Here's a summary of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Local Planning Committee meeting:

The meeting addressed several planning applications, with decisions made on issues ranging from HMOs to housing developments and licensing amendments¹.

18 Bramblebury Road, Plumstead (Ref: 25/1188/F)

The committee refused planning permission for a single-storey rear extension and change of use to a six-bedroom HMO ² due to inadequate bike storage, lack of accessible bin storage, and the adverse impact on the amenity of the basement bedroom.

The planning officer, Alex Smith, explained the proposal involved converting a single-family dwelling into a six-bedroom HMO, with a single-storey rear extension. The site, while not in a conservation area, was near the Plumstead Common Conservation Area. The officer addressed the 15 objections received, noting an addendum related to changes in elevation to reflect land levels.

Councillors raised concerns about:

• Cycle storage: Councillor Patricia Greenwell questioned the practicality of accessing cycle storage in the rear garden, requiring bikes to be carried through the house. Alistair Aliff, a local resident, argued that the proposed route did not meet London Cycling Design Standards³ due to narrow stairs and doorways.

• Bin storage: Councillor Patricia Greenwell asked about the platform for bins, its materials, and impact on light to the basement room. Rachel Thompson stated that the proposed bin storage did not meet the council's waste and recycling guidance.

• Impact on residents: A resident, Mrs Fapper, spoke about the impact of construction on her family, including her newborn child, and the fear of living next to a HMO. Another resident, Shambhu Patak, raised concerns about the impact on the drainage system.

• Parking: Councillor Roger Tester asked how the risk of parking stress would be assessed, given the site's low PTAL⁴ rating and lack of a controlled parking zone.

The applicant's agent, Joel Stern, said that neighbours had been consulted and that the three-metre extension would have been permitted development anyway. He added that residents would adapt to the cycle storage arrangements.

Councillor Gary Dillon, Chair of Planning, summarised the reasons for refusal as inadequate bike storage and the negative impact on the amenity of the occupier of the basement bedroom.

47 Speranza Street, Plumstead (Ref: 24/3752/F)

The committee approved the change of use from a dwelling house to a five-bedroom HMO, along with a single-storey rear extension and loft conversion.

Planning officer Saira Alam presented the application, noting amendments made since the previous hearing, including changing the roof design from flat to pitched.

Concerns were raised by:

• Neighbouring properties: Councillor Patricia Greenwell expressed concerns about the height of the roof and its potential impact on number 45 Speranza Street. Jose Petravares, a local resident, spoke about the impact of the extension on sunlight to his property.
• Parking: Councillor Roger Tester asked about the parking survey and whether another one had been carried out by Transport and Highways.
• Management: Jose Petravares also raised concerns about the applicant's behaviour and how the property would be managed.

Joel Stern, the applicant's representative, said that the sun would not harm any neighbours and that the client had brought the height down to 2.5 metres as a compromise.

123 Greenwich South Street (Ref: 25/1522/MA)

The committee approved an amendment to the planning permission to extend the evening opening hours on Sundays and public holidays for a retail unit, to be operated by ASDA.

Planning officer Neil Willey explained that the application sought to amend condition 17 to allow the store to stay open until 11pm on Sundays and public holidays.

Jonathan Wilson, a local resident, objected to the extended hours, citing potential disturbance and antisocial behaviour. He also raised concerns about parking and deliveries.

Adam Crundell, representing ASDA, said that the company had listened to concerns raised and amended the application. He said that the store knew there would be customer demand for the extended hours.

Site rear of 5-25 Sparrows Lane, Eltham (Ref: 24/1554/F)

The committee approved the construction of five four-bedroom dwellings, with associated landscaping, refuge storage, and cycle parking.

Planning officer Brendan Meade presented the application, noting that the applicant had provided a legal opinion on a covenant, stating that it should not be a barrier to granting planning permission.

Concerns were raised by:

• Access: Councillor Roger Tester asked about the width of the path and the access to the garages.
• Refuse: Councillor Roger Tester asked about the width of the refuse storage area and whether it would be a permanent structure.
• Construction: Councillor Roger Tester asked how construction vehicles would be accommodated and whether the construction management plan would look at damage to property.
• Impact on residents: Brian Simmons, a local resident, said that the land was not derelict and that the development would bring noise, disturbance, and conflict.

Peter Curry, representing the applicant, said that access was always an issue on sites like this, but that it could be managed.

2 Nevada Street, Greenwich (Ref: 25/0759/F)

The committee approved the change of use from a single-family dwelling house to a six-bedroom HMO, with ground floor side extensions and other associated alterations.

Planning officer Chris Leong presented the application, noting that it was a resubmission of a previous application that was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal.

Councillor Aidan Smith, a ward councillor, spoke in objection to the application, raising concerns about the kitchen size and the potential for noise.

The applicant's representative, Joel Stern, said that the sizes could make the stairs, bigger stairs, smaller stairs, can make a ramp on the side of the stairs where the bike can just ramp up. It's small details where every managing agent, actually, when tenants move in, they get to know their tenants and they adapt to the tenants. So one tenant will say, oh, I think a ramp will be the right thing. And they will put a ramp by the stairs where they can just hold their bikes, ramp it down, and come down. There might be tenants that don't own bikes. So you can't make a one-size-fits-all. But you have to make a route where you expect people to use it, and then you adapt as it goes along. So I try to... I think that's the most common, and I think we see it time and again in houses here. Now, saying to be scared of people living in HMO, I think it's unfair for the people living in HMO, because not everyone is fortunate enough to own a house, not everyone is fortunate enough to rent a house. And the whole reason why in 2010 the whole permit development rights came in as HMO is because people couldn't afford houses, and they were supposed to live a few together to be able to afford rent. I think, you know, you've been in front of this committee a number of times to know that committee members do not take that into consideration because we do not pre-judge any potential occupiers of HMOs. So, you know, we normally reiterate that, you know, during deliberation and when we're speaking to speakers. So we don't pre-judge anyone that... the issue is coming in... Alex has done an amazing job putting down the application, so my only way coming in, sitting down here, is going through people's comments and writing them down as I get a comment, hearing a comment from the audience, and they all had their fair share in actually addressing us before he came to the committee. All of the neighbours got a letter, got a knock on the door. So I think I'll leave it here, and I'm happy to take your questions. Thanks, John. Questions for the speaker? Pat. Can I ask you what happened with one of the neighbours and the tree? Apparently there's an overgrown tree, and she said that the applicant would not speak, would have nothing to do with it, and wouldn't sort of meet her halfway and, you know, sort of was quite... wasn't very friendly, to be fair. And, you know, this is about sort of getting on with neighbours and everything. Can you give any more information about this tree, please? It's a tree in the garden that is halfway over the next-door neighbour's property? And apparently you refused to discuss it with her. Just to clarify, I'm not the applicant, I'm the agent. So I can't... I don't know neighbourly disputes, we don't know... we only hear half of stories, we don't hear. If we'd have both sides here, we'd know what happened there. But one positive thing is, when people start refurbishing their houses, to make it something out of it. So when they're going to make the extension, automatically this tree issue will get sorted, because they have to tidy up the garden, they have to rent it out for people that will be attracted to live there. So this is actually a positive step towards having this tree sorted. Any further questions? No? The applicant is here. I didn't meet him, never in person. So if you want explanation about the tree, he's more than happy to give it. To the table? You have to come to the table. And just for the record, your name is? Andrew Clissolt. Andrew Clissolt. Andrew Clissolt. You got that? Okay. Pat? One of the residents, the first resident, the lady, was very disturbed. I was asking about consultation that she'd had with you, that neighbours had had with you. And she was quite upset about the fact that there's a tree that is overgrown and it's hanging over into her property. And she tried to discuss it with you, but you didn't really want anything more to do with it. You were quite, you know, submissive about it. No. I mean, if I can explain the situation from my point of view. The lady at number 16 moved in, I think, probably a couple of years ago before there was an elderly lady there that I got on very well with because I used to live in the property. And when the lady, the new owner moved in, I was there at the property one day and she asked to speak to me and effectively said that the tree was blocking her light and was interfering with her garden. And I wasn't rude. I wasn't dismissive. I just explained to her that the tree is a very large tree. It's been there for a number of years. It's been there for a number of years to actually remove half of the tree she was asking me to do. It would possibly affect the structure of her house and my house and would involve quite a lot of work to actually carry out some works to the tree. So I said that the tree had been there long before I'd owned the property and long before she'd arrived and the neighbor before never had any problems with it. If we start playing around the tree, I explained to her that my concern was that actually we'd end up with structural issues to her house and my house if we start effectively cutting half the tree away, which would allow her to get some light to her garden because that was her principal concern. But I did explain to her that I didn't think that was the right approach because the tree had been there for a number of years and we'd never had any issues with it before. If the tree was to get much bigger, wouldn't it have the same sort of potential for damaging both properties? I think if the tree gets much bigger would it have the potential? I mean I'm not sure, frankly I'm not sure if the tree can get much bigger. I mean it's a big tree, it's enormous. It probably needs some, I don't actually think it needs any work. The lady wanted some work done to it because it was affecting her life. You had to think about that because you were thinking, I think you were just about to say, it might need Pollard in. No, but I think if it needs anything, I mean I'm happy to have somebody come around and have a look at it, but if it needs anything maybe it needs a tree. I think we're diverting away from the application here, sorry about that. Any further questions for the applicant? No? John? Thank you very much. Members now open for deliberation. Sam? Thank you Chair. So first of all I strongly refute any idea or any judgment on the type of people that live in an HMO. So I used to live in an HMO, it's a vital form of housing, so I completely refute any of those sorts of comments. But for me, and I know this first point does meet planning requirements, but it feels like there's too many people in one space. There's six people in this one house. Now, it does meet planning requirements, but it has these knock-on effects. And number one is that bike route. It doesn't look safe. It's certainly not easy access. I know the agent said it was, you know, it's normal for bikes to go to the house, but maybe for a family house, but not an HMO when you've got six unrelated people doing it. And I also refute the fact that he says about the not having a front garden. I don't think it's about the front garden. I think it's about the stairs going through the kitchen, the tight turns and so on. And I also think that bedroom one is probably not suitable if there's at least three bikes, maybe six bikes going past it, the lack of privacy and the indirect loss of light I mentioned through needing to close the curtains. And there's also that waste comment as well. So for me, looking at it again, I'm not sure it's suitable on HMO, but I'd like to hear other views. Thank you. Pat. Thank you, Chair. I agree with my colleague. I am very concerned about that front bedroom and about the lack of light anyway, the way it is from the stairwell. And if you've got a platform of concrete or whatever it is above it, that's not going to help matters. And then the bikes, I just, well, to me, the bikes do it because it's impossible situation. We've heard from two residents, at least, that there's no way a bike, you can get a bike down there without having to make so many different moves. And it's, as well, it's a worry about the safety aspect. If it is going to go down the stairs into the kitchen with the bike, what if somebody happens to be coming up the other way with the plate of food? The fact that, yes, the kitchen is in the basement and you've got two flights of stairs, you've got people coming up a second flight of stairs with food. Not safe. And also the bins, the bin storage. I've looked at photographs and people obviously have an issue and they've got to leave the bins outside. And I am not convinced that there is room for all these bins on that area. So it's too much. It's affecting the immunity of other people too much. And now we'll be voting against this application. Chair. Thanks, Pat. Roger. Thank you, Chair. What I would say is that there are three main concerns. And the first one, I mean, of course, my colleagues have already actually mentioned about that as well, that it will worsen already severe parking pressure in a low PTL area. The lower ground floor bedroom raises serious concerns about the adequate light and ventilation. And there is a clear risk of overconcentration of HMO in the area. So together, these harms outweighed any benefits. So probably I think these are the concerns which we need to actually look into. Thanks. Dave? No comment? I too have reservations about the bike and waste storage. I think if the platform is extended above that front window, it has a negative impact on the occupier on room one, not just through lack of light, but possibly in the summer, the impact of smells and other stuff coming from waste in that enclosed space that will circulate during the warmer months. I have concerns about the the stairs from the front, from the front down to the basement level, not being of acceptable safe standards. And I also think the assault course to get from the front to the back is also an issue for me because I don't think it provides a simple and adequate route to safe storage. And I think that when we look at these, when we look at these, when we look at these, we do look at form and function and how the occupants will be able to live and how the occupants will be able to live an easier life. And I don't think the proposal as it is provides that, especially for the occupier of room one. So I'm also going to oppose this application. And I'm looking, I believe that it fails to demonstrate adequate bike storage provision and access to it. I think the impact on the living space of occupier of room one, there's a negative impact on that. So yeah, so I'm not supporting the application as is. Okay, I'm now going to put this to the vote. All those in favor. Okay. So first of all, do members accept what I've just said there about the failure to provide adequate space and the impact on the amenity of the occupier of one. Yeah. Okay. So all those in favor of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. Yeah. So just for the committee, just to make it clear, the reason for refusal is adequate bike storage and access to it. And then the impact on that access on the amenity of bedroom one. So the lower ground bedroom. Did that mention the waste issue that we had as well? It doesn't. Um, so the waste issue, we do have our own refuge services that have raised no objection. Can, can I just clarify as well, if it was impact upon bedroom one's amenity, what, what impact that is? Because to be able to take it forward, especially if it was appeal, we will need to tell, we would need to justify to the inspector what the impact is. When, when, when you, during the presentation, you talked about two routes for the bikes. One would be through the basement door, one would be through the front door. If, if the bin platform, which is, which will encroach over the window of flat one is enlarged, there is the, there is the, there is the, the possibility of impinging the entrance on, on, on street level. Because it will either, because it will either, the bins will either encroach onto the front door, or it will encroach over the downstairs window. Either, either way, either way there's going to be a change, because the bins shown are, are not, are not the bins that our waste team have said. And we also need to go back to the waste department, and raise the issue of what is a collectible bin, and what is not, so that we've got more clarity as we move forward in, in, in other situations. So, in respect of the bins store, um, if they had to extend that platform. So, we're, we're, we're all clear on that. Okay. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. All those against, with the grounds that we've now clarified. Thank you. Item 10 is refused. We now move on to, I, sorry. Yeah, item 10, isn't it? Yeah, we now move on to item 5, which is 47, Sporanza Street, Plumpstead, London, SE18, 1NX. Reference 243752F. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Chair. This application relates to 47, Sporanza Street, and seeks planning commission for the change of views from a two-bedroom, single-family dwelling house to a five-bedroom, five-person dwelling house. External works include the erection of a single-storey re-extension and a dormer roof extension at the main roof level. The application was previously deferred prior on the 24th of June as a decision in order that the applicant or the agent can be encouraged to attend the meeting. The roof design has also been amended at ground floor level from a flat, chup-pitched roof. A reconsultation was carried out for a period of 14 days to reflect the change. It's being considered at Local Planning Committee due to the number of objections received. A summary of these can be found in Section 6 of the main report, Section 4 of the first addendum, and Section 4 of the third addendum. Officers are recommending that permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives that are set out within the appendices. The application is located on the southern side of Sporanza Street and is a terrace property. It's not located within a conservation area and is not located within the vicinity of a locally or a statutory listed building. It's not located within a CPZ and has a PETA rating of 3. Here's the front of the application site. As you can see, there is sufficient space at the front of the property to contain the existing waste and recycling provision. This is the view of the rear elevation. As you can see, the property largely remains intact as it was originally constructed with no extensions at roof level, nor to the rear at ground floor level. The property benefits from a reasonably sized rear garden. This slide shows you the as-existing and as-proposed ground floor level. The area hatched in purple shows the additional rear extension sort under this application. The ground floor would accommodate two single occupancy bedrooms, one at the front and one at the rear. Both bedrooms would benefit from en-suites. The ground floor would also accommodate a ground floor communal kitchen. The size of the bedrooms and the size of the communal kitchen would also comply with the HMO standards and is therefore considered to represent an acceptable form of accommodation. This slide shows you the as-existing and as-proposed first floor plan. This floor would provide two further single occupancy bedrooms, the en-suite bathrooms. These bedrooms would again comply with the HMO standards and are therefore considered to represent an acceptable form of accommodation. This slide shows you the existing and proposed loft floor plan. The area hatched in purple shows the additional roof loft extension sort as part of this proposal. As per the committee report, this element has a relevant fallback position through the approval of a certificate of floorfulness. This floor would provide the fifth single occupancy bedroom with an en-suite bathroom. This bedroom would again comply with the HMO standards and is of an acceptable standard. This slide shows you the existing front and rear elevations, which reflect the photographs shown earlier within the presentation. This slide shows you the proposed rear and front elevation as set out above. The loft extension has a fallback position and it does not require planning permission. Since the previous hearing, the roof design at ground floor level has been amended from a flat to a pitched roof, which has subsequently brought down the eaves height along the shared boundary with both adjoining occupiers. Whilst the single-storey extension does not benefit from a fallback position, it is small in scale and as such is considered acceptable in design terms and would not cause any unacceptable harm to the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers. This is the proposed loft plan and shows the front garden would be able to accommodate the required five waste and refuse recycling facilities. The rear garden would provide cycling facilities. These are considered acceptable and are recommended to be conditioned in any approval. Some of the key concerns raised by objectives were the impact that the proposed rear extension would have on the residential amenity for adjoining occupiers and pressure on existing on-street parking. Whilst the existing property is only two bedrooms, the property can lawfully increase the number of bedrooms to three from the additional floor space created at loft level under permitted development. It is not considered unacceptable that this scenario would be able to accommodate a similar number of occupants to that which is proposed as part of this application for the property to be used at the HMO. As such, officers do not consider that the proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in noise disturbance over and above what could lawfully be implemented under the application site in relation to parking pressure. Whilst the property is not subject to a controlled parking zone, the property does fall within a P-TIL rating of three. A number of objections were received regarding parking and a parking stress survey has been provided. And given no objection was received from the council's highways officers, it is not considered that the development would cause excessive strain on the local parking network over and above the existing situation. The property is serviced by a number of sustainable transport methods. This, combined with the cycling parking provision offered within development, is considered acceptable in order to discourage the use of cars. The property is located in close proximity of a number of bus routes along Plumstead High Street with frequent services into Woolwich and the connections to the rest of London. Plumstead train station is also located one kilometre from the application site and 1.5 kilometres from Abbey Wood station. To conclude, the principle of the HMO is supported at the application site, given there is no policies relating to the concentration of HMOs nor the loss of family-sized accommodation. Proposal development and external alteration sort are considered acceptable, given that they fall within committed development and the quality of accommodation proposed is of an acceptable standard. As such, members are recommended to support the officer's recommendation as set out within the committee report and appendices. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Sarah. Any questions for the officer? Pat? Yes. I know that the height of the roof has been lowered, and it's a pitched roof, but I still have concerns about number 45, Speranza Street, and the difference in height, and how could we have a look again at... Because I don't know whether it's going to sort of have like a corridor effect on... Yeah, I still need to be convinced about that, changing height. I know it's been lowered. It has been lowered, so I've measured the height, and... So we're talking... What are we talking? Two point... So it's now 2.5, down from the original three metres. That's half a metre, Pat. Half a metre. And it's at a pitch level. So basically, when you look at the... If you look at the angle of the sun... Yeah. ...instead of there being a square block, the corner's now been taken off, so direct sunlight can now follow the line of the roof. How can I follow through? Okay. Are we... I think I'd also like to point out, Chair, in terms of this photo, so in terms of this relationship with the next-door neighbour, so 2.5 would be round about here. So there is not considered to be any impact, and it will not create, as you mentioned, I think you mentioned tunneling effect, to either neighbour. Any further questions for the officer? Roger. Thank you, Chair. Officer, I would like to actually ask you about the bit of the clarity of the amendment, that in the amendment, basically, what changes to the schemes, like, were made in direct response to the neighbours' objections, and how significant are these changes in reducing the impact on adjoining properties? I think, Roger, if you recall, the suggestion of taking the flat roof off and putting in a pitch roof came from the committee, came from us, because we were looking at ways that we could alleviate the loss of direct sunlight and also lessen the impact on the boundary lines. For the clarification, Chair, so just regarding with this one, Chair, I would like to actually ask you about the light and overshadowing, that the can officer confirm that the revised proposals have been tested for daylight, sunlight, and overshadowing using acceptance of the metric, especially for rooms and neighbouring dwellings facing the extension. So, a sunlight and daylight report hasn't been provided. It's not necessarily considered necessary for single-storey extensions unless requested where the extension is excessive. As members be aware, from the previous submission to committee, the first it went to committee, it was deferred for a site visit, members were able to go on to the site visit. The second time it came, officers were happy with the projection proposed. It's within the requirements of the council's SPD, and also the height at three metres was accepted by officers. However, the applicant, in the suggestions made by members at that second committee, sought further revisions to bring down the eaves height, so from three metres to 2.5. Now, considering the general permitted development order and what could be permitted, eaves height is 2.5 along the boundary. This is obviously slightly more in projection. Yeah, so it's 3.5 in projection, so it's more than permitted development, but it's 0.1 below the requirement in our SPD, which is 3.6. So, in terms of its depth, height, and relationship with both the properties to north and south, it is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on outlook, sense of enclosure, and loss of sunlight and daylight. Any further questions? Can I just ask, has apparently the parking survey was carried out by the applicant? Has another one been carried out since by Transport and Highways? Yeah, another parking survey, sorry, a parking survey was carried out. It has been reviewed by our officer and no objection was raised. We have received a number of objections and he has reviewed all of the pictures as well as the written comments and they have been addressed within the report and no concern was raised. No? Sarah, thank you very much. And I wish to call on Jose Petravares. Hi, Jose. Two minutes. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. In the next two minutes, there are two points that I would like to cover. One on the dimensions of the extension and the second on the behavior of the applicant so far. So on the dimensions of the extension, so as I sit on the patio of my garden at 49th Sopranza Street, I can observe the sun rising to the east in the summer months and I can follow its path in the morning as it travels from east to west. So for example, yesterday, September 29th, I could see the sun just above my neighbor's extension at lunchtime. However, as the days are getting shorter, the sun will not be as high in the horizon and although my neighbor's extension is within permitted developments, the difference in slope results on a 3.2 meter height at the boundary with my property. At the last committee meeting on the 24th of June, I asked for the committee to consider the following changes to the proposed extension. A, reducing the depth of the extension to 3 meters in line with existing extensions in Sopranza Street or B, changed to a pitched roof with 2 meters on the boundary. The planning officer present that they pointed out that the pitched roof will lead to loss of amenity and if loss of amenity is considered unacceptable, a remedy could be to reduce the number of bedrooms in the ground floor by one. This would improve the life quality of future residents via increased communal space in the kitchen and minimize the loss of light to 45 Sopranza Street. On the behavior of the applicant so far, given that the applicant has failed to attend the last two committee meetings, is currently renting the property without having applied first for a selective license and when tenants moved in, the property didn't have electricity, hot water and the house was in a poor state in January 25 and due to the ongoing prolonged series of applications and changes has caused a significant and prolonged stress to my family where we have a newborn and young child in the past 10 months. Do you want to wind up now, Jose? You're over your two minutes? Yeah, just the final paragraph. I'm really concerned about how this property will be managed in the future and I would like to ask the committee for its reflections on this and if this should be considered as a factor in the decision-making process for this application. Thank you so much and thank you for allowing the additional time. Thanks, Jose. Questions for the speaker? Pat. Thank you. Can I just ask you, you say that you're worried about your child and family. What are your main worries? I think my main worries is given how the process has developed so far where we only receive changes to the proposal via a letter from the council, there's really no direct interaction between the applicant and ourselves so it's a very strange situation to be in. Obviously, I really appreciate having the chance to come here to the committee and have the possibility to speak but there isn't really a... We submit comments to the application but then those... I think, Jose, I'll stop you there because we've got someone from the applicant here and we'll put... Okay, thank you. I'll let Pat put that question to them. Okay? Yeah. Okay. Any further questions? No? Jose, thank you very much. Thank you. I now wish to call on Prachanda Kamacharya. Prachanda Kamacharya. Prachanda Kamacharya. Good evening, Chair and a member of this committee. I'm a resident of a 45 Spirinza Street. I strongly object to the application to convert 47 Spirinza Street into a five-bedroom, five-person EHMO from two-bedroom is following reasons. There is a higher number of the occupant in the EHMO can lead to more noise, especially at night and during the weekend, so increasing the noise. And potential for antisocial behaviour. Some EHMO tenant might engage in the behaviour that disrupt the peace of the neighborhood, such as the loud music and the excessive gathering. Increasing of the... And another thing is increasing the risk of the disputes. The higher number of the residents in the EHMO can increase the likelihood of the disrupt... and the disagreement between the tenant and the neighbor. There's already in the parking pressure in our street, so there's more... possible five more vehicles with one vehicle will create further connection on this street. The proposed real extension of the 47 Spirinza Street, making the over-shadowing and the loss of light 45 Spirinza Street property and the garden, even the extension of the height is 2.5 metre. And the EHMO residence area, crime rate is more than 100 times higher than the non-HMO crime residence area, so no one want to leave that area that's like this situation. The National Planning Policy Framework says the creation of the high quality and beautiful and sustainable building. But this proposal is a minimum requirement room, but not much less, like a shared kitchen and a dining facility are extremely small. So that's all the reason I request to all members of this committee, please keep Spirinza Street as a residential, not a commercial and business-like. Thanks, Prachanda. Any questions for the speaker? No? Prachanda, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Anuraj Kamacharya. Good evening, all. Thank you for accepting on such short notice. Shh, shh. Yeah, I didn't say anything. I just want to start and make it clear that I'm not against HMOs or the people that live in them. I myself have lived in one and I know when one well that can provide essential housing, but I also know the first time what happens when HMOs are poorly managed and driven by profit over quality of life. They can lead to overcrowding, poor maintenance, increased noise and health and safety issues. And these are not just opinions I'm talking about. These are backed by research and peer-reviewed literature available on government's guidance on HMO licensing and regulations. Or you could just literally go to any various scientific literature sites and get these papers up. To build on the point that my neighbour just raised regarding the dimensions of the proposed extensions, already sitting in my garden, the current extension already affects the sunlight and additional height will affect, especially our boundary, will worsen this and also affect my mum who grows her own vegetables and herbs, especially as the days are getting shorter as well. And it's a good thing that you guys did look at the pitched roof, but I also think that maybe looking into reducing the number of bedrooms could mitigate these impacts as well. The applicant also submitted parking photos or surveys which were conducted at the same time over just a few days, which has no statistical significance, meaning that this is not representative of the normal street condition. In reality, during evenings, it's already congested and a five-bedroom HMOs with no off-street parking will increase this problem. And especially in my profession and real-world significance, a study with a survey like this would not only not be credible, but never pass ethics committee to even get the green light to start. The proposal also increases, oh, sorry, has the room of square metres to 95 square metres, squeezing in five bedrooms with a shared kitchen with just over 12 square metres, this is just overdevelopment, not as sustainable or healthy living arrangements for any long-term adult tenants. And I must always raise the issue of my personal impact on my dad as well. He depends