Subscribe to updates
You'll receive weekly summaries about Greenwich Council every week.
If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.
Local Planning Committee - Tuesday, 16th July, 2024 6.30 pm
July 16, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting Read transcript (Professional subscription required)Summary
The committee approved three applications and refused two.
Land adjacent to 85 Lansdowne Lane, Charlton
The committee approved an application to build six dwellings on land adjacent to 85 Lansdowne Lane in Charlton. Five three bedroom houses and one two bedroom house were proposed. The development is in the Charlton Village Conservation Area. The committee heard objections from thirty three residents. The objections focussed on the impact of the development on the conservation area, the loss of trees and the effect of overlooking from the development. The Charlton Society also objected to the plans. They contended that the scale of development was too large, that the design of one of the proposed buildings did not fit in with the rest of the street, and that they had concerns about a proposed platform lift that would provide step-free access to the development. The Society also pointed out that the freeholders of 85 Lansdowne Lane have the right to park in the area in front of the site, and that the applicant would have to negotiate with the freeholders to secure access for the development. Councillors noted the need for the borough to build homes, but also considered the significant concerns raised about the viability of access and waste storage for the new development. The committee decided to approve the development after hearing that a condition could be added to the planning permission to protect step-free access, and after a discussion of possible mitigation of the impact of the appearance and operation of bin storage. The committee decided by one vote to approve the application subject to conditions. These conditions included adding trees to protect privacy of existing residents from overlooking.
Turner House, McMillan Street, Deptford
A proposal to build five flats on top of Turner House in Deptford was approved. The five flats consist of two one-bedroom flats, two two-bedroom flats and one three-bedroom flat. The committee heard a presentation from Alex Lockett, who lives in the building, and three of his neighbours. Mr Lockett noted that the developers had previously attempted to secure permission to add a sixth floor to the building in 2008, but were refused. He argued that nothing had changed to warrant a different decision now, and that the existing five-storey building was a good example of how development can be in keeping with the character of the local area. Mr Lockett also expressed concerns about the loss of amenity for residents of the building as a result of the development, both to a communal garden and to the building's roof terrace, which would be reduced in size. Councillor Calum O'Bryne Mulligan, who lives in the building, noted that the new sixth storey would be the tallest building immediately surrounding Charlotte Turner Gardens, and would also be taller than the clock tower at the Grade II* listed St Nicholas's Church. He also expressed concerns about the loss of communal amenity for residents. Councillor O'Bryne Mulligan also asked the applicant how the proposed development would affect the service charges incurred by existing residents. Kieran Rafferty, the planning agent for the development, explained that the service charges for leaseholders would be governed by their existing lease agreement, and that there would be no impact on the service charges incurred by tenants of the Peabody Trust. There was a discussion about where a proposed bicycle store would be located, with Councillors noting that its location in the existing communal garden was undesirable. Mr Rafferty explained that an alternative location was unlikely to be found, and that the applicant would be willing to instead make a financial contribution towards the Mayor of London's cycle parking schemes if the committee were unsatisfied with the proposed location of the store. The committee approved the development, noting that it had previously decided that the development was acceptable in design and amenity terms during a previous meeting.
31 Nithdale Road, Plumstead
A plan to convert 31 Nithdale Road in Plumstead from two flats into a seven person House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO)1 was approved. The committee heard from seven local residents who objected to the proposal. Their objections focussed on the impact of the development on the character of the area, the loss of one of the existing windows on the front of the building and the quality of accommodation provided for future residents. They also expressed concerns about the impact on parking. Councillor Ivis Williams, who lives locally, also expressed her concerns about the number and quality of HMOs in the local area. Councillor Sam Littlewood reminded the committee that the applicant had been granted permission to develop the site as an eight person HMO following an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. He also objected to an apparent undercurrent of discrimination against those who live in HMOs in some of the objections made by local residents. Councillor O'Bryne Mulligan added that he was concerned about the proposed loss of the front window. There was a discussion about whether conditions could be added to the planning permission to ameliorate the impact of the loss of the window. The committee approved the application subject to a condition requiring the applicant to make the window a design feature on the front elevation.
52 Ashmore Road, Woolwich
An application to retrospectively make good damage caused by the removal of render on the side of 52 Ashmore Road in Woolwich was approved. The applicant, Durkan Limited, is one of the companies that are redeveloping the Royal Military Academy. The proposed building is a Grade II* listed building. The committee heard from Philip Rowe, who owns land adjacent to the site, about his concerns with access to the development for vehicles and construction equipment. He noted that vehicles may have to reverse out of the site onto Greenwich High Road, and expressed concerns about the impact this may have on road safety. The committee approved the application, noting that the access issues raised by Mr Rowe were a civil matter for the applicant to resolve, and not a planning consideration.
111 Eltham High Street, Eltham
The committee refused an application to change the use of 111 Eltham High Street from a shop to an adult gaming centre. The applicant, Merkur Slots, had appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds that Greenwich Council had not made a decision on the application within the statutory eight-week period. The committee therefore had to decide what decision they would have made on the application, even though it was no longer up to them to make a decision. The committee heard that Merkur Slots had been granted a licence by the council to operate at the site 24 hours a day. They also heard that a noise impact assessment had been undertaken by the applicant, which showed that noise from the site would not be unacceptable even with 24-hour operation. The committee noted that there are three betting shops and a casino in close proximity to the proposed site. Councillor O'Bryne Mulligan argued that the concentration of gambling facilities in the area was already unacceptable, and that a 24-hour adult gaming centre would increase the risk of crime and anti-social behaviour in the town centre. He suggested a 10pm closing time for the site. Councillor Cooke argued that a 10pm closing time would be unlikely to make much of a difference to the likelihood of crime and anti-social behaviour, and that she would prefer to see no further gambling establishments in the town centre. Councillor Littlewood expressed concern about the impact a 24-hour licence would have on vulnerable residents. Councillor Mohammed added that she felt that Eltham did not need more gambling shops. The committee discussed whether their concerns about hours of operation were a material planning consideration, given that the council's licencing department had already granted a 24-hour licence for the site. The committee resolved to refuse the application on the grounds of an over-concentration of gambling facilities in the area, noting that this over-concentration may lead to increased crime and anti-social behaviour in the town centre.
-
A house in multiple occupancy is a property rented out by at least 3 people who are not from 1 'household' (for example a family) but share facilities like the bathroom and kitchen. ↩
Attendees









Topics
No topics have been identified for this meeting yet.
Meeting Documents
Additional Documents