Transcript

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this planning meeting. Filming and recording is allowed, but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. Only those public speakers who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speakers will be permitted to address the meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters and should not repeat comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to address the meeting. make any further comments unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Councillors will have up to five minutes. Accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups up to four. Individuals two. The applicants and their teams ten. On item six, I have Kate Hickman-Tavares. Prachanda Kamachara and Anuraj Kamachara and Anuraj Kamachara, William Gautelia, and on item seven, I have Anthony Richards. And, sorry, on item five, I have Alexander Panettais, if required. And, on item seven, Exon Socoli and Hiran Palmer. Thanks. Thanks. Item one, apologies for absence. Apologies for absence have been received from Councillor Ashley Muhammad. Also, I'd like to advise members and the public that at the general purposes meeting of the 18th of March, which occurred after the agenda was published, it was agreed that Councillor Callum O'Byrne Mulligan would be moved to the vacancy on planning board and Councillor Jahida Spencer be appointed. As Councillor Spencer has not undertaken the planning in probity training, she is not sitting at tonight's meeting. Are there any other apologies from members? Item two, urgent business. Planning officer addendums have been submitted and published in advance in respect of item five and seven. Public submissions, including photographs, have been received in regards to item six and seven, an email to all members of the committee. Item three, declarations of interest. None. Item four, minutes of the meeting, 28th of January, 2025. I take those as read. Any comments? Thanks. Item five is 88 Corelli Road, Kidbrook, London SE3 8EW, reference 243979F. This application was previously heard right up until deliberation and decision-taking, deferred for a site visit, which was undertaken this weekend. Therefore, I am restarting the meeting from the deliberation, but I will call on the officer to give us an update on the application. Luke. My name is Luke. I'm presenting this. I didn't present this before, but I'm presenting it now. So this is 88 Corelli Road for a ground floor extension, dormer extension, and change of use from a C3 dwelling house into a six-bed HMO, which is use class C4. It's got 13 letters of objection, a petition with 15 signatures, one letter of support. Those are detailed in paragraph 2.1 and 6.3 of the committee report. It was also called in by Councillor Fahey. Given that you've heard this before, I will go through this fairly quickly, but if you've got any questions, then you're welcome to ask me, and I can go into greater detail a little bit towards the end. Here's the site. It's not in a conservation area, and it's not impacting a listed building. It's a two-storey terrace property, currently a dwelling house. There's some aerials here. There's a front elevation. You can see there is a shared side access way between the application site and the neighbour. This was measured on site to be about 0.9 metres wide. This is the front kind of hard standing of the site, so it's mostly hard stand there. There'll be some waste bins that are positioned on the front. There's an image of that side access way that already exists. Previously, there have been some amendments to this proposal, which I will explain. Previously proposed there was going to be a side door down this alleyway. There has been some non-material changes to the application, very minor in nature, and one of those is the removal of that side door. There is no longer a side door proposed during this alleyway. I'll show you on the plans a little later. This is a picture from the upper level looking down onto the gardens, and there's some more photos there. The application's got two Certificate of Lawfulnesses on site, one for a rear dormer that's already been granted and approved, so a rear dormer could be implemented on this site without planning permission already right now. There is also one for a rear extension and a side door, which is three metres deep, very similar to what is proposed here, although it's actually slightly larger than what is proposed here now, as the current proposals has ever so slightly reduced the scale of the rear extension to what was previously brought forward. But they have a Certificate of Lawfulness essentially for all physical works on the site, so they can implement all of the physical works under the limits of permitted development without planning permission completely. So, in terms of the proposals, this is the plan. The layout has not changed at all, apart from the side door change which I described earlier. So, previously, there was a side door just here that was being proposed. That's been relocated. It's no longer in the alleyway, and it's now here, basically, going out the back. Yeah, I can show you. Yeah, that's fine. So, where my mouse is here, I'm not sure if you can see there. Yeah. Yeah. It's all right. I just wanted to have a look to see where the door has located. That's okay. That's okay. So, the door was here, going out onto this, that kind of alleyway access. It's now been moved to there, basically. So, there's a door now that just goes straight out the back of the extension into the back garden. So, that's the change, basically. Okay? Yeah? This is the first floor layout. That hasn't changed at all. Two bedrooms on the first floor. So, six bedrooms. All of them are one bed, and they've all got en-suites. And this is the loft floor layout. So, this is the dormer. There's two bedrooms on the top. These both have our en-suites. This is the front elevation. That's not going to be changed at all as part of the proposal. So, that's existing I've proposed. No change. So, here's the rear elevation. There has been a subtle change here. Previously, the rear extension was proposed as three meters deep, three meters tall. Now, this is three meters deep, and three meters tall at maximum height, but 2.5 meters tall at eaves height. You can see this on the side elevation here. So, essentially, the extension used to be there. It's been dropped ever so subtly. This is a non-material change that's so small it doesn't warrant reconsultation with respect to PPG guidance. And there's a section drawing as well, just showing the rear extension of the dormer. In terms of the room sizes, all of the room sizes meet the requirements of the HMO standards, and are a good size, and the kitchen's a good size, and is in accordance with all the relevant standards. In terms of neighboring amenity impact, the rear extension and the dormer is not considered to be large enough so as to result in an unacceptable impact on neighboring properties. And, as I say, all of these extensions could be done under the limits of permitted development anyway, without planning permission right now. In terms of public transport, it's got a low public transport accessibility level of 1B. There's no on-street car parking spaces, and that's proposed to stay the same. Cycle parking has also been ever so slightly relocated from this side over to this side in a non-material way. But there is cycle parking in the rear garden, and the waste storage is proposed to be in the front garden. And all of those provisions are in accordance with the requirements of the London plan and the local plan standards. And there's some extra drawings of the bin stores and of the cycle storage there. Overall, the development's acceptable with respect to the development plan, and you're recommended to approve. Just in terms of the changes, so this was previously proposed on the left. You can see the door there. That's been shifted to the right, just there. Similarly, that was the previously proposed rear extension. It's been lowered slightly, just there. And that's it on elevation as well. So that's the changes. All non-material. Okay. Any questions? Thank you. Sam, just a clarification. So on your slide there, it says six bedrooms. And, but on, I don't know if it's a silly question, but on page 29, it says it's a seven bedrooms, seven-person large HMO. Am I just reading that wrong? Page 29 of the committee report? Of the PAC. So it's the addendum, basically. It's the first addendum. Ah, the first addendum reprinted an incorrect description of development in error, and I did set that out in the second addendum, but you may have missed that. And also, we missed it when we printed the first addendum. So that was just a mistake. Fine. Got it. The description is the same. It's a six-bed HMO. It's always been a six-bed HMO. That hasn't changed. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. Unfortunately, I couldn't make the site visit. It's one of those things, but I couldn't. But I'm coming back to, again, to this entrance, this side entrance. So it was on sort of the original application, 13.2, said that the cycle store is within the rear garden. That was before it was moved a bit. And it's acceptable, given the proposed development has an existing side access that would be retained. Now, this side access, you're telling me, and I wish I had a ruler with me, a metre rule, is 0.9. That's correct, yes. And we did discuss this before. And we also, I can't remember how high, because this is quite unusual, isn't it, as far as how high that structure was. So have we, and also, so people with bikes are going to go down that way. But then, at the end of it, at the end of this corridor, is there a gate that goes left into the garden? Because I wasn't on site, I can't. Yes, that's right. So it's a 0.9 metre wide alleyway. Again, that's not being changed now at all. There used to be a door proposed to the alleyway, but there's no being changed. There is a gate. Let me see if I can find a photo here. Yeah. So, literally, as you get to the alleyway, you've got an entrance into the garden, there's a pathway then that goes to the back of the garden, there's a fish pond there, and there was hard standing from an existing shed. I think the applicant now is looking to keep the fish pond and locate the cycle storage on the existing hard standing. Can I move on to the question? We discussed, I don't know whether it came up from your report, I think it might have been raised by some of the speakers, about the materials that were used to build these properties and how, sort of, they're not very hard wearing, to put it bluntly. So, has there been any more work on that? In terms of whether something might be structurally sound or what materials are used in terms of its structural stability are all building control issues rather than planning issues so that they're not available. We can't consider them as part of your assessment on a planning application. And as I say, the dormer and the rear extension actually have been confirmed to be permitted development, so it could be implemented already. Can you tell me how high, I don't know whether you did or didn't, that ceiling of that passageway is? I can't tell you how high the ceiling of the passageway is, but presumably, Chair, you walked down it, so it's taller than you. The height of that alleyway is about 2.3, 2.4 metres. I actually took a tape measure with me, so I measured most of the stuff while I was there. Was it always that height, or is it from originally? Yeah, so the alleyway, as is, apart from on the neighbouring property, they've had external insulation done, and part of that is to do the front and back wall. And they've even done the side wall of the alleyway. So, originally the alleyway was probably around about a metre, but because of the external cladding, it's down to about 9.20, I think it was exactly. That's insulation. I was also a bit concerned about sort of noise echoing, you know, if you've got quite a few people down there, do you think? Well, without the doorway being there now, there is no reason for anybody to loiter in that space, because it will only be an access point into the back garden. Whereas before, they were looking at that being a kitchen door, where the kitchen door could have been opened, and they could have used it for ventilation. That is now gone. Because, I mean, when we did the site visit, and had a good look round, we remember what was raised by the neighbouring property, about people coming in and out, and echo, and disturbance. That's now been eliminated. Okay? Any further questions for the officer? No? Right. I do have the applicant here, who we were unable to ask questions before. Would we like to speak to the applicant? Well, I think we will. I think we'll bring him up, because we want to know more about what they're doing. Where's my list? I now wish to call on Alexander Pantazes. Thanks, Alexander. Alexander. So, if you want to introduce yourself and tell us a bit more about yourself and the way you, you know... Yeah, of course. Can you hear me? Yeah. Alexander Pantazes. I'm representing the applicant on behalf of Hybrid Planning. Sorry. You would like to have more information on the scheme? What we'd like to know is, does the applicant have other HMOs? How does it manage those? How does it vet the occupants? How does it supervise the applicants? Right. That's correct. He does own... The applicant does own a number of HMOs within Greenwich and the Greater London area. Most of the HMOs, or pretty much all the HMOs, are managed through a specific company, a management company, and all tenants are provided with a detailed management plan upon commencement of their tenancies. So, matters affecting neighboring amenity, noise, and behavioral aspects of a day-to-day living standards within this accommodation are set out from the outset to most tenants. Any questions? Pat? I'd just ask, do you go around and check that the various properties, check that everything has been adhered to? Yes. So, the management company would, on occasion, move to the properties. You know, they would visit and make sure that, you know, they're upkept to a good standard. I'm sure the cleaning services are also implemented on a, either bi-weekly or monthly basis, if that's necessary. However, tenants are, you know, encouraged to keep the properties tidy. I'd ask you, perhaps you don't know, the other properties that you have. Do you know whether or not the occupants have cars or bikes? It's difficult for me to say that. Yeah. I don't have the data on that. Sam? Thank you. So, if your neighbors had a complaint, let's say, about noise or any other issues, what does your company do about that? So, I'll just explain. So, my company, I'm just representing the applicant as a planning agent, specifically relating to planning queries or, you know, planning considerations. If there are noise complaints, the management company would be notified about it, and I'm sure that they would address that accordingly with the tenants that are involved. But does that company have a history of dealing with noise complaints? Does it have a process? How is that done? Again, it would be difficult for me to answer that question. I'm not the management agency. I'm not the management company of the HMO. I mean, there are processes, of course, when, if there are occasions where there is, there are noise complaints from the neighbors, it gets dealt with either by the management agency. But how? Can you speak more about that process? It's, as I said, I'm not the management company. I'm representing the applicant, and we have, as a planning consultant, there would be, as I said, measures that are taken into action if there are complaints, and the tenants would be notified of the complaints and requested to, you know, to pay attention to that. But to be clear, you don't know what those processes are. You don't know how it's dealt with. Excuse me? You don't know what those processes are. You don't know how it's dealt with. I can't answer that completely, no. If you were to be concerned about that, obviously, you could request some form of management plan or details of how those complaints would be managed and kind of commitments from the applicant's end as part of a condition if you felt that were necessary. Can I add, the applicant has, on occasion, provided management plans in various different applications? And if considered necessary, that's something we would agree to as a condition. Can I just ask a simple question? If the applicant has provided a management plan for other buildings, why hasn't? Because you were coming here this evening, why hasn't he provided one now? At this stage, it hasn't been requested. Yeah. It's not a validation requirement that we require for applications for HMOs. And we probably approve tens of HMOs in the borough without management plans. But obviously, in this instance, if you're specifically concerned about the operation of this HMO, and you thought it was necessary for the development to be acceptable in amenity terms, for example, then you could request one. But we don't request it at application stage. It's not part of what an applicant needs to submit as part of the planning application. Any further questions? No. Okay. Alex, thank you very much. Comments? Because we were at the end. Yeah. Can I just say, I just have, I just find it difficult to understand if somebody is desperate to have an HMO and for it to work efficiently and to prove to everybody that it's going to be efficient. I can't understand why the actual applicant can't be here. That does not stand well with me at all. That's not a good start. And I still have reservations. I know I wasn't at the site visit about this very limited 0.9 side entrance. Yes, it might be two meters high. And about the noise implications and the fact also that there is no parking. And some of them, if, you know, you may, some of these residents may have cars. And if they have cars, where are they going to park? Because there are no CPZs and there's very little parking around on the roads. So, I am, I'm not happy with this at the moment. Thank you. If that helps. Dave. I, um, I will support the application. I'm just a bit puzzled. The reservation I have is, uh, I didn't go on the site visit because I visited the site, uh, when it first came to committee. And I, although I couldn't go around the back or go inside, I could certainly see the context, uh, of the application. But I was satisfied that the report that the, um, officers presented on the evening. And I felt that I had enough information to make, uh, make a decision. And I probably would have supported it then as I would do, as I am now. But what puzzled me was how it can change so simply, quickly, over the weekend. The fact a site visit did take place, which I didn't think was necessary. But the site visit goes, and you go along, we take measure, and it's all changed by the following week. What happened? So, being someone that works in construction and paying attention to some of the concerns raised at our previous meeting, I looked at the logistics of the property and I thought it made more sense to put the door at the back of an extension because there was a gas main inside the kitchen on that wall that just didn't warrant cutting a hole in that side door and creating a problem that had an impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property. So, speaking to officers, I asked if a suggestion could be made, and the same applied to the rear extension. I looked at the height and I measured three metres and I considered the impact that three metres would have on the neighbouring property and suggested a reduction in height to lessen that impact. I also noted that there was an existing concrete path that went to the rear of the garden where there was an existing hard standing and a fish pond, and I thought the fish pond would be a decent feature to keep in the garden, and the fact that there was already an existing hard standing at the back, it made more sense to put the bike storage on that hard standing rather than start knocking up more concrete to put into the garden. So those suggestions were put to officers who then put them to the applicant, and the applicant has taken those on board and made those amendments. So that's how we've managed to make suggestions, but it's not the first time. You know, when we've gone on site, either before applications or after, we look at ways of trying to help both sides and try and come to a compromise that, you know, not everyone's in agreement, but if we can find some sort of middle ground or we can get adjustments made, then members are quite... are free to do that. And in this case, the applicant was quite flexible and took that on board. So that's how we've ended up with those amendments and the removal of the side door. Sam? Yeah, thank you. So, I mean, I was leaning towards approving this last time, and I can see they've made some changes, which shows flexibility, and I think it's been quite positive, especially in sort of responding to the comments that you made. I would just ask that we have that management plan in place, and I would like to see that the neighbours are involved in any complaints process, make sure they're involved in anything going on there. Thank you. Yeah, and I'd echo that. And I think if any other HMO management companies are out there, they need to come forward, any application with a management plan and with a 24-hour emergency number should anything happen so that neighbours always have a point of contact. So if we're going to condition that, Sam, if we can... Sorry, Luke. We want a management plan and a point of contact for the residents and for the HMO team to, you know, if there's a noise team, anyone else, if there's any social behaviour that arrives from... No, no. So because we've already gone through, we are only dealing with the last element, which was the site visit and the amendments. So we're not... I didn't open this meeting to go right back to the beginning. Yeah. Yeah, we are. This is what the application is. We've dealt with the HMO application at the last hearing. We adjourned that. We deferred that decision. So I stopped it at the vote. So we've already heard that. What we're dealing with now is the consequence of the site visit. So we've heard the application already. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. We have already dealt with those issues. We are now at the vote stage of the application. Okay. Okay. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, with the addition of the condition about the management plan and the 24-hour emergency phone line, please raise your hand. All those against. Abstentions. Thank you. Item 5 is approved. With conditions. We now move on to item 6, 47 Speranza Street, Plumstead, London, SE18-1NX, reference 243752F. Louise. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This application is for 47 Speranza Street and seeks planning permission to convert the existing two-bedroom single-family dwelling house to a five-bedroom, five-person dwelling house. External alterations also include the construction of a loft extension and a single-storey rear extension. It's been considered at committee this evening due to the number of objections received. A summary of these objections can be found within Section 6 of the Officers' Report. Officers are recommending that permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives as set out within the appendices. Moving to the site location plan, the site's located on the southeastern side of Speranza Street and is a terraced property. It's not located within a conservation area and it's not located within the vicinity of either a locally or statutory listed building. You can see the slide in front of you. The site is hatched out in red. The site's not located within a controlled parking zone and has a PTAL rating of three. This is some photographs of the front of the property. As you can see, the front garden has got more than enough space for the current waste and refuse requirements for the existing dwelling house. This is the photograph of the back. It's largely in its original format and at present there's no extensions at either roof or ground floor level. As you can see, there is a slight change in land level with the property on the left-hand side slightly higher than the application site and the one on the right sitting at a slightly lower level again. The property benefits from a reasonably sized rear garden. Moving on to the proposal itself, the image on the left has the as-existing ground floor plan and the image on the right is the as-proposed ground floor plan. The area hatched out in sort of a purple-y colour shows the additional extension proposed at ground floor level. At ground floor level, you've got two single occupancy bedrooms, one at the front, one at the back, both with ensuite bedrooms and you've got a communal kitchen area. The bedrooms all comply with the minimum internal space standards for single occupancy HMO bedrooms and the kitchen is also of a size which meets with the minimum HMO standards for a five-person HMO. Moving to the first floor, again, you've got the existing on the left and proposed on the right. We've got two more single occupancy bedrooms at first floor level, both again with en-suites. Again, as with the ground floor, the bedrooms all comply with the minimum standards for a single occupancy. Moving to loft floor, so the loft extension proposed as part of this application, it's received a certificate of lawfulness and as similar to the previous application, it's a relevant fallback position. So even though it's included within the description of development and included within the assessment, it can lawfully be implemented as part of the existing use of the property as a single family dwelling house. At loft level, we've got another single occupancy bedroom within the dormer with another en-suite bedroom. And again, similar to the other rooms, this bedroom complies with the minimum space standards for a single occupancy bedroom. These are the existing elevations and they correspond with the photographs that you would have seen earlier in the presentation. The one on the left is the front and the one on the right is the rear elevation. Again, you can see the change in land level on the rear elevation, drawing on the right-hand side. These are both proposed front and rear elevations, so you can see the dormer in the right-hand image, which is subject to a certificate of lawfulness. You've got some roof lights on the front as well. And to the rear, we've got a single-storey rear extension, which does require planning permission, but it's of a scale that's considered acceptable in design terms and is subordinate to the existing property and the depths and heights of that. Despite the land level changes, we're still satisfied that it would have an acceptable impact on the immunity of adjoining owner-occupiers. This is a block plan which shows you where the cycle spaces are proposed to be located, which is in the rear garden. And also, we've got space at the front garden for the required five refuse and recycling bins. We've got, we're happy with the location of both of these and they're conditioned on any approval for further details and to secure them prior to occupation. Some of the other concerns raised by residents were also the impact of the proposed capacity would have on the residential amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers and the pressure on existing on-street parking. Whilst the existing property is only two bedrooms, this can be lawfully increased to three from the additional floor space created as part of the loft extension, which I've previously mentioned in the presentation. It's not considered unreasonable that in this scenario, the existing property would have a similar number of occupants to what could be allowed as part of this development, with it being a maximum of five. As such, officers don't think that the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in noise disturbance over and above what lawfully could be implemented at the application site. In relation to parking pressure, whilst the property is not located within a controlled parking zone, it does fall within a P-TAL level of three. As such, it's in a reasonably good location for public transport accessibility. It's located a short distance from Plumstead High Street, where there's a number of buses giving access to different areas of the borough. It's also located within one kilometre from Plumstead train station and 1.5 kilometres from Abbey Wood station. As such, whilst a parking stress survey has not been provided, the property is serviced by a number of sustainable transport methods. This combined with the cycle parking that we're securing as part of the application, we're of the view that these facilities offered within the development will further reduce the reliance on private car vehicles should consent be granted. So, in conclusion, officers are satisfied that the proposal is acceptable, complies with the relevant planning considerations, and members are recommended to support officer recommendation to grant consent subject to the conditions as set out within the appendices. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Louise. Questions for the officer? Pat? I'm going back to my favourite question here, which you're smiling about. Can we have... Again, right, I'm going back to cycle spaces, which obviously, in this particular instance, are going to have to go through the house. Can I just ask you, can we look at the floor space again? What rooms, so if you have your bike and you're taking it in and you're taking it through the hallway, does it pass through any, will you have to go through any of the kitchen or not to get to the cycle store at the back? So, as this property is a terrace property, there isn't a separate access, unfortunately. So, you would have to take the bike through the communal spaces to get to the rear garden. But one thing I would point out is if you look at the floor plan on the right, there isn't actually any turns. So, it would actually be not particularly difficult to get a bike. You know, if you're taking a right-hand turn as you move the bike within the property, you can literally just take it straight through, from here, through here, and then straight out the back. It is a kitchen, yes. Yes. Thank you. And is it all right to ask another question? As you have said, that there is, looking at number 45, 45 is at a lower level. Do we know exactly by how much that the difference in height is? So, I think it's about 30 centimetres. But one point to mention is even though there is a change in height, the depth of the extension and the height has been restricted to the extent that it wouldn't result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining owner but occupiers, despite that land-level change. I'm saying that because looking at the map, the house, sort of number 45, there is already an extension there, isn't there? Let me just go back to the photographs. This is just a smaller sort of extension. So, that's on the other side of the boundary. Yeah. So, I just wondered about sort of overshadowing. So, I don't think, if you can see here, that opening isn't, that to me wouldn't be anything that, it looks like some sort of light lean-to. All right. Sorry. The neighbour is in attendance, so she'll be able to respond to that when she comes up to address you. Thank you. No worries. Any further questions? No. Thanks. Louise, thank you very much. Now, I wish to call on Kate Hickman-Tavares. Thank you. Thank you. There's a little button in the middle, Kate. A little red light will come on. That's it. Knowing the house well, I am worried about the quality of amenity to future occupants, particularly to the occupants of the two downstairs bedrooms. Some main concerns are bedroom two shares a wall with a kitchen along its entire length and will therefore get all of the kitchen noise, including at unsociable hours. As an experienced HMO agent said, was common in a previous committee meeting. It's also the only communal area in the house, so any discussions will have to happen there. I personally have some experience living in HMOs. I would not want to be a tenant in that room. Greenwich does not have a minimum size for bathrooms themselves in its HMO policy, only for shower cubicles. But the Greenwich policy does say they must be of adequate size and include space for drying, dressing and somewhere appropriate to hang towels and clothes. On the HMO Architects website, as well as on several other boroughs HMO policies, the minimum floor area for an en-suite containing a shower, toilet and basin is 2.2 metres, while a well-planned en-suite covers at least 2.4 to 2.5 square metres with a shower. Both of these bathrooms on the downstairs floor are well under that minimum. The corridor width isn't given, but looks extremely narrow. The downstairs of all of these houses on the street are unfortunately prone to damp. Even without the condensation of someone sleeping there, the furniture tightly packed against the outside walls and a permanently closed fire door to the bedroom. Since January, and the comments were submitted, the landlord of this house advertised and quickly found a family to live there, advertised as a single family dwelling, and quickly filled given the dire need for rented family accommodation in the borough. When the family moved in, they found that the electricity and heating were off, broken, in January. There were obvious signs of damp, and there was a severe mouse infestation. The front facade and the door of the house and the back garden are still in extremely poor condition, much worse than on that picture, because I think you can see a little better on the picture that I sent. The fence has fallen, and so on. This adds to my worry that the owner does not have the best interest of either the tenants or us as neighbours in mind. Regarding parking, the report dismisses the concerns from the transport and highways, saying that the social profile of those living in HMOs trends away from private car ownership. I do not doubt this, but the possibility exists of more cars. And it's also not just the cars of tenants which create dangerous parking issues. It's visitors, deliveries, et cetera. Well, over two minutes now. Thanks. Any questions for the speaker? Pat. To ask you then, Kate, was it? Yeah. Thank you. That was well spoken and clear. So what is your impression then, when I asked about the level next door and about the extension that they've got, and I suppose it's a garage, and I said, you know, my thoughts were, was the difference in height and the fact that there was an extension at the other side, did that mean that light was going to be reduced and overshadowing? And then you sort of... So I sent the pictures, but I know that the occupants of 45 are going to speak, and somebody is going to speak on the height difference as well, so I'd rather not comment on... Are they here, are they? Yeah. Okay. Right. So how many... So how many... You said that quite a few of the houses suffer from dampness, but would you say that this has got more of an issue with dampness than some of the other properties? I speak to quite a lot of the neighbours. We all seem to have a recurring damp issue in the same place in the house. We've had damp expert come. It's perfectly easy to manage it if you have nothing against the wall, if you ventilate open windows extremely well, et cetera. That house absolutely has the issue because we've spoken to the tenants in the last few weeks several times, and I... Yeah. Thank you, Kate. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any further questions? No? Kate, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Prachanda Kamachara. I hope I got that right. Am I close? Red light, push the button. Red light will come on. Yeah. That's it. That's it. Okay. Good evening, Chair and member of this committee. My name is Prachanda Kamachara. I'm a resident of 45 Spirinja Street. My serious concern of the 47 Spirinja Street converting to five-bedroom, five-person HMO is following. Once converting the five-bedroom, five-person is increasing the noise and the disruption. This Victorian terrace house are not properly soundproof. So five separate of the tenant mean more frequent coming and going as well as the additional noise from everyday activities, plus visitor and the guest activities. As per the purpose, bathroom will now be next to the bedroom of the direct network. So it means making more noise and disruption in day and much more in the night time. Because the bathroom is nearly top of my bedroom and the side of the bedroom. The National Planning Project says the creation of the high-quality, beautiful and sustainable building and the place is fundamental to what the planning and the development process should achieve. But this purpose is a minimum requirement room, but not much else. Shared kitchen and dining facility are extremely small. And this is a very small property and noise travel easily everywhere. Due to the lack of space and internal acoustics and other reasons, tenant will probably not stay long-term. From the vast majority of this current street, residents are homeowner. Adding a HMO will further disrupt the community of this street. About the parking, this street already experiencing parking pressure, particularly due to the nearby Plum Street Centre and Police Station. Five more potential tenants possible with their own vehicle will create further congestion on this street. Once I've moved my vehicle, when I'm returning, I need to think where I'm going to park and how far I need to carry my shopping stop to my home. That's the daily problem for me. And I want to waste and hygiene... Patrinda, you're over your two minutes now. Do you want to wind up? Okay. There's a waste and hygiene concern also very important. абот and problems around the 1989 telling Valve to your friends and family. So finally, I would say after the whole day, after the whole day stressful andESS jobs we we're going to back home to relax and peacefully spend in the night and prepare for the next day to go to the job. If we can't relax and we're kind of peaceful in the home, how we can work properly in the next day in our duty. So, that's all the reason I want to request to keep Spirinja Street as a residential not a commercial and not move like a SEMO. Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? Yeah. Prachanda, thank you very much. Thank you. And now it was to call on Anuraj. Anuraj, you want to come up? You've got two minutes? Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Member. My name's Anuraj and I'm here to strongly object the planning proposition. Just a few points to go however, I'll be echoing a few things from before anyway. So, the community impact, the development risks turning our settled family street into a revolving door of short-term occupants. And HMOs often bring a very transient population and that just raises concerns about noise, security and antisocial behaviour. Going into overcrowding and living condition, the proposal includes five bedrooms with minimum living space and also ensuite in each room. I believe that they're trying to prioritise profit over quality of life in this case. And I strongly hope the committee looks into this. When you go into parking and traffic as well, parking on the streets is already limited. There's a lot of overflowing from the police station as well, not just the residents. We don't normally get parking for this. When we're looking at waste management as well, the proposed bin allocation lacks a clear management plan. And HMOs are normally prone to overflowing waste, risking pests, flood or foul orders and hygiene concerns. The impact on my father as well. He's an elderly resident and values peace and stability. And this is a residential area. Planning concerns. The proposed 3.5 metre ray extension is misleadingly described at marginally beyond permitted limits. In reality, it will reduce outdoor space and create an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. The picture does not show you how congested that area is and how congested the housing are there. And just some things before I conclude. I just believe this proposal is deeply flawed. Again, prioritises maximising occupancy over ensuring a safe, comfortable and sustainable living conditions. The likely increase in noise, waste issues and parking congestion and its impact on residents like my father and likewise other people makes this application wholly unsuitable for the community. Furthermore, there's so many research nowadays and studies that have come in out looking at the effects of HMOs. Health and safety risks. Studies show that HMOs are associated with higher risk of fire hazards, damp and mould exposure. And a study in 2023-2024 showed an increase in type 2 hazards. Do you want to finish up now? Because you're well over your two minutes again. Sure. Anyway, I wanted to conclude by saying that these risks are not hypothetical and not anecdotal. These are all from studies and research and I have any references ready if you guys want it. Thanks. Any questions? No? Anraj, thank you very much. Thank you. I now wish to call on William Gautillia. Hi, William. Two minutes. Thanks. Hi. I'm a local architect and a resident of the borough and I'm objecting to this application for the following reasons. Partially, the assertion that it's for five rooms, five people, all the rooms, yes, they meet them in standard for one person for each room. However, even with a method statement, I find that it's very difficult to ever see those being enforced fully. And the likelihood of it being occupied by more seems quite high. The best use for a single family dwelling, one that was built as a single family dwelling, remains a single family dwelling, not an HMO. So, on a design note, to allow adequate headroom in the loft, and I appreciate the loft has already been approved, but note that the loft is built up to the ridge height of the existing roof. Permitted development and planning guidance from Royal Bar of Greenwich and their supplementary design guide asks for that to be kept back from the ridge, I believe, by, I think it's a nominal distance, but that's right to the ridge, which in terms of construction, to get a ridge tile over that isn't possible. So, either it's going to end up being higher than the existing dwelling, or that needs to come down. The rear extension, which I believe requires planning, is currently shown as being 3.5 metres deep by 3 metres tall. Lawful development applications allow for 3 metres deep by 3 metres tall. And in our experience, when we put planning applications in with Royal Bar of Greenwich, we've been asked on the boundary, particularly where we're exceeding what would otherwise be permitted development rights, to drop it at the boundaries. Particularly on the northern elevation that you can see there, it's going to be more than 3 metres tall. And that's the northern building that's going to be impacted the worst there, with the light coming from the south. I haven't seen a Bree assessment done for this. I haven't seen a Day or a Sunlight assessment done for that, which, again, is something we've been asked for in the past on applications for single-family dwellings. And I don't see why you wouldn't expect the same for an HMO, where arguably that's a primary bedroom and the only living space or the back of that house and the only living space for the neighbouring properties. It seems even more important. Raising again what the gentleman before me just brought up was fire safety. William, you want to wind up? Last point. I think almost every borough in London is requiring fire safety plans for household planning applications now. Well, is that not the same for an HMO and shouldn't it be? That was it. Thank you. Pat? Can I just ask you, are there any other HMOs in this area? Are there other HMOs? I believe there's many HMOs in the area, yeah. But in this particular road? I don't know. I'm not a resident of the road. Okay. And you were saying, you know, when you were talking about the measurements and one of the other speakers mentioned the fact that she didn't think that the bathroom spaces were adequate. What are your views on that? Pat, hold on, hold on, hold on. Pat. Officers have already told us that the measurements provided, make the application compliant. so asking the speaker what his opinion is of the space has been addressed by the officer. Would it be possible to put that question to the planning officer directly in this meeting? We're going to come back to the officer to comment on your points after Pat has... Any further questions, Pat? All right. That's fine, thank you. Any other questions? No? William, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Louise, do you want to pick up on a couple of those comments? So, in terms of the bathrooms... Sorry, I've got two keyboards. I keep getting confused which ones I want. There's no minimum internal space standards within the HMO for the size of bathrooms. The one thing I will reiterate that I think we raise in terms of HMOs is that obviously we're giving... We're considering whether planning permission be granted for this proposal, but also it would be subject to HMO licensing as well. And if there is any need to change the layout and that then requires an amendment to the floor plan, that's something that we could consider. But from a planning perspective, there isn't anything to say that the bathrooms aren't of an adequate size and they do fully comply with the standards that we look against in terms of HMOs. In relation to the single-storey rear extension at the back, let me get onto that floor plan, it is correct that it does fall outside of the room it's a permitted development. You could undertake a three-metre rear extension with a height of three metres without needing planning permission. So obviously the fallback position applies for the roof extension because that has got a lawful development certificate, but the rear extension does require planning permission. It is correct there is a change in land level and I think if the extension would be any bigger or higher than what it is currently proposed, we may have concerns about it from the impact on the property, number 45, I believe. But I think given the scale it is at 3.5 metres, we do think it's considered acceptable. I'd also like to point out to members that our SPD urban design guidance goes into a bit more detail as to the scale of rear extensions and to what scale that would be acceptable. And as a rule of thumb, that document recommends a 3.6 metre rear extension would largely have an acceptable impact on the immunity of adjoining owner-occupiers, which is marginally above what is proposed as part of this application. I think one other point that I will quickly mention is the... Wrong keyboard again. ..is the roof extension. So, typically, the SPD guidance doesn't necessarily recommend that a loft extension as large as this would be acceptable. The reason why we're supporting the dormer in this particular instance is because it doesn't require planning permission is it has got that Lawful Development Certificate fallback position. So, I think the SPD, from a design perspective, normally requires the dormer to be a lot smaller, further set down from the ridge, further set in from the party rules than it is currently. But because that certificate of lawfulness applies and the works do not require planning permission, it's for that reason that we are satisfied that works at roof level are acceptable. I believe that covers the main points, Chair. Thanks, Louise. Yeah, we OK with that? Yeah. The height of the rear extension again, is that three metres? Yeah, three point... Exactly three metres. And there's nothing we can do about the height there? We can't ask for... We couldn't ask for a reduction? I presume we probably, if members were minded to seek revisions, that's something that we could consider. But I think from our perspective and its current form, we don't think it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers in its current form. I'm just wondering... OK. Any further comments? Sam? Yeah. On the ground floor, is there room for a kitchen table? So I saw above the stairs there were sort of four squares. I wasn't quite sure what they were. But it doesn't look like there's any sort of communal eating place where people have to take the food back into their bedrooms. Is that right? There's four squares there. So again, it's really just an indicative layout. The main thing we're considering is the size of it. Now, normally, the indicative final layout is sort of fleshed out when it comes through to HMO licensing. But what we... what the standards do is it says for an HMO of this many people, it needs to be this big to be able to accommodate the facilities it needs to. Now, for a five-person HMO, I think it needs to be 9.5 square metres. This kitchen, dining area, I think, is about 12.75. So it's over and above what it needs to be. The other thing I'd also raise is that each of the bedrooms need to be a minimum floor space of nine square metres. And all of those reasonably exceed that, some by sort of the odd two, three square metres. So they are larger. It's not like they're just over or just what they need to be. They are all over and above the minimum requirements. Any further comments? No? Louise, thank you very much. Deliberation members? Sam? I think I'd need to have a site visit here. I think there's lots of unknowns. I don't really know how big the house is. I don't know about park. I don't know about the surrounding area. There's a lot of impacts that I don't quite understand without actually sort of seeing the building itself. The applicants are not here, are they? So, no. So we're getting into the habit of applicants not turning up, which means we can't ask them questions and can't learn these things. And my final comment, though, is rather different, which is that once again, I'm hearing negative views about the people who live in HMOs, which I think are wrong. I mean, just refrain from labelling people just because of where they live. Thank you. Members, the proposition of a site visit has been recommended. Do I have a seconder? Okay. I'll put that to the floor. All those in favour, please raise your hands. Yeah. I don't mind. Can I insist that everybody turns up? Yep. And we look to get this. I won't insist, but I would like to see everyone that hasn't already made themselves aware of the property take advantage of the site visit. So, you got that? Okay. Okay. Item six is deferred so members can undertake a site visit of the property. Okay. So, item six is deferred so members can undertake a site visit. Thanks. We now move on to item seven which is 108 Woolwich High Street Woolwich London SE18 6DN reference 2426 652F. Louise. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, my eyesight's not the best. Right. So, this application is for 108 Woolwich High Street. Oh, yeah. Sorry, Jean. The application relates to 108 Woolwich High Street and seeks planning permission for the retrospective application for the rear extension with raised height internal structural alterations, the removal of unlawful seating enclosure to reinstate the rear garden space and outdoor seating. It's being considered at local planning committee due to being called in by Councillor Smith. The application also received a total of 10 objections. A summary of these objections can be found within section 6 of the report. Officers are recommending that permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out within the appendices. As members will also be aware, this application included an addendum which was circulated earlier today in relation to this item. The addendum largely just included comments from the council's licensing team which supported officers' recommendation to grant conditional permission for the work sort and gave a bit more detail about any historical noise complaints that had come forward from the current occupier and those previous occupiers. The application site is located on the southern side of Willidge High Street. It falls within Willidge Conservation Area and is a locally listed building which is part of a wider listing of 108 to 113 Willidge High Street. The site is outlined in red as you can see on the screen in front of you. This is an aerial view of the site and gives a bit more of an indication of what's going around the application site. The site itself is the red dot you can see above the main property fronting onto Willidge High Street. I'll go into a bit more detail on the different elements on the site later on in the presentation. This is the front of the property. The current occupier is Osiris Lounge with the current occupier opening I believe in June 2023. The current use falls within use class E and is currently in use as a restaurant. There are no restrictions from a planning perspective on the existing occupiers. There's no historical change use or any particular planning conditions that the current occupier currently has to adhere to. Moving on to the proposal itself. Unlawful works have been carried out at the application site. This application seeks to regularise these elements as well as alter them slightly. This includes the omission of the unlawful rear extension which is highlighted in green on the image on the left hand side. This is to be removed in entirety and replaced with external seating and landscaping. The unlawful extension to be removed can also be seen from the photograph taken on the right hand side which I believe is this element here. Whilst this would allow for external seating within the rear garden this is considered acceptable in amenity terms given that the current premises is unrestricted. We have recommended conditions to control this area at the back so it can only be used up until 7pm daily which is condition 6 on the appendices within the committee package and that no amplified or live music can be used within this area and that's condition 7 recommended. The element of the picture allotated in blue which is this area here is to be also unlawful sorry the proposal does seek to retain it but it also seeks to reconstruct it reconstructing the walls with additional sound proofing as well as a raised height I'll go into a bit more detail later on the differences on that height this area would again continue to be used for additional seating in association with the existing restaurant as you can see from the aerial views the surrounding area is largely built up as such the removal of the rear extension which is the area in green is welcomed and whilst the area highlighted in blue is to be reconstructed with a raised height this increase in height is considered acceptable in design and heritage terms would not have an unacceptable impact on the immunity of adjoining owner occupiers in terms of increase of enclosure loss of daylight it should also be noted that the council's conservation officer who have looked at this proposal from an impact on locally listed building as well as the wider conservation area also satisfied that the impact would be acceptable so here's some photographs that the case officer took as part of the assessment these are some photographs of the existing extension that's to be retained as part of the proposal albeit partially reconstructed and increased in height and these are some photographs of the area to the rear of the site that's to be removed in its entirety and replaced with an area of external seating here are some proposed elevations for you the image above at the top shows the existing situation so this element is the existing structure which is to be retained and rebuilt and as you can see it is slightly higher by about 0.9 of a meter than the current situation and then you can see at the back this element is to be removed its entirety and then here you've got the area of external amenity space now as you can see on the two images there is going to be a slight change in and again here's some floor plans just to illustrate the proposal a bit more detail this is the area to be reconstructed and retained and then this is the area of external amenity space to the back which again we've got a number of conditions within the appendices which seek to control that to minimize any impact on adjoining owner occupiers and then moving on to conclude the existing site is unrestricted in terms of its planning use as such the proposal represents an opportunity to impose conditions relating to the use of the rear of the site the removal of the extension to the far rear and replacement of externing of seating is welcomed this area will be controlled through conditions namely six and seven relating to the hours of use of this area and prohibits any live or amplified music a condition is also recommended relating to a noise management strategy to ensure any impact on adjoining owner occupiers is acceptable subject to these conditions it's not considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the immunity of adjoining owner occupiers from a noise perspective the existing rear middle element of the proposal is sought to be retained albeit amended as part of this application this includes additional sound proofing which is also recommended to be secured through condition whilst the height of this element is to be increased it's not considered that this would result in any unacceptable harm to the immunity of adjoining owner occupiers as such members are recommended to support the officer's recommendation as set out within the committee report appendices and addendum provided today thank you chair thanks Louise Sam a couple of technical questions so if we turned this down today the rear area would still be licensed to be a restaurant is that right and then secondly also if we turned down today would we still be able to impose those conditions that you were just talking about so if you were to refuse permission hypothetically there's still unlawful structures so in essence our enforcement team might require them to be removed but I don't see from a planning perspective why they couldn't use the entire rear garden for external seating anyway from a planning perspective there's nothing stopping them doing that and their current license which I think was granted in 2023 does also allow them to use that area to the rear for external seating I believe up until about 9 o'clock pm per evening and obviously the condition that we've imposed only restricts that up until 7 o'clock and sorry that last one then so again if hypothetically we were to refuse it would we still be able to impose those conditions such as noise plans not necessarily because then it would be an unrestricted really the only way you can add conditions in is by having a tangible planning application that you can attach the conditions to so it does represent an opportunity that you have greater control over site at the moment you don't we don't have any control over it at all so for clarification can I just ask which are there any properties residential properties within the area that are going to be affected by this and I'm also looking at the bottom of page 106 where it says the proposal also includes the provision of five roof lights within the roof and sort of I'm assuming that they're new and I just wondered yes about the effect have we got a picture that shows that in relation to the nearest residential properties please so the roof lights you can see on the drawing here ultimately they're just to provide additional daylight to the ground floor extension so from an amenity perspective they wouldn't have any there's no issues around privacy or anything that area wouldn't be accessible for occupiers of the commercial properties to get on the roof or anything so it's just those roof lights that you see in blue highlighted here which are very sort of low scale form of development that you would do for an existing single storey rear extension in terms of residential properties might be best to go back to the 3D image and I might touch on the licensing response that we got within the Dendim again because I've only touched on that so I believe you've got residential properties in this location can I say specifically on the residential property lower right there yeah there are three houses there Anthony Anthony you'll be coming up next once the office is finished you'll come up and then you can give us more direction of where you are and just trying to help yeah so in terms of the residential immunity as I said to Councillor Littlewood earlier the site at the moment is unrestricted so from a planning perspective if you removed all of the existing unlawful structures they could use the rear garden for additional seating and from a planning perspective there wouldn't be anything we'd be able to do about it there would be no we wouldn't they could lawfully use it until 10 o'clock if they wanted and there wouldn't be so this application gives us an opportunity to be able to control it so we've got we're of the view that providing they stop using the rear garden for areas of external immunity space at 7 o'clock that there's no live or amplified music in that rear garden that we're satisfied that the impact on adjoining owner occupiers would be acceptable so whereabouts on that map is the so this is this is this is the area that this is the element that's to be demolished actually it might be easier to go back on the coloured bit actually no let's this is the element that's to be removed so this is where you would find the external seating but as I said this element is unlawful anyway so that should just be an area of external immunity space at the back of the site and then this element sorry I keep losing my mouse and then this element here is the bit that's to be remained enclosed but reconstructed with a raised height with additional soundproofing so again officers are of the view that this this proposal represents an opportunity to improve an existing unlawful situation and the conditions that we are imposing are actually more restrictive than what has been imposed in the licensing now touching on to the addendum that was circulated today after the committee report was published we got some additional comments from our licensing colleagues who actually advised that historically there has been noise issues with this particular site but not with the current occupier there's been a number of occupiers historically where there's been noise complaints for residents and colleagues in both the community safety and licensing have gone out and there were noise issues but since the current occupier has been occupying noise officers have gone out on site and haven't found any unacceptable harm and they're at the view that the current occupier is working with them in the remits that he's allowed to within his current license so I think the current occupier is better than what they've had previously on site thank you any further questions no please thank you very much and I wish to call on Anthony Richards hi Anthony hello two minutes the red light's on so speak straight into the mic before I start can I please ask for a reiteration of the constraints that are going to be applied to the external restaurant area please external restaurant seating Louise so exactly what conditions we've got yeah you mentioned seven o'clock yes so if you have a look within the appendices I've only I only got that document when I arrived and I haven't yet had an opportunity to read through it right so I will go through each of the conditions that relate to the external immunity space so if I explain if we don't approve they still have the option to turn that into garden space I understand and use it up to ten o'clock yes I understand I'm just trying to get clarification on what is being proposed so I'll go through all the conditions specifically that are being recommended to assist with the immunity concerns so you've got condition four which prior to works commencing on the retained extension you've got full details of sound proofing now that's to ensure that you've got any activities that going in within internal areas would not have an unacceptable impact on the immunity of adjoining owner occupiers that's condition four condition five requires a noise management plan which again will help set out how the occupier looks to minimise the impact on residential immunity of adjoining owner occupiers that's condition five condition six restricts the use of the outdoor external seating area up until seven o'clock every day of the week now the licensing team actually allow that up until nine o'clock so we're being more restrictive than what the licensing team have recommended and then moving on to condition seven you've got the playing of live music or the use of amplified equipment will not take place from any external areas of the site so they are the main key conditions that we are recommending in order to ensure that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers hopefully that clarifies things thank you very much good evening our lives have been blighted by noise since the unlawful structure was erected in 2021 we hear music every night almost every night from the Osiris lounge the music the music is meant to be contained within the confines of the premises however the music is audible even in the winter when we have our well-insulated doors and windows closed the problem lies with the inadequate soundproofing of the premises consequently I welcome the intention to create a suitable internal entertainment space in the Osiris lounge unfortunately I'm not convinced that it will have sufficient soundproofing and that's my primary requirement opening skylights as a proposed will allow for the transmission of noise I believe this application should provide for sealed skylights but above all it should have effective soundproofing and I haven't seen enough evidence of that within the application I do object to the external restaurant seating however with the conditions that are being set out my objections are a little bit moderated there will be noise no doubt when that seating area is being used our property is immediately adjacent to that seating area less than two meters our gardens butt on to that seating area so it's something which concerns me when there's a live event people are going to come out of the area up onto the seating area so they can have a cigarette and they might have a drink there do some socializing with some friends this is going to be half past nine ten o'clock that sort of thing I object to that I really don't want to see that happening we haven't seen anything in the planning application that talks about how this area is going to be finished it says landscaping you can see in the right hand picture that the retaining earth wall has been taken down to the right of that there is another retaining earth wall which is going to be taken down and it looks in very precarious state so it's a very difficult area to be working with in terms of creating seating and that's it I'm absolutely delighted with the sound proofing proposal for the blue area but I do have concerns about the outdoor seating thanks Anthony any questions for the speaker Sam so thank you so we heard earlier the list of conditions are being imposed and so approving this gives us the opportunity to put those conditions into place so you've said you're not happy with them so I think you mentioned having sealed skylights for example so could you go into a bit more detail about what conditions you would like to impose that you think would allow you to be happy with this development well certainly no amplified music or pipe music or music being played in the outside area I think I would have preferred a time cut off on the use of the external seating of something earlier but if that's all I can get then that's what I take but I certainly don't want there to be any allowance for people to be using that external seating area when there is a live music event and people are coming out that sort of thing because that will create a lot more noise and at that time of the evening I'd be wanting to use my garden too often it happens that we shut our doors so that we don't get the music that is coming out that's not a lot of fun so those are the main things and if there's good sound proofing in Osiris lounge then I'm happy hearing that so yeah that's pretty well where I stand Pat thank you can I just ask you at the moment what is it like that area Mr. Sikoli as the planning lady officer mentioned is much more responsible than the previous occupier and there are occasions when it the music volume goes up and we I'll SMS him and he'll respond by turning the music down and so we have quite a good working relationship in that context sometimes he has a live music event and then that's a little more difficult for me to deal with and you know I think for him to have live music events is going to be quite significant for him because that's where he'll make his money and so I don't want to really tread on that but I just want to make sure that those live music events don't impinge upon us by having proper soundproofing there yeah sorry I left that sorry that was left on by at the moment what what sort of barrier have you got between your own property we have a wooden fence about two meters high and that's it the the boundary of the property is basically what you see there it's plasterboard it used to be when the first person when the previous occupier was there it was basically just curtain which didn't contain the sound at all Mr. Sikoli is more responsible in terms of keeping the sound down and the boarding that he's put up has also helped reduce but we still we still do hear it it was just I mean do you feel that if there was some sort of understanding do you know if there was some kind of protective I don't know something that's sound proof some rather than a fence some barrier or I don't know that might help I think I'm not sure that we could do something that was really effective there because it's all open area space and so noise is going to bounce around and that sort of thing and people talking I've heard people talking on their cell phones and they're like the same distance as you and me I think the application part is to modify the existing building and provide sufficient soundproofing and probably more structural improvements to combat that so we've got the applicant here so the applicant's here so we can cross examine him in a minute yeah so any further questions for the speaker no Anthony thank you very much thank you you might want to stick around because we're going to bring the applicant up now yeah yes Louise so in terms of the additional comments made by the objector if members were minded to put a condition on that requires the roof lights to be non-openable and fixed shut at all times that's certainly something we can consider likewise if we want any further details of the landscaping of the rear of the garden that's also something we could consider as well I now wish to call on Exon Socoli and Hiran Parmar all right guys as the applicants you have up to 10 minutes yes so we found out once we bought the Osiris lounge how it is right now constructed so we wasn't aware that it was not allowed to be there we later found out that we were not allowed to be there and we later found out there was a history of having a lot of noise nuisance I've tried to put everything down just so we don't have any trouble with neighbours doors that's that's why we talked to the architect and we done the front I mean the back of the Osiris to take off the roof as it wasn't allowed first of all and have it just a daily coffee shop kind of area just so people gather talk laugh small chit chats and after seven everything will be closed at the back just like it's been closed from when we opened everything has been closed at nine o'clock which we have the council stopped us using it and they will prove that we stopped using it after nine with the soundproofing I think it will give a good touch for all the residents around there to not hear anything any music the skylights they are openable but as it will be double glazed I don't see any noise news coming out of Osiris so that's why I believe we're trying to do the best to not have any noise issues with neighbours or anyone so we're just trying to keep a good well running business in a good community thanks you're the architect I guess evening chair evening councillors my name is here in Parma I represent Kingsbury Plans and Designs I'm here to put forward an argument I think the word opportunity has been raised we just want to try and improve the situation we're sympathetic with the adjoining neighbours if anything everything will be done to benefit local stakeholders as well as the neighbours my background is in construction and building control in terms of the construction we want to try and improve the acoustics as well as sound containment if we can enhance the build and the robustness of the construction we will we'll be using registered and accredited acousticians to provide advice and if you need a copy of that report we're more than happy to share that with you if there's any conditions you require in terms of like DB levels at a minimum level we're more than happy to implement that as well in terms of air tightness as well it's like you know we'll have a particular space that you know it's controlled so we will improve ventilation internally so you know if it helps with sound containment you know we'll get an M&E qualified engineer to provide a ventilation system that you know helps to contain the sound as well as you know not allow any like sound transmission externally but yeah in terms of the plans that we provided like you know we treat it as a modest development with scaling back you know what's already there we want to try and reinstate some of the green space if you need additional landscaping plans we're more than happy to develop and provide that and just you know run it through consultation if it means you know helping the process along if there's anything on the boundary that we can do and happy to implement that as well the construction as it is right now especially on the boundary there are other issues not just for planning but for like fire regulations and building control so we will be looking at like occupancy numbers as well making sure that you know the space complies with fire regulations as well but yeah just in summary like you know everything we're trying to do is just to you know put everything in a positive light and Mr. Socoli is the new owner he's proactive like you know he's he doesn't let things sit for too long he's trying to be proactive where possible but yeah I think that's it that's my summary So Haran you mentioned sorry members you mentioned you mentioned about acoustic engineers will you bring them on site before you start the operation so that you're aware of what the noise levels are so you provide sufficient remediation so you've got better insulation into the build before you start that's what you don't want to do you don't want to do the alterations and then find out that you've put stuff in that's inadequate oh yeah yeah no no it's I'd like to ask like you know would would the planning condition or planning authority put any like limitations or like what the benchmark should be in terms of sound acoustics and then we can work with the acoustician to try and I think it's actually easier when your engineer comes on site to go into Mr. Richard's property and then you do a noise test from there A to B and then what your engineer will do he will then come back in and then tell you you need X amount of centimetres on this wall that ceiling and then it won't travel through and then the other thing is with your sound people I used to work in clubs and that so with your sound engineer you don't necessarily need a big sound system to provide a big sound you could get a better distributed sound which doesn't transmit the vibration or the volume but gives you the clarity and the sound within anyway any questions from member Sam so do you both know Mr. Richards have you spoken to him before do you know about his concerns have you worked with him in any way I have every single time I got a complaint a message I've turned it down it's not like we put the music up but we leave it at a certain level and there is some different type of music that have louder audible bass or louder audible tone so we always even if it's the same song or a different song we always try to lower it lower it and then we double check with Mr. Richard if that's fine with you guys and you cannot hear it all the time so the environmental health team in some cases can impose a noise limiter that goes on the amp doesn't it there's a cut out thing they used to put in there is a limiter that licensing can impose which is attached to the sound system let me just quickly check the license because I've got a copy of the license I can see if that's stipulated any other questions no it was just really to say can you well can you sort of you know now say that you will work with Mr and Mrs Richards isn't it I know you are doing now but sort of to listen to their concerns because they obviously are the people who have lived there you know they don't want their lives suddenly well they've had to put up with noise before and it's not right so you know and I mentioned before about the landscaping and the boundary and perhaps you could come to some agreement about what you could provide which might also be able to help noise as well yeah 100% we've been trying to work for a year and a half that's how long we've been open and that's why we are doing the acoustic just so we don't have any trouble with the neighbors at the same time as we're running actually talk and put some kind of barrier there which might help to prevent noise between the garden and the house and your property you you you mean at the back garden yeah we have to take the roof off because it's unlawful but even if we put we do have a one wall between my garden my area and the garden so but once it's taken down we won't have any music there or anything so it's not like we have to put a wall and then it will stop it even if we put a wall the roof will be open that will be taken off there's nothing that's going to stop the sound but there won't be any sound after the acoustic is done in the lower garden yeah so what they're trying to do is contain all the sound within the remaining structure so there shouldn't be any sort of noise bleed onto the neighbour or the neighbour's garden out during the day yeah yeah okay you know that's what I was thinking of if people come out chatting and smoke whatever it is you know if you've got that like seven days a week it obviously can be sorry Dave yeah I was it seems that you know it's quite commendable you seem to have a decent relationship with the neighbours and it is not easy managing those relationships I know that you've business has been going you've been running the business for about a year and a half you say and if your refurb and investment you're making now successful is it likely to lead to even bigger venue further down the road or you know is this the end of the road or is this the beginning of something bigger it's not making it bigger because on the side it's still existing and operating where the blue is not there with the blue even on the blue section on the lower garden it's still operating so it's not making it larger than it is right now it's keeping at the same size just covered so there's no sound coming out in terms of the space and the size of the area it's like you know we are restricted on how many people we can have on site so you know we will do occupancy calculation and this will also go through the fire brigade consultation process when we work with building control so in terms of increasing capacity it's not really something that we're allowed to do we have a set parameter we have to work with any further questions who's occupying the upstairs so looking at the building you've got your business on street level and there's two stories above yeah that's at the moment I believe is running as airbnb and there's a family living on the top floor as well so above is residential yes and have you had any issues or any problems from any of the residents at all okay okay fine members thank you very much members I'm opening this up for deliberation Sam so I am the local councillor for Willidge Arsenal this is my ward now the whole high street is being renovated we've spent millions of pounds doing it up we're trying to improve the situation of the high street and so we do need new businesses to move to the area but that means that noise is becoming more common and so this isn't the only complaint I've heard about noise there's other venues as well and that means we've got to get really engaged with licensing and with noise teams to try and solve it and we have a very good noise team who is very responsive now this is actually a rare situation I think in that we have the opportunity to impose these planning conditions today and try to improve the situation that you have and so one thing we heard about was a condition for sealed skylights I'd be very happy to support that and I suppose my message to the applicant is let's work with the neighbours let's make sure that Mr. Richards is happy with the situation and Mr. Richards to you directly I want to work with you I can give you my email address it's on the website I can give it to you personally and so if there are continued issues with noise or any sort of licensing issues let me know and let's sort it out together but I will be voting in favour Pat any comment I'm just I'm quite happy with it the fact that the applicants are willing to work with their neighbours I think that's a good sign as long as that you do do that and keep working with them I'm also going to support the application I think that with the correct engineers sufficient soundproofing can be provided and even for the external space if there is some sort of issue there you could also look at canopies or some sort of canvas drapes well not drapes but you know the sail coverings that could also mitigate any sort of sound that travels to the neighbouring property so you seem like you're engaged with the local residents so yeah I'm going to support so now I am going to oh yeah conditions we mentioned the sealed skylights sealed skylights and obviously the proper acoustic engineering which would be provided to you Louise is that correct so the noise condition obviously would be submitted to us but we would consult noise colleagues who would from environmental health who would review the details submitted and then they would advise us whether they're happy with the detail and then we would discharge the condition yeah so we're adding the sealed roof light to the condition and obviously we'll look the acoustics and everything else will be done via licensing and submitted okay all those in favor of the recommendation with those conditions please raise your hands the item is approved subject to the conditions and everything else being provided thank you very much item 7 is approved thanks members