The Royal Borough of Greenwich Local Planning Committee convened on 28 October 2025, and made decisions on several planning applications. Key outcomes included deferral of a decision regarding a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in Kidbrooke, refusal of a residential development in Charlton, and approval of a mixed-use development in Greenwich Town Centre.

Here's a breakdown of the key discussion points:

• 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke The committee deferred a decision on an application to change a single-family dwelling into a six-bedroom HMO, pending a site visit and further consultation with the council's children's services safeguarding team. Concerns were raised by Councillor John Fahey about the cumulative impact of HMOs in Kidbrooke Park, parking issues, and the handling of a previous extension at the property. [^1] Natalie Cox, a local resident, objected to the HMO due to safety concerns and links between HMOs and increased crime. Sharon Martin, a foster carer residing next door at 74 Whetstone Road, highlighted safeguarding risks to vulnerable children in her care. Shahina Bagshoff stated that there were five HMOs within 10 minutes walking distance, and raised compliance issues with a property at 64 Holborn Road, managed by the same applicant, Joel Stern. Nerejus Vinska raised concerns about the structural integrity of an existing extension and inadequate planning for internal infrastructure. Antti Rania objected to the waste management plan, citing public health risks associated with HMOs. Chris Massil reiterated concerns about the HMO management firm, SAM Planning, and highlighted issues at 64 Holborn Road. Joel Stern, a planning agent, defended HMOs and addressed concerns about prejudging occupants. Councillor Dave Sullivan proposed the deferral, citing the need for further advice from children's services and a site visit.

  [^1]: HMOs can be controversial in some areas, with residents raising concerns about noise, antisocial behaviour, and pressure on local services. Councils often have specific policies to manage their concentration and ensure they are of a good standard.

• Land within Wellington Mews & 25 Wellington Mews, Charlton The committee refused planning permission for the demolition of a warehouse and construction of a two-storey dwelling with a basement. The reasons for refusal included poor outlook, unsympathetic design, harm to the operation of existing commercial premises, and the impact of lighting columns on residential amenity. Councillor Jo Vandenbroek highlighted the unusual nature of Wellington Mews, its commercial character, and concerns about the viability of residential development in the area. Richard Spaule, who owns the Old Coach House next door at 23 Wellington Mews, raised concerns about the impact of excavation on his printmaking business. Jane Ruffin, a resident of Elliscombe Road, objected to the plan, citing disruption, pollution, and the unsuitability of the mews for residential use. Brenda Taggart, speaking for the Charlton Central Residents Association, argued that Wellington Mews should be cherished as a historical gem and that the development would destroy its character. Kate Pain, a cabinet maker with a workshop in the mews, expressed concerns about the impact of street lights and tarmac on the area. Edward Payne, another business owner in the mews, emphasised its industrial character and the lack of need for street lighting.

• Land Fronting Norman Road and rear of the North Pole 131 Greenwich High Road The committee approved planning permission for a mixed-use development comprising a five-storey building with nine flats, a restaurant, and a commercial unit. Chris Leong, a planning officer, noted that the proposal would develop a long-vacant site and contribute to addressing the housing shortfall. Evelyn Gomez-Lichetti, representing Belleville House, raised concerns about the applicant's history in managing hospitality venues and the potential for noise and antisocial behaviour. Paul Russell, representing the applicant, highlighted the benefits of the scheme and the support it had received.

• Land rear of 65 Eglinton Hill, Plumstead The committee approved the construction of a single-storey detached dwelling, with additional conditions to protect local ecology. Brendan Meade, a planning officer, addressed concerns about biodiversity net gain and the loss of a protected pear tree. Les Clark objected to the application, citing the loss of wildlife habitats and the impact on the character of the area. Elizabeth Floyd, who lives at 65 Eglinton Hill, opposed the plan, arguing that it would alter the area's character and override environmental considerations. Councillor Zeeshan spoke on behalf of residents, emphasising the importance of protecting the natural green space.

• 24 Lucknow Street, Plumstead The committee approved a change of use from a single-family dwelling to a six-bed HMO, with conditions.

• 57 Paston Crescent, Eltham The committee approved the construction of a single-storey rear extension and first-floor extension to create a new two-bedroom dwelling.

The meeting addressed a range of planning issues, with particular attention given to balancing development with the protection of residential amenity, heritage, and the environment.