Transcript

Okay, good evening, everybody. Thank you for coming this evening. My name's Dave Sullivan, as you can all read. Gary Dillon, who's normally the chair, this evening. Gary Dillon is normally the chair, and he can't, he said his apologies, can't make this evening, and the vice chair, so I'm taking the meeting. Okay, sorry about that. I don't get on very well with these microphones. I'm also obliged, as the chair of the meeting, to read these notices out for you. It's all a bit obvious, some of it, but I'll read it just for form. You still a car here? It's really directional. Okay. Okay, I'll do my best. Okay. Okay, okay. Filming and recording is not allowed, but must not disturb. It is allowed. Filming and recording is allowed, but must not disturb proceedings, and flash photography is not permitted. Only those public speakers whose requests have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speaker will be permitted to address the meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters, and you should not repeat any comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to make further comments, unless I invite you to do so. I retain the right to reduce the time given to speakers. Do I? Counselors up to five minutes each. I don't think there are any counselors speaking this evening. Accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups, up to four minutes each. And then individuals, up to two minutes each. And the applicant's team, up to ten minutes total. And we will not accept any documents or photos presented at this meeting. Okay. So, we presume... Yeah, we've got... Anybody got any other apologies from those that we've already received? We've got apologies from Gary Dillon, Sam Littlewood, and Rajah Zeeshan. Does anybody else have any apologies? No, but at least we're quorum. Urgent business planning officer's addendum to item four. What is that for, just to note that we've got to... Yes, Chair. The planning addendum in respect to item four has been laid around the chamber, provided to the applicant, and was published online as well before the meeting. We also had public submissions in respect of each item, one admission in respect of each, which were supplied to the members in advance of the meeting. Okay. Thank you, Jean. Okay. And any declarations of interest on any of these items? No? Okay. Well, then we go straight, then, to item four. I have 17 more down. And it's being presented by Louise. Thank you, Chair. This application is for 17 more down and seeks planning permission for the change of use from a single-family dwelling house to a small HMO used for our C4 for a maximum of six persons. External alterations involved include a rear dormer at roof level and a part-single, part-two-storey rear extension. As explained by Jean, an addendum was circulated earlier this afternoon, which corrects a slight revision on the floor plan in relation to the door to the communal kitchen, as well as slight alteration to one of the conditions relating to cycle parking. It's important to note that an HMO has already been granted at the application site. The main difference between this application and the previously approved one is the introduction of a first-floor rear extension to increase the capacity from five persons to six. The application is being considered at local planning committee this evening due to the numbers of objections received. A summary of these can be found within Section 6 of the report. Officers are recommending that permission be granted subject to the conditions and enforcement it was set out within the appendices. Moving on to the presentation itself. So this is a site location plan. The site itself is highlighted in red. It's located on the northern side of Moordown and is an end-of-terrace 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. It's not located within a controlled parking zone and it has a PTAL rating or a public transport accessibility level of 1B. Moving on to some photographs. This is the front of the property. As you can see there's sufficient space at the front of the property for any refuse and recycling provision required. This is a view of the rear elevation. As you can see the property has been extended historically with some single-storey rear extensions which are now in poor condition. You can also see that the property itself is affected by a change in land level with the property on the left-hand side which I believe is the east of the application sites at a higher land level. And then the property on the right-hand side of the image which is to the west of the application site is sat at a slightly lower ground level than the application site. All extensions that you can see within this photograph is to be removed as part of the proposal. You should also be able to see the property benefits from quite a substantially sized rear garden. Moving on to some 3D images. You can see the application site is located on the little red dot. This image also illustrates the change in land level as you go down to more down. So the left-hand side of the picture is at a high level, high land level as it slopes downwards. And we've got another 3D image. This is the front of the property, again with that indicated in red. Gives you a bit of an idea of the surrounding context. So moving on to the proposal itself. You've got the existing ground floor plan on the left-hand side and the proposed ground floor plan on the right-hand side. You can see a single-storey rear extension which is three metres in depth. That formed part of the previous application granted at the end of last year. You've got a communal kitchen here and then two single occupancy bedrooms. One to the front and one to the rear. Moving on to first floor level. So this is the main key change is that we've got an addition of a first floor rear extension which is to increase an additional capacity proposed which is located on the right image. And we've got three bedrooms at first floor level. Each single occupancy, each with their own en-suite bathroom. Moving to the top level. Again, the dormer itself and the hip-to-gable extension has been granted under a certificate of lawfulness and on its own does not require planning permission. And it has, again, another single occupancy bedroom at roof level with an en-suite bedroom. Moving on to the elevations. These are some existing elevations which illustrate the photographs that I would have shown you earlier in the presentation. We have the proposed front elevation on the left-hand side and the proposed rear elevation on the right-hand side. As I've previously explained, the works at roof level form part of a certificate of lawfulness previously approved. And the ground floor extension and the roof extension form part of the previously approved HMO which received planning permission last year. So, whilst a single part two-storey rear extension does not benefit from a fallback position, it is considered to be of an acceptable scale, particularly given that it's not visible from any public vantage point surrounding the application site. In addition to this, given the change in land level, as you go down, more down, number 19, which is the property located on the left-hand side, as you're looking from the back in the photograph, that's angled at a higher land level and is angled further away from the application site. So, we consider that the external alterations proposed would not have a harmful impact on the residential amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers. Yeah. Moving on to the next slide. This is to give you a bit of an idea of sort of site plan. We've got location for the five bins in the front garden, which is considered acceptable by our waste colleagues, as well as six cycle spaces provided within the rear garden, details of which have already been included within the application, and we've got a compliance condition listed in the appendices to secure that. Some of the key concerns raised by objectors were also on the impact that the proposed capacity would have on the residential amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers, as well as the pressure on existing car parking. Whilst the existing property is only three bedrooms, because they've got a certificate of lawfulness for the additional bedroom on the top floor, it does have the capabilities to lawfully be used as a four-bedroom single-family dwelling house. It's not considered that that scenario would be able to accommodate a similar number of occupants as that proposed within this application, and we don't foresee there to be any unacceptable impact on residential amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers from a noise perspective, over and above what can lawfully be done at the application site. In relation to parking pressures, the property isn't located in a controlled parking zone, so there's not the ability to restrict access to parking permits because you don't need them, and it does have a relatively low P-tow. Having said that, during the site visit undertaken as part of the application, there was parking spaces within the vicinity of the application site that were available. Further to this, the property is located within proximity to a number of bus stops, and even though Woolwich is a bit of a walk, you've got ample access to public transport options once you get down towards Woolwich. As such, given this, as well as the cycle parking provision that we're securing, we think that this is encouraging more sustainable methods of transport and won't, you know, go to some extent to deter any use of private vehicles at the property. To conclude, the property benefits from a fallback position of a five-person HMO with similar works proposed at roof and ground floor level. The main difference between this application and that previously granted is the introduction of the first floor extension, as well as the increase of incapacity to six. For the reasons set out within the report and this presentation, the proposal is considered acceptable in design and amenity terms, and the quality of accommodation proposed is considered to be of an acceptable standards and complies with the Council's HMO guidance in relation to bedroom sizes and kitchen facility provision. As such, members are recommended to support the officer recommendation within the committee report, appendices and the addendum that was circulated earlier today. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Louise. And any questions, perhaps? Thank you for your presentation, Louise. Can I just ask you, and I know this has come up before, we always say, am I right in thinking that the dormer is going to be a boxed dormer? Is it on? Yeah, so you can see the dormer is illustrated on the right hand. So it is a boxed dormer. The Urban Design SPD does tend to discourage those. But the reason why we, when they form part of an application where there's been a previous certificate of lawfulness, it's a relevant fallback position. So they can do those works without requiring planning permission. So it's very difficult for us to resist it on a design perspective because they've already got that certificate of lawfulness. So whenever these come as part of a planning application with a history of permitted development, we tend to say they're acceptable in design terms because of that fallback position. It's okay to ask another question, Chair. Right. When was it? It's the 19th of the 12th, 24th. Permission was given for occupancy for five HMOs. And that was with a single extension, wasn't it, I think? So how does this totally differ? Is it the fact that we've now got a second level? Can we just see for a comparison, please? So I don't have a comparison, but it's literally, it just... Where's the mouse not working? Sorry, the mouse has decided to stop. Give me one second. There we go. So the approved plan is literally this without the first floor extension. So the only difference of this application and the previous one is this element here and this additional person. So the ground floor works are the same. So you can see this element here. The layout is exactly the same as the approved plan. I can ask a third question, Chair. Can, is there any way we can look at, obviously, number 19 is on a higher level. So this is going to affect with light. And the one on the other side, I'm assuming, which will be number 15, am I correct? Is there any way we can have a look at how this application, if granted, will affect the light? So I can explain that a bit more, if you would like. So this is probably the best picture to illustrate it. So this is number 19. You're correct that it sits at a much higher land level. We estimate it to sit at about 1.2 metres higher than the existing property. Because they sit at a higher level, even though the part single, part two-storey rear extension is quite... It's along that shared boundary and it's on that side of the property. Because they already sit at a higher level, it actually would have a much lesser impact than if it was sat at a lower level. So because it sits at a higher level, it actually reduces the impact because they're already at a higher level. So when you've got impact on residential amenity, land levels makes a big difference. But when you've got an adjoining property that sits at a higher level, the impact is generally typically acceptable because the height of the extension is much lower than it would be if the extension was sat at a higher level than the adjoining property. So the impact on number 19 is acceptable because it sits at a higher level. So the one on the lower level, which is number 15, now that potentially, in normal circumstances, could be more impacted upon. However, as you can see from this image here, they've already extended it very heavily at ground floor level. So the habitable windows that we're looking at from an impact perspective are that much further into the rear garden because they've got the existing ground floor extension. So the first floor windows to number 15, because the first floor extension is located on the opposite side, that also is considered to have an acceptable impact. And I believe on the floor plans provided by the applicant, they annotated the 45-degree rule, which demonstrates that it would have an acceptable impact in terms of noise and outlook. So for those reasons, we're satisfied that the proposal would have an acceptable impact in terms of daylight, sunlight, increased sense of enclosure. In relation to privacy, I'll touch on that as well. New openings are located on a facade where an opening already exists. We've also got a condition on there restricting access to the flat roof to make sure that's not used for any sort of external amenity space. One last question at the moment. It's my favourite. I know, cycle parking. Because, again, I mean, I've looked close at photographs, and there doesn't seem to be any way that people can take cycles from the front without avoiding having to go through the house. Am I correct? No, you're not, unfortunately. There's a side gate. If you have a look at the site plan, I've visited the site and gone through the site gate myself. So let me show you on the site plan. It's probably the easiest way. But it won't require any cycle parking to go through the building at all. As you can see, the property is set off from the boundary, and there's currently a gate here. It's about 1.2 metres wide. So there's more than enough space for the cycle parking to be taken down the side access and not needing to go through the property. Okay, thanks, Pat. Yeah, Ashley? Thank you for the presentation, Lucy. In terms of... I know it says that... I know we don't, as Greenwich Council, there is no policy for all Borough of Greenwich for core strategies to limit the number of HMOs. I understand that. But in terms of when you're doing the impact assessment, is there been any assessment or to evaluate the effects of converting single-family homes to small HMOs in the surrounding communities? Because we are losing family homes that we really can't afford to lose. So unfortunately, there isn't a policy that looks at the over-consentation for HMOs. Some councils across London might have policies that say, you know, if you've got a certain number in a street, that might not be considered acceptable. From a loss of family, single-family dwelling houses, again, the policy that looks at the loss of that only relates to conversions. So there isn't a policy basis to unfortunately look at preventing the loss of such family homes to convert them for HMOs. We tend to look at them from an impact on amenity point of view. But as I said earlier, this has got consent for it to be used as a five-person HMO. So you're literally looking at the increasing capacity of one and then how much additional harm that that would cause, that additional person would result on the residential amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers. I know that our policy team are looking into, as part of the new local plan, whether there's any policy basis or any evidence base that can justify by looking at bringing alternative policies through as part of our new local plan. But that's not at any stage that we would be able to consider it as part of this application. I understand that we don't have that policy in place, but like you said, other councils do. There must, you know, we have to balance, you know, family homes against HMOs and how much family homes are we losing, how much HMOs are we creating, you know, so we've got to balance that. But yes, that's something for the council to review on. In terms of regulation and regulation enforcement, how would the council ensure compliance with regulation regarding noise and tenants' behaviour in proposed small HMOs to protect the interests of neighbouring residents? So obviously we're assessing the planning application in this instance. Licensing, it would also require a licence. So licensing team would do various, I mean, again, it's separate to what we do, so I don't quite know exactly what, but they would be responsible for a certain element of that. Likewise, our environmental health team. But from a planning perspective, we assess the proposal, we've put various conditions on the, within the attendances that looks to control that, such as the condition that restricts it to no more than six people. And that's how we would, and then if there's any concerns about more than six people living at the property, our enforcement team would be able to look into it. And does the licence review on a regular basis while those tenants are engaged, if they breach their licence? I believe they would do, but again, that's something, subject that we don't get involved in licencing. It's something separate to planning. Thank you. Okay. You've been greedy tonight, Pat. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Can it, okay, so it has planning permission for five, sort of, residents, for five rooms. Can, and we know that for every five, and so, obviously, if they're going for six, it's got to have double the amount of appliances and everything in the kitchen. is the kitchen of this one the same size as the kitchen, you know, the one that was given permission for the five HMOs? That's my first question. And can we have a look as well at the door? Because I'm wondering about, you know, so, obviously, fumes, where you've got a kitchen, you're going to have it in use so many hours in the day with six different occupants. and I'm just wondering about, sort of, the side door and the distance between that and the next property and where the door is going to be situated and the windows. So, you know, so, avoiding fumes and smells and what have you, interfering with the neighbours. So, in terms of the size of the kitchen, it is exactly the same size as what it was on the previous application but it was bigger than it needed to be for five occupants then. We've assessed it against what it needs to be for six occupants and it does meet those standards. So, it complies with the licensing HMO standards for a kitchen for six people. There is an indicative layout of the kitchen but we don't necessarily secure that layout as part of a planning application. We look at the size of that and whether that's capable of, you know, holding the required appliances needed under the licensing and then the licensing team would flesh out that at a licensing stage but it is big enough. It does meet the minimum standards for a six person in terms of the size of the kitchen and you can see the kitchen on the right-hand side. I can give you the exact sizes if you'd like. In relation to the rear ground floor window, the door, let me get an elevation up. So, the kitchen door would be this one. Typically, we wouldn't, even an HMO for a six people, we would, you know, having natural ventilation from the means of a rear door would be something that we would consider acceptable. That, in relation to number 19, so number 19 is on this side of the image, number 15 is on this side of the image, number 19 is also angled away from the application site but from our perspective, we don't think there'd be any issues in terms of fumes or anything like that that would warrant any additional controls in terms of environmental health or, you know, noise pollution or fumes or anything like that for any mechanical ventilation is what I'm trying to say. Sorry. And, can we have more information about this, the first floor extension, please? Have you got a plan of that? So, it's this here. So, this is the floor plan of it and I can show you again on elevation if you'd like. So, this is the first floor element here. is that helpful? Or is that extension, sorry, because next to, yeah. So, the depth of the first floor is three metres and the width of it is 3.5. and the ground floor obviously goes the full width of it. Ground floor is the full width. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Jardia. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the presentation, Louise. I just have a concern with the high number of objections. As I can see, there's 50 of them. I was wondering what has the applicant done to consult with the residents and deal with their concerns? From a planning perspective, we don't necessarily require the applicant, you know, it's always encouraged that they engage with residents before they submit a planning application but it's not something that we can require them to do. Sometimes an applicant might send a summary to respond to the objections but again, it's not necessarily something that we require them to do as part of us. Our responsibility as a planning authority is to actually assess them ourselves and if there's any concerns that we've got specifically raised by the objectors then it's then our responsibility to go back to the applicant or the agent and then get amendments to address those concerns. So in this particular instance we think the proposal is acceptable and that's why we haven't required any further engagement from the applicant or the agent in relation to any of the concerns raised by residents. The one thing that was noticed we got a very, as I mentioned at the beginning, we had a very slight change to the ground floor door to the kitchen just to make sure it was clarified that it was usable and we got that amendment but that was the only further bit of input we've had from the applicant but that was something that we raised rather than I think raised specifically by objectors. You can ask them we're coming up shortly so you can ask them yourself. Okay, then can we move on to the speakers? I should have pointed out earlier we've actually got four speakers. here's Valeria Camorini is that how you pronounce it? Michael O'Sullivan, Helen Palmer and Josh Accombe. They're all here? Yep. Okay, so should we start with Valeria? Is that how you say it? I've got two minutes. Good evening. The presentation in my view was a bit sterile. It doesn't take into account the impact that we'll have on the resident. I am 19 or down so I'm the property that allegedly is much higher than not necessarily so and my main concern are the number of people because it was initially granted to five people and we I don't want to speculate but we've all been young and we know that it's often that you're going to have guests so from five can easily become ten and ten people noise and you know it's highly likely that with a big garden they will go to the garden and so I am very concerned that the council will not be able to enforce whatever has been submitted as a requirement to be quiet and to you know respect the behaviour of other resident and so the noise could be at any time loud music we don't know but you know it is highly likely it's not like in a family where you have a parent or responsible adult that will set the boundaries and the rules we don't have that confirmation and it could well be different five different people up to ten or even six people up to twelve that they don't know each other and they can decide to set their own rules so as a neighbour and working from home quite a lot I am very concerned that it will become very unsustainable and very disturbing and affect my quality of life and that I am also concerned that if I want to raise and report this kind of issue I might become the subject of some sort of vendetta and that would be unsafe for me so in addition to the noise it is also unsafe and that is my concern and I don't think that the planning committee I am quite emotional I apologise for that but I don't think that the planning committee has taken into account the impact that will have on the local resident the majority of the people are family living in the area is one to a lot of them are one person in the house and it is way way different than having six people and potentially more than that and therefore that is my main concern and I don't think the council has got the resources to be able that if I raise a concern enforce it thank you very much despite being nervous you were very clear thank you thank you very much oh sorry sorry sorry my colleagues might want to ask you a question sure chilly thank you you don't come across as being nervous you were actually fine can I just this is something different I don't know whether you have a car but do you think that there is room for if they have transport if they have cars is it a CPZ area no it's not but there are you know I think some of the family have got two cars some have got one and it's already on a good day very full so having potentially six cars or even scooters the scooters would increase the noise because they could come at any time and that would actually make quite a lot of noise and the cars there is not enough space for six cars that's for sure does it adjoin number it's not the garden is adjoined my house is not completely adjoined number 15 is attached mine is an end of terrace and it's a bit raised but if you have an extension of two floor two story it will definitely and the door the loft will definitely overlook into my garden yeah so it will definitely completely and I will lose a lot of privacy thank you any other questions any other questions no thank you thank you very much yeah you're so nervous you can take over sharing the meeting okay so now we're going to Michael O'Sullivan okay thank you as I see it there are two main strands to the objections that we're making today some of them are obviously about the practical things that have already been mentioned parking public hygiene bins etc noise pollution which I think is very significant I feel that six people will eventually become 12 and will have problems there's also the issues with blocking light which my friend and neighbour has just mentioned and it will affect her obviously more than anybody else and that has to be considered and it's interesting that no other properties that I'm aware of have got a similar type of extension so in a way a precedent is being set there there's also the issue of overcrowding the increased footfall through both day and night an increased chance of disputes between residents you know people that are there perhaps for a short space of time and there's going to be tensions about kitchen access and what not and there's also an increased risk of fire whenever you add extra people into a property the risks are increased obviously so all of these practical issues have been well documented in the 50 objections which one of you mentioned you know 50 objections it's pretty overwhelming but the second strand is more of an emotional thing and I know I've been told that councils don't really consider those things well I'm sorry but I'm going to put it forward nobody in our stretch of the road wants this HMO it's been granted that's unfortunate but if we can get the council to think about how even increasing the capacity by one extra person will actually you know at least soften the blow and maybe give food for thought for future such developments and I think that would be a good thing I've spoken to some of the people that are in close proximity to the HMO and I'm telling you there are going to be mental health problems people are very stressed and they're fearful of what's coming down the line for them and I think that needs to be considered okay thank you very much thank you two minutes thank you any questions can I just ask you as far as you know are there any other HMOs in the close vicinity in our stretch of more down which is about 60 houses between the roundabouts at Anchodyne and Donaldson there aren't any there is one proposed around the corner from us in Donaldson Road 21 Donaldson Road which we think might have a connection with the we can't prove it but we think there's a connection with the planners that are doing both of these conversions and I know that they're not happy about it either believe me there is a growing sense of unrest within our community that this is going to be something that's going to get off hand and I think there's a fear that as soon as a for sale board goes up in any of these streets we're fearful of what's going to be coming so I think you need to be aware that raised ground levels and things like that are all well and good but there are human beings that are involved as well so I hope that's considered thank you anybody else no okay thank you thank you Helen Palmer so I'm speaking in objection to the proposed change of number 17 from a small family dwelling to a significantly larger house of multiple occupation for six adults 12 if they have boyfriends or girlfriends who want to stay over and it is important to acknowledge that with an absent landlord there will be no one monitoring this this case is critical because it involves changing the status quo and it will set a precedent for all other houses on the street and in the area moving forward which cannot fail to change the residential amenity of the area as it stands the demographic of Moordown consists largely of families often with young children and or elderly residents there's a really strong feeling of community cohesion especially since COVID now the applicant has suggested in their proposal that a house of multiple occupancy is no different to a family residence we know that this is not true and if you are in any doubt you just have to ask yourself what each social group will be doing at 10pm on a Friday evening now having brought up a young family myself I can tell you the children will be asleep and I will be on the computer trying to catch up on work I haven't had time to do while they're awake as a single adult having worked all week this would have been my time for socializing drinking playing music going out to the pub club event and coming back in the early hours of the morning maybe both groups are entitled to their lifestyle choices but they are not compatible and if you put them next door to each other literally by bringing one in you will eventually start to force out the other I know we are facing a housing crisis but changing small family homes into single units is not the way to solve it this is taking from Peter to give to Paul there is a huge shortage of affordable accommodation for houses for families and Moor Down is one of the few areas left in London where small family houses are available in a safe and quiet area and they are just about affordable please don't change this any questions no thank you very much and now Josh Conley hi thank you I'd like to speak in objection to the application I wholeheartedly agree with the previous objections but I'd like to take the motion out of this for a minute and just look at the math the applicant argues that with good public transport links HMO residents will not need cars however almost every independent adult living on Moor Down has found it necessary to have one and the residents of 17 Moor Down have a right to own a car too just like everybody else with six such adults living at this address that'll add five cars to the street there are 60 houses on our small 100 meter stretch of Moor Down and if only 10% of those followed the precedent that this application would set that would put an extra 30 vehicles on the street which would represent a 50% increase in traffic and pose a significant loss of amenity to the community and a real safety risk to the many young children living on this road given the significant commercial incentives to property owners to convert family dwellings to HMOs it's entirely realistic to estimate that eventually 10% would follow the precedent of this application waste collection presents similar problems a household of two adults produces roughly five bins of waste to be collected every fortnight a household of six plus adults will generate three times this again even if only 10% of properties are converted to similar HMOs that's an extra 60 bins on our small stretch of road every fortnight it's clear even just from the perspective of traffic and waste alone that the precedent that approving this application would set as unsafe and unworkable thanks thank you very much no questions no okay thank you very much Josh it's now time for the Luke Mcbratney and Heshy Friedman you've got 10 minutes thank you very much by the way quick introduction my name is Luke Mcbratney I'm a planning consultant at Excel planning and I'm here to speak in support of the application at number 17 Morden firstly we're very grateful to the officers for their detailed consideration of the application and we also welcome the recommendation of approval there are three key reasons why we believe the committee can confidently support this scheme first is the principle is sound as the report outlines there are no local planning policies in Greenwich that restrict the number or concentration of HMOs nor is there any policy protection for the retention of family housing in this context London plan policy H9 recognises that well managed HMOs form an important part of the borough's housing mix providing flexible lower cost accommodation for single households second this is a high quality policy compliant each of the six bedrooms exceed the minimum space standards include their own ensuite the communal kitchen comfortably meets these requirements as set out within the borough's own HMO standards the site benefits from a large rear garden a good standard of outlook and daylight for all rooms secure cycle parking in the rear garden and appropriate bin storage in the front in short the development will provide a safe comfortable and well managed living environment third is the design and the scale of the extensions have been carefully considered and are fully supported by council officers the rear dormer while a box type and form mirrors the fallback position already approved and could essentially be implemented at any stage the rear extensions have been appropriately scaled and sensitively designed with no adverse impacts on the neighbours in terms of their outlook their privacy or their daylight I think it's important now in terms of the planning merits is also I'd like to highlight the role of Maple London our client who will be managing this property they manage in excess of over 800 HMO units across London many of which are in Greenwich so they have extensive experience in responsible proactive property management they do conduct regular inspections they carefully vet their tenants through trusted channels and maintain strong working relationships with the local authorities and their neighbours their transparent and responsive approach ensures the properties are very well maintained any issues are always very promptly addressed and they're also accredited with the property redress scheme the BLA and the CMP and I would just take this moment just to digress just to move to one of the comments that were made is that Maple do pride themselves on addressing neighbour concerns and details can and will be shared if there is any report of anti-social behaviour or noise impacts that can be provided and Maple are very very proud that they actually provide that and just to move on to the last couple of points we do recognise that this is there's an unusually high level of public interest in this application however as the officer report rightly sets out many of the concerns that have been raised in the objections on here today are not material planning considerations such as anti-social behaviour property values or the private intentions of our of our client so the relevant matters that should be addressed such as the amenity the design and parking and waste have all been provided and they've been assessed through a balanced assessment made by the officer so to conclude this is a sustainable it's a well-designed scheme that meets both the local and London-wide housing objectives it complies with relevant national and local planning policies delivering a high quality accommodation that's been carefully assessed by officers in terms of its design and amenity it's obviously been recommended for approval and we respectfully ask that the members support the recommendation recommendation today thank you thank you are you speaking for Heshi Friedman as well yeah yes yes I am yeah all right thanks thank you very much thank you so much I wanted to ask you the same question that I asked Louise earlier in regards to the high number of objections what have you done to consult with the residents yeah so as Louise had said there is no requirement for us to property engage but like I said is that Maple Property they will take it upon themselves to try and engage and if there is disturbance or there is any anti-social behaviours or issues those details and numbers can be provided so we're they're willing to open that door for communication and they will allow it it's very rare that a property management company would do that but Maple do so in terms of engagement throughout the process we were surprised at the number of objections but like I said many of them we wouldn't have addressed because they're not material to the actual planning considerations here I mean it but we are and we are willing to engage you were so passionate about the fact that we need HMOs but you haven't obviously been so passionate about consulting with the people the residents who live there and can I just ask you you talk about the amenity and you say that you know it doesn't affect the amenity of residents but what do you classify as amenity of residents local residents who already live there well in terms of planning when when we look at the application we address it in terms of the design aspects is there going to be an impact the neighbouring light and opportunities we're looking at the planning considerations I understand that there's emotional aspect to you in terms of what impact it may have but it's really important to remember that their material change here is only for one additional person we have already allowed for five and that that difference that we feel I feel in amenity that won't be a material it won't material impact neighbors right you say that okay that the the difference with six won't affect the amenity but you are putting and am I right in thinking that you're putting an extra extension on yeah which has so is that not going to affect so the balance that the assessment that's been made by officers clearly sets out that there is no impact in terms of like daylight sunlight in terms of their outlook there is no impact in amenity in that respect I think that you're maybe looking at it from a more emotional point of view in terms of what the feel to the street and the impact that may have and unfortunately within Greenwich there is no policy that restricts that use and I think it's very clear that we look at it from a planning point of view and as I've said out is that this is a very sound application and it meets all the criteria and all the it meets all the policy and meets all the standards that Greenwich council have set and we abide by that policy and that's exactly what we've done on this case in this application yeah any other questions no okay thank you very much time to uh yeah yeah we're deliberating now so you can have a comment or ask questions again if you want to go back to Louise or to anybody whilst um I mean we're going to put our deliberation after this right so we're not we're not going to share that right now okay well I'm from planning point of view the application meets all the relevant planning criteria and regulations so but on the balance you know yes we there's we're not considering a lot of the objections um under the planning regulation but we have to as you know the he the gentleman that was sitting at the applicant on behalf of the applicant did not come across someone who had many much of engagement with the community considered any of the concerns or willing to consider any of the concerns to me um you know and we need to balance things in terms of um complaints comes to us as you know representative local representative so I just think that um things that are impacting on them for example parking for example are we should consider putting um or consider putting um some sort of a restriction on the amount of parking um that they can have for example so I think just want to reiterate from a planning perspective whilst we encourage applicants and agents to engage with local residents it isn't something that we can require and from a planning perspective it's not something that we can really take into consideration in the assessment of the application what we're required to do is to assess the proposal look at we do you know the report goes through all of the objections and we have considered all of them it's a case as to whether officers think that there's any grounds to refuse the application on the basis of those concerns raised and for the reason set out in the report we don't think the proposal we think the proposal would have an acceptable impact from a design perspective from an impact on residential amenity in terms of the quality of accommodation proposed um so I think I just point we've got to assess it against what the proposal for is for and against planning planning policy and other material planning considerations which I believe the report does correctly do and consider all of the things in the round in relation to parking specifically the property itself isn't isn't located within a controlled parking zone in instances where they are within a controlled parking zone we could put a condition on restricts them access to parking permits typically areas that have got really high issues with parking pressure is the areas that are subject to a controlled parking zone so in this instance we can't put a condition on that would restrict access to parking permits because none of the residents on more down are required to have one in order to park now for the reasons set out in the report we don't think the additional of one additional occupant as part of the HMO would result in an unacceptable impact in parking pressure because as I said out at the beginning there's already they can already lawfully implement a five person HMO so what you've got to do is look at that additional person and whether that additional person would then result in an unacceptable impact on parking pressure and I think from our perspective we don't think it would do and it's for that reason why why we're supportive of the application from a transport perspective hope that helps um thank you chair right um we're losing a family home but what I can't understand is that permission was given rightly or wrongly whatever for a five um bedroom HMO so why all this extra upset for everybody and issues with x you know sort of we've got the the extra floor extension for another person and so that's two of my points my third point is which I feel very strongly about the people who are here tonight objectors are really really they've come along they've said the pieces it was full of emotion I'm sorry it was full of emotion and emotion to me is in not just emotion people's living conditions and people how they feel is is part of their amenity it's not just a building somebody's amenity people are going to have their their amenity destroyed because of this of this HMO their lives destroyed that's their amenity so I'm sorry but I will not be supporting this application I just can't do it thank you it's a you know I've been sitting out here at these local planning committees for many many months now as I think uh as the house and and yourself part and I don't think we've ever yet actually had HMO application which has been very popular uh and I think that regardless of the consultation I still think we've got the same number of objections I understand that because I know whenever whenever an application comes in or whenever one begins to occur the people adjacent to it get very upset about it as would I myself if one happened in my role uh but fortunately we've got to go by the planning advice by the officers advice and if you actually want to object it and if the members felt we had to object to it not endorse this evening then we need to say very clearly on which planning grounds uh we're actually not are we refusing the application just just to say though clearly I'm not sympathetic to what's been said but I just think we ought to be very very clear that we can't actually just go on the basis of emulsion we have to go on the basis of planning law president and so on in law you have it's amenity affecting am I not right the effect that it has of the local community um and and okay their emotions and their lives that their state of surely that comes in loss of amenity okay anyway okay did anybody else want to see anything I mean the I'm tempted to get involved in a discussion I just think we're actually um we've had the officers report they've weighed up all the documentation which applies across London and uh it's very unfortunate I don't understand how people feel but I personally think we should have to vote in support of this uh but um I'll leave it to you how you vote so you don't when you're happy to vote now okay so those in favor of the application I'm sorry no I know okay yeah uh go on we're I just want to strongly encourage the applicant to reach out to the residents and consult with them um unfortunately this is based on like you said the application which is like reach all requirements and criteria but I would strongly recommend the applicant to make sure this community is somewhat um less fearful and reduce stress as much as you can please okay so that's carry three votes to one whatever word you want to use next item is um item five which one was it which one was it there yeah there yeah you got it now okay okay so it's item five reference number two four stroke three double line two stroke f i'm talking about 76 uh langton way uh and that's uh that's chris you present on you yeah chris yeah yeah thank you chair good evening committee is today request to consider this item which is a full planning application for the demolition of the existing detached dwelling house on sites the construction of three number of two story three bedroom dwelling houses and associated works including landscaping car parking cycle parking and waste storage the site relates to number 76 lantern way in blackheath london se37ju the applications here before committee as as it has received 16 objection objections from interest local individuals mainly concerning the design density amenity transport and construction impacts of the development a summary of the received representations can be found in section 6 of the committee report so the application site is in the blackheath westcom ward and currently complies a two-story detached dwelling house on the southern side of lantern way which is largely an unmade road with the status of a non-maintained public highway highway the application site is shade in red on on the map here the site is located within the blackheath conservation area and an area of special character the existing dwelling house on site is not nationally or locally listed but the site neighbors number 51 to 53 shooter silver which is to the rear of the site and which is locally listed there are no article 4 directions relevant to the application sites so this is an aerial view showing the application site boundary which is outlined in red so lantern way is predominantly residential character wise by backland developments featuring mainly detached and terrace properties between two and three stories in heights the area showcases a mix of architectural styles and the site layouts contributing to an informal and very varied streetscape on the southern side of lantern way properties have differing degrees of setback which add to the visual diversity of the lane so this photo shows the front of the application sites the existing dwelling house has been vacant for a significant period of time and as you can see the front yard is visibly overgrown and just to give some more context on the ground this photo shows the view of lantern way looking west with the existing dwelling house on the left of the photo and this is the view of lantern way looking east with the existing dwelling house on the right hand side and this is the proposed side plan which shows the proposal's relationships with neighboring developments on plan form if you look closely there is a blue dash line on this plan which is the outline of the existing building you can see that the proposed development is only marginally larger than the existing building in terms of footprint and scale moving on this slide shows the existing and proposed front elevations as proposed the development is a two-story building with a loft floor it will be in the form of a short contemporary terrace with a pitch roof at the front that is set back from the eaves the number of front roof lights has been limited to three to afford a cloud uh front roof appearance there will also be vertical projections at the front to incorporate bay windows on the ground and first floors so projecting front bay windows are a traditional feature of the area and in this instance they are being expressed in a contemporary way which contribute to a vibrant front elevation the development will measure up to around 17.3 meters wide 11.1 meters deep and 8.3 meters tall it will be marginally about 0.2 meters taller than the two adjacent labors on lantern way and the maximum height of the existing building at jelling house on side so these are the existing and proposed rear elevation drawings at the rear the proposed development will have a proportionally scale mansart roof rear roof form with well space and position dormers that are sympathetic to the roof slopes the rear elevation will also have concrete banding tiled dormer frames and brick recess panels to enhance the visual detail and interest of the development and this slide shows the proposed side elevation and roof plan as you can see the front roof slope is notably set back from the eaves line and features a relatively gentle pitch of around 40 degrees this design helps to minimize the official bulk of the roof particularly when viewed from the front although the development includes a flat main roof section it will feature a green roof design and it will you will remain largely unnoticeable from most public and private viewpoints because of its positioning you can also see that the proposed development does not bring forward any side windows and this is a computer generate image which shows how the development will appear from the front again you can see that the development will only be marginally taller than the adjacent neighbors this is another cgi showing the street view of lantern way looking east in terms of lantern way it has an eclectic character mixing both historic our buildings period terraced properties and contemporary designs from the of the late 20th and early 21st centuries the properties are predominantly detached and terraced dwelling houses between two and stories tall taking into account the local urban grain the contemporary design principle of the proposed two-story development featuring a loft level and rear dormers is considered to be appropriate and the scheme represents a high quality design that responds sensitively to the surrounding context so turning to the internal layout of the development this slide shows the proposed ground floor plan as you can see the ground floor is mainly dedicated to living kitchen and dining areas to the front of the building there will be car parking cycle and bin storage while at the back a private rear garden space is proposed for each of the houses The proposed dwellings will all be dual aspect with openings on the northern and southern elevations which will offer adequate access to outlook and natural light including direct sunlight through the south facing openings. So on the first floor each of the houses will have two bedrooms including one en suite as well as a separate bathroom. There will also be ample built-in storage space and similar to the ground floor layout there will be front and rear windows at each of the dwellings. And on the loft floor each house will have will have another en suite double bedroom that benefits from front roof light and rear dormer window with access to natural light and outlook. So in terms of the quality of accommodation the proposed internal space provisions have been assessed against the requirements of the nationally described space standards and policy d6 of the London plan. Looking at the table on the left you will see that the proposed gross internal areas floor to ceiling heights and built-in storage provisions all meet the relevant standards. In term in terms of bedroom sizes there is one bedroom out of a total of nine that falls marginally just 0.37 square meter below the required standard. However this shortfall is minimal and the bedroom will still comfortably exceed the required minimum width. As such this is not considered to raise any significant concerns regarding the overall quality of internal accommodation. Turning to private amenity space the table at the top right shows the proposed rear garden sizes. Each of these comfortably meets the London plan requirement of at least nine square meters of private outdoor amenity space per dwelling of this nature. Overall the proposal is considered to provide a good quality of residential accommodation for prospective occupiers. In terms of residential amenity impacts on neighbours neighbouring daylight and sunlight amenity assessment has been provided with which specifically looks at the impacts on all adjoining neighbours that are highlighted in red on this illustration including number 74 lantern way to the west number 80 to the east and number 51 and 53 should the seal road to the south. The proposed development is highlighted in yellow here. In terms of the results of the assessment they confirm that none of their neighbouring windows will experience any unacceptable loss of natural light. Indeed the assessment results actually show that the proposal will fully comply with BRE's good practice guidance on planning for daylight and sunlight and two of the ground floor side windows at number 74 lantern way will actually experience slight improvements against the existing situations following the development. This is likely due to the development having a pitch roof slope on this side whereas the existing dwelling house has a gable end that is right on the share boundary. With respect to the western neighbour number 74 lantern way which is circled in blue this neighbouring property is positioned forward of the proposed development. It has several side windows and its main entrance on the eastern side elevation which which are unlike the proposed development which has a which actually which has its principal elevation facing north. So compared to the existing dwelling house the proposed development will only be between 1.4 to 2.3 metres deeper at the front and it will not have it will not be any deeper at the rear. The closest of the proposed front bay projections will be around 2.7 metres from the first four side windows of number 74. In terms of the existing first four side windows at number 74 that face the application site, we have further looked at a withdrawn application from 2023 for window replacements at this neighbour and this slide shows some of the submissions in that 2023 application. So from these snippets you we can see that the first four the first four side windows serve a bathroom and a dressing room which are non-habitable spaces. Also considering the separation distance involved and because the proposed development does not introduce any side windows the proposal is considered to have an to have an acceptable impact on the residential amount of this neighbour. Regarding the eastern neighbour at number 80 circle in orange it is also positioned forward of both the proposed development and the existing dwelling house. So at present the existing dwelling house protrudes around 0.75 metres beyond the rear elevation of this neighbour and with the proposed development it will project 1.5 metres further than existing. But because the proposed development and this neighbour do not have any side windows along the share boundary the proposal will not have any unacceptable impacts on the privacy or outlook of this neighbouring address. And on this first four plan you can see that number 80 Niantum Way also has a first four roof terrace at the north western corner which faces the application site. So this neighbouring outdoor amenity space will continue to benefit from good access to outlook daylight and it will not be overlooked. These are the proposed sections which again show the proposal's relationships with immediate neighbours. In terms of the relationship with Shooters Hill Road neighbours at the back, the proposed building is at least 20 metres away from the rear openings of the flats on Shooters Hill Road. So as you can see on the proposed east section at the top, the proposed development will be significantly away from the BRE 25 degree and 45 degree guidelines taken from the rear of these neighbours. The built form of the development is therefore considered to have negligible amenity impacts on the rear neighbours on Shooters Hill Road. Moving on to the car parking provision, the existing dwelling currently benefits from three spaces, including two on-street spaces that are parallel to and partly overlapping the shared surface of Lantern Way. So under the proposal three off-street parking spaces will be provided, which will consist of one car parking space at the front yard of each dwelling house. So each space will measure five metres by 2.5 metres, which align with the widely accepted industry standard for accommodating more than typically larger cars. So although the number of the proposed spaces exceeds the maximum parking standards set by the London plan for this location, which has a PETA rating of three, the local parking context is recognised. So Lantern Way is an adopted role with high demand for on-street parking, which is unregulated. With this in mind, the proposed provision of well-sized off-street parking spaces is considered a balanced approach. It helps to minimise excessive off-street parking while also discourage additional uncontrolled or inconsiderate parking that could obstruct other road users. This approach is also supported by the council's transportation team. And this is just to give a quick overview of some other material planning considerations that have been taken into account in the assessment. In terms of cycle parking and bin storage, the required provisions will be provided at the front and this will be secured by conditions to ensure that appropriate cycle cycle and bin stores are made available prior to the first occupation of the development. To manage construction impacts in light of the constraints of Lantern Way and the site, a demolition construction logistics and management plan will also be secured by condition, in line with the request by the council's transportation team. Lastly, an agricultural report has also been submitted to accompany the application. Having assessed this in consultation with the council's tree officer and since there are no trees at the site, the proposed development is not considered to have any unacceptable impacts on existing trees which are outside of the site. A condition will be secured as well to ensure that the tree protection measures are implemented in accordance with the submit agricultural report. So on the whole, the proposal to replace a long vacant and dilapidated dwelling with three much needed family dwellings is considered to be acceptable in planning terms. So given that the council currently has a housing land supply of only 2.46 years, which falls short of the five-year requirements set up in the national planning policy framework, this well-designed scheme will make a positive contribution towards addressing the housing shortfall and supporting the council in meeting its housing delivery targets. The proposed development will have an overall design that is sympathetic to this part of the Blackheath Conservation Area, as well as provide a good quality of residential accommodation. It will also not have any unacceptable residential amenity impacts on the occupiers of nearby neighbouring properties. Officers are therefore recommending committee to grant planning permission for this application. Thank you. Thank you for a very detailed presentation. Right. I know that the original house is set back from the other houses, isn't it? So obviously, because of that, the other side is going to be forward of the other properties. What I would like to know, two things, number 74 and number 80, what rooms are sort of sitting in the back? Which are they habitable rooms? Are they sitting rooms? Because, and also, again, if you could go over the height of the height and the depth of the three, you know, the boundary walls. Sorry, was that clear? Yeah. It's to do, again, with light and shadowing. And because looking at that picture there, that's going to have a massive effect on the two existing buildings, if those rooms, I'm sure, are habitable rooms. Yes, okay. So this is the proposed ground floor plan. And I don't know if you can see, but there is a blue line which shows the existing, the outline of the existing dwelling house. Yeah. So at the front, it kind of goes around here, you see. It's not the front, it's at the back. Yeah. And then at the back, the difference is just here. And so on this side, in terms of the relationship with number 74, the proposed development is actually no more deeper than the existing dwelling house. And in terms of the relationship here with number 80. So the proposed development will be around, so around 2.3 metres deeper. But, yeah. Sorry, 2.3 metres deeper? Deeper than the existing, than the existing. Actually, so it's 2.3 metres deeper than the real elevation of number 80. Right. But you're saying 74. Yes. So in terms of the relationship with number 74, the proposal is actually just, it's the same depth as the existing dwelling house. So it won't go any deeper. Yeah. So what about the room number 80? Are they, they must be sitting rooms, living rooms? Yes. So, yeah. So in terms of, yeah, so all these real openings, I believe that most of them are habitable rooms. But again, we have daylight and sunlight assessment, which has, which has assessed the impacts on all these neighbouring windows, both including at number 74, number 80, and also at the rear as well on those flats on shutter And again, the, again, the report has been prepared in compliance with BLE guidelines. And actually, all of the assess windows are in compliance with the BLE requirements. So it's kind of just going to demonstrate that all the rooms will still benefit from a reasonable to good level of access to natural light, daylight and sunlight to the south facing windows as well. So if we got a picture or an aerial view of the existing property, the way it is at the moment, please. Yeah. So there's some maps in the back. So, yeah, this is just a sort of a bird's eye view of the existing dwelling house on site. And there's another one. I see if there's any better picture. Yeah. So in terms of this one, you can see this. So this is the front. And this is lantern way. And you can see the existing dwelling house. So this is at the front. So yeah, and then there's a modelling here, which the blue, the blue shape is actually the existing dwelling house. And you can see the relationships, the existing relationships with the neighbours next doors. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's still a three storey terrace of three houses. And that's quite at odds with your two key policy papers. You'll all be familiar with the Council's 2013 Conservation Area Appraisal. I assume you've read it. And the 2010 Council Conservation Area Management Strategy and Guidance. The appraisal is really flattering about our road. It describes Langton Way's informal and organic appearance, its origins as a back lane, and its heritage assets of converted former stables and coach houses. And more generally, the Blackheath area strategy and guidance praises the established grain of the area. And warns about the risk of plot subdivision and erosion of the rich architectural character of the street scene. Now, while what we all locally call the Coombs House has been rotting away for the past 15 or 20 years, strange though it may seem, most of the properties in that stretch that you saw on the first aerial view between Vicarage Avenue to the east and Strathedon Road to the west are two storey detached or semi-detached houses. In fact, all of the 16 homes to the immediate east and west of this site on this southern side are two storeys. All but most of them are detached, 13 of them are detached. And four of them are 19th century or early 20th century heritage properties, in your words, that have been converted. And so, really, I dispute the applicant's planning and heritage statement, where in paragraph 4363 of his original submission, he says, the proposed development will result in infill development, similar to much of Langton Way, and will main margins. Well, please, please obviously read the Council documents, but I really dispute that. Terrace of modern houses will stand out and set a terrible precedent. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. All I was going to say was, say for example, it was two properties, would you have felt happy with that? Or is it just the fact that the terraced and the modern and, yeah? I think everybody assumed that a developer would eventually come along and put two properties on the site, yes. That would exactly replicate the existing grain of the street, whereby each of the houses are suited to a matching unit. So, that's a yes. So, any other questions? Sorry. Nope. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. So, now it's Dr. Andrew Williams. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. I'm the present resident with my wife and family who have just moved out, but of 80 Langton Way. Clearly, living next to a derelict property for some time is not ideal, and we'd hoped that it would just be redeveloped as it stands. However, developing into three houses in that plot is, in our opinion, overdevelopment. We only have to draw the pictures that we've very eloquently seen, and actually, they're really helpful to explain my point, that where you had an in-proportion house to start with, now you've got a massive block with almost no garden, and three separate families are going to be living there, with the incumbent increase in footfall, and more importantly, parking. Your parking diagram, again, the cars on the existing were larger than the cars on the proposed, and where you showed the picture of the existing site, the proposed parking will come out to where those cars were in front of the property. Assuming that these properties are bought by young families, as we would hope, because that's what they're intended for, each family would have at least one car, and I would propose most of them, in keeping with most of the residents of a similar stage in their life on that road, will have two cars. Where the second car is going to be parked, heaven only knows, because if one parks it on the road, we won't be able to get any emergency vehicles past the bollards of the primary school, which is directly opposite. The final point, very quickly, is I also contest your points about light. Yes, the bedrooms, you may want to measure light within the bedrooms, but the front projection will overlook our roof terrace substantially, both with visual view, but also shadowing, even though the footprint's marginally different. In the rear of the property, though, you've mentioned it will come out a further, was it how far? One and a half, two metres, which is exactly where our rear courtyard garden is, and so we'll in-shadow that and put it directly in gloom for the majority of the day, including the lounge, which is also on that corner. So I'd contest the fact that it won't cause any overlooking or shadowing of our property. The property is overdeveloped and too large for the plot, and the incumbent's strain on the access. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? Pat? Yeah. Just a couple of questions. Can I just ask you, how, because obviously you can't always see from photographs, how wide is the road? Do you know about that? Is it, like, is it, you know, sufficient for two cars? So if we assume that the proposed residents have parked in their allocated spots, then you would get one car through the road. Any additional on-street parking would prohibit a car passing through it, yet alone emergency services. If we have a look at the original, that picture there, where that blue van is, that will be where the parking will come out to. You can see how wide the road is there, with the school being directly on the right. Any additional, so if you owned the house where the blue van is, your car would be parked out to the edge of that corner, and your other car, were you to have one, however small, would either have to be double parked blocking the road, or parked about 400 metres up the road outside the old people's home, by Vicarage Way. It's a very busy road, actually. It is. You've got the old people's home, you've got the school, and so there's a certain amount of traffic using that all day. Well, there is. I mean, it's now been made a restricted route, by closing off Old Dover Road access at the top. But it has made no appreciable difference in the traffic, because you can still exit onto Strathedon Road, which is straight down there, essentially. Going back to what you said before, well, at present, how, I mean, are you, is your light affected at the moment with the property next door? At present, to no extent. And don't get me wrong, we really welcome it being developed. We would love it to be renovated, but clearly that's not going to make as much money as building new houses on there. But three houses on that plot, just by looking at the, that diagram you have with the yellow house and the two red houses, you can clearly show how there's a tiny garden for each of them, and a massive building where a relatively diminutive, in proportion building stands at present. I think that just really explains it all, especially the corner. My house is on the right as you see it. And that bottom corner will be plunged in, even, there's even shadowing on your diagram from your 3D graphics. Which doesn't exist at the moment. And it's a north-facing garden, so we struggle at the best of times. Pleasure. Okay, thank you very much. So to now David Walton. Thank you. Good evening all. My name's David Walton. I live at 74 Langton Way, which is the property immediately adjacent to the site, to the west of it. First I want to say, the section of Langton Way between Stratheden Road and Gregor Mews, in which this proposed development is situated, is comprised entirely of detached houses. They are of different styles, but they are all detached. The proposal to demolish the existing detached property, and replace it with a small terrace, is, in my opinion, entirely unsuitable. And does not comply with the restraints and restrictions governing new developments within a conservation area. It will not preserve or enhance the character of the area, or comply with the established pattern of development. In order to accommodate these three properties on what is a double plot, the west facade will be built right on the boundary with my house at 74. Yes, the existing property is also situated on the boundary, but it is set back at the rear. So it is this proposal to extend at the front, along the boundary, that is my main concern. It will have a serious adverse impact on my property. Due to the close proximity, it will have an overbearing and obtrusive nature. Now, I don't believe there are dimensions have been provided on the proposed plans to show what the actual distance will be between the properties. But I have measured the separation to be just 0.88 metres at the closest point, and 1.9 metres at the furthest. A full height wall this close to my property will completely or partly obscure three of the side windows of my property, which face the development. I have uploaded photos. Can you wind up now, David, please? Thanks. Sorry. Oh. It comes to that, does it? Something that affects my whole life. I can't continue for another 20 seconds. I'll give you 20 seconds, yeah. Just wind up. Honestly. It means I stop to wind up. I've uploaded photos that show how this new development will encroach upon my house. I request that planners attend the site to get a true feel of how this will impact, because I don't believe the plans submitted show the true extent to how this proposal will impact on my house. Thank you very much for my two minutes. Thank you. Same as everybody's had. I knew that from the beginning, and everybody else has worked within their two minutes. I can't understand you. Okay. Anyway, any questions? No? That's it. Thank you very much. No. That's it. Thank you very much. Now it's Jane Carpenter. Sorry, Jane, you've got four minutes. Well, I'll try and make up for Dave, then. Okay. Thank you all very much. I'm here on behalf of the Langton Way Association and also the Blackheath Society and the Westcom Society, neither of whom were able to send anyone, I'm afraid, because it was just too close to Easter and they didn't have anyone free. I think, as you've heard, we're all very grateful that something is happening to the site. It's been a mess for getting on for 20 years and I think over those 20 years you have from time to time had to intervene to get things done in terms of trying to tidy it up, get potholes filled, etc. However, as has been explained to you, it is a one house on a two-plot site and to change it to something else is very unusual for Langton Way. One gets the distinct impression that in order for that site to have value to a developer, it's got to be a terrace of three and it just does not fit with that bit of Langton Way, as has been explained to you. In other areas of Langton Way, we've got new developments and we like that, I mean, it's an eclectic mix of houses, but that particular little stretch from Strathedon Road to beyond number 80, it's 80, it's the sort of old coach house bit of Langton Way. And for three modern houses, squeezed in, bulky, tall, they may have bow windows, but that reflects a series of terraces much further down Langton Way, it isn't indicative of the architecture of that particular area. I think what worries us from the Langton Way Association and I think other residents is that were you to give consent for this, it would set a very dangerous precedent for a road that has a number of quite large houses in and the lure of development. We're right next to England, we're right next to England, we're right next to the Heath, houses go for well over a million in that street. You know, those three little houses will sell, I can tell you, for over a million. It's not housing to encourage young people to buy and live there, it'll be flogged for a lot of money. And there will be a precedent for people to get their houses knocked down and other little terraces put in, and it will completely change the face of what is a very nice road. It's very rural, people like walking down it with their dogs, getting to the park, it's unmade up, there's not a huge amount of traffic. We've got a school right opposite the proposed development, we've got other schools in the vicinity, if you go there in the morning you'll see a lot of parents and young children walking there, they're not going by car, they're walking, and we want to encourage that. Parking is a concern, it is very, very narrow at that point. I think you yourselves say that because it's unmade up, you don't have the measurements, you have to rely on ordinance survey plans, there are bollards opposite, you're going to have three cars parked sort of horizontally facing into the houses. Yeah, that's a very good picture, because you can see what it looks like. It's rural, it's got bollards facing where the parking spaces are going to be, manoeuvrability is going to be very difficult in that area, and as one of my fellow residents said, if anyone were to park against, alongside where the parking spaces are, the road would be blocked. It's a narrow nip point, I think the developer himself says in the transport report that it's very narrow there. I would very much like the committee to come and have a look at it. I think that is really important. I think unless you walk down Langton Way and see how it is used, what the houses in that vicinity look like, and what the parking difficulties are going to be, both for the residents who buy these very expensive little houses, and for emergency vehicles going up and down, well, any vehicles, dustbin, lorries, whatever. And as somebody said, we are blocked now. You can have your own opinion on that. I'm not going to voice one. We are now blocked in the mornings and the evenings at one end. I think, is that my four minutes? You're well over, but I've been flexible. Well, thank you very much. Flexible. Thank you very much. Questions? Pat? Can I, well, actually, I was going to, my question, I was going to say to you, do you feel that it would help if the committee had a site visit? Definitely, definitely. I mean, you've got to make your own minds up, obviously, but I do think there's a difference between looking at developers' plans, looking at your colleagues in the planning department's plans, and actually being there. I think it's really important if you could come. Can I suggest, then, Chair, that we recommend, well, I'm recommending a site visit, please. Okay, we'll consider that when we come to considerations. We haven't heard the applicant yet, so, but that's mooted. As a matter of interest, though, Chris, presumably you've been down there. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah, Ashley? Thank you for that. Can I ask you, not only as a residential association, but are you a chair, did you say? No, I sort of deal with planning matters for the Langton Way Association. As a resident yourself, what is it that you look, I mean, you said that the site has always been, you know, a dump, basically. It hasn't always been a dump. I think a lot of us live in Langton Way a long time. I've only been there 40 years, and it hasn't always been. But you expect some sort of a development, right? Oh, yes, definitely. So, what is it that you're actually want to see? Well, something that reflected the way the road is organised in terms of plots. Remember, this is a muse road at the back of either the Shooters Hill Road houses or the St. John Park houses. They're all big houses with long plots, and they're all of a similar width at the end. So, were you to come and walk down Langton Way, you would see that. And this was originally two houses, which were knocked into one. So, if you look at that picture, you can sort of get an idea of what, if you were to put it back to two houses, which I don't think any of us would have any objection to, that's about the size of it. So, you can see the division, really, just as I'm looking at it to the right-hand side of the dormer window at the top. So, that's about the size. And they're decent-sized houses, you know, ones that are not going to be sold for less than a million, though. No, absolutely. But I can tell you that those developments, the development of the three terraced houses will not be cheap when they're sold. Okay, thank you. It's not really a factor we have to consider. No, no, no. I'm just putting some context in. Okay. Thank you. I mean, it depends what they paid for the land. I don't know who they bought it from or whatever. Anyway, that's another matter. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Jane. Thomas Farmer, the agent, architect. How long has he got? He's got ten, hasn't he? Yeah, you've got ten. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair, and good evening, members. My name's Tom Farmer from Down Farmer Architects. We're a small Peckham-based architectural practice. Our studio focuses on using craft, high-quality materials, and sustainable design to sensitively unlock underutilised urban sites to help meet the local housing need. So, Dan Farmer, or DFA, were instructed on behalf of the Coombs family to initially advise on potential for their family home, which is no longer fit for purpose as a family home. And, as a result, has been left derelict for 16 years. The existing house at 76 Langton Way occupies a generous plot, one of the widest on the street at 18 metres wide. And the property and garden size far exceeds the minimum technical housing requirements for a family dwelling. The plot represents an opportunity to replace a derelict and poorly performing property with three new low-carbon, energy-efficient family homes. Our design team know the area well, and some of whom live within Blackheath. We visited the site, including myself, on multiple occasions to observe the site and the streets, the context that help us to build a framework of knowledge to design the scheme within. We very much enjoy getting to know Langton Way through the course of this application and through the design process. It is, as the objectors have mentioned, it's a very special street, which showcases a diverse range, eclectic range of house types, eras, and styles of buildings. The road does feel village-like, with a tree lined, it's a non-paved road. You've got the vantage of the heath out to the west. We love the street, we love the moments of surprise as you walk along the street. Vicarage Avenue was mentioned, it's a beautiful green break in the road. It's very special, and the contrast as you walk along the street from super-contemporary properties that feel quite unexpected, sandwiched right between post-war buildings and then older coach house blocks. It's a kind of real pick-and-mix of architecture and a sort of feast for your eyes. Our sort of starting point for the design development process was to undertake a photographic and topographical service, survey of the site, which helped us to understand the relationships, particularly with number 74 and number 80, Langton's Way, the two neighbours that have spoken previously, as well as the original host property on Shooters Hill, which the land was previously associated with. The properties along Langton's Way step back and forward as you walk along, and it creates a very informal street frontage. It's quite different to the scheme we saw earlier, where you've got a consistent street line. This is a very varied street line with different buildings, different styles. And number 76, our property, is positioned over six metres back from the two neighbours either side. So you've got this big setback, which is probably one of the biggest setbacks along the street. And I guess partly as a result of that, the neighbours either side, they're both historic properties, but they both have a front and a rear elevation with windows in. And because of that setback there, I guess naturally they've kind of occupied, the buildings have kind of occupied that space on the side. So there is some, there's a flanking terrace at number 80, and then there's some secondary flanking windows on number 74 for sort of reference. But that kind of, our sort of proposal, our initial reaction was to sort of follow the general footprint of the existing building, and that you could see from Chris's presentation. But just with that, with the depth of the building, when you put it towards the back of the site, if you were to bring it, if you were to bring it forward, you know, we're trying to create the depth of a house, that our house depth is still less than number 80. It's similar to number 74, but we've tried to keep it in the same, roughly in the same position. If you bring it forward, you have issues with those two sides, the terrace and the windows. If we kind of bring it further back, we kind of create more potential issues at the rear. So it's a delicate balance with how you position a new building on this site, and we've chosen to kind of principally follow what's come there before us. So that main building line on the front, as Chris mentioned, it comes forward an additional 1.4 metres, which is a kind of marginal increase from that existing condition. That roughly lines up with the back of the terrace at number 80, so that terrace is still clear, it's still clear and open, and it roughly lines up with the sort of first window at first floor on number 74, as Chris had in his presentation. So it's a marginal difference, in our opinion, as Chris had said before. We work closely with our daylight and sunlight consultant to help define this building line and test the footprint, and we've explored lots of options, and we sort of refined the building line to make sure that all of the windows tested, we tested 65 windows on all of the neighbouring properties, that all of them were at least equal with the existing conditions. They all passed the BRE test, some of which, Chris mentioned, a couple actually improved. So as a design and applicant team, we chose to engage with Greenwich Council early in the design process, right at the beginning, through the pre-application advice service, and working with Chris and his team at Greenwich to help develop a design very much together and collaboratively to understand what was the right scheme to bring forward. Our initial proposal was actually for a much more contemporary architecture than what you're looking at now. I don't know, some people will say, this is too contemporary, but we came forward with something even more contemporary, more varied, maybe in line with some of the other kind of quirkier properties on the street. And we actually came forward with four properties there. As the house was split, we'd split that 18 metres into four properties. Through the discussions with Chris and getting to know the urban design officer and the various consultees on the council side, we sort of realised that that was too much density, and that three units and that they're still generous widths, they're wider than the house that I, terraced house that I currently live in, still felt a kind of an appropriate and optimised level of housing delivery on the site and still in keeping with other, and I know that this is in contrary to some of the comments earlier, but there are other examples of terraced runs on the street. There's in runs of three as well, which we are kind of relating to that existing language. So as we kind of went through that process, we introduced, we tried to sort of bring and reference more of the architectural elements from the conservation area, including the vertical rhythm that's present in the conservation area, including, as Chris mentioned, introducing the bay window element and helping the properties to read as three vertically expressed unique properties so that they're identifiable as a run of three houses. We also had a number of iterations on the building line. There's a property opposite number 97, you can see on the screen, that's more of the top right of that image, is a newer development, and that's two storeys plus a basement plus another setback level that's got a kind of box-type roof language, and we kind of came forward with something like that, and the urban design officer felt that actually a pitched language would be more in keeping, and then if it felt like it looked like two storeys from the front and then it had more of a dormer typology, like the buildings on the top right of that image, very similar, two storeys with a dormer and inhabited loft, that would be more appropriate and more sensitive to the conservation area context. So that's the design direction we slowly adopted, and that was refined in terms of the angle of the roof in the front, studying the views from the front and the rear of the street, and massaging and reducing the dormer size so it feels more in keeping to the rear. So very much that we worked this design in 3D, we made models and we worked through and tried to find a design that we thought was going to be acceptable. So the houses have been reviewed and designed in conjunction with our own passive house designers, so we're very passionate about sustainable design and environmental design, and carbon-conscious design, and we've included the hype into the actual thinking and bones of the architecture and the planning application, high-performing building fabric with increased wall build-ups, thermal mass opportunities for retaining heat in these buildings, consideration of glazing sizes, we've done a lot of testing with overheating, an introduction of green roofs and biodiverse green roofs that they've got enough intensity to actually support wildlife on the roofs, and so it's always a difficult thing because within a conservation area you want a pitched roof to make the building feel in keeping with the conservation area, but we really want to support greenery on buildings, so I think we've come up with quite a nice compromise where we can keep the green roof, but it's invisible from the street. And that's been a part of helping us to provide a biodiversity net gain. Our requirement is to provide 10%. The proposal provides a 40% biodiversity net gain on the site itself, in terms of sustainable transport, I appreciate the comments on the parking challenges. Most of the projects that I work on we're encouraged to do car free. Can you start winding up? Sorry, yes, I'll wrap it up. I'll pass over the parking, we can come back to that. We've provided one space dwelling which is above what is in policy, but that we felt would be an appropriate level of parking. We feel that the design has been extremely successful in providing high-quality residential accommodation, including family homes, all units providing good private and amenity space outlook, levels of daylight for future occupants. We're really excited to see this come forward and we hope you agree with your office's recommendations and approve the application this evening. Many thanks for your time and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned from a design perspective, you took inspiration from, you pointed at which ones, but I'm just wondering which door number it is so I can have a look on my phone. I think the ones that I mentioned while we were on the call, so 90 to 97 Langton Way, 168 to 172 Langton Way, they're just a couple of examples of properties that are on multiple runs of terraces. 97 to 99, that's the property I mentioned where it's got two main stories, it's then got a setback second story, so three stories, and then it's also got a basement. So there are, I know that, you know, on initial glance, it looks like there is a predominance of a certain type, but there are a variety of house types there. Thank you very much. I mean, that was a detailed account, thank you. I'm going back to, you said you consulted with the neighbours and number 74, and I think I'm right in thinking, was it David? David Fromson? He, gentleman who lives at number 74, and he has concerns because, and I'd just like you to, for clarification please, and is this the front of the property? He was saying that there's only 0.88 metres separation distance, and that 1.4 metres, I'm not quite sure, it's just I'd like clarification on those, because obviously there's concern there. Sure, and our, part of our applicant team went and met with number 74 and discussed the application with them, we understand they've got some concerns, which we've worked through with Chris and his team. The building line sits exactly on the line of the existing building, so any measurements that are taken on site, if you take them from that line of the existing building, that's where our building is, so we're not, the building isn't getting any closer, in street length terms, to their property, but we are, that's a very helpful diagram, so the blue line is the existing building, you can see on the left, it matches the street edge, so it's a, we're kind of continuing that line, but you can see that we've moved slightly further forward, so we are closer to that kind of porch element, on the side of that property, yeah, that's accurate, the specific dimensions that were mentioned, I can't confirm those right now, three, so the dimensions that I checked before I came in, in terms of the distance moving forward, so the main, the main building line, is moving forward 1.4 metres, that's the blue line on the left to the little step, and then a further 0.9 metres forward again, for the bay window element, so that, yeah, in total that would be, in total that's 2.3 metres, yeah, so, so is that, so whereabouts, okay, we're talking windows now, yeah, so, whereabouts, are we talking about the windows, in Mr. Robson's property, or the windows, in one of these new properties, these are the windows, in number 74, I think that, that, where the concern is, so what, so that's a window there, I think maybe, Chris, it might be helpful, to bring up the slide, the 3D slide, or that photograph, but the, I think the 3D slide, from, the daylight, sunlight report, of the proposed condition, yeah, even that one, yeah, to zoom into that view, so you can, you can see that, our bay window, is sort of lining up, with the, the, the first floor window, and it's roughly, it's roughly in line, with the, the ground floor window, in the, in the porch, so, yes, it's covering part of that porch element, there's also two windows, sorry, a door that's visible, that's not visible here, behind that, the, the sort of yellow mass, but that, that's already covered, by the existing building, so, yeah, we are getting slightly close, to those side, those side windows, but there's also windows, that aren't shown on here, on the front, of the, property as well, so that, that, that, that property does benefit, from windows on the front, windows on the back, and windows on the, on the side, that face onto my, client site. Thank you very much, I was gonna, no, I can, I'm just wondering, how such a, you know, we talk about property values, which aren't necessarily relevant here, but, property like that, sitting there for 14 years, are, are you, aren't you representing the, the freeholder, or is it, yeah, we're working directly, for the family, the, the families, this is, we're working for the family, yeah, um, I, I can't get into the specifics, of why the property is, set like that, uh, sat like that for, for so long, but it is certainly, it's certainly a shame, to have such a generous site, in such a, central part of London, unoccupied. Uh, okay, thank you very much. Oh, you want another question? No. Okay, okay, that, thank you very much. It's finished, isn't it? Yeah, so, thank you, I'll come on to you. Uh, it was just again, I've got so many, I just need to see this site, and I'm requesting a site visit, please. I think it's, it's just, it's not a straightforward site, there are so many issues, with parking, with the buildings, different buildings, how it's going to affect the light, and I just would like to see the site, with the officers, please. I know Ashley, uh, indicated to me earlier, that she would, support, uh, a site visit, do you have a view, if you all do? Jaldee? I'm, I'm indifferent, I wouldn't mind. I, I do have a question to the officer, if that's okay. Sorry, Chair. Um, my only, sort of, concern would be, uh, one of the opposers had mentioned, uh, emergency vehicles, not being able to go through. Has that been, considered and looked at from, from you, or the applicant? Yes, so, in terms of the, uh, the parking arrangements here, as you can see, so, you know, on the left is the existing arrangements, and, so, two of the parking spaces are actually parallel, to London Way, and, actually kind of overlap, with the shared surface of it. So, I think in, in our view, and this, this is agreed with, by the council's transportation team, as well, who, who has reviewed the application, and, uh, raised no objection. So, with, with the proposed provision of off-street parking spaces, you actually, you will allow a wider, sort of, uh, uh, you know, the, the, the shared surface will not be obstruct by the parking, parking base. So, there, there will actually probably be more space for, for emergency vehicles to pass around, if that makes sense. Thank you. I would, I would just say, obviously, within, within the report in front of you, we did consult London Way. the 5 Brigade, they didn't object, um, to the application. So, they've got no concern, cause, et cetera. And just touching a little bit further there on the car parking issue, um, which I appreciate is, is always an issue when it comes, comes to, um, new residential properties. Um, in terms of London plan, which sets up the parking standards, which we look to comply with, for development, this location with the PTL rating of three, the development should only be providing a maximum of 0.25 spaces per dwelling. So, technically for the three dwellings to be in, to be in according to a London plan policy, they should be providing less than one car, one car, one car parking space for each, each property. When considering that, and also the fact that Langton Way is a private road. So, from a council perspective, we've got no control, um, over who can and who, who doesn't park down there. I mean, I've, I've been working here at Greenwich since just, just, just after 2000. And I've dealt with many applications down Langton Way. So, I know how, how difficult the parking can be down there. Um, but when I was last, last down, last, last down there, um, having a look at this site and another site further down, um, just further down there, there was some, some, obviously car park spaces and clearly there's warning signs there that if you don't live in the area, you will have action taken against you. So obviously the Langton Way Residence Association obviously have some form of control down there to actually monitor, ensure that only people who should be parking down, down there do park down there. Sorry. So with that response, um, I'm quite confident that our officers and, um, the applicant have looked at the road and I don't think I would need to view. that's just interesting. Okay. Um, I don't, I can't call people from the audience. It's not a public meeting in that sense. Um, I think it's a beautiful scheme. It's been brilliantly designed and so on. I think it's a very considerate, intelligent scheme. My only concern is whether it's, uh, just too much. Um, and I'd be inclined to go with part, I think. And, uh, because I think Ashley indicated as well that, that she might have some reservations. I'm not sure we can change very much. Uh, in that sense, I'm not sure where there's any point in a site visit, whether we just debate it. But I think if there's a couple of people who've already said they'd like a site visit, I think it's probably as well, we, we go with that. And therefore, don't think we should have any more discussion about it. Is that all right? Shall I? Okay. Are we formally putting a site visit? Yeah. I think we're, we're, we're, we're, colleagues. 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. Well, never mind. We'll tell you what we said. We're discussing whether to have a site visit or not. And I think we, we're agreeing that we will. Yeah. We've agreed a site visit. Is it? Sorry. Yeah. It's unanimous. Yes. Three people. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I'm sorry about that. You've come for the evening and, but we can't make a decision until after the site visit. What will happen after the site visit? It will carry on from this point. It won't necessarily do the whole thing again. So we'll just carry on with the discussion. We might have a short presentation from Chris. Okay. Thank you very much. We're now going on to the next item. Do you want to move forward a bit? We know the acoustics are not wonderful. We have raised it. So if you want to move forward a bit, that may help. We're now going on to item six. This is the land to the rear of 65 Eglinton Hill. Reference number 24 slash 1621 slash F. There's no councillors present to speak on this. We've got, are these changed orders? So is it Dr. Leslie Clark first? Yep. So Dr. Leslie Clark, Lisa McGibbon. Yeah. Are you here? Yeah. Sally Sigmund and Elizabeth Floyd. Yeah. So they're all here. So I'm going to take Dr. Leslie Clark first. Presentation first. Oh, sir. Yeah, yeah. I know it's late. I know it's late. It's late for me. Okay. Sorry. This item relates to land three of 65 Eglinton Hill Plumstead and is for the construction of a single story detached two story dwelling with associated landscaping, car parking and cycle storage. The application is before committee by reason of receiving 15 objections from neighboring properties. A full summary of these can be founded in the committee report. This is an area of the site which is indicated in red. The site is a rectangular piece of land on the west side of May Place Lane and to the rear of number 65 Eglinton Hill, a two story dwelling which the site previously formed part of the rear garden. This is a view from the north. The site does not sit within a conservation area, nor does it comprise of or sit adjacent to any form of listed building. The surrounding area is overwhelmingly residential in character, comprising of largely two story terrace and semi-detached dwellings along both Eglinton Hill and Dallin Road. However, a four story flat of the element sits further along May Place Lane, which can be seen at the top of the screen. This development is known as High View. This slide shows two images of the site. The left-hand image shows the site on the left-hand side of May Place Lane. The right-hand image is taken from here. As you can see, the site is devoid of any built formers covered in shrubbery and trees. This includes a pear tree that is a subject of a tree preservation order, and I will come on to this later. The site is currently surrounded by temporary timber hoarding to prevent access and fly tipping onto the site. This slide shows several images taken within May Place Lane. The left-hand image shows a residential development known as High View, which sits slightly further at May Place Lane to the application site. Within the foreground of this picture, you can see the adjacent site, which has been subject of an approved application for a new dwelling, which I'll show you later. The bottom right-hand image shows the entrance to May Place Lane from Dallin Road. The middle right-hand image shows a side of number two Dallin Road that fronts May Place Lane and sits opposite the site. And the far top right-hand image shows a garage slightly further down from the site. As you can see, this part of May Place Lane is already fairly built up and contains a variety of building types, although it is fairly green in nature. This is the front elevation. A single-storey building is proposed with a maximum height of 5 metres, maximum depth of 10.4 metres, and width of 8.4 metres. Materials include yellow stock brick for the external walls, UPVC windows, timber doors, and tiles for the roof. These materials would broadly match those used with an existing surrounding built form along both Dallin Road and Eglinton Hill, and would therefore be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. This is the rear elevation. The dwellings of a standard design and utilises a hip roof with a lower gabled roof to the rear, as shown on this slide. The proposal brings forward a single dwelling which would be well proportioned within the site, and would help the borough meet its housing targets. This shows a sketch of the proposed development. As you can see, it would be significantly below the height of both number 65 Eglinton Hill to the rear, and number 2 Dallin Road to the front. The proposal would also be adequately set back from May Place Lane, and would not result in any overly dominant impacts on this fairly narrow lane. It is not considered that development of this scale would give rise for any significant impacts on the visual amenity of May Place Lane, given its setback and subordinate nature to the surrounding built form. Whilst trees are to be removed as part of the proposal, including protected pear tree, tree planting is proposed to the front of the site, including replacement street tree, pear tree, and bird cherry trees. This is considered to soften the impact of the proposal on May Place Lane, and retain some of the sites for damp nature. The impact on trees, including both the loss of the street tree and protected pear tree, is discussed further on later on in the presentation. As mentioned previously, the site to the south of the site, Land 3 of number 67 Eglinton Hill, highlighted in yellow, has been the subject of an allowed appeal in 2021, after being refused by members by reason of its impact on the green, open, and spatial character and appearance of the area. This site sits on higher lands to that of the application site. This site has an almost identical relationship with May Place Lane as a host site. The proposed scheme at the site brings forward a contemporary building which is larger in footprint than what is proposed under this application. The site is currently subject of an application for a pair of semi-attached dwellings, which is currently under consideration by the council. This slide shows what was considered acceptable by the inspector during that appeal. As you can see, this brings forward a building of a more contemporary design to what is proposed under this application. The inspector disagreed to the council's reason refusal and stated that the scale, form, and use of materials would not dominate the area and, in their view, enhance the appearance of a vacant and unused area of land. This further supports officers' assessment outlined above that the proposed development under consideration would have an acceptable impact on May Place Lane, given the proposal would have an almost identical impact on the green, open, and spatial character and appearance of the area as that considered appropriate by the inspector at the adjacent site. The inspector also stated that the provision of a single house on this plot would represent a relatively low density development, which, in the context of the surrounding area, is suitable and not harmful to the spatial character it would achieve. That suitable balance between making the effective use of the land for homes and ensuring the appearance of the site remains of breaking the more intense built-up area. The application under consideration would be similarly low density and setback from May Place Lane, and the inspector's assessment of the suitability of the adjacent site also applies to the application under consideration. tonight, given a modest single-story dwelling as also proposed. It is considered that this appeal decision justifies similar developments at this site and further supports the council's view that this part of May Place Lane is changing in character. The site itself was a subject of a recently refused application for a single-story dwelling with a similar footprint to that proposed under this application. This was refused on grounds relating to its design, in its flat roof form, and prefabricated style, which is not considered to relate positively to the surrounding area. The proposal brought forward under this application has overcome these concerns by proposing a building that is more kin to a residential dwelling with significant improvements made to the roof form and materiality used. A building far more in keeping with the surrounding area is now proposed, which is considered acceptable in both design, detailing, and scale. The second reason for refusal related to the lack of ecological surveys provided and the potential of the site to be suitable for protected wildlife. The loss of trees, including that to protect a pear tree on visual amenity grounds, was not considered a reason refusal of this application. Ecological factors, including impacts on wildlife, were discussed further on in the presentation. This shows a ground floor plan. The dwelling would contain two bedrooms and an open plan lounge, kitchen, dining room. The dwelling would be triple aspect and each room would be provided with excellent levels of light and outlook. The garden space provided is also sufficient. Overall, an excellent standard accommodation would be provided for future occupiers. This slide also shows a wider site with the three designated mixed scrub areas containing tree, planting and fauna. Two car parking spaces provided, one for use by the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling and the other for the occupiers of number 65, Eglinton Hill, which will be accessed via side accessway that will lead directly from the rear of number 65 to this parking space. Cycle parking is contained in the rear garden with space for two cycles. Waste will be stored to the front of the site when we move to the junction with Down and Road on collection days. The proposed dwelling would be cited over 23 metres from the rear habitable room window serving number 65, Eglinton Hill, to the west. At this distance, there would be no loss of light, loss of outlook or increase in centre enclosure for the occupiers of this dwelling. Owing to the proposal's single-story nature and the planting proposal on the rear boundary, no direct overlooking or loss of privacy would also occur as a result of this proposal. Similarly, the proposal would be set back from May Place Lane and a sufficient gap is retained from number 2, Down and Road, to avoid any loss of living conditions for the occupiers of this property. As previously mentioned, two on-site car parking spaces are provided. One for the future occupiers of the proposed development and the second for the occupiers of number 65, Eglinton Hill. If this application is to be approved, an additional condition would be added to the decision notice which is requiring a car parking management plan to be provided to ensure that these car parking spaces are designated as described. Given the low P-Tile rating of 2, this would be an acceptable car parking provision. Off-street car parking would also prevent further car parking pressure along Down and Road, which is currently unrestricted. Vehicle access would be via the existing access off of Down and Road, as shown in the left-hand image. May Place Lane is already used for vehicle access by the occupants of Highview, which is provided with several off-street car parking spaces, as shown on the right-hand image. An additional two cars using this lane is not considered to result in any traffic or highway or pedestrian safety issues, and no objection has been raised by the council's highways officer. A number of trees are to be removed as part of the proposal. The majority of these are designated as poor-quality self-sown sycamore trees, which are being assessed as being Category C and not worthy of attention by the council's tree officer. The image on screen is taken from the rear of number 65, and is the best picture of the protected pear tree on the site. This was granted protected status in 2016 by reason of its visibility from Down and Road and the backdrop it provides when looking up May Place Lane. Whilst the loss of any protected tree is avoided, if possible, given this tree is not overly conspicuous when viewed from much of the public realm, it is considered that the loss of this tree would not bring forward significant detrimental impacts on the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The council's tree officer has raised concerns with regards to the loss of both the pear tree and the sycamore street tree. The plans indicate that a replacement pear tree is to be provided with a front planting area. This would be in a far more prominent position with May Place Lane and existing, and would also be viewable from Down and Road to the north. It is expected that any replacement pear tree would eventually need to be of a similar quality to that of the existing pear tree on the site, and have a similar visual impact on both Down and Road and May Place Lane. A condition has been recommended requiring details of this tree to be provided. Details of a replacement street tree are also required by way of condition. Details of both trees will be required to be agreed as being acceptable by council tree officers. It is also proposed and expected within the broader landscaping plan required by way of condition that further tree planting is provided on site, and there is space designated for this along the rear boundary of the site as well as to the front. As a result, it is expected that a similar amount of trees will occupy the site as existing, albeit of a much greater quality than existing. These conditions are considered to overcome concerns raised by the council's tree officer and will ensure that the site remains of redemptive nature, as well as ensuring there is no net loss of trees on site or along May Place Lane as a result of the development. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is accepted with regard to its impact on trees. Furthermore, the loss of the protected pear tree is not considered to outweigh the clear benefits of the scheme in bringing forward an additional dwelling within the borough. Objections have been raised with regards to the loss of wildlife habitats, and both bats and hedgehogs have been observed surrounding the site. The potential impacts on wildlife habitats formed a reason of refusal for the most recent application on the site. To overcome this, a preliminary ecological survey has been undertaken. The site is not designated, nor does it sit adjacent to land with any ecological designations. The ecological appraisal found no priority habitats on the site, and the potential presence of protected species, including for nesting birds and foraging bats, was assessed as low to moderate. This slide shows several of the biodiversity enhancements proposed to the site to promote biodiversity on the site post-development. These are secured by way of condition. This includes measures that will increase vegetation and wildlife-friendly fauna on the site, as well as measures to enhance conditions for both birds, bats, insects and hedgehogs. These measures are considered to enhance wildlife on the site. The applicant has also demonstrated that the proposal will deliver a biodiversity net gain of 13.37% as a result of the increasing on-site habitation units. The area along the rear boundary, as well as two smaller areas to the front, will include dense scrub and tree prancing that will significantly increase biodiversity on-site. That is the end of the presentation. The application is considered acceptable for the outline reasons, and is put before committee with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions found in appendix 2 of the main report. Thank you very much. Thanks for that. Questions? Pat? Can I just ask when the BAT survey was carried out, please? What time of year? Just have to find the document. The ecological survey was undertaken on the 1st of November, 2024. Right. I think that... Well, it's not... Well, it is sort of relevant. But I was on... We had a site visit, and I was on the committee with the previous application. And it's very narrow, May Place Lane. Can I just actually ask about the width again? Because... And whereabouts the car parking is going to be? Because it is a narrow... So, here's May Place Lane. So, there's the picture of it. This is a public footpath. So, that's going to be retained. Car parking will be contained to the front, here and here. And there's enough space for cars to turn in and out of May Place Lane into those spaces, as confirmed by the highways officer. The lane is already used by a number of vehicles accessing high view. So, you can see there's a number of car parking spaces along here. There are also a number of garages along here, as well. I mean, that's... But those places, I think, are for the flats around there. So, the other thing is, in, as you're right to say, in sort of... It was in 23, this, you know, there was an application that was refused. And it was refused on the grounds that it would cause harm to the character of the area, the biodiversity of the area. So, I'm just wondering why that was refused and why things have changed now. So, the previous application was refused because they hadn't actually demonstrated that there would be no impact on wildlife. They didn't provide any ecological surveys to overcome that. They now have provided that, which has confirmed that there are no priority species on site. We've also added six conditions in total which relate to biodiversity enhancements and mitigation measures to enhance wildlife post-development. But the reason why the previous one was refused is because they didn't provide any wildlife surveys. This time, they have. The pear trees, yes, that's going to be removed, which is... That's a conservation. That's got a TPO on it, hasn't it? And we know that... We're saying that new trees are going to be put in, but new trees take years and years to establish. But the pear tree is going to go, isn't it, you said? The pear tree is going to go, but we've added a condition which requires that to be replaced to a suitable standard to the front of the site this time. So at the moment, it's actually towards the back of the site, but we're going to ask for it to be planted to the front. They have designated it to be planted here, but the details of the tree, the specimen, etc., would need to be agreed with the council's tree officer. That'll be a brand new tree, yes, brand new pear tree. It's, again, it's the size of it and how... Yeah. Yeah. Okay, Jardia. Sorry, he answered my question. I just wanted to make sure that it was replaced with a pear tree and not another... But you answered that already. Yes, so we replaced... The wording, the condition specifically requires a pear tree to be replaced. And just to add to Brendan's, in terms of the replacement tree, we wouldn't be looking for... We would look for a well-established pear tree. It wouldn't obviously be the size of what currently is on site, but it wouldn't... We wouldn't be looking for a sapling. And in terms of the condition that's been recommended by officers, the condition does say if that tree or any tree that is replaced or put on site, if it was to die within five years or is... Well, yeah, dies or... Tree to what would be agreed under a condition. But that would be checked by our tree officer. So we would be ensuring the quality of the tree that size and specimen. Yeah, okay. What else are you talking about? Can... Is it possible to know how much, by looking at a photograph, how much of the green area is anything going to be saved at all? So you can see here there's going to be planting along here, a small planting here and there's going to be planting along here as well as a lot of dense scrub and placement trees along the rear boundary of the site. So it would retain some green infrastructure. In terms of the biodiversity net gain, the applicant has provided evidence that there would be a 13% biodiversity net gain on the site and that would not... That would not easily be achieved if it wasn't providing enough of that area. That is also conditioned so the applicant has to provide evidence again if members were minded to approve the application, the biodiversity net gain has to be shown again to have achieved that. Otherwise, they would then have to provide it off-site and that would be some form of contribution. Okay. Any more questions to... to Brenda? No. Okay. So we're now going to the objectives. Did we change that? So Dr... Yes. Oh, we've done that one. Dr. Leslie Carr, yeah, first. So you've got two minutes, Mr. Clark. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Can I... Sorry. Can I first of all just check that the committee has the additional document I submitted in time with the images showing the bat detector output and the hedgehogs in the garden of 65 Eglinton Hill? Okay. So there are a number of reasons for rejecting this application. and I'm going to speak about just two of them. So firstly, it doesn't meet the requirements of the Greenwich local plan because the development represents a significant loss of wildlife habitats, particularly trees or shrubs, which would adversely affect the appearance and character of the area. The images in the document I sent to the committee are hard evidence that bats and hedgehogs, two priority species in the Greenwich Biodiversity Action Plan, are very present in the area in question, contrary to the assessment in the ecological report submitted by the applicants. Both these priority species are nocturnal and both hibernate during the winter. The ecological survey was done during the day and on the 1st of November when these creatures would be in hibernation. Secondly, the development will not meet the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement. The assessment of the biodiversity net gain in the ecological report is wrong. For example, the start of that assessment says that four small trees will be lost whereas the arboriculture report that the applicant submitted says seven trees are to be removed and five of them are 12 metres or more in height. And you can see some in the pictures that I submitted those trees. There's no way that chopping down seven ivy-covered trees up to 50 foot in height can lead to an increase in biodiversity. It's a huge loss of biodiversity and these trees can provide support for over 50 species providing shelter for small mammals, bats, food for birds and foraging for many insects. So basically, I don't think that their assessment of the biodiversity net gain can be sustained because you're cutting down these huge trees. Your time's up now. Do you want to round off? Do you want to round up? OK. So other people will talk about the other reasons but I'm saying that just from the point of view of biodiversity net gain and loss of habitat and loss of trees, this should be turned down. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, any questions? Any questions? I'm not an expert on hibernating nocturnal animals. You had mentioned that the bats report was during hibernation time. Can you just explain more the impact on why this is a problem that it's during in November? So, bats basically hibernate from kind of the end of October mid to end of October through to kind of February, March time, probably April time. It means that unless you are there when the bats are around, you can't be sure whether they're there or not. And the image that I've got there is from, I'm very interested in bats and I lead bat walks and I do lots of bat surveys and I have a bat detector that records bats that fly over and we see most nights during the summer bats flying over this area and over all the gardens down around and over the land in question. So, it is definitely an important area for foraging bats. But if you don't actively look for them when they're around, you can express an opinion as to whether they'll be there. But what I'm saying is we've actually seen them. Same sort of line about hedgehogs as well. Have you seen sort of many hedgehogs? So, over the, for many years we've had hedgehogs visiting our garden. I have a trail camera set up in the back garden and the images that I've shown are taken from that and you can see from the times that they're like in the early hours of the morning so people wouldn't see them unless they were around at that time. And, I mean, this one has been coming in regularly since the kind of the weather started getting warmer and we've had other ones and even pairs of hedgehogs coming in and the only way they can get into our garden is from this land because we're closed off all around from other directions and yes, we do get them very regularly and over many years. Ever since I've had a trail camera I've been detecting hedgehogs. Can I just check with you, Brendan, I think, is there any more questions? No. Brendan, what's the status of the report or survey that was done or was it done by, who did they buy the other two reports? This was done by a suit to be qualified ecologist. They're called Be Wise Eco and they prepared the report for us. So they are a professional ecological firm. Why should there be such a difference in the commission to do that job and they presumed would get that sort of thing right at the end of the point doing surveys when the bats are not flying? I'm not asking you. It's Christian. Sorry, Chair. I think the applicant is here today so they may be able to advise on that but in terms of the assessment it might be that the assessment was dated the 1st of November. The assessment is on the bats then the applicant may be able to confirm because they have to pull everything together. The bat survey may have been done before that. Whilst there might be foraging bats in the area it's not been identified and the Dr. Leslie Clark has just noted that it might be foraging bats. there's no evidence of bats on the site. So there's no evidence from Dr. Leslie Clark nor the applicant that there are bats on the site. The application the mitigation measures are that mitigation for bats being on the site in the future would be mitigated with the conditions that have been recommended by officers. There's also to the rear of the site the rear guards and just where I'm putting my mouse this is going to be dense scrub which will include tree planting which would also aid foraging commuting bats to continue down that part of May Place Lane. can I just say about the mitigation the mitigation is putting a bat box on the house but it's not even at the height that the ecologist who did the report said it should be and bats do require these things to be in the right place you can't just slap it anywhere and that will do the job it needs to be it needs to be higher. So where are we now so that was now is it Lisa McGiven yeah Hello I just want to apologise for the alarm earlier I had a I forgot about it I had to take a pill at a certain time I am opposing the building application behind 65 Eglinton Hill because there are three trees with TPOs to consider in this application it is not true that the protected pear tree can only be seen from May Place Lane it can also be seen from Brinklow Cleasant the path connecting the two and surrounding homes its loss would result in significant loss of visual amenity within the area a tree preservation order is not just about visibility of the tree as stated in the application it is also about nature conservation value your own tree officer says that I would not like to see it removed just to facilitate development also there is no consideration of the two protected oak trees that are two metres away in the next plot whereby their root system could be affected additionally the slope of the hill means that the building will be overlooking into windows specifically a neighbour's daughter's bedroom and gardens of Dallin Road and Eglinton Hill and the loss of tall treels will result in a loss of privacy the land behind 65 Eglinton Hill is a core area of quality wildlife habitat that provides a vital connection along May Place lane the land has been unused since 1981 and before that it was part of surrounding gardens the soil has never been built on and therefore has a rich abundance of nature within and has become a mini nature reserve I am worried glyphosate will be used to clear the land these together feel like an assault on our environment and the character of the area that we call home the UK government is now legally required to write a new climate plan this year and friends of the earth say that we need to including the government and councils and public to be bold and fair it is important that we protect our natural heritage thank you thank you questions part sorry I'm sorry I've forgotten your name Lisa sorry Lisa you mentioned that there were three TPOs because I just heard of the one the pear tree but where are the two oak trees the oak trees are on the border of the plot adjacent that is currently going to be considered for development and those have TPOs on them as well so you're saying that they are going to be the roots would be probably affected yes and the other question you mentioned about somebody you know whose daughter has a bedroom that's right so would this be seen would this single story would that overlook is it because of a height yes that's correct so okay so this is quite high isn't it I mean I know the actual road yes and you're saying so which so if you I don't know whether it's can we have so if you go it's on Dallin Road it's the first house on the corner that one there yes yeah okay sorry yeah so which is the bedroom that you're referring to so there is another window along here I believe but that one there near the lamp post is the is that correct the bedroom window and the property would be looking down onto that yeah and there is the hill actually raises the land raises as you go on to do we know the elevation of please thank you the dwelling will be set back here it's actually 80 metres gap between here and the front of the dwelling our urban design guide states that separation distances between habitable rooms should be around 18 metres so this would comply with that so there might be some overlooking but it is at 18 metres is quite a significant gap oh the difference in elevation from the bungalow the single storey the effect that it will have on these other properties so I don't know the exact difference land levels but I can say the property would be sited on a higher land level than number two down road which is the property the lady is referring to I don't know the exact dimensions but it would be higher can we keep we've got address the questions that way and I understand but I just don't want to get so confused we've got other people here as well okay thank you very much thank you hello good evening I'm going to speak about the character of May Place Lane and how it's proposed development that sits how this proposed development that sits right on it will negatively impact this area one of the joys of Shooter's Hill is discovering hidden natural places amongst our urban dwellings May Place Lane is such a place it serves as a respite from the concrete jungle for all forms of life May Place Lane has a wealth of habitats that give nature and animals including nocturnal species the opportunity to survive and hopefully to thrive this lane can be termed a wildlife highway due to the lack of tarmac street lighting road drainage we are in danger of losing the uniqueness of May Place Lane with building application approvals such as this one when walking along May Place Lane from the bronze age barrow in Plum Lane you feel that you are walking on an ancient path that is precious a sense of well-being and peace is felt from seeing other creatures and plants thriving there when reading about it you discover that May Place Lane has probably been a throughway for hundreds of years indeed the friends of May Place Lane do lots of work looking after this lane when talking about May Place Lane with neighbours you feel hope when you hear about sightings of species or see them yourself especially those under threat such as hedgehogs bats and many species of birds including owls and a sparrow hawk as you head further down May Place Lane past high view flats you still feel as though you are away from urban life as wildlife surrounds you and in the spring it's teeming with life from plants, birds and insects so the green character of this lane is everywhere if this planning application is granted that will not be the case in this location now as the lane curves downwards if you approach it from the alley or look at it from the surrounding houses you can see lots of tall trees including the pear tree with the tpo and the two oak trees that border it you can also see an abundance of shrubs and other plants all providing shelter and food for species this indeed is the site of the planning application and if it were to be granted the richness of eco diversity contained there would be lost in conclusion it is important that we protect our natural and cultural heritage for all living things today and for those to come this development will do the opposite as well as this loss may place lane would lose its unique character at the dallian road end as this through way would no longer be a beautiful quiet winding lane but instead turn into a small road with more cars entering and exiting I think we should all do more to protect these areas before they are lost ancient paths trees and habitats cannot be replaced therefore I move that planning permission for this application should be declined unfortunately you can't move it but I understand what you're saying appreciate that thank you very much questions good evening I live at 65 Eglinton Hill and I'm objecting to this proposal firstly because of the reasons that have been given about the area of mature trees including this beautiful huge blossoming pear tree it's an area which has gone back to nature over 44 years before that it was a garden it was sold off in 1981 so naturally it's become an established habitat habitat my second concern is for the future of the area we moved to the house 18 years ago and shortly after we moved there were three consecutive proposals for developments that covered both this site and the adjacent one the first two were three and four storey blocks of flats with underground car parks the third was for five houses to be on the combined site all these were rejected but the landlord the owner of the adjacent plot made three further proposals and eventually the proposal for a single house with three bedrooms was agreed on appeal with strict stipulations that he should only build what he'd proposed he immediately sold the land so it now has a different owner and my concern is that in the future these two plots of land will again be available for development there's a substantial size both together and I think that if this proposal is agreed it dents the argument about the character of the area even for a relatively small development and I think it then puts it at risk for future there's a question okay good evening thank you everyone I'm only going to make a short statement because I think that the case officer has made a very good statement with regards to all the points main points that the application has now adhered to and provided the applicant and I believe that we've overcome virtually all of the reasons that the first application was refused and we have made sure that we've got an arboriculturalist and an ecologist to come in and provide a detailed examination of the site and provide their findings they are the experts and that's what we rely on for their guidance we have indicated on the scheme that we are achieving a 10% reduction in the carbon emissions with the various things that we're going to be providing in the building along with an indication that we can meet the BNG or increase it by at least 13% now I know it's been stated that these can be corroborated again in more detail by the specialists and we're more than happy to do that I've discussed it quite a bit with the ecologist on ways to increase the BNG and improve the site and we've taken all of these issues on board we are going to be planting trees that they advise our best to provide the results that we need the pear trees and the other trees that we're proposing to put on the front of the site we would not be putting in saplings we would be buying trees that are probably six to seven foot in height so they will already have an advanced growth and they would be maintained and be far better looking than the front of the site is at the moment along with all the other vegetation that we're proposing the case officer has suggested that a number of conditions be applied assuming that the scheme is approved and we would more than welcome those conditions and ensure that every one of them is adhered to the information provided that's required and all of the conditions released as required and there's a couple of points that I just want to run through from what I heard on the objectors the the gentleman that said about the bats and the hedgehogs and other potential animals there's no actual evidence provided no one can get onto that site unless you remove the front hoarding and the only reason that front hoarding was put on there was that a number of years ago Greenwich Council asked the applicant to clear away a number of bits of rubbish that fly tippers were putting onto the site and so it was removed by the applicant and the hoarding put up and in some ways I would say that if the site was being used by fly tippers the local residents didn't you know kind of jump out and try and stop them because I've noted that whenever I've been on site or any of the specialists that have been on site immediately a resident or two residents come out and find out who we are what we're doing etc so I just make that point the front windows to the proposal are bedroom windows and as such most of those rooms would only be used during the evening at night time and the site we would because we would have to lower it a little bit because there's a lot of rubbish still on the top surface of the site those front windows wouldn't be overlooking any windows to the property the nearest property in Dallin Road the only windows you can see from the road are the first floor windows and they are facing to the south and not directly onto the front of the site so again I would just kind of take on board what the case officer said when they looked at the overlooking part of this scheme and I will say that there are no windows overlooking anybody else's windows on the property now you will notice on the plan at the rear I put where there's a patio area I put a I extend the rear wall and put a rustic finish on it and that is acting as a bit of a privacy screen not only for the occupants of the bungalow but also to stop any overlooking on the adjacent garden so you know that acts in two ways the site to the south which is undeveloped and there's trees I have not seen what is being proposed and I do not know what trees if any that they are removing that's close to the side boundary of our site apart from that I feel that the scheme is a good scheme it answers so many of the reasons that were refused last time yes the design was questionable on the one that was refused but this design now just is a bungalow it matches in with the you know the architecture of the area and I just hope that you see you know it necessary that this application be granted okay thank you very much questions okay thank you very much thank you I mean I've got I find it frustrating to I've had some painful experiences over bats in my time which I'm trying to keep out of this discussion but it cost me a small fortune simply because we didn't take into account the hibernation season and it was part of an SSI inspection and it cost us a small fortune it cost us several jobs because we've got the date wrong with these bats about when the bat survey should take place I've actually got we've got a report here from officers which is worked on very thoroughly by Brendan and taking into account a plethora of policy and guidance and consultants reports and so on and he presents a report to us which recommends that we approve the planning application tonight and we've also heard impassioned appeal by the applicant who believes that he's done everything possible to comply and to actually get us to keep the comply meanwhile I sit and look at the audience all shaking their heads all the way through and it makes me wonder where we're going where you can have that sort of dispute actually at a meeting where he couldn't have been sorted out before so but you know as I see it I don't think there are any grounds from on the basis of the officer's report and what we've heard this evening to turn down this application but I'm open to persuasion yeah it is a difficult one I have as I say visited the area before and we've heard from the can I just interrupt you sorry to interrupt you but has there been a sign visit this was this was for the other it was a site visit for the previous application it was a few years ago but I was on the planning yeah so I can remember 2020 yeah was it 2020 but I can remember 2020 but yes I can remember going 2020 whenever it was I went on a site visit I am sure to this particular area and it was yeah it was turned down but because I was in the area I know how narrow that road is I know how we've got we've got to protect our green spaces and we're told that this has been there for 44 years it's a green area it's habitat yes for bats and then the bat survey was done at the wrong time in November which obviously is when the bats are hibernating but it's got like you say a plethora of insects of hedgehogs of wildlife but not only that it provides an back cloth for people who live there and who live in Dillon Road people to look at these trees and we've got oak trees that have been all about oak trees and removing oak trees they've been there for probably I don't know how long if they're established oak trees they could be affected they're sitting on the boundary we've got this pear tree I know that always we do get sort of different developers saying that they're going to put new trees in and established trees but does the habitat ever come back to these trees and how long does it take even if it's whatever foot high it will have to be treated carefully to make sure it doesn't die but it's not going to be the same habitat as it was before so I on balance I'm going to go against this application because I think that the land that green area we need to protect our green areas and it's been there for 44 years sorry chair can I just add something to that I appreciate councillors are in discussion at the moment what I would just say to members is the decision whilst in 2021 on the site that joins it was on in terms of our local plan similar policy the same policies similar policies in the London plan the NPPF has changed but not significantly so you do have to be mindful of the inspector decision made on the adjoining site which it was refused based on by members committee 67 to 68 7A Eglinton Hill on design and resultant plot sizes would have an adverse impact on the green open and spatial character that was then went to appeal and was allowed and for the reasons that Brendan put in his presentation was why the inspector considered for refusal not a reason for refusal that is correct it has lapsed however we still have to bear in mind that if that application came back in front of us today then it's unlikely that officers would recommend that for refusal again given the inspector decision before I before I go forward I want to ask you Brendan when you mentioned the ecologist I just want to confirm if you said that he was almost qualified or almost satisfied no suit to be qualified because my only concern is if he suitedly qualified why would he do the bat survey during hibernation time why wasn't this brought up and the only concern I have on that is because while the applicant says that it was a detailed report I don't see that as accurate that that wasn't taken into consideration and that is my major concern that that report might have been not done done in a time that best seated one party over the other and wasn't really what's the word equal I guess I would like to suggest doing maybe another report during summer to actually get accurate details on these nocturnal animals and their activity in the area before I make a decision if that's possible chair yeah I'm going to propose that we defer the item so that we can clarify this matter I don't know whether we want to we may have done there may have been a site visit in the past but this is a new application new context new time I don't know whether that's two things I would just when I put on the record that I don't feel fully informed by the information that's given to me by the report I mean I would go along with that but another thing I feel uncomfortable about I mean is we've had the report from the officers he's in effect stated clearly from the consultant report and a few people in the audience shake their heads or say no it's not true I mean we can't do this every meeting we have to trust the reports that come through and the advice that were given by officers and we have to make our decisions on the basis on that basis but I understand why you're comfortable because I feel uncomfortable myself yeah I mean respectfully before the the that situation was even mentioned the first thing I did was Google whether they hibernate and during what month they do so I just don't think that it's a fully informed decision if I decide right now on green spaces as well which need to be protected can we actually get access to that green space you know if we have a site visit so that we can sort of see for ourselves what it's like I can't imagine why it couldn't be arranged yeah Brendan you when I was on site last it was very overgrown and there is like a timber board fence I can actually get on it on myself you can see opposite yes you can there's one of the pictures is from number 65 rear garden you can also see probably from high view looking down but you can't actually go on there physically but I would say that the survey the ecological survey mentioned that there was a low to moderate potential for bat roost and foraging commuting routes for bats and they recommend enhancements to overcome that so they haven't said about observing bats on the site they just said there would be a low to moderate potential for foraging and roosting bats etc but it's their view that the enhancements provided recommended by way of condition would mitigate this any loss of commuting routes etc so I think the consensus would be that we defer it this evening I think there's also consensus that maybe we should do a site visit the best we can but I want to be clear what we're deferring it for would we just simply come back here again and have the same conversation what work would we expect to be done in the meantime I mean it's to do with the ecology isn't it and the fact that we don't know when whether a bat survey has been done but to look at the no in the right time you know that was when they were hibernating and bats are we all know protected species so that is important but also to look at the quality of the land because you know we should be protecting our spaces I think we're assuming there was a consultant specialist ecology specialist it's not somebody like Joe Bloggs who just made it up I assume this person knew what he was doing and produced the report I would imagine that a professional would actually know the right time to do these visits and to do these observations and these reports will be considered I don't it would be awkward I'm not comfortable with it but if someone just pipes up from the audience and gives contrary information to officers in the middle of a discussion does it mean we're going to defer every discussion what page on the agenda is the actual report the report would be in the planning documents I've got it here printed off but it's not in the actual officers report we don't include the reports in the officers report this was a preliminary ecological appraisal and they recommended that no further bat surveys were conducted well I think we should defer it and I think that we'll arrange a site visit and Brendan if you could actually look into this a bit more detail check out the detail what's gone on check out the report I think if it was deferred and this is up to members it'd be the site visit so members can undertake a view of it but also perhaps the clarification from the applicant as to when the bat survey was done I appreciate in the document it does say 1st of November and sorry chair given that it's been advised that the site isn't entirely accurate but viewable do you wish me to also include a request that you view the site from see if that's the only way we can get access to the site so be okay so is that agreed then unanimously agreed that we'll defer do the site visit and work will be carried out in the meantime okay thank you very much sorry it's a bit not very clear not very clear