The Royal Borough of Greenwich Local Planning Committee convened to discuss planning applications, ultimately approving two and refusing one. Permission was granted for a house in multiple occupation (HMO) in Abbey Wood and for alterations to a property in Eltham, while a proposal to build two dwellings on land in Charlton was rejected.

Land to the rear of 53 Wyndcliff Road, Charlton

Councillors refused planning permission for the demolition of existing outbuildings and the construction of two dwellings to the rear of 53 Wyndcliff Road, reference 25/1264/F.

The reasons given for the refusal were the overdevelopment of the site, its height and proximity to surrounding properties, which would lead to an intrusive impact on neighbouring amenity. The committee also deemed the ecological survey insufficient, as it was conducted at the wrong time of year to properly assess the presence of protected species. Councillor Gary Dillon, Chair of Planning, noted that the ecology survey was not sufficient because it wasn't carried out at the right time of the year.

During the presentation of the proposal by Council Officer Dominic Harris, it was noted that the site is not located within a conservation area, does not contain or adjoin any listed buildings and is not subject to any particular designations. He also noted that the site is located within flood risk zone 1, which indicates a low probability of flooding. He stated that the proposal presents a high-quality development that complies with the relevant policy and guidance, and recommended it for approval.

Objectors raised concerns about several issues. Darren Ferguson, a resident of Sandtoft Road, argued for deferral due to concerns about flood risk, biodiversity net gain, and fire safety. He stated:

Deferral is the only lawful option until a compliant biodiversity plan executed section 106 and valid seasonal survey are provided.

Andrew Ogilvie, speaking on behalf of Karen Barnes, highlighted the unsuitability of the backland site for development, raising concerns about loss of privacy and the impact on the character of the neighbourhood. Vashali Smith, a resident of Wyncliffe Road, objected to the overdevelopment of the constrained site, raising concerns about security due to the removal of a locked gate. Vivian Ahmed, co-owner of a property on Santorf Road, expressed anxiety about the impact on privacy, noise, and the natural environment.

Charles Betts, managing director of GPAD, speaking on behalf of the applicant, argued that the development would make effective use of an underutilised garden, provide much-needed family homes, and enhance biodiversity. He also stated that the scheme meets policy in terms of overlooking and separation distances of 18 metres.

Councillor Patricia Greenwell said she could not support the application, stating:

So we're taking a beautiful garden totally destroying it and putting in its place this great huge building which does not fit in with any of the streetscape at all with all with three sides triple aspect windows it's going to massively affect the immunity of the neighbours.

Councillor Anne-Marie said she was not minded to support the application, stating:

It's a carbuncle and I think too many things are coming out in today's hearing to make me feel comfortable to vote for it.

Councillor Sam Littlewood said he found the decision difficult, stating:

I'm really torn because I do think this is an area of land that should be built on for housing I'm just not sure this is the right thing to build on it.

103 Mcleod Road, Abbey Wood

The committee approved planning permission for the change of use of a property at 103 Mcleod Road, reference 25/2049/F, from a single-family dwelling to a six-bed, six-person HMO, in addition to a single-storey rear extension, rear dormer, and associated works. A condition was added to ensure the development would be car-free, preventing future occupiers from obtaining parking permits.

Council Officer Alex Smith presented the proposal, noting that it complied with space standards and that a condition would be imposed to ensure that it is car free and removes the right for them to apply for a permit.

Jill Francis, a resident of Mcleod Road, objected to the proposal, citing concerns about noise pollution, parking congestion, and the strain on amenities. Maxine Henley, who lives next door to the property, expressed concerns about the loss of a family home and the impact on privacy. Josh Myers of EA Town Planning, representing the applicant, argued that the proposal complied with planning policies, made efficient use of existing housing stock, and would be responsibly managed.

Councillor Anne-Marie raised concerns about the loss of a family home and the potential for traffic congestion in the area. Councillor Dave Sullivan stated that he did not think there was any defensible reason for voting against the application. Councillor Asli Mohammed stated that she would be voting for the application, stating that not everybody can afford a home, so everybody has to have a starting point in life.

Councillor Dillon abstained from the vote, stating that he was not happy with the lack of bathroom facilities on the middle floor.

43 West Hallows, Eltham

The committee approved planning permission for the demolition of an existing lean-to side garage and the construction of a part-two part-one storey side and rear wraparound extension, installation of front rooflights, alterations to the front porch, and other associated alterations including the introduction of a side passage between boundary and property at 43 West Hallows, reference 25/1928/HD.

Council Officer Luke Sapiano presented the proposal, noting that the development's been substantially amended and is now acceptable with respect to the requirements of the development plan.

Janet Raddy, representing herself and Sue Biro, objected to the proposals, arguing that they conflicted with the council's urban design guide and that the objections to a previous application remained valid. She stated that the proposal conflicts with planning policies in the Royal Borough of Greenwich's Urban Design Guide.

John Kirwan, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had worked proactively with the council and taken on board the appeal inspectorate's guidance.

Councillor Dillon stated that the application was policy compliant.