over 18 metres which is the minimum standard I haven't seen any data on any loss of light but wouldn't the residents be here this evening to express their horror at this prospect David they are here some residents that are affected are here but also unfortunately this is the way the system works there was a petition but of course people obviously didn't realise that that just was 47 names it just goes down as one actual object but the people from Overmead are here this evening so you can ask them Sam so as everyone here knows we're in the middle of a housing crisis this is essentially an empty piece of land right it's got grass it's got trees but essentially it is buildable what would you like see to happen to this land would you like it left as it is no I mean I've said it's over development it's three properties it's two semi-detached properties and a detached property which is stuck in the middle of it's going to affect everybody it's going against the building line these have been built on what were former gardens it's going to affect Holland gardens it's going to affect Avery Hill people it's going to affect Overmead and should we actually yes we do need houses and I know that Sam as much and probably more as anybody else but not at the detriment of the loss of amenity of people who have lived there all their lives these people don't want you know suddenly they're going to have their lives destroyed because people are overlooking it should be smaller two semi-detached I don't know one detached but to stick three houses on that site is absolute overdevelopment and it's going against the building line because it's kind of in the middle so they're surrounded on three sides by houses and you've got this you know these buildings in the middle it's not on the main road it's going to affect all the houses by them I just you know yes we do need houses and yes this is overdevelopment and I'm sure that the people if it was just one house or a couple of semis but to stick three it's pushing it three houses on this land is just overdevelopment and not taking into consideration the loss of the community people who've lived there all their lives and how it's going to affect them is that all right Sam I suppose sort of towards the beginning of your speech you showed some joy in the rejection of the bungalows so I suppose my worry is that you would be opposed to any development of this site at all no that was sorry if you look back in the drawings that was two very large detached bungalows it says bungalows but they were dormer bungalows anything else thank you you mentioned earlier about flooding yeah yeah i think so yes my question is has the development of holland gardens increased the flooding of the area or has the drainage incorporated in the holland gardens development alleviated the flood risk of the area i think you would be better to ask that question there is someone here sorry speaking who lives in Avery Hill road and he has been he's the person who lives next to this development and he has watched it over the years so he would be able to say whether or not that happened before holland gardens is that all right this works as well can you hear me now yeah okay yeah so i'll ask that question of one of the speakers that comes up but again like councillor gardener i attended the site visit and i actually circulated the photographs that i took the site is quite substantial and your comments about the development i think the footprints of the buildings proposed only take up 40% of the site is that correct 15% so only 15% of the overall site is going to be developed i think it's sorry can i just say i think also it's the fact that there are so many windows and when the person comes who lives in overmead there is a window that is going to look bright it will take all their privacy away it's the placement of the windows as well the dormer windows i won't make a comment there pat because we've sat we've sat on god knows how many applications together where where the distance between buildings is far less far less than 18 plus i think it's a fact chair that this it's gone against the building line the original building line on the properties of this east side of avry hill road you know they had and this is going to sound but for the right reasons they are large properties some of them some of them are smaller and they all had large gardens and this is the fact that two large gardens were actually well the owner at the time or the renter persuaded the owner of two of these properties to sell part of the gardens a big part of the gardens and that's what these were so it's use of garden site as well and I know and also the fact that with that you have got properties sitting in the middle totally out of the building line and therefore they are going to be able to see and take the privacy from everybody around them thank you thanks bet I can I can hear your voice going thank you very much and I wish to call on Edward Grigsby hi Edward there should be a button at least your microphone is working is it working yes it is I can see the light on thank you yes I I'm the gentleman that's going to tell you about the flooding issues firstly I want to refer to Holland Gardens that backs onto the gardens of Avery Hill Road I'd like to formally address the committee regarding the significant flooding issues affecting our community it appears that there may have been an oversight in the assessment process as the checkbox indicated no flooding issues for Eltham and New Eltham has been marked historically these areas have not experienced flooding until recent developments were introduced both local residents and Greenwich Council are acutely aware of the flooding challenges faced by properties on the perimeter of Holland Gardens which have arisen as a direct result of the recent Linden Homes construction this has even led to the postponement of future developments in the centre of the estate due to drainage concerns I would like to highlight our specific flooding problems with each new planning application the gardens of 184 and 182 are stripped there which exacerbates the situation following heavy and persistent rainfall our gardens along the boundary with 184 become flooded our patio is submerged underwater not merely with surface water but to the extent that the flagstones are completely underwater I have gathered photographic evidence to substantiate my claim my primary concern is the replacement of a large section of both gardens and a foot bath with hardcore without any soil left to absorb the rainfall it is inevitable that the water will flood our gardens and patio furthermore it is particularly alarming our dining room is situated only one flagstone higher than our patio therefore putting our home at risk of flooding having lived in New Elton for the past 24 years I trust our local council will advocate for the interest of residents by rejecting this proposal I also urge the committee to take into account considerable local opposition from residents in and around Avery Hill who have also expressed their objection against this development thank you Edward any questions for the speaker no Edward did you submit any of the photographs around the flooding to yes the greenish planning Alex I know that flooding has been raised in terms of flooding for this site because it's only a flood risk zone one we haven't had to consult and in terms of the application as if it was approved and it goes through building regulations then they will have to satisfy building regulations in terms of ensuring that this doesn't add to that so you'd be looking at sustainable drainage sods etc can I can I just say about what you're saying about drainage everyone on the perimeter of the new build all their back gardens flood you're talking about Holland Park yes Holland Gardens sorry yes speak to any resident around there since that's been built all their back gardens flood so all the new build all the new builds have got flooding issues and you're saying that no not the new builds the existing houses since the new build was done their back gardens flood so thank you very much for raising the point about flooding I think that's obviously highly relevant and I'm generally concerned as I know all councils are about the iterative impact of too much hard landscaping hence I was going on earlier about paving over front gardens but you can see from the designs for Holland Garden there's far too much tarmac there so but I just wondered if you had copies I mean obviously if we to look at it or ask for it to be looked at have you got the photographic evidence that you referred to obviously I didn't bring it with me I didn't think that would be necessary I've probably got it on my phone I could probably find it on my phone they were taken on my phone but you but you didn't send it to the clerk they were all sent to Greenwich Council planning the photos that I've got on my phone I sent in with my opponent do you want me to see if I can get someone to show you I'm just seeing it's a bit late now in the day but would you like to see them okay Edward if you want to get your phone quickly I'm quite happy for you to show it to members can I can I just add and you as well Alex can I just add though in terms of flooding that's obviously an issue potentially by Holland Gardens and an issue with that site not this site as members noted that when they walked on site there wasn't necessarily signs that that site was flooded given the weather we've had recently and potentially it's Holland Garden that's impacting on those not this it is addressed within the officers reports there's mentioned I'm just picking out one the development would reduce rain soak away and increase risk of flash flooding unfortunately it isn't considered a risk of high risk flooding area although I appreciate it has been noted if members were wanted to at a moment there is not a SUDS condition on if you wanted to ensure that SUDS were to be to be installed where we have flood risk areas we do put a condition on we wouldn't normally on this circumstance so that is something members could bear in mind so can I confirm is it 184 or 186 sorry 186 okay Leslie do you want to come up and while Edward's looking for his photos yeah actually you've got the right picture up yeah yes I live in Overmead so I back on to this here we have a south facing garden yep okay on this if you look at the picture up there you can clearly see the details of a huge amount of overshadowing from the proposed dwellings into the gardens of Overmead that are coming along within our objection we requested a daylight sunlight assessment to address our concerns regarding potential loss of light which I believe is required by the urban design guide policy 1 or I 17 despite our request for the information the council actually failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the proposed dwellings will not have an impact to the daylight that we currently afford because these are very high houses really within sections 13 of the planning officers committee report it states that it is considered that dwellings due to position would not impact on those properties in Overmead proposals must demonstrate that they would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties in the design principles but the officers report bears no regard to the impact upon our gardens and our privacy we consider that it's potential for a huge increase amount of overlooking from upper level windows from proposed residential unit closest to Overmead into our rear gardens and the rear of our property within section 13 of the committee report the planning officer has given little or no regard to the unacceptable loss of amenities afforded to our privacy in our homes nor to our existing residential gardens on Overmead and regarding which I haven't said about here regarding the parking in Overmead we get a lot of university students coming and they park they get there early in the morning they park all day until their days are done and then they come back for their cars because they can't park in Avery Hill there's nowhere for them and they're charging a lot of money to park on the university site so they'll park wherever they can and that's usually where we are we consider that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of the aforementioned policies the considerable overdevelopment has not been fully addressed within the officers report and we urge you to resolve to refuse this concept thank you now I'm trying to work out which microphones are working at the moment I'm working keep pushing different buttons thank you very much Leslie any questions for the speaker Leslie thank you very much that's it thank you where's my list I now wish to call on Heather Vickers hi Heather good evening chair hello members my name's Heather Vickers and I'm the agent for the applicant and on behalf of the applicant and who was also the land owner we are pleased to be able to present to you tonight and we'd like to thank Alex and the officers for their collaborative approach with regards to the proposals before you this evening the scheme has evolved quite significantly through two very detailed pre-application submissions to officers we sought to overcome all the comments raised by officers and we welcome the points raised in the officers report regarding the process taken as has already been noted both the MPPF and the London plan encourage development of small sites to help meet local housing targets and the proposed scheme aligns directly with the objective to deliver three family-sized dwellings on a small backland site that is vacant as confirmed in the officer report the proposals align with all elements of local policy particularly the council's policy and requirement on backland development as confirmed by your officers we have amended the proposals considerably taking into account previous planning decisions historically and to provide a scheme that reflects and responds to the surrounding character particularly Avery Hill Road the development proposes acceptable and suitable separation distances as already noted of 18 metres and more to ensure there's no unreasonable reduction in the amenity for neighbours in line with guidance we welcome the support in that the proposed standard of accommodation is high quality it exceeds minimum space standards actually achieving the best practice standards in the London plan includes ample space from home and provides spacious amenity space in the back gardens the attractive and traditional design reflects the character of surrounding properties in the direct response to office made by officers during the pre-application discussions that we held as agreed by planning and highway officers the proposals have been amended to be car free which aligns with the council's ambitions and that is in relation to active travel and the use of public transport also details submitted with the application confirms all existing trees will be retained on the site a landscaping strategy to improve the site will be and has been proposed as a condition so further details on the enhancements will be submitted to officers for their approval the proposals for three family homes on this site have been design led have come forward through a robust pre-application process and engagement with your officers the density the height the separation and the high quality design respond to the overarching character of the western side of Avery Hill Road particularly so that we trust you feel able to support your officers recommendation for this approval tonight thank you very much thank you questions Sam thank you so have you done a comprehensive flooding assessment and if so what did it say in relation to flooding as already noted the flood risk zone for this site is flood zone one and it is also under hectare in size being a small site so it's not a requirement of the planning application system so there could be flooding but you haven't noted it down well I mean in relation to the size of the site it's not a requirement therefore we're not anticipated to submit it with the application but obviously if there is a concern about flooding then as Alex noted there could be a condition attached that would allow for more sustainable drainage offers to be made which aren't on the site currently David Joe got you down thank you very much and I said before I did visit the site I I very much appreciate the car free ambition but my apart from flooding which I think we'll come back to my other concern which may be related because it's about obviously planting and soaking and so forth is is the lack of any sort of biodiversity net gain that we can see I appreciate the application was submitted just before the early April deadline but had you done any work in terms of biodiversity net gain and are you willing to look again at the landscape plan to see what can done to to maximize the ability of the land to absorb absorb water through suds or whatever but also maybe to provide a bit more screening particularly with Holland Gardens and so they're not quite so overlooked by the the windows at the back yeah no problem and we have looked at the the site in general with regards to ecology the application was supported by a preliminary ecological assessment which looked at the flora and the fauna elements at the moment the site is modified grassland with a lot of bramble as I think you've already mentioned on site which is difficult to navigate the enhancements that we're going to be looking at are a landscape strategy with trees and low-lying shrubs we can certainly as part of the condition you know which the council officers will have control over whether they accept or or don't the detail we can look at the boundary treatments along those edges we have also looked at ecological enhancements which are provided as part of the ecological assessment for things like back bricks and hedgehog holes and and so on in relation to the existing trees they are going to be retained so there will be some boundary treatment already in place and the landscaping condition will add to that thanks one of the residents was talking about overshadowing into her back garden and looking again with different eyes at this can you tell me how tall the proposed houses are compared to the houses surrounding them yeah they look a lot bigger they look a lot higher i'd be interested to know the actuality of that i don't know if you have it alex but i know there was a section drawing submitted with the application which shows that they are slightly they are not as tall as the up the homes on avery hill road i think what i would say from this is an indicative aerial so in terms of how it relates to those properties in overmead and i i wouldn't say that those are correct the property in terms of our nine point nine point five seven meters um which is not that dissimilar to the definitely the properties on avery hill um because as members saw on site and i can show through some um photos the roofs are quite high um and in terms of the properties in overmead again that that's not dissimilar um in terms of um obviously sunlight and daylight the requirement is whether it impacts upon sunlight and daylight to the properties um again this is indicative but that shadow doesn't go anywhere near the properties in overmead um however to to and um require an assessment it has to breach a 25 degree angle from a main window that's the bre standard because of the distance from the side elevation of those properties to overmead properties which is around 19 meters um that 25 degree angle from a ground floor window would not be breached and therefore any assessment is likely to come back and say there is no breach of the 25 degree angle and therefore there is no impact on sunlight and daylight if it obviously breached that 25 degree then we'd have to look at then how much impact from a sunlight and daylight um assessment you know the reduction in light but um it's far enough away um from it not not to require a sunlight and daylight assessment we've heard about privacy as well and i look at those windows on sort of the i don't know the left hand side of those buildings looking into someone's garden are those absolutely necessary to have those windows there or um i think as was noted in the officer report earlier those buildings on thank you alex um are obscure glazed and not openable so they are to non-habitable rooms they will be obscure glazed and i think a condition has been already added to the officer's report on that basis yeah so just just to confirm the windows that these two are for stairwell this is a higher level window as well so um it's not full window this window here is to a bathroom but i can confirm that on the floor plans oh sorry yeah um sorry the high level window is to the bathroom that is the stairwell and they'll all be obscure glazed fixed shut um the windows on the southern elevation are these two windows here to bedrooms at first floor level they are secondary windows so each bedroom has their primary window um on the front and rear those would be obscure glazed and fixed shut as well those face over the gardens of avery hill but there's no direct overlooking in terms of that so privacy would be you restricted and insured by condition okay there's that yeah um heaven um it's been brought to our attention by people living in the area that there is now localized flooding in in that area um and obviously we all we're all we're well aware of climate change and changing weather patterns increased way uh rainfall and saturated ground around certain parts of the borough um with that in mind i'm asking if you've if the applicant is and has undertaken any geological surveys of the site to determine what foundation um would be put in whether it's trench or a pile so that's my first question has anything been has anything been done on that site as of yet not as of yet there hasn't been any intrusive surveys on the site um i obviously there will have been an intrusive surveys done on the site to the rear for holland gardens as part of that application to understand the ground conditions so we can you know certainly have a look at that to understand the conditions on the ground i think what i would say in relation to the flooding issue is that if it if the flooding is happening as the site remains it is as it is at the moment if in the do nothing scenario there will be no additional ability to drain the site and if the water is i mean i'm not a flooding expert i'm certainly not a flooding expert but potentially the inclusion of a sustainable drainage condition may seek to improve matters rather than leaving it as it is currently and there remaining to be flooding issues around the area thanks i've got no further questions now thanks any further questions no ever thank you very much can i open this up for deliberation now david thank you very much um so i think this is quite a difficult one um particularly obviously in light of the evidence we've heard uh from residents tonight um particularly in relation but in relation obviously to uh loss of uh sunlight but also in terms particularly of flooding um so i am we've got to look clearly at the balance of uh the um advantages disadvantages in relation to our overall policy and i think on balance that the provision of uh three houses which are very much in keeping with the current house of avery hill road uh which was a problem with bungalows they weren't in keeping um is uh does does help meet our housing need um and the tilted balance um i think there is sufficient uh space um according to policy uh between the new homes and and and existing homes um i think more can be done though both in terms of landscaping uh and in terms of alleviation uh and in terms of alleviation of flood i looked at the environment agency websites i'm sure you have done is down actually is a very low risk uh and a low risk of surface water um and that includes holland i looked at holland gardens as well this is a new development and they're clearly that this same it's the same there um but nevertheless although we only normally use a suds condition it's it's mandatory in all all major applications uh it wouldn't not always be used in a minor application unless there was a particular concern but if the applicant is happy to have that condition which they seem to be i think it is something that we should um consider uh i'd also very strongly uh support the whole principle of a car development i think that's very much the direction that we need to move in and and that will help our and will help our um uh you know our our public health and our climate change uh goals as well um so i over uh i think with with some speaking on the drainage i'd be happy to support officer recommendation thanks david sam thank you so i mean i i i often hear a voice saying that um we shouldn't have hmos because they take away family housing and here we have a proposal of family housing and apparently it's an overdevelopment which is surprising to me i don't necessarily buy the traffic argument this is intended to be car free and if you start thinking that houses cause traffic then the solution to traffic is to get rid of houses which of course nonsense so i don't buy that these are three four bed family homes which are in we're in desperate need of and the the flooding i i i accept that that is a point and and i'd like to get that looked at further but i think we can deal with that with conditions rather than rejecting the entire development thank you yeah i'm i'm pretty much in agreement that on balance it's the right thing i think we have to be very careful with our conditions and the conditions have to look at the localized flooding um which appears to me that may have been caused by previous building or whatever but we need to look at that very carefully we need to look at ensuring that that pathway to the houses is something permeable and is no wider than it needs to be and the need would be purely a one-way emergency vehicle and that's one of the reasons i asked about the width earlier i mean it's actually really quite wide you said that entrance that the narrowest point was four meters or something which you you know that's more than enough it does probably doesn't have to be nearly as wide as it shows on there basically what i'm saying is minimizing the amount of hard sort of stuff on that site um that's one that's part of it i would also uh yeah concur with the landscaping um both to sort of soften everything increase privacy and again doing what it can to do with the flooding um and i would like far more detail on the construction uh stuff because i think this is a very constrained surrounded site i think we need to be very clear about ensuring that local people have their whole weekends free for instance um i i i i i have experience of of being living near a constrained site like this um also yeah i think the construction stuff needs to be very mindful of of its particular space but um other than other than that i i i i i think councillor gardener's point about that on balance this this is a good it's better than not doing it yeah so on condition four condition four we have quite a good um robust construction management plan and on construction on condition 11 which covers landscaping um that covers everything even down to the additional trees what quality and everything else so again i think on there's one two three six there's 10 different points within the landscaping condition which have got to be a idea too which is open space areas of painting uh paving amenity areas pedestrian linkage place based provision lighting wayfinding permeability materials and additional trees all covered under the landscaping um the suds condition could be added on to um condition 11 which would mean that extra flood risk and precautions and drainage could be um added to this site which would alleviate any flooding on neighboring properties um as well so that could be that could be added on to condition 11. um any further comments from anybody okay so coming back to yeah joe i'm i'm not convinced about the construction stuff because the construction under four in in the appendix it just says the kind of stuff that needs to be covered uh which i think was is quite generic isn't it it look it looks quite generic to me you you know special specification of equipment with likely noise and vibration levels etc and i think all of those need to be specific to the constrained site and the number of very close by neighbors so that's that's my main point so so when it comes out so chair in terms of that um just to confirm um protest when it comes in so they have to cover that but they have to go into detailed plans so there will be a uh document they submit construction management plan so i appreciate there's bullet points there but i have to expand and they have to confirm say for example the noise and vibration levels how that would be uh monitored um and how they would protect residential amenity the main thing is that reason is to safeguard the amenities of all of the properties that surround it on all those three roads and that will be checked over by both our environmental health team and also our highways team from vehicles point of view and they will ensure that um it is in accordance with um our normal protocol for construction method statement but also looking at it on a case-by-case basis given the as you say size of the site and relationship to residents um they will also need to um ensure that they comply with our small sites construction details which are on our website and that relates to hours of use uh hours hours of construction okay with it joe yep okay enough other comments from anybody i'm going to put this to the vote we're first off is everybody happy to add the suds to condition 11 yep agreed okay so with the addition of the suds to condition 11 all those in favor of the officer's recommendation please raise your hand thank you very much subject to condition the item is approved thank you thank you all for coming