Transcript

of the Planning Board. Filming and Recording is allowed, but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. Only those public speakers who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speakers will be permitted to address the meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters. You should not repeat comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to make any further comments unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Councillors will have up to five minutes, accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups up to four, individuals two, and the applicants and their team ten. On item five, I have John Liu, and Sheila Keeble, Sam Neill, Adil Adil, James Ewan, Luke Wilson. On item six, I have Harpinder Singh, Barra. Sorry? Okay. Julian Sutton, Amasidu, Sandeep, and Kerry Howe. Item one, apologies for absence. Apologies have been received from Councillor Gardner, Burt Clare MacDonald, and Richards Cottle. All other members are in attendance. Item two, urgent business. Planning officers' addendums have been published in advance of the meeting for both items five and six and are available online. Item three, declarations of interest. Nope. Item four, minutes of the last meeting from the 10th of December 2024. I take those as read. Yeah, any comments? Nope. Item five, 141 to 143 Woolwich Road, London SE10 0RQ, reference 242634F. Joe. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone. So, as the Chair was saying, this is item five. This is 141 to 143 Woolwich Road. The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures on the site, and the mixed-use redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings of ground plus six, ground plus five, and ground plus five stories, respectively, including purpose-built student accommodation and commercial, business and service uses, Class C use. The proposal includes basement level access parking, refuse and recycling service areas, hard and soft landscaping, and associated works. So, this is the site location. You'll note that the site is where it is in relation to the existing public transport network. You can see Westcombe Park Station there. The site itself is where my mouse is in the middle there on Woolwich Road. We've also got local bus routes that go along Woolwich Road towards the East Greenwich District Centre. So, this is the site location plan. And you'll note that the site is bounded to the south by Woolwich Road, to the west by Childress Street. The site actually includes part of Dandridge Close, and then it's bounded on the eastern side by Denham Street. The site is currently occupied by a single-storey commercial tool, former commercial tool hire and purchase premises. It's a speedy hire site, which has been vacant since 2023. It's a single-storey warehouse-style building, which you'll see photos of later. The site is not a listed building, nor is it in the vicinity of any listed buildings. It's not within a conservation area or near to any conservation areas. So, this is the view of the site looking north. The red line, again, is the site boundary. You'll note the surrounding context is predominantly residential, with the exception of commercial units within the ground floors of some of these terraces on Woolwich Road. To the north is Dandridge Close, which is two-storey terraced houses. To the east, there is some more recent five-storey flattered development. To south on Woolwich Road, it is two- and three-storey terraces. And then to the west of the site, across Childress Street, is two-storey terraces again. I should point out that Childress Street is, as well as Dandridge Close, both owned by Greenwich Housing, and that includes part of the site. So, this is the view looking south. In the foreground is Dandridge Close, as I mentioned, and then Woolwich Road is to the north. So, these are the next few slides. There are some views along Woolwich Road. You'll see there's the Speedy High building. Even though it's only a single-storey, it is quite a substantial building. You'll also note the cycle lane, which runs along Woolwich Road, goes directly past the site. And this is the view looking west along Woolwich Road again, and you can see the site on the right-hand side there. And this is the view along Dandridge Close, which is the road that runs along the northern part of the site. On the left-hand side, you've got the rear elevations of, and the rear gardens of, the two-storey terraces on Dandridge Close. And then on the right, that boundary there, where there's fencing and planting, is the application site. Dandridge Close is a back street that has poor natural surveillance and poor footfall and is prone to fly-tipping and antisocial behaviours, worth bearing in mind. So, this is a slide on the planning history. So, some members may recall a planning commission being granted in 2023 for the residential redevelopment of the site to provide C3 self-contained dwellings, flats, as well as commercial. And these are the approved elevations and ground floor plan for that. I've got some slides later on, if necessary, comparing this to the consented scheme to the current proposal. But I would say now that this scheme here is a material planning consideration for members, establishes the principle of the mixed-use redevelopment of the site to provide residential accommodation. The form of the building, as you'll see later, is slightly different to what we're proposing now. But in terms of the maximum heights, it's broadly comparable, but we can have a further conversation if that's necessary. The proposal is for purpose-built student housing. So, I've included the slide just to provide the higher education context. So, I pointed out earlier that the site is well-connected by public transport with a P-TAL of five. It's also well-located to be able to access, I believe, up to 14 higher education institutes within 45 minutes commute. But most of the ones within Greenwich would be, you know, University of Greenwich is a 20-minute walk from the site. It's also accessible via local buses and the other transport infrastructure that I mentioned. So, it is in a sustainable location for additional student housing. So, this is a summary slide of the public consultation. You can see there that we've received 10 letters of objection from two of those from Residence Group, one objection from the Greenwich Society, one objection from the East Greenwich Residence Association, who I believe are here this evening. The other objections from members of the public, we will receive one letter of support from the University of Greenwich. This outlined that their support for the broad principle of student accommodation here as well as the detailed design of the proposal. The next slide, the next few slides are the new proposal, but this is the existing site plan where you can see the existing building, which is to be demolished. And this is the proposed site plan. So, the ground floor in the pale colour here is the student, internal student amenity area for the students. Primary access to the student amenity would be via Woolwich Road at the bottom here. There's also a secondary entrance via Dandridge Close. As you can see, the space is laid out into dedicated social and studying areas. The pink is three classy commercial units fronting Woolwich Road. And then also in grey, you can see the various ancillary facilities such as bin stores, cycle stores, plant rooms, etc. You can also note that there is a fair amount of public realm, both on the Woolwich Road side with some planting and seating, but also on the Dandridge Close side to the north of new replacement trees. The proposal also includes two blue badge car parking spaces and a servicing bay on Dandridge Close, and these are secured via the Section 106. So, this is the first floor plan. The upper floors of the development are solely student accommodation. And you'll see that the rooms are arranged as self-contained studio rooms. These are the ones in blue, so these have their own private kitchen and bathroom included. And then in orange, these en-suite cluster rooms, which have just a bathroom in there, no cooking facilities. They use these shared kitchen living dining rooms, which are in the cream colour here. Each block has two stair cores and two lift cores. There's also two roof terraces for external amenity for the students. They're communal, and they're on the northern side of the building. So, this is a typical upper floor arrangement as before. You'll note that there is these gaps between the buildings, and that's green roof on top of there. There's no normal public access or student access to these spaces on here. And this is the roof plan. You can see these terraces are landscaped. You can also see the extensive use of green roofs across the scheme, as well as the setback of the upper floors where there is additional planting. And then these grey areas here are plant. They're not full storeys. They're plant-shrouded areas. And you'll see those in the elevations in a minute. So, these are the proposed north and south elevations. On the top here is the front elevation, the principal elevation on Woolwich Road. You'll see that the development is split into three blocks, six storeys on the western side there on the left, six storeys. And then the easternmost block is seven storeys. You'll also know that it's linked by a three-storey podium level. Hopefully, you can see that on there. But this red dotted line here is the height profile of the consented development. So, while the architectural form is clearly different, the consented scheme was sort of arranged in two blocks on either end linked by a five-storey spine, whereas the scheme is split into three with a varied height. But overall, the maximum heights are broadly comparable to the consented scheme. And that's apparent also on the downed edge close elevation, as you can see there. And then this is the typical room layouts. So, as I mentioned before, there's studio rooms, which are in blue. And then there's also these en-suite cluster rooms, as well as two accessible varieties as well. There are 127 en-suite rooms plus seven accessible en-suite rooms, so about 134. And then there's 36 plus 18 – sorry, 36 – and, well, 38 studio rooms. And you can see the average size is there, 12.7 for an en-suite room, and then 16.7 for a studio room. And that compares relatively favourably to other recent student housing schemes in London. This is an indicative visualisation. You'll see the materials palette is primarily brick, but with variation in – with metal panelling on the upper floors, as well as in the ground floor as well. And you can see the use of planting, as well. And then this is the – this is an indicative view along downed edge close. You know, the planting, again, is considered that the proposal would be a significant improvement in terms of the public realm quality compared to the existing circumstance. And I think it improves on the consented scheme, as well. And then, finally, just a summary of the public benefits of the scheme. So, 190 rooms of student accommodation. This is equivalent to 76 C3 residential dwellings. The proposal would deliver 35% affordable student accommodation. The affordable student accommodation would be provided in accordance with the Mayor of London's definition, and that sets the rents annually, as – so they are genuinely affordable student rooms. The proposal would redevelop and reactivate an underutilised brownful site, reproviding 374 square metres of employment space, which may – which could provide up to 32 full-time equivalent jobs. As I mentioned, high-quality landscaping scheme and improvements in the public realm, particularly on downed edge close. And then, biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements. And that's the presentation. Thanks, Joe. Questions for the officer? Sandra, Matt. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation. My question's around Dandridge Close. Clearly, we could see an improvement in the pavement to be added, which currently isn't there. But the parking arrangements is currently a set of marked bays, which I imagine are resident permit holders only. Will – it looks from the plans as though the disabled bays will be provided within that space. Does that mean a loss of residential parking? So, the application site is within a controlled parking zone. The proposed development will be delivered as car-free. So – and we'll secure that through the Section 106, preventing the students from applying and obtaining a parking permit. And as far as I'm aware, the section of Dandridge Close, which I showed you, is within the CPZ. So that should cover that. Those two disabled persons parking bays would be blue badge. And they would be available for wide – not just the residents of the current scheme, but also anyone with a blue badge would be able to park there. Because it's on – it's on housing owned – the Dandridge Close is housing owned. It's effectively on street parking, so it needs to be blue badge, and it would be difficult to secure it solely for this development. But as I understand it, the uptake for parking generally is very low for student housing, and it's also very low for disabled students in student accommodation. So we don't envisage there being any impact on parking stress through the measures we've mentioned, like securing the scheme as car-free. But they would be provided within the current resident parking bays. Okay, so it's a net loss, but they probably wouldn't park there anyway. Yeah, but I would say that, you know, you're gaining two blue badge car parking spaces, and I think that would outweigh, you know, it would be for anyone with a blue badge. So there's a positive in that regard. And thank you for your presentation, Jo. I did go – I think we went on a site visit for the first application, didn't we? So – and I was concerned at the time about the width of the Dandridge – is it close? Dandridge close, yeah? Could you tell me, please, Jo, how – actually, and I know that they're two-storey houses in Dandridge close – how far away – this is one question – how far away are Dandridge close properties going to be from this building, from the edge of this building, these new buildings? What is the distance? Sorry, sorry, Pat. On – when you're answering that, Jo, can you tell us if the distance is greater or less than the approved application from last year as well? Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. So it is 16 metres from – so the façade of – the nearest façade of the proposed development would be at least 16 metres away from the opposing façade, um, for the properties on Dandridge close, um, and I'm just getting up the distances for the, um, consented scheme, if you could bear with me a second. Uh, so the – for the – for the same relationship, uh, for the consented development would have been at its closest 14 metres, um, so – uh, so the relationship is – is – in terms of the minimum distances is – is – is broadly the same, if not slightly better for the current scheme, but as the scheme is split into three blocks, it's in the middle section, um, if I show you the, um – so in the middle section here, this middle block, um, it's slightly further – that is slightly closer, um, than the equivalent part of the consented scheme, but, um, only by about two metres, I believe, um, and because we have these gaps here between the blocks, whereas before it was a solid, um, five-storey, um, spine on the consented scheme, um, uh, we consider that that suitably softens the impact of development in that regard. So – height difference. What is the actual height difference, please, between the original application and this new application of the various buildings? I know we've got seven, six, and six. That's the latest one. I – I've got something like five and six, and I only have – don't look – Yeah, I can get that information for you. I'm just going to bring that up for that one. So, this is in section 12 of the report, uh, paragraph 12 – 12.11 and 12.12 talks about the different absolute heights. Um, the maximum height of the consented development, i.e., the height of the tallest block, was 26.35 above ordinance datum. Um, and then the – the proposed scheme's maximum height, uh, would be 22.6, um, and this is illustrated if you look at this top drawing. It's not the easiest to see. I appreciate it. But you can see this red dotted line where my mouse is. The tip of my mouse is sort of tracking the height of the consented scheme. So, while some elements of the current proposal are taller relative to other bits, overall, the maximum height is broadly comparable, if not slightly lower, than the consented scheme. The – does that – does that – does that clarify? So, could you just tell me – the – the houses in Dundridge Close, will they – they go right the way along, so they're going to be sort of facing which two blocks? So – Or three blocks? Yes. So, if you look at the – so, the bottom – the bottom drawing here is the north elevation, which is the elevation that faces Dundridge Close. So, the relationship will be slightly different depending on which number in the row, one to eight. Some will be more situated facing directly with each of – one of these three blocks, but some of them will be, you know, situated looking more into these gaps between the buildings. So, the – you know, the impacts of the development in terms of neighbour immunity will vary slightly. But because we have these gaps where previously there was a five-storey – five-storey sort of wall of development for an – with the consented scheme, this significant – these gaps significantly mitigate the impact in terms of outlook, sense of enclosure, and you'll also see it in the daylight-sunlight results that it – so, what I – what I would summarise to say is that the neighbour immunity impact of the current proposal is comparable to that of the consented scheme. But I think, in some respects, these gaps will be more appreciated by the residents once the scheme is – is built, if it is. So, that's – that's what I would say on the matter. So, Pat, basically, when we approved the last scheme, it was one long block, which basically blocked out the light, the natural sunlight for the whole street. What we're saying now is, with these large gaps between the buildings, there's more chance of daylight-sunlight coming through. Obviously, as the sun comes round, you'll get the different angles. So, during the day, there will probably be slightly more benefit to the residents of Dandridge than there was with the previous application, because there's more – there's more space. Yeah, let Olu come in, and then we'll come back. Olu? All right, take it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Joe, for your presentation. You said that 35% of affordable, and you said, according to the mayor of London, whatever. Can you give us more details what that means? Is that in line with our policy? Thank you. Yes, so the scheme achieves the London plan minimum of 35% affordable housing, and that's also supported by the Greenwich Core Strategy. And what I was referring to with regard to the rental levels in particular for the affordable units being set by the mayor, so if you look at paragraph 11.6 in the main planning board report, I copied in the definition, and if you'd like me to, I can summarise that, and that's basically the affordable student accommodation, the rental cost for the academic year would be equal to or below 55% of the maximum income that a full-time student studying London and living away from home would receive as a maintenance loan from the government. So, in essence, if you were receiving the full maintenance loan from the government, then you would only be spending 55% of your overall income, overall loan and maintenance grant on your living accommodation, and that's what the mayor of London considers to be genuinely affordable, and that's for all student housing schemes in London, and it's set each year by the mayor to account for rising costs, et cetera. Does that satisfy you? Thank you. Thank you. These weighty issues, my question is quite trivial, but I just want to put it down as a mark-and-wear for that car to park, and I think the time slot on this, I think, is 9 to 6.30, which I think is just about doable for the people who would hold on to the opportunities to keep one. Yeah, so, as I said before, there is a CPCA, as you mentioned, 9 to 6.30, I think you said, and the students wouldn't be able to get applied, they would not be able to apply for a permit, and we would do this by amending the traffic order, and that would be part of the Section 106, and that process has to be completed prior to occupation of the whole scheme. They can't occupy until they've satisfied the Section 106 clauses, so it wouldn't be the case that they could build the scheme out and then not comply with those requirements. The second point that you mentioned is that some students, because the hours are only 9 to 6.30, might try to chance it and either park outside of those hours and thus impact parking stress. However, we haven't had any comments suggesting that from the highways officer. The highways officer seemed satisfied that the waiting restrictions or the hours of operation of the CPZ was sufficient. I believe the applicant has also submitted parking surveys to consider if people were to park there without the benefit of a permit, it wouldn't have an unacceptable impact on parking stress. But more generally speaking, car ownership is very low for students, particularly in London. Many students these days can't even drive. There will be a fair proportion of the students who will be international students and wouldn't have the right to drive here, or probably wouldn't. And also, on average, a student only spends sort of three days a week at university, so they would have to find somewhere to park the car for 24 hours on several days of the week. So it probably, in my opinion, wouldn't really be practical to try and have a car without a permit here, if that makes sense. Whether there's an opportunity to review the waiting restrictions, it's not something that's been discussed with highways or with the applicant, and I'm minded to say that it's not necessary in this instance, but I'm happy to have a further conversation if you think it's worth having. So, Joe, while we're on the subject... Sorry for butting in, members, but while we're on the subject of parking, what about the commercial units and staff? Yeah, so they would also... Well, because the site is in a CPZ, between 9 to 6.30, you know, normal commercial operating hours, if they were to park on the street, they wouldn't be able to obtain a permit in the first place, so they would be... The CPZ would prevent them parking, basically. They'd end up getting a ticket, I'd assume. So in terms of the... You mentioned, and while we're on the subject, I suppose, in terms of parking, as I said, there are these two blue-badge parking spaces that we're proposing behind the site, so if I was a customer or potentially a disabled member of staff that could use those bays if I had a blue-badge, so I don't think we should be penalising or preventing people who have a blue-badge from parking if they need to go. But what about deliveries? I mean, we don't know what businesses are going to go into those commercial units. Woolwich Road is a busy road, and because of the LTNs, it's pretty packed in the mornings. What's going to happen regarding deliveries, loading, and stuff like that? So if you'll see here in the top left-hand side, so this is on Downbridge Close, there's a new delivery and servicing bay that will be marked. This will serve both the student housing element of the scheme as well as the pink commercial units here at the bottom, and the application's got a delivery and servicing plan which demonstrates that this bay is suitably located and sufficient to meet the delivery and servicing needs. I appreciate that we don't know at this point what exactly the end use of these commercial units will be, but there'll be a Class E use, which is a high street use, and highways officer as well as transport for London are satisfied with this arrangement. Because of the cycle lane, there's no ability to park on Woolwich Road outside the site. So that's unlikely that that's going to be an issue if that's real concern. Sorry, members, I'm just going back to a couple of months where we had a metro shopping thing that came before us, and we were told what sort of palaver they were going to go through with deliveries, and there was all sorts of stuff, and here we are looking at three commercial units, one loading bay, which seems to be quite a distance from the front doors of the commercial units, and I'm just looking... Well, I'm looking at a problem. I'm looking at a problem. If I could add one last thing on this. So if you look at the consented scheme, the arrangement, if you look at the bottom here in this plan, so the consented scheme, which was for 58 residential units, and then a much larger area of commercial floor space, yet we still, you know, the servicing bay and facilities are more or less the same. So in terms of this arrangement, the principle has really been established by the consented scheme. Thanks, Chair. Lardy. I'll come to... I'll do Lardy, and then we'll come back for the second round. Yeah? Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to go back to the council, about what I asked earlier, and this is about affordability. I'm very concerned. So I'm looking at section 6.2, where it says that it's only 35% of the units that will be affordable student accommodation. So that means 65% will be non-affordable. Am I right? That's one. It will be great to have an idea. I know it's going to be very difficult, because obviously market fluctuates. We don't know when, you know, the property will be developed. How much that affordability, at least what's the affordable rent for this year? But 35% only being affordable, it's extremely concerning. So what's going to happen to the other 65%? So, yes, 35% of them would be affordable. The other 65% would be led at market rates. I don't have a figure for the market rate units, but the applicant may be able to provide this to you, because they're speaking later. But what I'll go back to is, for the affordable student accommodation, 35% is in line with the planning policy minimum. I appreciate it's a minimum, and we should be striving for additional beyond that. Perhaps the applicant can speak more to that, but I think they've satisfied the policy requirement. And it's not a huge scheme, so the economies of scale is not quite the same as some of the other student schemes that you may have seen recently. And there will also be a, in the Section 106, there'll be early and late stage reviews. So in the late stage review, if it transpires that the scheme makes, oh, no, it's not, there's no, there's only an early stage review. So, yeah, there's an early stage review. So let's go back on what I was saying. On the early stage review only, if the market changes significantly to mean that provision of a more affordable student accommodation was appropriate, then that's secured in that early stage review. But for the affordable rooms would be genuinely affordable in accordance with what the Mayor of London defines as genuinely affordable. And like I said, it's set out in Section 11.6 of the report. I don't think there's any policy grounds for us to ask for a lower rent than that, I'm afraid. But I think it is a 55% of your total income as a student going on your rent isn't too bad, I don't think. Because you're considering they don't have any utilities to pay for. There's lots of facilities on site. So in general, it is genuinely affordable. Am I making sense? Chair, can I ask further questions? So I remember you mentioned earlier that a percentage of the students would be international students. So using the gauge that of the fact that we're measuring what affordability based on student finance. It's a bit erroneous because some percentage of those who will be renting there will be international students who would not be using student finance at all. That's the first one. The second thing is, and this is up to Chair and the rest of the panel, if we can push to have more than 35%, 35% is a minimum. If we can push to have more, I think it would be great. Instead of 35%, 66 units out of the 190. 35%, like you said, is a minimum. If we can have more than that, it will benefit us. Thank you. Well, the rest ends up and the users as well. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Can I go back, Joe? I found here, it's the Transport and Highways consultation have said that any parking would have to be, that any demand would have to be met by curbside availability. and it is important because I know it's totally different. I live near Avery Hill University. I know the traffic isn't, the P-Tel rating probably isn't as good, but they've got masses of parking on site, always full, and parking always down the Avery Hill Road and round the side streets. And that will always be, and, you know, I might, oh, but that will always happen. And you will also as well, you know, you've got to take into consideration, and I said this before about students, where are, when a student goes to university at the beginning and the end of term with all their luggage, I know things have changed, they certainly have, I know my own grandson, where are they going to be able to park? But we've also, as well as the residential, sorry, the commercial units, we have got, because the deliveries, students, I know, I know from my own grandson, they still like the Uber deliveries, deliveries, where are they going to go? Also, what about, I've got, perhaps I should ask the applicant, the refuse side of it? Is there going to be room for the refuse lorry to do a sweep? To turn, you know, round? And also, my other issue is, where are the bins going to be situated? Because we all know that in an ideal world, they're not, well, you know, we're all students at some point, and often you do get quite a lot of rovation, recycling, and because of the, so I just, my concerns are, yes, still parking, and the fact that transport and highways have said that any additional will have to go on the curbside, I don't know how far away that is, where, as I say, are they going to park when they come at the beginning of term? But that's my main, my other main question is, which I'd like to go back to, you said that all the sunlight and daylight reports had been carried out and were all fine, but in 16.22, it says, this is referring to daylight, of 38 rooms, and this is in Danbridge Close, of 38 rooms assessed for sunlight, 13 rooms would be affected, and when it comes to daylight, two would meet the standards, only two, so, you know, I'd sort of question that, daylight and sunlight report, that's a worry, and, and yes, sort of, I'd like to know more about the refuse and the turning points for the, and all these extra, as I say, apart, you know, we said commercial, other vehicles, is there, what about the bikes, is there plenty of storage facility for bikes as well, because Danbridge Close is still narrow, very narrow, and, and we can't be on Woolwich Road, obviously, because it's so busy, and I don't know where else, Joe, do you want to give us a quick recap, on waste management, and, cycle parking? Yeah, there was, quite a few points there, just, just to pick up on something, he said at the beginning, about car parking, so the highways officer does say that, or in his comments, he says that, because there's no on-site car parking for the scheme, in theory, anyone who lived here would have to park on street, he then, in the next paragraph, says that, the development should be secured as car free, to prevent people parking on street, so the highways officer isn't saying that the scheme would result in parking on street, because he has asked us to secure the schemes as car free, as I was setting out in some of my earlier responses this evening. In terms of pick up and drop off, you mentioned, this is an issue that is relevant to all student, purpose-built student housing schemes, the applicant has submitted a draft, pick up and drop off strategy, which, in outline, is acceptable, we've also got a condition, for them to submit, further details, once they have an operator for the site in place, to manage how people will arrive, this will include booking slots, it would also include having marshals, probably on Chilvers Street, to direct anyone who does arrive in a car, away from any points where they will cause a problem, but the pick up and drop off strategy is secured by condition, and it will be very thoroughly worked out, and there will be a review process in there as well, but as I said at the beginning of the presentation, it is in the well-located area from public transport, so hopefully that shouldn't be a problem, waste and recycling, so, if this is the ground floor plan of the proposed scheme, so, there are dedicated student accommodation bins, and also a dedicated bin store for the commercial units as well, so the bin stores are actually distributed across the site, to be near to the cores of each block, so there's a bin store here on Chilvers Street, another bin store here on Dandridge Close, and then another one here on Denham Street, and Greenwich Refuge and Recycling have reviewed this arrangement, and they're generally happy with it, in terms of both the amount of bin stores on site for storage, but also the collection arrangements, and that's also true for the commercial as well, and then you mentioned daylight, and... Sorry, sorry Joe, you've shown us the collection points for the accommodation, so where are the collection points for the commercial? Yep, so, there's two bin stores here on Dandridge Close, the larger one on my mouse, this is the residential one, and the one next door is the commercial one, so the commercial one will be collected by a private contractor, and that will be via the service bay here, which we've demonstrated is, can be accessed by a vehicle of that size, the other bin stores, the one on Chilvers Street, can be collected directly from Chilvers Street, or from the servicing bay, the one on Denham Street can be collected directly from Denham Street, and this has been agreed with the Greenwich Refuse as not problematic. So, so, so, I'm, I'm, so I'm looking at this, so the commercial units are going to go through the ground floor of the student accommodation to get to that, to get to the waste. No, so, well, that may be possible depending on the agreement between the operator of the student housing and the, and these commercial units, because if you see the cream at this cream colour here is the student housing scene, there's no direct link between the commercial and the rear of the site. However, if necessarily, bins could be to be stored within the back of house of these commercial units, and then, as necessary, transported to the bin store at the rear. I appreciate it's not an ideal relationship, but it's not an unacceptable relationship in our opinion. Sorry. Sandra. Sorry. It's all right. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to pick up one of the objectors points, which was that as a student accommodation build in, it wouldn't be council tax that students would be paying, but I assume we'd be having business rate paid on this, so they would be making it towards local amenities. So, students, I think you pointed out, students don't pay, if they're in full-time education, they don't pay council tax. I'm not sure whether there's bills of business rates charged on the student accommodation. I'm sure the applicant can address that, but in general, whether the population is liable for council tax or not, I don't think is a planning consideration. The scheme overall will pay SIL. There's various Section 26 financial contributions as well in Section 26 of the report. So, yes, there will be some payment for various services and facilities in the local area, albeit not from council tax. All right. Question about the lighting and the daylight. Yes, sorry, I was going to get back to you on that. So, in terms of the, so that, as we've mentioned in the report, the application is supported by a daylight, sunlight assessment. The properties most affected are the properties of the north on Dandridge Close, although this is the same for the consented scheme. As I think I said at the beginning, the impact of the, both, the impact of the proposed development is, in terms of daylight and sunlight on the neighbouring properties, is comparable to the consented scheme. In some cases, it's slightly better, but overall it's about the same. I'm not sure, I mean, I'm not sure you recall, because I know you were present at the previous application, but I have a slide at the back of my presentation that I included in the previous presentation for that scheme, and I'll show it to you. Just bear with me a second. This one. So, and I did point this out on the site visit for the previous scheme as well. So, these are photos of the rear elevation of the properties on Dandridge Close, and one thing that's unusual about them is that they have these quite deep, sort of, 1 to 1.5 metre, I believe, eaves, and which overhang the first floor windows quite seriously. significantly. You'll also note that the windows are very, the top of the windows is very high on the elevation, and there's not any gap between the eaves and the windows. So, what really, what's happened is that because of the way these buildings are designed, much of the daylight and sunlight is already constrained by these overhanging eaves, and that's having a far more significant impact on the daylight and sunlight performance of this, in terms of the impact, rather than the proposed developments of both of the proposed developments that have come forward on this site. However, as I said before, the, we consider the impact to be, in absolute terms, to be acceptable. we also consider that the proposed scheme's impact is comparable to the consented scheme, and in that capacity there's a precedent set, although unbalanced members may take their own opinion on it. Does that satisfy your question? I think, I think, Pat, the word, the word comparable is probably a bit deceiving. So, if you look at the new development, the fact that there are two large gaps between, between the three buildings now improves the daylight, sunlight that comes through, especially in the summer months, because the sun will come round, and because of the angle now, there will be an element of daylight and sunlight, well, sunlight, that will now come through those buildings, into Dandridge Close, whereas the previous application that was approved, didn't have, there was no opportunity for that. So, as it, as it comes round, obviously, you know, you'll get the shadows of the three, but there'll be a bit more sunlight that'll be able to come through onto Dandridge. So, I think comparable is deceiving, because it is probably, it's probably, looking at the building, there's a 40% improvement, if you were to take out the two slots. Yeah? Cool. Any further questions for the officer? No? Joe? Thank you very much. I now wish to call on John Liu. John, you want to come forward, please? Hi, John. There's a, there's a little button in the middle, red light will come on. You have two minutes. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. So, good morning. I'm sorry, good evening. Sorry. So, my name is John Liu, and I'm the owner of two Dandridge Clothes. So, I strongly oppose this proposal, because I believe that the proposed six-story structure is still too tall, and will block the daylight of my house. particularly, I believe that the daylight of my back garden and the ground floor will be heavily affected. And the loss of daylight of my house will very likely affect the mental and physical health of me and my family. And thus, it will have a negative impact on our quality of life. And in addition, I believe that the loss of daylight will very likely decrease the value of my property, which will lead to a irreversible financial loss. So, therefore, I suggest that the height of that proposed structure should be further reduced to minimize the negative effects on the lives of me and other residents of Dandridge Clothes. Thank you. Thanks, John. Any, hold on one second. Any questions? Pat? Thank you very much. Can I just ask you, the building that's there at the moment, does that, how, does that affect your light and daylight? Um, sorry? That's the, um, the, the, uh, you know, the, is, is that a, what's there at the moment? There's a, there's a, there's an old, there's an old warehouse building and a courtyard. I mean, the old warehouse, right? Yes. No, no, it doesn't affect my, the, my, the daylight of my house. No, it doesn't. Yes. And, in fact, I believe that, um, I don't think that the current, you know, the, the current, the structure of my house, I don't think is, is, is, is any, is decreasing the daylight of my, I don't think it's, it's fine now, but I, I think the proposed structure will, will surely decrease the daylight. Yeah. Thank you. And I wish to call on Sheila Keeble. Hi Sheila. Four, four minutes. Yeah, no, it's, went off again. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of East Greenwich Residents Association. Um, I think you have a bit of a dilemma here. We can see why developers like student accommodation. It's cheap to build. It's a really quick return. And it's got really high rents. Um, in fact, I can clarify some of the, um, points that you raised, because I've been looking at student accommodation across Greenwich, and I would say the average weekly room rental is over 400 pounds, which is about double what you would pay for social rent for a whole family-sized dwelling. So it's a very, very good number for a developer. So, what's the problem? You have significant loss of proper family-sized accommodation, if you go for this proposal, over what's already permitted. It does nothing for your housing numbers, which I know are a significant problem. Um, one of my colleagues on the Greenwich Society suggested that this should be described as anti-social housing. That's perhaps a bit, you know, pushing it. But it contributes nothing to a community. It's a transitory population. You've got no voters. No, not much interest in local matters. And, of course, significantly no council tax. And a very low level of SIL, I have to say, as well. So, not much for the public realm for many of these developments. We've got a significant number of developments. My counting gives, with the current and proposed, um, student dwellings in East Greenwich and Peninsula wards, because I make around 1,340 rooms. In West Greenwich, 2,193 rooms. That's a considerable number of residents if all of these get built out, which they are being built at the moment. So, what's the downside for us that live here already? Lots of pressure on local services. Often, these units become Airbnb units in the vacation, because, you know, they're there. They're empty. So, different problems for us. And, in the long run, what happens if this lucrative overseas student market suddenly disappears? Because it certainly shrunk this year. What, what do these become? Because I can't see what the use would be, though I would quite like old-age pensioner flats, just putting in my own bid here. And, and finally, I would really like to thank Councillor Greenwell for her, and your chair, your comments, on the, my personal bugbear, the waste. Speaking to other developers of student accommodation, waste is a real big problem, because, of course, students do tend to live on pizza. So, there's a massive amount of packaging waste. I don't believe that the, the site, the sites have been set aside for waste, and the collection provision is adequate. And I don't see how you get a bin lorry down Dandridge Close. It is way too narrow, and there's no turning space. So, I would like this to be really clarified before anything goes ahead. Thank you. Thanks, Sheila. Any comments? Any questions for the speaker? No? Sheila, thank you very much. And I wish to call on the applicant and his team, Sam Neill, Adil Adil, James Ewan, Luke Bullson. Evening, Chair. Hello, members. Just to introduce yourselves, my name is Sam Neill. I'm from Newmark, formerly Gerald Eve, so planning consultant on the scheme. I've got James Ewan with me, the architect from Apt Architects, and the applicant, Adil, from AVF Developments. And then we've also got Daylight Sunlight Consultant with us, and Transport Consultant with us as well, obviously, if you've got any questions. I thought, first of all, it'd probably be best for me just to respond to some of the initial queries that have been raised that potentially haven't been sort of fully answered to date. I think the first one was just in relation to the refuse lorry turn. I can confirm that track analysis has been done, and it can turn suitably within that space, and it's been confirmed with the highways officer that it's acceptable. I know the point was raised about loss of council tax, and obviously the revenue loss that would have. I think what we have to bear in mind is that there will be business rates for the commercial uses in the space. I think we also have to factor in that there are significant socioeconomic benefits that come from PBSA developments in the area. Sorry to flick through papers, but I think just to pick up on a few key facts, I think there's obviously, during the construction phase, it's obviously noted within the economic statement that was submitted with the application, there would be 104 full-time equivalent jobs during construction. The estimated GBA was £5.6 million during that time. The estimated student expenditure is £1.6 million per annum, and that's primarily focused within the local area. And then as Joe's alluded to, there's a potential for up to 32 new jobs from the scheme as well, and that'd be a mixture from the commercial units, as well as from the management team at the PBSA scheme as well. I know a comment was raised by one of the objects in terms of decrease of value. I think it's fair to say that's not a planning matter to be considered. I just wanted to flag that just in case people weren't aware. In terms of comments made by the East Greenwich Residence Association, in terms of rental levels, I think it's fair to say that these are primarily set by the university, and I know that concerns were raised about, obviously, the 35% affordable that's provided, but in terms of policy, that's the minimum requirement that's requested to obviously then fast-track the scheme, and that's what's been set out here. I know a comment was raised about the lack of community that's brought forward in terms of from PBSA schemes. I think it's fair to say that's a little bit of a misconception. I think with PBSA developments, they sort of thrive in areas such as the one we're questioning today, particularly noting all the shops, cafes and restaurants nearby and the ability for students to use those facilities, as well as getting involved in terms of job creation and sort of events and sports teams, et cetera, that happen in the area. So they do get heavily involved in the local areas where they are, even if they're considered to be transient. I think the final comment I just wanted to make was, obviously, there was a comment about SIL and how student accommodation probably doesn't pay the same SIL levels to residential. I think if you look at the charging schedule for the Royal Borough of Greenwich, the SIL levels are slightly different between PBSA and residential. However, we have to also factor in that for a residential scheme, that affordable housing is normally SIL exempt, for which PBSA affordable student accommodation isn't, and so it's not as easy as just comparing apples with apples. There's sort of different calculations that are carried out, and I don't have the figures in front of me, but it's not necessarily saying that it's a lower figure that comes out. I think they were the main questions that were sort of flagged during the time. Adil. Hi, everyone. My name's Adil, and I am the director of ABF Developments. We are an independent developer contractor based in Bromley, who specialises in small-to-medium-sized residential and mixed-use developments, predominantly in south-east London. We acquired this site in 2023 from the previous owners, who at the time had just secured the current residential consent. Our ambition from the offset was to revisit planning and given the site's location to design a high-quality PBSA scheme, which would serve to meet growing demand for the quality student accommodation within the borough. We started this process by engaging with Gerald Eve, who we have a long-standing relationship with, to pull together a team who would deliver a scheme that would meet our brief, which was a building of high-quality, using robust materials, and that would stand the test of time. A building that would look just as good as it does today decades down the line, and I think they've done an amazing job in doing that, while also carefully considering the location of the site and the surrounding buildings. Our intentions with this site, as with most of our developments, is to build the site out and retain long-term. From the early stages of our planning journey, we've been in discussions with the University of Greenwich, who have shown strong interest in the scheme for many reasons, but mainly to the fact that it's not too big, it's within walking, cycling distance to the main campus, and it is not high-rise, unlike many other PBSA schemes coming forward in the borough. Our last meeting with the University was on the 20th of January, where we discussed terms, and subject to a positive outcome this evening, we have a meeting scheduled for March to discuss next steps. We have also started our post-planning process in ring-fencing funds and resources to be in a position to move this scheme forward to construction phase as soon as possible, and after internal meetings and with the design team, we are confident that we'll be able to clear the site by Q3 this year and by Q1 next year, subject to a successful consent this evening. Thank you very much, and any questions? Lade, Pat. Thank you, Jeff. You said that after acquiring the site, you thought of the best form of property, of the best form of structure to put there. Was there any consultation with residents to find out what's fit for purpose? Was there any consultation to probably co-produce about the type of design they want, what would they like to be in their neighborhood? Definitely recognising that these are people's homes, they've lived there all these years. Did you consult with them? How many times did you consult? I know we have 10 objections here, but from your side as developers, did you consult with them? So, in terms of student accommodation, we acquired the site after it was consented by the previous owners. They were commercial investors, they got planning, we bought the site. Our intention from the offset was to repurpose the site for PBSA because we didn't feel that that was the best use for the site at the time. And even prior to purchase, we had a meeting with the University of Greenwich to see what their demands were, which was very positive. And we also met with a wider team to establish that this was the right thing to do there. And at that point is when we proceeded. So, in effect, you did not consult? No. Oh, for me, okay. Sorry, let me just add to that bit. So, we undertook extensive public consultation during the pre-application process that involved a dedicated consultation website, newsletter distribution to circa 1,400 addresses. We had two stakeholder meetings, one with the Greenwich Society and one with Councillor Hannan. But in addition, we did reach out to other amenity societies within the local area to see if they wanted to have a meeting. We held four in-person public exhibitions at the site. So, obviously, bearing in mind some people struggle to travel if it's elsewhere, we picked a spot where it couldn't be any closer. And then there was also door-to-door canvassing of 300 local residents. So, we did everything that we could do to obviously consult about the proposals coming forward and obviously took into account comments that were raised. And I think it's fair to say, as the officers may allude to as well, is that obviously we undertook extensive sort of pre-application with the planning team here as well to make sure the design was appropriate for all those who were considering it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Right. Can I put you right? You just said before in your last statement that it was going to be commercial buildings before the planning permission, which was granted in February 2023, was to provide 58 residential dwellings. So, that wasn't quite accurate, the statement that you made before. Can I just ask you, this is a very busy road, Willitch Road. What about the traffic management during the actual construction of this scheme? I don't know. We haven't heard about that. And also, am I right in thinking that there's a loss of a pocket park area with seating on, is it, which street is it? Children's Street, one of the streets. So, I just wondered, on, yeah, Children's Street. So, yeah, those, so actually I'm going back, it was 58 residential units, but basically I'm sort of concerned about the traffic management because those roads at the back are so narrow. How that's going to happen on that very, very busy road? And we haven't talked about the loss of pocket park area, which was there in the last application. And the width of the pavement on Willitch Road, somewhere I've read that that would have to be probably widened. I don't know. And if you've got, now you're thinking of having the doors on the corner because you will have to sort of make room to accommodate so there's no health and safety risks, a wider pavement there. And the other things are, I'm not quite sure, I can't remember exactly whether we've discussed it tonight, how wide that road is. Because if, for example, a car happened to be parked there, you know, people park, would that lorry, that waste lorry, refuse lorry, still be able to get through? And have we considered the noise implication here? It's a very tight unit and, you know, sort of, your students, obviously they make noise and it's going to go on and on and on through the night and everything. So, has anything been considered about the noise as well? The effect it's going to, sorry, I think I've asked you about five or six. No, that's fine. I'll try and remember all of them. I think just to pick up on the traffic ones and obviously, as I've mentioned, we've got RGP, the Transport Consortium, here if they need to feed any more details. In terms of construction traffic, that's all been dealt with as part of the sort of delivery and servicing plans, construction management plans, all the transport documents that were submitted as part of the application. They've been reviewed by the Highways team at Royal Body of Greenwich and they've seen it to be acceptable. There's also a requirement for a detailed construction management plan as part of a condition to obviously look at that in further detail, which is quite standard for a scheme of this nature and we'd obviously have to be reviewed and approved by the relevant officer in the council. In terms of refuse lorries, the tracking system has obviously been undertaken to make sure that there's no sort of obstructions in relation to obviously existing parking and everything in the area so that tracking analysis has been undertaken and has been deemed to be acceptable by the Highways officer. In terms of the design points, I'll probably leave James to answer those ones as the architect on the scheme. If there was a car parked in Dandridge Close when the refuse lorry came down, would it still be able to get past? Because on one of the photographs, there was a car, wasn't there parked? Sorry, can I just get the transport sources to answer that one? Thank you. Sorry. James Colston, RGP, Highways and Transport. I won't take a seat, we'll keep this brief. But, so the tracking exercise has been undertaken as we just said there in terms of taking into account carriageway restrictions. The amendments, obviously, to the Dandridge Close parking, the parallel parking bays that are there at the moment. The servicing bay has been proposed in that location over on the western side of Dandridge Close to ensure that nobody can park in front of it and block it. That ensures, obviously, that the refuse vehicle can access it. Our tracking exercise in the transport assessment and delivery and servicing plan shows that the vehicle can reverse into that space and then drive out in a forward gear, which is the safest arrangement and minimises any reversing, which obviously is favourable in terms of pedestrian cycle and vehicle safety. Sorry, can I add something? There's actually, just on this issue of parked cars on that junction, there is, there's double yellow lines and single yellow lines to prevent cars parking there. So, this shouldn't really be an issue. Sorry, can you come back again? Sorry. If we're talking about transport modelling, sorry, Dave, talking about transport modelling, again, we don't, we're making assumptions here because you don't know what commercial businesses are going into those ground floors. Now, some of those commercial businesses, as we know, could be getting Arctic lorry deliveries. What happens then? I think it's important to highlight that this is a wider point in both the PBSA and the commercial. So, obviously, if we just take the PBSA to start with, that's going to be marketed as a car-free scheme, so parking, obviously, wouldn't happen. The commercial, equally, the delivery and servicing plan that's obviously going to be conditioned and adhered to, any prospective operators would be moving into those units and knowing that they would have to accord with those arrangements down there. So, in essence, they automatically, organically, would be able to use the arrangements otherwise. To be honest, looking at Woolwich Road, I would have thought that you would have been, I mean, obviously you've done some financial calculations on revenue, so you would have, you would have worked in some sort of rental value of those commercial units and you would have looked at what businesses would have been suitable. So, I'm, I'm a bit bemused that you've not worked out potentially what, what your desired type of occupant's going to be, whether it's a mini-mart, a news agent or whatever. So, yeah, I'm, I'm a bit bemused by that, that answer. So, is it okay just to respond to that point? Sorry. I think it's the case of obviously with Class E, there's, it offers that flexibility compared to the old used classes. I think when it's all assessed, it's assessed generally on the worst case scenario to obviously allow for that flexibility. I think it's fair to say as part of the delivery and servicing management plan, it sets a principle for the type of vehicle that can occupy the delivery and servicing bay and obviously it's through that condition that restriction will also be sort of applied within that documentation. So, ultimately, as James was alluding to, anyone that then looks to occupy that unit would have to adhere to that delivery and servicing plan which would apply the vehicle size that could be allowed to that, to that space. so ultimately, if they were to bring large vehicles, they'd be in breach of that plan. I don't think it's down to the actual shops, what vehicles turn up with the deliveries, isn't it? Manufacturers will turn up with whatever vehicles they've got on the road. But, Dave. Yeah, the, I've already been on this planning board for about, since last May and it seems, it seems to me that almost every board, any board we have, somebody comes and shows us that slide, Joe, that we discussed earlier. But, you know, I'm concerned about whether we're just wasting our time. I was assured by your comments that you could get to site by the beginning of 26. I figure that's occurring at the moment. What's your view? Yeah, no, it's obviously a valid question. Obviously, note the point that you are getting several of them through at the moment in planning boards. I think, as part of the planning application, there was a student needs assessment that was submitted to support the application. It obviously went through various details, not only considering existing student accommodation, but also looking at schemes within the development pipeline as well, within the local area. And even through those assessments, it was still considered that there was a significant shortfall in student accommodation. accommodation, and the ratio was approximately four students to one bed, just to show the significant shortfall in the amount of student accommodation that's in the area. So I think it is a valid point, obviously, when you see quite a few of these coming forward about whether there's still the demand for them. But I think it's fair to say that there's been a significant shortfall for a number of years. In terms of, obviously, the consideration about whether there'll be a reduction in the number of international students sort of over the coming years, I think I'm not necessarily in a position to confirm the exact figures and how that would impact, but I think it's fair to say that as demonstrated in our assessment, even taking that into account year on year, there's an increase in the amount of students that are needing student accommodation. And obviously, if the developments can't keep up with that, then the demand and supply ratio is going to get worse. Hopefully that answers you. I think a bigger worry for us is the fact that we're losing family homes and with 28,000 an increase in families on the list, you know, student accommodation, as we can see on that map, is coming fast and furious. I think just a rough calculation on there, we're looking at 3,700 roughly on that list. If we listen to Sheila Keeble, the figures that Sheila produced were 4,200. You know, 1340 at East Greenwich and 2,993, I think it was, for West Greenwich. So, you know, there's a demand for all sorts of accommodation, but family is probably more important to us than my student accommodation, which is almost bordering on temporary accommodation. Any further questions, Dave? Those numbers don't include co-living either, do they? No. You can send them separately. That's okay. So, I've got a couple from the recent survey in the Times that there aren't students, it says Generation Z are not sleeping forward to a bed these days. Yeah, I think just to pick up on the point that the Chair mentioned, I think, yes, there is that concern about, obviously, there's seemingly a PBSA taking over the ability to deliver C3 housing. I think it's fair to say, and I'm sure you're aware from previous planning boards and obviously reviews, that PBSA does help to contribute towards the housing numbers, not only locally but regionally within London. I think it's fair to say as well that, obviously, take into account the point that I made that there's a significant shortfall in supply at the moment compared to demand for students. You have to consider where those students that aren't in PBSA at the moment are actually living, and it is generally in sort of what you would class as conventional C3 housing, potentially in the form of HMOs, and if you take into account that with the PBSA schemes being developed, if that helps to accommodate those students, then those homes get freed up for family housing and can be considered potentially more conventional C3 housing than you might see otherwise generally in developments brought forward today. Hopefully that's helpful. Coming back to waste management, Council has a 2030 carbon neutral plan where we are trying to get as many people in the borough recycling. We need to get our quotas up. Can you tell me how your waste is going to be managed internally so that we're not dealing with contaminated loads once they come into the bins? Hello again. I think it's important to note that all of those details are covered in an operational site waste management plan, all of which have been the details within that have been reviewed by the highways team. That's about the bins, what I'm asking about. How are you going to manage the students within the buildings so that you've got the recycling sort of rules adhered to so that we're not dealing with contaminated loads when they get to the bin? You've got a number of students there and as we've been, you know, as we were, we're well aware, they like eating takeaways and pizzas and God knows what. What I'm asking is how is the building supervised and how are you going to make sure that the recycling is recyclable and not contaminated because it costs us more money to deal with contaminated loads once we get them down to where they've got to go. Before you answer that, I'd still also like to know about the commercial waste and how the commercial waste is going to be managed and how they are meant to get from their commercial units round to wherever it is they're going to put their waste. Thanks. Thank you for that. I think just in terms of waste and how students will sort of be managed in terms of their waste in their sort of cluster flats, there's a 24-hour sort of management team that will be located at the site and the general process will be them to make sure that students who are living there are adhering to the relevant requirements and that will include obviously consideration towards recycling, et cetera. I think just in terms of the commercial waste point, I think it was sort of partly alluded to earlier that if there's not necessarily agreement between the commercial units and the sort of student operator to be able to access internally through the student amenity space, the commercial waste would be walked around to the dedicated commercial bin store and then obviously the management team would then at the site would then make sure that the commercial waste is collected in the right manner when the waste vehicle turns up. Hopefully that answers it. Any further questions? No? Gentlemen, thank you very much. Members, I'm going to open this up for deliberation. Olu. Yes, thank you, Chair. And I was concerned with some of the items raised there, for example, the narrow road, but I was reassured that there's going to be a double yellow line there. Is that correct? If I can ask the officers that question? Yes, so reference was made to this delivery and servicing bay here, and it's on Dandridge Close, but it's accessed by Childress Street. It's the junction, so I looked just now, and there are double yellow lines preventing cars parking on that junction, as you would expect on any junction. So that will prevent unlawful parking there, or parking that would obstruct the access to the site. Thank you. And, Chair, you are concerned about recycling for the students. Yes, I do have concern about that, but having said that, the students of these days are more environmentally aware, and they do whatever they can to make sure that the planet is, so I think, from my daughter's way of thinking, even if I try to push something, they say, no, you have to rinse this before you do that. So I think my concern there is being elevated with what the students of these days believe in terms of environmental. I think there's another concern that was raised, but I can't remember that. Having said that, Chair, oh, yes, I remember now. So we are having more of student accommodation. Does it mean the Royal Borough of Greenwich is governing a good university? university? If there is no demand for it, if the universities around this place is not doing well, we won't have such numbers. So, to me, I will be supporting this application. Thank you. We got there. Dave, Lardy, Pat. I mean, I'll support the application, Chair. I think I've got reservations about much of it, and a bit of scepticism, which I also alluded to earlier, but I was assured by the applicant that they would be on site a year from now. And, you know, I think there are issues, there are flaws, but by and large, I think there's more good in this than bad, and I'm happy to support it. Thanks, Dave. Lardy. I have my concerns, and based on two major things that Dave said earlier, and I kind of alluded to when I first asked the question around the affordability, the percentage that is affordable. Also, it's the fact that there is an over-concentration of student accommodation. In my own opinion, I'm not sure how that fits into the boroughs strategy of housing for all, where we can. Majority of these students are not students who are residents of Greenwich. They're coming from outside. Secondly, for me, it's, I don't know. I will be abstaining if we're voting on this, and that's mainly because I feel that if there's anything we should be doing, it's about increasing and encouraging developers to go for, to develop properties that would help to reduce the over 20,000 people who are waiting on the housing register. Thank you. I agree that we need more houses. We need more houses for families. I don't think, I also know that yes, there's a place for student accommodation, but I don't think this is the right place for student accommodation. Having visited the area, yes, whenever it was last year, it's not the right place. The residents, the noise, as I mentioned before, students make noise, you know, and that's part of the life, and that is going to affect the residents who live on those three streets. So, and I'm also concerned about the width of the road and it being abused, the parking system, and about the residential units, you know, as we've heard before, what they will be, and how those deliveries are going to take place. I'm not against, obviously, I've got grandchildren of my own student accommodation, but I think this is the wrong place for student accommodation, and we need houses, so I will be voting against the application, Chair. Thanks, Pat. Sandra. Thank you very much. I think that there's a great need for houses as well as student accommodation. I feel that students of today have got higher aspirations for the kind of accommodation they look for, and it has to be built. The University of Greenwich, when I worked for them, had 18,000 students today. It's got 28,000 students, and a big proportion of them come from the borough, and a lot of them will end up living in this accommodation, because they'll want the away-from-home experience, even though they're local. I do think that a high street location, a busy road, is probably a good place to put students, so it's nice and accessible for them, and it is a noisy place anyway, is my view. I will support this application. Thanks, Sandra. My comment now. I think the building is an improvement on the previous application. I think it does open up the area slightly. I still believe that there's going to be logistical problems with the commercial units, and I do believe that you're going to have some sort of issues with waste management, but those are not grounds for me to object. I believe our highways team and our waste management team will be on your case should these matters come to be a problem. So I will be supporting the application because student accommodation is classed as affordable and a necessity. So trying to get this to an appeal would cost us a lot of time and money, and we probably have little chance of winning because there is a precedent set from the previous application that was approved. So I am now going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. All those against, abstentions, the item is approved. Thank you. members, 8 o'clock. Does anyone need to have a quick break before I go into item 6? No? We're all good? Okay. We now move on to item 6, land rear of 148 and 156 Plumstead High Street and 148 to 150 Plumstead High Street, Plumstead SE18 1JQ, reference 231433F. Louise. Thank you, Chair. Members are considering the development at land rear of 148 to 156 Plumstead High Street and 148 to 150 Plumstead High Street. Members will note that an addendum has been issued for this item which covers corrections since the report was published and revisions to the conditions. The application is being presented to members due to the number of objections received which was 27. The site is located on the southern side of Plumstead High Street and to the eastern end of the High Street. Here is an aerial view. Shall I continue? and relates to a part two, part three storey building located at the rear. Plumstead High Street is a busy commercial area consisting of a wide range of shops and services. The majority of buildings are two and three storeys in height with some four and five storey flatted development in the wide context such as Strand Court and 147 to 153C Plumstead High Street. Here is the building's frontage onto the High Street. The existing building features commercial units at ground floor level and first floor and six two-bedroom residential maisonettes located at first and second floor. The main entrance to the existing maisonettes is located right here by the Pound Land Store. The residential entrance is a staircase rise up to a courtyard at the first floor level from which each of the existing maisonettes is accessed. And these are some photos of the surrounding sites. So the eastern boundary of the site is boarded by this public footpath which slopes up to Strandfield Close and also in this photo you can see one of the existing properties that looks onto the eastern boundary which is number 160 Plumstead High Street. This is the reverse view of the footpath which runs the length of the site and adjoins the High Street with Strandfield Close. Here is a photo of the rear of the site from Tucson Road. Vehicle access for both the application site and the adjacent Iceland store is gained from the rear as shown by these arrows. And here is just another close-up of that access. Here we have a photo from the rear of the site. This area is currently used for informal parking, refuse storage and loading area for the Poundland and other commercial units. Poundland is serviced through the shutter doors shown here while the other commercial units are from the lower. So this is the reverse view looking back towards Tucson Road. To the west of the site, across the shared access with the Iceland, is a row of terrace properties and numbers from 1 to 25 Tucson Road. And this is the gable end of number 25 Tucson Road. And then this is the rear boundary, which is directly adjoined by number 29 Tucson Road. So here we can see the lower ground floor to the rear of the site, which provides access to the remaining commercial units. In addition to the commercial use access, we can see the roof of the existing substation here and the part two, part three storey commercial section of the existing building as viewed from the side. There is a walkway along the side of this building, which provides access to the first floor courtyard serving the maisonettes and Poundland. So here are the existing maisonettes on the first floor courtyard space. The courtyard is currently used as a communal amenity space by existing residents with independent entrances for the maisonettes also gained from this space. Access from Plumstead. High Street is via this structure, which links to the door shown previously on the previous slide, via some stairs. So looking eastward from the courtyard across the footpath, we have a three-storey residential terrace row of 160 to 176 Plumstead High Street. Again, this is the front elevation of 160 Plumstead, which was seen earlier, which is bases onto the side boundary of the site. Moving up the public footpath, we come to number 158 Plumstead High Street, which also faces onto the side boundary. And moving up further again, we have number 2 Strandfield Coast, which also faces onto the side boundary. Here we have the proposed lower ground floor level and the commercial units fronting onto the high street. The three smaller units highlighted in blue on the eastern side of the site would remain unchanged, while the larger poundland, highlighted in green, would remove the existing first floor facilities thereafter contained on the ground floor level only. In regards to the changes to the poundland store, the development will see the loss of 374 square metres at first floor level, with the revised layout comprising of some 1,018 square metres. The floor space to be lost is currently used for storage and other ancillary purposes, which the applicant is seeking to consolidate to the ground floor level. The street-facing units would be retained and would therefore maintain the integrity of the shopping frontage, while simultaneously maximising the residential output. The altered unit would be significantly larger than the adjacent commercial uses and thus would still function as a commercial space and would not result in any detrimental reduction in retail output. All commercial uses would be served by the rear service yard, which would have both lift and stair access from the lower ground floor level shown in orange, as well as the bin store and the existing substation, which you saw earlier. Primary residential access would be retained from Plumstead High Street and would serve both the existing and the proposed residence, and that's shown here. Here we have the proposed ground floor. The application proposes a four-storey extension at the rear of the building to provide 13 units. The existing space will be excavated and rationalised to provide ground floor access along the rear elevation of the building. This is a close-up of the ground floor. So the residential access from the rear of the site would also be retained, located here, but with the addition of a dedicated path to improved pedestrian safety, a new gated security system would be installed to the rear of the site, two disabled... Moving on to the first floor, here we can see the main body of the proposed enlargement and the new residential units. The scale and massing of the building fronting onto Plumstead would remain unchanged with the main new building elements set back from the principal elevation. A new enclosed structure would replace the existing wooden structure, shown previously, which currently provides the access from the high street. This would provide access to both the maisonettes and the proposed new units. A new set of stairs will also be provided in the courtyard area. The courtyard will be landscaped to provide an improved communal amenity space. The three maisonettes and the applicant's ownership would be provided with dedicated private amenity space to the front of their respective units. This was offered to all the maisonettes, however, the offer was declined by the other three residents. Here is the proposed second floor. All of the proposed units will meet or exceed the minimum requirements outlined in the National Described Space Standards and the London Plan. The majority of the units are either dual or triple aspect and there are no north-facing single aspect units. All the units will feature good levels of outlook, privacy, as well as daylight and sunlight. And this is the proposed third floor with further setbacks from the main elevation. All the proposed units would benefit from balconies to the required London Plan sizes. This would be in addition to the communal amenity space at roof level and within the existing courtyard at first floor level. So here is the proposed roof plan. As mentioned, the proposal includes a second communal amenity space at roof level with both existing and future residents having access to this area. The space will feature soft landscaping as well as solar panels and plant equipment. As with the first floor communal space, final landscaping details will be secured by condition. Placed space for younger children will be provided within the communal roof gardens with final details of equipment to be secured by condition. So here is the proposed front elevation of the building from the high street. And here we have a section showing the front elevation of the proposed enlargement which fronts onto the courtyard. And this plan shows the rear elevation with the main entrance which can be accessed from the rear as well as the refuge and cycle storage. This is the proposed west elevation which would mostly be concealed by the adjoining Iceland store. And the eastern elevation which has the footpath running adjacent. So in February 2021 and was subsequently dismissed on appeal. This is the layout of the first floor of the refuse scheme. The appeal of the refusal of the 2019 application was dismissed in part because the inspector considered the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring residents at 29 Tucson Road through unacceptable loss of privacy to their garden and an un neighbourly sense of enclosure. Number 29 is located here. So obviously the separation distance. The other reason for the dismissal of the appeal for the 2019 application was due to the harm of the living conditions through discomfort of future occupants of three single aspect flats arising from vehicle fumes at the delivery loading bay area. And those single aspect flats are located here. So obviously that would be first, second and third floor. It should be mentioned that a scheme for nine units was refused in 2021 for underdevelopment of the site and similar to the 2019 scheme harm to the living conditions of future occupants of the flats arising from vehicle fumes at the loading delivery bay area. So in order to address the comments made by the Implanning Inspectorate the applicant has reduced the massing, increasing the separation distance and introducing design features and screens to minimise overlooking. Therefore the relationship between the proposal and number 29 Tucson Road has been improved. The scheme has also been amended and the proposed residential units have been arranged that there are no single aspect units above the delivery bay. in order to address these amenity issues under the current proposal. These can be broken down into 4-1 bed, 5-2 bed and 4-3 beds. All of the units will be for private sale. In respect of affordable housing, the applicant put forward that the development would be unable to viably provide any on-site affordable housing due to factors including bill costs and other required financial contributions. The viability assessment submission was independently assessed by one of the council's regular specialists with the outcome of the assessment showing that the development would generate a deficit. Despite the predicted deficit, the applicant has agreed to pay a commuted sum of $233,000 towards off-site affordable housing. This would be in addition to other financial contributions including some $13,000 towards Highway Works and the Plumstead Good Growth public realm improvements as well as contributions towards GLAAB, cycle training and off-site carbon offset. Here's a high-level CGI image of the front of the site. Here we can see the front elevation due to the proposed development being set back within the site views of the primary elevation from Plumstead High Street would remain largely unchanged. The scheme proposes a range of materials including red brick, zinc cladding, aluminium windows and louvers and render. This is the rear of the site from Tooson Road. The proposed development meets the BRE guidelines for daylight, sunlight and overshadowing save for a few isolated transgressions which are held in the report. This is a high-level CGI showing the rear and eastern elevations. The application, as mentioned earlier, did receive 27 objections with concerns raised in regards to overlooking, loss of privacy, sunlight, daylight, noise, pollution, design, scale, safety, no affordable housing. A summary of the consultation responses can be found in Section 7 of the report and these have been dealt with comprehensively within the report. And one final CGI. The proposals achieve a total CO2 saving of 65.1% which meets the required specified by the London Plan. As development will not achieve 100% reduction in carbon emissions above Part L in building regulations, a contribution towards carbon offset will be secured in Section 106. The urban greening factor for the site has been calculated at 0.3. Although this is below the 0.4 target, members are asked to consider officer recommendation. Thanks, Louise. Questions for the officer. Sandra. Thank you very much. I know this site very well because it's quite close to where I live. I don't recognise it from the CGI at all, of course. Have you got any images of how the front will look? You know, the high street view? Okay. And does it... I guess it is a little bit taller than the units at the front, fronting onto the front of the high street. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. You had a picture earlier that showed how it would look like with the front shops. It was earlier on. Yeah. Yeah. With the pharmacy and then you've got three-storey terrace housing adjacent to that. Yeah, it was just really hard for me to imagine when I was looking at the CGI's how it would kind of work. But, yeah. I mean, it's a kind of... It's been an issue for a long time, the back, the Chusam Road entrance for loads and loads of reasons with vehicles sort of reversing out, lots of pollution, localised flooding, all kinds of problems. I mean, it would be good, I guess, to see some better use of it. Thank you. That's enough for me. Pat. Thank you, Chair. I don't know how anybody feels, but I feel confused, very confused, and I don't really know the area. And I just wonder if I feel that I would benefit from a site visit. I don't know whether anybody can second that. I really do. Have you got any aerial... some other aerial photographs there? Of the proposed development or the existing? The proposed development or the existing? The existing, please. I have the original... Yeah. Sandra, can you share that Google with Pat? No, no. Gladly, can you do an aerial? Yeah, do an aerial. Sorry, that. Any chance of blowing that up? No. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. So, I think from this image, the one thing that you don't get is the change in levels. So, Plumstead High Street is lower, and then it rises up towards the back. And I think that's... So, that is uphill. That's... Which, again, you... It's easier from that. 29, 15, low, I'm now happy I don't know if you've got any... Anybody... No. But, you know, I sort of take your word. Yeah, I didn't say 29 Tucson Road was happy. I said how they had addressed the planning inspectorate's concerns. Yeah. I was wondering as well, you see, there's reference to 160 Plumstead High Street, 158 Plumstead High Street, and two Strandfield Close, where they are all affected. Would it be possible to find out from any... how they're going to be affected? I can talk you through it. If you hold on a second. Sorry. The layout plan. So, the frontage... The frontage on Plumstead High Street is not going to change. No. So, you're still going to have... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was talking about how it's been... Because it's just seen before, but all the properties are going to be affected. I think the report obviously goes through all the neighbouring properties. So, it talks about in particular 160 Plumstead Road, which is this one here, which fronts onto the public... So, this is a public footpath that runs along here. So, 160 Plumstead Road fronts onto that public footpath, and this one here, which is a single-storey... I don't know if you remember the photo of the single-storey building. That is number 158 Plumstead High Street. And then you have another property here, which is two Strandfield close, and in appearance it's very similar to 160 Plumstead. This one here. Okay. So... So, in terms of the relationship between the proposal building and the properties that run along the public footpath, that remains very similar and comparable to the 2019 scheme that was refused and was dismissed to appeal. And in that, the inspector obviously looked at the relationship with these properties and did not refuse it on those grounds. It was its relationship to number 29, which is this one here, as the proposal projected further forward, and the separation gap between... The separation distance between the garden and the side elevation of number 29, Tucson Road. So, in terms of the distances, they are comparable. Where there are deviations, they are highlighted in the planning board report. So, for example, the third floor has a slightly different layout to how it was under the 2019 proposal. But in terms of separation distances, they are quite similar. I can go through them if you'd like. Louise, can you... So, can you just... Just for now, can you give us the distance from the higher levels of the residential to the fronts of the properties on Plumstead High Street? And then also give us the distance from the back of the new development to number 29. Okay. So... I think that'll make it clearer for you, Pat. Yeah? Okay. So, the closest that the building comes to the existing maisonettes at front onto Plumstead High Street is this living room kitchen area here, which between here and here is 12 metres, but only at this point at first floor level. And in order... Because, obviously, because of the separation distance, there are windows there, but the applicants are proposing for those to be obscured. And in addition, they are also proposing to have louvers put on the maisonettes that they own to aid... to prevent any perceived overlooking issues. So, the building then steps back, and it steps back between sort of 15 and then 17 metres. So, this is all at first floor level. If you go up to third floor level, I believe it steps back as much as 21 metres. So, you can see here that, again, the building is constantly stepping back. I think that was the... And then this is the third floor here. Sorry, if I just go back to the first floor again. So, from the properties number 160, Plumstead High Street, to the proposed development, you're looking at 14 metres. But, again, it is at a different level. Obviously, as mentioned earlier, it slopes up along the public footpath. The number 158, the separation distance between that property and the nearest window, I believe it's 19 metres. And that's... It's a very unusual property, that one. And then for 150... Sorry, number 2, it's Tranfield Close, and the separation distance is just over 14 metres, and I think it increases to 15.4 metres at third floor level. And then with the separation distance between number 29, Tucson Road, and the development, I think... I think it was 9 metres under the 2019 scheme. Obviously, the applicant can correct me if that's wrong. And it goes up to 15.5 metres at first floor level. And in addition to increasing that separation distance with number 29, there are screens on this balcony here to prevent any sort of perceived overlooking to the garden area. And then 25, Tucson Road, which you can just sort of see here. I think it is about 19 metres to this balcony. What they've done here is they have actually angled windows here to prevent any perceived overlooking from this... from the kitchen into the garden of number 25. And I think from the garden to the balcony, it's about 14 metres. Does that help? Yeah. Any further questions? No further questions for the officer? Louise, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Harpinder Singh Bara, Julian Sutton, Amasidu, Sandeep Brava, and Kerry Howe. Evening, gentlemen. You have up to 10 minutes. Thank you, Chair, members. My name is Julian Sutton. I'm speaking here tonight on behalf of the applicant. I have to say, you've had a very detailed present report, and the applicant is very grateful for that. Sorry. I was just saying, you've had a very detailed presentation tonight. As such, and in the absence of any objectors speaking tonight, I will try and be brief. We are very happy, though, to answer any questions at the end. And in that respect, I'm joined by Harpinder Bara from GAA Design, who is the architect for the scheme, and also by Kerry Howe from HPP, who's the applicant's viability consultant. Succinctly, this proposal will deliver 13 high-quality units on a brownfield, underutilised site, which you've heard from the member experiences some problems, in a sustainable location within Plumstead High Street district centre. All of the units are dual aspect. They all meet national space standards. They all have appropriate levels of internal natural light and private and communal amenity space, including children's play space. We are proposing five family units, which is about 31%. We're enhancing the biodiversity on the site. We are providing two accessible units on the site, and we are, through this application, going to resolve the current vehicular pedestrian conflicts, which occur at the rear of the site presently. This is a sustainable development, not just in terms of its location, but also in terms of its design. It incorporates air source heat pumps, PV. You've heard from the officer that we will achieve 65% carbon reduction over building regs, so well in excess of the 35% required. To take that through to the equivalent of net zero, there's a contribution that's being provided. Key here, obviously, is the planning history on this site, and as you've heard, there has been a previous application on this site in 2019, which was subsequently refused at appeal in July 2022. And that appeal was refused for two reasons only. One, issues to do with the overlooking of 29 Tewson Road, and secondly, as the officers advised, to do with the incompatibility of the previous design in terms of having single aspect units overlooking the service yard. What's key, though, is that in all other respects, in terms of the overall scale bulk amassing, in respect to relationship to the other neighbouring properties, the inspector considered the scheme acceptable. So, we have learnt from that, and we have worked up a revised scheme in conjunction with your officers. It's now a scheme of reduced scale bulk and mass. It uses some strategic setbacks. It has enhanced privacy features, including, as you've heard, louvers and screens. And we've obviously used, avoided any single aspect units now. In that respect, we have addressed the two previous reasons for concern. In terms of the neighbouring property at 29 Tewson Road, previously, the appeal scheme that was refused, the separation distance was eight metres. it's now up to 15 and a half. So, we've effectively doubled the separation distance. And as you've heard, we've removed any single aspect units from the site in terms of that second reason for refusal. We're happy to answer any detailed questions on that, should you wish. In respect to just the issue of affordability, the applicant is voluntarily providing a contribution of £233,000 as an affordable housing contribution. That is an increase on the previous contribution that was offered in terms of the refused appeal scheme, which was £200,000 in total. So, it's about a £6,000 46% increase, 44% increase per unit. There are various other contributions that this application incorporates, including for local labour support, highways contribution. So, the total contribution is almost £270,000. In summary, we know, we appreciate that this borough has a challenging housing target. We appreciate where you are in terms of your five-year housing land supply, which is about two and a half years. So, this is a proposal on an existing residential site which makes more efficient use of that site in an accessible town centre location. It is precisely what your policies, the London plan policies suggest we should be doing in London to meet the ongoing housing need. And as such, in summary, we would respectfully ask you as members to support the recommendation of your officer. Thank you very much. And if anyone has any questions, we're very happy to answer them. Lardai, Olu. Thank you. Thank you, Louise, for that presentation. It's very detailed. Thank you. I just want to ask, did you, what formats of consultation did you have with the local residents? Because I note that there are 27 objections. And how did you go about getting their buy-in or getting to hear their views? Were there objections? How did you respond to them? Yeah, I think we've submitted as part of the application a community involvement consultation that was carried out. In terms of the objections that have come forward, we've tried to address everything that they have mentioned or asked for. So, I think one of the items was, of course, the flu, the ventilation flu, which we have overlooking and any perceived overlooking, we've addressed that in the reduction in the masking we've done. Thank you, Chair, and thank you and thank you for your as well as detailed explanation. But when I hear there is no this property will not sustain availability irritate me. Irritates me. And then your 233,000, is he going to buy a living room there or can you explain why you cannot even provide one, you know, one flat for affordable? Sure. What I will do is I'll pass over to Kerry. We've brought Kerry Howe here with us who is the applicant's viability consultant. Kerry, would you like to just... Oh, gosh. Bring that over. Hello, Chair. Hello, members. Yes, we did provide a viability assessment. We tested putting five affordable units in the scheme and there were two reasons that didn't go forward. First of all, we couldn't get any housing associations that were interested in taking such a small allocation. They preferred 20 to 30 units just from economies of scale point of view and when we didn't model it with the expected returns for the affordable housing from the housing association, it actually lost... It proved to be not viable by about a million pounds. So, that was... So, unfortunately it just didn't add up. The viability assessment that we carried out found that even with a private scheme, it wouldn't be viable by about half a million pounds and that was reviewed by the council's consultants who were used to doing this kind of thing and they agreed with our conclusions. So, unfortunately it couldn't provide them. We were asked to test a single unit of affordable housing and and, unfortunately that still wasn't viable by more... I think it was about £600,000. So, we have tried to get affordable on there but it just didn't work out financially, unfortunately. Kerry, on that point, did you speak to the housing department at the council? I know you mentioned there you spoke to an RP but did anybody contact our housing department? We didn't contact the housing department. We weren't asked to do that and we didn't speak to them at all, unfortunately. We did model it and unfortunately it still wasn't a viable proposition. That's surprising because my understanding is that our housing team are looking for accommodation all over the borough and even outside of borough and this is right on the doorstep and I'm a bit surprised that we weren't approached because we've got families living in emergency accommodation which is costing us a lot more than normal rent and I'm sure that one department or another would have found excellent use of the properties. But, yeah, it's just a point that they weren't brought in on the consultation. Thanks. I mean, if I could just say possibly because we had modelled it and we did try and see if we could make it work financially and unfortunately it just didn't work. So, possibly that was the reason. Sandra? Thank you, Chair. Louise, do you mind putting the last image back on the screen? Not that one. It's very lovely. Is it accessed from Tewson Road for residents? Yes. So, we have access from Tewson Road but this access is this is actually this view is from the courtyard of sorts but so this yeah, Tewson Road is on that end. Okay, yeah. So, they're coming in from from the back. Yeah, so you have that envelope in the corner, that's the entrance, right at the bottom. That, that, yeah, just where your cursor was earlier. Just there, that's the entrance. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, so when you're standing at the gate you would be able to see the entry point to the building. And the wall that you can see in front of the car that's there for whatever purpose, that's the other side is the Iceland kind of delivery point, is it? Yes, yes, correct. That's correct. Okay, so there is a good separation from that. Yeah, yeah. That's good, thank you. Is that, is there going to be more availability, I can't remember, for car parking? So, we only have two car parks provided but they are for the disabled units. So, it's essentially a car free development. Yeah, I suppose what I'm sort of, you know, weighing it up against is the fact that we've got some, you've got some three-bedroomed properties which is wonderful, we desperately do need them. But with three-bedroom properties you've got families and, you know, they're going to have cars. But, I can't remember what, what is the parking like on the roads around, is there availability? Sorry, shall I jump in? Yes, so the site is in a CPZ, in the Plumstead central CPZ. It's right on the edge so actually some of the streets to the east of the site are not part of the CPZ. So, this is a car free development so the, any future occupiers will be prevented from applying for parking permits and that will be secured in the section 106. The applicant did carry out a parking survey for the surrounding streets within 200 in the surrounding streets. What time were the surveys carried out? They were carried out in the evening because obviously the CPZ prevents parking from, I think it's nine till half five. So, they were carried out outside of the CPZ hours. Any further questions? No? So, coming back, we haven't got an RP so you haven't got any affordable there and I believe in Louise's presentation, these are now going to be for sale, not rent. Is that correct? No, they would be predominantly for rent. Right, okay. They would all be for rent. So, they're all for rent because it was mentioned that they were going to be for market sale. No, no, they would be for, the client is looking to retain them for rent. Okay. Yeah. Okay, so, members, there is an early and late stage review as well. So, we have got a fallback on the 230. So, by the time these are built out, obviously, looking at the way prices are increasing, around the C18, chances are that 230 will double. So, we've got an early and late stage review and the properties are for market rent, not market sale. Okay? Sorry, Chair, can we clarify that because I read it somewhere that it's for sales. So, if you are saying it's for rent now, can the officer confirm down the police? Yeah. You may have seen it in the viability assessment where we assess them as for market sale because that provides the quickest and fastest return. What's going to happen to the existing tenants there? Do you know? So, the existing residents are not impacted by this. Not the, yeah, the existing residents are not impacted because this development sits at the back. Anyone have a question? No? Thank you very much. Thank you. Members, now open for deliberation. Sandra? I think it's a very welcome addition to a very difficult part of Plumstead where I think there's been some ASB and there's certainly been a lot of fly tipping around there and to have a very beautiful addition is very welcome and of course we welcome the family supporting the application. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I will be supporting the application. Thank you. I will be supporting the application because although, you know, I haven't seen the area research, I could see from the slides that there is a fly tipping and that is going to tidy it up and we definitely need houses and we've got some three-bedroomed houses as well. So, and it does look like a very good site so I will be supporting this application. I'll be supporting as well. Welcome, welcome the fact that we have family units here and also from the pictures of the plan that we've seen is definitely going to uplift that area. So, 100% supporting. Dave? I'm also going to support the application but what I would say is if you are struggling to find tenants, please do get in touch with the Council's Housing Department. We are in desperate need of housing and there are different rentable values for different departments. so have a chat. Give us a call. I'm now going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, there you go. Unanimous. This item is approved. Thank you very much. Members, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.