Transcript

of the Planning Committee. 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 this meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters, and you should not repeat comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to make further comments unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Counselors will get up to five. Accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups, four. Individuals, two. The applicants and their team, ten. On item four, I have councillor John Fahey, Tia Rainford, Margaret Rainford. There's no one listed for the applicant. On item five, I have councillor Nick Williams. I know he's next door. On item four, Shaqiti Singh, Daniel O'Brien, Chris Genner. On item six, again councillor Williams, Margus Powell. Again, Shaqiti Singh, sorry, Daniel O'Brien, and again Chris Genner. On item seven, on item seven, I have Jack O'Callaghan and Ian Peters. That's it. No one from the applicant's team. Item one, apologies for absence. We've received apologies for absence from councillors Izzy Cook and Karen O'Byrne Mulligan, Chair. Item two, urgent business. We've received an officer's addendum in relation to item five and six, which were published this afternoon and have been tabled. Documents were also received in respect of the items from applicants and from the objectors which were emailed to members last week, including photographs and comments. Item three, declarations of interest. Item four, 88 Corelli Road, Kidbrook, London SE38EW, reference 243979F. Neil. Thank you, Chair. Planning permission is sought for a ground floor rear extension, a rear dormer extension, and the change of use from a single dwelling house, class C3, to a six bed house in multiple occupation, class C4. The application has received 13 letters of objection, as well as a petition with 15 signatures and one letter of support, and these are set out at paragraph 2.1 and 6.3 of the report in front of members. The application has also been called into committee by Councillor Fahey. The application site is a two-storey terrace dwelling house located on the west side of Corelli Road with broad walk to the south and the Hayley Academy to the west. The application property is not statutory or locally listed and is not within a conservation area. The application property does not have any off-street car parking and is within an area with low access to public transport. The application site is not located within a controlled parking zone and there is undesignated on-street parking widely available. This is an aerial photograph showing you the front of the site in the back where you can see the car park of the Hayley Academy. You can also see there the level of on-street car parking that is available directly outside of the application site. This is an aerial photograph of the rear of the property and you can see that none of the properties within the terrace that the application site forms part of has been extended. However, you can see particularly in broad walk which is shown there and that rear extensions and loft conversions are prevalent in the wider area. And this is just a photograph of the front of the property and you can see that the application site has a shared access with the adjoining terrace property number 86. So that's the access way just situated there. And then these next two photographs are showing you the front garden area within the application site. You can see there's quite an extent of hard servicing already as a result of the proposal and the bush that you can see next to the front wall situated here would be removed. And that's so as to accommodate the proposed waste and recycling facilities. These two photographs just show you the access way which leads into the rear of the site and the rear gardens. And then this photograph taken from the first floor window of the application site shows you the gate there on the left hand side which leads into the rear garden of the application site. You can also see that the adjoining property number 86 has not been extended. And I'd also say that as will be shown in a future slide and the proposed rear extension would be set off the shared boundary with number 86 by approximately one metre. These photographs just show the extent of the rear garden of the application site and also the relationship with number 90 Corelli Road which is on the left hand side of the application site. That property has not been extended. You can obviously see at the rear there of the application site there is extensive hard standing already and the rear extension would occupy part of that. And you can also see from that photographs or those photographs and the photographs before that the boundary treatment for both adjoining properties is approximately 1.8 metre in height which is a fairly standard height for boundary fence. As part of the proposal the applicant is seeking to convert the loft space and to provide additional space and this will involve the construction of a rear dormer window. As set out in the committee report a certificate of lawfulness proposed has already been approved for these works. In approving this application the council has confirmed that the loft conversion with rear dormer window can be constructed under permitted development rights without the need for planning permission. However as these works have yet to be implemented they are shown in the current application as part of the proposed works and form part of the planning application. But as the applicant has demonstrated that these works do not require planning permission and that there is a clear fallback position which enables these works to be implemented. The application cannot be refused on the scale and design of the dormer window because we've obviously also from an earlier application said they can go ahead and do those works basically. And that's set out in more detail at paragraphs 9.6 and 9.13 of the report. When the application was originally submitted the proposed rear extension was to be 6 metres in depth and as with the loft conversion the applicant sought to create a fallback position through the submission of a prior approval application for a larger home extension. However during the assessment of these applications the prior approval applications were withdrawn and that was mainly because we received objections and the council was looking to refuse those. As a consequence of that the overall depth of the rear extension that's now under consideration has been reduced to 3 metres. That depth not only complies with core strategy policy and our urban design guide which recommends a depth of 3.6 metres. But also because it's now only 3 metres and because of the height of the extension this extension as well could also be constructed under permitted development without the need for planning permission. Under the proposal to use the property as a six person HMO and the ground floor with the rear extension would be rearranged. So on the left hand side there you've got the rearranged layout so you've got now at ground floor level two bedrooms both with en-suites and then you have on the right hand side there a kitchen diner. The kitchen diner area would be 18 metres in size and would exceed the minimum standards of 10.5 metres for an HMO accommodating six people. And they are also proposing to create a side door leading from the kitchen area situated here into the shared access way and that is something that doesn't require planning permission. So just moving up to the existing proposed first floor level so what we're seeing and proposed is again a rearrangement of the first floor to provide two bedrooms both again with en-suite bathrooms. And then on this slide we've got the proposed loft floor level which again is a further two bedrooms again with en-suite bathrooms so overall six bedrooms each with a each each for a single person. This slide shows you the existing and proposed front elevation so from the front elevation there isn't much that's changing the only thing really noticeable that you can see is that the chimney which is currently there would be removed and that's in part to facilitate the loft conversion and was approved and was approved as part of the certificate of lawfulness application and that was approved earlier for the loft conversion and rear dormer window. So this are the existing and proposed rear elevation so you can see the dormer window there on the right hand side so it's a full width dormer window not something that we would normally support in policy terms but as I say because a certificate of lawfulness has already been granted to say that that work could be carried out under permitted development irrespective of this application that work could take place and the applicant has advised that they would be carrying out those works. And in terms of the rear extension there you can see as I said at the start of the presentation that the rear extension is set off the shared boundary there with number 86 and that distance is approximately 1 metre. And the rear extension would have a height of 3 metres and be finished with a flat roof which again is fairly standard for a single storey rear extension. This slide just shows you the side elevation and again just gives you really the depth and the height of both the dormer window and the rear extension so just confirming there that the rear extension is 3 metres in depth and to the top of the flat roof would have a height of 3 metres. And then we've got a section drawing so within our HMO standards a floor to ceiling height of 2.1 metre is required and the development would comply with this so the highest floor to ceiling height would be at ground floor level which would be 2.6 metres. The floor to ceiling height would be at the loft space would be at the lowest at 2.3 metres but that's still 0.2 of a metre higher than the minimum requirement. This table basically shows you the room sizes that are required for an HMO with separate kitchen facilities so each bedroom needs to have a floor area of at least 9 square metres and each of the bedrooms would meet and in majority of the circumstances significantly exceed those standards so as such it's considered that the internal living accommodation is acceptable and meets the required standards. This photograph just shows you again the extent of the rear garden and demonstrates that future occupiers of the HMO would have sufficient external amenity space. It also sort of you know looks at the impact of the development in terms of the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers and it's considered that the proposed development would not have any adverse impact. So due to the position and size of the rear dorm window it would not result in any unacceptable sense of enclosure or loss of daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties. Whilst there are windows that would face towards the rear garden of the application site they wouldn't directly overlook the rear gardens of the adjoining properties and furthermore any overlooking that could be possible from the dorm window would be no worse than that you know is currently experienced or possible from the windows at first floor level and obviously we saw that extent in one of the photographs at the start of the presentation. In terms of the ground floor extension the extension would be set one metre off the shared boundary with number 86 and whilst it would sit on the boundary with number 90 due to its depth and height and then and taking into consideration the position and orientation of the sun and the position of the windows of both adjoining properties which are set off the shared boundary again it's considered that the rear extension would not have any significant or adverse impact on the residential amenity of adjoining occupies in terms of daylight, sunlight, enclosure, outlook etc. And in terms of privacy because there are no windows proposed in the side elevations and taking on board the height of the existing boundary window and the rear extension would not you know afford any meaningful overlooking into either the rear garden or into the properties themselves on either side. As already stated both the ground floor and rear extension both the ground floor rear extension and the loft conversion with the rear dorm window could be constructed without the benefit of planning permission under permitted development and therefore the property could as it stands be enlarged to accommodate a family of up to six people irrespective of the current application. So as such it's considered that the actual use of it as an HMO for up to six people would not result in any unacceptable noise and disturbance above that which could lawfully happen at the property at this moment in time as I say if those extensions were constructed. Just moving on to public transport as set out in the report the proposed development doesn't provide any off-street car parking and future occupiers would be reliant on the use of the existing undesignated on-street car parking. This would be a continuation of the current situation and is considered acceptable and there's been no objection raised by highways on this ground. Whilst it is accepted that the site does have a low level of access to public transport the site is within walking distance of a number of bus routes as shown on the slide in front of you and those bus stops provide access and destinations to various locations within the borough and adjoining boroughs including both Lewisham station Woolwich Arsenal station and also Mays Hill station. This slide shows the location of the waste and recycling facilities so the waste would be in the front garden area and the cycle storage would be in the rear garden and would be accessed via the shared side access way and the level of both the waste and the cycle storage meets current standards. The refuse bins rather than just being sort of left out in the front garden would be contained within an enclosure and this drawing is just showing you the floor plan and the elevation treatment of that and then similarly the cycle storage would be contained within a secure structure in the rear garden and again this drawing is just showing you the floor layout as well as the elevation details. Overall officers considered the pro-development complies with adopted planning policies and members who are asked to consider the recommendation, Chair. Thanks, Neil. Questions? Pat. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Neil, for your report. Can I just ask you, right, what is the width of that entrance between the proposed house and is it number 90 or is it... It's number 90, yes. Number 90. How wide is it? And does the house next door have a side door? So it's probably the one thing I haven't measured so I couldn't tell you what the width is but it's obviously an established situation. Clearly looking at that photograph, you know, it's wide enough for people to get up and down that and as you can see from that photograph there, councillor number, the adjoining property there doesn't have an existing door in that side alleyway but as I said in my presentation, a side door could be put in there without the benefit of planning permission. Right, but can I... So we don't know, I mean, obviously, I'm thinking about bikes going through into the back but... I mean, that's wide enough for a person to walk down there and, you know, bring a bicycle with them, certainly, yes. But the other thing I'm thinking is you said that in your presentation that there is going to be a side door into the kitchen, is that correct? Yes. So, right, if that side door, I'm thinking about in the summer, is open all the time, and I'm just wondering sort of what effect that's going to have on the neighbouring property. So the side door there opens internally, so it's not going to... If it's open, it's not going to block, you know, the alleyway and as you can sort of see from that drawing there where the door is, that door is going to face onto that part of the flank wall of the adjoining property and as we saw from the photograph just before, that is presently a blank wall, so it's not going to have any impact on the adjoining property. The roof, because it's just... It's not a total open access. There's a roof to that, and I'm thinking about the fumes and everything and the smells that are coming from that kitchen, how that will affect... It's going to... You know, it'll be sort of contained in that area, won't it? Because there is a roof up to it. It's not an open access. Well, I mean, it is a kitchen, so people will be doing cooking in there, councillor, yes, but I don't see why having a door, which, you know, which is sort of, you know, not unusual for kitchens to have doors, you know, that they're leading out is going to cause a problem in terms of smells and odours. No, it's just I'm thinking of the property next door, really, how it's going to affect them and if they're wanting access to their back, you know, they're going to have to pass sort of... They're going to have fumes, and will those fumes go into there, affect them as well? Well, at this time, there is no thought there. No, I know. I'm sorry. Not a hypothetical of what may happen in two, three, four, five years in time, basically. If I can ask just another one, Chair. I'm going back to, and I can't get my head around this, it's this permitted development because I'm reading, and you read as well, that in the design guidance, SPD, RBG's design guidance, we say that we should discourage full-width dormers as they do not integrate with pitched roofs. But at the same time, yes, we're saying that, which I do understand, that there was permitted development for the single dormer, but are we now saying that the fact it was a double dormer can have a double dormer because they were given permitted rights for a single dormer when we don't encourage it as a council? Am I making sense? So, within the planning system, there are works that can be done which aren't classed as requiring permission from the council, and those are works that can be done under permitted development, and those which do require planning permission. Now, within that, there is an overlap where development which doesn't require permission because there is permitted development right can be larger and more significant in size than what we would normally support if it required planning permission. It's a slight peculiarity of the system, but the situation we've got here is they've demonstrated that the dormer window in front of you can be built under permitted development. They haven't implemented those works yet. So, as to demonstrate that the property can accommodate six people as an HMO, they are having to sort of show you that that dormer window forms part of the proposed works. Sorry, I appreciate it. I'm not making this very clear, am I? What I can't understand is that the fact that we don't normally sort of give permission for, because of the pitched roofs, for a full dormer, but yet with the permitted development which is overlooked. And that's just because, so in this instance, under permitted development, they can do an enlargement to their roof space of up to 40 cubic metres, and quite clearly that dormer window by itself is less than 40 cubic metres. So, it's something that, something irrespective that our policy wouldn't support, they can go ahead and actually implement the works. Any further questions for the officer? Neil, coming back to the door, why haven't they put that door into the extension? Why are they cutting into the main structure of the house and putting the doorway in an alleyway that will resonate sound instead of the easier option, which is to put it into the extension just in front of those tables or the table and chairs that are there? I mean, it's purely their choice. As I say, the installation of a door isn't something that constitute development and therefore doesn't require planning permission. So, it would be very, very difficult for us to refuse an application on the basis of some work that doesn't require permission. I understand the point that you're making, but as I say, putting in that door just as, say, someone deciding to replace the windows of this dwelling house wouldn't require planning permission. Anyway. Okay. Any further questions? No. Neil, thank you very much. John, I've got you listed to speak first. Would you like to speak first or come in after the residence? Okay. In that case, I now wish to call Tia Rainford. Hi, Tia. There's a little button in the middle. There's a little button in the middle. Red light will come on. Here we go. I'll start, yes. I just wanted to say thank you for this time and this opportunity. Firstly, I just want to address... Sorry, should I introduce myself? We all know who I am. Yeah, my name's Tia. I live next door to 88 with my mother. I wanted to address six people cooking right outside the kitchen area. Just in case I don't have enough time. That area in the alleyway is six feet. I ride a bike. I can hardly get my bike down there. Six bikes coming through that alleyway because, well, we don't know if they're going to be coming through the door, through the front door. It's going to propose a safety risk. Cooking already as those houses stand. We smell everyone cooking. we hear a pin drop. These are unusual builds. They are not brick. They're made of clinker, clay. They were originally built for the... after the war in 1942 to... for extra housing to house small families just so that you get a bit of a picture. I do have some other notes here. Converting property to HMO does present significant challenges. It would not only alter the character of the community and the builds but also impose extra strain on the building originally which it was designed for a much lower occupancy. The safety risks are also substantial. These structures were never, as I said, intended to support high-density living of six people. Additionally, the proposed extension and dormers could further impact the building and create additional privacy and noise concerns as I've just explained. Yeah? Moreover, the families are desperately in need of homes. We have single dwellings all the way up Corelli Road. These homes, as I said, were originally built for after the war to home people coming back. They definitely were not built to stay. They weren't. But we, you know, were very grateful to have the home. The key features such as chimneys, alleyways and the front porch were not merely aesthetic choices. they were carefully designed, if we look into the history, as counterweights to adjoining properties and serve as essential components of the street's overall aesthetics and structural support. We all have chimneys in that road. These elements are integral to the historical fabric and architectural character of our community. In conclusion, I urge the planning authorities to reconsider this application. Yeah, to review it and if not, give a site visit. Thanks, Tia. Any questions? Pat? Thank you. That was very clear and quite emotional and well done. Can I just ask you? Yes. Obviously, I can't, we're not quite sure. Do you have any idea about the width of that alleyway? Yes, I do. It's free feet. I can hardly get my bike down there and I can only imagine the traffic, how badly that traffic would be. And how high is it? What is the roof made of then in that alleyway? Do you know? Sorry? Our bedrooms oversee that area. Bedroom. It's one of the bedrooms. I'm not sure of the height. Okay. Is it all right to ask, at this point, ask one of the planning officers what, what, Klink? Klinker. Klinker is chair. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Is, can we just have, yeah, the, the, the, the resident is just saying that the homes were built after the war and the built of Klinker and Klinker, what exactly is that? because it's a concern. I mean, is that going to be structurally strong enough to take these dormer windows and everything? Well, the actual, the, the, the, the means of constructing the dormer and the rear extension would be a matter for building control and obviously and obviously a building regulation application would have to be made and they would ensure that, you know, the structures were, were built in such a way that A, they were safe and they wouldn't harm the structural integrity of the existing dwelling house. It's, it's not a material planning consideration for you to take into account when you're looking at the merits of this case so we, we don't know what it is from a building material but it's not material to your decision here tonight. Yeah, well we can find out and come back to you. It's a fabricated brick made up, it's not like a breeze block but it's, it's a crumbly brick. Sometimes I think they've even, like a glassy type thing, you sometimes see it and make that black, crystal-y type stuff. But anyway. It actually is a carthagin, sorry if I interrupted. Tia, I have a question. You mentioned that the alleyway was three foot. Yes. Looking at the illustration it looks smaller than that. Three foot is about as wide as that door. It actually is slightly, slightly, slightly smaller than the door. Yes. Yeah. If we go back to... Yeah. I was going to say it's about 30 inches. If that... Okay. Any further questions for the speaker? No, Tia, thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I now wish to call on Margaret Rainford. Margaret, do you want to... Am I allowed to speak for Margaret? Yeah, have you swapped jackets? Yeah, can I? I'm not feeling very well today. Yeah, sorry. Do you want to... Thank you. Let's have your jacket. And change of voice. I'm a mother here. Oh, yes. Thank you for... Tia, you've got two minutes for your mum. Okay, thank you. Can I just explain something about that wall? Klinker, because of the... I'll be very quick. The shortage of materials after the war, all that land was just fields. The government decided that when the military come back, as Woolwich was a military town, anyone that was bombed out in the military, their families, they were going to build places for them to come back to, which they did, Corelli Road. Corelli Road was built by the Italian prisoners of war. And to honour their effort for these buildings, they decided, when they were naming the streets, that Corelli would be Captain Manry. So they called it Corelli Road, in honour of those efforts. Clinker came from the furnaces in the arsenal. There was so much shortage of materials, they used what they could get. They're splint in those walls, so if you knock the stones together, it causes a spark. The clinker is a carcinogen because it's the waste from these furnaces. It's mixed with sand and cement. You try and do anything with those walls, and they crumble. Sorry, I just needed to clear that up. That's all right. Tia, you've got 15 seconds left. The planning irregularities. The planning are not transparent. Yeah, safety concerns, just quickly. Inconsistent planning applications have done that. the use of the alley and the change of the front of the road. I mean, you saw in the pictures there's a huge big gate that proposes a safety issue and a problem around privacy. I know that it was... Going to have to wind you up now, Tia, because you're... It was said that our privacy isn't going to be affected. It is affected. It already is affected. That picture looks like it's from the roof, right from the roof. Yes, you can see from the bedroom into other people's gardens, but we're not talking about one person or a small family next door. We're talking about six other people, and those bikes are going to be in and out of that alleyway, which also is a problem. Thank you very much. Okay. Neil, can we go back over the... Can you elaborate again on the pre-consent of the dormer, just so there's clarity there, because around the permitted development and how they've sort of dealt with the system? So I set out in the planning history section report, so section four. It shows that application 243829CP was submitted last year for the construction of a rear dormer window. That rear dormer was approved on the 20th of January this year. The applicant has submitted that to demonstrate that those works can be carried out under permitted development rights, thereby creating a fallback position so that when they've included the dormer window in the current application, the one that you're considering, they can say, we've already got consent for that. Therefore, irrespective of this application and anything that you may assess the dormer window in terms of your local development plan policy, we've already got confirmation from you that we can go ahead and build that dormer window. Okay? So they've created a fallback position there and there's legal cases that are set out in the committee report that where there is a clear fallback position that demonstrates that the works can be done, then that is a material consideration. So we've got a situation where I understand and accept that the size of that dormer window is clearly not something that we would normally support in terms of our core strategy policy and even our urban design guide. But clearly there's an application that's been submitted legitimately and wholly above board to actually demonstrate that those works do not require planning permission. And I suppose the other thing is just going back to the aerial photograph at the start, you can see that there are, in fallback, and I know this is only a small section of fallback, but there are quite large dormer windows in Broadwalk already, so there is an element of character of the wider area there which has dormer windows as well. So Tia, you understand that? Did you get the gist of that? So basically there are government processes which allow certain things to occur without coming through this process. Right, yeah. The applicant has known about the system and has put applications in through government process and put and bank those before coming to us with this application. Because they're banked, we have no jurisdiction over those. They are already banked and they are permitted under government's permitted development rights. And then what the applicant has done is now come back to us for the conversion. Which you get to decide upon. We only get to decide on the HMO part, but again, there is government guidelines which we have to adhere to and if we make a decision which the applicant appeals, the inspector will do whatever the inspector does and if we get it wrong, we're liable for costs as well. So, you know, when you're looking at the dormer and the extension, we have no control over that. I was just going to say, so if you think about it, this committee tonight could decide, yes, we're going to refuse the application because the dormer window, too big, too bulky, doesn't comply with policy. But even if they did that, because they've applied for a certificate of lawfulness, they could still go ahead and build the dormer window. So, it's then based, you know, as I say, it's then creating that fallback position which says, well, we could go ahead and build it any case. And if, as the chair says, if they then appealed any refusal of the design and appearance of the dormer window, they would put front and centre in front of the planning inspector and say, but they've refused it, but they've already said we can build it. This is ludicrous. So, that's the situation we're in as officers and the council is. And what I was trying to sort of say where, at times, you've got this slight overlap between what council policy says and what national guidance says in terms of permitted development and what can and what can't be done without the benefit of planning permission. So, no further questions for the speakers? Tia, Margaret, thank you very much. Great. No, thank you. Thanks. Thank you. And I wish to call on Councillor John Fahey. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to make a few points, really, but can I begin by saying I thought that the presentation of the photographs didn't accurately reflect the sight in question. presentation, and I thought that the sound isn't very good at the back, but I thought that the comments made by officers that this application had no impact, no adverse impact on residents. And I suppose if you're not living there, hey ho, it doesn't matter really in those terms. Curly Road is quite unique in real terms. And I don't know if many members have visited, but it's a road of many small buildings. And in effect, in my view, the development of a HMO on this site is wholly inappropriate. The site area is 227 metres, and it has a proposed building height of 8.2 metres, 8.25 metres. And if members are not aware of the area, I'm just wondering, looking at the photographs, whether officers have actually visited, because the shots they took bear no relation to the way in which the houses are structured. and there were some side views, which related to the next building and buildings beyond. But as the residents have said, the access into the back gardens is extremely small. And I think there's a major issue with regard to oversight, and sorry, overlooking, which I think is a major issue for the residents. I guess the fact that the developer sneakily developed the domer, and then trotted along and said, we're going to develop a HMO with six rooms, I guess good luck to him, really. But I still think it's wholly inappropriate. There was also the mention, Chair, of car parking. And it seems to me that car parking is ignored, in my view. There are six bedrooms being developed. Who's to say that there's not going to be more than six residents in the properties? I've got no knowledge and neither have anybody else in this room, I guess really. And parking in the area is a major problem with the Halley College being a short distance from this particular site. As I've said, I think it's clearly out of character, and I think it's important for members to look at the site and to make a judgment based on what they see rather than what is in a report. So, Chair, I would request that the decision of members is deferred for the site visit. Thank you. Thanks, John. Any questions for the speaker? Nope. John, thank you very much. Pat. For a site visit, and the residents, Vastava Wong, can I request a site visit, please? Members, a suggested site visit has been put forward. Do I have a seconder? I will note, before we go to the vote, that the applicant has not turned up to speak tonight, so we do not have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. So, taking that on board, if we are minded to vote for a site visit, I would then also request that the applicant turn up, so that we do ask for questions, especially around design and the door in the alleyway. So, all those in favour of the site visit, please raise your hand. No, not you. Only us. 37-4, Jane. All those against, abstentions, the item is deferred for a site visit, and also a request for the applicant to turn up for the next meeting. Thank you. Sorry, Ashley. Request that if a site visit is being taken place, can we have it either, you know, because I'm working, so I can't do it unless it's Saturday or in the evening. Okay, then we'll try and get it as early as possible, as early as possible for the Saturday, so the earliest Saturday, if that's okay. Neil? Yeah? Sooner rather than later as well. Okay. Okay. The item's deferred for a site visit. Thank you. Does somebody want to go down? Yeah, I'm friendly to... Oh, thanks, Brent. Asked if the way we should start determining. Okay. We now move on to item five, which is plot 203, seven, Warman Walk, GMV, phases 345, Greenwich, SE10, 0WU, reference 243389F. Leslie. Thank you, Chair. The committee is requested to grant planning permission for the change of use of the existing residential lobby in plot 203 from ancillary residential flexible use class E, B, and F2B cafe community. The application was subject to public consultation in October and November last year, which is set out within paragraph 6.2 of the report. The application has received 83 objections and three letters in support from residents. The application site is situated within Greenwich Milling Village, within Greenwich Peninsula. The site is to the east of Southern Park. The site is situated within plot 203 and is the existing residential lobby of this plot. This is a view taken from Renée Street, looking west. The application site, although it would be not visible and behind the play equipment, however, the view demonstrates the context which the application site forms a part of. This includes also, we can see plot 202, as I show a nursery which is to the east of the image, and also we can see the proposed temporary markings, which is subject within item 6 of this agenda. Whilst we can see for the orange panelling is the GMB community centre, which is within plot 203. This is the site frontage, which is indicated in the image above. As noted, the proposals will see the existing residence lobby reduced and converted to become a cafe community use. The application proposals to convert this lobby follow objections raised in respect to plot 202 in regards to the temporary marketing suite. The lobby, although would be fitted with the kitchenette as well as toilet fitted, flooring and lighting, but as part of the proposal, a partition would be added to subdivide the newly created lobby and cafe, and new entrants would also be created from the existing window. A condition would also be agreed for a marketing plan, which will also include a strategy related to incentives secure and occupy for the unit. The elevation above would demonstrate the proposed cafe entrance, which would be formed from the existing residence lobby window. Access would also be created, and this would involve minor landscaping works, and accessibility conditions also be recommended to be imposed, and this includes details for ensuring this access, as well as access for the internal of the unit. It should also be noted a noise insulation conditions be imposed to ensure that any noise impacts can be mitigated against. Existing cycle parking would be situated outside the site, and it's considered that the distance extended cycle parking can accommodate visitors to proposed development. A loading bay would also be situated on Renning Street, and this would service the site. Nevertheless, a delivery and servicing plan condition is recommended to consider delivering service in the site, as well as waste provision. No car parking is proposed. However, it's not anticipated the use would generate a detrimental harm to the highways. Overall, it is considered that the proposals will provide an additional cafe community use to the area, and therefore it's recommended that planning permission be granted in line with section one of the report for this agenda. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Lizzie. Questions for the back? Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your report. One of the residents, I don't know how many residents, commented about it being not big enough to support a neighbourhood cafe, and not having any proper kitchen and no separate toilet facilities. Can you sort of, yeah, go through that for me, please? Yes. With the facilities and the kitchen. Yes, so you can see from the image above, you can see from the existing lobby that yet the cafe slash community use has been created. It is acknowledged that it is smaller in size than the proposal within POP 202, but we should bear in mind that that proposal is for a temporary period, and this use, although, this use, although smaller, still would provide a toilet and would still provide other uses for a potential occupier that might be more beneficial for a smaller independent business who might be looking for a smaller space. Oh, sorry, the wait, I'm not too sure in terms of the wait. It was off when you were talking. It was just, yes, the width, the size. Okay, I'd have to come back. The width and the depth, yeah. Okay, I'd have to come back to confirm that with you. Any other questions? Yeah, just, thanks, just the one for me. 83 objections is quite a high number for me, so we have to approve the application. One of the objections that I read here, it says, not big enough to support neighbourhood CAF. Can you hear me? Sorry. Not big enough to support a neighbourhood CAF. Too small, no separate toilets, no proper kitchen, and would have less outdoor space. Space was never supposed to support a CAF, but, you know, space is needed for a CAF, so, and, you know, outdoor space is needed as well as the indoor, so going from one unit to another was the real impact for the community CAF, because we also got, you said there's on Plot 203, there's a community centre there. That's correct, yeah. So, what is the real impact on them moving to, from the proposed, or what's supposed to be the CAF unit to this unit that they are suggesting now? So, just to clarify, the existing community centre will be there as part for proposals, but it was felt by residents that they wanted somewhere to basically a use where they can meet, and that's, so that's why there was a number of objections within the next item, which is in Plot 202. So, this one has come forward as a result of this. It is acknowledged that it is smaller in area, but it's just as a proposal. It will be there permanently. However, in the other proposal, it's not going to be a permanent use. It will be only for a temporary period, so following this period, residents will have the benefit, effectively, of two uses, really. Sorry, for clarification, are we saying, you're saying that this is temporary? No, no, the one for the marketing suite is temporary. Right. The one for the marketing suite is temporary, and this is permanent. Yes. Why couldn't it be the other way around, or is that coming in the next application? No, so this came forward as a result because of the objections that were raised from residents. Even though the one for the application is temporary, it was still felt that there was still a desire and need from residents for a cafe slash community use. But it should be a knowledge that, in terms of the cafe, it is technically a commercial use. So, from this proposal, that's why it has the flexibility of both being a commercial cafe use, as well as the flexibility as a community use, as well. Any further questions? Leslie, how temporary is temporary? So, it's the period is for, so, for the, on the next application, not on this one, it will be for a five-year period, or until the 31st of March, 2030. But this period, this application before you today is permanent. Right, so this is a permanent change then for this application? Right, okay. Any further questions? No. David, if you want to ask? Well, if it's, um, if it's permanent and it's only for five years, I don't follow the logic of that. If it's only for five years, it's temporary. If it's permanent, it's forever, isn't it? Sorry, maybe I've caused, let me go, maybe go back to maybe seeing. Well, while you're answering that, could you also, um, tell me what order in which these would actually take place? Would we finish up with a marketing unit and no cafe at all, or would we finish up with two potential cafes? So, yes, so, um, you'd, let's say in the event that, um, both applications got approved, then yes, you would end up with, um, after the marketing suite temporary period had expired, you'd end up having, um, potentially two, um, cafe uses in the area. Isn't there a cafe just across the other side of the green? Um, yes, so, as part of the discussion for the next item, I will be showing a wider context of the area, and, yeah, on the other side would be Cafe Perna, which, um, yeah, which is the other cafe within the area. Right, okay, um, no further questions for the officer. Leslie, thank you very much. Let's get this. I now wish to call on Shaqiti Singh. Got two minutes. Uh, I'm representing the Residents Association, so I think I got four. You do have four there? No, that's absolutely fine. Uh, so thanks again for your time. Um, as I mentioned, I'm representing the GMV Residents Association. It's an organization that's been in place for about 25 years, um, and just to give you some context around the site, GMV's built on about 60 acres. Um, there's about 1,100 flats that were constructed before the financial crisis leading up to 2007-2008. It's on the other side of that green. It's where the marketing suite is at the moment, um, and there is a cafe on that side. That serves about 1,200 residents, uh, and has its own management company. They then carried on building on the other side, where I think initially they had permission for 1,100-1,200 units. That's been increased to 1,800 units. It's also worth noting 1,200 out of the 1,850 units have been completed and have been sold using the old marketing suite. Now, it is my first time here, and unfortunately, I think residents are always at a bit of a disadvantage. I don't understand planning rules and what objections I need to make, so I'm just going to make an impassionate argument and hopefully rely on you guys to pull out the appropriate planning rules. I don't have access to the funds for planning consultants, unlike the developer. Now, again, let's be very clear about this. Both applications are intrinsically linked, and also, uh, let's not beat about the bush. The only reason that marketing suite is moving, there are cladding issues on 800 flats out of the 1,100 in the original scheme. The developer doesn't want to be selling flats from a marketing suite covered in scaffolding. The rest of us need to live there, including me, with scaffolding. If it's considered safe for residents to go in and out, I see no reason why their visitors can't see it. Let's also go through the history of GMV. As a residence association, when a tower block was being built next to our ecology park, which would shade it, we raised an objection. 507 objections came in. They had to reconsider that, and they also committed to building a new gatehouse for the ecology park. That tower's been built, the residents are in, the gatehouse is not to be seen. It was a separate application that wasn't linked, and it wasn't a planning obligation on the tower being built. For the change in use of the cafe, that original unit, it's around 166 square meters. I might have that slightly wrong. It's been designed as a cafe unit, with the right facilities, with the right size. 372 objections have gone in. For the second unit, that's actually in a building that the council has acquired. There's 200 council tenants living in there. What's effectively being done, their lobby space is being reduced down to just an entry alleyway, and is being changed into a permanent cafe. That's 60 square meters, and in my mind, is barely usable. 82 objections have gone in on that, and I genuinely think the council need to consider these applications together. All of this is driven by a preconceived need to move the marketing suite. It was premeditated. They knew the cladding works were coming. They advertised the cafe for use. We've spoken to the estate agent that was dealing with it. They had an offer on the cafe. Legals were going through when it was pulled. I actually get on really well with Chris Gennar. He comes to our residence meetings. They'd advertised the cafe up until the application went in. No one on the residence association was aware that this was going to happen. The smaller unit would be welcome as an additional cafe space, but we need to consider that, the bigger cafe unit, and the existing marketing suite together. Why does that marketing suite need to move? It served them for 1,200 units over the last nine years of sales. They can keep it there for another five, even if it's covered in scaffolding. There is a community center near us, but that's a separate provision. It's run commercially, and because of the way it's staffed, it's not available to residents in the evenings. We need to pay to use that. It's not a community space that's freely available to all residents. We're fundamentally opposed to the change of use. It may sound like five years, but that's five years where 1,200 residents on that side of the village will be denied an amenity that they need from others going in with prams to hang out with people for work and so forth. Just a couple of other points. GMV has obviously benefited from slowly developing this site over the last 24 years and maximized the value. We need to make sure we stick to some of the principles within planning. The overriding objective in the Royal Greenwich Policy Framework is to deliver high-quality developments which improve the quality, identity, and ensure that the area is successful as a place to live, work, and stay. And you need cafes for that. Likewise, on the National Policy Framework... Can you wind up well over your form? Yeah, absolutely. It supports sustainability. So, in essence, there's already 2,500 people living on a site of 50 acres. I think the joint venture should really look at retaining the marketing suite exactly where it is, support the occupancy of the original cafe unit, which is being considered next. And I think all of you should strongly consider whether a change of use for a space that was designed for your council tenants should be done, and you should take away the lobby space from them. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions for the speaker? No? Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Daniel O'Brien. Hi, Daniel. Hi. Thanks for having me. I mean, I'll be pretty brief because I think Shackty covers a lot of it pretty comprehensively there. I just live in GMB. I've lived here for... I've lived there for about eight years. It was in all of the developers' marketing material that would be a cafe in that particular unit. The alternative unit isn't adequate. It's too small. It's in an awkward location. It doesn't get as much natural light. There doesn't seem to be any option for having outdoor seating for the cafe, which the original unit did have. And again, that was shown in the advertising material. A pair of the objections, the residents don't agree that the two spaces are interchangeable. I think, as you mentioned there, if the developer do, then why can't they put their marketing suite in the alternative location? We're also underserved. But in terms of third spaces like this around GMB, we should be looking to have more and larger units like this rather than reducing the existing provision. There was mention of the other cafe. For some reason, that cafe unit, which is quite wide and faces onto the square, has been split into three separate spaces. The cafe unit is tidy. There's a massage space in the middle. And then there's a small convenience store that has not really much use, to be honest with you. So, we've already had that cafe space reduced, and then this would be the same thing here. And, yeah, finally, just in terms of the apparent reason for the developer looking to move, all of us, as Shaq said, with this scaffolding up because of decisions that the developer made in construction, personally, I think they should have to live with it as well, and should be incentivized to have it up and down and dealt with as soon as possible if it impacts their property as well as ours. Yeah, I just think if we approve both of these in the next one, or include in the next one, then it's going against the interest of the residents and for the developers, which are at odds. And that's all. Thanks, Daniel. Any questions? Pat? Yes, thank you. That was very well, you know, sort of put. Can I just ask you then, looking at this new size, what are your thoughts? How many people do you think it would accommodate? Do you think it would be suitable for young mums or carers with children? Do you think it would be suitable for wheelchair users? Because I don't think we've established, actually, the actual size of it, which is more important than anything. And I'm also thinking about, I don't know what kind of cafe, whether it's going to sort of serve hot food. What about the fumes? What about the vehicles who are delivering the goods to the cafe, as compared with the other site? What are your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, I think it would create a lot of traffic down through that park that I go to every day with my kids. There was mention of the bike racks being moved, and, you know, that becoming a heavy traffic area of having to move into what was previously just a lobby of the council flats is very undesirable as well. I'm not sure about, I would assume that with the original one having been built to be a commercial area that they would have access somewhere around the back the way that the nursery do that's next to it. But, yeah, I would imagine it would create traffic for deliveries and things down next to the park, which would be not particularly good. I don't think it'd really be suitable for, I mean, it's suitable for about, what, 10 people to sit in there? And that's about the same as what the cafe is over at the other side. I mean, when you look in it, it's a hallway that's not a cafe. You know, the other one is a cafe, has lots of windows, faces onto another smaller park, and faces onto the actual larger southern part. You know, it's like, it's a desirable space, the actual original cafe, but this is not. Thank you. This is, yeah, I mean, I'm trying to establish in my head, but we don't know how wide that's going to be. I mean, to me, it seems like it's about, like, to about here, to there. Sorry, from where? From where I'm sitting, to about this square of the room, it seems about that, like. Right. And there's, I mean, yeah, maybe, maybe even less, because the kitchenette thing comes in. It's, it's a hallway that's attempted to be converted into a cafe. Thinking health and safety as well. I mean, what about people, as they say, or coming past with children? Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't take my kids' say, there's not really much space for them to, and that's why I don't take them to the existing one either. I mean, so we've had it chopped down, the cafe that looks onto the square, which could have been a relatively wide one, but it's instead about this size. And then the same is happening again. And you have to go about, I mean, you've got the, there's a pump, and then there's the O2, and then there's a retail park. And all of these things are walking, one's walking over a dual carriageway. We're underserved in this area. I think in about five, six years, when they finish the rest of it, there'll be more commercial space south of this area. But this is it. There's two, would be two very small cafes and a pub that's about 10 minutes walk away from this. Leslie, what's the difference in covers? So obviously I can, I'm looking at the two. What is the difference? In terms of the, in terms of what's been shown for there, looks about 25, but I'd have to check for the proposed, in terms of the existing cafe. But yeah, I do acknowledge it is larger, but I think as a permanent additional proposal, I think it is still suitable. Am I right in believing that the existing has not operated as a CAF? No. It's not, it's not, it's never been opened, and it's never, it's never been used as a cafe? No, it was, it's an existing residential lobby. So when the council acquired the block... No, no, sorry, sorry. I'm talking about the existing cafe building. Yeah, it's, it was, it's not been opened up as a cafe, no. Right, okay. Okay. Um, any further questions for the officer or the speaker? Daniel, thank you very much. Thank you. I now wish to call on Councillor Nick Williams. Thank you, Chair. Uh, and thank you, panel, for considering this item. Um, I think you've heard it from residents to an extent, and just to add some background, the, it is the entrance lobby to a council-owned property. There were 99 homes acquired for those on temporary accommodation. It's been a huge success. The lobby space at the moment is fenced off, essentially, and unusable, because the council would have to maintain it in some way to use it. So it is looking for a use, as it were, and it is currently unused. Just, just to give you that information. I think, to add some more colour as well, the community centre that we talk about, was on that square, is on the first floor. It's not on the ground floor, and it must be booked. It's not permeable. It's not suitable for an ad hoc gathering of residents. It doesn't have that fluidity to be able to get there. Um, I agree with the residents that the size of the new cafe is a concern. In discussions with the developer, one positive of that, although I'm not convinced, based on information from the residents about previous applications to the other site, is that there is a lower initial setup cost for an independent cafe operator, it being smaller in size. So there's something to consider, but it sounds like there's interest there. Um, I'm also concerned about, on top of the space, the outdoor space. I believe I read in the report that, obviously, it would be a separate licensing matter to secure the outside space, to put tables and chairs out there. So there's no guarantee that would be granted, and also the impact it would have on the area there. Again, you've really got to consider the two applications in concert here, and what happens. And a question I would have for the developer is, if we were to use that lobby space, why is that not good enough for the marketing suite if they want to move it and keep the cafe where it is? So I think that's something you will need an answer to, to make that decision there. Um, beyond that, um, I just think there has to be, you've heard it tonight, a cafe provision there. There is one across the green, but it is small. It is well utilized already. There is room for another operator, at least in that area. And I am concerned, as our residents, that five years, we may well be back here with an extension on the marketing suite to come back to be heard by another planning committee, and it won't change. If you are minded to approve this evening, I would ask, whilst I welcome the Grampian condition on completing the works in the, uh, warm and walk unit, and the addendum tonight that says there must be a strong marketing strategy plan, I would ask that you condition it further, and state that it must be tenanted and operational before they can start work on the marketing suite, because I can see a can, as Shakti said earlier, in regards to the ecology part, I can see a can being kicked down the road whilst the marketing suite is up and running, and us never quite getting that tenant in doing the work there. So if that's something that's possible and within your gift, if you do decide to approve tonight, if you could improve that Grampian condition to say that it must be a functioning cafe before the marketing suite can operate. That would be very helpful. Um, I think beyond that, I don't really have much more to add, but if there's any more colour needed, the size is accurate, as described, it's very small, and it is a lobby area with a sink, uh, and one toilet, I think, from the plans, yeah, yeah, one toilet, so. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Councillor. Any, uh, right, Sam, Ashley. Cool, thank you. Um, so we're being asked to look at these two applications together, but actually we could look at them very separately, right? If we approve this, you end up with two cafes, right? If we were to not approve the other one, right? We can't make a comment on that yet. So, actually, you know, this is a boarded up, fenced off lobby area, you said, this has no use at all. This gives you a cafe. That's a good thing, isn't it? So, yes, that's a very fair point. I can't argue with that. It is, it's a precursor to the other one being approved as well, so if you approve it, it does unlock the other one. If you don't approve this one, the other one is locked and off the table anyway by the conditioning within it, the grampian condition that features, so, yes, in that principle, I do agree, because I don't see the council making use of that lobby area for its tenants within that area, so it would provide a usage, yes, that's a fair point. Thanks, Ashley. Thanks, Councillor Williams. Can I ask this, how does this impact on the council residents I'm more concerned about, firstly, the council residents that we've placed there, and why was the lobby being empty for a while? Was the reason for that behind, why was it not in use? Okay, so I would say, in terms of the impact on the council residents that live in that building, it adds an amenity if it's approved, so that it is fenced off at the moment, it can't be used. I fear eventually it will become an eyesore, so it does need some usage into there, and if they continue to secure the building, it should be fine. As other residents have said, and council tenants are no different, they require a place to come together and meet as a community, and the community centre is good for functions, but not as an ad hoc kind of ability to do that. I would also say that when the council acquired those boxes, there were some tensions in the community, and maybe perhaps some prejudices about council tenants from private owners. I think the provision of a cafe would help greatly with that, particularly on the doorstep, because it would allow people and the community to come together and actually see that they were all residents of that area, and share in its collective well-being and goodness. So it's important. The lobby is empty because, my understanding, is that the council can't find a use for it, and there is an operational cost to maintaining it. So normally, what happened is this wasn't sold on the open market, it was built for the open market, the developer couldn't find something to sell it to, the council bought it, so it has been built to a private spec where that would have been, where a concierge sat, or a private kind of co-working space within that area, as many of the more private developments feature there. So that's really the history on that. Thank you, Joe. You mentioned something before, which I had actually thought of asking why the marketing suite couldn't be actually used in the lobby. I just wonder if any discussions have gone on there with the council and the owners, because that would make a lot more sense. Yes, it was queried, but just due to the size, it wasn't considered sufficient enough for the marketing suite. For a marketing suite, but it was considered not enough for a cafe. But we have to bear in mind that following the temporary period, that the use will revert back to a cafe. Any further questions for the speaker? No? Nick? Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Chris Ginner. Hi, Chris. Hiya. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the Planning Board. So I'm Chris Ginner. I'm the Project Director for Greenwich Millennium Village. And essentially, I think you all are aware of the scheme as a joint venture between Taylor Wimpy, Countryside Properties, and in association with the Mayor of London. And so I completely agree with all of the objectives in terms of the applications are extremely linked, and it's quite difficult to talk about one without the other. So I suppose I'll just try and provide some context as to how we've arrived at these proposals. So the first application that was actually submitted was item six on the agenda. So, and we've actually submitted item five in sort of response to the objections that we've received. And that was exactly as the Residents Association have mentioned, in that they want a cafe and they want a community benefit. So what I'll try and do, if you don't mind, is try and answer some of the questions and objections that have been raised and try and sort of canter through those. But the applications do cross over somewhat. So do feel free to sort of stop me if it's not wholly relevant to this application. But we do want to move out of phases one and two. And we are currently in Da Vinci Lodge as our sales and marketing suite. And we've been there for many years and have sold many homes on there, absolutely. But we have, year on year, tried to find a location to come into phases three, four, five. It's representative of the product that we're selling. It's in closer proximity to show people the homes. And a specification would be the same, too. So this has perhaps been the first opportunity that we found to find a space that is suitable for a marketing suite. The size of said marketing suite needs to be of a certain size because we host community events there. And the notes that we sent to committee members ahead of this meeting did try and set out the types of events that we host throughout the year. So, you know, we are, in my opinion and our opinion, we are kind of the anchor in the community in terms of a lot of the events that happen. We host seasonal events. We help support the events in the park. This particular proposal for a temporary marketing suite is adjacent to the park. So it was a sort of a fitting location, really. And yes, we did market the cafe and there was little interest. There was some strange interests out there, some of which wasn't a pure cafe. And some of the pure cafes that did come forward is that the business plan is not always well considered. And that is because there's a huge amount of fit-out costs. At the moment, that is a shell. And a cafe operator will be responsible for carrying out the fit-out costs before they're opening. So this gives us the ability to go in there and actually undertake those works so that when it does come to market after our temporary use, that there is something available. So I suppose moving to the application in hand, the lobby. So Council Williams is exactly right. So we sold 100 homes to Royal Borough of Greenwich for use for council tenants. And they are just the plots themselves. So the building as a whole actually has multi-use. So it's predominantly residential. However, it also has the community centre as noted. And it also has another operator in there being one housing group as the registered provider for some of their homes. So we still own all of the communal spaces and we own the head lease over the property. So Council Williams is exactly right. We have sectioned off the space because there is a service charge that sits over that space to maintain it. So it does have the toilet. It does have a kitchen facility. We would have had a concierge in that space. And then the rest of the space is kind of resident amenity, which we have in other blocks. And residents come down and work from there, use the sort of coffee machine and those sorts of things. But that comes at a charge. So the council decided not to operate that space because of the additional service charge. So we have sectioned it off. So we are absolutely in desperate need of finding a good long-term use for that space. It sectioned off is not great for anyone. How does that impact addressing one of the questions? How does that impact the residents in Block 203? Well, not at all, really, because they're not benefiting from the space at the moment. And the homes that they have are all above minimum size, minimum sort of design sizes. They all have private amenity space. They all benefit from communal amenity space in the form of a podium. And everyone has access to that community centre. The reason that it can't be open for longer hours sometimes is actually because it has a lack of use. So we're really looking for the development to grow, to mature. We've still got about 500 homes to build. So that will bring more people to the area. And actually, some of these facilities will survive better. So the application we put forward is for a cafe. But it also has an additional use class that we're asking for, which will become an extension of the community space. So one of the points that was noted earlier around the community centre not necessarily being the best location for people to sort of engage with at a ground floor level. We've actually been in discussions with the London Development Trust, who runs a community space, and they would be really excited to take on this space too. So our proposals was, as I say, in reaction to the original application, the objections, let's provide a cafe because it's clearly wanted, albeit the marketing strategy, also the marketing campaign, pretty much determined that there wasn't a great strategy for a larger building, which will command greater rent and a lot of fit-out costs. Here is a great opportunity for a small operator, an independent operator, which is all we're going to get here. We're not going to get a high street operator, to actually come in at a lower operational cost, a lower rent, about half the rent, and organically grow with the development, and then have the opportunity to move into the permanent cafe upon the elapse of our temporary planning application for the cafe that resides in Plot 202, which, going back to one of the comments earlier too, has never been operational either, so there's not a loss of a benefit there at the moment either. I think I've covered quite a bit of ground there, but I appreciate it. I went at some speed. So I'm happy to take questions, really, to try and address any other questions you may have. Pat, Sam. Thank you, Chair. I'm coming back to, I can't visualise the size of this. I still can't. Oh, yes, sorry. And when you refer, when I think of a lobby, I'm assuming that some of the residents use that, some of the accommodators use that as their entrance. Is that correct? Yes. If you look at the plan on the left-hand side, that's the existing configuration. So you can see where you come through the front door, so that's essentially facing Southern Park. So you come through there into the first secured lobby, then through, and essentially walk straight down past what is proposed to be the cafe space, down into the lift or the stair core to access the properties. So nobody is utilising that space. We wouldn't really call it a lobby. So for the purpose of how we intended the space, it's a residence lounge. So it's an ancillary residential space. And as I mentioned earlier, that would be where the concierge sits, deals with people's parcel collections, keyholding, general service, but also the bar stores and the sofas were kind of intended for breakout space from people's properties, where they may choose to work from home or want to socialise as residents. So how wide is that corridor going to be for people to sort of approach their accommodations? It's a very good question. I don't have the exact dimension of the width of the corridor, but what you can see is, say, the entrance leaf of the door is probably just in excess of one metre. So if you look at the door swing on there, it's probably getting close to almost two of those. I would suggest it's something in the region of about 1.8, but I don't have that exact dimension to hand, I'm afraid. What I could say is it's very comparable with other residential lobbies within the building. And I think what is important to note is that there are three residential entrances into this building. So there are 119 homes in total in the building, but there are three separate residential lobbies. So off of this particular door, I think there is in the region of about 45 homes, something like that. I can't say 100% for certain. I need to revert back to the original application. And then there's other two doors, which covers the other two spaces. But it's not the single entrance to the residential properties. In fact, there are the other, say, 50%-ish of those properties, 60% of the properties that couldn't even use this door to access their property because there isn't the connection across the lobbies, across the communal areas. And I'm still wondering if that entrance, I don't know, you're saying that it is wide enough. If you have wheelchair users, if you have visitors that are sort of disabled, and if you have children and you have prams and pushchairs, is that, do you think, adequate size? Yeah, 100%. So I think it's worth noting that the council has occupied these properties since about, I think it was fully occupied from about May last year. And these are predominantly family homes. I think there's about 50% of them are family homes. And they have been occupied to their full occupancy. So we have numerous people with disabled needs, plus families, so buggies and everything. So it's used on a day-to-day basis for people with buggies and or wheelchair users. And the last question is, sort of, what kind of cafe is it going to be, you know, sort of, I'm thinking hot food, where you're going to have various smells and, yeah, sort of what kind, you know, you'll have to have some kind of ventilation system. I mean, people are going to come downstairs. I mean, I don't know. Is it going to be hot food or is it just snacks? No, so it would only be snacks. So there is no commercial ventilation system in there. So it would purely be what you see in one of the smaller cafes that you may see on a high street. It will have the counter. It will have the coffee machine. And it will have pastries and things like that and sandwiches. Thank you. So I'm really focused on we have two independent decisions to make. And they influence it quite a lot because they end up with two very different outcomes, right? So I suspect, and I might be wrong. I might not be allowed to ask this question yet. But I suspect that if we refuse the cafe to the marketing suite change, you'd probably appeal it. If we rejected this cafe, do you think you'd appeal it? Do you think you'd just clean your hands up and go, all right, it stays a fenced-off residential lounge? No, we genuinely want to find a use for this. It's of no interest to us to sit there empty. And in fact, it's something we'll walk past every day. It's on the public square. We really want to find a use for this, which has community benefit. Hence why we went for a cafe and a possible extension to the community space itself. So we are as vested as anyone to try and find some activation for this space. Good. Thank you. Any further questions? No. Chris, let me get this right. So you talk about a temporary CAF. You're looking for an operator that will invest in infrastructure within the building, but only on a temporary basis. Because ideally, you want to open up the other building, so whoever goes in there is going to invest in something where they've got to try and recoup their overheads, get a 50% rent discount, and then up sticks and move again in five years' time. Well, not necessarily. So this is about them sort of organically growing within the space. So what this does do is it presents a space that is largely fitted out, and we have committed through the application to take it through to a Category A fit-out. So therefore, the capital cost, if you like, of creating the space is undertaken by us as a developer. The operator would then solely be responsible for bringing in their counter, their coffee machine, and their tables and chairs. So can you refresh our memory then? On the proposed site, what are you actually going to do to that site before marketing it to a potential operator? On this particular one? Yeah. So we need to construct a petition to segregate off the residential lobby space so it becomes completely self-contained, particularly from a fire perspective. So there will be a petition, essentially what you see, if you see the pink space that's the residential lobby, and then that is a new partition, a fire-rated partition that then separates the cafe from that space. And the toilet facility is already there, so you can see that, which is shaded blue, and half of the kitchen facility is there too, which backs onto the toilet space. So then we are creating that wall, we are creating the new entrance, so where you just see the red triangle, which is the new entrance that comes off the square. So that is a new entrance door there, so we'll be doing that. We were making the adjustments to the landscaping and ensuring that's level access as well. So all of the flooring and everything is down, we will make the necessary adaptions to the heating and ventilation systems and the fire suppression systems. So essentially it will be ready for occupation subject to a tenant's fit-out in terms of their fixtures and fit-ins furnishing. So it's not really temporary. It doesn't seem to me that it's a temporary intention. It seems more like a semi-permanent, because... Sorry, which part's temporary? No, what I'm... Yeah, my point is, this is permanent, but the situation around the cafe isn't temporary. So by making this more permanent, the opportunity to go back to the existing building is very, very slim. How so? I would suggest that if the development is growing, the number of people there are growing, then technically the needs for the cafe should become greater if it will, you know, I suppose, achieve what residents are hoping that it achieves, that it becomes a real sort of central hub. That, along with the community centre that we hope to grow as well. So naturally there should be a good opportunity for the operator in here to then move across into what is the permanent cafe within Block 202, and then that will release this space for potential additional community space. We would never want to be in a position to run two cafes, obviously. That wouldn't be viable at all. Thank you. So I suppose if you compared it against a cafe that you may find on a high street or in a train station, it's probably of similar or even larger than some of those cafes. Just I'm thinking about the people who are wanting to use the community. How many people do you think it will hold? It's a good question. We've obviously shown an indicative furniture layout, so you can see that there's table seating both at the windows that face onto the park at the front, and there's table seating down at the back there too. There's also bar seating up at the window, which already exists, and more table seating up against there. So the plan's not clear enough for me to see from here, but you can get a rough gauge of how many people, how many seats are in there. And then obviously we know that most people that buy coffees are pretty much picking one up and leaving, or going to sit in the park, or whatever it might be. There is, so yeah, sorry, I just can't count the number of spaces on there. Sorry, it was, sorry Chair, if I've just come back, you said people will pick up a coffee and go, or go to the park. I thought the idea of this was for the community as well, to sit and talk and... If that's how the community want to use it, then absolutely that's their prerogative. I suppose I'm just more coming from the point of how a general cafe works. When you count up the seats on the layout plan that's on the screen now, which includes the bar seats, there's 33. Thank you. Any further questions for the speaker? No. Chris, thank you very much. Thank you for your time. I was going to open this up for deliberation, but I think because of the close connection to both applications, I think we should hear the next application, and then make our decisions. You okay with that? So we'll listen to item six now, and then come to a decision on both. Yep. We'll break for five minutes now, ten minutes, and then come back to item six. Yep? Okay. We now move on to item six, cafe unit one, Oswald Gardens, Greenwich SE10 0SH, reference 242460F. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Before I start the presentation, I just want to provide some measurements for Councillor Greenwell, as requested. So in terms of the depth, this would be 12.51 metres. In terms of the distance from where the stool is to here would be 2.3 metres, and in terms of the distance from here to here would be 5.6 metres. And then in terms of the corridor, width, that would be about 13.4 metres, but it should be noted that the occupational therapist reviewed the details, and it's going to be conditioned for further details as well, but just as the context for you. Sorry. The committee has requested temporary planning permission for the change of use from cafe at ground floor unit within plot 202 to a sales and marketing suite. The period that's being sought is for five years, or until 31st of March 2030, whichever is the later date. The application has been the subject of public consultation that was carried out in July and August last year. In total, the application has received 372 letters of objection, one letter of support, and one comment. The application has also received a calling request from Councillor Williams. The application site was situated within Oswald Gardens, which is situated to the eastern side of Warren Walk and Southern Park, and this was known to be within Grinch Peninsula. Plot 203, which we discussed in the earlier item, would be to the south of the site. As previously noted, the site would be adjacent to a nearby nursery and community centres, and all these uses were based onto the playground. In terms of the wider context, as well as plot 203, which was the application discussed previously, it is also noted within Trithesian Square, which include other amenities such as a co-op and hairdressers. And to the west of the park would be the Café Pernard, which would be about a six-minute walk away from the application site. And also near to this would be the existing marketing suite. It is also proposed, and it was noted previously, that this marketing suite would be relocated to the application site. But this is just providing the wider context in terms of where things are situated. Here is a photo of the application site. As mentioned, the consent being sought is temporary. However, a condition is being imposed to ensure that the proposed temporary use is temporary and that the use revert back to its use as a café following this. The layout is to be implemented as per the details under the condition. The applicant, as part of the proposals, is also intending for the Sales and Marketing Suite team to hold community events, and further details of this are to be considered via condition. A gram condition is also recommended that prevents the occupation of the temporary marketing suite until the café unit within plot 203 has had works undertaken to complete a Category a fit-up, as well as the works for the new entrants. And here is a general arrangement plan of the proposed temporary marketing suite, and details for refuse cycle parking as car parking recommended to be imposed for further consideration. Overall, it is considered that the proposals would be acceptable, and as previously noted, that this proposal is for a temporary period, and if it is granted alongside the other proposal, it would provide additional immunity for the area. Overall, it is recommended that the temporary planning permission be granted. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for the officer? Sam Penn. Thank you. So I think I saw a floor plan there. Did you have a before and after kind of picture like you did for the other site? No, but I don't have one before. It wasn't submitted as part of the application, but because this forms part of the master plan, this is information that has to hand, but it wasn't submitted as part of the application proposals, no. Okay. So it might be helpful to see both if you've got them. No. Fine. Thank you. Sorry. Is it my turn? Are we waiting? Yeah. I suppose what I can't get my head around in all this, and I don't know whether this is the right number or whether it's 370, am I right, 372 objections? That is correct, yeah. Are they all individual? Yes, they are all individual objections, that's correct. Okay. Any further questions? Leslie? How are you doing with those? Okay. I think if we go to other people, that's fine. Okay. I now wish to call on Marcus Powell. Marcus? Two minutes, Marcus. Yes. Good evening, members of the committee, and thank you for all this opportunity to speak in front of you. Before I purchased my property in the block 202, the very same in question, in June 2023, the sales team strongly promoted the cafe as a spacious venue with indoor outdoor seating by the park to build a great community feel. That was in the promotional materials in the two pages all over it. Briefly after that, in July 2023, I learned that this might not be a cafe, but a showroom instead from their sales team. This raises serious concerns for me about whether this intention to put a cafe in was actually genuine. The proposed alternative cafe space in block 203 is not an acceptable replacement. It will be significantly smaller, as you saw, offer very limited seating, and there is no outdoor seating in the application. It is simply not comparable to what was promised. This week, alternative only surfaced once the developer became aware of 372 objections to the plans. We are told that this change of use is temporary, and only for five years. The average tenure for mortgage property in London is less than 10 years, 9.3 to be exact, according to golf.uk. Another delay for half a decade means that many residents will miss out on what was promised when they purchased their homes, including me. If securing a cafe tenant has truly been challenging, as the developer says, alternative uses that benefit residents rather than their one business interest should be explored first. There is no valid reason why the showroom must take the designated cafe space. If a developer wants a showroom closer to new builds, currently under construction plot 401 and 403 would be even more suitable and convenient, as their sales team won't be conducting site visits until those plots are completed. With 372 objections dismissed, it is deeply disappointing to see that the interests of multi-billion pound company offer this over those of local residents. I urge this committee to reject this application and hold the developer accountable for delivering what was promised. Thank you. Thanks, Marcus. Any questions? Pat. Thank you, Chair. Can I just ask you, have you had, what about consultation with the owners? Has that been sort of, has that continued through the years or when did you find out about this? You mean with the developer? Yes, with the developer. The sales team. No, so I purchased very recently when the block was completed, basically. The information was mentioned by one of the members of the sales team that they might just move a showroom there. That was after the exchange of contracts. So there was no way of kind of like considering this as even an option that, oh, that doesn't suit us. The fact that actually this building does not have any kind of a communal space in terms of like a lobby. I think the cafe on that corner without or seating is seen by all the residents in the building, like really, really good option to socialize. And I don't know, can I just ask you, I'm going back to the other application. There was talk of scaffolding in that area because of the cladding. I don't know whether that's something that possibly one of the offices could answer. I think that was the existing showroom, Pat, which is on the opposite side. Yeah, on the west side of the development. I think Shakti will know to cover that better because he lives on that side of it. Also, I mean, at present, so is it what, are you all overlooking play areas and any sort of, you know, can you sit outside and communal areas? Are you happy with it the way it is? As the estate in general? Yeah. Yeah, I like it. The whole area is nice. The cafe, especially with the outdoor seating, was something that everybody within our building has been expecting. And in terms of the number of people objecting this, I'm pretty sure within three, four days, I could get you 100 signatures from my building only to support the stay-in-up cafe as it is intended. Any further questions? No? Magus, thank you very much. And I wish to call on Shakti Singh. Four minutes this time. Four minutes. And to be honest… Yeah, not seven or eight. No, no, that's fine. And we've gone over some of what I was going to say with the previous application. Okay. Leslie, can I just ask, can you go back to the wider context slide? I think that'll help me focus the remaining comments. Councillor Pratt, I think for the question you were asking, effectively, that side is called GMB West on that side of the park. That's 1,200 units which were completed between 2000 and 2008, and they've been handed over. Everything on this side is what's currently being constructed. So there's probably just a few points I do want to call out. That purple star up there is where the existing marketing suite is, and it's next to a cafe on a square. They've sold 1,200 flats in the new section using that marketing suite. Now, Chris did indicate that this is the first opportunity they've had to move the marketing suite across. That's not entirely accurate. That big purple line at the bottom, Threaten Square, that's got commercial units all around it. There's a pharmacy, a barbershop, and a large co-op. The co-op is probably about 150 to 200 square meters, so exactly the same size as the cafe unit. And it's right next to all the units that are now being constructed at the bottom. So if they wanted an opportunity to use a temporary commercial space, they could have taken that co-op. There's a Sainsbury's right across the road, and there's other commercial units. So that's probably the first point I'd like to make. And candidly, look, the only reason that marketing suite is moving, all the buildings on that side, 800 units out of 1,200 have cladding issues, which were as a result of the works the developer did. They're having to remediate that at their cost, given the government requirements, and they don't want their marketing suite covered in scaffolding. That's essentially what this boils down to. 372 individual objections from leaseholders shows you the strength of feeling. The planned cafe unit will have the ventilation and all the facilities for hot food. It's two and a half times the size of the other unit. So instead of 66 square meters, it's over 150 square meters with dedicated outside space for entry and exit doors. It's designed as a cafe. It's designed with frontage on three sides and glass windows to make it seem appealing and attractive. I think the decision between yourselves now is, do you approve the smaller unit anyway? Which we're not really objecting to. We're objecting because that's being offered as an alternative. I would actually encourage you to approve that one. Reject this. Leave the marketing suite exactly where it is right now. And alternatively, Chris's office is right next to Thradden Square. It's got a board room for 20 and a large screen, seating for all of their office stuff. If they can do that in a temporary port-a-cabin and still make it seem attractive, they can build a marketing suite right next to it as well. So I think that's probably everything I'd like to add. Both the applications go hand in hand. As a community, we're very closely knit. And we do appreciate some of what the developer does. But we feel very strongly about this. And that's reflected in 372 individual objections. That's probably all I have to say on the matter. Thank you. You're welcome. Any questions? Thanks, Shakti. Sorry. Any questions for that? I'll take your job. Any questions for the speaker? No. Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Daniel O'Brien. Thanks again. I do just have one thing to add. I mean, could you possibly bring up those measurements that you referenced at the start? It's just one thing I realized while the developer was talking is I don't understand how we can go from, I think that's 14 seats when the floor space is double to then 18 whenever it's, you know, halved. And I don't think that if that is bar seating there, which I didn't even realize, that you would get a pram or a wheelchair through there into the toilet. I don't see how you can go from having a seat or two seats that are initially set up to be two seats and a coffee table and then have, what, six people sitting there at tables? I just don't see how that works. I don't think it works. I look at this thing every day and feel that way. So, I don't see, I don't think that any final coffee would have the seating layout that it has there. I think you would get, yeah, about 10 or 12 people in there. And if you did have the bar seating, it would be restrictive. And that's all I really have to see. What's the square meterage of the purple or lilac, whatever you want to call it? About 60 is the area of the site. 60 square meters? Yes, the area of the site. But let me see if I can zoom in for you. It, I'll... the layout that they've done as part of this. I think so, yeah, yeah. Sorry, it probably feels a bit like Groundhog Day, so I can understand why he skips it. So, there we go. Look, so, many of the original points I've already made. So, I can only amplify the voice of the 372 residents and many more that have spoken to us as councillors. I think there's still a number of unanswered questions here. I would point out that the new site is being fitted out by the developer. So, the tenant might not have a choice as to how the layout is. They're generously, in some ways, willing to fit it out. Which brings me to my point on this one. If they're willing to do it here, why not contribute to the capital costs in the other unit if they're passionate about creating that community space. I would also remind you that, as the planning officer said, the cafe in plot 202, moving back to the original one, was part of the master plan. And it's a key amenity to residents in that area to bring them together. You've heard that tonight, and you see it in the feeling of those 372 objections. As Councillor Greenwell noted, that's a very high number of objections for that site. I'd also pick up on Shakti's point that 202, as I understand it, could provide extraction and the ability to provide hot food. And the space there, it was designed as a cafe. I think you're tying someone's hands with the inability to provide hot food as a cafe operator if it is just sandwiches and hot drinks at that stage. You're not going to be able to go in there and get your full English breakfast or anything else like that. It's going to be pretty limited when you want to do it. I think tonight, if you refuse permission for this unit, you will force the developer to try a bit harder to find the tenant. I don't think it was on the market for that long. There was interest. I think, in some ways, they need to go back to the drawing board and look for a suitable tenant for that place and maybe think about some of the capital funding that they're offering on the other side going into this unit to get someone established and require real community use. I'd also note that I believe it'd be far easier because of the layout of the site, I appreciate that you've not seen it, to have outdoor seating and secure permission for it. And that's another key element with the summer coming up with the ecology park in that surroundings and everything else. One resident talked about the lovely environment they live in. They absolutely do. And they pay for it via the service charges that they live in. So they want to keep that area nice. They're invested in it and they like to see it going well. So it's not through charity that it's kept beautifully. It's via their service charges on that. What I would suggest, there's two things I'd suggest. Firstly, if you are unfamiliar with the location and want to get a feel for it, perhaps a site visit to understand it and see the two at once. And I know that's a time drag, but with the strength of feeling, I perhaps think we owe residents that. And then if you are minded to approve this evening, perhaps we could consider a condition that says at the end of the five-year period that it is fitted out to a cafe specification for someone to take on. And that's really it. Thank you. Questions for the speaker? None. Nick, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Chris Jenner. Thank you. So again, I might just take to trying to address some of the comments that have been raised, if that's okay, and then take your questions. Going back to the principles as to why we are trying to do this. So yes, we do want to move from phases one and two. It's not fire safety related at all. It's actually, as I said earlier, it's moving into the development that we are currently selling. It's more representative and it is more accessible for people that come to view the properties. Secondly, we did market it, the cafe at block 202 for a long period of time. I can't quite remember the exact date, the way we started, but I think it was from September 2023. So it was for a significant period of time, but I believe it's in the application documents in case I'm incorrect there. And I'm sure Leslie will correct me if I'm wrong. So essentially the space is shell and core. So if we did have images of the inside of the space, and I think a comment was made about the existing plan. There is no existing plan. It is just a shell and core space. So it's a big empty space, which is concrete, bare floor. And the only things that exist in there are the kind of structural walls and the doors and windows. So the fit out is extensive. So through our marketing, naturally we do speak to potential occupiers as to what incentives we can offer. And whether that's a proportion against fit out, whether it's a rent free period where we do with others. So we give them a rent free period for the period of time that need to fit out. But this is very, very different than the nursery next door, which is an established operator. It has many facilities and good access to funding and a good sort of profit and loss account. This is the same with the co-op on Traffin Square that was mentioned earlier. These are all very viable entities with a cafe in this location. We are talking about startup businesses or someone that might be expanding from a smaller business. So this is quite a large cafe in block 202. And yes, we do support that it's absolutely the right location and the right place for a cafe. But when there's more critical mass and that is demonstrated within the marketing that we've undertaken. What we will do by occupying the space in a temporary basis is we will fit it out to a category A. So picking up on Councillor Williams point, this will be pretty much ready for a cafe operator to come in and operate upon the conclusion of our five year temporary period. We also, by moving out of Da Vinci Lodge in GMV West, frees up another space. So thinking about a community amenity, it frees up that space there too. So that's kind of long awaited too to provide something back to the community up there. So there is a kind of quid pro quo element here. And I think just to reinforce our application is temporary here. The cafe will always exist beyond our temporary use. And the community benefits that we provide, so the community are invited into our space. And actually our sales and marketing team probably spend most of their time interacting with existing residents as well as they do with new purchases. So they are a community hub. People pop in. People say hello. Our sales execs have been there. One of them has been there for 19 years. You know, they are a real focal point of the community. And we do host events, which we've been doing up at Millennium Square or Oval Square, sorry, I beg your pardon. Which we would now, in this location, hopefully flow out into Southern Park, which is a really important part of the development. And only recently has it become permeable to the estate. So by completing these phases and the hoarding dropping. So we feel this is a really great location for us to provide our services more in the heart of the community. And the note that I've provided to committee members set out some of the things that we do, which is our seasonal events and other ad hoc events along the way for the benefit of existing residents and the potential new purchasers. Any questions? Pat? I'm going back to one, I think it was the first gentleman who spoke quite passionately. And he said that when he signed the deeds, he was told that it was definitely, I believe, going to be a cafe. So, you know, what has happened since then? So the consented use class is for a cafe and it's specifically for a cafe. I think it's important to note that it was never part of the original plan permission. We actually added it in as part of Section 73 in 2019. So it was an additional use because we felt that it was a good location. And once the development's complete, it will be a great use for that. So we've marketed it as a cafe. It wasn't successful. So we are looking to use an alternative use to actually cover off some of the concerns that we had through that marketing around the capital cost to fit it out. So it would be very difficult for us to undertake the full cost to fit out that space for a potential tenant when the rent just wouldn't sort of support that. So this gives a good opportunity for us to come in, utilise the space, fit it out to a level where a cafe operator in the future could come in with very limited capital cost. Yes, hi. But you are putting money in now. So you could have just put that money in that you're putting in now on the last one. You know, you're saying that, you know, it wasn't cost available. You couldn't cough up. You shouldn't. You didn't feel that you are the one who's responsible in terms of contributing on that financially. But you're paying money now to have it as a marketing suite. So you could have put, if you genuinely cared about the community, you know, you could have, as a developer, you could have contributed that money on the cafe, on that unit. Which is what you promised your residents before they purchased their homes or rented their homes and everything else. So there is always going to be a cafe there. And I think that's just, you know, to reiterate that point, this is a temporary permission. In the meantime, we are providing a cafe in the space next door, which we feel is a good response to using that underutilised space that, you know, currently has no use apart from being sectioned off the residents to reduce service charge. So we feel like that's a really good response. Our money for the fit out to this temporary sales and marketing suite will come from the sale of the existing marketing suite. So these aren't surplus funds. This is about selling an asset to then invest in another asset to have the long, to I suppose, then help a potential operator in the future with lower setup costs. 372 objections are not something you take lightly from residents, from our residents. So it shows the joint force of objections from our communities. So as a developer, you have got a responsibility to take that. I don't know how much consultation that was made earlier on, once you've changed your plans. I think you, you know, that is quite, for me, you're just, it's a profit before community for you. That's how you come across to me when you sit there and talk about that. You know, why you're moving from your current unit to this other unit is not still unclear for me, because you said you want to move to the, you know, move from phase one and two to where the current developer, the building is. But then it's not, it's only a walking distance. You know, your clients could go and walk a few yards to the building. You know, you don't need to, you don't have to be placed there. But it's for you, it's profit before community. You are objecting to what the community is asking for. And it's falling on deaf ear, clearly. And putting your interests first. That's how you come across to me. In terms of the proposal, you said five years temporary period. Who's to say that it's going to, it's not going to go beyond five years? What's the plan then? Are you going to have further consultations with residents? Who's, are you guaranteeing that it's not going to go beyond 31st of March, 2030? The condition does guarantee that, yes. Because we would need to apply, presumably, to extend that. So we will work into that timescale. Thank you, Chair. Any further questions? Could I just add something in terms of the objections? So we don't take that lightly at all. And we were really surprised. And hands up, we actually got it wrong. So we should have consulted with the community before we put the application in. And so I'd like to think by adding in the second application, particularly to utilise the empty space that's in block 203 resident lounge, that that is in direct response to those objections. Sorry. We have obviously considered all of those objections and the nature of them, and actually categorised into a few very distinct categories. And that was the loss of a benefit in being a cafe. So we believe that we've responded to that by presenting an opportunity through the first application that we had as a cafe space there. And then, ultimately, the community never loses the cafe space here. So this is our response to the objections. But, yeah, hands up. We got the first application wrong. And I feel like we've responded well to that in terms of the nature of the objections. I've got a couple of questions. So plots 401 and 402 were mentioned for possible offices, market in suite. Any comment about those? Yeah, they're under construction. They're construction sites. There is no spare space to provide a sales and marketing office. It's not publicly accessible. So all of the residual phases also have buildings on them. So we would not find a location which wouldn't, within a matter of months or years, be subject to another construction site and would be very short-lived. So following up on what my colleague mentioned, the two applications in front of us and the situation in your own, your current marketing suite, cause a lot of temporary situations. You're going to move out of one place which has got scaffolding around it and you've got loads of work that's going to be done on a building. So finding a tenant for that property is going to be extremely difficult while those works are underway. So actually there's no reason for you to take out the marketing suite or not retain that larger space for your more one-off events that you mentioned. So you could, if you wanted to, consider using the smaller space yourselves for your marketing suite and offices and you hold your larger events back in your existing marketing suite, which is a short distance, cause I know the area very well. So you've only got to walk along the park between the, the ecology park, less than five minutes. And that, that would then allow you to create a permanent CAF and not waste money on working on something that you think is only going to be there for five years. So you can't expect a new business to come in and invest in, in, in a, in a building which later on they're going to have to spend more money if they want to go back into the designated building that was set up for a, a, a more permanent CAF. So I'm just wondering if it makes more sense to open the bigger CAF in the building, you could even use the CAF, um, once it was opened for your bigger presentations, because you could have an arrangement with the operator who could allow you to do that. But at least there's something permanent within that area. And it fulfills some of the obligation to the local residents who were sold a marketing plan from your marketing suite, which included, um, a, a, a large CAF operation. Um, so the space at Da Vinci, um, we would market that absolutely. And it would be dependent on finding an operator that the great thing about that space is obviously it's fitted out. So people benefit from that. So again, going back to the capital costs of someone setting up, but we have had interested parties approach us recently and, uh, would be interested in taking the space. So we are quite confident that that space would be, um, would be taken in the short term, despite the, um, the cloud and remediation works will be undertaken, which again, will be for a short period of time. The, your suggestion around using the space, uh, multiple spaces, uh, isn't great from an operational perspective for us. We would like to be in a single place, um, and the five years would take us through to the end of the development or at least for the end of the sales period. Any further questions? Chris, thank you very much. No, thank you for your time. Thank you. Thanks. Members, open for deliberation. Sam. Right. Thank you, chair. So I think on the first application, this application, it's a no brainer that we need to approve it, right? If you approve it, you end up with two spaces that could be a cafe or one space. If you reject it, you end up with one or zero, right? So if you want to maximize social value, you have to approve that, right? And I understand that by rejecting it, we might add extra pressure to the developer, but that's not a planning consideration. And I actually think giving the cafe they might not want probably adds just as much pressure. And we've also been asked by the leaseholder association to approve it as well. So I will be, I will be voting in favor of that one. Tim five. Tim five. Yes, the very first application that we came to. Yep. However, for the other application, I want to hear from other counselors, but right now I'm minded to reject it. 372 objections is massive. I'm chair of the leaseholder association, getting 50 agreement is, to 50 agree is a tough enough task. 372 is massive. We heard from GMV that their community engagement wasn't good enough and their consultation should have been better. And given that when they saw those objections, they changed their mind and put this forward, I do wonder that if they started doing that community engagement properly from day one, what else they would have come up with and the community would have been much happier with that outcome. So I'm voting for the first one and I'm probably voting against the second one. Dave. Dave. I understand what Sam's saying. In fact, if you look at both items, both of them can be supported. There is a rationale about the individual applications. But when you put the strategy together, for me it doesn't stack up. And I think that's echoed by the number of people who are voicing their objection to it. The point that Sam made latterly, an extremely good one, it's almost like, you know, asking for directions to a place and you get the reply, I wouldn't start from here. I think that's what we've arrived at this evening. I think if the developer was to go away and actually have good conversation, good discussion with the residents, they might come back with a solution that wouldn't require, well, may involve both these applications, you know, but I think they'd have an awful lot more support behind them. So I'll be voting against both, Jan. Thanks, Dave. Pat. Yes, I can't get over this 372 objections. It's absolutely mind-blowing. 372, all different objections. So I can't actually vote for the second application. I'm quite undecided about the first one. Because are we trying to say that if we have, if we grant that first application, that that is there, isn't it, for the use of the residents anyway? Yeah. So I'm tending to go along with my colleague, Sam, on that one. Vote for the first one, for the cafe, but not for the second application. 372 is just too many people. Ashley. You know, the lack of consultations with the residents and, you know, you know, we see too many developers who just, you know, have got no regards for residents and the community and what they want and what they don't want. So, and they also make false promises at the beginning to get people in. You know, so that doesn't work for me either. So I'm going to have to go against the second one. Just for clarification, on the first one, were you in favour or...? OK. So before you actually go to the vote on both applications. So you need to vote as if you would carry the officer's recommendation. If you don't carry the officer's recommendation, before you vote against it, you have to decide what reasons are for voting against it. And at the moment, I haven't heard any planning reasons that you've set out and laid out. Now I understand 372 objections is a lot. Planning consultations and planning applications are not about referendums. Those 372 applications have to have planning merit that has been raised and have to, you have to look at the policies as well. And what you would consider refusing these applications on, in terms of what the planning merits are, what the harm is of these applications, and what the policies are that back that up. So before you go to vote, you have to be able to give a valid reason for refusal that can be supported and defended at appeal. It's not a planning issue. It's not a planning issue. There is the issue of costs when we go to appeal. So we have to be very cognizant that we have to be able to defend those reasons for refusal. So before you go to the vote, you have to be very clear about what you're refusing. But you need to be able to explain what you mean by lack of public immunity. What does that actually mean, and what policy are you pegging against? So you need to be very clear about your reasons for refusal, because if this goes to appeal, we need to be able to defend that decision, and we need to be making a reasonable decision tonight. So what I would suggest is, why don't you go to the first application, and then go to the vote, as per the office's recommendation. If that's not carried, then we can have the discussion about what those reasons for refusal are. Victoria, can I add something to that as well, in terms of consideration? The second application is for a temporary period as well, which if it went to appeal and the inspector considered that, if members were minded to refuse, the inspector has to consider what harm would a temporary consent have on the development. Right, this isn't the second application isn't for it to be permanently removed. At the end of the temporary period, it would have to revert back to the original use. So that has to be brought into members' consideration. So it's not a permanent removal of that use as a cafe. It is a temporary period. Lack of social wellbeing. So you need to be able to expand what you mean by lack of social wellbeing. So the loss of a temporary cafe, which is vacant at the moment, but the loss of that potential use. What is the harm that you are objected to for that being replaced for a five year period with a marketing suite? The people who go there, some of them, they're sort of, yeah, it's the wellbeing. Sorry. Just on that last point, sorry, Councillor Littlewood. You're saying lack of social wellbeing, but there is another application that is coming forward for a cafe, for a permanent cafe, which is going to be fitted out to the cafe standards. So although you're temporarily losing a cafe that's going to be replaced with a marketing suite, you're also gaining a new cafe, albeit in a different location. So if you're arguing social wellbeing, you're actually having a cafe that's coming along as a replacement. Can I also add the second application in terms of the unit? It isn't actually currently in use. It was intended for a future use as a cafe, but the current unit is not there. So it's not a loss of a current cafe. It's a, it is a temporary, the proposal is for a temporary loss of that future use. So at the moment, it's not a cafe. It's an empty unit. So it's not operational. Can I make a suggestion that we go to the first decision? Yeah. Okay. I'm going to take a vote on item five. So on item five, all those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. All those against? Abstentions. Abstentions? One. Abstentions. One. Abstentions. One. Against one. Four. Yeah. So now we're coming on to item six, which is what we're, which we're deliberating now. So. Okay. Subject to some protocol that I have in front of me. Um, and listening to the sentiment of all members of the committee on item six. I am going to just suggest a deferral of the item to another meeting for reasons or proposed conditions to be subject of a further advice and then to be tested and discussed at the next convened meeting. So all those in favour of that, well, all those in favour of that proposal on item six, please raise your hands. Yeah. And that is on the base. Sorry. Members clearly. No, I've got two members there. Well, we've got time because this is, this is a, this is a, a defer, a suggestion for deferral. So within that time, if members do want a site visit, then, then we can accommodate that in that period of time. So this is down, I'm, I'm putting this forward because all members of the committee have basically suggested that they will not support the application as submitted. Therefore, I'm going to, I've, I've offered the deferral for, for more consideration and we come back at the next meeting rather than the refusal. Okay. Right. So can I see, can I see a, can I see a show of hands on that suggestion again? Yeah. And that's it. That's within our terms of reference. Okay. So item six, item six is, is deferred. Item five is approved. Item six is deferred. Thank you very much. Okay. We now move on to item seven, 61 Macoma Road, Plumstead, London SE18, 2QJ, reference 243121F. Thank you. Brendan. Uh, this item relates to 61 Macoma Road in Plumstead. This application is for the change of use of a single family dwelling house to a five bedroom HMO with a maximum capacity of five persons. The application is here before committee by reason of being the subject of 18 objections. These are summarized within section 6.2 of the officer's report. The site is located on the northern side of Macoma Road and comprises a two story terrace dwelling. The site does not contain or sit adjacent to any statutory or locally listed buildings. The site, however, does sit just the south with the boundary of the Plumstead common conservation area. This is an aerial view of the site. The site is a two story terrace building with a front and rear garden. The site contains a two story outrigger with a single story wraparound extension which exists as an orangery. The surrounding area is residential in character. This is an image of the front of the site. The site has been subject of two recent planning approvals, including a change of use to a supported living accommodation, before adults with learning disabilities. This has not been implemented. A separate application for the removal of the orangery and replacement, a single story side and rear extension, was also approved to have, again, this has not been implemented. This application does not seek any external works and is only for the change of use of the existing property to a five bedroom, five person HMO. These are the existing and proposed ground floor plans. The lounge and dining rooms are to be converted into bedrooms. Both the existing kitchen and orangery areas will provide a suitable amount of communal living space for future occupiers. These are the existing proposed first floor plans. No changes are made to this floor. The standard accommodation is compliant with the standards within the council's HMO guidance and a good quality accommodation may be provided for future occupiers. All bedrooms exceed the size requirements for a single occupier and the kitchen is of a suitable size for a five person HMO. A HMO with the maximum capacity of five persons is not considered to lead to noise and disturbance level over and above that associated with existing use of a single family dwelling house or the supported accommodation use of use approved at the site. A condition has been attached limiting the amount of persons able to occupy the site to a maximum of five. These are the existing elevations which will remain unchanged. This is a picture of the rear of the site. This shows the orangery and the significant glazing that would allow for sufficient daylight into the kitchen area. The orangery is also served by glazing to the side as well as a roof light. With regard to parking concerns, while no off-street car parking is proposed, given those occupying HMOs who do not tend to drive, it is not considered that the proposal would give rise to any significant additional impacts on car parking within the surrounding street network. Furthermore, the site has benefited from a change of use for supported living accommodation, which includes associated staff which may have driven to and from the site. Given that the permission is still implementable, it is not considered the proposal for a five person HMO with significantly increased car parking pressure over and above the supported accommodation use approved at the site. Moreover, as shown on this slide, the site does sit in close proximity to several bus stops along Plumsford Common Road, with the nearest stop being some four minutes walk from the site. Cycle parking will be provided with ample space for at least five cycle parking spaces to be provided within the rear garden of the site. Further details of how cycles will be kept safe and secure are required by way of condition. Bins storages to be contained to the front and there is sufficient space in the front garden for the five bins required. Bins can easily be moved to the pavement on collection day and moved back to within the site boundary thereafter. This arrangement in the bin storage is commonplace in the Macoma Road and the Council's Waste Officer has not raised any objections to this. That is the end of the presentation. The applicant is considered acceptable for the reasons put forward before committee with the recommendation of approval subject to conditions found in Appendix 2 within the main report. Questions for the officer, Pat. I'm going back to asking sort of one that I always, although I don't ride a bike myself. Can I just ask you, provision for bikes in the rear garden, is there a back entrance to this property? There's no back entrance to the property. So, the bikes are going to have to go through the house because there doesn't seem to be a side entrance. Yeah, the bikes would have to go through the house, but that's just as it is today. So, for instance, if there was a single family dwelling house, the family would have to take the bikes through the house. If they wanted to mow the lawn, they'd have to take the mower through the house, garden paraphernalia, everything would have to go through the house as it currently stands. Yeah, but a family house is not the same as an HMO. And if you've got an HMO and you've got people living downstairs and going to the kitchen and carrying food, are we saying that these bikes are going to have to go through the kitchen? Yes, they would. But again, they'd have to go through the kitchen if it was a family living there. But we're talking, it might be six bikes here, it might be more, but we're not talking a family home. We're talking about an HMO where the configuration of the rooms is totally different. And where people are going to be eating, perhaps in their own rooms, carrying food around, and six people cooking at different times. So it's not like for like. The other question I have is, can you tell me how many bathrooms and toilets there are in this application, please? So there'd be one bathroom and then a separate room with a hand wash basin within it. And that is compliant with the standards for a five person HMO. So are we just talking one toilet? One bathroom and one, or is that two toilets? Yes, so one bathroom, which would have a toilet in it, and then one separate toilet with a hand basin. So it would be two toilets in total. Two toilets. Okay. And it's one, I can't get my head around, 11.18 talks about bedroom two served only by a window that sits internally to the orangery. Yeah, so bedroom two would be within the, within an orangery. But because it's, the orangery's got glazing to the side, served by roof line, glazing to the rear. That's considered acceptable in this instance on balance. So is the orangery, is that being used for a room? No, that would be communal space. So what you're saying is that there's going to be a bedroom window. Obviously it's going to be glazed, but it's not looking out into open space. It's looking into another area where there are going to be people communicating, talking. I'm thinking about the noise, and also I can't quite work that out. There's still going to be a shortage of light to that room. So the, the orangery, as you can see, is actually well glazed to the side here as well. And then there's a roof light as well. So while it is unconventional, there would be precision light coming into that room through, because it's glazed. This would be a living area, but it's no different. Say if this wasn't covered and the orangery didn't exist, people could hang around outside the garden. If there was an open garden space, people could sit outside that bedroom window anyway. But it's not... Sorry, Pat. I think what Pat's getting at, Brendan, is the fact that the orangery, that bedroom window, internal bedroom window, it looks out into the orangery. That's a communal space. It means that other residents in that communal space will be outside that bedroom window. That's correct, yes. But then again, if the orangery didn't exist, they could be outside in the garden area anyway, outside that bedroom window. Okay. Do you get that now, Pat? Yeah? Okay. Any further questions for the officer? No? Brendan? Thanks. I now wish to call on Jack O'Callaghan. Hi, Jack. Thanks for your patience. There's a little button in the middle. The red light will come on. We've got two minutes. Thank you. Good evening, everyone, and thank you also for your patience getting through all of this. I'll try and be brief, because we've all been here a while. It's just on... I just want to touch on the local planning committee report that was done on the 25th of... Oh, no, it's for this one. Sorry. The Transport Highway, the Transport and Highway Agency, they said that the public transport of this area is a PTAL of 2. And obviously, this could promote the use of cars. Further through, the response to that on, I believe, section 13.3, it states that the site has a PTAL of 4, which confused me. So, I then went on the webcat on TFL, which states what the PTALs are of every area across London, and it is 2. So, on that basis, I would lean heavily towards what was originally said by the transport and highway that it does have a PTAL of 2. And on that basis, I would also argue that there would be an increase in cars that were parked there. It also says further through on 13, section 13, that it's a trend that HMOs tend not to have cars. I'm basing mine on the reality of an HMO that's on an adjacent road, and there are additional cars there. So, as much as it has a trend with the PTAL of 2, and the fact we have an HMO on an adjacent road that has additional cars because of the occupants there, I would argue that we would see an increase in traffic. To put that into context, when I go home this evening, I won't have a parking space. And our street, since I've lived there, has had multiple families move in, and we all require cars for small ones, driving them around from nursery, etc. So, the amount of cars on the street is high. Second to that, your point you made, Councillor Pat, I was going to raise that. I have a bike, and I had to put it out the front because my hallway is, I can get it through, but it's very narrow. These houses actually have a narrower hallway than we have. We're on the other side. And second to that, the HMO that is on the adjacent road, recently there was a police raid on that HMO because there were people running up and down the street with knives, and there's been a high amount of drug crime. The result of that has been that we've had signs put up all by the police. No problem. By the police stating that there's an increase in bike theft because of the situation with the HMO on the adjacent road. So all of us that have to lock our bikes out the front are now concerned that our bikes are going to get stolen, or have had our bikes stolen. So if there is a situation where we do have to move the bikes to the front, they're also going to be in the situation where bikes are getting stolen. So transport-wise, I would say this is going to be a struggle. Thank you. Thanks, Jack. Any questions? Can I just ask then, how wide do you think, do you know of anyone who lives in the house? I'm trying to sort of establish the width of that hallway. So I live across the road, and he lives on the other side, next door. Ian, Ian, when Jack's finished, if you come up, you can speak on the mic, and then it gets recorded. Yeah. All right. So I have a bike, and I originally had it outside in a shed, and we were just scraping the walls getting it through. So I've left it out the front, but now I regularly hear people trying to get at it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Jack, is there a CP, there's no CPZ in your area at the moment then? Sorry, I'm not sure. It's a CPZ. Controlled parking zone. No, it's free parking all around. Okay. And looking at Emma, you're not far from Plumstead Manor School, is that correct? Correct, yeah, not too far. Yeah. I'm surprised there isn't a controlled parking zone there. No, all of the streets around us, it's quite a distance until it's controlled. And just on that note, PTAO 4 doesn't kick in until about nearly a mile away from where we live. So there is quite heavy reliance on cars around where we live. I would say most people on our street use a car. So my question coming back to Brendan. Brendan, is there a way of making this a car-free development? Is the option open to us for making this? No, there'll be no way of doing that. Yeah, no, and we can only make it a car-free development if there are restrictions on the road. So if it's a controlled parking zone, then we can restrict it by taking permits away. Unfortunately, there are no permits required to park around here, so it is free parking. It is, as the gentleman has just said, it is quite far away from the nearest controlled parking zone. And in terms of the report, it is a PTAO 2. That was a mistake in the main section of the transport. It is PTAO 2, but it is still considered by officers. Whilst the highways officer asked for a car parking survey, it is still considered that, given the type of property proposed and what we've mentioned in terms of the use of cars for a HMO, it is considered to be appropriate. There's five persons here. The previous use that was accepted on here, which was used for supported living with staff, would have also had a number of cars that would have caused pressure. This is not considered to be over and above that or what would already exist. So, my understanding of our parking regime is if or when a CPZ comes to that area, they'd only be entitled to apply for one first permit, like every other household in the borough. And any permit after that would be up for higher fees and whatever. So, yeah, I believe in terms of HMOs, because they are meant to act like a single family dwelling, they are considered like a single family dwelling. They are not individual units, whereas if you were to have converted it into flats, it may be that each resident of those flats within the property were entitled to a permit. So, Jack, do you get that? Yeah? Yeah, I understand. So, sometime, the way things are going and the way traffic management is going in a borough, there's the possibility of a CPZ being introduced, which will then make extremely difficult for five car owners in that property. With all respect, there's also a possibility that doesn't happen, and then we have multiple owners of cars added to the street as well, conversely. I'm not going to make any further comment on that, but just keep your eye on the council website. Any further questions for the speaker? Sorry, go on. Just to be really clear, so it's okay to have a condition that you can't have more than five persons there, but it's not okay to say you should have less than five cars? It would be enforced that as well, yeah. Jack, thank you very much. I wish to call on Ian Peters. And you got here early as well, Pete. Can you push the button in the front, Pete? Is that the one? Yeah. I'd like to clarify one point made by the planning officer just now in relation to the care home. That was only unapproved on the basis that there will be an extension built. That is not part of this proposal. So, the care home is based on there being an extension built, additional facilities, which are not proposed for this. So, first and foremost, I've got two main issues. Proposed bedroom two is not suitable for that usage due to lack of natural light and lack of privacy. There is no natural light. I sent you a photograph of that area where it's completely black at the end of that area because it is covered by a roof. There is no natural light getting into there. Your planning office stated in power 1118 that there is heavily glazed windows. There are not. The only glazed windows on that property are single glazed running parallel to my property. All of those are covered because it overlooks my property, which means they would have to do it anyway. The only other glazing on that property at all is at the front. So, there is no natural light getting to the back of that property. Should there be a bedroom at the back of that property, then that will completely destroy any privacy to bedroom two. Because any one other occupant can look directly into that quite legitimately because they are allowed to be in that area. So, they would have to keep their windows and curtains drawn permanently to maintain any level of privacy. Even more seriously, that current construction is made of timber. It is severely damaged and rotten and had your planning people come and visited like I requested, they would have seen the state of that thing. You can actually get your hand down the gaps between the window where the wood has rotten away. You can put your hand down it. The guttering above bedroom, I think bedroom four, above bedroom two, the guttering has come away from the actual rotten fascia. Water gushes from that directly onto the roof below it. And because it's a flat roof, water is pooling around an area that is only covered by a piece of corrugated plastic. The applicant's builder was called there one month ago to try and identify where the leaks were coming from. And there have been leaks on that property before within that area. And that area is considered a suitable place for living accommodation. That is not suitable for living accommodation due to serious health and safety risks. And you need to send someone around to investigate that. And should you approve it, then it will be reported to health and safety immediately. That is not a safe area at all. This property is now up for sale. So the applicant's got no intention of making the changes to the actual bay to remove it, or to provide glazing on the window at the back. So anything put in that report about doing those changes is out the window. It's irrelevant because he's selling it. I know selling the property is irrelevant in terms of planning, but it means the applicant is not going to do that work. Oh, sorry. Yeah, the applicant is clearly not planning to do that work. That property has been on the market for three weeks and has already dropped 35,000 in three weeks due to the state of that property. So it's certainly not suitable for housing multiple occupants. It is not safe. Any questions for the speaker? Can I just... Whereabouts do you live? I live right next door to it. My property backs along the wall where that single glazed window. Right. There's no double glazing at all. Yeah. My actual set of glazed windows, which are blacked out, which they have to do because it overlooks my property. All the windows along there are on rotten wooden timber. The roofing's already coming away. It was only repaired a year ago with insufficient materials all in my builder. And the actual felt on that roof is already lifting. Is it possible to look at that? Oh, that's it. Yeah. Right. Can I ask the speaker if he can sort of talk us through that? Yeah, sure. My property is the other side of the trellis fence. What you will notice from the applicant's property is black mould on that thing where the gutterings come away, which means the water's not going along the actual piping. It's going straight down above bedroom two onto that felted roof and just pooling around the corrugated plastic in the middle. It's a serious health and safety risk. And I will report it. And the only reason I haven't reported it is because it's up for sale and there's been no one in there for six months. As well. When you look, is that... Well, is it... No, it isn't set... Well, it is set back, isn't it? Bedroom number two. Bedroom number two is right at the back. If you go through where that door is where it's opening up to... It's right at the back below where that black mould is. It's right below that. And is that sort of north or...? No, it's north facing, so it's not going to get any light anyway. The only natural light... I mean, I don't get natural light in mine. It's okay. It's acceptable. But it's not what you class... Because they're all south facing. The front window gets plenty of light. The back window gets adequate light, I'd say. It certainly does not get what is classed here as... It's just not... Thank you. Does anyone got any questions? No, sorry. I'm looking at the ground floor. On the ground floor, Brendan, is that the bedroom on the ground floor? So this is the bedroom here. At the moment, there's a bay window, which they removed. So, and this should be... There is no... The bay window has not been removed. The bay window is still there. No, but it's proposed to be removed. And then this is glazed here. And then there's a roof light, as you'll see at the end. There's a roof light as well. There's not a roof light. There's a piece of corrugated plastic. There's no roof light. But, like I said, it should be... It should then be glazed along here. I know it's blacked out now, but that should be glazed. That's all single glazed. And again, at the bottom of that wooden structure, that is all rotten as well. Any questions, members? So... Ian, thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to open this up for deliberation now. You've listened to what Ian said and what Jack has said. Any comments? I just wanted to put it forward, Jay. In terms of the structure of that extension, if the applicant was potentially to have an application that gets approved and they start to renovate the property, they may look to make repairs to that extension, but it's not a consideration under this application. Replacement of windows repair to the roof does not require planning permission. So they could do that without consent and therefore improve the structure or stability of that extension, but that's not under this current application and it's not considered that we can take that into account in terms of the impact. Yeah, go on. Yeah. I will not be voting for this application. I'm absolutely... One of my main concerns is the fact that, again, the bike, you can't get it through struggling with bikes, six bikes, through people carrying plates of food, what have you. That's a no-go. But also, I am very, very concerned about bedroom two. It's... I can... There's a tree there. If it's north-facing, it's not going to get any light anyway, but if it's not getting direct sunlight because there's an orangery in front of it where people can communicate and sit, what kind of life is that person going to have who lives in that room? Like has been said, they're going to have to have the curtains closed, people make noise. I can't support this application at all. Again, we've got the traffic problem, the traffic issue, and I just can't support it. Thank you. Okay. Sam? Thank you. I respectfully disagree. I'll be voting in favour. Now, the reason... I am very disappointed the applicant is not here to speak on their behalf. But there's a few things. I do have a lot of empathy with increased cars, and I very much hope a CVZ does expand over that area. Now, one of the first comments I was really unhappy by was saying, you know, there's a local HMO that has people running around with knives there. Living in HMO does not mean they're criminals. It does not mean that they're going to cause all sorts of social issues. I used to live in HMO, which is a story I keep telling people. It's actually a really vital source of housing for people either on low incomes or particularly young people. Now, it's also peculiar that, you know, people say that HMOs are full of criminals, but at the same time, they require much higher standards of living because here, this is a family home, and at the moment, we're happy that it doesn't have the right amount of light and mould and general repair, but the moment it becomes an HMO, suddenly that's a huge issue. And frankly, if somebody doesn't want to take bedroom two, they don't have to. They can find someone else to go, right? There is a housing market. We know there's already HMOs nearby, and frankly, if you had a family there now, they could also be five cars parked outside, and they could also be poor maintenance. So the switch between it being a single-family home to an HMO, in my mind, doesn't really make any difference. So I'll be voting in favour. OK, well, I'm going to differ with that. The house is vacant at the moment. It looks in really shabby condition. I think there is a lack of natural daylight and outlook to bedroom two, which is detrimental to the impact of the occupier. I think noise will be an issue for that room as well, considering it's going to be used as a communal space. The fact that it's on the market and the fact that it is not in a good state of repair leaves me with worries that any sort of decent work on that property will be undertaken. I fully agree with Sam's comments about making judgment on potential occupiers, because, you know, as we know, there is an accommodation problem, but that doesn't carry weight for me when I'm making an assessment on the property, because I believe that people deserve a good standard of living and a good standard of accommodation. And I am not convinced that this application will provide that to potential occupiers. So, therefore, I am also going to vote against this application. And I believe that if we are going to go to the vote, which I think we'll do now, it will be my cast-in vote for the first time ever. So, all those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. All those against, which then comes back to mind, and I have given the reasons why I'm not supporting that. I'm not objecting to the fact it's an HMO, it's the lack or the standard of accommodation being proposed, and the condition of the building. And the fact that, also, the applicant's not here for us to ask questions. So... Sorry, Chair. So, not necessarily the structure. It's the bedroom? Yeah. Yeah. It's the lack of natural daylight and outlook to bedroom two detrimental to the impact of the occupier of the room, and the noise from the uses of the extension, and the impact that will also have on that room. Yeah? Okay. So, item seven is refused. Thanks, everyone, for coming. Late night, thank you for your patience, Jack and Ian. Ian, thanks. Thank you for that. If we have, it's the night. Just over... .