Transcript

and Recording is allowed but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. I remind all members, officers and speakers that they must use the microphone and speak clearly into it when making an address so that all in attendance can hear. Only those public speakers who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speakers will be permitted to address the meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters and you should not repeat 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 time given to speakers. Councillors will have up to five. Accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups, four. Individuals, two. And the applicants and their teams, ten. On item five, I have Chris Jenner. On item six, I have Andrew Williams. Andrew may be late. David Roughton. Brian Stater. And on behalf of the applicant, Thomas Farmer. Bill present chair. And on item nine, I have Richard O'Connor and Luke Merbrackney. On item 10, I have Margaret Drummond, Jackie Herald, David Bowers, Karen Neal. And that is it. Item one, apologies for absence. Apologies for absence have been received from councillors Littlewood and Zeeshan. Item two, urgent business. Members' attention is drawn to the officer's addendum in relation to item six, 76 Langton Way, which was published in advance of the meeting. Public submissions have always so been circulated to all members in advance of the meeting in regards to items six, seven, nine and ten. Members were also supplied with a link to the previous meeting and asked to re-watch the presentations from two residents in respect of item six, 76 Langton Way, as they are not able to make this meeting. Also under urgent business, item seven, 47 Sporanza Street, Plumstead, London SE 18 1NX, reference 243752F. This was withdrawn from the agenda due to the applicant being unable to facilitate the required site visit. It is anticipated the application will be put to a committee in the coming future. Item eight, 21 Donaldson Road, Plumstead SE 18 3JZ, reference 250356F, is also withdrawn from the agenda due to the fact that the site is marked on the Plumstead Common Ward, but is actually in Shooters Hill. And obviously there's a by-election currently in Shooters Hill. So that item has been removed from the agenda for tonight. Item three, declarations of interest. I see none. Item four, minutes of the last meeting, dated 25th of March, 2025. Take those as read. Item five is the Cafe Unit 1 Oswald Gardens Greenwich SE 10 0SH, reference 242460F. This application was deferred at the point of determination and is being resubmitted without changes. The matter should be considered for determination only, with no further speakers requested. Members, I'm now going to open this up at, well, hold on, let me reach. Sorry, Chair. Can I advise as well, remind members that only Councillor Dillon, Councillor Mohamed and Councillor Greenwell can participate in the decision and determine on this item as they are the only members that were at the previous meeting. And Dave Sullivan, sorry, I've received apologies for you and I've recorded it wrong. I accept your apologies and I apologise for apologising. So, members, item five is now... Okay, members, item five is open for deliberation. Any questions? Pat? Yes, can I just ask, I know that what we have in front of us is the community, it's a community hub cafe that's had all kinds, been there for disabled people, disabled people, a place to meet after events, accessibility, disabled toilets, et cetera. Can I just, to refresh my mind, please, I know that it's five years that this is not going to be in use. Can I just ask what the new facilities, whether, you know, is it like for like? Is there anything that is missing that, well, are the community going to lose out on their place for social gathering and interaction with this new facility? Sorry, I can't remember who it was. Sorry, who should I be? Thank you. So, firstly, just to clarify, at the application site is actually a commercial use, it's not a community use or facility. So, in this instance, there wouldn't be any loss of a community use or facility. But from our previous, from the application that was approved at Plot 203, that was approved as a cafe slash community use. So, that one had approved with a community use as part of it. So, in this instance, residents would not be losing a cafe use or something with a community facility, as one has been approved within Plot 203. So, currently, Pat, there is no facility. There's two vacant buildings. Two vacant buildings. What they're proposing, what we approved previously, was for one to be set up as a temporary CAF, and then in five years' time... Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, like, have they got disabled facilities? Will they have hot food served? Will they be able to mix and congregate as they have done before? Yeah. So, just to clarify, this application site is vacant. It's never been opened or occupied. So, at the moment, it's not something that they're going to be losing. But, actually, they're going to be gaining, during the temporary period, the cafe use. And, because of it's just the cafe use and there's no extractor facilities, they wouldn't have any hot food. But, it would be for a normal size for a cafe. You would expect them to sell, like, sandwiches and stuff like that. So, there wouldn't really be a loss because, from the last committee in February, members approved for a cafe within Plot 203. Any further comments? No? No? Leslie, can we reconfirm that if we were to approve this, that after five years, the original building has to revert back to its original classification, which was for cafe use? That is correct. So, condition one has been recommended to be imposed for a temporary five-year period. And, yes, as part of the wording of that condition, it does require the use to revert back to a cafe use after the five-year period. Thanks. Okay. Everyone getting it? All right, members, in that case, I'm now going to put this to the vote. Thank you. If you want, yeah. No, I don't want to. No, I think Pat asked a question. I just, there was no other questions. No other questions? No? Sorry, Chair. Is it possible to hear from Councillor Nick Williams if he wished to? Okay, fine, thanks. Because we're at the deliberation decision stage, I've allowed to get a refresh of conditions. So, now, I'm going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, taking in mind it does revert back to its original classification, please raise your hand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Item five is approved. So, if we can... We all good? Yep. Ashley, how are you feeling? We are call it now for the rest of the night. So, I think, realistically, you should maybe go home. And, yeah? Go to bed. No, good. Yeah, I think a good, a warm drink and straight to bed. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you for taking the time to come. Thanks. We now move on to item six, which is 76 Langton Way, Blackheath, London, SE3 7JU, reference 243992F. Neil. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. And just to remind members, a small addendum was passed on this item earlier today, just to clarify the drawing numbers and the drawings outlined for condition two, if planning permission is granted. The application was initially presented at the April Local Planning Committee, but was deferred for a site visit, and the request for the site visit was proposed by Councillor Greenwell. The members' site visit was undertaken on the 3rd of June and was attended by Councillor Dillon, Councillor Mohamed, Councillor Vanderbilt, and Councillor Greenwell. Thank you. And there is no relevant Article 4 direction in place for the proposed development. To the rear of the sites are number 43 to 61 Shooters Hill Road. So these are the properties located along here. These properties are locally listed, and the listing is set out in paragraph 3.4 of the original report. Langton Way is an unadapted private road which has developed over time from plots that originally housed the coach houses belonging to the properties, both in Shooters Hill and St. John's Park. This is just an aerial photograph of the application site, again outlined in red. The area consists of a mix of architectural styles and site layouts, with heights ranging from two and three storeys. This contributes to an informal and varied streetscape, and on the south side of Langton Way, properties have differing degrees of setback, adding to the visual diversity of the lane. So this is a photograph of the site, and those members who are there from the site visit will remember how overgrown that front garden area is. The property has been vacant for a significant period of time as well. This photograph is looking west along Langton Way, with the application site on the left, and there in the background is the flank wall of number 74 Langton Way, which has a number of windows and doors at ground and first floor level. And then this photograph is looking east, the reverse way, again with the application site on the right, and then in the background number 80, Langton Way. You can also see from these last two photographs that parking is available in the area, and it's a mix of off-street parking and on-street car parking. And clearly, you know, that Langton Way is a private, unadopted road. And these last photographs are basically showing the rear garden, which again is overgrown, and looking towards the rear of the properties in Shooters Hill Road. And the rear of the gardens in Shooters Hill Road are approximately 30 metres in depth. So, when the application was originally submitted, there was an issue raised about the actual location of the existing dwelling in relationship to the proposed dwelling, and whether they were shown in an accurate fashion. The applicant confirmed that they'd taken the original footprint of the building based on the Ordnance Survey Plan, which was not an accurate representation. So, since the application was considered by members last time, they've now submitted a revised proposed site. So, you've got there in blue the footprint of the existing building, and then the solid line is the proposed building, and that is now showing the accurate relationship between the two. So, to put this into context, this was the previously proposed ground floor plan with the blue dotted line, the location of the existing building, and again, the solid line being the proposed building. And now, this is the proposed ground floor layout as a result of the new survey, which accurately depicts the location of the existing building. So, you can see that the separation distance from this, I can't actually, so apologies. So, we've got number 74 there located on the left-hand side, and number 80 located on the right-hand side. So, the separation distance from the flank wall of number 80 to the flank wall of the existing and proposed development at number 74 is 800 millimetres, so that's staying the same. And then, in terms of the relationship with number 74, so if we take it from where you've got this small section here, which comes out, so from that area to the bay window of the nearest proposed dwelling, that distance would be 1.5 metres. Then, just a little bit further down from that, so where the proposed building would actually sit on the shared boundary, as in the existing building, in relationship to that small section that kinks out, that would be just over 900 millimetres. And then, when the distance between where the flank wall of number 74 sets back to the flank wall of the existing proposed dwelling against it on the boundary, that distance would be 1.9 metres in depth. In terms of the internal layout, the development of ground floor level is mainly delivering living, kitchen and dining areas. You can also see from that slide to the front of the building, there will be a car parking space for each dwelling, as well as cycle and bin storage, and then at the rear of the site, there is private garden space provided. So, this is the proposed first floor plan, taking into account the updated survey of the existing building. So, again, the separation distance between the flank wall of the property and number 80 Langton Way on the right there would again be that 800 millimetres that I talked about in the previous slide. And then, in terms of the distance at first floor level, it would again be that 1.5 metres, that main bit. And then, that angled section there is a little bit further, it's around 2 metres in distance. In respect of the accommodation at first floor level, there would be two bedrooms, including one en suite, as well as a separate bathroom. And the accommodation, both at ground and first floor level, will have front and rear windows. In terms of the loft space, each house would have another bedroom with an en suite bathroom, and those rooms would be served by a rear dorm window, which is these elements situated just here, and then there would also be a front roof light. In terms of the quality of accommodation, the proposed internal space provision has been assessed against the requirements of the national planning policy, the nationally described space standards, as well as policy D6 of the London Plan. Apologies. Looking at the table on the left, the proposed dwellings, in terms of the internal space standards for the dwellings as a whole, the rooms, and the floor to ceiling heights, all comply with required standards. There is one slight shortfall, as you can see in that pink coloured box, where one of the bedrooms falls 0.3 square metres below the requirement. So, you know, basically, you know, less than that, basically, in terms of size. Whilst that shortfall is noted, it's not considered that shortfall is a sufficient reason to warrant the refusal of the application in terms of creation of a poor living environment, especially as the overall size of the units themselves all exceed the minimum space standards. In terms of private garden space, each unit would have their own garden spaces, and as shown in the table in the top right-hand corner, core strategy policy requires a requirement of 50 square metres. Again, two of those, again, two of those garden spaces are very, very marginally below that requirement, and again, it's not considered that that minor shortfall has any material impact on the overall quality of the living accommodation provided, and that planning permission shouldn't be refused on that basis. This shows the existing and proposed front elevation, so the top slide is the existing, bottom is the bottom proposed, so the existing building is marginally lower in height to number 80, which is there on the left-hand side, and is roughly in line with number 74, which is on the right, apart from the centrally located front and rear dormer window, which actually is in line with number 74. It's the same height as number 80 itself, and the proposed scheme would see the height of the building increase so that it would be a maximum height of 8.3 metres, so that would be marginally above the ridge height of number 80, which is 8.11 metres, and a little bit more than number 74, which is 7.4 metres in height. But again, it's not really considered that that increase has any sort of harmful impact on the character and appearance of the immediate area where the application site is, or in terms of the wider character, in terms of Langton Way. And then this slide is just showing you the reverse existing rear elevation and proposed rear elevation. You can see there that on the rear elevation that there is a mansoul-type roof, which then facilitates the loft conversion with the rear dormer windows. Those dormer windows are 1.4 metres by 1.8 metres, and they're considered proportionate and sit well within the oval confined of the roof space. And we've just got a couple of CGI, so that's the CGI showing you of the front elevation looking directly across Langton Way, and again you can sort of gauge from there the height of the proposed building in relationship to the adjoining properties on either side. And then we've just got one looking down Langton Way towards the flank wall of number 80, and you can see the distance that the proposed building is set back in relationship to the front building line of number 80 there. In terms of residential amenity, a neighbouring daylight and sunlight assessment has been provided, which specifically looks at the impacts on all the adjoining neighbours that are highlighted in red. So that's number 74 and 80 Langton Way, and then the two immediate properties to the rear in Shooters Hill Road, which are number 51 and 53. And the results of the assessment have confirmed that none of the neighbouring windows will experience any unacceptable loss of natural light, and as such it's not considered that the development is unacceptable in terms of daylight and sunlight. This is showing you the existing west elevation and the proposed west, sorry I haven't amended that title. That is actually showing you the proposed west elevation and the proposed east elevation, so apologies for that error. So the top one is showing you the view looking towards number 80, and the bottom slide is looking towards number 74. When the application was considered in April, there was concern regarding the impact on the windows in the flank wall at number 74 Langton Way. And what this image is showing you, you can see that the two first floor windows at ground floor level and at first floor level there would not be impacted by the proposed development. What this slide doesn't show is that roughly around here in number 74, there is obviously, there is also a side door and kitchen window, but obviously those windows and that door is already affected by the existing building. So this scheme would not have any greater impact than on that existing situation. Turning to the actual windows in number 74, so this is just reinforcing that point. So this is an application that came in for replacement windows in number 74. So it's showing there from that slide that windows 5 and 6, so they're the windows at first floor level, but they're a bathroom and dressing room side window. And just there, that's window 7, which is the kitchen door and side window, basically. So that's the door and the window that you can't see in that image. So that, as I say, is somewhere situated there. In terms of number 80, you can see from that image that this property is positioned forward of both the proposed development and the existing building. At present, the existing dwelling protrudes around 0.75 metres beyond the rear elevation of this neighbour. And with the proposed development, it will project a total of 1.5 metres deeper than the existing. But because the proposed development and this neighbours do not have any side windows along the shared boundary, it's not considered the proposal would have any unacceptable impact in terms of privacy or outlook on this neighbouring property. And this is just turning to the first floor, and it's just really, again, with number 80, because you can see there, and if we go back to that image there, you can see that number 80 situated there has got a first floor front, front, front, front balcony, and that this image is just basically showing you the relationship of where the proposed development is in relationship to where that first floor balcony is, and obviously the windows that you saw in the photographs where you were looking down Langton Way at first floor level at number 80, they are the windows that are in the elevation here and here, basically. Moving on to car parking provision, the existing dwelling currently benefits from three spaces, including two spaces that are parallel to and partly overlapping the shared surface of Langton Way. Under the proposal, the development would deliver three off-seat car parking spaces, which would equate to one space per unit. Each space would measure 5 metres by 2.5 metres, which is equivalent of what is a standard car parking space. The application site has a PTAO rating of 3, which means it has moderate access to public transport. Under the London Plan for a site with moderate access, it states that normally you should be seeking 0.25 car parking space per dwelling. Whilst the proposal here is actually providing a higher level, that's considered acceptable on the basis of taking consideration what the existing parking provision that's associated with the site and the fact that Langton Way, with it being a private and un-main road, there's no real availability for that much on-street car parking and that it is a little bit of a distance away from potential bus routes in Strathedon and Parade, basically. So overall, it's considered that a slightly higher car parking level is acceptable in this instance. This final slide just goes through a few other matters, just in terms of construction. If permission is granted, there's a condition there which would seek a demolition construction logistic plan to ensure that any noise and disturbance matters associated with the build-out of the scheme would be minimised to an acceptable level. In terms of waste and refuse, it's been looked at by our waste services and they're happy with free bins situated in the front garden. In terms of trees and ecology, whilst there are trees in adjoining properties, there are none in the application site and none of those trees would be affected by the scheme itself. So yes, and a consultation response came from the fire brigade who raised no objections, so they've got no issues in terms of the site being accessible for emergency vehicles. So overall, Chair, the application is recommended for approval and members are asked to consider the recommendation. Thanks, Neil. Questions for the officer? Pat. For that, yes, explanation. And I was at the site visit. Can I just ask you, I know what parking was like. I mean, it is a private road and I think I probably parked somewhere where there was a sign which I noticed when I came back out that said, please no parking, which I hadn't seen before. So there obviously is an issue with parking there because it's a private road and we have no control over it at all. What I did see as well, which concerned me a little bit, and I think this came up the last time, is that opposite the building in question, it's called the point of school. Point of school, so there's obviously a private school or a nursery or something which is on the main road. Now, that is just, the gate is actually opposite where these new houses are going to be. And I just wondered what it was like there, dropping off times and picking up times with cars, which I'm sure. So, yeah, I mean, that's one concern. There's no, is there any way, and I don't think there is, that we can condition it so that they just have one car each because we know what, you know, we've got three houses here, which, yes, are three bedrooms. So you're talking probably about six people per house. We can't condition, can we, so that they just have one parking space? So just to take it back, in terms of obviously the point of school, I would say that, you know, you're right, it's just a rear access gate, so most pupils would be, if they're coming by car, would be accessing the site from the front of the site. The other thing I would say, and I hold my hand up here because I've been caught out, the local neighbourhood, the low-traffic neighbourhood includes Langton Way, and if you go the wrong way, you get a nice £80 fine, which I've had to pay because I went down the wrong way. So that would be another thing to stop. Stop, yes, so basically if you come down Oldover Road and turn left into Langton Way that way, that's where the camera is and that's where you get caught. So I've been caught there, so if I'm ever going to Langton Way within certain hours now, I go the long way, which is down Charlton Road, up to Black East Standard, and then down Strathedon. So I would imagine that, you know, residents, if they are coming up down Langton Way, will soon stop because of the fines, because of the low-traffic neighbourhood. In terms of car parking for the proposed units, you're right, there's nothing really much we can do. It's an unadopted private road, so we've got no authority over there, but as you noted, and I know, there are signs there that say, you know, if you're parking there and you shouldn't be, action will be taken against you, but that's a way for, you know, the Langton Way Association, et cetera, who, you know, are supposed to run and actually manage that road to enforce, basically. Going back to the dormer window that was there, the original dormer window, can you just for clarification, please, for me? So the dormer windows that are going to go in at the back are no higher than that? Yes. So the existing building up to that height is 8.11 metres. So the new building has a height of, I think I said it was around 8.2 or 8.3 metres. So it's not going to be higher, and in terms of those dormer windows there, I made a note of it, they are set down 0.6 metres from the bridge line. And when you talk about the roof lights, are they going to be sort of, what do you actually mean by that? And are they facing the front? So they're there, they're facing the front. So as far as we're concerned, they are just your, you know, standard roof lights, which you can tilt slightly open to allow air in, basically. So Neil, on the first, on one of those illustrations, they look like dormers. So I think on the previous, if you go back one, so on the back here, they look like dormer windows. Yes. So the rear elevation, three dormer windows. Okay. So that's the rear elevation. And then that's the proposed front elevation. So the front elevation, you've got roof lights. Okay. You got that back? And also looking at those, the rear dormers, the actual window is set back. Is that correct? Yes. And that will also stop any sort of lateral overlooking, because there'll be an obstruction on either side. Okay. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you for this presentation. I just have a quick question on the statement that you made about no unacceptable loss of light. Can you define what you mean by unacceptable and what will make it acceptable or unacceptable? Okay. I won't go into too much detail, but basically there's the British, there's a, I've forgotten the name of the document. BRE. Thank you. BRE standards, which basically, you know, looks at through various means, both direct sunlight, both into sort of garden space, into the dwelling house itself. And it basically sets certain criteria that if a development reduces the level of light by a certain amount, then that's causing harm. So the daylight and sunlight survey that's been carried out as part of this application has been based on the BRE guidance, and that's come back, and that said, all the rooms would be fine, would not be affected, to an extent that it would cause harm and fail the BRE guidance. Any further questions? No? Neil, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Andrew Williams. That's all right, Andrew. There's a little red button in the middle. Two minutes. Thanks very much. So I am the resident or the owner of number 80, so clearly have quite a vested interest. And firstly, I'd like to congratulate them on quite a sensitive plan. The footprint's very good, and we really welcome development of what has been a derelict site for at least 20 years. There are two points I want to make. First of all, contesting some of the points about light and shade, the rear elevation at the moment will considerably shadow the back patio where we live at the moment, and which has a reception room in that area. At the moment, the existing building is set slightly further away from our property and won't be as high and projects, and it doesn't project as high as the proposed property. So there will be a direct impact on our light and the shadow of that patio seating area and the windows into that reception room. The second point is about potential overlooking. If you have a look at the picture on the screen, that really shows that whilst the proposed building will not encroach upon the two side windows, which is our main lounge and the roof terrace, so that our garage has a flat roof which we use as our predominant outside space because it's directly onto the kitchen, we will be directly overlooked, which will be new compared to the existing building where the adjacent window is frosted. Clearly, it's been unoccupied for a long time, and so we're not used to people being there, and I get the point that it's going to be different, and I also get the point that redevelopment is a good thing because it's going to get rid of the derelict site. The most important point I'd like to make is the existing building has been the knocking through of two properties, so it's a double plot site, thus the fact that the numbers are not consecutive from the other neighbour on the other side. And what we're proposing or is being proposed is three dwellings and quite sizable dwellings, which whilst there is one parking space per building, it is at a natural pinch point with the bollards opposite the school, and in answer to your question, having the restricted road in no way has changed parental access to the school at dropping off and picking off time because they come in from Strafedon Road and they park wherever they can for as long as it takes to pick up their loved one. Whilst the school discourage that, it is inevitably a fact of life. If the properties only have one car, then actually the encroachment on the road will be much the same as it is at the moment. I would anticipate the size of the family and the type of family purchasing a building of this type will have two cars, as is the case with the majority of the residents of Langton Way. And so in addition to the parking shown, which is adequate for one car, they will have an additional car, meaning double parking at the front, which will make an additional restriction. And so really this comes down to whether that plot is being overdeveloped for three houses, but two houses would circumvent many of the points that we've talked about and may be able to obviate some of the overlooking and the shadow. But in the interest of conciseness, that's my main points. Thanks, Andrew. Any questions for the speaker? Sorry, can I just ask you, so looking at that, because I was at the site visit, but I'm confused. So looking at that picture there, which is your property? So my property is the one that you can see with the arched window there. Right. So those two windows are the side of our main lounge, with the roof terrace being immediately underneath those at first floor level. So that parapet is a wall that goes around that roof terrace. So how much difference then is there going to be between the existing house now and the new property with the effect on your sort of patio area? So if you see as it stands, that is existing at the moment. Firstly, the front of the building as it exists is set back from the gable end of the closest bit of our property. That will then extend to go beyond and in front of that gable end. And whilst there are no side windows, the windows on the front will have a direct line of view into our lounge and onto the roof terrace. Am I right in thinking? I can't quite remember. But when you're inside the property, when you look at the property and you're in the garden, the property's opposite, they seem a lot... They're higher, aren't they? Are they three storeys? The ones on Shooters Hill Road? Yes. Yes. No, they're traditional three-storey terrace, probably with a basement as well, I would have thought. But do they affect your light? They don't affect our light in any way because the distance between our two gardens, because you've got their garden and then our garden separating the two buildings. And so other than some visual, you know, sort of direct looking through each other's windows, if you like, but that's not intrusive because it's far away enough. We've also got a wall between with a sort of trellis and Virginia creeper and stuff. So it's... I think you would be happy with two properties and not three. I think we are resigned to development and really welcome it and actually credit to them. It's really well-designed and, you know, actually it's really difficult to fault it. The thing that we have issue with, or personally, you know, my family have issue with, is the number of properties being developed on that site. And it's easy to underestimate quite how much... And the biggest thing will come down to car parking and the number of people and through-foot going through that plot. And there's a big difference between four cars on that plot, which is what we're going to have, and six cars, which is the inevitability of a three-house development. Joe? Thanks. I can understand what you've said about the back, the patio at the back, and some potential overshadowing at certain times of day. I don't... I haven't quite got, perhaps I've not visualised it right, why you think it's going to be overlooked onto your roof terrace at the front. I can't quite see that from the pictures I've seen. So the back, it's all about shade and being in the shade for most of the day. We won't get that problem on the front because the sun comes around at a different angle, and so the open arc of our building captures the sun, and the proposed development won't come so far forward of the gable end that it puts us in shadow. The point I'm making is of direct overlooking from those windows at the front. Yeah, that's what I heard you say. At the moment, they're set back, and so they're semi-obscured by the gable end, and so you can't get direct line of view onto the roof terrace. So I can't visualise what they can see from those windows to your roof terrace at the moment. They seem to be looking in a different direction. They're looking straight forward. They are, but if you look sideways out of a window, you can see at an angle on either side. They're not, I agree, they're not on the side of the building, but then the beauty of this development, if you like, is both buildings have no windows on either side, and so we're not, you know, we're not, there's no change, if you like. But what is, because the buildings move forward, their actual vision from that window is going to be direct. You look out your window, if you just look straight ahead, it'll be fine, but if you glance to your left, the first thing you'll see is into our lounge and onto the roof terrace. I don't know if those, that plan, because the roof terrace here, so our property's on the right with that sort of bit cut out of it, and that bit cut out of it is the roof terrace, and the windows, That's the roof terrace there, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely right. And you've got the windows, the main window is that one immediately adjacent to that, which is in line with the front of our kitchen, essentially. So, that's, that's a bathroom window at first hall level. No, can't, sorry, but that's a bathroom window. So, that's some blessing, thank you. The bathroom window, obviously obscured glass now, is that correct? There's not a condition there, but if you want to, you can, you can add a condition to make it obscure glaze, and then you've got a, Well, we'll ask the applicant in a minute. a bedroom window situated there. And on the story above, I'm just, so, there are no, so, the, the windows shown are Velux lights rather than a, we've established rather than a dormer, aren't they? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The, the, the dormers are to the rear, yes. Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Any further questions? No? Andrew, thank you very much. Thank you. And I wish to call on David Roulton. Hi, David. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Two minutes. My name is David Roulton. I live at number 74, which is the property immediately adjacent on the west side. I attended the meeting that was held here on the 22nd of April along with three other people that wanted to speak. It's very unfortunate that today two of them can't attend. But I just wanted to ask whether the comments they made and objections that they made, particularly those by Jane Carpenter, who is the Langton Way representative, will their comments still be taken into account with you guys today? Everything that's been submitted to the clerk is presented to all members and every piece of information presented to us is considered by us. We look at everything. She spoke for a lot of people and to be honest with you, when the meeting ended, the last meeting, we were led to believe that you had deferred your decision until such times as you made a site visit and then you would carry on from where you left off. I don't think any of us expected to come back today and have to go through and repeat our objections. We've actually, you're getting a bonus. A bonus. Being able to speak again is actually a bonus for the residents because we were at deferral point. We've conducted a site visit but in the spirit of goodwill and some of the material changes that were made to the application. I know they would have been speaking. I may have made other provisions and been able to be here today. But then I might have limited, because of where we were in the process, it's only the minor amendments that have been made that we were considering, but if there'd been too many, I may not have permitted that. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Dave. Thank you. I'll move on then. So at the meeting, I had two main areas of concern. One related to the proximity of the new proposal to my house, and the other was concerned with basically the suitability of the three houses, a terrace of three houses on a double plot. So as far as my first concern, the proximity, I have been very grateful to have Tom, the architect, knock on my door, to have Tom, the architect, knock on my door, and explain to me that the original plans were wrong, and where I thought the building was going to be extending at the front, I've now learned in fact it won't be, and where I was concerned about my windows being obscured, I've now learned that they won't. So on that side of things, good news for me. But the other area of concern is the suitability of this plot, and I'm in line with everyone else on that, the people of Langton Way, you've had 16 letters of objection I believe, no letters of support, and the overwhelming feeling is that this doesn't suit a terrace of houses. This area of Langton Way where it's to be located has 10 detached houses, so we'll have five detached houses, all of a sudden a terrace of three, and then another four detached houses. It is in a conservation area, as you know, and I was under the impression that there are restraints and restrictions, namely that the buildings must preserve or enhance the character of the area, and more importantly, must comply with the established pattern of development, but this clearly doesn't. And also, by demolishing the existing building, you could consider the plot to be an infill or a backland site, and again, there are, from your own site, and I'll quote this, permission will only be considered where there is no increase in noise and disturbance from traffic gaining access, no unreasonable loss of privacy from adjacent houses, and the character of the area is maintained with particular regard to scale, design, and density. again, it clearly does not meet that criteria. So, yeah, that's where I'm at. Thank you very much. Well, within your ten minutes. Sorry? I said we went over two, but that's fine. Okay. Any questions? Any questions for the speaker? No. So, David, on a few comments, obviously, we saw each other at the type visit. I took a walk round Langton Way, and noticed that there's really a hodgepodge of developments in that area, and there's quite, I mean, it looked to me that there was quite a few new builds within sort of 50 metres of this site. Agreed. That is part of the character of Langton Way. It does comprise of a number of different styles of property, property, but as each, the north, the south side of, let's get it right, south side of Langton Way, most of the development that's occurred along there has been as a result of the houses in Shooters Hill Road selling off their back gardens. It's an access road. In its history, it was an access road for the properties in Shooters Hill Road. So, as these plots have become available, buildings have been erected, but they are all, to the largely extent, detached houses. You wouldn't have seen many new terraces shoehorned in between two coach houses. So, at the end of Langton Way, there's two terraces of one... At the end, did you say? Yeah. Yeah, I am referring to the section that this is being built in, which runs between Stratheedon Road and Gregor Mews. Yeah, on that side of the road, there are ten detached houses, including this one that's been demolished. Yes, there are different styles. Yeah. Like I say, in this, I think people now walk along and say, oh, that's nice, that's nice. Wow, where did this come from? Yeah, but that was the point, as you've just said. So, there's been a number of new developments in the area. Yeah. And there is no real established design. Agreed. Does that mean that someone could just build anything? Are you like that? Well, we're not saying that, are we? I'm just making a point. I did take the time to do a comprehensive search of the whole area, just to get an eye, get a feel for the place. Sure. Okay. Any other comments for the speaker? No? David, thank you very much. Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Brian Stater. Stater. Stater. Sorry, Brian. I was going to say that and I kept thinking... I've been called many other things too, so that's... I'm quite used to that. Thank you. I'll be as brief as possible. Brian Stater, I'm a long-term resident of Langton Way. I live a bit further up the road than the site, so maybe I can be slightly more objective than my neighbours who are very immediately concerned and very anxious about this. I'll make three brief points, if I may. Like many other neighbours down the street, and this is a point you've heard before, I'm certainly in favour of development of this site. A derelict house is a bit of a stain on the borough, really. We should be maximising our habitable stock of housing. I'm in favour of development of the site, but not this scheme. I think the three should be too. And that's a genuine, sincere response. I would characterise this scheme as a polished but flawed attempt to get a quart into a pint pot. I think that's the nub of the issue. This is over-development in a way that we've heard. I think some of the planning officers' remarks have been slightly difficult to swallow. We've heard about a number of marginal infringements of the planning regulations. Well, as we know, marginal gains add up to something significant, and we were then presented with a small addendum, which seems to have been a rather significant flaw in the drawings that we were recommended to accept, or rather you were recommended to accept at the previous meeting. We heard a very, very enthusiastic report from the planning officer concerned, not the gentleman tonight, who really gushed about the site. And now we find that there was a very significant flaw, to my mind, which was causing some of my neighbours' very considerable anxiety. So I don't think this scheme stands up to quite the scrutiny that perhaps it should have, and I hope you'll give it a close look. And to close, well, actually I would congratulate the committee on insisting on a site visit, because I think some of the issues would have come into greater focus for you, and have brought the whole thing to life. And to close, I would say that I entirely agree with Councillor Sullivan's closing remarks. He chaired the previous meeting. As he closed, he said he was attracted by the scheme, but said this, my only concern is whether it's too much. Well, the committee has seen the site, I've lived close to it for 30 years, and I hope you can only agree that this is just too big. Thank you very much. Thanks, Brian. Any questions for the speaker? Pat? Thank you, Brian, very much. Can I just ask you again that point of school, what is it like in the mornings with traffic? I'll try and give you a short answer, I could give you a very long answer, actually. Point of School is a very, very busy inhabitant of Langton Way. It causes a certain friction, I'll be honest, between the residents and the parents, and I don't think this proposal is going to ease that friction in any way. I think it could quite conceivably add to it. Because, as you pointed out, the side entrance to the school, I think, directly confronts the site. So the two will meet in a fairly difficult way, I think. Thank you. Do you get to many parents coming up there with the cars in the morning? Yes. If the committee will indulge me, I have regular correspondence with the head teacher at Point of School, who tries to be very helpful on precisely this point, on the number of staff. I mean, there is, as I understand it, a rule at the school that no staff, no parent should use Langton Way. But the head teacher finds it almost impossible to enforce. And she says to me, we're doing our best. But there is a significant problem. Getting tradesmen the opportunity to park is getting a very significant problem. We're all getting a bit fed up with it, frankly. And this is going to add to the problem. And how, I mean, sort of how do you envisage the site traffic coping? The site traffic, if this was to go ahead? Well, I think that's a nightmare still to come. And I'm not sure, but that, yeah, that would add very significantly to the sort of dystopian life I've just been describing. That's an exaggeration. But it would add, again, difficulties. I mean, demolishing that house and trucking in all the stuff needed to build three on there. Two will be bad. But I think everybody could accept, live, and be quite pleased with two. But three, I think, is a bridge or a house too far. Thanks, Brian. And no further questions? Brian, thank you very much. Thank you. And I wish to call on Thomas Farmer. Hi, Thomas. Hello. Thank you, Speaker, and good evening, members. And thank you for everyone that's spoken previously about the application and taking the time to come and talk about it this evening. The existing house at 76 Langton Way occupies a generous plot, one of the widest on the street at 18 metres wide. The existing property and garden size far exceeds the minimum requirement for a family dwelling under local policy. The plot represents a unique opportunity to replace a large, tired, and poorly performing property with three new policy-compliant family homes. The following outlines some key takeaways and issues which have been addressed since the previous committee. It's been mentioned before, but there has been some confusion that's arisen around the position of the building on the site due to ordnance survey mapping data being used to locate the context buildings. As a result, we've undertaken a full laser topographical survey, which has resulted in a greater degree of accuracy as the building's position relative to its neighbours and the location of their neighbouring windows. This work has been undertaken to address concerns and questions around the building frontage line and the building line, which was pegged out on site by the neighbours, has been accurately repositioned, showing that correct proposed building line, which is significantly further back. Members present for the site visit were able to see the difference on site, and this new setting out information has been discussed with Dave and Trish at 74 Lenton Way in person, and we were able to have that really helpful discussion from both sides. The proposed building line does not block the flank windows on first floor of number 74, which Dave mentioned has been addressed as one of the primary concerns, and it sits back from the roof terrace at number 80. The main building line sits back from Andrew's roof terrace, and then the bay sits in line with the gable wall that sits slightly further beyond it. To the rear of Andrew's property, the building line, the existing building steps, forward and backwards, are proposed building on that specific corner, and on Andrew's, next to Andrew's property at number 80 sits a metre further back to basically straighten out that part of the building line, and that part of the elevation is south facing in terms of daylight sunlight, so yes, there would be some potential change there, but it's still past our full daylight sunlight assessment, and principally the building does occupy the footprint, the sort of general footprint of the existing house on the site, and it's similar with the ridge and eve lines, it's also comparable, as you can see from the elevations to the existing condition of the current house. I would like to note that, as you mentioned, Councillor Dillon, that there are a number of other terraced homes along Langton Way, 168 to 172 was mentioned on the south side, that's also on the same condition of the rear gardens being developed, and there's an example just to the north, 101 to 115, but we do agree that there is a range of houses, and some of them are detached, single properties, so there's a range there. The scheme does provide one off-street parking space per dwelling, a total of three car parking spaces, so it's equivalent to the number of cars which can park at the existing house as it stands. Driveways are provided on other properties along the street in a similar condition where they face perpendicular to the highway, and we've on board the project as a transport consultant, and they've tracked each of those car parking spaces coming in and out with the bollards and with the bins present on that survey information, and they're all compliant in terms of usability and visibility splays and such. So the scheme provides, in terms of gardens, the scheme provides three generous gardens. They are roughly in line with Greenwich's policy at 50 square metres, I think a couple fall below at 49 point something. The rear-to-rear window distances are well over the 18 metre requirement to provide sufficient privacy and outlook for new and existing residents. The new homes have been designed and refined through the pre-application process which we've engaged with Neil and his team over the last year and a bit to sort of refine and develop the scheme as we've worked through it and incorporated comments, and we've got to a point where the design conservationists and officers are in full support of our proposal as it's currently presented. As I mentioned before, the daylight and sunlight assessment has been done by RAPLEs, and they've assessed 65 windows on the neighbouring houses and of the 65 that were tested, 100% passed, two had a slight improvement on the existing condition. There was a couple of mentions of the term overdevelopment. Overdevelopment is typically, I guess, a subjective term, but how we deal with it as architects in the planning system is understanding if the scheme is compliant with local policy in terms of how it's scoring, and so in terms of obviously we're occupying that existing footprint, but we're above policy on biodiversity net gain in terms of reprovision of greening space on the site. The urban greening factor calculation, again, we're above policy. We're 100% compliant on our actual unit sizes and space that we're providing in the site. Daylight, sunlight, again, above 100% compliant, and the width of the home is well over five metres in terms of generous property widths and providing generous rooms of good daylight, sunlight. And then obviously the parking provision is well above policy, which actually should be, I think, 0.25 per dwelling. So we're above that in terms of provision on site. So in our view, the scheme is a suitable level of development for a site of this size in the borough, in this location. So in summary, the proposal offers a unique opportunity to deliver three high-quality, compliant, family-sized homes in a sustainable location, and we hope that you can support this application this evening. Thank you. Thanks, Thomas. Questions for the speaker? Joe. Thanks. I've been looking at what the occupational therapists say, and per condition, a few things need to be altered in the final drawings and final stuff. Given that everything fits very tightly at the moment, I mean, you know, a few, a metre one way, a metre another way, it just looks like it probably just works. How confident are you that redrawing the internal to fit in with what the occupational therapists require will be possible without expanding the footprint at all? Yeah, so we're 100% confident. So we discussed that with Chris, who was the original case officer, who's not here today. And we did do some indicative layouts and made the decision that actually they could be accepted in their current case. We have redrawn those, but I think in terms of the changes, it made sense for those to happen after the application. But they have, that exercise has been done to ensure that we have, we can be compliant in terms of the WCs and some of the bedroom spaces that have been mentioned. Within the footprint as we're looking here? Within the footprint as it stands, yes. I think Brian made the point earlier that I'd made at a previous meeting about, was it over development? But I'm wondering, it wouldn't necessarily be the same scheme if it was just two units. But I'm wondering whether, in fact, would the scheme be viable with two units? I can't talk too much about viability. That's slightly out of my wheelhouse. My understanding is that it wouldn't be, and that the scheme as it's drawn is very much on the line in terms of viability. I think the reality is that the building massing would be probably comparable. The number of bed spaces would be comparable. So in terms of bed spaces to car provision, that I don't know if it would necessarily solve much other than losing a potential family home. On that point, I was going to ask something very similar. What was the reasoning behind going for three instead of going for two, considering the size of the properties in that vicinity and the value of those properties in the facility? Like Dave's question, I'm looking at a balance, and I'm looking at three small compared to two, possibly four or five bed. Yeah, so we actually started this process with a four-unit project, which we brought to pre-application. The houses were slightly below on the garden sizes, so I think we were getting around a 38-square-metre garden size for four houses on the site. And I think the massing was generally accepted at that point, and there was just a consensus that four didn't feel quite right, but when we brought forward three, they felt like a little bit more relaxed. And so that's where we've come from in terms of our journey. And actually, these three homes, they're not that tight in terms of some of the other properties that we designed that are bang on the 99-square-metres. I think you did the maths back the wrong way. We weren't looking at four to three. We were asking about two to three. Yeah, absolutely. Looking at the area and looking at what's been built in recent years, what was the reasoning behind three tight buildings compared to two reasonably-sized family dwellings? I would just... I appreciate the question. I think I just disagree on the premise of the fact that the three are tight. I think the four were tight, and the three are actually quite... I think my colleague's comments from the occupational therapist sort of saying that, you know, some of it is a squeeze. Yeah, I mean, I think the comments from the operational therapist are more around that the layout could be improved, not necessarily that it's compromised because of its footprint. We design similar houses every day that are smaller than this, narrower than this, and are still compliant. Yeah, we think these are generous properties. I think that's the point. We're squeezing in on compliance when we're turning one large family dwelling into three, whereas it could have actually been put into two. I'm asking the rationale because, as my colleague has mentioned, you know, we're squeezing on the limits to squeeze three in when realistically you could put a relaxed two. That's what I'm asking. And looking at the values of the property in that area, of decent-sized four-bed family homes, I'm looking, you know, value-wise, there's not a lot of movement, there's not a lot of difference. Yeah, the information that we've had is from a... It's not really a planning issue, but I guess the viability side of it is that the three are more valuable than... Three are more valuable than two properties on the site, but that's not necessarily driven us down this direction. The conversation is around optimising... That we've had with Neil and his team has been around optimising the site for family homes and this proposal that we've come to feels like the right amount of homes to not under-utilise land. Going back to that, we were told by the planning officer, for example, that one of the small bedrooms, that there were minor shortfalls. Now, do you think that that is acceptable, to build homes where bedroom spaces are, you know, not quite what they should be, just minor shortfalls? How does that sit with you? Yeah, I completely agree. I don't think we should be providing bedrooms that are below a shortfall. That the... Again, it's an error in the information. The rounding that there's gone to is two decimal places that led to that issue. So there's adjustments that we've made offline to get those areas, along with the other comments we've had on the layouts that involve slight tweak to the internal wall positions that allow us to get the scheme completely compliant. So a natural fall is 0.3 square metre, so again, it's around a square foot. So if I could just... So we're talking about whether, you know, it's tight to get three houses on there instead of two. So in terms of the London plan and the nationally described space standards for a three-bed, six-person dwelling, the minimum floor area that should be being provided is 108 square metres. The Western Moe house, the house which has got a slightly small bedroom, that's 113.71 square metres, so it's actually five square metres above the minimum standard. So I don't... And then the middle house is 133, and the easternmost house is 133. So the houses are actually bigger than the minimum standard. So I think it'd be very, very difficult to argue on that basis that they're squeezing on the houses here because the overall unit sizes meet the required standards in terms of the overall floor areas. On a similar basis, Councillor Vanderbroek, note the comments made by occupational therapists. I think I would have concerns about the comments made by occupational therapists if that house, the overall internal floor area, was right on the button of what the minimum standard was because then you'd start saying, well, hang on, if you're only 108, how are you going to manage things to actually provide the changes that are needed? But this house is five square metres larger, so there's capacity there to address what are, I think, relatively small tweaks being made by occupational therapists for things like, for instance, the width of a door or hallway. It's, you know, it is literally just moving something slightly. It's not going to impact the overall ability for those houses to be built. And on a similar base, in terms of that small bedroom, which is 30 square centimetres below the minimum standard, again, I'd have a concern about that if the actual unit was right on the button in terms of minimum size or actually below that. But I think the fact that we're five square metres over, the overall footprint of the building, would be very, very difficult to say that having a bedroom which is 30 square centimetres too small is resulting in a poor living environment where the property itself... Bathroom. The bathroom window's got obscure glass. Not currently on the 480. Yeah. And I think the other point of concern was on the window, on the bay window closest to number 80, is there any way of putting some sort of feature on the front of that dormer to stop any lateral... to put a feature on there to stop any lateral overlooking? You could do it on all three. You could do it on three. Make a design feature there. Yes, I think it's possible, but I think the way of making the design is that it is possible. I mean, I would say that, you know, that's the window we're talking about here. Yeah. You know, logically, if you're standing in that window and looking out, you're going to be looking that way. To actually be overlooking into that terrace area and then the windows that are situated in this front wall, you're going to have to be standing right at the extreme end of that window and at a very, very tight angle to actually be physically looking that way, it would, in my view, would be in a natural position to, A, to be standing and also to be looking. Thanks, Neil. I've got a question which probably comes back to you, Neil. You mentioned about the road management of Langton Way. It's a, and maybe some of the residents can help you. It's a private road. So, who manages that road? Is there, you mentioned there was a committee, Neil, is that correct? Well, there is the Langton Way Association but I don't know whether they are directly responsible, you know, in terms of, you know, managing roads. You know, for instance, you know, if you're in the Cater Estate, you've got the Blackheath Cater Estate organisation which runs and manages, you know, the roads, et cetera. But as, as Councillor Greenwell, you know, noted when we were on the site visit, there were signs there that were saying, you know, if you don't park here, if you don't live here, you shouldn't, you shouldn't park here. So, it's whoever's, whoever's, it's the responsibility of putting those signs up to then actually to enforce that the people who actually park there have the, have the right to park there. If they don't, they should be taking action themselves. Brian, Brian's gone. Brian, Brian, you mentioned something about speaking up for the community and talking to the school and that. Who, who, who actually deals with the management of that road? Do you want to come to the microphone? Thomas, stay there, stay there, stay there. I'm not a member of the committee of the, of the Langton Way Association so I, I can't be too, too specific but to the best of my knowledge the Langton Way Association does not accept direct responsibility for maintaining the road or indeed for policing the road. I mean, the association puts up the signs and I think as things develop maybe, maybe they will wish to, in the officer's phrase, enforce them but at the moment there isn't, to the best of my knowledge there is no particular policy. I mentioned that I was in contact with, regular contact with the head teacher at Pointe School but that's, that's purely as a private. Neil, coming back, we talked about penalties being imposed on drivers driving the wrong way and Langton Way. Are those council enforced penalties? No, they're not, no. So they're, they're private. If, if, if there's any enforcement action taken like it is on the roads within the caterer state it's the people who actually run and manage those roads so it's not the council. Right. Sorry, the LTN that the officer mentioned is, the LTN is but that's because the, the camera is at the junction of Old Over Road as you turn into Langton Way just before you hit Old Over Road so that is the council. You know. You only get the penalty when you come out. No, I was, I was caught because I was caught in my car at going in, into Langton Way at 11 minutes past 8 so 11 minutes after the LTN started because I went through that camera on the, on the corner of Langton Way and St. John's Park. Okay. I think, if I explain what I'm looking at, I'm, I'm looking at how it's a private road, how additional parking restrictions can be imposed because the comments made are about there could be two, three, four cars, what if the kids grow up, you know. we've got designated parking bays with, with this proposal but the concern seems to be a hypothetical solution of what might happen down the road when there could be two or three or four more cars. What I'm looking at is how, how do you as residents address that because it doesn't seem to be a planning issue for us because we've got no control over that but I'm trying to find out who will or who does have that authority to possibly resolve your concerns about future parking. Well, I think the fairest summary at the moment is that nobody exercises that power. Whether they will in the future take that power is not for me to say but maybe this, you know, these kind of issues will incentivise that. Thanks. Thanks, Brian. Okay, have everyone got there? Any further questions for the speaker? No? Thomas, thank you very much. Thank you. Members, open for deliberation. Dave, Pat. I made the comment earlier that's been made again tonight about over development. I think other people have made the point that it's a very subjective, a very subjective... Sorry, Dave, Pat. Oh, sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. Sorry, Pat. I think the concept of overdevelopment is a very subjective matter. I think the phrase that architect used said it was basically optimised. And I think the phrase that Neil used earlier was that it was compliant. I think obviously all of us, as we look at it, can't help think it would have been nicer. It would have caused less hassle if there had been two units rather than the three. But I don't think that we're looking at what we'd like to have seen there, what could have been. I have to look at the proposal that we're considering this evening. I think to me it looks like a really beautifully designed scheme. And in that way I think the residents who may be somewhat disappointed by the so-called overdevelopment but it's fairly typical of what happens in and around London. In my own road is various schemes have been shoe horned actually into minimal sort of spaces. And they're quite ugly and frankly quite horrible. When I'm looking at this scheme I think it's actually quite attractive in many ways. I think in some ways the residents are getting away a bit on the fortunate side. So I would like to have seen less but I do think this scheme... I wanted to make another point too but I wish I would imagine a scheme that looks as nice as this that's been what's been proposed I imagine is bordering on viability. And given building costs and everything else these days I can't help thinking that the scheme probably just about stacks up. So I'll be supporting the planning application this evening. I'm wondering whether we can tighten up condition 12 on page 138 which is the one about accessible and adaptable dwellings. I mean it's saying make it acceptable and compliant with the recommendations. but I just want to tighten that up and say that on condition that the building stays within the footprint of what we're looking at. And the reason I'm saying this is I'm remembering a previous scheme in central Greenwich where a building got larger than its original footprint and the rationale given by the builders was oh we realised that the bedrooms you know the bricks we had to use were this much bigger and we realised that the bedrooms weren't quite compliant and so the actual footprint of that building became a little larger and I just want to ensure that if we go ahead with this as it stands that that cannot happen. I take what Neil said that reckons it can be done within that footprint I just want to I want it spelt out in the conditions that it would have to be done within that footprint. So if you approve the scheme you're approving the plans so the footprint of the building so if when it's built they can't build to that footprint they will have to come back in and vary the consent. So it's not necessary to do that because you're approving that you approve it. So it's not necessary to put into the condition. I understand what you're saying but if they so if they review the scheme afterwards when they go into the detailed design because this will be only at a certain stage of design if they can't adapt it within that demise of the footprint they will have to come back and amend the scheme. And that would be before it's built? It should be. I'm thinking the example I have in my mind they didn't come back until after something built. I think what we're looking at is because of previous things that have gone on I think we don't want to find ourselves where there could have been a deviation and we end up looking at a retrospective application that comes in to approve the deviation is there no way of making sure the application is as is and no retrospective application will be permitted should there be any deviation from that plan? I think that's right Jo? you can't actually do that. You've been asked tonight to approve a set of plans and drawings and that's what should be built out. If somebody decides that they don't want to build that out obviously it's usually courteous to come back and ask us but on occasions that's not always the case. But you can't put conditions on that deals with somebody else's misdemeanour in some other part of the borough. When we give planning permission we expect that that's what is built and if it isn't then that applicant should come back either before they implement the scheme to amend those plans. Any further comments? Thank you Chair. I yes was at the site visit and at first I thought this wow this is an amazing scheme because obviously the building the way it is at the moment is very very derelict condition. But I was also very aware I'm very aware that Langton Way is a unadopted road and I know with unadopted roads you cannot tell anybody not to park there they will park there. I am also aware that when I saw the gate of the school it's very close to where the car parks will be it's going to be very awkward to turn onto the main road and I'm also concerned about the fact that residents, local residents are going to be losing some light some shadowing some of their amenity and I just feel very strongly actually now that two houses would be better that this is over development and we are short of four bedroom houses so I've come to the conclusion that I will not be supporting this application. I think it's over development. Thank you. Any further comments? Jodia? I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time out to speak and present to us. I do disagree. I don't think that this is over development at all. I do have one concern with sizing. Can I ask a question? Sorry, I was finished. Just to Neil, earlier you had mentioned that there was a room that was less than a piece of paper, size smaller. My question is, is it a law or is it just a recommendation of the sizing to be 50 square meters? In terms of the room sizes, the nationally described space standards and the London plan talk about double bedrooms should be being a minimum size of 11.5 square meters. this bedroom is coming in at 11.17 square meters. It's around 30 square centimeters too small. Technically, there is a breach there. What you've got to consider is realistically, if you walked into that bedroom, would you go, wow, this bedroom is below standards, it's too small? If you can't do that, then there's an issue in terms of how much harm is that very minute shortfall, how much harm that is having to the overall quality of the scheme. The other thing I said is that whilst that bedroom is marginally small, the overall internal layout of the house as a whole is five square meters bigger than it should be. So that then, to some extent, compensates for the fact that the bedroom is a little bit small. So on that basis, that's why we're recommending approval because we think it would be very, very hard at appeal to substantiate a poor living environment on the basis that you've got a bedroom which is around 30 square centimeters too small whilst the overall house size is five square meters too big. Thank you for the clarification. Am I right? There's two double bedrooms and one single bedroom. Is that correct? I'm assuming there are three double bedrooms because they're three six-bedroom six-person units so I'm assuming they're all double beds there. So for marketing purposes, it will be sold as a three-bed and whoever buys it will put as many kids or whatever into whatever rooms like they're doing any other problem. I mean, you know, theoretically it could hold six, it could hold three, four, five. Yes. Okay, thanks. Any further comments from anyone? No, okay, I'll sum up there. Yeah, difficult decision. Well, I say difficult. We have three houses which are policy compliant, which is exactly the same as what an inspectorate would look at. They are policy compliant, they are at an acceptable size, and they do not take into account the emotions of other residents in the area that may not like the size or the design. They give us straightforward assessments. Obviously, we did a site visit, and as I mentioned earlier, there are an assortment of design properties in Langton Way, and these three would not look out of place, in my opinion. I'm going to support the application because obviously there is a need for family homes, and everyone makes a difference. As we've seen, this committee, we are building Greenwich builds, where we're putting twos and threes wherever we can, and we've got to make whatever difference we can. you've heard my comments about two larger properties probably being the same value as the three smaller properties, but that doesn't come into planning consideration. And I just want the residents to know, we were observant, we did turn up, and we probably made similar assessments of the area, but we are talking about policy, we are talking about government legislation. So the fact that these three are policy compliant, I'm going to support the application. What I would do is advise the residents, especially Brian, because Brian seems to be clued up, do find out who is going to take responsibility for Langton Way, because then you would possibly be able to control the excess amount of vehicles that come in, but obviously that's out of this committee's hands, and possibly out of the council's hands, but it might be worth looking exploring that avenue. After that, I'm going to put this to the vote now, subject to the condition of the obscure glass on the bathroom windows. Yeah? All those in favour with that addition, please raise your hand. All those against? Abstentions? Item six is approved. Thank you very much for your coming, and thanks for your contribution. As mentioned earlier, item seven and item eight are no longer on the agenda, so I'm now moving on to item nine, which is seven Thornhill Avenue, Plumstead, London London SE18 2HR, reference 244187F. Louise? Thank you, Chair. Thank you. So, this is an application for number seven Thornhill Avenue, Plumstead SE18. It seeks planning permission for the change of use of a single-family dwelling house to a six-person HMO, which is used Class C4, with a maximum capacity of six persons together with the demolition of an outbuilding, construction of single-storey side and rear extension, hip-to-gable loft extension, rear doormat, and front roof lights. It's being considered this evening due to the number of objections received, which is a total of 14, and these are covered in additional detail within section six of the committee report. Officers are recommending approval subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the appendices for the reasons set out within the committee report. So, the application site is located on the northern side of North Thornhill Avenue, at its junction with Irwin Avenue, so you can see the site in the red, Thornhill Avenue is up here, Irwin Avenue is along here. The property is an existing two-storey semi-detached property with an existing single-storey outbuilding, which is detached from the principal property, and a single-storey rear extension. It's not located within a conservation area, nor are there any locally or statutory listed buildings within the vicinity of the application site. It's not located within a controlled parking zone, and it has a PTAL rating of 1B. Moving on to the aerials of the site, you can see we've got the property outlined in red. The picture on the top left-hand side here shows the rear of the property. You can see the single-storey rear extension here. This image shows the front of the property. You can see the existing porch and the existing single-storey outbuilding, which is detached from the principal property. Moving on to some photographs. It should be fairly self-explanatory. You've got the front of the property here, front porch, existing outbuilding. This is a view looking to the side. Again, the outbuilding front garden, which has got an existing drive, and the existing single-storey rear extension or conservatory, is probably what it's closer to be. Moving to the ground floor plans, we have existing on the left-hand side. We've got the proposed on the right-hand side. In terms of additional extensions proposed at ground floor level, we have a single-storey side extension here, which does require planning permission. A single-storey rear extension falls within the remits of permitted development in that it's no deeper than three metres and it has a maximum height of no greater than three metres. In terms of the layout, we've got three single-occupancy bedrooms at ground floor level, one to the front here with an en-suite, one to the side again with an en-suite, room three here also with an en-suite, and then we have a communal kitchen dining area, which I believe is a total of about 19 square metres in size. Moving to first floor level, there's no external footprint proposed at this level, but you can see the roof of the single-storey rear extension and the single-storey side extension. So we've got another two additional single occupancy rooms, en-suite bathrooms. Again, all of these rooms comply with the minimal space standards for an HMO. And moving to the top floor, we've got an additional room contained within the loft extension. The loft extension proposed, as part of this application is a hip-to-gable extension as well as a rear dormer. These elements do not require planning permission and have been confirmed from a certificate of lawfulness, which whilst wasn't granted on the application site, the only reason why it was refused was because the single-storey side extension did not comply. So that report concluded that both the works at roof level and the works to the rear do not require planning permission. Again, the room contained within the top floor is considered to comply with the minimal standards in terms of HMO accommodation. Moving to the existing elevations, these should reflect some of the photos that I showed you earlier in the presentation. And these are the existing proposed, or not the existing, sorry, the proposed. So you can see the hip-to-gable extension here with the roof lights, the single-storey side extension, which would incorporate a flat roof. Because of the change in angle, you can, this is just the side flank wall of the single-storey side extension, and you've got your single-storey rear extension to the back here. As I said, both the single-storey rear and the loft extension don't require planning permission. Notwithstanding that, we're of the view that given their scale, that they wouldn't have an unacceptable impact on the adjoining, the amenity of adjoining owner-occupiers, and they're considered acceptable. In design terms. Moving on to cycle and bin storage, we've got the front gardens pretty generous in size, so we've got the five required bins located to the front of the property, and we've got a cycle parking located to the rear. There's no details of the storage contained within the application, so one of the conditions recommended secures details of that storage to be submitted prior to the occupation of the development. So touching on some of the specific objections that received as part of the consultation process that we undertook, some of the concerns were about the impact on residential amenity from adjoining owner- occupiers. Now, the property at the moment is currently three bedrooms, and through the additional room created from the loft extension, we have the view that the number of occupants that could be lawfully contained within the existing single-family dwelling house would be comparable to that what would be allowed through this six-person HMO. We've got a condition that restricts the capacity of the HMO, so it wouldn't be allowed to be held by any more than six peoples. So for that reason, we don't think that there would be an unacceptable impact on the adjoining, the residential amenity of adjoining owner occupiers from a noise perspective. Some of the other concerns raised were in relation to parking and parking stress. It's not located within a controlled parking zone, so at present, the existing occupier of the property doesn't need a parking permit to park on the street. Whilst it does have a low P-tail rating, during the site visit, there were quite a number of vacant spaces located around the site, which would have provided additional parking opportunities. In addition to that, officers noted that whilst it does have a low P-tail rating, it is located within a number of, within the proximity to a number of bus stops that give different routes in and around the borough, and it's only located, it's located within proximity to a number of train stations, albeit slightly over walking distance. So for those reasons, even though we don't have a parking stress survey, that combined with the provision of cycle parking is encouraged, would encourage residents of the HMO to utilise sustainable means of transport as opposed to parking their own private vehicle. to conclude, the principle of an HMO is considered acceptable, particularly as there's no policies which relate to the over-concentration of HMOs, nor is there anything in relation to the loss of family-sized accommodation in relation to HMO conversions. The quality of accommodation is considered acceptable when each of the rooms and communal space all comply with the HMO licensing guidelines, and we're satisfied that the external alterations proposed as part of this development are acceptable in design and immunity terms, and as such, the applications are recommended for approval subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the appendices. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Louise. Before we go into questions, I'm going to have a slight pause because I realise we've been going for two hours now. So, we'll have a quick five-minute recess before we come into officers' questions. Okay. Welcome back. Members, we are ready to go. Okay. Questions for the officer. on item nine. Okay. I'll remind you, we are item nine, 7 Thornhill Avenue. Can I just get clear again? This comes up every time as an HMO. Right. We're told it's a six-bedroom HMO, so for six people, but then I think it's 11.13 when we're talking about the kitchen facilities, or 11.14 actually says a six-person HMO would require, no, I think it just says it would require one set of facilities, but it should be two for six people. Can we just check that I'm right with that one? I mean, it's a six-bedroom, six people, so it needs two in the kitchen. It has to have two sets of facilities. Yeah? So, you're correct. It's a six-person HMO. It needs two sets of facilities. The minimum space standards for a kitchen for six people is 10.5 square meters. This particular HMO kitchen is 19, just over 19 square meters. Now, we don't necessarily approve the indicative, this is an indicative layout. In terms of exactly what facilities, in terms of your cookers, your dishwashers, they aren't necessarily determined at planning stage, they're determined at licensing stage. What we're required to do is ensure the kitchen is big enough to hold those two sets of cooking facilities. And as I said, it's about eight square meters bigger than what it needs to be. So, from our perspective, it's acceptable, and then licensing would flesh out exactly where the facilities are as part of that process. Can I just, we just go over where the doors are going to be, and this sort of, fumes, where are they going to go, cooking fumes? So, it would be in a similar capacity, like a normal kitchen, you know, we wouldn't expect there to be any material increase in fumes over and above what could be lawfully, so it would just go out of the, there's no external sort of ventilation proposed, mechanical ventilation proposed, it's just the rear doors located here. And I've got another question, it's regarding the, I think it's number nine, the effect on number nine, Thornhill. It seems very close, you know, extension to nine Thornhill. It's because it's on an angle, obviously. And I just wondered what that separation distance was. I'm trying to bring up the best plan to show you. Hang on a second. One more. So, number nine is located here. It is located, I believe, at a slightly higher level than the application site. Oh, hang on. So, it is quite close, but the footprint, I'm trying to find a better plan to show you. So, if you can see here, the rear extension is only three metres deep. Further to that, the single storey side extension would project beyond the rear facade of number nine. So, even though it is quite close, we don't foresee there being any unacceptable impact on number nine. Ding building and this new extension, how much further out? Sorry, it's really slow changing the screen. So, you can see here, at the moment, they've got a single storey out building. So, it is coming out slightly deeper here, but number nine sits at a higher level than the application site. It's about a 30 centimetre difference, but again, normally, if you've got a property that sits at higher than the application site, that lessens the impact. If a property is lower than the application site, then that would result in a potentially more of an unacceptable impact, because it's already at a disadvantage by sitting at a lower level. So, it does come closer to their boundary, but the extensions are of a scale that we don't think would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining owner-occupier, specifically in relation to number nine. No problem. Thank you for your presentation. I have a question about other HMOs in the area. Are there any other in the ward, and if so, how many? So, I haven't necessarily looked at the ward specifically, but I've looked at a couple of adjoining streets. So, Thornhill Avenue, specifically. This is the only planning application that we've got or have considered in relation to the conversion of a property to an HMO. In relation to HMO licensing on Thornhill Avenue, there are absolutely no licenses for Thornhill Avenue. In relation to Irwin Avenue, which is this road here, we've given consent or planning permission to one HMO back in 2024, but at the moment there's no HMO licensing on Irwin Avenue at all, either. And how far back is that HMO from the one that's being pitched to us? It's, I believe, it's, sorry, my eyesight's not very good. It's here. Number four. Thank you. No problem. We have quite a few. It's got a hip to gable loft conversion, and I know that we normally don't sort of agree with those, it's policy not to agree with those sort of extensions, but they seem to be coming in quite frequently, and we're accepting them. So you are correct that the Urban Design SVD does, isn't favourable to full width normal rear extensions or hip to gable roof extensions, you're correct in that. The reason why in these, in some particular instances, we're supportive of them when they come forward as part of a wider planning application, and this has been justified and explained through case law as well, is that where we've had a certificate of lawfulness for the elements, and it's confirmed that those works don't require planning permission, it's very difficult for us to resist them when they come part of a wider planning application for the conversion of an HMO. So in this particular instance, the loft extension and the hip to gable and rear door mud doesn't require planning permission. So in that instance, it's the reason why we're supportive on it, because it's got a full back position that they could implement. So again, you're comparing what they can lawfully do compared to what they're proposing, and that, in terms of the external footprint at roof level, is the same. So it's for that reason why we're supportive of them. What about sort of the effect of the light of the next build, the, what number did I say? It was number nine, isn't it? So again, because it falls within permitted development, we wouldn't, we're, it's a full back position, so it's very difficult to resist it in terms of residential amenity, but not withstanding that, a hip to gable extension and a rear dormer, the openings are located on a facade where an outlook already exists, so there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy. And again, number nine sits at a higher level than the application site, and again, the orientation of the building, you've got your, your dormer is going to be sitting here, even if, I wouldn't foresee there being any unacceptable impact on number nine in terms of loss of outlook, daylight and sunlight, but as I said, the works at roof level, there's a full back position in terms of them not requiring planning permission, so it's difficult for us to resist, unfortunately. Sorry, Louise, what was the, what was the reasoning behind the side extension? Is that because they got a certificate of lawful development first? So the side extension does require planning permission. The certificate of lawfulness included the single-storey rear extension, the single-storey side, and the roof extension. The certificate of lawfulness was refused, but only because the single-storey side extension did not fall within permitted development. So in considering the suitability of the single-storey rear extension, it isn't greater than half the width of the original dwelling house. It isn't set back from the front facade, which the SPD currently recommends, but it is still, it is still set back from the projected porch. Further to that, we've already got an existing outbuilding, so in terms of comparing those elements, we were of the view that, you know, the design of it's acceptable, giving regard to the existing situation. And we have no issues with that toilet part of that extension being so close to the boundary? No. Not from a planning perspective, no. Okay. Any further questions? No? Thank you very much. Right, let me go. I now wish to call on Richard O'Connor. Hi, Richard. Thank you, Chair. Two minutes. Thank you, Councillors. Thank you, Officers. I'm Richard O'Connor. I live with my family at Number 6 Irwin Avenue, directly next door to a new HMO just around the corner from this side, only five doors away. And this new HMO has recently just been commissioned and opened. Already, waste bins are already blocking the pavement for passage of disabled persons at Number 4, as refuse and recycling storage was never installed at the front of this property as planned. So we object to this proposed change of use from an existing single-family dwelling, from Class C3 to six-bedroom, six-person HMO, Class C4, as it could be deemed an inappropriate development at this location based on the following criteria. A loss of family dwelling house, which is out of character with the area, and will lead to an over-concentration of HMOs in this area, where a lot of people are quite elderly around this area. The proposal to include six units within the property is questionable, as it will meet the minimum, whether it will meet the minimum space standards, as is other associated external alterations. The overcrowding by HMOs can lead to higher population density in residential areas, impacting on local infrastructure and services. Additionally, the transient nature of HMO residents may impact community cohesion, as there is often a higher turnover of occupants. Safety concerns are another factor, particularly if the property does not meet required health and safety standards or building regs. An example of this site are plans that show a fire exit to the rear garden through a possible locked bedroom, number three bedroom. This error is clearly shown on the agent's submitted ground plans. This conflicts with the agent's planning statement. This document, which is the ground floor plan, if you see room three, is a locked door through a bedroom with a door in the end of it, into the garden. It's the only access to the garden. It should be in the area of the kitchen, as is per number four, Irwin Avenue. There's no consistency. So anyway, this conflict is an issue that needs to be resolved. Parking and traffic congestion are further issues that will arise, especially in this area that is not designed to accommodate high numbers of vehicles being in close proximity to Timbercroft Primary School, just across the road. As has been noted by Royal Greenwich Parking Wardens, who are from time to time seen taking remedial action to cars inappropriately parked in this area so close to the school. Parking will also be a bigger issue when residence is taken up by the new housing block, directly opposite its proposed development, at the junction of Ancaster Street, Thornhill Avenue, Timbercroft Lane. Previously, planning application 21 stroke 4518 slash F. The overdevelopment of this property also raises the issue of right to light to the adjacent property. Has due consideration been given to the project compliant with the BRE Daylight and Sunlight Guide assessment process as used by the majority of councils to measure the effect of loss of daylight and sunlight to adjacent property? It appears that failure to meet the BRE guard values within the limitations of an application for planning permission could be sufficient justification for a planning permission to be refused by Royal Greenwich. Richard? Yeah. Over your two minutes, do you want to wind up? I've got one statement. The HMO development will inevitably cause a loss of amenity and could be deemed an inappropriate development. In addition, I note the certificate of lawfulness has already been refused for this property. Where do things stand on that? There's the copy. There's the copy. Louise? This is the copy. Where do we stand on this? This has been refused. So I think the officer explained that although it's refused, it's only refused on the signed extension. So the rear extension and the roof extension are permitted development extensions. As a single storey? Yeah. But has that been confirmed? Has it's been refused? Well, we haven't because that only refuses the side extension. Yes. If the others were permitted development, we would have refused it on those elements as well. Okay. All right. And additionally, I hope you resolve the issue of the fire exit rear door through a bedroom. Louise, do you want to come in on that? So these doors are sliding doors and that's been confirmed by the applicant. So there is an access out through the kitchen. You want to make sure that all residents within the property can access the rear garden to benefit from the immunity of it. So that has been queried by the case officer with the agent and they can confirm when they speak later. But this does provide access to the rear garden there to sliding doors. Is that a fire exit? Well, I presume it would be... Because there's no sign entrance to the back garden. So fire... How do you get bicycles through? Do you want me to come back to the bicycles as well? So the storage for the bikes is located in the rear garden. We're of the view that there is options for the bicycles to be taken through the property. However, the report does note that there is ample front space in the front property. So at the moment, the condition that's been recommended, which requires details of cycle parking, would allow the applicant to locate it to the front of the property to avoid having to go through. I think you only get folding bikes through those narrow passageways. Any questions for the speaker? Pat? You talk about... Thank you for your talk. You talk about the Timbercroft Primary School, the drop-off. And also, I mean, looking at the map, are there double yellow lines around Thornhill Avenue? Some of the corner around that junction with Timbercroft and Thornhill and Irwin are there, but I wouldn't say they're... And that's why the warden comes and tries to enforce them. But they're not enforced enough. And it's on a sort of quite an obvious bend, isn't it, as well, the property... And there will be an impact of parking across the road in the new property just recently being developed, where there's another six or eight properties that are going to be requiring cars and bins. Yeah. So you were saying that the bins... So, yeah, because the bins are going to be... Where are the bins going to be located? In the front yard. Yeah, the bins are located... Under the next door's bedroom window. The bins are currently... I can bring up... Currently, we don't have a condition recommended to secure details of storage of the recycling refuse, but should members be minded, we can amend the condition to include those details. And where did you say the cycling... It's currently located within the rear, but the way the wording of the condition is, is the fact that the agent could easily locate it in the front of the property. So the condition recommended requires details of cycle parking storage, because even though they've indicated that it can be delivered to the rear, because they haven't provided us full details with the enclosure, that condition's been recommended. So really, they could finish up with the cycles and the bins in the front garden, both of them. Yes, exactly. So is the front garden adequate to cope with that? Yes. As you can see, the front garden is pretty substantial in size. You could quite easily provide the cycle parking potentially to the side of the property here, just to ensure it doesn't obstruct... Can you show us the photographs that you had, Louise? You had some photographs of the property. You can look on Google. You can see it. So this is to the side of the property, and this shows the front garden. And again, you can see how, going back to a previous comment about the change in land level, you can see as this rises here, and then you can see number nine to the side here. This is number nine here. So within the condition, if we were to impose the condition, can we also sort of impose where the bin storage should be, i.e. possibly near the front, closer to the front wall, rather than on the adjoining boundary where you could get annoyance from the bins coming into the neighbouring property's windows? So I think from our perspective, we're satisfied from a planning perspective that location of the bins in that, they can be located... There's no restrictions at the moment. The current occupier could put them wherever they wanted, but we could certainly recommend an informative that could advise the applicant that it would be preferable they'd be located somewhere else, but I don't think it would necessarily be reasonable to acquire that through a condition. I'm of a slightly different opinion, because if I've got six bins that are put next to my windows without a substantial boundary in between, and you can see the walls are quite low, I would not be too happy if somebody put six bins right in front of my window. So I'm wondering if we can be a bit firmer than that, because obviously, ideally, you'd want that bin cupboard, like most houses, close to the gate, so you haven't got to wheel them as far as you have to get them out on the road for the dustbins, for waste collection. I mean, we can certainly consider the location through the condition, because the condition requires them to provide further details, so that could be something that we can consider at condition stage. Also, the condition doesn't require the provision of storage for those bins, and I think that would be something that you guys might want to consider included in within the condition. People, yeah? Yeah, okay. I mean, we haven't got to the vote yet, but it's something for us to consider. Any further comments for the speaker? No? Okay. Thank you, Chair. Richard, thank you very much. Oh, Richard, before you go, you mentioned you made an observation about the other HMO around the corner. Correct. And the fact that the bins and everything else were left on the highway. Correct. Can I recommend that you speak to the waste management team at the council and get in touch with the HMO licensing team, because if they're in breach of anything else, then you need to flag it up with the right department and they'll take the necessary action. That department has just delivered six new bins. Yeah. And likewise... I mean, if they're causing an obstruction... It does. ...then it needs to be flagged up. And there's a covered storage area that's deemed in the plans originally for number four, and so was the cycle racks. Neither have happened. Yeah, well, maybe... Sorry. Yeah. I've actually emailed our enforcement team to look into what you've said, so they'll do that. Okay. Okay. Good evening. Yeah. Just a quick introduction. My name's Luke McBrattney. I'm the planning consultant at Excel Planning, and I'm here to support my client's application at 7th Thornhill Avenue. In order to not repeat everything that Louise has said, I'm going to keep it very, very brief, and I'm happy to answer questions and address a few of the points that were just discussed. First, the principle is entirely compliant. There is no policy restriction within Granite on HMOs, and the London Plan policy does recognise the value of HMOs and a diverse housing mix. Secondly, it does deliver high-quality accommodation in terms of the room sizes, the fact there's ensuite bedrooms, the space standards, the size of the kitchen that was mentioned. It is all policy-compliant, and the rooms and the spaces guarantee good outlook and a good standard of accommodation. Third, the design and the overall fallback position in terms of the hip-to-gable, the dormer, the single-storey rear, they've all been supported, as mentioned and discussed, within the LDC application, although it was refused, but in principle it was accepted. So, in essence, those elements can't be implemented without planning or consent. In relation to the site extension, it is policy-compliant. In relation to the BRE, I know it was mentioned, the 45-degree splay would comply. The extension is subservient. It's in matching materials, and the ground-level differences as well do obviously come into play here. And I think it's important now to try and address that our client is committed to addressing the concerns of management in terms of noise and waste tenant liaison. They're willing to provide that, and they're willing to engage to address those concerns. And with that, I think it is a compliant, it's an acceptable proposal, and it should be approved. But that's sort of the main wordy bit that I've got down. Some points that I wanted to address was that in terms of the bikes and the bin storage, we are completely fine with addressing the location and moving them to wherever you would sort of see, sort of over to the right-hand side there towards where the outbuilding or the new side extension is. We're happy to comply. If that's worded in a condition, we're happy to show that on revised plans. We're happy to move the bins, sorry, to cover the bins as well. And if that means the bicycle storage has to be to the front, we will do that. We feel that in other proposals that have been approved within Greenwich, the access to the rear and through the house has been accepted. But again, we're happy to work with you, and we're happy to comply with whatever condition that you do decide to attach. And, you know, I would address the point that there's an over-concentration of HMOs. You know, it's clear that there is two within the immediate area. I do understand that. And I understand, we understand the resistance to them, but I need to reinforce that our client is committed to providing that management plan and having that liaison and to avoid the issue that is on that HMO on Erran Road. We're happy to implement that condition. We're happy to comply and in order to address those concerns and to ensure that the HMO is run properly and it's managed properly and it will retain the overall, the community feel, essentially, is it. So I'm more than happy to take any questions that you have. Hi. Jody Ann. Thank you. Can I just ask you, what form of... You say that you're happy to comply and with the community, what form of consultation have you had so far with the residents, local residents? There hasn't been any consultation with local residents about it. In terms of the actual change, we don't see it being materially different to what could already be imposed on the House through permitted development through the existing change of use. So we haven't sought that engagement. We don't feel that it is an over... controversial scheme. Yeah, and that's why we haven't. But we're happy to implement the management processes and to allow the smooth management and the upkeep of it, which I think is a lot more important at that point because, like I said, is that in every element in terms of the planning policy within Greenwich, we comply with every aspect of that. But we're going above and beyond and ensuring that we do have a management plan in place. Can I just ask you, a lot of my concerns are actually about number nine Thornhill Avenue because no matter which way I look at it, they are going to be the ones that are very much affected by this proposal. Are you going to consult with them on a regular basis and keep them updated as to what is happening? It is... In terms of what impact, in terms of the... Specifically, what impact? So they are going to have any noise, any fumes, you know, when... So whereabouts is the kitchen then? Sorry again. So it's... As you come in on the left-hand side. Number nine is here. Number seven, the application site, and number five, and then the kitchen's closest to the shared boundary with number five. So it's actually... The kitchen itself is further away from number nine. And I would follow that up with the potential impact of the single-storey extension due to the angle and the setback and the way it cuts in on the site in terms of amenity and outlook. You know, we've tried to design it in a way that it doesn't have an impact. It's a very basic design, granted, but that angle and that sort of setback and separation, you know, in our opinion, wouldn't have a negative impact in terms of that. And then, as just discussed, the kitchen is sided away from the boundary of number nine. where you're saying in your opinion it wouldn't have any effect. This is why consultation really is really important with neighbours and you're saying that you haven't had this. Can I just also ask you once you are up and running how often do you come and check that everything is being carried out sort of as it should be? Obviously, I'm not, that wouldn't be my responsibility as the consultant but there will be a company and a management company that will be put in place to do that, whatever those checks may be. If it is a quarterly review or a visit, I know that in most management companies you know, in depth sort of background checks and things like that. Checks are done in tenants in order to ensure that you're not putting you know, people that may want to. Just following up on that point, I have a question here which is does your client have a full-time management company that manages their HMO actions? So in this case, it's not, they don't have a large enough portfolio to have their own specific one but if that's a question of you want us to provide, you know, if you want us to say that this is who we're maybe going to employ or this is what we will do and this is what they provide, then again, we're happy to provide that information but I can't, I can't make my clients, I can't make that decision for them. They need to make that. I'll come back to you on that because I know, I know Jodie is waiting to ask, I'll come back to you when others are finished. Jodie. Thank you. I have a clarification question. So the first one, a question I have is the only, is, am I right to think that the only way to get to the garden is through the house? I says yes. Yes. Access provided from the rear area. Okay. And the second question is, before choosing this location, were you aware that there's a HMO one minute walk away? So yeah, whenever we do a consultation or a review before we take on a, we do check the register to ensure. So, okay, last question. So knowing that there's an HMO one minute away, why did you choose to think that doing a consultation was not necessary? Again, it's, in terms of consulting with it, there's, the mechanism isn't there within planning. Neighbours are consulted in the planning process and we felt that given the scale and given the proposal that we're putting forward and its compliance that it over, it's not over and above what you could normally expect within a normal household and that's why that it, you know, it's very hard to say that, you know, we're just ignoring it. We're proposing this development and then we are going to manage it in a way that ensures that there is none of those issues that would normally come up through planning, if you know what I mean, because even if we didn't, we said no, but our clients at the end of the day is wanting to pursue this approach and that's the approach that we've taken. I don't really know how else to say that we didn't engage because we know that we're going to manage it in a good way prior to completion. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No. Okay, look, so coming back, obviously, you've suggested that you'd be in agreement with the relocation of bike storage to the front of the property. You've heard my comment around the rubbish bins as well being relocated from the side boundary to the front boundary closer to the gate, obviously, for easy waste management in and out. Would both of those be acceptable should this be approved? Would it be acceptable to have them? Would it be acceptable not only to have them but have them in the location suggested? I think where it is, yeah, I can't see a reason why it wouldn't be acceptable. So what I'm saying is at the moment you've got the bins on the drawing, the bins are located on the shared boundary between the neighbour. Yeah. Personally, I think that during the summer that will be an impingement on the quality of life for the residents because, you know, as much as you will manage those people, as we have seen all over the borough, waste management and maintaining how many other residents, you know, is, you know, it causes problems. Not intentionally but there are problems there. so my point being is that would you be, would you accept the condition to move those bins from the joint boundary onto the front boundary closer to the gate so it's actually easier for wheeling them in and out and it moves the potential smells from those bins from the adjacent, from the front windows of that property. Of course, yeah, we are absolutely more than happy to move it. You know, from looking at the plan there is the space there along that boundary we can push it to the front and we're happy to do it in secure bin storage as well. And in that, so whatever, again, if that is the condition that it is, we will show it to the front. In terms of the exact wording, I don't know how that would fit in. We'll leave that to officers. But we will, yeah, we'll certainly comply and we'll certainly work with it. Okay. And then my third point was about management. So, obviously, you will get some sort of agent or management person that will be taking control and will be looking after the property. Would you be prepared to supply the neighbours with a 24-hour emergency number? Should there be any antisocial behaviour? We're not anticipating that. We're not going to predetermine who's going to occupy. But in case of emergencies, would there be a 24-hour assistance line for residents? Should there be any potential, but should there be any sort of issues? Yeah, I think that sort of reinforces my point is that, yeah, they definitely, we definitely are committed to that. In terms of exact how that would work, if you just want the name of a company and we provide what services they provide. Well, we want somebody, if there's an issue there, you want someone there that's going to get the pronto. If it's a general number, yeah, there can be updates. We're happy to, whatever wording or whatever condition or whatever informative you want to add, we're happy to comply with it and provide that. Okay. That's me finished. Any further questions? No? Okay. Luke, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Members, open for deliberation. I am conflicted in this situation. Whilst I understand that it fits within policy and it's all within, you know, planning-wise, it ticks all the boxes, my concern is just the lack of consideration and consultation of the residents, especially as there's literally an HMO right around the corner. Although it's on a different road, when you go on Google, it's a one-minute walk and just overall, just the lack of the empathy that comes with this planning when it comes to residents and I just think there needs to be considerations. I'm happy that he agreed to the 24-hour number. But, yeah, those are just sort of my hesitations when looking at this and voting, so I'm going to hear from. But, yeah. So, unfortunately, the lack of consultation isn't a planning consideration, even though, you know, I'm thinking if you watch some of our old videos, we try to push as hard as we can to make sure that the residents are consulted and brought into the conversation because nine times out of ten, you can iron out any issues before coming to committee and then having disagreements here. You know, a bit of consideration from the applicant would probably help solve quite a few of our problems. But, unfortunately, right now, it's not part of our consideration when we're making decisions. Pat? I have, I'm concerned about the impact still on number nine. I think it's just very, very close, too close for comfort. And on the amenity on their lives. And also, the fact that we are losing a very sort of, you know, a good family home to, we need family homes. And this is a family-sized home. So, yes, I have my doubts about this. and the fact that it is opposite Timbercroft Primary School. There is going to be, there will have parking, there will have cars. I know that this is not, you know, sort of, all HMOs don't have cars, but there is going to be difficulty. It is on a bend. And yes, I know that bins and everything should be stored inside the gardens. but from what we've heard tonight about other areas there and the fact that it is a very open area. If bins are left out on the road, they're going to be knocked over and they're going to form a hazard. So, yes, I'm still deliberating. Thank you. Thanks, Pat. Dave? I think, obviously, we do need more family homes, but we also need houses of multi-occupation. I tell some of these wonderful schemes that we've actually considered at the planning board, which offer accommodation for students and various co-living schemes, and although, at the moment, there is a real shortage of these sorts of opportunities mainly for younger people who desperately need them and make them affordable. I think the critical thing is there shouldn't be too many in the same area, and I also think that they need to be properly managed. And I think the conditions that we've discussed earlier make this an acceptable proposal to me. Thanks, Dave. Any further comments? Nope. Okay. I am now going to put this to the vote, but with the additions conditions of the revised bike storage positioning with the condition of the rubbish bins location with an enclosed cupboard system, so it would be bin cupboards and also the 24-hour emergency number provided to the residents should there be any causes for concern. So those would be... Can I just check that that would be an informative, because I think it might be difficult for us to secure that through a condition? Then we want two, because we want a management plan, and within that management plan, we want a 24-hour contact number for the residents should there be any cause for concern. Just to clarify, you want to add a condition on that requires them to submit a management plan, and in a commitment to having a contact number. Yeah. Can I just ask how widely is that telephone number shared? Is it to the whole road, or is it just for the immediate neighbours? Well, there's nothing to stop the neighbours from sharing it with neighbours, is there? I think once it's out there, it's out there. I think if there's a management plan and a contact number, wherever that incident is, if it's in connection with that property, or people occupying that property, then whoever needs to call it should be allowed to call it. Yeah? Cool. Okay. With those additions, all those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hand. All those against? Abstentions? Item is approved, subject to those conditions being met. Thank you very much. We now move on to item 10, 62 Corner Green, Blackheath, London, SE3 9JJ, reference 244019HD. Neil. Thank you, Chair. Planning Commission sought for the construction of an outbuild in the rear garden with an air conditioning unit. The application has received three letters in support and seven letters of objection, and these are set out at paragraph 2.1 and section 6 of the report in front of members. The application has also been called into committee by Councillor St. Matthews and Daniel where the application is recommended for approval. And the application site is a single-story detached dwelling house located on the south side of Corner Green, not Green Lane as I've written here. as can be seen highlighted in red in the plan in front of you. Planning records show that the host building was granted planning permission in 1997 and that the land in question originally formed part of the garden belonging to 55 Blackheath Park, which is the property situated just here. The application site is neither statuary or locally listed, but the property is located within the Blackheath Park conservation area. To the north of the site are numbers 1 to 23 Corner Green, so that's the group of properties just here. These are locally listed span houses, but due to the location development in the rear garden of the application site, the proposed event would have no impact on the setting of these properties. However, number 53, 53A, 55 and 57, Blackheath Park, so that is, I've got to get this right now, this property, this property, this property, and this property, those properties are all grade 2 listed. However, due to the length of the gardens belonging to these properties, it's a minimum of 35 metres, and that measurement has been taken from the element of the outrigger of this property here to the boundary of the site just there, and that the proposed outbuilding is going to be set 2.5 to 4.2 metres off the shared boundary, and also the presence of trees and vegetation along the shared boundary. It's considered the proposed development would not have any adverse impact on the setting of these designated heritage assets. So this is just an aerial photograph of the site. The application site has a TPO sycamore within the boundary, which is roughly the tree situated here, and then there is also a TPO London plain tree, which is within the boundaries of 2A pond road, which is this tree roughly here. This photograph is taken from within the application site looking back towards number 62 itself. So you can see single story dwelling house. It's got an element of a basement there and patio area there. And then this photograph is taken from the patio area looking towards the southern boundary of the site where the outbuilding would be located. You can see from this photograph that there's an existing outbuilding in the right hand corner there and also children's play equipment which would be removed as part of the planning commission is granted. You can also see on the left the TPO sycamore tree. You can see over here hanging the branches of the TPO London plain tree. You can also see the change in land level within the site. It's moved from the dwelling house to the rear of the site. And finally you can just see in the background the list of buildings located in Blackheath Park and I'd obviously say that this photograph shows the buildings in the most visible state because obviously you can see a number of the trees there on the boundary are not in leaf because obviously this photograph was taken during winter time. this photograph is actually from the 2021 application which was refused permission as set out in the planning history of the site but it just shows more clearly the TPO London tree in the grounds of 2A Pond Road. And this final photograph is taken from within the grounds of 2A Pond Road and shows a relationship between the TPO London plane tree and the application site. There's the London plane tree on the right there. You can just see the existing outbuilding that's within the application site. This photograph was taken by the council tree officer in March of this year so as to ascertain the distance between the TPO London plane tree and the application site. When the tree officer was on site she measured it that the distance between the London plane tree and the boundary was between 8.5 metres and 9 metres. What you can also see from this photograph is that the London plane tree is on slightly raised ground level. So as set out in the planning history of the report permission was refused under application 212625HD for a variety of works at the application site which included a replacement outbuilding in the left-hand corner of the site which you can see in the image in front of you. This application was refused for three reasons which included lack of supporting arbor cultural report information and the failure to demonstrate that the London plane tree would be protected as a result of that outbuilding. This slide just shows the proposed outbuilding in more detail that was refused under application 212625MHD. It had a footprint of 58 square metres and as I say whilst permission was refused this was not because of the height scale and design of the proposed outbuilding or its impact on the Blackheath Park conservation area or its impact on the setting of the listed buildings in Blackheath Park. It was really just because of the lack of that information that was submitted. So this slide shows the current proposal which sees the outbuilding moved into a more central location within the rear portion of the rear garden away from the boundary with number 2A Pond Road. The proposal would also include an air conditioning unit which unfortunately you can't see particularly clear on this joint but it will be clear on other joints which is literally being located in this position here. As set out in the report the impact of the proposed air conditioning unit has been reviewed by the environmental health officers and they are satisfied that it would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring operators in terms of noise and disturbance. So this drawing shows in more detail the size of the outbuilding and its relationship with the adjoining properties. So as can be seen hopefully the overall footprint of the outbuilding I've put it in a place which is slightly obscured sorry but it's 59 square metres so let's say that's comparable to the footprint of the previous outbuilding that was considered it's considered that the footprint the size of the outbuilding is subservient not only to the house dwelling which is approximately 233 square metres in distance with a separation distance of 17 metres between the outbuilding and the rear of the host property but also in terms of the rear garden space so the rear garden space at present is 509 square metres now both our urban design guide SPD on residential extensions but also in terms of permitted development allow outbuildings provided they don't take up more than 50% of the garden space so this outbuilding is significant below that and the other thing just to point out is the pros outbuilding would be set 2 metres off the shared boundary with number 2 A Pond Road so that's the boundary in this location here it would be set between 2.5 and 4.2 metres with 53 and 55 Blackheath Road so that's the property situated here so the 2.5 element is situated here and the 4.2 metres is this element here at this point with this other sort of location it's around 3.0 odd square metres and then in relationship to the distance that it's set off from the bottom part of the rear garden 57 Blackheath Park and 60 Green Park the distance there is between 5.9 and 6 metres this drawing shows the front elevation facing towards the rear of 62 corner green and the out building would be constructed out of western red cedar with a zinc parapet capping to the roof and aluminium glazed windows and doors with timber decking and the proposed materials if permission is granted would be secured under condition 3 I've stapled it the wrong way round sorry so the top drawing here shows the proposed rear elevation whilst the bottom drawing shows the side elevation facing towards 57 Blackheath Park and 60 corner green so you can just see in the bottom area there that's the air conditioning unit there okay and then just further more from this drawing it's showing that at the rear of the site because of the change in land levels the height of the building would be roughly 2.5 metres whilst at the front because the change in land levels it would be 3.2 metres in height this image here just shows the height of the out building and its relationship with number 62 itself and the change in land levels across the site so overall the proposed out building wouldn't be higher than the existing building and as I say is set a significant distance away from the host building and only takes up a small portion of the rear garden so overall it's concept of the proposed out building is acceptable in terms of its height scale and design and would not have a dominant or overbearing effect on the host building it would not have an adverse impact on the character appearance of the Blackheath Park conservation area or the setting of the grade 2 listed buildings in Blackheath Park and the final image shows the location of the building in respect of the trees that are located on adjacent land and within the site so that includes the TPO Sycamore which is the tree situated here and the London Plain tree that is situated here the area which is outlined in blue on the map shows the area where ground protection measures would be installed whilst the development was implemented and that would be controlled by a planning condition in addition the outbuilding is to be constructed using screw piles and basically the image here in the right hand corner there gives you an idea of what that screw piles would look like so rather than traditional piles where in effect it would cover the whole of that area as you dug down the whole point of it is it's just really the four points into the ground and the proposed outbuilding would sit on top of that so Neil are we talking really about cabin construction yes yes okay so I'll let you carry I'll come they've said they're going to use screw piles to install it that's been looked at by our tree officer the tree officer is happy with that and that would not impact on the root protection zones for either of the TPO trees so she's happy that the application is approved subject to a condition which is outlined in the report ensuring that we get a little bit of further information detail about the screw piles but also in terms of where services would go like electricity water you know etc so that they are in a direction away from the route protection area and basically on that basis the officer's recommendation is to approve chair thanks Neil questions for the officer Jo I mean it's quite large for what I think of as an out building what actually is the difference in definition between an out building and a habitable building so I'll refer to how it's set out under class E of schedule 2 part 1 of the general permitted development because obviously outbuildings can be built under permitted development and basically what that says is paragraph E4 class E indicates the purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a house includes the keeping of poultry bees pet animals birds or other livestock for the domestic need or personal enjoyment of the occupant of the house but the rules also allow subject to conditions and limitations below a large range of other buildings on land surrounding a house examples could include common buildings such as a garden shed or other storage buildings garages and garden decking as long as they can be properly described as having a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house a purpose incidental to a house would not cover normal residential uses such as a separate self-contained residential unit so in terms of this plan here you know there is no living accommodation in there there is no kitchen there's a small toilet the only way you can actually get to this outbuilding is through the house you know so on that basis as far as we're concerned it is incidental it is an outbuilding it's not a self-contained dwelling house and obviously as I said earlier on in the presentation under permitted development one of the clauses is that the total area of ground covered the total area of ground around the house covered by buildings enclosures and containers must not exceed 50% of the total area of the curteries excluding the original house so as I said that garden area is around 500 plus square meters the outbuilding is 59 square meters so we're nowhere near that 50% any further questions for the officer can I just ask about the noise from the air conditioning that's not going to be on all the time anyway is it and which properties will that affect yeah you can see on this drawing here the air conditioning unit is situated just there so they are in effect putting it in a place which is a most screened by the proposed outbuilding itself because it's screened by two walls there but obviously also where it is it's furthest away from any actually adjoining residential properties itself because the boundary here leads to the rear gardens of the properties in Blackheath Park which are as I said at the start a minimum of 35 meters away any further questions Jadia I have a question also about the air conditioning will it be solely air conditioning or will it also have a heat pump as well to be used in the winter it's purely an air conditioning unit Neil coming back to construction then looking at those pin foundations you just mentioned is that illustration supplied by the applicant yes that's correct that's something that came with the application and the length of that building is to be what five meters is it 52 I mean sorry I did have that written down in the report chair the outbuilding dimensions are it's so L-shaped footprint with a width of 11.45 meters and a depth between 4.8 and 6.29 meters so I'm not for the life of suggesting that you're going to have one of them on each corner I mean there's no detail there's no detail about how many pins no but that's why we have a condition on there asking for further information before works commenced so you've got in there condition where are we yeah condition 6 so prior to the full detail of the screw pile foundation shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority the screw pile foundation shall be designed in conjunction with the arbitral advice following trial excavation by hand the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details under strict arbitral supervision okay so I mean I think where I was fishing was the fact that looking at that looks more like a cabin type construction not a permanent build as could be deemed with concrete slab and building off the slab I think I think you know that's that's a reasonable assumption but obviously that's not necessarily something that I look at in terms of the planning application because that's what build the control side okay okay now that's fine no further questions from me Matthew Daniel and one of the reasons would be the location of the trench for foul waste from the toilet if I just go back to so we don't really have sort of a massive amount of detail at this moment in time but there's no reason why so you've got the toilet there why that trenching detail can't even go that way or that way across the site so it's away as much as possible from the root protection zone of the tree and again there's a condition in the report asking for that information so we can look at it and make sure that where that that go it's done in the most sensitive way and if I could just quickly go back to one of the points that councillor van der brock said there's also a condition on there specifically stating that it can't be used as a self-contained residential unit that's condition nine Neil coming back following up on that so what are we saying that toilet is not going to be plumbed into a septic tank or plumbed into a main drain or sewer well it could be plumbed in but what we'd expect is that any way that it goes it's going in a direction so it doesn't necessarily go straight down there the drawing there is showing a location of a soak away I think so it's just ensuring that whichever way it goes it's done in a you know the most sympathetic manner possible I think where I'm coming from is what is going to happen to that waste when it's flushed down the toilet is it going into a container is it going to go into a tank or is it going to go into a sewage system that would be a matter for building control because my concern is if something is put into that drain and flushed down the toilet could be a contaminant could be an acidic toilet cleaner and we all know that hard peak lime scale is quite toxic I think it's got a hydrochloric acid in it which then would be detrimental to the greenery around but that would be mainly a matter for building control but as I say there is a condition there which says that prior to implementation development full detail of the route for a means of installing the waste pipe for the toilet and any other additional service of the outbuilding shall be submitted to and approved and then built in accordance so we can look at that to make sure in conjunction with our colleagues at building control that it's all fine is there something that we could condition to make sure that whatever comes out of that toilet is not going into the ground it's that condition they're already conditioning yeah right okay we're okay on that yeah right okay right no further questions for Neil speaking on behalf of the black heat society you have up to four minutes can you hear me oh sorry I'm speaking on behalf of the black heat society sorry down here I'm speaking on behalf of the black heat society unfortunately the person who wrote our original objection to this who is a tree expert is at a funeral today so I am colleague of his on the scrutiny planning scrutiny committee and I am deputed to read basically what he said and to cover our two points we're glad to be able to comment on the officer's report but we'd like to flag up two areas of concern one is the tree the London plain and the other is the building which has which will have so many conditions around it I don't want to sound cynical but these are often in the hands of the applicants architects and things and I don't know anyway I'll start off by I'll start off by reading what our tree expert said he has pointed out and I've put it in my submission for this evening's meeting that this tree the London plain which is over 300 years old and it is a very precious tree it's the most important tree on our patch it has a TPO of 25 and it was the first tree to be TPO'd after those in Greenwich Park but Alan's summary for me tonight says he says we must treat it with extra special care because it's old and it's in a conservation area but he then says as the tree officer points out there are glaring emissions in the application concerning the details of the pilings and the route and installation of the waste pipe and services my only thought is that we push for a further condition to non-invasively map the tree routes using ground penetrating radar this is a relatively new technique it's a bit like scans for bodies as I understand it you know you can see a lot more all other methods are invasive and potentially detrimental to the health of the tree the new BS 5837 is going to be in place is going to place much greater emphasis upon understanding the density and distribution of tree roots no amount of air spading or trial pit digging will give an accurate answer to these critical points so he wants us to consult an expert who has already mapped out the great oak in Sherwood Forest and works with Kew and he can provide an accurate map of exactly where the roots of the London Plain are and then all guesswork is removed and we can be clearly informed about the best way to proceed now Jackie my neighbour and I went round to see the owner this morning and we asked him about the his application and if he was coming tonight he's not neither are his representatives but he was very much on side and he said he would be prepared to get one of these tree radar map routing reports and you know and then he can see where they can do what they want to do but the other problem that we in the Blackheath Society see is the this the new building at the end of the garden we think it's unacceptably large and we also query the fact that no committee or officer has actually considered this application that there have been no I've got three applications here you've gone through them Neil I think but none of those considered the design of this particular garden building and so I think that is obviously not acceptable is it this is a new design from the one that was turned down and the one that was withdrawn so I request that this should be we are requesting a deferment so that you can see where the tree roots are and we are it would tie in well with you having another look at this planning application and we wonder if we could have it another meeting in September I would say that there is wait you're nearly 10 minutes so I'm I'm just saying can you please can we please have a deferment and I hope you will not accept the officer's report at the moment sorry thanks Margaret questions for the speaker I dread to ask this question I dread to ask this and you might not be the right person so it's a pooling of ignorance what difference would it make if we saw the roots exactly where the roots were well then you can work out can you hear me sorry then you can work out where if at all you can put all these services because there's water to come into the building there's a there's a loo on the back of the building with a macerator which is noisy there's supposed to be some drains but as you flagged up they aren't there's nothing in the drawings about those and also there's electricity I suppose which doesn't have to go underground necessarily so this would enable you to see where the tree roots are and in fine detail and avoid them I think the issue is there Margaret with the minimum amount of facilities that are there i.e. electric and possibly cold running water I do not envisage any deep excavations to run those type of pipes you know you could actually put those in six inches under the ground under turf because they will probably run in a four inch pipe I have a bit of a construction background so for a mains cable for electric and single use water facility I wouldn't envisage anything going deep enough to cause any concerns for the tree root but coming back to the drainage I think that's where the bigger concern lies and as you see we're probably going to have more conversations about that a little bit later on also you may recall that during the officer's presentation the sad alternative is under permitted development the applicant can build a building that could take up up to 50% of that garden without coming for planning consent so alternatives could be far worse without us having any jurisdiction or any input as to what's there so we've got to be careful where we direct this person because we could end up in a worse situation but as I say we're still waiting to hear what else has been said before we get to any sort of deliberation okay thank you very much I now wish to call on Jackie Harold hi Jackie two minutes can you speak into the mic can you hear me is that all right okay the majestic 300 year old plane tree bearing Krenich TPO 25 is in our garden at 2A pond road we take our responsibility for its maintenance very seriously but its future health and viability depends on your decisions as the planning committee this is actually really really frustrating for us because we love and so look after that tree and the tree officer knows that anyway the tree is the only one classified in the A category in the arboricultural survey conducted with the application supporting the building with piles would would follow the 2012 British standard for trees in relation to construction but even hand digging to avoid tree roots which is proposed in the tree protection report or proposal that goes with the application may have irreversible consequences in terms of the tree itself so you can you're working in the dark you don't know where the roots are you don't know how deep they go you dig dig dig and in that process you can cause damage and any damage can potentially cause an end to the life of that tree which nobody wants and Siddhar the applicant the owner of 62 Corner Green who Raghur mentioned earlier loves that tree too he doesn't want any damage caused and he is prepared to pay as Margaret said for this completely non-invasive mapping process so that we avoid and we can take things the other questions from there anyway even if powers cause less damage the trenching for services would cut right across the TPA the protected root area as currently drawn and actually it's an underestimate if the arboricultural surveyor had asked for permission to measure the diameter of the tree and therefore calculate the protected root area we would gladly have given them access at 2A Pond Road but we were never approached in fact I have to say my husband Hilary Barnard and I at 2A Pond Road never received any notification of this application because your maps are all wrong the boundaries are incorrect in the application anyway we wish to have helpful friendly relationships with all our neighbours for whom the tree is a vital living feature with the many birds that it supports so a lot of the emphasis has been on how far it is from the back of everyone's houses actually we are in this most fantastic green corridor and people spend as much time as possible in their gardens that includes the family at 62 all the people in Blackheath Park us at 2A neighbours at 64 etc so the actual noise issue is actually not just about can you hear the air corner from your back door it's actually what disturbance to people while they're in their gardens and to the biodiversity the wildlife of the area Jackie you're well over the two minutes sorry there is not one redeeming ecological or environmental positive about this application but during my last comment to Margaret you may have heard me say that under permitted development the applicant can build far more even within a conservation area they're still able to do certain things under permitted development I'm going to raise the point we're going to talk to officers a bit later on about the x-ray thing sorry members for you mentioned that someone has knocked on Mr Siddhar's door knocked on his door we had a communication with the email I think the comment was someone had knocked on his door but there's been a conversation with the applicant in his garden today and you're suggesting that he's in agreement to do a root x-ray yeah and we as owners of the tree I've made a note of that because we'll speak to officers about that okay any questions for the speaker no Jackie thank you very much all right and I wish to call on David Bowers hi David hello two minutes thank you for giving me an opportunity to oppose the proposal I live at number 55 Blackheath Park in the listed property that backs onto the proposed development I just want to make three points the first is that this proposed development is going to lead to a reduction in our amenity not only will we be impacted by the noise of its construction we will also be impacted by its height this building is tall up to 3.2 meters and it will exceed our garden wall so that in the autumn when leaves fall of the trees we will see this it is a it will be a visual blight we will also hear that this development because that air conditioning unit that Councillor Greenwell was asking about does face our garden and at the very least it should be mandated that it switched off after dark and be quite honestly I think it ought to be removed completely there aren't many outbuildings with air conditioning units the second point I want to make is that the site plan as in the planning officers report paragraph 2.4 does not match the land registry records so to put it bluntly the owner of 62 corner green does not have good title to the land shown in the site plan on the planning document and I don't see how this committee can authorize a planning applicant proposal when the boundaries in the site plan do not match those in the land registry I think this is a fundamental error and I suggest that at the very least the application should be adjourned until the planning officer checks the land registry boundaries and the problem is resolved thirdly authorizing this proposal will set an unwise precedent in my view this is not just an outbuilding this is a potential dwelling it is big with its own electricity its own water supply its own sewage system its own air conditioning and built in the words of the planning report to modern home standards this is no outbuilding what is proposed is a potentially habitable dwelling a studio or bed sit even if the entrance is through the existing house and if 62 corner green can have one of these then everyone with a long garden in Blackheath Park can have one of these and that is unquestionably detrimental to the open character of the conservation area and its listed buildings which is why this precedent must not be set thank you for your attention thanks David questions for the speaker none David thank you very much and I wish to call on Karen Neal hi Karen hello thank you for allowing me to speak and thank you for everything you do for the community it's much appreciated we are Mr and Mrs Neal from 53A Blackheath Park so we're slightly offset to the south of 62 corner green I want to make a couple of points as Neil pointed out this is the third application the first was rejected the second was withdrawn but it's in the same location broadly and it's the same issues as I echo what has been said there's been no route survey I feel for the applicant actually because he put in his application as soon as he bought 62 corner green probably without realising it was a conservation area and probably not looking up to see that what is proposed is actually under the canopy of the tree let alone the route protection area the tree is the most magnificent living structure and it's TPO 25 I think as Margaret said the oak in Greenwich Park is TPO 1 so it must be one of the oldest trees in the borough at over 300 years old we're not going to 1910 we're not going to 1810 we're going to 1710 and I think actually school children should come and stand on the mound and look at it this afternoon I looked up basically what the guidelines were for building and there's the building standard 5837 colon 2012 where I have a beginner's guide if you're at all interested the route protection area should be 12 times the trunk's diameter one and a half meters up and the diameter trunk was underestimated in the report it's around one and a half meters and that would mean an 18 meter area and the tree roots if you read this they're not vertical they're less than a meter under the ground and they spread out and we're talking now here of drilling in the piles digging digging up for the drainage ditches digging for the water supply and I appreciate the chair's point about the electricity might not be so disruptive but it's the building standards the default position should be that no construction should take place in a route protection area unless it is justified and I don't believe that the criteria for justification has actually been satisfied I'm also not confident about how the conditions that you impose will be monitored in that even at this stage the applicant hasn't followed what is recommended in the building standards such as doing a soil assessment looking at the porosity of it looking at how it compacts and I just feel we should really support wonderful trees because they take an awful long time to grow Karen thank you very much any questions for the speaker no Karen thank you very much I'm now going to open for deliberation and any further questions of the officer I'm just wondering I don't know if there's we need more knowledge we need more facts we need more information about the drainage I'm quite horrified really about what you were saying and it needs I think we do need this to be deferred I don't know whether a site visit would would help but I'm not happy on making a decision this evening on what we know I have a question about the root survey or x-ray or I don't know the official word for it how long would that take any other questions along a similar line from anyone else so Neil coming coming to the key points of any type of excavation in and around the tree root protection zone we're informed that the applicant has offered up the yeah I'm going to say I'm wondering if there's a way of following up on that to get some tree root x-rays done and also examine obviously where the potential pins are I think what we need we need clarification around anything that's going below ground and I think that includes trunking for cables and drainage and I'm concerned about anything that's going to go into the soil especially from the toilet and I would not expect that just to go into a trench I would expect that to go into some sort of sealed containment whether it's a septic tank or going back into a main drain but again that is subject to an excuse the pun an in depth investigation into anything that may go underground in that tree root area so I'm not sure what we can do whether it is a deferral to ask for more detailed reports and a more detailed assessment or whether it is something that can be done via conditions before anything can be undertaken does that cover I think does that cover anything yeah just looking chair I think if you look at the council's tree expert they have suggested that it would be acceptable subject to the conditions that we've been placed on and they would be condition let me just find it for you just bear mishpat condition six which is on page 289 and condition eight which is excavations in relation to the tree and the tree roots so that will give you the additional information you're looking for and if they discharge those conditions in a satisfactory manner and we would obviously consult the council's expert on this matter then they could go ahead and construct the out building if they don't come back with the right conditions we would we would refuse the details that are submitted and they would have to come back in just in terms of the laser survey we've never had the applicant confirm whether he is or isn't acceptable to that we don't know how to the scale of the development which is for an out building and if you were going to ask for something like that I would be cautious about asking for it in the absence of the applicant confirming but also in terms of it being proportionate to the out building you would also have to say why you weren't satisfied with the two conditions that the council's tree expert is happy to impose and therefore accept the application so that's another thing for you to consider is there anything else Neil that you'd like to add I was just going to go back and obviously the point that's been raised that I raised and the chairs raised about in terms of what can and what can't be done under permitted development rights whilst the site is within a conservation area apart from a requirement to say that an out building can't be to the side of a dwelling house there is nothing else that would restrict what you could do elsewhere in the borough in terms of an out building just because you're in a conservation area there are within those guidelines more strict controls where something's within the curtilage of a listed building so in terms of those properties on Blackheath Park which are listed buildings they would be curtailed in terms of the size about building they could do but this structure that's in front of us tonight could be tweaked ever so slightly primarily to do with the height of the building in certain places and the height of the decking and they could build it under permitted development and therefore you would have no control at all about about where the screw piles would go or what type of foundation put in and or where any services would go we're not talking about a hospital being built here what we're talking about really is the preservation of a tree over 300 years old and the possible damage to the roots through excavation for a playroom which is what we're talking about a glorified playroom it looks like there's a pool table there it's an outbuilding it's not an essential building to the living amenities of the residents it has no benefit to the wider community whereas the tree is something valuable to the borough and I think we've sat in meetings before and we've looked at TPOs and the reason we put TPOs in place is because we are looking to preserve some of the older how can we say the valuable assets the green the valuable green assets this borough prides itself on its parks and its green open spaces and as we're informed tonight the 300 year old tree is one of a few that has a special TPO order so I would like to see the strictest conditions put on this build because I actually think there's more importance around the tree than there is on an out building so if there is a way of putting stricter conditions in getting a tree x-ray done I mean why not we're talking about something that's been on the planet for more than 300 years it's not going to hurt anyone you know pool room air conditioning you know you wouldn't normally put an AC unit on an out building but that's not part of our thing so what is under our remit is making sure that we take every precaution at our disposal to make sure that this tree is not harmed at the same time not trying to interfere with this guy's rights to do what he wanted to do something on his land so I'd like to ask what is the strictest we can do and I would personally like to see the tree x-ray done if it's a new facility it helps this guy he might need to put six piles in which I mean looking at the size of it he's not going to go down that deep because it's not a heavy weight going on there but if there is a way of him being able to take extra precautions I'd like to see that put in place and I'm not sure what other people think the air conditioning is necessary I don't know I mean the air conditioning is what is is is what's being proposed you have to consider whether you think you know air conditioning units acceptable or not but the grounds on which we look at that is in terms of noise and disturbance it's been looked at by our environmental health officer they are happy that it won't cause any problems in terms of noise and disturbance and we've got the usual standard condition on there requiring that the air conditioning unit operates so it's 10 decibels below the existing background noise level which is what's normally expected for any mechanical equipment we're on shaky ground around the development so my concern is a development of some sort could or would occur in that garden the concern that I'm getting is mainly around the tree and the preservation of the tree and any excavation is done carefully and I think that's what we're looking at is you know if there's been a conversation about an x-ray thing that's a phone call tomorrow and say well look it was brought up last night if that conversation has taken place and he's in agreement then can we not so in terms of the tree it is extremely important to the borough and that's why the previous application was refused if I'm correct because they had insufficient information so if you're not satisfied with the information that's been provided this time and you're not satisfied with Bert's advice and you're not satisfied with the two conditions and you want to talk to the applicant who's not here tonight you can consider deferring it but only if you're not satisfied with what's presented we don't feel you can make a decision without having the applicant here to ask that question we can't so my advice to you tonight is you can't impose a condition that requires him to do a laser survey whatever that laser survey may be because that condition has to be reasonable and necessary to protect the roots of those trees so at the moment you've got the council's tree specialist who's satisfied with what they have seen subject to discharging those two conditions with some additional information so it would be probably disproportionate of you to put that on as a condition tonight without understanding more fully whether you're satisfied with the tree specialist's view and whether those conditions and the applicant's here to say whether he has committed to it I'm not saying he hasn't committed to it we're just not parted to those conversations and if you put on a condition the applicant can appeal that condition and then we have to defend it sorry something flying around I don't normally I normally keep quiet and not say anything my personal opinion is if there is a window of opportunity to take maximum precaution i.e. get further details around the drainage for the toilet because at the moment I'm not sure we know if there's a septic tank or he's going to plumb into the main drain so I would like I would like some precise information around that and if there is a conversation if there was a conversation I would like clarification on that conversation to find out if the applicant would be willing to undertake the x-rays before planning excavations or mini piling for the keys regarding the application I don't really have a problem with the building as such because as we've mentioned a lot more could be built so I'm looking at what we can do and I think getting some detailed information around the toilet and the drainage and what is to be done there because I personally would not accept the drainage going into a ground soak away that's not I think because that is leading for ground contamination so we want to know more about the drainage and either or system for the containment of the sewage and also if there is to be an agreement around the root x-ray in obviously we can give the applicant the window of opportunity to let us know whether he is and we can get clarity on those two issues can I just add is it possible to get the more details on the make of the air conditioning unit just so we can be sure so I mean within the application they submitted manufacturer's detail and a noise survey report and all that was looked at by our environment health officers so they were satisfied in terms of that level of detail that they were confident that the level of output from it wasn't going to cause any problems subject to those subject to those I'm going to put this for to the committee all those in favour of a deferral item 10 is deferred for investigations into the x-raying and also investigating into the drainage so that we can avoid any sort of harm or contamination to the tree okay thanks for all for coming thanks for your patience members thank you enjoy your meeting yeah