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 the 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 any further comment unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers, councillors up to five, accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups up to four, individuals two, applicants and their teams ten. On item four, I have Richard O'Connor. And that's the only item on tonight's agenda. Item one, apologies for absence. We've received apologies for absence from councillor Dave Sullivan and Ashley Mohamed. Are members aware of any apologies from any colleagues? Item two, urgent business. There was an erratum to item four published due to an issue with a paragraph in number. The erratum report is exactly the same as the one that was published, only with the right paragraph number in. Item three, declarations of interest. Item four is number four, Irwin Avenue, Plumstead, London, SE18 2HP, reference 242374F. Dominic. Good evening, committee members. The proposal relates to a change of use from an existing single-family dwelling to a six-bedroom, six-person HMO, in addition to a rear dormer loft conversion, installation of two roof lights on front elevation, the conversion of a garage into a habitable space, replacement of the front garage door with windows, and all other external associated alterations. This application has come before members due to receiving 13 objections. The concerns raised by the objectors are set out within the officers' report. Officers recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions included in Appendix 2 of the officers' committee report. Here is a site location plan, the site being highlighted by the red line. The site contains a single-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a small front and larger rear garden. There have been a number of additions to the existing property, notably a two-storey site extension, dormer, and rear extension. These additions have been on the site for a period of more than 10 years. Here is an aerial view of the site. It is not located within a conservation area, and is not subject to any particular designations. The area is predominantly residential, with a mix of semi-detached and terraced dwellings. To the west of the site is Timbercroft Primary School. Here we have some photos of the site as it's viewed from Irwin Avenue, where you can see the additions to the existing dwelling. And at the rear of the property, you can see the existing rear extension and covered area to the side of the property, in addition to the relationship with the adjoining properties at No. 2 and 6 Irwin Avenue. At the ground floor, the existing living, dining, kitchen, and bathroom areas will be replaced by two additional bedrooms. What is the existing garage on the left side of the drawing will be converted into a communal kitchen and dining area. The existing bedrooms on the right of the drawing will be reconfigured to accommodate en-suites. A total of four bedrooms will be provided at ground floor level, and access at the rear garden will be provided from the communal kitchen and dining area. At first floor level, an additional bedroom will be accommodated with a further floor space provided by the rear dormer and loft conversion. A storage area would be provided at the front of the building, and the existing bedroom shown on the left side of the drawing will be provided with an en-suite. In terms of quality of accommodation, the bedroom sizes, kitchen facilities, bathrooms, floor-to-ceiling heights comply with our HMO standards. The rear garden will continue to be used by future occupants, and all rooms will have sufficient access to an acceptable level of daylight, sunlight, and outlook. At the front of the property, the changes will involve the replacement of the garage door with windows, the roof conversion, and the addition of two roof lights on the front roof slope. At the rear of the property, the rear dormer will occupy almost the entirety of the roof slope, which will be enlarged as part of the roof conversion. As outlined in the delegated report, while there will be an impact on character, the applicant has demonstrated that these roof alterations and rear dormer constitute permitted development and can be constructed irrespective of this planning application. Accordingly, this provides a relevant fallback position, and any impacts of these alterations will be identical to those that could already be implemented, regardless of this application. Here is the development as viewed from 6 Irwin Avenue. Owing to the proximity and overall bulk of the dorm and roof conversion, it is acknowledged that there will be some impact on daylight, sunlight, and outlook experienced by No. 6. However, again, due to the relevant fallback position, the roof conversion and rear dormer fall under permitted development and can be implemented without planning permission. As there are no material differences between the extensions proposed under this application and those approved on the previous Certificate of Lawful Development, the impacts on neighbouring amenity are considered to be acceptable in this instance. Similarly, for the same reasons, the impacts on the amenity of No. 2 Irwin Avenue are also considered to be acceptable, though I would also note that the bulk of the extensions will be located on the opposite side of the site from this dwelling, with the rear box dormer directly adjoining this property. Turning to transport and highways, the development does not propose any on-site parking, and so would be reliant purely on on-street parking if required. Although the site has a low P-TAL rating of 1, the site is located within close proximity to frequent bus services that lead to Woolwich and wider transport connections. The site is not located within a controlled parking zone, which would indicate that there is capacity for on-street parking, should occupants require it. Notwithstanding this, Council's highways officer has reviewed the application and has raised no objection to the proposal. The submissions would also bring forward six cycle spaces in storage provided at the rear garden, which would provide each occupant their own space, which would further discourage private vehicle use. For waste, five bins have been shown in the drawings in the front garden of the site, and Council's waste officer has not raised any objection to the proposal. In summary, the proposed HMO meets all the required standards for quality of accommodation, provision of cycle, and waste storage, and will be subject to a separate HMO licensing process. While it is acknowledged that there will be impacts on character and neighbouring amenity, these effects will be no different to what could already be built on the site without planning permission. For these reasons, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval. Thanks, Dominic. Could we go back again where the aerial plan is and the floor plans of the development? Just in case... Just for a catch-up. Yeah. Is he? We have the floor plans here for ground floor. And also the first floor level. Yeah, the kitchen is on the ground floor in the left corner of the drawing. Any questions for the officer? Pat. Thank you, Chair. Right. Cycles. I'm assuming there is no back entrance for the Cycles, correct? Is that correct? Thank you for your report, by the way. Sorry. That's right. There is no access on the sides of the dwelling. That's correct. But the access is through the communal kitchen area to the rear of the garden. So can I ask you, how wide is that passageway that the bike, that six cycles, bicycles, whatever, might have to go through and then pass through the kitchen to get out of the door? So how wide is the passageway, please? We have not measured the hallway or the access doors. It's not really a planning consideration on how wide the doorways are. No, of the width of the hallway. Yeah. We haven't measured those. Sorry? We don't have those measurements on hand. You have measurements of the hallways? Of the hallways, no. Apparently, I've looked at photographs of this, and the extension itself virtually seems to be absolutely next to the next bungalow. So what space is there between the number six and the box extension that was put in place? Are you referring to the existing extension or the... The existing one. The existing extension is built up to the boundary. So on the left-hand side of the drawing there, you can see that the extension is on the mutual boundary with the adjoining property at number six. Right up to the boundary? Correct. Do we know how far from the boundary the house next door is? I'm just trying to find out what the space is between the two. I'm thinking about ventilation, dampness, and... Just in terms of the two-storey side extension, that is... It's not original to the property, but it has been there for a substantial period of time, so therefore it doesn't need planning permission over that period of time, and therefore it's not part of the consideration of this application. Can I just ask a third one, please, Chair, which is connected? And this is what I'm trying to get my head around this. That, okay, 20 years ago, whatever, an extension was built on this property, which was illegal. And because nothing was done about it, I don't know, whatever happened, after four years, which is now ten years, that's no longer deemed, nobody could do anything about that illegal extension. But does that not have some kind of impact somewhere now upon the whole new... Because we're talking now about an extension on the back of that box, another extension, and the whole figuration of the house is going to change with regards to light and possibly dampness and overshadowing. So can it not be looked at now as a whole? Do we still have... What I'm trying to say is, do we have to ignore the fact that there is that extension there that was illegal, that's right up to the boundaries, boundary, of the next, and for whatever reasons it's legal, we have to ignore that altogether? Yeah, in terms of the two-story on the side, there is nothing that officers can comment on or do about that. That has been there for a substantial period of time. If something's been there prior to April this year, if something could have been there for more than four years and no enforcement action has been taken and they can prove there's been four years or we can see from aerials and street scenes that it's been there for more than four years, then unfortunately over that time period it is lawful and therefore stands as an extension on that property, which is part of this application they're not seeking consent for because it's lawful over time. So in terms of its impact upon the neighbouring property, in terms of light, we cannot comment on or consider. In terms of damp, that is not a planning consideration. But with the whole thing with this extension, am I right in thinking that the dormer extension is going on the back of that? No, the rear dormer extension is going back on the existing roof slope. I'll see if I can get the elevation here. So the rear dormer is on the primary roof slope of the dwelling. The extension is on the right side of that drawing there. So what Dominic was explaining earlier and what's in the report is a certificate of lawfulness has been granted on this site, which if the applicant wanted to, could have built that before now without planning permission because they've proven that it would fall within permitted development rights. So therefore, this application has come forward and it's shown on the existing plans as existing and what's proposed. It is in the description of development, but what the applicant has is what we call a fallback position. So if they were to build out the certificate of lawfulness, it already changes the character of that property, street scene and surrounding area. It also has an impact upon the neighbouring property. Whether it has an impact in a good or bad way, they have it under a permitted development. So that's why it's written into the report. Whilst the dormer, in terms of design, doesn't meet what's set out in our urban design SPD in terms of dormer, they could build it now and it would change the character. And that's why we've said in these circumstances, unfortunately, there is a fallback position and it's acceptable in those circumstances. Thank you, Alex. Okay. Any further questions for the officer? Nope. Dominic, Alex, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Richard O'Connor. Richard. Yes, please. Evening, committee. I'm Richard O'Connor. I live with my family at No. 6 Irwin Avenue and we've lived there for 50 years, next door on the east side of the proposed HMO development at No. 4. The proposed plan should be rejected as it fails to comply with 14.4, the Council's urban design guide, SPD, revised our note in 2023, which provides guidelines in considering the impacts of development on neighbouring amenity. Notably, Principle 1.2.1 and its associated paragraphs, I-13, I-15, I-18, emphasise that the extension must not adversely affect neighbours' living conditions. This includes considerations of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing and privacy. The guidelines stress the importance of window placement, orientation and distance, as well as the overall impact on neighbouring properties. Extensions that significantly overshadow adjacent spaces create a sense of enclosure, dominate views and appear overbearing, are likely to be rejected. The urban design SPD, as per 2023, also includes a chapter I, section 1.3.9, Guidance for House of Multiple Occupation, paragraph 1.166. It states, the quality of accommodation provided by HMOs can be poor and can give rise to concern. To be considered good quality, proposals for the conversion to an HMO need to be, one, provide sufficient internal space, two, provide occupants with a reasonable standard of amenity, and three, most importantly, not give rise to significant adverse amenity impacts to the surrounding property residential neighbourhoods. So, this proposal of building the rear dormer, box dormer, and the conversion of the hip roof to an upright gable end, which you see in that drawing there, needs to be brought into question as the site plan clearly shows that both properties are positioned on the bend in the road, which brings the rear of both properties closer and at an angle that will impact on the right of light as it fails to comply with BSE, Building Research Establishment Guidelines. If you look at the site plan, you will see quite clearly, shown up there, the road plan is on the curve, the buildings are not parallel side by side, they are actually turned by 12, 20 degrees, so the rears are closer than the front. As you notice, the buildings in Irwin Avenue, some are set forward to the pavement, some are set back, and that causes the issue of this one would be set back and would give the appearance of overriding the light. So what I'm saying is the Building Research Establishment Guideline values that need to comply with, on this occasion, are the 45 degree rule that stipulates that any extension to the rear, front, or side of a property must be set within a 45 degree line drawn from the nearest edge of the neighbouring window. This is a loss of light that will impact on our west-facing dining room, abital room, which you can't see on the drawing there, but it is there, it's beside the back door. So this HMO development will be unacceptable as far as I'm concerned as causing such light loss and loss of amenity. But I do support the collective rejection of the proposed HMO as indicated by the 13 other members of the community responding and objecting to this planning application with no one in favour. Thanks, Richard. Any questions for the speaker? Can I ask Councillor Greenwell which plan she would like to see? I'm now looking at the street plan where you've got, you know, it's showing the street, it's showing Irvine Avenue and the bend in the road and the way that this particular application is on an angle. Probably the site plan. The site plan. Yes. There's the area. There's the map. The map. You can't believe... Go back one more. If you go back one more, you'll... That's it. Can we just step back on? Yeah. Sorry. I've just helped. Sorry. Yeah. So that's the site plan. So you can see the application indicated in red. To the left of that is number two. To the right, which is to the east, is number six. So number six sits to the east. As you appreciate, the sun rises... Can you use the west? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry. So north is at the top, east, north, east, south, west. So the dormer would go in this location here. So with the sun rising in the east, setting in the west, because most of the property is directly looking south, there will be no adverse impact on sunlight and daylight to any of the properties that surround it. Plus the dormer, located here with its hip to gable, has been approved under permitted development rights and if built today would have some impact on those properties in terms of amenity and we have no say on that. And that's why we say there's a fallback position, which is something that's been accepted by inspectors and is why the council officers, planning officers, have had to take that approach because we've lost appeals in that respect. In terms of the rear, so that's number six, Irwin Avenue. So that's the property. The hip to gable would be in this location here with the dormer on the back. That's number two. So it is set away from the boundary as well because when you look at it from a roof level, that's the set off from the boundary with number six here, the gable end. So there's a distance there, the top looking south. So from officers' point of view, there is a fallback position and it's not considered in this instance to have an adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity in terms of sunlight, daylight, loss of outlook, sense of enclosure or loss of privacy. So the dormer can be built. So the dormer already has consent. And the 45 degree angle? The 45 degree angle is normally a 45 degree angle that's taken from a window and that is a view looking outwards. So, say for example, if you had this window here, the 45 degree angle would look out. So you take an angle there and if it impacts upon that 45 degree, there could be an impact upon outlook and sense of enclosure from our guidance. And it is guidance. So the SPD is guidance. So we would look at it and see what, if it hits that 45 degree, what degree of impact that has. In terms of BRE, they would look at a 25 degree angle, I believe, in terms of its impact upon sunlight and daylight. Again, because there's a fallback position, there could be an impact upon that property. But because number six, which is located here on the left of the screen, say, is looking south or west, most of the impact, if any, on sunlight and daylight would be later in the evening rather than first thing in the morning or midday. Callum. Sorry. Thank you. Could you just go back to the sort of, it's not quite Google Street View, but the almost satellite image just because from looking at Google Street View, I'm just trying to work out if, yeah, so that it looks like number 10, I guess that is, so three along, it looks like they've already done a, that looks like a dormer, sorry, just over from that. It looks like, just near where the mouse is now, it looks like there's a dormer extension on that. Is that correct? That is correct. It does appear that there is a dormer on this property here. Okay, and that would... So six, eight, 10. There's also, you can see the scaffolding and going on around other properties and you can also see the flat roofs of the dormers all here. So a lot of people, properties have them and it's likely that many of them have been done under permitted development as well. Cheers. Thank you. Sorry, it was just when you've got the direct above, you can't quite tell, so that's helpful. So that explains the permitted development, you know, this being within that. Yes, and with permitted development, we can't comment on impact upon amenity. It is based upon the general permitted development order and whether it meets certain criteria. Thank you. Sorry, just wanted to clarify that. Cheers. Can I just ask you two questions? First and foremost, this is obviously on the bend. Are you aware, is there a parking issue at all? Sorry, sorry, sorry. Yes, there is potentially a parking issue because the proximity to Timbercroft School and the teachers parking there and staff parking there. It's also on a bend which is very dangerous. Cars do come through there quite high even though there's speed, fast, even though there's speed bumps. Yes, there could be a potential traffic issue. And I asked before, but we didn't know the answer. I'm assuming, I don't, well it might not be, I don't know, I'm going back again to the fact that bikes, push bikes, are going to have to be brought into this property, dragged through the hall and the kitchen to be taken out of the back. Are you, is, basically, is your hallway, do you know, the same width as this hallway at the moment or has everything changed over the years? It's about 1.2 metres. Approximately. Sorry Chair, can I just add a bit to that? Obviously the gentleman said 1.2. If that is the measurements within this property, 1.2 is bigger than the hallway that we looked at last Tuesday, which I think was 0.7 and obviously that HMO was granted last week. It varies. In terms of this, the hallway is like any normal single family dwelling. so if you had the single family dwelling, there's no side access. If they had bikes, it's likely they would park them out the back so we'd be bringing them through the house anyway. The property is providing six bikes, one for each resident that may reside there and that helps with sustainable travel. So we don't think there will be an impact. They only have to provide a minimum of two in accordance with the London Plan so they're over-providing. In terms of this, we think that the way they would go through the house, through the kitchen, which isn't through the main part of the kitchen so they would be avoiding anybody that might be cooking. It just goes past where they show a dining room table. There will be no impact upon residents in terms of use of that bike or bikes through the house. nothing's been mentioned about it yet, because we had one of these last week and I'm very aware of it. The size of the kitchen, again, we've got six people and that means two lots of everything, two equipment wise cookers, washing machines, etc. of what the kitchen will look like, please. Yes, they have included more detail than the previous application we looked at. The minimum size, it's on the right drawing in the left-hand corner of the plan here, so you can see that there is tabletops and also a dining area here. So the minimum size for six occupants is 10.5 square metres. I think from memory it's around 13 square metres that they're providing. They have only shown one set of kitchen facilities. However, there is ample room, given that they exceed the minimum requirement to fit another set of kitchen facilities there and that can ultimately be addressed under the HMO licensing process. they'll have to show that information to get their HMO licence. It's on the drawing. Any further questions? Dominic? Just a final comment. I think the width of that 1.2 is the wall-to-wall. When you include the door and its pillars, then it's probably less than a metre. So, getting a bike through there may be a difficulty. Yeah, there are two kitchens. There's a kitchen up in the loft area that's proposed in the drawings. It's there, on the second drawing. That's neither for me to discover and discuss because it's something for you to decide on whether the HMO goes ahead or not. But we've already stated the issue of the community. Richard, way over your two minutes. We've moved on from there. I'd just like to correct it. The applicant had revised the plans. There is no kitchen in the loft area anymore. So, single kitchen. What can you tell us about the applicant? Does the applicant have experience in running HMOs? So, we did receive a late letter from the planning consultant for the application. Obviously, we can't verify all of the information in it. However, they have said that the managing agent is accredited under the London Land Order Accreditation scheme, various other schemes. They said they've got experience managing properties across London. They state that there are regular inspections to maintain cleanliness and maintenance and that kind of thing. There is also a 24 hour emergency hotline and they have stated that there is a dedicated waste team that if there is surplus waste, they can provide same day waste removal if required, according to their letter. Is that something that can be within the conditions that the numbers are made available to the neighbours? It's not something that we could put in the planning application, but the HMO licensing team I believe will require details of contacts, et cetera, so it would be possible for it to be on the council's system, but that will be through our HMO team. Thanks, Alex. Any further questions before we go into deliberation? Okay. I'm going to open this up now quickly for deliberation. Any comments before we go to the vote? Callum. Cheers. I think that, I mean, I was going to ask initially a question about the width of the hallways, because I had the same slight concern about how you might get bikes through. My only comment is, I think, could we perhaps request or suggest to them that it might be wiser to put the bike storage in the front? There's plenty of room in that front garden, but it's not a make or break thing, I think, particularly given the precedent from last week, but it does just seem the initial plans that talked about it being the front would appear to be more sensible just for access. But I don't think that's something we would be able to condition or would be reasonable. It's more of just a slight common sense suggestion there. And I think it is unfortunate that there was the construction that didn't have permission but that is now lawful and so we are bound by where things are now and there's clear precedent on the dormers and it will be for our HMO licensing team to make determinations about whether or not following this there will be a responsible HMO operator. So I think from a planning perspective this is an application that we should approve. Thanks Callum. Any further comments? Pat? Thank you Chair. I am torn. I know that we desperately need HMOs but here we have got a road that has got bungalows and I know that I'm looking again and I know this is that we can't take into account the fact that there's this massive box like extension at the side. I feel for the neighbour at number six who's had to put up with that for all this time. I think it's absolutely dreadful. and we have and we have got the problems with the bikes and hopefully everything will be all right but we don't know. The kitchen does seem large enough to be able to accommodate and there is a dining area. I have to make a decision but I think taking everything into consideration I think I'm going to abstain. Thank you. Thanks Pat. Any further comments? No. Alex. Cycle parking. Is it something that can be discussed or is it? If members wish that they could vary the condition on cycle parking for them to submit details at a later date for it to be at the front. The only thing I would say is that that cycle store as you can see from the pictures is quite large and the only concern I would have is the impact on the street scene and potential clutter. However this is slightly different to the terrace we've bought before members recently particularly the one last week where there was a smaller area to whether it could be varied to say consideration for putting it at the front subject to design but that would be up to members. If we don't think that's an advisable thing to do then I don't think we should but that feels reasonable to me but I'll be honest as somebody who's got a bike in my living room and a bike in the hallway I'm quite jealous of the lovely bike storage that they'll have there. but I think that's a fair point about the size of it. Still it's a lot smaller than most cars and we don't say that people having a car parked in their driveway is clutter and so I wouldn't think it necessarily is an unreasonable thing for us to suggest it going in the front but I still I think I would suggest it's more I think a suggestion that it's a better idea to put it in the front but not if it maybe means something less adequate being being put in or just down to the lowest kind of common denominator instead. Chair I think in terms of condition four at the moment it's prior to occupation shall provide the location and bike shed as shown in revision A oh sorry P005 revision A so at the moment it's a compliance condition to be in accordance with these plans if members were minded for it to be moved to the front then it would need a condition to be worded so that details are submitted at a later date or prior to occupation of bike storage. Could they not look at both options and then work out what's best I mean even even if it was three and three chances of all six occupants actually being bike riders are probably pretty slim. They obviously the applicant could have a look at that prior to submitting it we could put add an informative on saying that location at the front should be investigated. Would everyone be happy with an informative? Yeah. So it would be suggesting an informative to say look at the location at the front but also condition four to be reworded for prior to occupation full details of bike storage to be submitted. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Cool. Okay. Okay. So with that addition I'm now going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the office's recommendation with that addition please raise your hand. All those against? Abstentions? The item is approved. That brings tonight's meeting to an end. Only one item on the agenda. Thanks everyone for coming. Thank you.