Transcript

All right, good evening, everybody. I'm sorry we're starting a little bit late. My name's Dave Sullivan. I'm the vice chair of this committee. We've got apologies from the chair, which is why I'm in it this evening. I need to read this to you so we're all clear. We're all literally speaking from the same Sheets. Welcome to this planning committee. I've said who I am. Filming and recording. Filming and recording is not allowed but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. Only those public speakers whose requests have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speaker will be permitted to address the 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 the time given to speakers, councillors, up to five minutes each and accepted representatives of residents and community groups to four minutes each and individuals up to two minutes each. And the applicant's team, they are allowed ten minutes to present to the committee. Do I need to read this? The deadline for any public or applicant submissions was 5pm yesterday, Thursday, and only those received by the clerk have been accepted and circulated. Is that right? We will not accept any documents or photos presented at this meeting. Is that all clear? Do we have a... We've got a list of people who are doing this meeting. Yes, sir. On the second place. Yeah, I've got it. Yeah, yeah. So, so far, we've got Matt Hartley, Councillor Matt Hartley and Councillor Roger Chester, who we'll be presenting to this evening. I don't know about whether Cathy Dowse is here. Is Cathy Dowse here? Chair, as you know, all three ward councillors, including Councillor Dowse, requested this be called into the committee. Cathy has had an unexpected work commitment. She's unable to attend. Okay. But she's asked me to represent her in my remarks, if I may. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then the speakers are objecting. We've got George Salter, resident, John Partridge, Edward Wardill, Robert Simpson, Dominic Lang. Those are all residents. And we've got Gail Hodges, who's speaking on behalf of the Mottingham residents. And then we will be taking... Is there somebody in? Is there speaking in? There's no one speaking. No one speaking in favour, obviously, other than the applicants. Okay. Okay. All right. So, and now we go back to the agenda. So, are there any apologies for absence other than... Or is everybody here, apart from Gary Dillon, who's the only... Is that right? Yes, Chair. Yeah. There's no urgent business. Sorry, Chair, yes. My apologies. I meant to put it into the note. Members are asked to note that the statement from the applicant and two sets of photographs from residents were circulated to you in advance on Friday morning. I know that the speakers would be asking if you can bring those images up as part of their presentations. Okay. Thank you. All right. Okay. So, declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest? No? Okay. And then there's two sets of minutes. Minutes of the 26th of November, are they agreed? And then the minutes of the 3rd of December. Okay. Thank you. So, now we come on to the main item of the agenda, and I'm going to hand over to Luke Stepiano to make the presentation. Thank you, Chair. This is agenda item 5, which is land to the rear of 28 West Park, Eltham, London, SC94RQ. This is for the creation of six new residential units, which is class C3, to the rear of 28 West Park, with associated altered access arrangements, landscaping, boundary treatment, cycle, refuse, stores. This application is being heard at committee because it's received 33 objections from interested local parties. These generally are about design, overdevelopment concerns, neighbouring amenity impacts, transport concerns. But there's a full list of issues summarised at section 6 of the committee report. The application has also been objected to by councillors Hartley, Tester and Dowse, and all three councillors have asked for the application to be heard at planning committee should the application be recommended for approval. So, this is the site. It's to the southern side of West Park, between two detached properties, number 28 and number 30. The site currently forms part of an extremely large garden at number 28 West Park. The site consists of approximately 70 metre deep access way, measured from the road, which leads to an approximately 52 metres wide and 28 metres deep development site. I'm going to flick through some photos while I describe the site designations, just to give you a sense of what the site looks like. So, this is a view of the front of the site. The application site's in flood zone 1, which is the lowest risk of flooding, where no flood risk assessment's required to be provided as part of a development of this scale. This is the side garage at number 28 West Park, which is to be demolished, that will allow for access to the site. The site's got a public transport accessibility rating of between 2 and 3. It straddles both zones, indicating a below average to average level of accessibility to public transport links. It's also within the Mottingham control parking zone. This is the view up West Park. The site's not in a conservation area. The site doesn't impact a listed or locally listed building. The site's also not within an area of high archaeological importance. This is the view from the southernmost corner of the site. In all of these pictures, there should be a little arrow, which kind of indicates where the photo is taken from. The site's not within a site of nature conservation importance as designated by the local plan. There are no formally protected trees on site at all, so all of the trees on the site could be removed without formal planning consent, and the site's not subject to any other further designations. There's some additional photos here that I'll just flick through. So this is taken from the south-easternmost corner, looking north. This is taken from within the site, looking towards the south-easternmost corner, and you can see outbuildings in neighbouring gardens there towards the left of that image, and also you can see the rear of the properties on Court Road there. This is another view photo that's taken looking towards the west. This is another photo taken within the site, looking south onto the properties at Court Road. This is a photo taken in the corner there, looking right across the site. There's further context here that's looking south towards Court Road. This is a photo taken in the garden of number 28, West Park, so actually slightly outside the development site, but in the garden there, and that's looking back towards West Park. This is about halfway up between the house and where the main part of the site kind of starts. This is a photo just looking at the northern boundary, and you can actually partially see it's the garden of number 30, West Park there. And this is an outbuilding on the site which is sought to be removed as part of the development. And also you can see the properties just towards the right of that photo. You can see the properties on West Park there to get a sense of the distance and the depth of the neighbouring gardens. So in terms of principle development then, the principle of developing the site for residential is well established within the London plan and within the local plan, and the strong support given in policy for the introduction of new housing in the borough to address, recognise housing need. This is made clear within policy GG4 of the London plan, H1 and H2 of the local plan. With regards to the principle of infill development, it's clear that infill development already does exist within the wider area. You can see those yellow areas identified just locally there are examples of infill generally in the locality and it's clear that the proposals will maintain the special character of the wider area as part of the development. So in terms of what's actually proposed then, as I say, it's six residential houses, all accessed from West Park. So four of the proposed dwellings are detached buildings and there's two, which is units five and six. That's those units in the bottom right corner that are semi-detached dwellings. Each new dwelling has its own private garden and there's a central section of the site which will allow for a commuter courtyard and pathways. These are the ground floor plans. So units one to five have a three-bedroom, five-person configuration. They're family units arranged over two storeys. Unit six would also have a two-bedroom, four-person configuration, also arranged over two storeys. So unit six, as I say, is that one in the bottom right of the image there. Units one to four are near identical with incredibly similar layouts. And as I say, units five and six are the semi-detached pair. The ground floor areas generally feature living rooms, bathrooms, kitchen, living, dining rooms. I'm going to flip over to the first floor plan now. And the upper levels of the units generally feature the properties, bathrooms, additional bedrooms. And in the case of unit six, an office space rather than a third bedroom. These are some proposed elevations. So this is units one, two, and three, which are on the western part of the site and are all detached three-bedroom properties. Most of the new dwellings are generally similar in appearance, as I say, with the majority having a depth of 11.45 metres, a width of six metres, a height to the use of 5.38 metres, and a maximum height of 7.59 metres with pitched roofs. This is in the proposal section of the committee report, if you need that written down. These are the elevation drawings of units four, five, six. So the top is a front elevation, and the bottom drawing there is a rear elevation. Units five and six on the right, as I say, are the semi-detached ones. And the development makes use of brick and render finishes with tiled roofs. This is the side elevations here. There's not really too much to look at, but you'll note generally there's a lack of windows on the upper levels, apart from on unit one, where those windows will look back onto the access way. I'll talk more about overlooking a little bit later. These are the proposed sections. Now, these are through sections that actually also show West Park and Court Road. So you can see the height of the new dwellings. The dwellings are actually notably lower than the height of the buildings on Court Road and on West Park. That's consistent with the principal F2 of the Urban Design Guidance SPD, and the proposed design appropriately reflects the backline character of the site by having a bulk that does sit secondary to the road-fronting houses. The submitted section drawings show that the ridge height of the proposed dwellings would actually not be above where the eaves height of the West Park and Court Road dwellings are. This is a CGI image of the proposed access way. So as I say, that side garage is going to be demolished, and there would be a pedestrian-only access way that would not have access at all for any vehicles at all. You can also see the side elevation, just a tiny bit, just there of unit one, there in the background, and I'll discuss access and servicing again a little later. So this is a CGI of units one, two, three, and some of the new trees that are going to be planted as part of the proposal have been removed from the CGI just for clarity so you can actually see the buildings. Clearly, the development's contemporary in appearance, but it does take cues from the design of the surrounding properties with its tile-pitched roofs, use of render and brick material, and its entrance archways and render banding. The use of detached and semi-detached family-sized dwellings positively reflects the wider residential context, and the implementation of six detached larger homes is considered to make a good use of the available space on site whilst also balancing the residential character of the surrounding area. This is a CGI taken from the design and access statement of units 456, which is on the western part of the site, and again, you can see the pair of semis on the right of that image there. The scheme's got a perpendicular layout to the block it sits within, so the two proposed rows of properties run approximately north-south with an orientation kind of looking east-west from their main windows. This layout's considered appropriate, and it helps to minimise the impact on amenity of surrounding properties. The development is considered to maintain the green character given that it features generous front and rear gardens from the new units as well as that central courtyard area that you can see there, and a substantial amount of tree planting is also proposed, which I'll talk about a bit later, but 43 new trees are going to be proposed as part of the development. Full hard and soft landscaping proposals are sought via condition, and overall the development's considered to have an acceptable design that's in accordance with the London plan and the local plan. In terms of quality of accommodation then, you can see from the table there that all the proposed units would provide generous floor spaces, which are well in excess of the nationally described space standards. All the units have floor-to-ceiling heights of more than 2.5 metres, which is in accordance with policy D6 of the London plan, and all of the developments would be completely step-free access from the street to the entrance of the house, which is in accordance with optional building control requirement, M4-2, and policy D7 of the London plan. Still talking about quality of accommodation, in terms of outdoor space, as I say, each of the properties features a generous rear garden, which is well in excess of the London plan requirements for rear gardens. All of the new units would also have access to good outlooks and would not be subject to any unacceptable loss of privacy impacts from other neighbouring properties, which I'll discuss right now. So in terms of impact on neighbouring amenity, you can see that from this image here that all of the neighbouring gardens are quite deep, and there is a substantial separation distance from the properties to the neighbouring habitable rooms on the buildings, and so the development wouldn't result in the creation of an unnebably sense of enclosure to these windows, given the depth of the gardens of the neighbouring properties, and also given that each of the buildings are only two storeys in height, it's considered the sense of enclosure impact on the gardens are also acceptable, and not so significant so as to warrant the refusal of the application. The application has been submitted with a detailed daylight-sunlight assessment, which demonstrates that the development will be completely compliant with the BRE guidance, both in terms of the new dwellings that are proposed and all of the surrounding dwellings, so there's no areas of non-compliance with the BRE daylight-sunlight standards at all. In terms of privacy, this is the first-floor plan again. You can see on the first-floor plan drawing that generally there are no upper-level windows that are side-facing. So, for example, on the Unit 6 here, which backs onto this rear garden, there's no upper-level windows that are facing out onto this garden. Same here with the Unit 4, there's no upper-level side windows that face out onto this garden. And so there would not be any overlooking impacts at all to gardens on the north and south. The side windows on the upper-level Unit 1 here faces back onto the access way to allow for natural surveillance, and in any case serves a non-habitable space. So if you felt necessary, those upper-level side windows on Unit 1 could be obscure glazed, although I don't think it's particularly necessary. So there would not be any unacceptable impacts on Number 28 West Park, which exists here because those windows, which exist here, because these windows face onto the access way. In terms of the main rear windows, it is accepted there will be a level of overlooking to the rear parts of some of the rear gardens. You can see on this image that I have mopped up. So there are upper-level windows on these properties that will face onto the rear parts of these rear gardens here and the rear parts of this rear garden here. It's clear, however, this will only overlook the rearmost part of these gardens and that these gardens are extremely long. So this number 26, I believe, that's got a rear garden of 72 metres long, these are 42 metres long, etc. The level of overlooking to the rear is no different to the level of overlooking, which is very common throughout all rows of properties all across London. So, for example, Number 30 here can overlook into the rear garden of Number 28 right now. Number 30 can overlook into the rear garden of Number 32 right now. This property can overlook into this rear garden. This property can overlook into this rear garden. That's just normal in residential properties. So there will be a level of overlooking into rear gardens. That is accepted. However, it's not considered to be so sufficient so as to warrant the refusal of the application. In terms of still an impact on neighbouring amenity here, as I say, the side garage at Number 28 will be demolished to make way for the access and the side openings at Number 28, so this is Number 28 on the left here, they are also the applicant, as I understand, will all be blocked up as part of the proposal to limit privacy. So, essentially, this garage will go, all these openings will be totally blocked up, basically, so there's not going to be any looking directly into the access way. There will be a level of disturbance from the access way to the habitable windows at Number 30. So that's these windows here. This is at Number 30. These windows are secondary in serve spaces which are already served by other front and rear windows. This level of disturbance is not considered to be substantially different to someone who's already using the side garden right now, so someone could come out and use this side garden at the moment. I appreciate there will probably be an increase in, you know, the levels of coming and goings, so there will be an access gate here, as people are accessing the site. But, again, that impact is not considered to be so significant so as to warrant the refusal of the application. This is just another review of that access way, but it's taken kind of with my back to the garage, in effect. So this is Number 28. As I say, these openings are going to be blocked up. Okay. So in terms of transport, then, the site's got a PTAL rating of 2 to 3, which suggests average to below average level of accessibility. The development would be completely car-free, which is in accordance with the requirements of the London Plan. And so as to further discourage car ownership, a condition would be sought to be attached to the decision notice so that none of the occupiers are eligible for a parking permit at all. It's clear, however, that delivery drivers and other vehicles would need to visit the area from time to time. And there has also been some concern from neighbours about parking availability. And so the applicants have submitted a parking survey that's been undertaken on this site and has demonstrated over four testing events that an absolute worst observed parking stress was just 54%, with 29 on-street parking spaces still available within a 200-metre radius from the entrance to the site. Trip generation data, as part of the transport statement, also sets out that the six units would generally generate one to two delivery vehicles a day, which could easily be accommodated within that 29 available parking spaces that have been demonstrated from the parking survey. So there would be no unacceptable impact on the wider highway network as part of the development. In terms of cycle parking, each unit's got two private spaces in their relevant rear gardens, which is consistent with London plan requirements. There's an addition... So all of these points A here, these are all private cycle parking in each rear garden, basically, for each property. There's also additional visitor parking, which is available here at point B. There is some small areas of non-compliance with the London cycle design standards. So, for example, it is recommended that a space for larger cargo bikes are provided. That's not really detailed here. And there is a condition sought to be attached to the decision notice seeking amended details just to clean that up and to kind of provide acceptable cycle parking, which could easily be accommodated on this site. In terms of waste, there's communal waste bin area here. So where it says C, this is where all the waste will go. On bin collection day, a private management company will basically take the bins, will will them up here, and will be presented out the front, just like all of the other properties on West Park, where they'll be taken by a waste collection vehicle in the normal way, basically. This has been raised with the council's waste department, and they've raised no objection with respect to the proposed arrangements. Again, in terms of servicing and access for deliveries, as I say, the site consists in approximately 70 metres deep access way. So that's measured literally exactly from the road, not including the pavement, so that's literally the road specifically, all the way to the main area there. And from the FOB gate, so the FOB gate will be about here, is 56 metres to the main part of the site. The access way would be 2.6 metres to 3.9 metres wide, and would be for pedestrians only, so there's no vehicle access at all. And as shown earlier, it's a FOB access. For emergency access, though, there is a dry riser system that would be in place for fire services. So just to explain that, basically, a fire truck will pull up here, they'll basically get their hose up, they'll plug it into a dry riser right here, then there's an existing pipe that will be put in, basically, and then the fire team will then essentially plug there another hose into the end of that pipe, and then that can connect to all of the properties. That's completely in accordance with building regulation requirements, and is no different at all to how large box of flats are serviced. You know, long hoses can't reach to the top of a 13-storey building, so they use dry risers in exactly the same way, so that's a totally normal way. In terms of ambulance access, that, as I say, it is completely pedestrian-only, so emergency access will have to be parked here, and then people will have to essentially walk down the access way. As I say, the access way is completely step-free. This is considered to be acceptable arrangement, and, again, is not, you know, completely different to how ambulance services access the top flats on, again, 13-storey buildings that we approve in this borough. It's not substantially different to that. Okay, so in terms of trees, landscaping, BNG, flood risk, I'll push over these points quite quickly because the more I've been talking for quite a long time. So there is a net loss of five trees on the site. These are marked here in red, so it's this one, this one, and these ones just here. None of these are protected, as I say, and almost all are of low value. So four are cat C, and one is category B. This is described at section 18.22 of the committee report, if you want to look at the species a little bit more. In terms of the reprovision, so we're losing five trees. The development provides the planting of 43 new trees across eight different species all across the site, and, as I say, there is a substantial landscaping proposal which would maintain the green character of the surrounding area in accordance with local and London plan policies. All of the trees would be semi-mature at first planting, and we have a condition requiring that, so they're not seedlings when they're first planted. They're semi-mature at first planted. And, again, despite not being in a site of nature conservation importance, the applicants have also provided an ecological appraisal, which has been provided with the submissions, and the whole development brings forward a suite of ecological enhancements and mitigation strategies, so bird and bat boxes. There's low-impact lighting strategies to allow for dark corridors for migrating animals, and that's also further described at section 18 of the committee report. The site is subject to statutory biodiversity net gain requirements, and while there would be a net loss in biodiversity value with respect to biodiversity net gain, this is re-provided with an uplift of 10% off-site, as the applicant is statutorily required to do by section 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act. In terms of flooding as well, there have been some concerns from neighbours that rear gardens can become flooded after events of heavy rainfall. As I say, the site is in flood zone one, which is the lowest risk of flooding across the borough. Notwithstanding this, the applicants have provided a detailed flood risk assessment and have also provided a full sustainable urban drainage strategy, including areas of permeable paving, which has been reviewed by our strategic flood risk officer and has raised no objection to the proposed development. So all of the permeable paving within the site essentially leads directly back into the main sewer, so that kind of covers that point. Just to conclude, members are reminded that at current we're not providing our five-year housing land supply. We're at 2.46 years, which is quite woeful compared to our five-year target, and so if members are minded to refuse this application, the tilted balance would apply, and any identified harm would need to be substantially and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the proposal in accordance with paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In conclusion, the development is considered to be in accordance with the requirements of the development plan, and you're recommended to approve planning permission. Thank you. Thank you. Right, ooh, ooh. I didn't... I was looking the wrong way, so I don't know who was first. I'll take Pat first. Thank you, Chair. I can't quite get my head around the fact that this is not accessible to any vehicle at all. You say that the width is 2.6. Am I right in thinking that the length is 56 metres of that path? Yeah? So in that case... Sorry. Yeah, so... What I'm saying is... Okay. I get the bit about the fire engines, but the ambulance I don't quite understand because if somebody is really ill... I mean, I don't know whether you've worked this through. How can they possibly, you know, carry, well, on stretches or whatever, someone really ill? 56 metres is quite... I'm trying to work out how long it is. But also, as well, if you've got people who are, for whatever reasons, not capable, that they might be in a wheelchair or various other problems. And I just... Yeah, I mean, is there no possible way? That was one of my questions. But am I right in thinking as well that this is a right-of-way? Have I read that? I think... I thought I'd read that. Have I not read that? So, have you got another question and then I'll answer them all the rest? Yes, I have. And my third question is, you were talking about the traffic surveys that have been done. I went past there today at... Well, I couldn't park because it was 1.30 to 3 p.m. when you can't park, so I couldn't stay. And yes, there was quite a lot of availability because it was in between those times and because a lot of people who go to work know they can't leave the car there because of the CPZs. I would like to know... I think I have read somewhere that they were carried out during the day and actually the surveys between those times when the CPZ is in action. And I wondered if any survey had been carried out after those times when people can come back, sort of like 4 o'clock or evening times when people have come back from work and when people can park. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. OK, so... By the way, thank you for your very long detail. No, that's OK. Sorry, I appreciate it was really long. But obviously, you know, there is quite a lot of strength of feeling about this and in my view, the development is acceptable in planning terms. So I did want to explain everything up front because I know there's going to be lots of questions. Right. It's not a right-of-way. It's a private garden. In terms of the access way, so it's 2.6 metres wide at absolute minimum. It actually then widens out to 3.9 metres wide. In terms of the depth, I think I said in the presentation it's 56 metres to the main part of the site and that's from where the fobbed gate is, OK, which is ever so slightly past the front wall of number 28. In terms of... To the actual road itself, so not the pavement, the road, it's actually 70 metres from the road to the main part of the site. In terms of your concerns about, you know, wheelchair users, et cetera, it's just totally step-free access. So it's step-free access from the street to the front door of each property, basically. So in terms of wheeling a stretcher, that's, you know, step-free, basically. So there's no stairs that they need to go down. I think in terms of emergency access, you know, in terms of that long access way, we deal with quite a lot of this with infill sites. In fact, this committee in November dealt with a site at 85 Lansdowne Lane, if you remember, that had a really long access way and was actually really steep, basically, and we had, like, lifts, like, going down. It was quite convoluted, but essentially they managed to work out a solution. So the access way here is not so different to that. You know, there is a long access way into the infill, into the backland site. But as I say, unlike 85 Lansdowne Lane, this is actually totally step-free, so they don't need to mess around with lifts or anything like that. You know, there are estates in this borough and also all the way across London where basically cars can't really get in and, you know, servicing vehicles and ambulances, et cetera, need to service those houses. And again, you know, ambulances, et cetera, service, you know, properties right at the top of blocks of flats. You know, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I do think the arrangement is acceptable in terms of servicing access and ambulance access, et cetera. You asked a question about transport and the parking surveys. That question is answered at section 14.22 of the committee report. So as I understand, I'm just finding it here. Yeah. So there's four survey, four surveys that are done across two days, across three days, sorry, in September. They're either done at 12 noon. There's one done at 2 p.m., which I believe is outside the CPZ, although I can't quite remember exactly the times of the CPZ. Yeah, so it's just outside the time of the TPZ. 1.30 to 3. Okay, my apologies. Yeah, my apologies. So the 12 p.m. will be outside the CPZ, then, and the 2 p.m. will be inside the CPZ. But then there's two additional surveys that are undertaken at nighttime, and that's as like a baseline, okay? In terms of, so they're at midnight. That's as a baseline to develop the kind of total baseline survey. In terms of what times those surveys have been done and how that survey has been undertaken, that's done via something called the Lambeth methodology, which is quite an established methodology of undertaking transport surveys that's done all across London boroughs, basically. Does that answer your questions? Saying that some of the surveys were carried out at midnight. That's right, yeah. Right. I mean, I think I understand the point you're getting at. You know, these surveys, as I say, four are carried out and then it's done to undertake kind of a baseline position, okay? The applicants are also here so they can kind of help understand, they can help kind of to explain these points. You know, this is a totally car-free scheme, okay? None of the people who live here are eligible to park at all, okay? So they won't own cars and they can't own cars, okay? Because they won't have a parking permit. So it would be incredibly inconvenient for them to own cars. In terms of the delivery and servicing access, and it talks about this actually in this section of the committee report, but essentially there's trip generation data that suggests that there is one to two delivery vehicles over an entire day. However, in reality, I expect that essentially, you know, a postman, for example, with the Royal Mail will just kind of work that delivery into the same route that they're already doing across those properties in West Park. So it could well be even less than that estimation. Now those parking surveys, at the absolute worst, had a minimum of 29 spaces available within a 200-meter radius. So unfortunately, that does demonstrate, in my view, that there wouldn't be an acceptable highways safety impact or impact on the wider network just from people delivering or servicing the properties. Okay, thank you. You can come back later, Pat. I'll go with Callum next. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Luke, for your very detailed presentation. A couple of quick ones and then one or two slightly longer, so sorry. Maybe on the quick ones it'll be easier to just come back straight away. Just on the distance between neighbouring properties, I couldn't quite see the number on one of the ones up on the two on the top. So would you be able to just, my eyesight isn't quite good enough. What do you mean the two on the top? Sorry, on the top right of the image which showed the overlooking from neighbour and the distance from neighbouring properties. Yeah, I just couldn't see what the numbers are for those at the top right. Sorry, my eyesight's just not good enough. So this is actually, this is not to the boundary, this is to the actual building itself. Yeah. Okay. But the two on the top, that's 39.1 metres between the rear wall and in often cases these aren't the actual main rear wall so some of these properties have extensions, for example. Yeah, it's just the furthest corner. Yeah, but that's the furthest point. You know, 39.1 and I believe that says 41.0. Perfect. This is 29.0, 24.7. Yeah, sorry, it was just, it was specifically the 39. I couldn't see that at all. Sorry, thank you. 24.7, sorry. I misread that. Yeah. Thank you. Just to be clear, with the bins, so you said a private waste management company would come in on bin collection day and bring it round to the street. Okay, are there other examples where we have that with sort of similar type developments? Do you know? Yes. There are. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I can't think of an estate of, I mean, it's the estate where I live, which is in this borough. Okay. But, you know, I can't think of a specific example. I'm not expecting you to tell us where you live. Don't worry. There will be a private, I expect there would be a private management company anyway. Obviously, there's a huge amount of landscaping here that needs to be maintained, so, you know, I expect there will be some borough management company. Okay, perfect. The overhead image of the entire area showed, what, three other infill developments in the area. Do you know what the relative density of those is compared to this? Well, in terms of units per hectare, no, but it wouldn't really be relevant anyway. Essentially, how we look at density now since the 2021 London plan. I mean, I can tell you they're probably more dense, to be honest. So, I mean, you can look at this little area here. It looked to me like this. This is probably perhaps maybe slightly less dense. Yeah, but it is. This is actually a retirement home, as I understand. Okay, because I was going to say that one looked to be about 12, and the other one maybe eight or nine. But in terms of how we look at density, you know, the 2016 London plan basically just had a hard and fast number that you just stick to. And that's not really how we look at things since 2021. Essentially, it's just totally design-led now in terms of is this density appropriate for the residential context of the area? You know, you look at the surrounding area. Yes, the gardens are incredibly big within this area. And I think it's balancing that with, you know, the scale of what's being brought forward. So, this is clearly an area with lots of family homes, and we're bringing forward more family homes. My question is as much just for context for some of the residents here thinking about, yeah, given some of the objections that have been raised. Also, on, I mean, guess, sorry, three other quick questions. Boundary and fencing materials on site, do we have details of what they would look like? No, but we wouldn't really expect them at this stage. Boundary details are almost always dealt with via condition. But I expect there would be timber fences and likely two metres high, which is the standard fence height. Okay. I was thinking in that in terms of some of the concerns people may express about over-ticking as well. So that's instructive. Yeah. And then on access as well, I think it's actually quite welcome that this is not accessible by motor vehicle. I, until about three weeks ago, lived in a property that had infill next to us and we had bricks taken outside of our flat by vehicles coming down. is there any proposal about what we would do in terms of road markings ahead of the entrance to that? Is there, are we able to perhaps condition a red line or double yellows? Sorry, not condition, but seek to ensure that we do that. That's not, or is that not a planning thing? That's something we need to take up separately with transport. I'm thinking about ensuring you don't have delivery vehicles in particular constantly blocking that part of the road or treating it as a car parking spot basically. Yeah. It's a reasonable question. Yes, that's a reasonable question. And I think it probably would be reasonable that some work is done to the highway. so that people don't, you know, aren't parking over it. Also, as I understand, there is a vehicle crossover kind of outside where the front of the entrance is that currently serves number 28. So that vehicle crossover certainly would also need to be abandoned. All of that would need to be at the developer's expense. So as you're talking, I would suggest that we add a condition with respect to that. If we come to a vote tonight, I would let you talk about that. We would certainly need a condition about the abandonment of the vehicle crossover on the front of the site. Thank you, because it's hard to tell from Google Street View because it sort of jumps either side. So that's really, really helpful given you've been there. And am I, it looked like, so there's also a proposal to put a fire pit in the middle of the site as well. well, is that something that we can look to perhaps condition away? Much as I do love a bonfire, it perhaps is not the most appropriate thing for us to be putting there, particularly given ambitions around clean air and so on. Sure. So there's been lots of concern about this. Essentially, there's a hard and soft landscaping is all kind of notwithstanding and sought via condition anyway. So every individual element we will approve at condition stage. You know, I get your point about a fire pit. But again, you know, those kind of detailed levels of kind of landscaping furniture, like benching in that court, that all gets sorted kind of later, basically. Thank you very much, Chuck. Thanks, Kevin. It's Ashley next. You don't want more than everybody else. Ask a question. Yeah. Or questions. Sorry. Good evening. Thanks, Luke, for your presentation. I think my question was actually covered by Pat, but in terms of accessibility, emergency service, fire brigade, I know there is no statutory from London fire to sort of advise us or anything like that, but is that fully approved in a sense that it can be accessible in case of fire, that they're given the fact that they have to park there? Yes. And the house having to go all the way to the further spit of the developers? Let me show you. I anticipated this question earlier. This is a section from building regs, which is not something I'm completely familiar with. Essentially, houses not fitted with fire mains should allow access for fire appliances within 45 metres of all points within the house, so 45 metres to the furthest away house from the dry riser inset. That's if the houses don't have sprinklers. If the houses do have sprinklers, then it's, I believe, 75 metres? 90 metres, my apologies. But yes, essentially, all those sorts of things to do with fire accessibility is actually covered under building regulations rather than being looked at at planning. But I anticipated these would be questions that would be answered. And obviously, I think the dry riser particularly, we do need to know about that at this stage. But yes, it is an acceptable arrangement. Sam. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Luke. So, right, two questions. Number one's about flooding. So, we have a picture from Mr. Salter showing flooding in what looks like his back garden. And yet, we're still saying it's flood risk zone one, so lowest level of flood risk. Has the flood risk officer seen that photograph? Have they seen it after heavy rain? And would that picture change their mind at all? I don't think I forwarded the exact image directly to the flood risk officer. But, as I say, so I think there will be some times, you know, these are big grassed back gardens, so if you do have a heavy rain event, it may well be the back gardens can become flooded. In any case, let me show you another picture that is at the back of this presentation. It's quite difficult to see here, but this is an image from the sustainable urban drainage strategy. So, essentially, they didn't actually come in with this strategy, but as part of the consultation, I started getting lots of photos about flooded gardens and said, hey, I know this is not really a requirement for development of the scale and at this location, but, you know, it might be worth you looking into this. So, then providing this whole sustainable urban drainage system, it's actually not a policy requirement at all, but they have suggested that they do this, basically, in an effort to kind of relay these, you know, mitigate these concerns that have been raised by residents. Essentially, all of these areas are permeable paving, the whole of the garden is completely grassed, which also helps with flooding. There's an element of water reuse, so there'll be water butts that are implemented into each of the houses, and this just connects directly, this is a big soak away that connects directly to the main sewer, essentially. So, that's how they have sought to mitigate those kind of anecdotal images of heavy rain events when there's been to flooding. Thank you. And then my second question, a bit different. So, keeping that access way clear is absolutely critical. So, and sorry if I missed this, but who owns or controls that access way, and how can we be sure that that access way is always being kept clear? Who owns or controls it? For example, is it freehold or leasehold, and therefore is there an obligation for the freeholder to, you know, keep it accessible? That would probably be a question for the applicant, rather than me. I just had one question actually related to the existing infill developments. So, I think I could see from the pictures, just sort of zooming in on my iPad, but they do seem to have parking, existing parking arrangements in those infill developments. Is that the case? I don't really know, but in any case, when they were approved, will have been many, many years ago, and would be based on completely different parking standards than what you're assessing this application here under, basically. So, yeah, I'm not really sure. I can see the photos. I don't believe so. So, for example, there's a bit of infill housing here with actually substantially smaller gardens than what's being brought forward before, and also with substantially closer relationship to the other neighbouring properties, but it doesn't look, at least from over here, that there's parking associated with that one. There might be some off-street parking associated with this one, and down he's close. I think my question was really around where, I think, for the benefit of residents, if you're looking at the fact that there is existing infill development on backland, and then you're sort of saying about this, you know, that hasn't, the impact to residents, you know, if they've already got parking, there won't be so much impact of those ones on the parking. I think that was my kind of thoughts, but. Okay. I think we've got two more people. Pat, you want to come back again, I see you've been, so I'll let you come again, Pat. You've not got five questions again, though. I haven't got five questions, no, I haven't got. Can I just ask you one thing? So, site traffic, that's my first question, I've got three, if that's all right, yeah. Site traffic, how are they going to access this 2.6 metre wide and 56 metre long? The, you know, sort of delivery vehicles and all the equipment, how are they going to sort of, how are they going, I don't know, just, how is that manageable? You're talking about construction. Construction traffic. Yeah. Construction work and the site traffic, yeah. Yeah, right. So, as I say, the garage is going to be demolished, it's 2.6 metres wide. I think out of push, you probably could put a construction vehicle through there. However, in any case, how they construct the development is not really something that we can kind of consider at planning stage and even, you know, the length of time and the mitigation that's being brought forward associated with the construction of the development. In terms of, you know, the impact on neighbouring properties during construction, it is accepted, you know, construction can be quite noisy. There will be a level of disruption onto neighbouring properties during construction. However, by its very nature, that is temporary in nature. And so, construction impacts can never really form a reason for refusal just because they are temporary by nature. In terms of how it's going to be constructed, we are conditioning a detailed construction management and logistics plan. So, they will provide all of that prior to the commencement of the works and also the applicants are here. So, they might know some stuff. They might be able to provide, yeah, some information on that. Just to add one final thing on construction, they did submit, as part of the application, a draft construction management plan, but that was actually on the basis of a previous kind of version of the scheme. So, it's not really relevant at all, which is why we're essentially asking for all those details again associated with the current proposed scheme, essentially. Yeah. My second question is waste services. So, we've got, I mean, all those properties, how many properties, five, six properties, and they'll all have three bins each, won't they? So, once the... Just to put a stop. There's not three bins each. So, how many bins each is there? There's three bins total. The provisions in the committee report, but to quote it at you, it's one 1,100 litre euro bin for recycling, one 1,100 litre euro bin for residential waste. So, it's kind of like, if you see a flat of development, they're bigger bins, basically. So, where are they? So, we've got somebody who's actually going to bring them to the entrance, but once they're at the entrance, what do we mean by the entrance? Do they mean they're going to be on the footpath, or? Okay. Bins are here. This is where they're stored most of the time. All right, this C, all right? They're dragged by someone from the management company up to this D point here in the front drive, basically, of the property. The same has been stored in the front drive, kind of here, basically. Okay? Okay. And my third question is, which I don't know whether it's been mentioned. I know it's talked about in the report. Obviously, you're going to have some form of light pollution to the existing residents. I wonder if we could have a little bit more clarity on that, please, because you've got all those properties with all the lights, and has much work been done on that? I don't know if you've got any of the things that you've got to do with. Yes. So, there is something in the design and access statement about lighting. There is going to be a full condition. I believe it's condition 17, but it's condition 15, my apologies, that basically talks about prior to the first occupation of the development, you need to give us some information about the lighting. Okay? This is all indicative at this stage, this is taken straight from the design and access statement, although I believe it's suggested in the design and access statement that it's quite low-level lighting. They're not like big lamp standards. They're not big lamp posts, as I understand that is proposed, particularly along that access way. Also, with respect to ecology, there are mitigation strategies that are proposed within the ecological report for low-level lighting, specifically for nocturnal animals, so it doesn't unacceptably impact those. But essentially, all of those details about lighting and kind of lux levels and how bright those lights are going to be and when they're on and when they're off, that's all dealt with at condition stage via condition 15. Yeah? No problem. Okay. Well, do you want one last question? Sorry, just very quickly. On the bins, Luke, was I right that the storage by the road for that was on the boundary with number 30 rather than the boundary with number 28, the applicant? Yes, that's correct. Are we able to condition the location of that such that it would be on the... Boundary of number 28? Yeah, as the applicant rather than of their neighbour. I'm sure we could have a, not withstanding the details hereby approved, please give us slightly revised details as a waste strategy if you're unhappy with the exact positioning in the front. Yes, I'm sure we could do that. And also, I'm assuming that is the street side of the FOB access gate as well. That's correct, yeah. Yeah. That's all. Thank you. Okay. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Luke. We're going to move on to the objectives now at this stage. Can I just check out there? We've got Councillor Matt Hartley and Roger Tester and then the other speakers I mentioned before. Are they all here, like George and Zoe Salter? Yeah, the only one we were waiting on was Jordan Hartridge. Oh, we were there. Oh, they're all there. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, let's call Matt Hartley first, please. Thank you very much, Chair. Yes, a full turnout, as you've seen, from residents and the community. It's my birthday, Chair. And I'm 39 years young, and I've chosen to spend my evening with you, fine folk, because there is such vehement opposition to this application, as you've seen from the representations. And I just want to summarise what's been communicated to us by our residents. Firstly, a very minor thing. On the very first slide, it said Eltham SE9. This is Mottingham, not Eltham. It's a minor point, but an important one in terms of public confidence in the planning system. And secondly, as I mentioned, Cathy Dowes, our fellow councillor, has unexpectedly had a work commitment, so she sent her apologies. Councillor Dowes objects and shares the objections that I'm going to share today, and she asked me to point that out. So a very large number of residents, as you can see from the turnout this evening, have contacted us about this application. And I just want to canter through, in the short time I've got, the objections that have been raised with us. And I've picked out the most important ones. So the first is loss of privacy and overlooking. The word that's been used with, to Roger, Cathy and I, is oppressive. This development will have an oppressive impact, particularly on those court road gardens, which is very difficult to get across from what we've seen this evening. You know, we heard earlier from officers, the professional opinion is that that sense of overlooking is considered acceptable, and certainly residents don't agree that that is in any way acceptable. And in particular, there may not be windows on the southern wall in this chart, but there is a window on the side there, and we'll overlook on court road gardens, as well as the charts that were displayed earlier. So, you know, I share that concern. I think that's an unacceptable overlooking. The second objection I want to pick out is the flooding risk, which has been picked up in the excellent questions from the panel. So, you know, what we've been assured from the applicant in this process around flooding just does not accord with the lived experience of residents who know best, because that's their lived experience all around this proposed development. So, there has been substantial flooding to the rear of 30 West Park, 252 Court Road, and other gardens along this stretch. Those photos have been provided to you, as you've said, and there's really a significant concern about that, that residents have asked me to raise. The third impact, which we haven't, I think, heard a lot about, is the impact on biodiversity. I really, I know they're private gardens, but I really regret the loss of this green space, and the biodiversity impacts have caused significant concern, and I know that Mottingham Residents Association are here, partly because of the wider impact on Mottingham, and that's a significant dimension to that. A smaller point is around security of the alleyway. If this development were to go ahead, so the security of the alleyway has come up during pre-application consultation, and we know that a gate has been added to the proposal, but residents remain concerned about the impact that that will have on security, particularly given the likelihood it could be left open by residents and the noise operation of the gate. So, when we, if, you know, a conversation is used about conditions, if, as I hope, isn't the case, this is recommended, is voted, you know, the committee is minded to accept the recommendation for approval. I think that's an important condition to look at in that event. Overall, I do not believe that this is consistent with policy HC of the backland and infill development section of the local plan. That talks about a loss of privacy from overlooking adjacent houses and or their back gardens, and I think that's not been satisfied in this case. The loss of wildlife habits as well. And the local plan states it is important to safeguard the interests of residents in surrounding houses by ensuring that residential amenities such as garden space, privacy, and the character of the area is maintained. And in my view, and the view of Councillor Dowse and Councillor Tester as well, I know, is this application would fail to safeguard the interests of residents in that respect. If the committee were, you know, I very much hope that this won't be approved. If the committee was minded to accept the recommendations, there are several conditions that I've been asked to raise on behalf of residents, and you'll hear some of these later as well. Some of them have come up, so I will kind of use my time wisely. I've been asked to pass on a recommendation for a condition to ensure that external lighting is kept to an absolute minimum necessary by condition, that there is an installation of a boundary fence of a specified minimum height along the entire line of court road fences, and planting of mature trees between that fence and the court road fences. And two issues have already been raised. The fire pit has caused a lot of concern, and I think that's worth looking at for a condition. And also the positioning of the bins is the other issue, as Councillor O'Byrne-Mulligan has already alighted on. So, you know, if the committee were minded to vote for, recommend sort of that the recommendation is accepted, those are the conditions I'd suggest you look at. But my key thing that I wanted to really get across is that, you know, I think Councillor O'Byrne-Mulligan again put it very well when he said it's really hard to tell from Google Street View, the impact of this development. And I think, like me, you've probably gone through this, I'm sure, with a fine tooth comb, and it is difficult, even as somebody who knows this area extremely well, who's represented the ward for more than 10 years, it's difficult from the application to get a sense of the impact. So I really would recommend, and in particular, the impact on those gardens on Court Road really didn't come across in the presentation. And I know that kind of residents here will back me up on that, the impact on those Court Road Gardens, it is difficult to kind of understand from what we've been presented with. And I think were you to do, obviously, it's entirely up to you as the committee, I realise, but if you were to do a site visit, I think that would significantly inform your decision-making, particularly on the impact on those Court Road Gardens. And I think the arguments you've heard from me, and I know you'll hear from others about the loss of privacy and overlooking and the oppressive nature of the development on those gardens, I think that it would put that in stark relief if you were to see it for yourself. So I wanted to pass that on, Chair, and I've been asked to pass on that request as well. OK, thank you for that suggestion. Councillor Tester? Oh, sorry. Thank you, Councillor Hartley. So earlier on, we saw a map of all of the infill developments in the area, the implication being that this is just another example of what's happened historically. So how would you respond to that? Yeah, I don't follow that logic at all. Those infill developments, Sycamore Close, Ministry Way, Downleys Close, really have no bearing on this development. I don't follow the precedent argument. I know that that is a feature of the kind of planning legislation, but I don't accept that those previous developments, which are all, have very particular kind of circumstances and characteristics, I don't think they have, for me, and I think I can speak for residents in this as well, I don't think they have any bearing on the merits or demerits of this application. That's my view, yeah. Chair, can I just ask you, again, it's going on with that question, Matt, those, the other developments that we're talking about, the landfill developments, do you know if there there is a wider access road or are they just by sort of footpath only? Sorry, could you repeat the question? Yeah, the other areas that we're talking about, where, you know, you've had this backland development, the other three areas, do you know whether or not the entrance to those areas is car-free? Oh, Sycamore Close, for example, has a gate, yeah, so no, they're not car-free, but it's access controlled, if that answers your question. But there's room for a vehicle to get through. Oh, Sycamore Close, yeah, yeah. And the other question is, going back to the backland development core strategy, and part of it, as you said, it should have no significant effect and loss on wildlife, trees and animals, do you know, and you said that you felt that you were in agreement, obviously, have you got any more evidence from visiting the site, how, you know, you think it would be affected? Yeah, we've had lots of representations as the ward counsellors on biodiversity and the impact on, you know, there is an abundance of wildlife, hedgehogs, bats, parakeets. Hedgehogs are particularly abundant, and there's lots of concern about the impact on this development on that, and that it will have a negative impact. And as I said, you know, obviously, the nature of these kind of developments are, there are direct impacts on the immediate neighbours, and you'll hear from the immediate neighbours tonight, but there is also a wider impact on Mottingham, and I think it's really significant that Mottingham Residence Association and the Chair, Dr Hodges, is here tonight, and I know that biodiversity is one of those dimensions of their wider concern about the impact on the area. Okay, thank you. So, I think that's it. Thank you very much, Councillor Hartley. And Councillor Tester. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, panel. Matt, Councillor Hartley has already gone over most of the points from our original objection, so rather than repeat a lot of that, I'd just like to make the following couple of statements and clear up a couple of extra issues. So, as one of the ward councillors, I and my ward colleagues have received dozens of messages messages and emails from concerned residents in our ward, all of whom will be directly affected by this development. Many of the residents are speaking tonight, so please take into consideration their individual and collective views. Of these, one of the most concerning, in my view, is the lack of proper consideration of the impacts of loss of privacy and overlooking that this will have on Court Road specifically. Court Road residents whose gardens back directly onto the development, indeed, their rear fences are just a few feet away from the buildings. Some residents have expressed concerns that they will have, they will be left with a 20-plus foot wall at the end of their garden, which will take considerably away enjoyment of the amenities. Also, the closest of the nearest houses will create more noise disturbance in the gardens and overshadowing and loss of sunlight. I feel like in order for the panel to fully understand these impacts, a site visit is needed. And, of course, this is requested by other objectors and all three of us ward councillors. Residents have also conceded that had this application been a smaller development, set further back from the Court Road Gardens, and, you know, less impactful. So, just a couple of houses, they would have all been happy with that going ahead. Just on the slightly separate subject of the dry rises and the fire system, which officers might be able to clear up, I know it says no objections have been raised by the London Fire Service, but is that not due to the fact that they have just simply not replied thus far? It does take a while to get replies from them. I've been trying to get them myself. Sorry, there's just one other item. So, on the subject of flooding, I've just been informed that number 242 Court Road, the Gladden flooded the whole length and had to have double-depth foundations when their extension was built, and that was Greenwich Council planning. So, they said because of the flooding risks there. So, that's just an added dimension to the flooding. 250? Last year. Yeah, thank you. Any questions? Any questions? I'm surprised, yeah. Go on. Surprise. Hi, Councilor Tester. Can I just ask you, how, again, because this came as a bit of a shock, because I haven't realised, how far away did you say that the properties in Court Road, how far from their boundary did you say these buildings were going to be? Was it a few feet? Around six feet from, so, from behind the back fence of the garden. So, these really high walls, or sort of 25-metre walls, and 25-feet walls, and the buildings up to, I think, 7.2 metres, would be just six feet behind. So, if you can imagine, they'll walk out into their back gardens, and would previously have just seen a fence, and then another garden behind, will now have these great big walls. And that affects, I think, about five houses on Court Road, maybe more. So, Councilor, just to be clear, these are the distances here. I believe this separation distance is about a metre-ish, you know, between the fence and the house. In terms of the height, it's a two-storey building. I believe the dimensions I said at the beginning, but the height to the eaves, i.e. the height of those walls, is just over five metres, and the maximum height is seven metres of the whole house, basically, just over. So, that's in the proposal section of the report, those exact dimensions. So, it's a five-metre, it's a two-storey wall. Okay. Okay, thank you. I think that's it now. Thank you, Councilor. You're looking at each other as if she hasn't asked enough questions. Thank you. Okay, and I'm going to call Mr Salter. And, uh, is that Mrs Salter? Both residents of the same property. Do they get two minutes, eh? Yeah, they're individually. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Two minutes. Good evening, Chair and Councillors. I live at 30 West Park, directly next door to number 28. My parents are, unfortunately, unable to attend tonight, or they would be here strenuously objecting. The development is contrary to adopted development policy. It will permanently alter the privacy of our home and introduce a significant level of noise and disturbance that arises from activities associated with the immense density of six households in an area which is currently just a neighbouring garden with very low ambient noise levels. This is contrary to policy DHB of the local plan, which seeks to protect the amenity of adjacent residents. The explanatory paragraphs of DHB are the most important. They state that sense of privacy needs to be protected and that any proposed development will not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity for adjacent occupiers. This policy is not being adhered to. Secondly, there is a flood risk in this area which has been grossly underestimated. Official maps publicly available show no flood concerns, but the local reality tells a different story. Our gardens already suffer from waterlogging during heavy rains due to clay soil and a high water table, as evidence submitted shows. The high water table and impermeable London clay negate the development's planned use of permeable materials. Flood risks will only worsen and aggravate a local issue which my family home has experienced first hand. I urge the chair and the committee to authorise a site visit which will validate all the real concerns presented today. Today, this development is in stark contrast of the aims set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, but also falls short of the criteria set out in the Royal Greenwich Development Framework that outlines the core local plan for the borough. I hope for a full rejection of the proposed development, but if it must go ahead, I ask for the following conditions to be met. That the entrance to the security gate is moved to the perimeter of the public pavement so as to not be adjacent to our property. That the bins are only to be moved and collected during normal working hours, Monday to Friday, but also left in the drive of 28 West Park for collection so as to not block our home and public walkways. That a clear fenced boundary with a 2.4 metre fence is kept at all times along our boundary line. That there are no raised planters or benches against our boundary that can be stood on and allow visibility into our property. That the access path of the development has an obligation to always remain vehicle free. And the removal of Condition 26 of the appendix that Mr. Sapiano provided in his report suggesting that gate access will have remote opening capabilities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on the flooding? You say your garden at number 30 was flooded. How many properties are you aware of surrounding properties that have been sort of object, you know, they've had flooding? I think I've got the answer from behind, yeah. Yeah, I think, as you can hear from my peers behind me, that quite a few properties have had this objection. For the most part, I don't want to tell you a lie and be able to give you an exact number, but my understanding is of the 33 objections that you received, a number of them had flooding concerns. And it's not something that you often take a picture of, but I think one of the first times that it happened, my mum did take the picture that I was able to provide to you today. And I think you can see in the picture that it is a real issue. And with the amount of materials and even with permeable surfaces, underneath all of that, it's London clay in the area, and that's impervious. So it will cause a flooding concern for us. Super. Thank you, guys. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Evening. Evening, Chair and Councillors. My name is Zoe Salter, and I live at 30 West Park. I really wanted to bring to your attention the huge intrusion this development will have on our lives. The report submitted fails to recognise the access and path as part of the development, but it's in fact particularly this aspect that will have a lasting impact on our privacy and security. A condition of the development is that the gate is locked and has a fob. It's been positioned directly adjacent to our house, underneath our bedrooms. Everyone waiting at the gate will be able to see into the front room of our house, as displayed in the picture provided. And as this is a car-free development for families, there'll be multiple comings and goings of friends, posts, groceries, Amazon food deliveries, and more. The gate buzzer will be going all day right outside our house. The report says there is no change to noise level and privacy, but we are moving from a back garden with a single family to six families and their visitors and deliveries. From the pictures I submitted to the committee, you can see that my bedroom and my parents' bedrooms can now be seen into directly from the path. Both changes to the noise and acceptable loss of privacy, contrary to policy DHB of the local plan, which seeks to protect the amenity of adjacent occupiers. The bins will be brought down the path at unsociable hours by contractors, blocking the path per the report, and then taken back. Currently, we have neither the noise nor the smell of the bins. Nothing like this has been built in Mottingham. There are no other garden developments with the introduction of a path down the side of the house, and this sets a dangerous precedent. Family houses need cars. The report says this is an area with poor public transport accessibility, so future residents will have cars. To think otherwise is very short-sighted. Policy IMC of the local plan does allow for car-free development, but in areas with a high level of public transport accessibility and within controlled parking zones. Whilst this development is within a CPZ, it is not in an accessible location. The reality is that future family occupiers will own cars, and so parking should be provided on-site in line with the council's standards. As a result, the proposal is contrary to this policy. I'd urge the committee to conduct a side visit to see how inappropriate this development is. Thank you for your time. Sorry, just one question, really. Talking about cars and parking, can you, in your experience, tell me what it is like in the evenings when people come home from work? Is there much availability for car parking on the main road? I'd say there's a lot of people that actually come back from, so they park their cars at Mottingham Station during the day, and they all then come back afterwards, so it is a lot busier in the evenings, yeah, from my experience. But other than that, I'm not 100% sure. Thank you. I nearly asked this before, but you made a comment that this goes from one family to six families, I think, in this site. So what is your view here? Are you saying that this site is completely unsuitable for development, or we're moving from one family to two families, perhaps a smaller sort of element, would that work instead? I just wanted to understand your viewpoint of what this land could be used for. I think that the problem for 30 West Park is that we are the only ones that have that path running down the side of our house. So my bedroom is at the top of that little graph there, so everyone that goes up that path will be able to see into my bedroom and my parents' bedrooms. I think this would be easier if it was just one family and their deliveries, rather than six families who have no cars, obviously will need food every week, they'll have all of their friends and families coming as well, stuff like that. I think it would make it a little bit easier if it was fewer houses, definitely yes. I'd prefer there to be no houses there, to be honest, if it could be rejected entirely, that's what my preference would be. But I do think it's a complete loss of privacy and amenity, contrary to the policy that I mentioned. Yeah. Thank you for your time. Oh yeah, okay, so it's John Partridge next, yeah? Evening, councillors. I live on the smallest house on the smallest plot, 252 Court Road. Yet this development in a garden 13 times the size of mine is being pushed right against my boundary, boxing me in. The developer will dismiss my claims as subjective, but it's my home and community. Policy DHB protects residential amenity, yet Unit 3 proposes a 5 to 7 metre Berlin-esque wall running along my entire boundary. It will tower over my garden, destroy my privacy and create an oppressive vista. Noise and security are major concerns. A green space inviting gatherings of 25 to 30 people is planned adjacent to the bottom of my garden. That will severely impact my privacy and it is contrary to the London Plan Policy D14. My elderly neighbour, Jim, at 272 Court Road was burgled six months ago when thieves accessed his property via the Sycamore Close Development, which apparently sets precedent for this one. Now that's not subjective, but fact. Policy DH1 requires developments to respect the character of the area, yet this proposal's scale and massing are completely out of context, disregarding our neighbourhood's unique character and the principles of urban planning. Policy E2 addresses flood risk, but my garden recently flooded within three metres of my back door, as have my neighbours at 30 West Park. The developer claims there is no risk, but local experience would say otherwise. Policy IMC ensures developments do not add to parking pressures, yet these units offer no driveways, limited gardens and residents can't even apply for parking permits. This will only add to congestion. Court Road homes already suffer from limited daylight due to their north-westerly aspect. So any further overshadowing will have a major impact, and that is contrary to Policy DHB and the London Plan Policy 6. I urge you to defer your decision and see the site for yourself. This development violates many of RBG's policies and minimally meets others, but it will have a maximum effect on the people who live there and have to live without outcome long after the developer has gone. In Mr. Sapiano's presentation, a slide of the impact of neighbouring density showed the development as 30.4 metres from the rear of my house. That is false. It did not show our extension. The development is actually 25.5 metres from the rear of my home. I thank you for your time tonight. Thank you. Thank you. No, no, any questions? Sorry. No. Yeah. Any questions? No. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sir Edward Wardle, please. I'm really sorry, but I have got another meeting at 8. I hoped, because it was one item, I might be able to get through this item before, within an hour and a half, so I might have to drop out at 8. Just to give my general thoughts, I am sort of sympathetic to the idea that we might need this site visit, because what I see here seems very acceptable. Obviously, what lots of people have discussed seems counter to what we've seen. So, that would be my sort of view. I'd quite like to see it for myself, but other than that, sorry. Sorry to chip in randomly, but I will be hopping out in two minutes. Okay. Thanks for coming. And your comment is noted, and we'll discuss that later. Yep. Good evening, councillors. Good evening, Chair. Thank you. The planning officer has rightfully attached a condition that the cycle parking must conform to TFL standards, but I fear that this condition is only concerned with physical design and needs to address capacity. The LCDS is clear in this regard. Capacity must be able to meet baseline and potential demand. It should be obvious that 12 spaces will not meet the potential, let alone the initial demand of 28 residents in a car-free setting. I believe that this design has got off on the wrong foot. For safety, convenience and promotion of everyday active travel, cycle parking should be centrally located. Access should avoid the community and play areas. It should accommodate large electric cargo bikes and adapted cycles and provide electric charging points. There is ample scope on this site to get it right, but it needs to be designed in, not tacked on as an afterthought. Turning to the wider area, the London Cycle Network Route 20 that runs along West Park is outdated and in dire need of an upgrade to modern standards. The road is busy at peak times and not suitable for children to cycle independently. I understand that small developments do not generally attract a Section 106, but I argue that a contribution towards improving the cycling standards in the cycling safety in the immediate vicinity of this car-free development meets the conditions of being necessary, directly related and reasonable. Finally, I echo my neighbours' concerns about overlooking and loss of amenity. I'm also concerned about the proximity of two of the houses to a mature sycamore tree and the potential for it to be harmed. Therefore, I am supportive of the proposal for the committee to undertake a site visit. Thank you very much. Only question is, how did you manage to read some of my notes? Because you've got exactly what I was going to say about the cycle parking. Could you just say a little bit more about what you think would be a better way, perhaps, for that to be done on site, not just in terms of ensuring there's sufficient cycle parking for every potential resident of each property, but also where you think it might be sensible to situate any cycle provision for visitors to the site as well? Right. So I'd stop by saying, if you stand on Blackheath at 8.30 in the morning, you will see cargo bike after cargo bike go past. That takes me five minutes to cross the heath. And if I go at that time, I'll pass five cargo bikes taking children to school. So sometimes two by two in front of the parent. That is the vision which we should be aiming for. Mottingham is between two cycling corridors, strategic corridors. It follows that connectivity will come, that the upgrade to the London Cycle Network will happen. There are challenges in the area to make those routes to the school. But I think in 10 years' time, the area will be transformed. But these houses will still be there in 100 years' time. If we don't get it right now, it should be a blueprint for future developments. So I firmly believe more can be done. Where would you put... So my vision, my approach to this would be, well, the communal cycle store makes more sense than putting these cycle stores at the end of these gardens. Some of them have got very circuitous routes to go there, to get there. Unit three, you're practically going past the children's play area. It's these large cargo bikes. People are not going to get off and push them. They're too heavy. So they are going to pedal them through the area. So really putting parking at the top, at the entrance to the main area, I would suggest there is the most appropriate place. Put in a cycle store, secure covered cycle store, that can accommodate the future demand is far more sensible than tacking in two little garden sheds in each garden. Luke has mentioned that those don't meet the design standards. So they are problematic. I think in some of them, you can't even get the second bike out without taking the first one out. So if you're trying to encourage people to say, I'm just nipping up to Eltham High Street, I'll just jump on my bike, you've got to get the design right. It should be... We should be thinking Dutch. I know that's kind of happening in some areas of London, but that's the concept. Greenwich, I think, is getting a lot of things right. The cycle highways going east-west through Greenwich are fantastic. And I just think you need to build on this and demand more out of these developments. Did I cover everything else? Yes, that's very helpful. Thank you. Okay. Okay, Pat. I need to move on. I won't be long. Just what you were talking about, the sycamore tree. I would just like more clarity on which tree you were referring to and where actually it is situated. So it's on my boundary. It's where units two and three are. They are built, I believe, up into the canopy of the tree. I accept that branches will be locked off. They're overhanging the neighbour's property. I completely accept that can happen. And I know there is a route protections plan in place during construction and also permanent construction. But I fear that I will have, it's a recipe for conflict over that tree. And I just fear that the tree will have to be cut back quite hard in order to avoid the roof lines of units two and three. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Wardell. Thank you. Just on the trees. Obviously, I did mention there were five trees within the site that are being removed. None of the trees that are outside of the site are proposed to be removed at all. There is some proposed pruning as well of some of the trees, particularly on the boundary. That's all explained in extreme detail in the report. But none of those trees that are outside the site, as I understand, are sought to be removed at all. There may be some pruning, but as I say, it will be within the actual application site. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. So, it's now Mr Lang. Oh, is it? Oh, sorry. Yeah, you're right. I'm getting ahead of myself. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I was brought up and currently live, sorry, brought up and live at 254 Court Road. I believe this backland development does not meet the council's core strategy, HC, with respect to scale, massing and density. The council adopted urban design guidance, SPD, in 2023. Report paragraph 11.20 identifies that this development does not meet this guidance, noting that it is not unusual for properties built before this guidance not to meet the new standard. Is it appropriate to approve a planning application which is not in accordance with recently adopted guidance? Report paragraph 9.13, and councillors have mentioned the aerial view, is not really a fair comparison. All the comparators have road access. This does not. Trees and ecology report. The report section 18 states that paragraph 187 of the MPPF, policy G6 of the LP, and policy OS4, are met with mitigations. Even with the mitigations, for example, tree planting, shows many trees planted close to the path between 28 West Park and 30 West Park, with few at the boundary to act as a screen to neighbouring properties, or to maintain the open garden feel, which currently supports a very diverse ecology. If approved, I request that a condition is significant additional planting, please. For this car-free development, the council's transportation team at paragraph 6.7 suggests extending CPD hours of operation. This is likely to reduce parking for visitors to local amenities, putting additional pressure on an already fragile local economy and community. Appendix 2, condition 3, refers to Ashburnham Triangle, not this application, suggesting confusion with regards to making the recommendation to accept, rather than reject, the application. I ask that you visit the site to see if it is really going to provide a high-quality living environment without having an unreasonably adverse amenity impact on existing and future residents. Please reject this application. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? No. So now it's Dominic Lange. Thank you, Chair and Councillors. My wife and I have lived at 246 Court Road since 1991. The side of Unit 6 will directly face our house at a distance of only a few feet from our back fence. The ridge height up to the top of the roof will be in excess of seven metres, or about 24, 25 feet, and despite the lack of direct window oversight into our property, the sheer height and proximity will have an indisputably oppressive impact on the vista from our house and garden, a vertiginous slab of concrete with no redeeming aesthetic features. There are no plans to soften the vista by trees or shrubbery around the estate boundary close to our back fence, and the mere sight of the block, plus the inevitable noise from the communal areas, will create the feeling that our privacy is being invaded. I therefore echo Councillor Hartley's suggestion that there should be, amongst conditions imposed, an estate boundary fence with a minimum height of three metres, or ten feet, along the entire length of the adjacent court road fences, with a minimum distance between that fence and the back fences of about ten feet, and that, secondly, there be mature trees or shrubbery planted along the length of the court road between the two sets of fences. The heightened proximity will inevitably affect our natural daylight and cast shadow across the garden with potential effect on flowers and plantation. Furthermore, even low-level estate lighting will necessarily contribute to lost privacy and light pollution. There will be inevitable regular use of the communal area for social purposes, especially in fine weather, when the court road residents will most want to enjoy the peace and quiet of their own gardens. Security. Security. Crime rates are rising all across London. Can you bring it to a close now? Have you nearly finished? I would simply ask that we echo the request for a site visit to enable you to reach a fair and proper decision. Sorry. Can I just ask you, which, you said, I can't remember how far away you said that building, that wall would be from your particular rooms, but I wondered as well, which rooms it would affect because, you know, you talk about loss of light. It will be a few feet from the back fence. Our back garden is about 70 feet long. Downstairs, we have our dining room. Upstairs, we have my study. And a bedroom. Okay. So, two rooms at the back of the building. And you're talking about overshadowing in the garden as well. It will cast shadow in the garden, which will necessarily affect plants that require, that don't flourish in shade. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. So, now it's Gail Hodges from the Mottingham Residents Association. Good evening. I'm speaking as both Chair of the Mottingham Residents Association, the MRA, who voted unanimously against this development and as an affected resident living in Court Road. The MRA wholeheartedly agrees with everything the objectors have all said. This development doesn't, in our opinion, comply with any of the requirements in policy HC for backfill development. That's clearly a huge loss of amenity for all affected neighbours. We've heard about significant loss of privacy. We've heard about change in densification, which the planners have already admitted to. This is an inappropriate over-densification with six houses squashed into a small plot just six feet from the garden boundaries of five houses in Court Road, resulting in a marked change in character for the area. The gardens in Court Road are significantly smaller than those in West Park. Outside of the actual construction, there will inevitably be an increase in noise against both Policy HC and Court Policy EA. The noise created by at least 24 people, plus any visitors in the central communal area, with the noise being funneled towards Court Road Gardens, cannot be overestimated. There is, of course, an impact on established biodiversity, the area having remained untroubled for decades, other than as a normal garden, and in what was Crown Land until relatively recently. It will take many, many years to re-establish. There were some beautiful trees felled in anticipation of this project, which has not been mentioned. Consultation with neighbouring residents was, to be polite, completely unsatisfactory. The council report we received eight days ago recommending approval did not reflect the impact on neighbours, particularly those in Court Road. Our very valid and reasonable objections, compliant with planning legislation, were brushed aside with blanket comments that it's considered there is no unreasonable loss of, with no rationale, evidence or justification. Whilst there's no legal requirement for site visit, we feel extremely strongly, as others have said, that a full assessment is impossible without a visit to the impacted, much smaller gardens in Court Road, which are not of the extreme size mentioned by Mr Sapiano. The general feel of openness, not of view, but the openness, very precious to those who live in Court Road, and the impact of the dark, oppressive and overbearing 25 feet high walls, just six feet from our garden boundaries, will become very obvious if you visit. Unbelievably, there's no plan to provide fencing or mature tree planting along the boundary with Court Road. This is a markedly disproportionate development of the site and against Greenwich Core strategy. We're aware of the need for housing and the quotas the council is subject to. We're not averse to a much more appropriate one or two houses being built, but more centrally on the site. Greenwich Local Care Plan strategy states that the health of its residents is an important part of the development. As a GP on the Lewish and Greenwich border for over 40 years, I'm extremely aware of the huge impact stress has on everyone's health. This planning application is causing enormous stress to all of us and is already robbing us all, possibly permanently, of enjoyment in our homes. The amenity in which we have invested in total over 300 years between all the people you see here this evening. I am incredibly anxious about the lack of ambulance access. I am very well aware of the number of situations where trundling someone down on a trolley, regardless of it being step free, would be hugely detrimental and incredibly unsafe. We urge you to reject this proposal, but otherwise all we ask is that you please visit Court Road and 30 West Park to make an informed decision. However, if planning permission is approved, there are some conditions. We would like planting and a secure fence along the Court Road Garden boundary, as well as others requested. We would like a limitation to minimum necessary external lighting. We would like no insertion of new windows, no extensions allowed. We would like the communal areas to be time restricted at reasonable times. We support George's conditions regarding the bins and boundary fencing and the access gate. Just a note, some of the conditions Mr Sapiano refers to we have not been made aware of. And the mitigation strategies for the impact on ecology are buying land in the North Thames area. This will not have any benefit of the people in Mottingham. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. Questions? Yep, start with Pat. Thank you for that. You've got an awful lot in there. Well done. Can I just ask you, have you had in all this, I mean, obviously there are so many, many residents affected. What about consultation? I couldn't remember whether you mentioned that with the developers. Yes. Have you had? Theoretically, the developers wrote to us and sent us a very fancy brochure headed Park Mews Greenwich, which included various developments they'd done, and it included Park Mews Greenwich. In fact, some of us went to Greenwich to look for Park Mews to find out how such a development would look. But in fact, we then realised that Park Mews is this development, which they have since unnamed. And so that was Park Mews. So we had this fancy development, this fancy brochure, and a covering letter to say, we have been working with Greenwich Council for the past year, who essentially are very supportive of us, which sort of put us on the back foot. And anyway, to start off with, and please contact us with any queries. So I think we bombarded them with so many questions. We were, I think everyone would agree, we were treated with disdain. We did not listen to, this is not a relation issue, it is probably not the time or place. But we were dismissed in every setting. We were told we had become accustomed to a view we were not entitled to. We were told that we, living in London, we should expect such things to happen to us. We have lived in our houses, we have, you know, worked hard to have our houses, we've put time and energy into our homes and gardens to have this destroyed, with no control over this at all, and we really feel we haven't been listened to. We understand that this can only be rejected on planning legislation grounds. But we really strongly feel that there are enough planning legislation grounds to not approve of this. But if it is approved, if it is, if you're mindful to approve, as I said, we really strongly feel that the, that you cannot make a fully informed decision without a site visit. Because this does not give an impression whatsoever of how it would be to have two 25 feet walls six feet from our back gardens. If I can just raise just one. Obviously, you talked about anticipated conditions or requested conditions that residents would like to be put on. You mentioned no extensions. There is already a condition in the draft list that basically says all of these properties would have their permitted development rights removed. So, normally, properties might be able to put dormers and rear extensions. So, we're already proposing to take that, those rights away from any new properties. So, if they want to extend, then they would have to come in for planning permission and we would assess that separately. Obviously, there's a bunch more other conditions that are brought forward in that document, which I think if we get onto conditions talking about, we can discuss at that point. We haven't been, they haven't been shared with us. Those conditions. Our document was presented. So, the draft list of conditions that is brought forward as part of the committee report has been publicly available online for a week alongside the committee report. We received a report, but it didn't cover all of the conditions you mentioned earlier. Okay. However, that's fine. I mean, we had eight, we've had eight days to look at this and we aren't planning professionals. So, you know, what might take you five minutes actually needs consideration a bit more carefully by us. Yeah, good point. Okay. No more questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Yeah. No. Oh, thank you. The microphone. Oh, the microphone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now we're going to move to the applicants. The table keeps moving. I keep feeling faint. feeling faint okay good evening members of the Greenwich Planning Committee I thank you for the opportunity to speak and to provide context to this application my name is David Benfelt and I live at 28 West Park with my wife and eight-year-old daughter we purchased the property when we purchased the property sorry it had suffered decades of neglect the estate agent even wished us good luck when we handed out when we got the keys on the day we moved in reflecting the scale of the work ahead we've invested well over two hundred thousand pounds on the interior to bring it up to a livable standard and a lot more work is required including an urgently a roof that needs urgent replacement and an exterior as you as you've seen from the photos that needs modernization on a monumental scale it's simply too much work for one person in terms of financial means and energy and time in terms the actual land behind the house has been similarly neglected underutilized and a constant burden especially in considering its size maintaining it again is physically exhausting financially unsustainable and time-consuming particularly when paired with the ongoing maintenance requirements of the house developing the land what is this overwhelming strain repurposing the space and provide much-needed additional housing through a scheme we can be proud of in conclusion allowing further neglect to the property and the land is no longer an option the proposal is essential not just for us to modernize our home but to better contribute to the neighborhood in my belief two things I would like to say in conclusion flooding in my opinion I've never seen any or experienced any flooding on my property at all I'm very very surprised to hear this from from the residents and again consultation by the by the MRA I wasn't included in that my opinion was not included in any thoughts or discussions they've had on this particular topic thank you very much I don't believe she's allowed to say anything no I don't think we could have you have we finished your presentation yes I have thank you uh you don't want to use the other yes there's no questions are the applicant uh are the agents going to speak at all yes they are as part of this time slot oh the 10 minutes time slot okay yeah if you all come up together that's fine because it's technically the same time slot good evening everyone my name is Charlie Caswell I'm a director at Caswell and Dano who are working with the landowner David to develop the site myself and my business partner are ex-architects and our business specializes in creating design-led homes on backland and infill sites such as West Park the London plan mirrors our ambition and encourages councils to support incremental intensification like the proposal brought before you this evening we have been working positively and proactively with the Greenwich planning department for nearly 18 months to refine the scheme going to two pre-apps prior to the full application which they now fully support and have recommended for approval we appreciate the neighbors have become accustomed to having an open plot to the rear of their houses but no scheme is without compromise and the Greenwich planning department are in agreement the site is suitable for development we have hired the best team possible to put together a highly considerate scheme that is crafted to its context and adds considerable net benefit by providing six new family homes my business partner and I are passionate about what we do we're a small company but we want to create a benchmark with every development we undertake from the very start we imagine this scheme as an incredible car free oasis with a large communal garden at its core where residents can meet and play we have personally engaged at length with the neighbors and amended many aspects of the design as a result of their valuable dialogue with Greenwich currently at only 48% of their housing target there is a critical need for quality housing in the borough so this is exactly the type of well designed considerate planning compliance scheme where you can walk from your front door and be in London Bridge in less than 30 minutes that we urge the committee to support and approve thank you chair good evening members my name is Max Plotnick I'm the applicant's planning consultant like all London boroughs Greenwich is in the midst of a housing emergency therefore the context for your decision this evening should be viewed against the hot housing crisis within which we find ourselves in as mentioned Greenwich can only demonstrate for 2.46 years of housing land to supply and has only delivered 48% of its annual annual housing target according to the latest housing delivery test results which were released in December on that basis the national planning policy framework requires planning decisions to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development and approve applications for new housing unless the decision makers can identify the tiny any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits your planning office to the con officers to the contrary have provided a strong recommendation for this application to be approved having not identified any conflict with adopted development plan policy we are we are confident that this scheme is the epitome of sustainable development for the reasons I will now run through number one it provides six desperately needed high quality family homes in an area characterized by family housing number two the proposal complies entirely with the council's black backland policy and nestles comfortably into the perimeter block where of the backland development has taken place see page 19 of your committee report number three the scheme has been designed to comply in full with Greenwich's recently adopted urban design guide that specifically advocates this form of in-field development in that respect the scale of development is subordinate to the properties fronting West Park and Court Road it's set within the landscape communal garden and is designed using high quality contemporary materials that take cues from some of the finer architectural detailing in the area number four the car free nature of the scheme discourages reliance on private cars and the car free legal agreement will in our experience prevent families that rely on cars from purchasing a property on this development there is full compliance with Greenwich and London track plan transport policy and my view is that objections on this matter cannot be substantiated practically all servicing vehicles will already be on the road network and it's estimated that only one to two delivery vehicles per day will be attracted to these dwellings quite frankly will never develop deliver any housing in London if we're concerned about impacts of Amazon DPD supermarket vans etc number five the scheme has been designed to be sympathetic to neighboring properties I've mentioned the scale being supporting support in addition all separation distances to properties comfortably exceed all recommended policies see page 31 of your committee report and not only is there a 100% compliance with daylight testing guidance and testing guidance on overshadowing to neighboring properties the results in themselves demonstrate an excellent level of compliance well above the minimum requirements number six contrary to the objections the baseline biodiversity credentials the site are limited the BNG regime makes it impossible to achieve the 10% on sites where there's no existing built form but the legislation allows BNG shortfall to be mitigated off-site in this case at significant cost the developer the credits to offset BNG shortfall will cost in the region of 60 to 80,000 pounds I personally don't agree with the BNG regime the way it operates but and it's appreciated that the off-site mitigation does not benefit local residents but my client's but my client's aspiration for this scheme is to ensure that landscaping is at the heart of the development and not an afterthought the landscaping proposals which include the planting of 43 new trees replacing just five to be lost all of which are category C trees apart from just one and I'd like to just note that there's no objections raised from your tree officer number seven concerns have been raised about emergency service access obviously it's hope that it'll never be a requirement for them to attend the site but the in the extremely infrequent and unlikely event that this may occur the design has been developed in conjunction with a fire engineer and it is going to be a fully building regs compliance solution that will be put in place um number and the length of the access is no different to the distance emergency services would travel in many many housing estates across Greenwich and beyond we feel the design has been extremely successful in providing high quality residential accommodation including family homes with all units providing a good level of private and communal immunity space outlook levels of daylights for future occupants we feel we've carried out a constructive engagement with local residents proportionate to the scale of this development and your planning department over several months we've responded positively to all feedback from planning officers and whilst the concerns and objections that are acknowledged one can argue that we have we feel we've gone above and beyond many applicants would that come to this committee to engage with local people as noted the applicant and his family will continue to live at this address for years to come have invested millions um hundreds of thousands of pounds in ensuring um their property um is maintained and that this scheme is empathetic to their ongoing living environment finally we're really excited to see this can you start winding up now please sorry can you start winding up yeah i'm on my last paragraph sorry okay we're excited to see this site potentially developed and we hope you agree with your officers recommendation and approve the application this evening and many thanks for your time we're obviously here to answer any questions so i'll repeat one of my earlier questions so um the access way it's absolutely critical the access way is kept clear at all times so who is responsible for keeping it clear and what happens if they don't um yeah completely agree is critical obviously um so estates like this tend to be sold off on long leases so the properties themselves will be sold on long leases but there'll be a freehold which will be shared between all of the properties whereby there's a management company that is responsible for the upkeep and management of the access and into people's leases there'll be an obligation to make sure that um the access way is kept free i mean you know in these situations there has to be some self policing by people it's for their own safety to keep the access ways clear in our experience of many backland developments this isn't an issue um you know it's written into leases if people don't comply with their leases then you know the management company would get involved and um you know take action so it sounds to me like there is an obligation to be clear it sounds like leaseholders have to agree with each other to keep it clear and the freeholder has to take an interest out of the kindness of their heart i don't quite understand what happens if it's not kept clear yeah i think it becomes a legal obligation um as part of your when you purchase the property so i think what matt what max was saying is that there's a there's a common logic if people are coming and going that naturally it would be kept clear would be part of a legal obligation upon purchase of the property you're obligated to keep it clear if anyone contravenes it then you have a managing agent company that would come and interfere or intervene i i i sorry i i still don't quite get it so well first of all the fact that people are going through there doesn't necessarily mean it has to be kept clear i mean you can step over rubbish you can step over obstacles yourself but sorry the managing agent is answerable to is it the leaseholders or is it to the freeholder and again what happens to the freeholder if it's not kept clear who who is it who who sues who to make sure it's clear how quick is that because you know it needs to be clear all the time to say the six-month legal process to keep it clear isn't acceptable right it's dangerous so can you please explain again what the governance process is for keeping that clear because right now i don't understand for my benefit clear from what just so i can try and understand i'm just saying that that needs to be kept clear and so far in my opinion you have not explained the governance process that will keep it clear so you would have a share of freehold and within that freehold is the obligation to keep it clear so what are we talking about small things like planting or are we talking about people physically blocking it with i'm just trying to understand i i'm talking about if somebody drove a car into it you know or you know a motorbike or something and block it up and you're saying that there are legal obligations well if there's a legal obligations then you have to go through a court process presumably which means it's going to take six months to clear so right now it doesn't seem like there is a guarantee that access way will always be clear it's just there's a legal obligation that might somehow be reckoned with in the future i think that there's a reality about it being a gated development which means that one you physically can't get vehicles through there so if if a car went through there you'd call the police first i think a wardrobe you know it doesn't matter what it is just something big that people can't get that an ambulance trolley couldn't get past i think there is going to be six families there coming and going perhaps with their electric cargo buggies and so there is a necessity to access your house to keep that clear let's say hypothetically a tree fell down and it was blocking the access then a managing agent who is responsible for all the landscaping which the residents there would communally contribute to would then action that so the person that can't get past would flag it to the managing agent and the managing agent would then come in action how long would it take the managing agent to get there managing agents typically look after multiple properties so they have multiple staff so you'd hope within minutes if not hours and again what guarantee is that they will be there within minutes and hours and what if they don't i'm sorry i'm going around you know i'll leave it there but i don't understand i'm clueless i think you've made a point uh sam uh uh calum did you want to i was sorry let calum go now you've already come okay it's it's a question is it all right a question that i asked before um my concerns are how on earth are lorries going to access um not delivery lorries site lorries and construction vehicles how are they going to access this two point what is it six two point six wide um access that's one of my questions sorry the next question is again going back to what my colleague had just said i don't know whether we refer to and i know it's somewhere in the document um about the maintenance of this road because you know it can't be left a rough sort of path so who's going to be responsible for the actual maintenance of that road is that going to be distributed between the owners of their properties um so and my third question again is parking i just can't get my head around this say for example you've got right no parking between 1 30 and 3 what it is at the moment what if someone needs a doctor there is nowhere around there where you can park and park actually it's all i think i don't know whether the councillors will back me up on this but within the surrounding streets it's all cc you know controlled parking 1 30 to 3 i'm thinking doctors you can't what's the doctor going to do it he can't just arrive at a certain time nurses carers you know all these people where are they going to park you can't make them come some of it is going to be i just try to think i mean on a daily basis i can see issues arriving you know around this sorry that's my three questions where should we start a few questions here i think we should start with construction access site access so we so luke didn't mention this but we did submit um a draft construction management plan with the applications that was on on the council's website um it is a draft because at this stage of the planning process you don't have a contractor on board every contractor has a different idea about how they like to build things so you come up with a general idea about how this site might be built out the length of the access is mentioned at 2.6 the type of vehicles um which would ordinarily develop outside like this are actually 2.5 in width so they can get down the access and the access does taper out so it is um wider we've submitted a tracking plan within that document which shows um a general site layout how the construction vehicle would get down the access way so that is in there but obviously as part of conditions further detail will be um will be provided i've worked on sites very similar to this where uh construction materials are actually carried down on on smaller um smaller bits of transport down down narrow access if there's no no chance for vehicle to get down obviously it prolongs um the construction program but it it can be done it's it has been done many many times so yeah it is possible to get as we can off site and then bring it to site pre-constructed so i think you've got to turn these constraints into opportunities to make a much more efficient build process but if you imagine a lot of traffic to the access if i can come back on more but i'm concerned about number 30 as well i mean they're going to really be hit by this because they're right up to this um you know sort of entrance way 28's all right because they're the people who are wanting this to be developed but 30 at the other side how are you going to protect their property um and their walls from from damage i mean i just i don't know do you know can you give me the actual width of a vehicle that's going to carry these free sort of fabricated um piece of whatever you know sort of if you're saying it's going to be prefabricated a lot of the um building materials used how wide are the lorries do we know uh thank you thank you we don't you can't contribute from the back of the hall um carry on please i think there's there's the assumption that we're going to be using heavy construction traffic for the build but it's not a necessity there's lots of different ways of doing this we could prefabricate and crane it over the houses there's lots of different ways of doing it i suppose our level of development is to take the design to planning that's where we are now and we haven't agreed exactly how we're going to build the site it's going to depend contractor to contractor but there's lots of different scales of construction machinery that 255 is your standard articulated lorry we do don't necessarily have to use that there's lots of different sizes and gauges of construction machinery that we could use so i think whoever is going to build this would use the gauge of construction machinery that is appropriate for the site to try and have minimal impact to the neighboring houses but that's not actually being agreed or considered today as one of the conditions uh come on uh thank you chair and apologies i have a couple i guess just it's important for everyone to remember here um building control is not a planning consideration that is something that is determined separately so while i you know while i think it's quite clear the committee share some of the concerns that you all have here that's not a material consideration for us so we have to park that i i get that's frustrating but we can only do what is within our kind of our purview and our jurisdiction here um i think on the point that um council littlewood was making i think the point is there is a little bit like with a share of the freehold you're effectively marking your own homework on the lease and i think that's the why the concern about the governance was being articulated so so clearly um but yeah that is something uh that i think we're not going to get to the bottom of here um so i guess a couple of questions one is could you um point to some other similar developments of this nature that you have done because i think it would be instructive for us to have a sense of what this is you know of other examples of your of your work with the with the backfilling um and say a little bit about those and then i have a couple of other questions about some of the conditions we've talked about but i won't throw them all at you at once um sure uh so the business we have specializes in these type of developments i guess we we like turning constraints into opportunities and so all the developments we take on are typically within urban areas they are urban infill they're incremental intensification so there's different typologies that we have this is a classic backland site where it's positioned behind the front row of properties we do infill developments too which are positioned between buildings um we work all over london and the home counties too um i guess we we work on a range of scales and typologies from single units but they're all i think what can be defined as small developments are largest being 13 flats so this is a large uh development for us in different instances you need different responses we always imagined this development as being car free from the start it's not not an afterthought when we went there we thought that would be most appropriate for the site so we really kind of lent into that and wanted to create a landscape led scheme hence the communal landscaping in the middle hence why we didn't try and push or investigate having cars in the middle other schemes we have done are for different sizes where perhaps we have got cars down there but i think this we wanted to create planting over parking and we still believe that's the right thing to do and works in accordance with the tfl ambition for 80 percent of trips and to be by public transport is it by 2030. um and likewise having that symbiosis of architecture my question is just can you name us some other specific developments akin to this everything you're saying lovely but very simple are you able to point to some other similar developments just so we can get a sense of are you talking about you're talking about other developments that charlie and adam have done specifically or or any you guys have specifically done of similar sort of scale mass and approach just so we can get a bit of context in terms of your experience of delivering this type of development can i ask why just why that's relevant i mean i think it should be quite obvious why it's relevant because it's about demonstrating the ability to build to the plans that are being articulated here to the quality um and to ensuring that what's delivered matches to some of the you know quite positive indications and rhetoric that you give here but to the minute it's kind of largely just been been words and sales pitch and we're not trying to buy something we're trying to work out whether we can approve something um i would encourage you to to look at our website and see the project okay fine i'll go on to my more specific questions on the conditions constance court in peckham would be one again calm on road in lewisham's another um they're both relatively local to this site they're both backland infill developments so if they're they're both backland developments so that that would be a good starting point and obviously i'll be delighted to talk you through perfect thank you very much just just to say that um the whole purpose of the planning system is that if you grant a planning permission it's got a set of approved plans and whoever builds it whether it's charlie and adam or any other developer would have to adhere to those plans materials heights you know widths types of landscaping that's within the planning departments control to make absolutely sure that what is built out is shown is is what is shown on these plans and if it's not the council has powers to enforce against that so to give you the confidence to make sure this scheme is delivered as it is is shown you know that's why we've got so many conditions that we're talking about here that's the level of control that you can exert on it you're quite right in the role that we have we also have other obligations to the residents who are here and so this is about trying to give people some greater assurance as well here about the the yeah about the what is being the quality of what is being proposed but just a couple of quick questions on some of the conditions that have kind of been discussed there have been quite a few some that are included some that aren't and it just be useful to get kind of quite quickly yes no answers pretty much on on some of those so on potentially moving locations of the bins from the boundary of 30 to the boundary or you know more within 28 is that something that the applicant would be amenable to nodding that's that's positive people have raised concerns about the positioning of the gate is that something that would be open to possibly moving to closer to the pavement i think that was a problem um on boundary fencing um people i think have made quite clear points about the the height of boundary fencing they would want to do in order to help protect a bit of privacy is that also something that you think you'd be amenable to i think it's within the interests of future residents of this sites have their own privacy perfect um i think there have been some points that were quite well made about the nature of the cycle storage units as well is that also something that you would be amenable to looking at and addressing and then we also discussed the potential condition about um at the applicant's expense and works of the servicing of the entrance way with you know drop curb and so on to make it less obvious that this is currently somewhere where people would drive in but was that make a small point on that so obviously number 30 is has a driveway currently so they need to retain their drop curb but on the section of um road where there's a drop curb which goes into the pedestrian access and yeah there's no issues with that obviously david would have to maintain his ability to use his driveway yeah but yeah this is specifically about the access point to this proposed development um and on the fire pit you've had quite a lot of concerns about that specifically um again i'd love a bonfire but it's perhaps not the most appropriate thing for us to be having here is that also something that would be open and amenable to looking at yeah okay thank you chair all right thanks colin um okay i think that's it isn't it yes um at this stage we uh would normally move to um deliberation and a decision uh i'm minded that uh luke's actually given a very comprehensive uh report or a thorough report i'm very aware that the applicants have put an awful lot of time and resources to actually getting this here this evening and you've spent the time uh evaluating the the scheme uh but i'm minded that virtually every uh virtually every presentation has actually asked us whether we would like uh whether we ought to do a site visit uh i said what i would propose rather than moving to deliberation i'll ask if if members thought that was a good idea or not if members were minded that uh we've had the presentations we've heard the processes uh the protests and objections then we can make a decision this evening it's up to you um so i'm asking basically do you actually want to do a site visit or not yeah um chair i will second that um a site visit please yes i would yeah do you want to members feel about that which um i'm just asking if they were i've got that so i think everybody's nodded so you're going to do you want to so basically we'll refer the decision the consideration and we will then um suicide visit just given we've discussed some additional conditions um and sort of enhance ones are we able to just make a note of those to make sure that um i'm just coming on to that go go on the um i'm saying if we're going to defer the uh decision and we'll uh when we come to the uh next time it comes to this committee we won't go through this uh process again but we will have a summary of what's happened um since uh and also uh i've asked that these conditions that have been proposed and uh the applicants have nodded um at um that they would be part of your summary so uh with that yeah um so so what you're suggesting is um we defer now i go for a site visit when we come back i there's like a quick recap presentation not the full presentation so yeah not the full one and um and just to confirm as well so we won't be hearing everyone again okay unless there's a really really substantial change with the scheme in the in between we won't need to hear people again is that correct sure okay and all and and these conditions um um yes we can i i might i might i may tweak and i can talk about those tweaks as well yeah max did you want to i mean depending on when sorry he hasn't said anything yet depending on when the site visit takes i've listened to everyone else speak i don't know why they can't listen to me speak um so can i suggest if there is a site visit and i don't know when that would take place but i assume it's you know we'd like to get it back to the next committee i don't know whether that's possible we use the intervening period to maybe address some of these conditions so the fencing getting rid of the fire pit moving the bin store etc so that when we do come back to the committee those measures are actually secured on these plans and we're not you know worrying about it down the line that was all i had to say yeah sorry yeah but i'm saying that basically we will try we will get this back to the next uh committee and um we'll start work tomorrow trying to identify a date uh for the site visit and um how luke and uh the africans actually could liaise on some of these points and so that when we come to the next uh meeting when is the next meeting roughly february late february can i it chair if it's also okay i'm not sure if members of the public are here i think it would be useful uh for members to gain access certainly to number 30 uh west park and certainly to at least one of the properties on court road um i think that would be useful as part of all the site visits um members of the public can't attend um and there's no discussion at all on site visits other than to just kind of point and say it might go over there but there's no actual deliberation on site in any way but if those people have my email address if they could email me and then i can liaise with them about getting access to their properties that would be really helpful i think in particular it was was it mr partridge at 252 who i think was the closest one yeah yeah and also sorry can we just please try and make sure that we do the site visit at a weekend i know that's always the ambition but we've had a few recently which have been in the middle of the work week and you know i mean having having been here for you know three and a bit hours i would very much like to be able to attend the site visit and if it's in the middle of the work day that is just not going to be okay thank you we'll do that okay thank you so uh i need uh we need to take a formal vote on that so can i see all those in favor of the uh proposal yeah that that's unanimous thank you very much um i think it's been a productive meeting see you in a few weeks time thank you again except we went there for the site visit